Maybe the authors of the study should get back to us once they've given everything they own to the poor and have subsisted on nothing but fallen fruit for a few years. I keed. But the suggestion that pariah dogs are "better for the planet" than companion dogs? That's just messed up. Click to embiggen.
Are dogs really worse for the environment than SUVs?
I keep a bunch of them [dogs, not Land Cruisers] and I beg to differ. Children are worse for the environment than SUVs, not that I'm advocating shipping all kids to Mars, because then I'd be out of a job. Companion dogs make the world a better place. We need more of them.
Stray and feral cats, though, are another story. And no, I'm not just saying this because neighborhood strays are busy hunting wild birds in my backyard [or would be, if it weren't for my dogs]. I'm saying this because of a bug that kills sea otters and other marine mammals. I'm saying this because outdoor and feral cats generally have short lives marked by contagious disease and infection, and miserable deaths.
Inside cats: wonderful! My Gus [formerly feral, from the local pound] was a super terrific cat [an inside-only, non-declawed cat, for the record].
Outside cats: bad news. Feral cat colonies: don't even get me started. Best solution: trap, neuter, and adopt them out or send 'em to a sanctuary. And let me make this as clear as I can: feral cats themselves are not to blame for the problems they cause and the countless ills they suffer. That blame falls squarely on people who believe that feral cat colonies must be maintained at any cost, environmental and public health concerns be damned.
Also: if Jonathan Safran Foer ever saw what a combine does to wildlife [I've seen it], he'd never eat wheat or oats or barley again. Eating fallen fruit from native plants is the only way to go. That, and hunting.