Full disclosure before going any further: I love dogs. Have three myself. I fully subscribe to the “man’s best friend” moniker when it comes to canines.
(But no, I never celebrated Father’s Day until I had actual human children.)
In a soon-to-be-related note, I am not against preserving this planet, at all. This is the only earth that God gave us, and it would behoove us to be good stewards of it.
With that being said … When is enough going to be enough with these idiotic eco-zealots?
It’s one thing to want to be good stewards.
It’s another thing entirely to place every human being’s wants (let the people eat a freaking hamburger) and needs (like transportation and energy) last in comparison to the planet. That’s the antithesis of empathy and humanity, something the far left supposedly specializes in, especially compared to us conservative brethren.
What a farce. And it’s a farce that continues to self-parody itself more and more every day.
Look no further than this recent drivel from leftist rag Mother Jones: “Bad News for Man’s Best Friend: Dogs Are Environmental Villains.”
Since when did Fido become a James Bond villain? Citing recent “new research,” the outlet’s Donna Lu typed out — presumably with a straight face — that, “Dogs have ‘extensive and multifarious’ environmental impacts, disturbing wildlife, polluting waterways and contributing to carbon emissions.”
Apparently, the hall monitors in Australia reviewed various studies to determine that “the environmental impact of owned dogs is far greater, more insidious, and more concerning than is generally [recognized].”
The Australian argument almost devolves into leftist memes like (and these are real points made, though perhaps not with this level of dripping sarcasm): “Oh, won’t someone think of the Tasmanian penguins?!”, “But the bobcats will be LESS ACTIVE with dogs around!”, and “The entire multi-billion dollar pet food industry is equivalent to the 60th — 60th — most pollutant country!”
Thankfully, nobody died and made the likes of Greta Thunberg queen, so this utter nonsense was met with the derision it so scornfully deserved.
Just look at what happened on social media platform X:
Dogs, at least, are too intelligent to read Mother Jones.
— Phillip Strauss (@Cotton_Balls) April 15, 2025
Walter is unimpressed pic.twitter.com/x1iR8djsqT
— Kassy Akiva (@KassyAkiva) April 15, 2025
If the Mother Jones building were burning and I had to choose between saving a trapped dog and the MJ staff. I’d probably go for the dog.
— Michael Jankowski (@Glock29sf) April 15, 2025
Look, just to be clear, I don’t want to laud people who exclusively replace people and/or children with dogs in their lives. That’s not healthy. God created man and animal different for a reason.
But for those of us with the mental maturity to treat canines like the four-legged best friends they are, we all know too well that that’s a special sort of bond that is hard to replicate in an increasingly cynical world. Unadulterated loyalty and trust are two things dogs will probably give us too easily, and yet those are two commodities that are practically impossible to find otherwise these days.
(Even on a pragmatic level, this writer will contend to his grave that a Remington and a Rottweiler will outclass any modern home security system.)
To denigrate them because of Tasmanian bobcats, or whatever that was, is so brain-dead you don’t even need to be told it comes from the left.
So, no thanks to Australia and Mother Jones. I frankly don’t give a damn if my dogs are bad for the environment.
They’re worth it.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
