On 4/5/2010 3:16 PM, Paul E. Schoen wrote:

"Char" wrote in message
m...
On 4/5/2010 5:26 AM, Gus Gassmann wrote:
sighthounds & siberians wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 23:54:37 -0400, Char
wrote:

Many inaccurate and misleading things, including:
The biggest expense is vet bills
Only if you feed a commercial crap in a bag.

Please provide cites that only dogs fed commercial dog food incur vet
expenses.

I don't often (ever?) agree with anything Char says, but this is a
fallacy that should be corrected. All Char says is that if you feed
cheap food, the vet bills *may* exceed the food bills. Switch to a more
expensive food and, guess what? Vet bills will not be the most expensive
item on the budget any more. That does not need a whole lot of
justification.

But feeding raw is way cheaper than any expensive kibble.

I think it is reasonable to feed a combination of foods. Muttley does
well on a diet of inexpensive (but not the cheapest) kibble, with
generous additions of raw beef hearts and marrow bones. He is generally
healthy and he seems to enjoy his meals.

A total raw diet can mean he's healthy enough to fight off heartworms
without giving pesticides once a month. It's safer.


Raw beef hearts seem to be the best value at $1.39/lb and sometimes
less, with almost no fat. I tried cheek meat (about the same price) but
it was full of gristle and fat and was very difficult to cut up into
smaller chunks.

So don't cut it up, let him have a big chunk. More chewing means more
satisfaction with the food.

Marrow bones at $0.99/lb are good because he will spend
quite a while chewing out the marrow and the edges of the bone, but
there is not much meat on them. He also gets small quantities of human
food, except for known poisons such as chocolate, grapes, and onions. I
also give him rawhide, which he chews thoroughly, and various dog
biscuits, which appear to be made from fairly good ingredients.

Most biscuits are just carbs. You can dry the heart for treats. And
rawhide is dangerous, can get stuck in intestines.


Muttley had a good visit to the vet's on Friday, and was determined to
be negative for heartworms, but was given a heartworm preventative
because of increasing numbers of cases in the area.

Ok, first of all it's not a preventative, it kills baby heartworms so if
the dog was just found free of them you wasted money giving him one
right now. It is a pesticide and dangerous to give at all actually.

He also got boosters
for various items such as Lyme disease.

Vaccines don't need boosters in general. You just got taken for a ride
by your vet. Booster shots can actually lower his resistance to disease.
Many shots last a lifetime. Look into it.

And the vet said his teeth
looked good, but there was some tartar on the outsides, so she showed me
how I could brush them. This routine annual visit cost about $270, which
seemed a bit much, but he's worth it. I figure the cost for his food is
probably about the same as his vet bills, and maybe a bit more.

This is a great example of money wasted. Other than the heartworm test
the rest was probably not needed at all. That $270 would have bought a
lot of raw meat!

Char


Paul and Muttley
www.muttleydog.com

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:35:42 -0400, Char
wrote:

It is a pesticide and dangerous to give at all actually.

It is not a pesticide. It is an anthelmintic, and it is not dangerous
actually.

"Gus Gassmann" wrote

Hi Gus,

Cutting though all the mess of Char, check the labels and you'll find decent
dry foods for dogs. I use eukanaba mostly for mine. I feed mostly 50% wet
mixed with dry at night and mostly dry in the morning and a midday small
noshe of broth. He doesn't really need that mid-day except he has arthritis
so we give him bon broth then and it helps him and the cat.

Unlike cats, there seems to be little health difference for dogs on dry food
if it's a DECENT BRAND. It doesnt have to be the most expesive one. Purina
pro isnt bad. I like to use best I cam afford but I don't get stupid and get
only science diet etc. I think like us, he likes a change in what he eats
and they all have their own flavor.

Feeding raw food, watch that bones can be a serious health issue. Also,
dogs and cats aren not as salt tolerant as we are.

Grin, I'm not radical. My dog and cat look at me in disgust as we eat up
all the dark meat off a chicken as they get the cast off white meat. They
eat it and grumble that *they* want some of the good stuff too! Ok, I give
them a little dark meat but mostly it *mine mine mine*!!!!

Last said, char isnt bad people but she has a one view that will not vary on
feeding dogs. She believes only raw food can make them healthy and will post
volumes on raw health sites that support same. She may have some points but
I am the closest one to what she uses here and I am not her level at all.
Carol

"Char" wrote
sighthounds & siberians wrote:

biased, unreliable nature of where you get your "facts" and that you
don't know the difference between "anecdote" and "evidence".

You posted anecdotes and I posted evidence. Simple!

No Char, while you have some good posts on pet care you have total blinders
on when it comes to basic skills on filtering valid web sites and oneas that
just support your views.

It's like posting 'antiwebsite.chipping' as a valid resorce for only info.
It's not. It just said what an anti-chip person *wanted* to hear.

Char, I am the one most close here to your 'raw fed' and I'm no radical.
Some of it really does work. Now tone it down to get the message out or you
will fail.

I bet you I will succeed with some aspects where you arent. It's a matter
of basic communication.

"Char" wrote
Paul E. Schoen wrote:

But feeding raw is way cheaper than any expensive kibble.

Char, what are you feeding your dogs?

raw diet can mean he's healthy enough to fight off heartworms
without giving pesticides once a month. It's safer.

Char, I worry for your dogs.

Muttley had a good visit to the vet's on Friday, and was determined to
be negative for heartworms, but was given a heartworm preventative
because of increasing numbers of cases in the area.

Ok, first of all it's not a preventative, it kills baby heartworms so if
the dog was just found free of them you wasted money giving him one
right now. It is a pesticide and dangerous to give at all actually.

Char, I worry for your dogs.

Vaccines don't need boosters in general. You just got taken for a ride
by your vet. Booster shots can actually lower his resistance to disease.
Many shots last a lifetime. Look into it.


Now i really worry for your dogs.

And the vet said his teeth
looked good, but there was some tartar on the outsides, so she showed me
how I could brush them. This routine annual visit cost about $270, which
seemed a bit much, but he's worth it. I figure the cost for his food is
probably about the same as his vet bills, and maybe a bit more.

This is a great example of money wasted. Other than the heartworm test
the rest was probably not needed at all. That $270 would have bought a
lot of raw meat!

Good ghod. Should you even have dogs?

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 19:48:01 -0400, "cshenk" wrote:

"Gus Gassmann" wrote

Hi Gus,

Cutting though all the mess of Char, check the labels and you'll find decent
dry foods for dogs. I use eukanaba mostly for mine. I feed mostly 50% wet
mixed with dry at night and mostly dry in the morning and a midday small
noshe of broth. He doesn't really need that mid-day except he has arthritis
so we give him bon broth then and it helps him and the cat.

I would never feed Eukanuba, nor would most of the dog people I know.
The most helpful thing to do for dogs with arthritis is to give a good
supplement containing glucosamine, chondroitin sulfate and MSN. The
amount of glucosamine in senior dog food formulas is not likely to do
much good, and I suspect the same is true of your broth.

Unlike cats, there seems to be little health difference for dogs on dry food
if it's a DECENT BRAND. It doesnt have to be the most expesive one. Purina
pro isnt bad.

Disagree strongly that there is little difference between dry foods
for dogs. There is a lot of difference between brands for dogs, just
as there is for cats.

Feeding raw food, watch that bones can be a serious health issue. Also,
dogs and cats aren not as salt tolerant as we are.

Which has what to do with raw feeding? Raw bones, properly fed,
should not be a serious health issue. Choose poultry necks and backs,
or beef marrow bones; avoid chicken legs. Some dogs, unlikely as it
sounds, don't seem to know what to do with raw bones. (I had a
Siberian that turned up his nose at raw food.) In that case, bones
can be ground up for feeding. Doesn't help the teeth, but they still
get the nutritional value of bones.

Last said, char isnt bad people but she has a one view that will not vary on
feeding dogs. She believes only raw food can make them healthy and will post
volumes on raw health sites that support same. She may have some points but
I am the closest one to what she uses here and I am not her level at all.

I think you'd be surprised, as would Char. What exactly do you feed
that is raw? I am not in the least opposed to raw feeding and would
feed my dogs raw, if I had the time to devote to figuring out a
balanced diet and to purchasing and preparing the ingredients. I
don't believe that the proper way to feed raw is to just throw some
meat at the dogs. However, I have 9 dogs, and I don't have the time
to devote to it. So I feed the best quality prepared food I can
afford.

"Paul E. Schoen" wrote

I think it is reasonable to feed a combination of foods. Muttley does well
on a diet of inexpensive (but not the cheapest) kibble, with generous
additions of raw beef hearts and marrow bones. He is generally healthy and
he seems to enjoy his meals.

Then keep to it.

Raw beef hearts seem to be the best value at $1.39/lb and sometimes less,
with almost no fat. I tried cheek meat (about the same price) but it was
full of gristle and fat and was very difficult to cut up into smaller
chunks. Marrow bones at $0.99/lb are good because he will spend quite a
while chewing out the marrow and the edges of the bone, but there is not
much meat on them. He also gets small quantities of human food, except for
known poisons such as chocolate, grapes, and onions. I also give him
rawhide, which he chews thoroughly, and various dog biscuits, which appear
to be made from fairly good ingredients.

Sounds good to me! Variety diet. The beef heats especially good for him.

Muttley had a good visit to the vet's on Friday, and was determined to be
negative for heartworms, but was given a heartworm preventative because of
increasing numbers of cases in the area. He also got boosters for various

Smart, as one with a post-heartworm case dog. Rescue pup. I am not allowed
to jog him more than 1/2 mil at human speeds and he has other issues. Do
not mess with thIs one with a loved pooch. Listen to the vet.

When we adopted Cash, he was one of some 100 rescue pooches that were slated
to be 'demized' due to active heatworms in my local area. At best, 3 other
found a home. Most will not adopt a pet who has had them. We were lucky to
find the *perfect* pooch and accept that he probably will not see his 7th
birthday. They will all be good years. I may wake up tomorrow to find he
is dead. It will still have been good times for all we have had but i will
cry alot. Heck, i'm gonna cry alot anyways when the time comes. I just
hope it's later so i can enjoy him more.

I hope all that makes sense. Never let someone like Char tell you to ignore
the vet in your area for a preventive needed. There is no 'raw feeding'
that will prevent heartworms. Just like raw feeding wont prevent rabies.

Solid facts, a dog who has once had heartworms is known statistically to be
prone to them again so they go on preventive and it shows that if they are,
they dont develop them again. Dogs who have had them not on preventive can
pass them to other cats and dogs if they get them again and even pass them
in very rare cases (real rare) to humans.

Don't muck with that. 'Ungood'.

If you have *any doubt'* please print this and take if your vet. I'd be
very interested if I missed anything so let me know.

I'm serious. Tke the question to our vet. Feel free to take my post with
you. If i missed anything, it's I bet that I didnt give all the details.

them. This routine annual visit cost about $270, which seemed a bit much,
but he's worth it. I figure the cost for his food is probably about the
same as his vet bills, and maybe a bit more.

Bles you. I pay 35$ a month but dental is part of it. It adds up about the
same. Cat is 25$ a month.

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:32:11 -0400, "cshenk" wrote:

Smart, as one with a post-heartworm case dog. Rescue pup. I am not allowed
to jog him more than 1/2 mil at human speeds and he has other issues. Do
not mess with thIs one with a loved pooch. Listen to the vet.

When we adopted Cash, he was one of some 100 rescue pooches that were slated
to be 'demized' due to active heatworms in my local area. At best, 3 other
found a home. Most will not adopt a pet who has had them. We were lucky to
find the *perfect* pooch and accept that he probably will not see his 7th
birthday. They will all be good years. I may wake up tomorrow to find he
is dead. It will still have been good times for all we have had but i will
cry alot. Heck, i'm gonna cry alot anyways when the time comes. I just
hope it's later so i can enjoy him more.

I hope all that makes sense. Never let someone like Char tell you to ignore
the vet in your area for a preventive needed. There is no 'raw feeding'
that will prevent heartworms. Just like raw feeding wont prevent rabies.

Agree with this 100%.

Solid facts, a dog who has once had heartworms is known statistically to be
prone to them again so they go on preventive and it shows that if they are,
they dont develop them again. Dogs who have had them not on preventive can
pass them to other cats and dogs if they get them again and even pass them
in very rare cases (real rare) to humans.

I am confused. Our rescue has treated several dogs for heartworm, all
Siberian Huskies, which apparently local folk think can't be bitten by
mosquitos because of all their fur. Wrong. Anyway, we kept two of
them because no one else was interested in them. One lived to 15 or
16 - exact age is unknown because his age when he was sprung from the
pound is unknown. The other Sibe died younger than 15, again age is
unknown, but he developed DIC during his neuter surgery, due either to
the heartworm disease itself or to the treatment, and that likely
shortened his life span. DIC is usually fatal in dogs and it was just
lucky for Boomer that a Board-certified veterinary hematologist
happened to walk by, see him oozing, immediately order tests to
confirm DIC, and then call us to bring our greyhounds in to donate
blood. But anyway. Are you saying that your dog, Cash, has to be on
restricted exercise forever because he once had heartworm? Or is it
because of these other issues he has (and what are they?) I have
never heard that a dog that once had heartworm is statistically prone
to get it again - where did that information come from? I am sure you
know that heartworm is carried and transmitted by mosquitos. A dog
that has heartworm cannot "pass" heartworm on to cats, other dogs,
humans, giraffes or anything else - heartworm is transmitted by
mosquitos.

On 4/5/2010 8:05 PM, cshenk wrote:
"Char" wrote
Paul E. Schoen wrote:

But feeding raw is way cheaper than any expensive kibble.

Char, what are you feeding your dogs?

Raw meat, bones and organ meats. Many can be found for under $1 a pound.


raw diet can mean he's healthy enough to fight off heartworms without
giving pesticides once a month. It's safer.

Char, I worry for your dogs.

That's because you don't understand the difference between eating to
stay alive and eating to be healthy. You are somehow under the
impression that I'm the only one doing this and talking about it when
nothing could be further from the truth. I'm following the path of
others who have raw fed for decades.


Muttley had a good visit to the vet's on Friday, and was determined to
be negative for heartworms, but was given a heartworm preventative
because of increasing numbers of cases in the area.

Ok, first of all it's not a preventative, it kills baby heartworms so
if the dog was just found free of them you wasted money giving him one
right now. It is a pesticide and dangerous to give at all actually.

Char, I worry for your dogs.

Again, you worry because you don't know any better. I'm sorry I'm ahead
of the learning curve on these issues but I'm not going back to being
blind to make you happy, that's for sure.

I live in Florida where mosquitoes are everywhere yet my dogs and others
who feed raw test negative for heartworms. Got an explanation for that?


Vaccines don't need boosters in general. You just got taken for a ride
by your vet. Booster shots can actually lower his resistance to
disease. Many shots last a lifetime. Look into it.


Now i really worry for your dogs.

Which once again shows your lack of education. Repeating shots year
after year hurts our pets drastically. And there is no need other than
profit to do that.

http://www.rabieschallengefund.org/

If you are so worried please donate to this fund so that the truth may
come out. The vaccine companies have no reason to test for longevity
because the truth will kill their profits. The vets would lose about
half their income. Who is looking out for your dog?

If yearly shots were so necessary why are states slowing switching to a
3 year schedule for rabies? Such a small step but clearly in the right
direction.

There are so many cats getting cancer at injection sites now that many
vets are (instead of stopping the killer shots) injecting in the leg in
case of cancer so that the leg can be amputated and a life spared. That
makes absolutely no sense to me. Obviously they cause cancer yet many
vets won't stop giving them. Don't you wonder why?


And the vet said his teeth
looked good, but there was some tartar on the outsides, so she showed me
how I could brush them. This routine annual visit cost about $270, which
seemed a bit much, but he's worth it. I figure the cost for his food is
probably about the same as his vet bills, and maybe a bit more.

This is a great example of money wasted. Other than the heartworm test
the rest was probably not needed at all. That $270 would have bought a
lot of raw meat!

Good ghod. Should you even have dogs?


Better question is should anyone have pets that doesn't search out the
truth about these issues?

Char

On 4/5/2010 7:48 PM, cshenk wrote:
"Gus Gassmann" wrote

Hi Gus,

Cutting though all the mess of Char, check the labels and you'll find
decent dry foods for dogs. I use eukanaba mostly for mine. I feed mostly
50% wet mixed with dry at night and mostly dry in the morning and a
midday small noshe of broth. He doesn't really need that mid-day except
he has arthritis so we give him bon broth then and it helps him and the
cat.

Yet you can't tell us why kibble is ok to feed nor why it's "decent". A
dog's natural food is very high in water. Kibble is not, which causes
kidney problems. If you spent one tenth the time on actually researching
this instead of posting here you'd be feeding raw.

In reality, canine longevity and quality of life has been decreasing for
many breeds since the advent of processed food. People who remember the
'old days' when dogs were fed raw meaty bones often report their dogs
living well through their late teens. Nowadays it is a "miracle" and a
testament to the "excellent nutriton" the dog must have received, and
vets and pet food companies claim this "miracle" as occurring often
enough to become 'commonplace'. Too bad most of the vets who remember
the good old days have now retired or even moved on. It seems this new
generation of veterinarians will know nothing but kibbled, processed
food and the ailments induced by it.
http://rawfed.com/myths/longevity.html


Unlike cats, there seems to be little health difference for dogs on dry
food if it's a DECENT BRAND. It doesnt have to be the most expesive one.
Purina pro isnt bad. I like to use best I cam afford but I don't get
stupid and get only science diet etc. I think like us, he likes a change
in what he eats and they all have their own flavor.

Thank goodness you feel you can't afford Science Diet! It's one of the
worst ones out there, especially the ones made for special needs dogs.
None of them actually help the pets at all.


Feeding raw food, watch that bones can be a serious health issue.

Actually that is not true at all.
http://rawfed.com/myths/bones.html
Cooked bones are quite dangerous. Cooking changes the structure of the
bone, making it indigestible and easily splinterable. Raw bones rarely
splinter and are fully digestible, even the collagen proteins that some
people claim are "indigestible." It is mostly the byproducts of the
digested bone that form the bulk of a raw-fed animal's feces. Dogs and
cats do not need the fiber from grains and vegetables, and feeding such
foods only results in the big, soft, malodorous stools everyone
complains about.

"Bones from prey are required by wolves as the major source of calcium
and phosphorus for the maintenance of their own skeletons. Bones, in
fact, are a surprisingly well-balanced food for canids" (Mech, L.D.
2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. pg125).


Also,
dogs and cats aren not as salt tolerant as we are.

We aren't salt tolerant either.


Grin, I'm not radical. My dog and cat look at me in disgust as we eat up
all the dark meat off a chicken as they get the cast off white meat.
They eat it and grumble that *they* want some of the good stuff too! Ok,
I give them a little dark meat but mostly it *mine mine mine*!!!!

Last said, char isnt bad people but she has a one view that will not
vary on feeding dogs. She believes only raw food can make them healthy
and will post volumes on raw health sites that support same. She may
have some points but I am the closest one to what she uses here and I am
not her level at all.
Carol

So we finally get a name out of you Carol!

Raw food is species appropriate. Raw food is what dogs were meant to
eat. There is no man made substitution that can do even nearly as well.