Environmental activists are now pointing fingers at dogs, blaming them for harming wildlife and contributing to climate change. A recent review out of Australia has sparked backlash from dog lovers who see this as the latest absurdity in the war on everyday life.
Key Facts:
- Mother Jones published an article citing a review that claims dogs have serious environmental impacts.
- The review, from Pacific Conservation Biology, highlights pollution, wildlife disturbance, and carbon emissions from dogs.
- It references studies showing dogs attacking wildlife in places like Tasmania, including little penguins.
- Dog presence reportedly affects behavior of other animals like bobcats and deer.
- Critics argue these problems are due to irresponsible owners, not the dogs themselves.
The Rest of the Story: Why Some Say Dogs Are a Threat to Nature
A recent article from Mother Jones has reignited debate over personal freedoms versus environmental activism.
It cites a review published in Pacific Conservation Biology arguing that domesticated dogs are a serious threat to ecosystems.
According to the review, dogs disturb wildlife, pollute waterways, and contribute to global carbon emissions.
Researchers noted cases in Australia where dogs attacked native wildlife, including little penguin colonies in Tasmania.
Other findings suggested that wild animals like bobcats and deer reduce activity when dogs are nearby.
The review calls the impact of dogs “insidious” and underrecognized, urging greater awareness of their environmental footprint.
Dogs have “extensive and multifarious” environmental impacts, disturbing wildlife, polluting waterways and contributing to carbon emissions, new research has found. https://t.co/J2JXsybuSN
— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) April 15, 2025
Commentary: Attacking Dogs Crosses a Line
Let’s be clear—this isn’t about protecting penguins.
It’s about control.
These activists have already tried to regulate cars, kids, fireplaces, lawnmowers, and meat.
Now they’ve moved on to dogs—perhaps the most cherished companions in human history.
This is what happens when ideology gets unmoored from reality.
If a few dog attacks in Tasmania are reason enough to declare war on household pets, what’s next?
Goldfish?
Parakeets?
Maybe they’ll outlaw backyard barbecues and porch lights for disturbing nocturnal moths.
At some point, people have to say enough is enough.
I know climate change alarmists tend to prefer cats but letting them write your articles is crazy.
— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) April 15, 2025
The data cited doesn’t even support the hysteria.
Almost every concern they raise comes down to bad ownership, not the nature of dogs.
A well-trained dog on a leash isn’t killing penguins or scaring deer.
Common sense tells us the real issue here isn’t the animal—it’s the alarmism.
And yet outlets like Mother Jones are happy to feed the fire.
Why?
Because they thrive on moral panic.
They want to paint normal people as villains while they sit on their eco-high horse.
But this one’s going to backfire.
Now do Democrats
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) April 15, 2025
People love their dogs.
They won’t tolerate being lectured for having one.
If the green left wants to lose even more support, keep pushing this nonsense.
The average American isn’t going to be told that loving their dog is an environmental crime.
The Bottom Line: Eco Alarmists Just Lost the Plot
Trying to blame dogs for environmental damage is a step too far.
While some studies show localized harm due to irresponsible pet ownership, that’s no reason to demonize man’s best friend.
Americans aren’t going to give up their dogs because of fringe activists chasing their next cause.
Read Next
– New Study Shows Common Medical Test Could Be Causing Up To 5% of All Cancer Diagnoses Each Year
– Horrible Hate Filled Federal Judge Rules Against Parents Free Speech to Protect Trans Athlete
– New Trump Executive Order Targets Soaring Medicare Prescription Drug Prices