Research article (April, 2025) : The environmental effects of owned dogs {Bad Dog?}

Nature Talk
1

Research article (April, 2025) : The environmental effects of owned dogs

I saw this in a Nature briefing newsletter today titled, “How to lighten your dog’s environmental footprint,” (April 10, 2025) and thought iNaturalists in the Forum may wish to follow-up with the research article - which then led me to the expanded article titled, “Good boy or bad dog? Our 1 billion pet dogs do real environmental damage” online (The Conversation) at:
https://theconversation.com/good-boy-or-bad-dog-our-1-billion-pet-dogs-do-real-environmental-damage-252726

The full text research article and citation (which does not appear to be behind a paywall) citation is: Bateman Philip W., Gilson Lauren N. (2025) Bad dog? The environmental effects of owned dogs. Pacific Conservation Biology 31, PC24071. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC24071
© 2025 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)
Full Text Article: https://www.publish.csiro.au/pc/Fulltext/PC24071

Here is the abstract for your information:
“Dogs as owned pet animals are globally ubiquitous and numerous. While the impact of cats, both feral and owned, on biodiversity has been relatively well-studied, by contrast, the comparative effect of owned dogs has been poorly acknowledged. As the commonest large carnivore in the world, the environmental impacts of owned dogs are extensive and multifarious: they are implicated in direct killing and disturbance of multiple species, particularly shore birds, but also their mere presence, even when leashed, can disturb birds and mammals, causing them to leave areas where dogs are exercised. Furthermore, scent traces and urine and faeces left by dogs can continue to have this effect even when dogs are not present. Faeces and urine can transfer zoonoses to wildlife and, when accumulated, can pollute waterways and impact plant growth. Owned dogs that enter waterways contribute to toxic pollution through wash-off of chemical ectoparasite treatment applications. Finally, the sheer number of dogs contributes to global carbon emissions and land and fresh water use via the pet food industry. We argue that the environmental impact of owned dogs is far greater, more insidious, and more concerning than is generally recognised.”
Keywords: conservation, human-animal interaction, pets, wildlife disturbance, zoonoses.

Commentary:
I am a dog owner (now) and have watched our Labrador retriever (chocolate) on-leash - watch the many Columbian Black-tailed Deer in our area with great interest - but the Black-tailed Deer show an instant reaction by ‘tracking’ (eyes and ears) on my dog for a few seconds before bolting away in quick leaps. In contrast, the Red Fox in our neighborhood shows great curiosity in the Lab (dog) by walking in front or behind when I walk along a road. Yet, this behavior is too much my dog (she wants to go and interact with the Fox) and I think the Canid connection makes a difference here.

Dog feces (dog poop) is a ongoing issue where we live…bag it and dispose properly. But we see many dog piles along the walk - and have seen many dog poop piles along nature trails in a nearby state forest. Of course, many protected areas do not allow dogs at all - e.g., nearby national wildlife refuge.

At this point, reading the research article was a bit depressing…there are many environmental issues to consider - but I also remember the time (many years ago) when I did not own a dog and I would like to walk in a protected nature area (no dogs allowed) so that I could count on greater wildlife observations, but sure enough - owners would disregard the signs and still go with their dogs (unleashed !) Into the protected area. When I (kindly) mentioned that the area was not for dogs (leashed or unleashed) - a few apologized and said they did not know (even though plenty of signage) - but most told me to go visit another planet (or something like that).

8 Likes
2

So now you’re destroying the planet by having a dog? Anything to take the onus off corporations I guess…

1 Like
3

I interpret this comment to mean, “The environmental damage caused by large corporations greatly exceeds that attributable to individuals living relatively modest lives. Our society tends to focus on the individual responsibility for environmental damage, often as a deliberate distraction from the need to place limits on destructive corporations.”

If that is what is meant, I agree!

I also see, given the intense difficulty of placing those limits, that the much smaller individual changes are all that most people can find a way to accomplish.

8 Likes
4

No, but it is generally advisable to know the potential damage one might cause, to do one’s best to limit it…

The article mentioned dog-faeces being a problem for the environment. Knowing that, a responsible and nature-loving dog-owner would now know to bag it, even if in a forest or field.
The article also mentioned the negative effects dog presence may have on birds. So maybe don’t take a dog to a place where shore-birds are currently breeding, especially not off-leash.

It’s funny to me that even the people on a nature and biodiversity site get seemingly upset and angry when bettering an environmental problem may mean a change of habit for them. But even in “The Land Of The Free” people have to make some compromises for a functioning society. This “but they are far worse, so I don’t have to do anything” rhetoric in the end just causes no change at all…

9 Likes
5

I’m not upset or angry, and fully agree that dog owners should be responsible with regards to cleaning up after their dogs and preventing them from harassing wildlife, and that individuals in general should be responsible when it comes to nature. Just pointing out the phenomenon that we often are bombarded with rhetoric about how average Joe is destroying the planet by driving, or eating meat, or having a dog, or running the AC in the summer instead of focusing on the main actual sources of environmental damage

2 Likes
6

I was brought up surrounded by dogs and cats (and not only), but I have chosen to live without them precisely because of a growing unease about their impact on nature and the environment in general. I realise that anything said against pets tends to provoke heated emotions and perhaps if I lived in a town, a “human habitat”, I’d feel differently, but I have (nearly) always lived in the wilder side of the countryside and the more I became sensitive to nature, the more I realised that the very presence of a dog at my side tangibly and greatly increased my impact on my surroundings. In the end, precisely because of this sensitivity on my part, I only took my dogs with me on more “urban” walks and always on a leash and that didn’t seem fair to them. So, at great personal cost, when my last and dearly loved dog died, I decided for the sake of coherence not to replace him. I greatly miss canine company, but being without a dog, when I come across them and (hopefully) their owners in nature, I am even more aware of the impact they cause. Not to mention of course the more global issues covered in the article.

5 Likes
7

We can love dogs while being honest about the cost

3 Likes
8

On the contrary, recently I feel I’ve been bombarded by, “Do what you want! No ethical consumption under capitalism! Individual responsibility is a corporate scam!” crap. It’s both. The corportations only do what they do because people like us keep buying from them.

6 Likes
9

This! And the fact that the “average Joe” isn’t so average on a global scale.
Of course Western consumption levels are inherently a problem, especially since it has become synonymous to success and virtue. And of course corporate and political action would have a far greater impact than any one individual change.

But still, individual change is necessary. And it’s not like the alternative is some sort of bleak life of bitter unhappiness. One very easy change is buying things used. I recently got a camera for iNat. The entire setup is used and required no shipping from the seller to me (carbon footprint = 0). My phone? Used. Laptop? Used… But they all work just as well as a brand new one would. Heck, even just unplugging my router at night or when I’m away saves a rather significant amount of electricity and it impacts my life in no way whatsoever.

It is not and never was about “thou shalt not drive cars”. If there is no feasible alternative, then by all means do! But collectively we could achieve a lot with even minimal effort. Unfortunately a lot of people nowadays (not on this forum, though, probably) are either too lazy or categorically refuse to do even that.

7 Likes
10

also on a pre-owned and refurbished laptop here.

2 Likes
11

Both of my dogs were pre-owned, and one’s a laptop.

9 Likes
12

There are enough signs to pick up after your dog and keep it out of conservation areas.
This “research” is a guilt tripping nonsense.

13

I am shocked - outraged, really - that the researchers didn’t cite my own published research in this area: This Week in Nonsense Science: The Canine/Pink Lady’s Slipper Connection.

5 Likes
14

Welcome to the world cat people have had to live in!

4 Likes
15

There are good pet owners and bad pet owners. Yes, I’ve seen dogs frighten other animals, dash into creeks, and leave piles of poop here, there, and everywhere. BUT, is that dog’s fault or the owner’s? I can’t tell you how often, when I am walking or hiking, I end up thinking, “There’s another case where the pet is better than the owner.” (Yes, I judge.) Frankly, I’d rather the piles of poop than the owners who bag the poop and then leave the plastic bags on the ground–what is that about? Or, I see a dog that is supposed to be leashed, and the owner could not be bothered. Sometimes, that’s as dangerous for the pet as it is for wildlife. (They run off; they run into bears; they eat something they shouldn’t.) Some people let their dogs chase deer on their property. But, I also know of people hunting and fishing out of season–nothing like gunshots near homes in the summer. And ultimately, as many are saying here, dogs are a much smaller problem, than, say, deciding that national wildlife areas should be used for drilling, fracking, or mining minerals. It’s an interesting study, and I think it is important to note that dogs have an environmental impact, so humans can at least try harder to reduce the impact, but I am not worried overmuch about dogs.

1 Like
16

Well, it did say:

And the commentary:

Wildlife don’t understand about leashed or unleashed. They don’t know that the dog is leashed; they only know that there is a dog there.

The scent left by dog urine was also mentioned. Unlike feces, urine is not required to be picked up. How would wildlife know that the canine who left that urine mark was leashed?

3 Likes
17

Should we ban dogs from parks? What’s your take on it? I did read what the writer posted, and I did understand it the first time.

1 Like
18

I don’t know the situation in other countries, but here in Italy dogs are usually banned from entering the Strict Nature Reserve zone (A) of a park and sometimes also the General Reserve (B) zone, depending on the nature of the protection required. They are usually permitted, on the other hand, in Partial Reserve (C) zones, but generally only along official paths/trails. Where they are permitted, they must be kept on a leash. Whether this is respected/enforced or not, is another matter.

5 Likes
19

It is interesting to note that there are very few nature-related topics that create such heated debate as that of cats and dogs and domestic animals in general. The Great Divide seems to be between those who consider them simply as animals with a right to be free in nature, where (as animals) they are innocuous or even beneficial, and those with a more ecological approach who consider them to be on the human side of the equation, one element in man’s impact on nature and therefore at least potentially harmful. It is a Divide I fear may be impossible to eliminate altogether.

4 Likes
20

In the US, dogs are often allowed in parks on leashes, though some parks do provide areas where dogs may run unleashed. In more protected areas dogs may not be permitted. I don’t actually hike or walk with a dog, so I don’t have a real preference for whether dogs are permitted in parks or not. I like dogs/animals in general, but I do recognize that they can be destructive. I think all I was suggesting is that dogs off leashes can create a good deal of destruction (I’ve seen dogs chase geese)–perhaps not as problematic as people–but I was not suggesting that dogs on leashes have no impact as clearly they do. Considering that timbering, mining, and drilling may increase on protected land in the US, dogs are not a huge concern to me at present–leashed or unleashed. This, of course, is just my opinion. But, yes, nothing seems to provoke more ire than discussing pets and their impact on nature.