register for free
View our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Mahooli
Dogsey Veteran
Mahooli is offline  
Location: Poodle Heaven!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,297
Female 
 
09-01-2008, 01:26 PM
Originally Posted by Lara'sYorkies View Post
I am well aware that some raw feeders can have a 'holier than thou' attitude but don't tar us all with the same brush. Some of us raw feed simply because our dogs enjoy it and do incredibly well on it.
I think you're in the minority sadly, but apologies to you as it wasn't aimed directly at you.
Becky
Reply With Quote
Evie
Dogsey Veteran
Evie is offline  
Location: N.Ireland
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,251
Female 
 
09-01-2008, 01:29 PM
Mahooli,

This is the raw feeders section of this forum. It was set up specifically so raw feeders wouldn't get flamed anytime they wanted to discuss raw feeding in it's various shapes and forms. Yet here we have you, as someone that feeds kibble, coming in here and having a go at me.

My dogs are doing much better than they ever were on kibble; fact.

Many of the kibbles out there are full of rubbish, but owners continue to feed them.
There are higher quality kibbles out there, such as arden grange and burns that I recommend to people if they don't want to go down the raw feeding route; but a hell of alot of the rest on the market are rubbish. When you actually study what goes into them and why it can be quite shocking.

It was suggested in the OP that perhaps prey model feeders should get blood works done. I didn't jumpt down the OPer or take offence, it was a genuine question. Why then do you jump down mine?

From all I have learnt about feeding dogs I have picked what I feel is the best way to feed my dogs. This envolves no form of snobbery on my part whatsoever.

The question I posed was to highlight the point that whilst raw feeders have come to the choice to feed this way for the highest good for there dogs there are alot of people out there feeding the lower end of the market kibbles in the mistaken belief that the "experts" are there putting together ingrediants to provide a "balanced" diet for their dogs. Most often this is not the case at all.

I do not dispute the fact that animals live on it and can do quite well on some of kibbles and indeed it is the owners choice as to wht they want to feed; but I know exactly wht my dog is eating and I know that it is an awful lot better than what is available on pet store shelves.

I don't need to separate my dogs to feed them, I don't need to fast them, I don't need to restrict their exercise. What better life for a dog, being warm, happy, well fed and properly exercised.
Many owners don't seperate to feed, raw or kibble fed. And some owners of raw or kibble fed dogs have to seperate. I don't feel this subject is relevent to a raw feeding debate, or indeed this topic.

Fasting isn't carried out by every raw feeder. I don't fast mine and don't feel it is a necessary part of raw feeding.
But if they do get a large piece to eat it makes good sense to get the bigger part of exercise over earlier in the day before feeding the large piece rather than having a dog attempt alot of exercise after such a large feed. Hence on the day of a large feed, my dogs get a good run in the morning, fed in the afternoon and a short walk in the evening. Food is reduced slightly the day before and after to ensure they don't get fat... balance of calorie intake!

You are very correct; better life for a dog, being warm, happy, well fed and properly exercised. Mine certainly are as I'm sure yours are also.
Reply With Quote
Ramble
Dogsey Veteran
Ramble is offline  
Location: dogsville
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,141
Female 
 
09-01-2008, 01:42 PM
Originally Posted by Evie View Post
I have never considered having bloodwork done to check things. I know my animals and they are a hell of alot healthier than when they were on kibble. Energy levels (without complete hyper mayhem tha Archie used to be when he first came to me) are good, and their condition is fantastic. I'm always getting compliments on their coats etc when out walking.

All raw feeders, whatever method, know their dogs are better off. Perhaps it should be those feeding kibble getting the blood works done to test how healthy their dogs are?
Evie, I'm sorry, I think you're lovely you know that, but I am offended by that and take issue with it.
My dogs (other than old age issues) are incredibly healthy and well and fed on kibble.
Reply With Quote
Mahooli
Dogsey Veteran
Mahooli is offline  
Location: Poodle Heaven!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,297
Female 
 
09-01-2008, 01:52 PM
Originally Posted by Evie View Post
Mahooli,

This is the raw feeders section of this forum. It was set up specifically so raw feeders wouldn't get flamed anytime they wanted to discuss raw feeding in it's various shapes and forms. Yet here we have you, as someone that feeds kibble, coming in here and having a go at me.

My dogs are doing much better than they ever were on kibble; fact.

Many of the kibbles out there are full of rubbish, but owners continue to feed them.
There are higher quality kibbles out there, such as arden grange and burns that I recommend to people if they don't want to go down the raw feeding route; but a hell of alot of the rest on the market are rubbish. When you actually study what goes into them and why it can be quite shocking.

It was suggested in the OP that perhaps prey model feeders should get blood works done. I didn't jumpt down the OPer or take offence, it was a genuine question. Why then do you jump down mine?

From all I have learnt about feeding dogs I have picked what I feel is the best way to feed my dogs. This envolves no form of snobbery on my part whatsoever.

The question I posed was to highlight the point that whilst raw feeders have come to the choice to feed this way for the highest good for there dogs there are alot of people out there feeding the lower end of the market kibbles in the mistaken belief that the "experts" are there putting together ingrediants to provide a "balanced" diet for their dogs. Most often this is not the case at all.

I do not dispute the fact that animals live on it and can do quite well on some of kibbles and indeed it is the owners choice as to wht they want to feed; but I know exactly wht my dog is eating and I know that it is an awful lot better than what is available on pet store shelves.



Many owners don't seperate to feed, raw or kibble fed. And some owners of raw or kibble fed dogs have to seperate. I don't feel this subject is relevent to a raw feeding debate, or indeed this topic.

Fasting isn't carried out by every raw feeder. I don't fast mine and don't feel it is a necessary part of raw feeding.
But if they do get a large piece to eat it makes good sense to get the bigger part of exercise over earlier in the day before feeding the large piece rather than having a dog attempt alot of exercise after such a large feed. Hence on the day of a large feed, my dogs get a good run in the morning, fed in the afternoon and a short walk in the evening. Food is reduced slightly the day before and after to ensure they don't get fat... balance of calorie intake!

You are very correct; better life for a dog, being warm, happy, well fed and properly exercised. Mine certainly are as I'm sure yours are also.
If you don't want people to take issue with what you say then I suggest you don't A) make out your better dog owner because you feed raw B) that people who chose not to feed raw have little or no knowledge of correct diets C) That people who feed kibble have done little research into their dogs diets.
You are more than welcome to pay for all 6 of my dogs to be blood tested to see if your 'theory' about kibble fed dogs not being healthier than yours is actually correct.
Becky
Reply With Quote
Evie
Dogsey Veteran
Evie is offline  
Location: N.Ireland
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,251
Female 
 
09-01-2008, 02:25 PM
Originally Posted by Ramble View Post
Evie, I'm sorry, I think you're lovely you know that, but I am offended by that and take issue with it.
My dogs (other than old age issues) are incredibly healthy and well and fed on kibble.
When I say that "raw feeders know their dogs are better off" I am speaking of the many improvements that each indivisual owners sees in their dogs condition and health as a result of the changes in diet. I am not trying to say that we are holier than thou.

As I said in my reply to Mahooli, there are kibbles I'd recommend to people not wishing to raw feed; but I do feel that raw feeding is the best I can do for my dogs. I'm not a big meat eater myself and hate the smell and handling raw meats. I do it simply because I feel it's the best for my dogs. Why take issue with that, I don't understand.

If a member come on asking what feeding we would recommend, and someone replied that they felt "xxx" brand of dog food was the very best way they found to feed their dog, would you feel offended because it wasn't your particular brand? I don't believe so.

We all have different methods of feeding and we do what suits us and our dogs; so why when someone says they feel raw feeding is best (particiularly in the raw feeding section!) do kibble feeders feel they are being offended?

The blood test comment is relating to the OPers question. Should I feel offended at that original post? I don't. My comment that you quoted related to that question on if prey model feeders should test their dogs. My reply was basically that I can see my dogs are in better health and condition than when being fed kibble, as has been commented on my their vets. So if their condidtion/health is now improved, why would I feel the need to test. There was no concern on blood works etc when they were kibble fed and their condition wasn't as high as it is now. Do you see my point?
Reply With Quote
Evie
Dogsey Veteran
Evie is offline  
Location: N.Ireland
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,251
Female 
 
09-01-2008, 02:33 PM
Originally Posted by Mahooli View Post
If you don't want people to take issue with what you say then I suggest you don't A) make out your better dog owner because you feed raw B) that people who chose not to feed raw have little or no knowledge of correct diets C) That people who feed kibble have done little research into their dogs diets.
You are more than welcome to pay for all 6 of my dogs to be blood tested to see if your 'theory' about kibble fed dogs not being healthier than yours is actually correct.
Becky
Becky,

I have NEVER made out myself to be a better owner because of what I feed. I feel that you have taken my post way out of context.

I haven't said that people choosing not to feed raw have little or no knowledge of dog's diets; but there are an awful lot of people out there that don't; fact.

Ditto for your comment C. I don't lump all kibble feeders in the same boat.

I have no "theory" as you put it. I do however know the difference that raw feeding has had on my own dogs health and condition than when they were being kibble fed. I know the effects it has had on them. Is it so bad for me to state that I know my dogs have improved health and condition due to these changes in their diet; particularly when I'm doing it on the raw feeding section?

If someone on here came on to the diet/food section and said that they had great results changing from one brand of kibble to another or from tinned to dired for for example; noone would be flaming them for it. Yet when someone does the same relating to raw feeding it gets backs up. This I don't understand.
Reply With Quote
Mahooli
Dogsey Veteran
Mahooli is offline  
Location: Poodle Heaven!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,297
Female 
 
09-01-2008, 02:54 PM
Well that is not how it reads at all, the comment about kibble feeders should blood test to see if their dogs are healthy just reinforces it.
By all means say, my dogs have never been better since switching to RAW but that isn't what you said.
Becky
Reply With Quote
Evie
Dogsey Veteran
Evie is offline  
Location: N.Ireland
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,251
Female 
 
09-01-2008, 03:02 PM
Originally Posted by jess View Post
Would you guys ever consider having bloodwork done to see if everything is alright underneath? This is something I have considered myself recently. Might be interesting to compare the results every 6 months or so....
Mahooli,
The post that my comment was directed at is above; in fact post number 7, not the OP as I had them confused earlier in replying to your message. I'm not sure why this is causing you issues.

I have said they MY dogs are doing better on this diet as do many of the raw feeders on here. Why do you dispute that fact?
Reply With Quote
Mahooli
Dogsey Veteran
Mahooli is offline  
Location: Poodle Heaven!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,297
Female 
 
09-01-2008, 03:10 PM
You said all raw feeders, whatever method, know their dogs are better off, then this was followed by the sentence that kibble feeders should get their dogs tested to see if they are healthy thus implying that kibble fed dogs aren't as healthy as raw fed dogs.
I don't dispute what you say that you believe that your own dogs are better since being fed RAW, but the exact same could be said for my dogs being fed kibble.
Becky
Reply With Quote
Carole
Supervisor
Carole is offline  
Location: Scotland UK
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 45,029
Female  Diamond Supporter 
 
09-01-2008, 03:32 PM
Please note that these sections are only for those people postively interested in the section topic. However if you wish to debate or discuss this topic you may do so in the Discussions Section which is located in the General Dog Chat Category.

Any posts not following this rule will be removed shortly - please do not respond to them.

You may also wish to refer to the Posting Guidelines, in particular point 1.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


© Copyright 2016, Dogsey   Contact Us - Dogsey - Top Contact us | Archive | Privacy | Terms of use | Top