Who's using the most resources, and it's not humans

I read an article in today's s Spectator all about pets using up more resources and suggesting that your pets are "environmental disasters".
Check it out here: http://www.thespec.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/660962

According to a book called Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, feeding large pets have more of an environmental impact than driving an SUV for 10,000 km.

So, basically, theses authors are suggesting giving away your pets so you can help the earth. According to the research that Robert and Brenda Vale( New-Zealand researchers) conducted your dog requires 0.84 global hectares (gha) to sustain him for a year. Larger dogs require as much as 1.1 gha a year versus an SUV which only requires as much as 0.41 gha a year.

Honestly, I don't see how getting rid of dogs is going to help improve the environment. We've done so much damage to the earth over the years, we depleted the Ozone layer years ago by using pesticides and cleaning products- I doubt that the damage is reversible.

Dogs don't really add to the "environmental disaster" that these researchers are referring to. We create the products so maybe it's time for us to take the responsibility and do something to make these products more environmentally friendly. I think we should try all our other options at saving the planet before getting rid of beloved family pets in order to make ourselves feel better about our environmental contribution.