What is the general opinion on doing this? I have been back and forth with
my wife on the subject. I have been reading articles, check out
http://www.thepetfair.com/47487.php

but am still kind of stuck.

D

in thread : "NY"
whittled the following words:

What is the general opinion on doing this? I have been back and forth
with my wife on the subject. I have been reading articles, check out
http://www.thepetfair.com/47487.php

but am still kind of stuck.

D




I did that once, and will never do it again. Numbers are legion who attempt
this. Many are happy with it, and it gives them warm fuzzies in doing so.
MOST vets reccomend against it.

Many have had bad results and as a result have killed , or permanently
messed up their dogs (I am one of many who had this experience)

Your results may or may not be satisfactory. But whatever the results, good
or bad, even if it kills your dog, or permanently maimes your dog (like it
did mine) is YOUR decision, because once you make this choice, there is no
one accountable except you, should your dog be killed or damaged.
If a feed company damages,or maimes or kills your dog, you at least have
someone accountable.

NY wrote:
What is the general opinion on doing this?

You'll probably have better luck if you repost your question to
rec.pets.dogs.health.

--
Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

diddy wrote:

Your results may or may not be satisfactory. But whatever the results, good
or bad, even if it kills your dog, or permanently maimes your dog (like it
did mine) is YOUR decision, because once you make this choice, there is no
one accountable except you, should your dog be killed or damaged.

Has it occurred to you that there may have been a genetic component
that caused your dog to do so poorly on a raw diet? Considering the
sort of problems you've had with his son, it seems a little unfair
to place sole blame on a raw diet. Also, "you are bringing your
hatred of [raw diets] back into the equation." I'm just sayin'...

--
Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

diddy wrote:
in thread : shelly
whittled the following words:

Has it occurred to you that there may have been a genetic component
that caused your dog to do so poorly on a raw diet? Considering the
sort of problems you've had with his son, it seems a little unfair
to place sole blame on a raw diet. Also, "you are bringing your
hatred of [raw diets] back into the equation." I'm just sayin'...



what does my problems with my adopted son have to do with raw diets? Are
you suggesting that I should have fed him raw, instead of cooked, and he
would have been ok?
Maroon

You and your dog had a son? And you're calling *me* a maroon?

Reading is fundamental!

--
Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

diddy wrote:

Considering my puppy almost died in July after ingesting a chicken wing
(commonly recommended and fed in Raw diets) I'm assuming his near death
experience is genetic also.
Yep, I guess that's HATRED of raw diets. I felt I gave a really balanced
comment on raw diets.. Some have good experiences, some bad. Your choice,
your accountabiulity. Now how is THAT tainted by my bad experiences? I
didn't begin to comment on everything I think is wrong with Raw Diets. Even
Raw Feeders qualify {Do NOT FEED unless you KNOW hwat you are doing!)

When people ask about which kibble to feed, you don't ever whip out
the gloom and doom "it could kill your dog" admonitions. So, yeah,
I think your agenda is showing.

And if you screw up, they are all quick to point out You ****head.. You
didn't know the **** what you were doing!

My memory is not what it used to be, but I don't have a single
recollection of anyone saying *any* such thing to you in regard to
Danny.

All accountability when things screw up and go bad have every pointing
accuising finger of raw diet feeders all over the world, admonishing you
instead of supporting you, because you gave raw feeders a "bad name"

That's the truth.. and I'm sticking with it.

It's no different, really, than feeding a prepared diet. You still
are ultimately responsible for doing the research and choosing a
good quality food. Honestly, if my dog did poorly on X brand, and
became sick from it, you would be first in line to tell me that it's
my own damned fault. *That* is the truth, and you know it.

--
Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

diddy wrote:
in thread : shelly
whittled the following words:


diddy wrote:

in thread : shelly
whittled the following words:


Has it occurred to you that there may have been a genetic component
that caused your dog to do so poorly on a raw diet? Considering the
sort of problems you've had with his son, it seems a little unfair
to place sole blame on a raw diet. Also, "you are bringing your
hatred of [raw diets] back into the equation." I'm just sayin'...



what does my problems with my adopted son have to do with raw diets?
Are you suggesting that I should have fed him raw, instead of cooked,
and he would have been ok?
Maroon

You and your dog had a son? And you're calling *me* a maroon?

Reading is fundamental!



Oh because TUCK swallowed a chicken bone and nearly killed him..
Writing clearly is important. You MAroon

Your dog that did poorly on a raw diet was Danny, correct? Or was
there another dog of yours that that could have applied to? His son
is Tuck, correct? How on earth that could have been difficult to
follow is beyond me, but it's pretty clear who the maroon is.

English is your second language?

Would there be something wrong with that?

--
Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

diddy wrote:

And Tuck is his son, but I don't understand how you think sharp pointy
bones poking through Tuck's stomach causing septic peritonitis is genetic.

I didn't say it was (how would I know?). I was asking you if you
had considered that it might. Considering the adhesions and other
health issues he's had, whether or not they are directly related to
the bone eating incident, it's not out of the question that there
might be a genetic problem underlying it all. Face it, most dogs
who eat a raw chicken bone do not have the results that Tuck had.
And, you yourself said as much: "Considering my puppy almost died
in July after ingesting a chicken wing (commonly recommended and fed
in Raw diets) I'm assuming his near death experience is genetic also."

So, if there was possibly an underlying genetic problem that
contributed to Danny's and Tuck's intolerance of raw foods, do you
think it is fair to use that as a basis to hate on raw diets?

--
Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

diddy wrote:
in thread : shelly
whittled the following words:

My memory is not what it used to be, but I don't have a single
recollection of anyone saying *any* such thing to you in regard to
Danny.

Your perception of accusations vary widely depending on which end of the
source accusations are directed.
because I was persecuted for it.

I'd like to see proof of that, please.

All accountability when things screw up and go bad have every
pointing accuising finger of raw diet feeders all over the world,
admonishing you instead of supporting you, because you gave raw
feeders a "bad name"

That's the truth.. and I'm sticking with it.

It's no different, really, than feeding a prepared diet. You still
are ultimately responsible for doing the research and choosing a
good quality food. Honestly, if my dog did poorly on X brand, and
became sick from it, you would be first in line to tell me that it's
my own damned fault. *That* is the truth, and you know it.



No such thing.You are positively delusional

You aren't even making a small amount of sense.

--
Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

in thread : shelly
whittled the following words:

diddy wrote:

And Tuck is his son, but I don't understand how you think sharp
pointy bones poking through Tuck's stomach causing septic peritonitis
is genetic.

I didn't say it was (how would I know?). I was asking you if you
had considered that it might. Considering the adhesions and other
health issues he's had, whether or not they are directly related to
the bone eating incident, it's not out of the question that there
might be a genetic problem underlying it all. Face it, most dogs
who eat a raw chicken bone do not have the results that Tuck had.
And, you yourself said as much: "Considering my puppy almost died
in July after ingesting a chicken wing (commonly recommended and fed
in Raw diets) I'm assuming his near death experience is genetic also."

So, if there was possibly an underlying genetic problem that
contributed to Danny's and Tuck's intolerance of raw foods, do you
think it is fair to use that as a basis to hate on raw diets?


If someone stabbed you in the stomach with a sword and your guts leaked
(causing adhesions as your omentum tried to plug the leaks) I suppose it
could be genetic...... In that most people ARE born with omentum which
tries to do exactly that. Omentum is frequently used by surgeons when they
do microsurgery to plug an small leaks. Everyone SHOULD have omentum, and
it would be an anomaly not to have. When people get adhesions post surgery,
it's generally because there was a process going there, either infection,
or reaction to the inflammation post surgery. The omentum gets really
sticky and tries to "fix" any of the leaks and problems.
Sheesh this is silly carrying this farther just to entertain you.
Either you are really stupid, or playing child mind games.