Before diving in, let me make my bias clear: I adore dogs. I have three of them myself, and I wholeheartedly embrace the title of “man’s best friend” for our canine companions.
(However, I must confess—Father’s Day was never on my radar until actual human children came into the picture.)
On a somewhat related note, I’m all for preserving our planet. After all, this is the only Earth we’ve got, and it’s in our best interest to take care of it.
That said… how much longer will we tolerate the antics of these overzealous environmental activists?
There’s a distinct difference between being responsible stewards of the Earth and prioritizing the planet over the basic needs and desires of human beings (like, say, a delicious hamburger or reliable transportation and energy sources). Putting these needs last in the name of environmentalism is not only lacking in empathy but also contradicts the values of humanity that the far-left claims to champion, especially when juxtaposed with more conservative attitudes.
This farce is only becoming more absurd by the day.
Take, for instance, a recent piece from Mother Jones, which I can only describe as a bizarre narrative: “Bad News for Man’s Best Friend: Dogs Are Environmental Villains.”
Since when did our furry friends earn the title of eco-villains? In an article that seemingly took itself too seriously, writer Donna Lu asserts—without a hint of irony—that dogs have a “wide-ranging and complex” environmental impact, from disturbing wildlife to polluting waterways and adding to carbon emissions.
It appears that some Australian researchers have decided that the environmental footprint of pet ownership is far more significant and concerning than most people realize.
As if this wasn’t absurd enough, the argument begins to resemble the worst of leftist hyperbole (and I’m not exaggerating when I say these points were made, though perhaps not with this level of sarcasm): “Oh, won’t someone think of the Tasmanian penguins?!”, “Dogs are making bobcats less active!”, and “The pet food industry contributes more pollution than the 60th most polluting country!”
Fortunately, no one has anointed Greta Thunberg as queen over this drivel, and it was met with the scorn it rightly deserves.
Just check out the reactions on social media:
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
Let me clarify: I’m not advocating for those who replace human relationships with dogs. That’s a different kind of unhealthy. God created mankind and animals distinctly for a reason.
However, for those of us fortunate enough to embrace the unique bond with our canine companions, it’s a relationship that brings unyielding loyalty and trust—two qualities that are increasingly rare in our cynical world.
(And from a practical standpoint, I will argue until my last breath that a Rottweiler and a shotgun provide better home security than any high-tech system available today.)
To malign dogs over concerns for Tasmanian wildlife—or whatever that argument was—is a level of foolishness that doesn’t even warrant a rebuttal beyond acknowledging its leftist origins.
So, thanks but no thanks to Australia and Mother Jones. Frankly, I don’t care if my dogs have a negative impact on the environment.
They are worth it.
This article originally appeared on The Western Journal.
