dog wont eat raw

That was a case of me writing something and it came out the exact opposite of what I was trying to achieve. I've had some out of work times as well and it's no fun. And if we can't afford the funding, then we could press on through the college students or even directly ask some vet schools why don't they do a study.
 
Informally, or anecdotally, I would certainly stipulate the results of those people who feed raw and who's dogs are apparently doing fine. But a study, with strict controls and bloodwork would provide some definitive answers. And I'm certainly not against giving dogs, or any creatures, fresh food, when possible. For that, I do admire you and Sandra, regardless of what kibbles you feed partially. I certainly would not want to imply that anyone here feeding raw or considering feeding raw would not pay attention. For example, if one of your dogs got sick while eating raw, I'm sure you would be at the vet before you can say Kalamazoo and finding out exactly what was wrong and feeding them standby kibble until they got better.

Gracious Ron, that was so darned many hours ago that I had to go back and see what you did that was sooooo offensive!! []  You know better than to feel the need to apologize to me....I know where you're coming from. []

True. I am a member of Old Farts United  - local 716. And sometimes, either in jest or in earnest ( I can't always determine which), people find me more attractive when I shut up. Imagine that. Height, long blond hair, husky blue eyes, and silence. An irresistable combination.

More accurately, I need to review what I've said before I hit ok. Sometimes, I've been good about that, other times, I'm in a hurry.

FWIW, I'm not vehemently opposed to raw and Shadow's had a few bones, cooked or whatever was on the street and survived just fine. As I've said before, there is a risk in whatever we do. Shadow's even had a rawhide or two. I don't see it as anymore dangerous than him chewing on twigs and branches, which he does not swallow. He breaks them and spits them out. But I certainly know from being in this forum that I have resources of information and direct experience for whatever I feed, AAFCO guided feed trial, or not.

WOW! really dyan. I don't know if you been here or not but this is a great website about Reiki.
[linkhttp://www.reiki.org/]http://www.reiki.org/[/link]

WOW! really dyan. I don't know if you been here or not but this is a great website about Reiki.

Thanks!     

ORIGINAL: patt_b  There's simply no question that dogs can exist on a diet of raw foods.  In the wild, that's pretty much what wolves, coyotes and foxes do.  Unfortunately those animals do not live as long as domesticated dogs.  In the wild they are subject to the uncontrolled infestation of parasites and diseases that are generated from a diet of predominantly weak and sickly prey.  

 
Patt_b,
I don#%92t have a problem with raw, but it is not something for my dog from a commercial standpoint.  I only believe in raw feeding if one can be in complete control of their meat source, in other words, you can slaughter and butcher your own animals.  Yes, I for one would rather pick up fresh road-kill, or shoot my own game rather than purchase raw products.  That does NOT stem from any financial concerns, but rather safety concerns.  But, what I do have some trouble with is your logic applied in your above statement.  Here#%92s my reasoning:
 
The amount of time the dog has spent domesticated with mankind is a mere flash-in-the pan compared to their time in existence.  Dogs come to us survivors of millions of years on their own accord, without intervention of mankind, including any intervention of veterinary medicine.  No doubt our protection and care has given them the capability to live longer lives as compared to wild ancestors.  However, you cannot ignore the fact that the dogs natural diet was/is good enough to sustain life for millions and millions of years without our help.  This means, their raw diet was capable enough to promote sound health and breeding leading to their survival, not destruction.  Think about it, they#%92ve successfully have come to us, through healthy breeding over millions of years with not a drop a care from mankind.  They do not need our help or medicine to be survivors.  It does not matter if they survived 2 weeks or 2 years in the wild, that would be the law of the jungle, but the fact remains, they are here and they made it here on their own accord.  Why?  Again the answer is simple, the diet was indeed adequate to meet their survival.
 
You want to compare health issues, it is no contest, the wild animal would win out hands down in all categories.  Pound for pound, a wild dog is stronger, faster, better muscular development, etc.  It wouldn#%92t even be close…hearing, vision, agility, and strength, again no contest.  Wouldn#%92t even be a fair fight.  Do you know any dogs in the wild that suffer for HD.  There are none, HD non-existent in wild animals.  The diet is produces perfect bone structure and development.  How about bloat?  Again, does not affect wild dogs.  But, look at all the problems we witness today in our domesticated dogs.  We see breakdowns across the board in all categories.  Vet clinics popping up everywhere to keep up with health issues demands.  Why is that?  It is because the commercial feeds are so horrible in comparison; we need the clinics to keep up with the demand of health breakdown.  Again, dogs comes to us without intervention from veterinary care, today we need veterinarian care do to explosion of health care issues.
 
Please, don#%92t get me wrong Patt, I agree with you in many aspects concerning the feeding of raw as it is done today.  However, I feel it is important to emphasis at the same time, there is no better diet for carnivore feeding other than the diet of meat, fat, blood and bone.  And, for those of you don#%92t feel your dog is truly a carnivore, by all means, say bon appetite and keep adding your canned pumpkin.
 
Charlie
 

this post is not intended to be pro or anti raw:

charlie, i dont believe problems such as hd and others are brought on from the food we feed our dogs but from breeding.  wild dogs suffer from tons of ailments.  domesticated animals are not the only ones that would benefit from vetrinarian care.  im sure there are et dogs being fed raw diets that suffer from ailments.  i think it is your logic that is flawed.  att's is sound.

edit:  just wanted to add, i realize some problems such as skin irritations, etc can be caused by diet, but not necessarily all kibble in general.

 
 

ORIGINAL: jaye

this post is not intended to be pro or anti raw:

charlie, i dont believe problems such as hd and others are brought on from the food we feed our dogs but from breeding.  wild dogs suffer from tons of ailments.  domesticated animals are not the only ones that would benefit from vetrinarian care.  im sure there are et dogs being fed raw diets that suffer from ailments.  i think it is your logic that is flawed.  att's is sound.

edit:  just wanted to add, i realize some problems such as skin irritations, etc can be caused by diet, but not necessarily all kibble in general.

 
Ok.  Dogs didn't survive a million years on their own accord.  I know, it was Mr. Purina and Mr Iams who help them along[sm=rotfl.gif]

yes, they survived with problems.

Our domesticated dogs come to us a *product* of their ancestors. They are NOT the same animals as their wild counterpart. Our intervention has made them what they are and thus, they can't be treated the same.
Wild dogs DO have health problems which are centered around their *natural* diet for the most part (parasites, starvation, diseases, etc). Our domestic dogs health problems are a product of human egos striving to *breed* the perfect specimen. In-breeding, line-breeding, and years of "messing" with their genetics are a big part of what's causing their health problems. Sure diet can play a small part and so can our great modern vet care (ie: vaccines), but our dogs are what we have made them.
 
I work with domestic and wild animals every day and have personally seen the many problems of both, so I can speak with a bit of personal knowledge when I say, wildlife CAN'T be treated the same way as domestic animals and vice-versa. Do my dogs get raw? Yes, they get some from time to time. Do I think they should eat like wolves? No, they are not the same creature. These are my opinions based on my personal exerperience and are not meant to offend anyone based on their feeding philosophy.

How about bloat? Again, does not affect wild dogs. But, look at all the problems we

 
A gray wolf has a stomach that can hold 20 lbs of food. 20 pounds is the size of a medium small dog. Their stomachs have an ability to hold a bone in place until it is wrapped in hide before it can pass. And they get almost no nutritional value from the bone they swallow. A dog's stomach does not have that ability. Wolves and coyotes suffer from starvation and malnutrition all of the time but the canis lupus etcetera species is able to put up with starvation and malnutrition for a long time. Modernly, all canids have been observed eating plant matter, whether in the belly of a kill or fruits and berries from bushes and low trees. 100,000 years is the blink of an eye in geological time but is more than enough time for some things to change in a species or sub-species. Humans consistently try to breed out and train out the survival traits. Resource guarding is a survival mechanism. It means you get to eat what you got. Alpha means you get to eat first. Gorging means you may get enough to eat because it might be a week or two or three between meals. And as a wild dog, you eat bones  because it's just an accident that happens while eating from a carcass.
 
I agree that HD strikes some breeds more than others but it is a function of the design of the canid. It would be like you walking on hands and knees. You would suffer from shoulder dysplasia. The larger and heavier the animal, the more likely it is to suffer from that. A wolf can be well over 2 feet tall and weigh 120 pounds.
 
I agree with you about the quality of raw meat. I've said before that a person could always hunt their own meat. And I bet if a camper left out a wonderful, cooked roast or brisket, a wolf would eat that cooked food and survive, because that's what wolves do.

cc431 are you for raw or against it. By the last post you made your contradicting yourself. Or it might just be me not fully awake this morning. I for one will not feed my dogs raw ground meat from the supermarket because of the potential of bacteria and parasite that is in the meat. I just wanted to add that hd sometimes is brought on by nutrition, exercise, and body weight. If you feed a medium to large breed normal active puppy a very high protien diet the bones will grow way to fast for the body and in turn you will have joint and bone problems in that pup when it matures.

I'm not buying CC.   As the saying goes "Only the strong survive!"  And yes, dog have survived in the wild for  a long time. But HOW MANY compared to what is born in the wild?  And how do you know that in the wild they don't die of bloat as you say?  How do you know there is no HD or some of the other illnesses that you talk about?   And the healthy wild dog is strong, faster and has better muscle development MAYBE, but how many made it that far?   Only the strong did.
Our domesticated dogs are different, and they must be taken care of differently. I'm not arguing raw or not because I honestly do believe that the jury is still out on that, but I honestly don't feel that your statement is correct.  We do cause our own problems with our domesticated dogs, in breeding and I believe that our vaccines and even preventatives are causing them big problems often, and sometimes food adding to those problems. 

I apologize for the sarcasm in my last post about Mr. Purina and Mr. Iams.  Also being for or against (modern) raw also is not a point I am trying to convey.
 
Regardless of whether wild animals suffered through disease, parasites, had terrible quality life the point is their diet, the raw diet was good enough to sustain life, that brought them to modern time.  Despite inevitable problems, the diet worked.   They needed no help from man or medicine to make it on their own merit.  The raw diet produced sound breeding in wild animals continuing the chain of life for well over a million years, again with no help from man.  A diet capable of sustaining life is obviously a key element in their survival.  So, when Patt drew a comparison (where I had quoted prior) between commercial diets of today and the wild animals raw diet, in my opinion there is no comparison.  Natures raw diet is so far superior to commercial diets you can#%92t even compare the two.  Million(s) of years of history of sustaining life with no help from man cannot be tossed aside and ignored.  The diet worked.  If the animal lived 2 days, 2 months, or 2 years is irrelevant.  If the animal suffered through parasites and disease is again irrelevant.  What is relevant is the fact the diet carried them through eons of time without help from man or medicine.
 CC

I understand what CC is getting at.  However, I think of it like this--if only one out of every 500 back then lived to be 8 years old, and now over half  of the born domesticated dogs live to be 10, or older  then what we do today is better.  Vet  does care goes a long with with the long lives of our dogs today  I do n ot feed raw and never had as I can't stomach eating even half cooked myself.    I do give mine cooked meat, mostly beef or chicken liver, chicken gizzares or hearts, fish, fish and more fish.  They also get viggies.  this is on top of their dry food.
 
One on of my golden forums said she works in a lab and knowing what she knows about the meat in the grocery stores, she would never feed it raw to her dogs.  Since I do not work in  lab and have no knowledge about this, I can't say if I would nor not---if I had the stomach to do it, which I dont, so this is totally immaterial to me---except makes me worry about my own food!