If you had 20 dogs

Dyan!

Well, I have many opinions on this...
 
I don't see why anyone would say if someone doesn't feed what they feel is a "good food" that they shouldn't be allowed to have a dog. 
 
We live in a country where obesity is a big problem for adults and kids.  We as humans don't eat well for the most part.  McDonald's and all the other fast food chains are huge as are donut shops. 
 
Why are you so surprised by what these same people are feeding their dogs?? 
 
I feed my dog what works for her regardless of whether or not people like you think it's a "good" food.  A good food to me is one that my dog feels well on and eats. 

To me it depends on when you got the dogs and other specifics about your situation. 
 
If someone is living hand to mouth and they want to, but truly cannot, afford to feed their dogs a quality food, then I don't think they should go out and adopt 20 new dogs.  In that case I agree with the question about paying for vet care, etc.  It's not the best time to take on those kinds of responsibilities if you are that strapped that you know you can't provide for the dogs the way you want to. 
 
But I feel differently if you had the dogs already.  People go through hard times.  If you already have dogs (2 or 20, I don't care) and they are loved and well cared for, but you get laid off and decide you need to buy cheaper food for a while (for yourself and the dogs both) to save money, who am I to say you should re-home the dogs instead?  You are doing the best you can to support your family in hard times.  You don't deserve to lost your furkids for that!  You deserve support and encouragement until you get back on your feet.  I am 100% certain that my dog would be much better off in my care, even if he had to eat grocery store food for 6 months, than he would be if I took him to the shelter and dropped him off like his last owners did. 
 
Now the other issue is someone who doesn't think it's worth the money to pay for quality food.  They could afford it, but it's not worth it to them.  When they say "I can't afford it," they really mean, "I want to spend my money on something else."  And I have to say I don't think these people should lose their dogs, either.  I disagree with their choices, but different people have different choices and you can't make everyone live the lifestyle you think is best. 
 
I've heard someone compare feeding crappy dog foods to feeding your kids fast food every day.  I think it's a pretty good analogy.  In a typical week I don't eat McDonald's or anything else that's deep-fried, and I don't buy chips or soda or sugar cereal.  I cook for myself and I eat brown rice and lean meats and tofu and fresh fruits and vegetables and salads.  And if I had kids that's the way I'd feed them too.  Do I look down my nose a little at people who feed their kids diets composed mainly of McD's and poptarts?  Yes, a little bit, I do.  Maybe it's judgmental, but I do.  I don't think it's a healthy lifestyle, and that's important to me.  But I wouldn't take their kids away for it, and I wouldn't say they don't deserve to have kids becuase of it.  They just have different priorities than I do. 
 
It's the same for dogs.  Do I think it's great to feed your dog Iams?  No, I don't.  I don't think it's optimally nutritious and I think your dog could do better.  But that's your choice.  It doesn't mean you don't deserve a dog, or that your dog should be taken away from you. 

Personally, for me, I would rather have less dogs and feed them better than to have more and feed lesser quality food. But that's me lol...

ORIGINAL: Edie

Or could it be that they feed a lower quality food so that they can have money saved back for vet emergencies?

Too many people still arent putting together poor food equals expensive vet bills if and when something does go wrong.What they save on cheap food may come back 100 times the amount they saved if the dogs gets cancer or liver/ kidney issues etc. which are all expensive conditions to treat.

 
I was thinking the exact same thing.

I think the person was a breeder, but please don't quote me on that because I am NOT sure! For all I know, she could have been a pet owner with 20 dogs, lol.
 
Your not along astaracheetah, I would rather have just one dog and no internet if it meant feeding my dogs better.
 
acesmom,  I think there's a difference between feeding garbage when your going through a hard time, than feeding garbage without a care because you can't afford to feed 20 dogs.
 
*I* can only control what *my* dogs eat, and our club can only control what *our* dogs eat (we do require adopters feed a good kibble, canned, or raw..).

ORIGINAL: astaracheetah

Personally, for me, I would rather have less dogs and feed them better than to have more and feed lesser quality food. But that's me lol...

I agree, but then I also think that if you can't afford to feed your kids anything but mac and cheese and hotdogs then you should stop having them.  I guess that just because I am an evil and judgmental human being[8|]

acesmom, I think there's a difference between feeding garbage when your going through a hard time, than feeding garbage without a care because you can't afford to feed 20 dogs.

Agreed.

People shouldnt take on more dogs,or god forbid produce more dogs if they cant afford to feed the ones they already have on a decent food,and by decent i mean not what you would find at the grocery store.Thats *my* interpretation of good/bad food.

Right now, I probably would not get more dogs because I have all of my other animals to feed as well.  Yes, I could afford what some of you consider "premium."  The only other good food in this town is Eagle Pack, at the same vet who sells and uses Bil-Jac.  However, why should I change when something is working?  Too much emphasis is placed on brand of food.  Food is just one part of keeping your dog healthy.  I know many dogs who do just as well on Purina foods as mine does on Bil-Jac and as others do "premium" foods.  If someone chooses to have 20 dogs and feed a lesser quality food, that is their decision.  As long as the dogs are being loved and well cared for, whose business is it but theirs? 

ORIGINAL: annabel

Dyan, if it's getting old, you can have the option of not coming to the thread []

 
Ouch. 
 
It's kind of tough to avoid these discussions since they seem to keep coming up over and over again.  And many of us get email notifications of a lot of the threads, so it's right there in our inbox.
 
I have to agree with Dyan.  Are dogs better off in the shelter or dead than in a loving home eating Purina?  Or even Ol Roy?  Even as wonderful as the shelter I work with is, it still isn't home for those dogs and it still isn't their own loving family.
 
I've said this before and I'll say it again....those who "convert" to the super premiums, to homecooked or to raw tend to be a bit like zealots trying to convert the great unwashed.  None of us has the right to judge others, or how they spend their money, or what they maybe *could* afford if they didn't want to spend it on something else.......and if it is solely a food not being up to "our" standards, no one has the right to say that someone else doesn't deserve to own a dog.

To me, it has nothing to do with dog food.  I would feel the same way if I knew someone who had 20 horses and was feeding them nothing but corn and crap hay.  It's a cop out to say "well, they could be worse off."  We could all be worse off.  I COULD sqeeze another horse into my budget.  I could save a horse that needed saving.  however, to do so, my current horses quality of life would suffer, and my responsibilty is to him.
 
Love is not all a dog needs.  A friend of mine use to have a boxer.  She couldn't keep him at her apartment, so she kept at the barn.  He was fed a food that obviously didn't agree with him, but it was cheap (this is before I even had a dog, and I could see this).  He was wormy, never taken to the vet, and ran around unfixed.  She loved him and he loved her.  It could have been worse, he could have been dead, but that doesn't change the fact that he was not cared for properly.
 
I was just taught that if you can't take care of something the best way possible, you shouldn't get more things.
 
That's just how I feel, and if that makes me judgmental, I guess that's what I am.

People shouldnt take on more dogs,or god forbid produce more dogs if they cant afford to feed the ones they already have on a decent food,and by decent i mean not what you would find at the grocery store

 
It happens, rescuers, breeders and fosters. Of course we are always reminded that the food we feed no matter how good the dog might be living off of the lower grade food is bad which = bad owner
 
My thoughts are where would these dogs be if they weren't getting the lower grade food? Would they be in a shelter getting even less quality food? In line to be euthanized? or would they be in that ever loving top quality food feeding home? We'll never know...... 

I was just taught that if you can't take care of something the best way possible, you shouldn't get more things.

[color=#000000]This reminds me that just today at work, and elderly lady was checking prices on vaccinations and care for her dogs. She said she was trying to find a vet she could afford more to take care of her pet or pets,,,and added "gee, if  I could just find a place that I could take care of them a little less expensively, I would have another dog ..."   Its not about food obviously, but care in general. It does cost a lot of money to care for our pets now a days...they used to get a shot or two and you were done for the year...now its tons of vaccinations, HW test...then the meds to go with it..its hard for some people..and maybe they can't afford much more,,,especially the elderly on fixed incomes.  They have tons of love and tons of time to give these pets also,,,much better then the people that work all day and leave their pets in the house by themselves for many hours a day while they go to work. Maybe those people can buy premium food...but is the pet really better???  I don't think so.[/color]
[color=#000000]I think it would be so nice if someone like this lady that stopped by could afford to have more pets..would do her a world of good perhaps,,,and if more people could have more,, there would be a lot less homeless dogs and cats.[/color]

They have tons of love and tons of time to give these pets also,,,much better then the people that work all day and leave their pets in the house by themselves for many hours a day while they go to work. Maybe those people can buy premium food...but is the pet really better???

Very good point! I suppose i would rather see a dog who's owners are with him all day and take him for lots of walks AND feed him something like Purina( sorry,but i can not bring myself to advocate beneful,ol roy etc for ANY reason),then see a dog crated all day long whilst their owners are at work or play and fed a super duper premium food.The second dog definately has the worse life IMHO.Jeesh  This subject is so not cut and dried.
Admittedly i am beginning to see your points a little clearer now. However if i am to speak personally and about my own experience,*i* wouldnt get another dog if i could not afford to feed him on the foods my current dogs are acustomed to.

The way I feel is if you(collective you) have to cut corners in order to maintain your critters then you have way too many critters. []