It sounds sacrilege in a country where dog ownership seems as much a right as guns, gas and greed, but it may be time to start taxing pet owners. Go ahead and buy local organic food, replace your incandescent bulbs, drive a hybrid — your pooch may be an even bigger offense than an SUV sitting in your driveway.

Robert and Brenda Vale make this contention in Time to Eat the Dog?: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, and the math may check out. A preliminary independent study has confirmed the claim, much to the chagrin of hippies everywhere. Man’s best friend is Mother Earth’s worst enemy.

According to the book, it takes more than twice the energy to feed a medium-sized dog for one year as it does to build and fuel a large SUV in that same time.  Their claim is based on calculations that a 50 lb. dog consumes a recommended 300g of dry dog food per day, containing about 90g of meat and 156g of cereals. Pre-dried, those figures jump to 450g of meat and 260g of cereal a day — over a year, that’s as much meat as the weight of two or three adult humans. (We stuck to the metric figures here because, frankly, if Canada can learn them, then so can we.)

All told, a 50 lb dog monopolizes 2 acres of land every year for food production alone. If you feed your dog beef or lamb, that figure is even higher.

For comparison, a Toyota Land Cruiser with a 4.6-liter V8, driven 6,200 miles a year uses up 55.1 gigajoules of energy for fuel and initial production combined. At the rate that land is capable of producing gigajoules of energy, the SUV uses a little under 1 acre, less than half that of the 50 lb dog. Most people drive more than 6,200 miles a year, but since energy used in initial production won’t figure into subsequent years, that estimated 1 acre will only shrink.

If true, it’s bad news for the country’s 70+ million dogs and 40+ million dog-owning households, and with near-constant talk of carbon-offsets, increasing fuel standards and luxury taxes for large SUVs, it’s only a small leap of logic to wonder, should we be taxing our pets?

FICA for FIDO?

Taxing pets is hardly a new idea. Debated passionately in England throughout the 18th century, a proposed “luxury tax” on dogs was finally passed in 1796, with significant exemptions in regard to the definition of “luxury.” Here in the States, and much more recently, we’ve tried our own approaches, and strangely North Carolina seems to be at the forefront of these efforts. Previously, Davidson County, NC, required listing dogs among taxable personal property — a practice discontinued some 15 years ago — and currently Cumberland County, NC has a yearly fee of $7 for every sterilized dog or cat and $25 for every unsterilized animal. Earlier this year, a statewide campaign on behalf of the California Veterinary Medical Association helped defeat a proposed tax on veterinary services in that state, a measure already in place in Hawaii, New Mexico and South Dakota.

Sarah Salter, Professor of Personal Income Taxation at New England School of Law notes in regard to a pet luxury tax, "A close parallel would be a required registration fee for dogs, usually in connection with rabies shots, which might be viewed as a 'use tax' to support animal control expenditures."

Calculating in the additional environmental impact of pet ownership, especially in urban areas, only seems to solidify the claims. A 2007 study from the University of New South Wales studied bird life in areas of high dog concentration, and found that bird species in these environments showed a 35% reduction in species diversity and a 41% reduction in overall numbers, with those figures rising in areas where dogs were walked off-leash. More recent and continuing studies in the UK have found similar results, and a study from Nashville, TN has found that pet feces is a significant factor in increased bacterial levels in rivers and streams, tainting drinking water and killing off aquatic life.

So let’s look at the numbers -

Of the more than 450 million registered passenger vehicles on the road in the U.S., according to the 2006 figures from the Bureau of Transit Statistics, almost 100 million were classified as “Other 2 axle, 4 tire vehicles.” This classification, which doesn’t include automobiles, multi-axle vehicles or motorcycles, can be assumed to be made up of SUVs and pickup trucks. Outnumbering dogs by more than 33%, SUVs are routinely attacked for their role in environmental destruction, contribution to global warming, and for prolonging our oil dependence.

For instance, 2006 California Assembly Bill 2791, dubbed the California Clean Car Discount, proposed one-time surcharges of up to $2500 on the purchase of high-emission vehicles — mostly trucks and SUVs — and vehicles with engines over 2.0-liters in Europe incur increasingly stiff tax penalties.  Additionally, the European Union has been encouraging the implementation of emissions-based tax systems for years, with over a dozen member states, including auto-haven Germany, following suit.

It’s a scary thought when considering a $40,000 SUV with the proposed $2500 environmental surcharge may have half the ecological footprint of the labrador you rescued from the shelter.

In contrast, earlier this year Congressional Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), proposed the “Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Year” or HAPPY Act, which if passed would allow pet owners to deduct qualified pet care expenses up to $3500, officially giving a pet’s medical expense precedent over its owners’, who may only deduct medical expenses when they exceed 7.5% of their adjusted gross income.

Americans may have a love affair with the automobile, but it seems nothing replaces man’s best friend. 

These figures give perspective to the kind of thinking, or lack thereof, which goes into attacking the usual suspects when it comes to environmental protection.  Laziness leads to vilifying easy targets, and while an SUV may have a smaller ecological impact, it’s certainly not as cute as a cocker spaniel, and therefore more satisfying to aim at.

But there’s something else to consider.  A vehicle won’t lower your blood pressure, or give you an excuse to get out and exercise.  A vehicle doesn’t help fight against depression or protect you from an intruder, and try as you may, you simply can’t teach your SUV to fetch.  Is it time to tax our dogs?  Probably not.  But perhaps it’s time to look beyond the old evils when searching for the answers to our ecological problems.