Letters to the Editor
-
Purely anecdotal
I've never fed my dogs anything but kibble and table scraps. I've also never had a dog with allergies or problems with their teeth, skin or gastrointestinal tract. My two Australian Shepherds go to the vet once a year for a check up and shots. I've never known anyone whose fed their dogs raw food and have only had a couple of instances in my life where people I've known have had problems with their dogs. Several were genetic, others were related to old age. So, based on my experience, kibble rocks! Obviously, I'm being facetious.
Until there is some solid, independent studies, who can say which diet is better. Most dogs seem to thrive just fine on kibble. But, if your dog has problems and raw food fixes those problems, great. I mean we all love our dogs and want the best for them, right?
-
Arrogance
Actually for most of their domestic evolution dogs have been feed raw untreated meat and whatever else they could scavenge, they most certainly have *not* been fed mostly table scraps. You might want to reconsider your professors qualifications.
Sure. I'll take the word of a condescending, self-righteous stranger over someone I actually know with bonafide dog credentials any day.
Frankly I'm a little sickened by the wholly dismissive attitudes towards vets among most BARF folks. Sure, the very people who have dedicated their lives to animals are in cahoots with the dog food companies-- because we all know that vets are only in it for the money. C'mon, people, that is not rational. I don't think there is a big conspriracy between dog food companies and vets to make and keep animals sick, which is a strongly held belief in the raw food movement. Do I trust dog food companies? No. But vets? In particular my vet? Yes.
The truly stunning part is that all of this is coming from people whose knowledge of dogs is entirely self-directed and anecdotal. The zealotry in which people believe in BARF totally puts me off-- self-righteous zealtory in any forms puts me off. It means people are so strongly convinced of something that their minds are closed to contrary positions or evidence. Although I'm not sure if it is entirely their fault, the leaders of the movement have set this tone-- feed your dog a raw food diet or else you are killing your dog! There is no middle ground or room for critical thinking.
I understand why people strongly believe in BARF but the fact is there is *only* anecdotal evidence that raw meat is better for dogs. I feed my dogs a combination of high-grade kibble and human food. They are healthy and happy. If there were a few definitive studies *proving* that raw food is better than high-grade kibble I would gladly do it. But until then I'm not taking the word of amateurs and a handful of raw food movement leaders who are trying to sell books, website memberships and supplements. (Check out the BARF site.)
We're all dog lovers doing our best to love and care for them. To each their own.
-
The evangelists are proving my point
Everyone who feeds kibble or a mix of kibble and other foods is saying something along the lines of "well, whatever you guys want to do". Everyone who feeds raw only is saying something along the lines of "it's BETTER! It's NATURAL! You're a HORRIBLE person for abusing your poor dog/cat by giving them kibble!"
OK, I'm exaggerating. But only a little. Like I said, I've been dealing with people who feed raw (and try to get ME to do it) for the last 8 years or so.
One person said:
I mean, look -- If you've got an outdoor cat, odds are Kitty's hunting and eating birds, rodents and other uncooked meats. Most people understand that this is normal and natural.
My recently-deceased dog, when he was 15, excavated and ate a nest of baby bunnies. Then vomited them all over the carpet. Sure, normal and natural, except that I had to clean it up. I nearly barfed myself (and I'm used to dealing with this sort of thing). I didn't think "normal and natural". I thought "oh god, toxoplasmosis!"
Flea and tick infestations are normal and natural for an animal in the wild too. So do we just leave the fleas and ticks on the cats/dogs? (and before you say anything about putting chemicals on the animal, let me just say that since my last cat died I haven't had a problem with fleas in the house AT ALL--I have a theory that they come in on the dog, and stay on the cat--so I haven't had to treat for fleas in YEARS. My youngest dog has never been treated or had a preventive of any type for fleas.) How about worm infestations or heartworm? Normal and natural, yeah...
Someone else commented about how s/he fed switched his/her pit bull mix to raw and the dog was healthy and young-looking right up until his death at 11 years. Anecdotally (and all we have here is anecdotes), 11 years old is not very impressive, even for a heavy dog like a pit bull--unless it died in an accident. If it was a natural death, than ANECDOTALLY I'd say kibble is WAYYYY better. My first dog lived to be 16 (in a breed that breeders say averages 14 years old). My second (same breed) lived to be 17 years old. My two current dogs (same breed, one a rescue, one from a breeder) are 11 and 4, respectively. All ate/eat high-quality kibble, usually with a bit of yogurt or cottage cheese or whatever on top. And they get table scraps, and sometimes even (gasp) raw bones!
And lastly, someone else asked "Would you eat kibble every day?"
Well, yeah, I would--if it gave me all my nutrition and a controlled amount of calories, and tasted good, I'd LOVE to have my food preparation time cut down by just eating a cup or two of people-kibble. With the option to occasionally vary my diet. Which is EXACTLY what I do for my dogs.