To be fair, the Washington Post isn’t alone in arguing that dogs are bad for the planet. VICE says your dog is ruining the environment. HuffPost reported last fall that your dog is terrible for the environment. Just how bad is your dog for the environment? The Los Angeles Times did some digging and found out.

But WaPo’s take is pretty hot:

The Washington Post just canceled itself. pic.twitter.com/vJPjMhHlyY — Bridget Phetasy (@BridgetPhetasy) August 24, 2019

Here’s the thing, though. Set aside the clickbait graphic there, and it turns out the article is about feral dog colonies in Brazil muscling out natural predators and chowing down on precious baby turtles and other snacks.

The meme claims that dogs are bad for the planet, which they are not, The headline says the dogs are destructive, which they are. The article documents how feral dogs and semi-domestic dogs from Brazilian slums hunt in large packs in national parks, killing endangered species. — JIM BROWN ⚖️ (@JimBrownBlue) August 24, 2019

That’s quite a leap from “bad for the planet” to “destructive.” But if WaPo wants to make enemies with millions of dog lovers to score some clicks on a piece about wild dogs in Rio de Janeiro, so be it.

We are days away from OPINION: If you really cared about the planet, you’d kill yourselves. — Bridget Phetasy (@BridgetPhetasy) August 24, 2019

You’d stop having kids, you’d stop eating meat, you’d give up your pets, you’d stop flying a private jet to Geneva for climate emergency meetings.

The left is really underestimating the hatred they’re stirring up in ordinary people when they insist that climate change requires that you give up your dog and your plastic straws. https://t.co/auIvYfXdSH — Inez Stepman (@InezFeltscher) August 24, 2019

Wapo is bad for the planet — matt’s idea shop (@MattsIdeaShop) August 24, 2019

So is bad journalism – will be interesting to see which one natural selection chooses — jongouty (@jongouty) August 24, 2019

Just to recap: Fox News has people injecting marijuana The Washington Post says dogs are bad for the planet And the media can’t figure out why no one rational will take them seriously — Wayward Keroauc (@simplyk06) August 24, 2019

First they came for the cows and the dogs said nothing… — G.R. Hall (@Garrett_R_Hall) August 24, 2019

Next article "How Socialism can Save the Planet from Dogs." pic.twitter.com/qVyQIMNpnp — Clay Trainor (@claytrainor) August 24, 2019

Hard truth: Human happiness is bad for the planet — Boomieleaks (@notwokieleaks) August 24, 2019

This guy might have an issue with that… pic.twitter.com/V9O3YQC7C5 — Pope of Waffles (@PopeWaffles) August 24, 2019

MEANWHILE AT THE POST pic.twitter.com/qtfj5Jz2cl — Ernie Tedeschi (@ernietedeschi) August 24, 2019

I hate when cats write — Jimmy Levy (@JimmyLevy15) August 24, 2019

Finally, an article that can be universally eviscerated despite ideological divides! #everyonelovesdogs — Иван Грозный ?‍☠️???? (@Spartan_Jon1) August 24, 2019

Dogs are better than socialism. Objective fact. — Mentats (@Mentats11) August 24, 2019

So far this summer, the media has pissed on: the moon landing, Mariano Rivera's HOF induction, and dogs. They also argued that Ted Kennedy was the real victim of Chappaquiddick. What am I leaving out? — Rob from Long Island (@FlyingDutch0116) August 24, 2019

Cannibalism is normal (WAPO) & eating insects is good for the environment. — Pearl (@Emperorpearl) August 24, 2019

I think the institutional Left wants to abolish all omnivorous life forms from the biosphere because they think herbivores have a zero carbon impact on the planet. — Culpability Jones (@ShineboxHukster) August 24, 2019

That will win back the mainstream audience. ??? — Outside My Purview (@MyScabs) August 24, 2019

Which is worse for the planet? — New Improved Dave (@NewImprovedDave) August 24, 2019

Related: