|
Location: Motherwell, UK
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 17,088
|
|
Originally Posted by
sandymere
HI nicky, any Bad Science fan is a good one as far as I’m concerned.
As this is a why feed raw topic it’s a little strange that when I post any info that draws doubt on the subject it is attacked with such numbers, backed by so little evidence. It’s a shame that some feel they already know everything about the subject to the extent that they don’t bother to read valid info when its offered, I believe an open enquiring mind is so important.
To those who don’t understand my use of evidence to support my post, its because I come from a background where that’s the norm, evidence based practice is central and one is expected to be able to evidence rather than just use opinion to back their assertions. An example would be, RAW diets can lead to increased bacterial load to dogs and may be a risk to children that have access to the dogs and their environment. Then I would link to a piece of evidence in the form of research or to a vet etc ie
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140397/
You say 'little evidence', we say we have the evidence in our dogs!
I have researched raw a lot, and it was not something I rushed into so I do not feel the need to read numerous links of 'evidence' that to me, just isn't credible. Also, a lot of your links seem very irrelevant IMO.
Originally Posted by
Tangutica
I've never read nor joined any discussions about raw feeding before. I have to say, having read all the posts on the one for NOT doing so and starting to read this one - the advocates of raw feeding do come across as being rather aggressive in their promotion/defence/whatever of it.
Now don't shoot me down - I am just saying - as someone who has never discussed it or even read about it before - that's how it appears to me.
I had no idea this was such a contentious issue. I said on the other thread 'why should anyone be so bothered about what anyone ELSE feeds their dog?'
I don't understand why those who want to feed their dogs raw diet feel the need to justify their decision so strongly. And also have to say they do come across as 'looking down on' those who don't.
Just impressions from someone who has never thought about the issue very much at all. My past big dogs would have eaten ANYTHING, raw, cooked or even what I considered inedible - all went down without 'touching the sides'!
My present little dog (very little) doesn't like any raw food. I didn't try her on some because I'd read about raw feeding and the benefits etc. - I tried her on raw steak because I just ASSUMED any dog would love some! Ditto liver - but she doesn't like any of it at all.
This leads me to wonder further whether many owners of very small 'toy' breeds (mine is 9" at the shoulder) feed them a raw diet, or is it just popular with bigger dogs? But perhaps that's for another thread.
Raw feeders can just get sick to death of having to defend their decision to feed raw (not just on here)... it has always been a dodgy topic on here, which is why the raw feeding section was ONLY for raw feeders... until it was changed
It was nice to have a place to post without having to worry about people attacking your way of feeding... thankfully, that doesn't happen so much now that it is becoming more popular. But, I am sure that if kibble feeders, or any commercial food feeders, had people always telling them how dangerous etc their choice was, they would defend it as well... especially when said diet, has done wonders for their dog.
I think the 'Why NOT feed raw' thread was totally wrong to begin with... I don't see a 'Why NOT feed commercial food' thread...
I don't think any of what you mentioned, happens here on dogsey... except when people talk rubbish about a way we feed, and then we disagree back. But, I certainly don't see people on here 'looking down their nose' at others.
Many people feed small dogs raw... even puppies get fed raw. Clo on here feeds her CCs raw, and I know people from other forums who feed Chi's raw... So, size does not matter.