# "That's what the wolves eat"



## Cosmographer (Jan 19, 2011)

The Omnivore thread got me thinking about this, but I didn't want to derail that thread anymore than it already was, hence this post.

Prey model feeders frequently point to the wolf to justify their feeding style. I wonder how appropriate or applicable this really is. I'm not questioning a feeding style here but the reason behind it - I don't care what the diet is modeled after - if it works, it works. And it certainly seems like the prey model works regardless of the justifications given.

But for those that do care (just for discussion's sake), I wonder why they always point to the wolf. Yes, the wolf is an ancestor to the domestic dog and shares up to 99% of their DNA. But depending on which studies you read, we as humans share up to 98.5% of our DNA with chimps. Should we eat exclusively what a chimp eats? Is 98.5% enough of a similarity? Some studies say we are 95% similar (about the same for dogs vs. coyotes/jackals). Is 95% similarity enough to justify using the same diet? How about 60%? - that's how much humans share with a banana. Is that enough? Should we just eat what a banana eats? *My point is, ancestral origin and similarity between species seems to make for an extremely weak argument when choosing a diet.*

Let's take a closer look at the wolf. They live for 8-10 years in the wild (on a prey model diet) which is less than most dogs. I've heard people attribute this short lifespan to lack of veterinary care. But that doesn't jive. People who feed prey model to their dogs often boast about how their dog rarely (indeed if ever) need veterinary care because they are so healthy. This should apply to the wolves as well, right? Of course other factors like occasional difficulty in finding food, adverse weather conditions, etc. can all play a role, but I doubt that they make such a huge difference in life expectancy. (In fact, some raw feeders recommend fasting to replicate such challenges). So if you discount ancestry (as I do), then what else is left to support the wolf model? If they had longer lifespans than dogs, then sure, maybe. But they don't. So is it back to ancestry?

If so, I wonder why people stop at the wolf. Dogs and wolves diverged anywhere from 10,000 to 140,000 years ago depending on the study you choose. If we're going to go that far back, then why not go a little further? Why not go back to the Leptocyon, father of canids, an ancestor that did eat plant matter. Just food for thought. 

But let's just say for the sake of discussion that the wolf model is indeed ideal. Now we're getting back to the omnivore topic - some argue that wolves don't eat plant matter. Yet:

"Wolves will supplement their diet with fruit and vegetable matter; they willingly eat the berries of mountain ash, lily of the valley, bilberries, blueberries and cowberry. Other fruits include nightshade, apples and pears. They readily visit melon fields during the summer months.[97]"

While I don't believe everything in Wikipedia, this quote references a study published by the Smithsonian Institution Libraries and National Science Foundation. While that might not mean much to some, at the very least, it shows that there is some disagreement among experts regarding a wolf diet.

So ... where does that leave us? Dogs should eat the same diet as wolves because: 1) they are genetically similar? or 2) wolves are healthier? As discussed above, these are weak arguments. And even if you concede that the wolf model is best, there is disagreement about whether wolves are exclusive carnivores. 

For the record, I am a raw feeder, but not because "that's what the wolves eat". I don't use that argument to justify my choice to my skeptical friends and family because it just doesn't make any sense to me for the reasons above. I feed raw because 1) dogs on it seem to be healthier, 2) most kibbles are demonstrably unhealthy in many ways, 3) raw is more nutritious than cooked under most (but not all) circumstances, and 3) the dogs love it! 

I'm not trying to pick a fight here (although I do have a lot of time on my hands at the moment, hehe). I really would love to see a convincing reason why people use the wolf diet. It would make things much easier for me. But even as a raw feeder, objectively, I can't buy into that line of reasoning. Yet.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that we probably would be healthier if our diet more closely resembled what primates eat.


----------



## SonjaWi (Jan 19, 2011)

Actually, we don't eat so different from primates, or at least not if we were in the same environment. If you look at the amazonas native tribes, their main diet consisted always of animals hunted in the woods, wild found vegetables and fruits, and even insects and the like. Things like the manjok did not get cultivated in the way they do it now until the conquistadores came in - it was not a development that the natives "invented". So, yes, I agree, a more "natural" diet would not do us any bad. Funny that many of us take more time to look into their dog's nutrition and feed themselves still on junkfood :biggrin:.

As for the wolves, it is proven that they can live in captivity up to 20 years. So, I would say that there are some circumstances in the wild that make the "average life expectancy" shorter. Which those are, is hard for me to say, but I would as personal view say some circumstances that have to do with humans interfearing with their habitats. I don't know how many wolves get shot a year or run into cars, but that shortens the "average" life expectancy.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I think the reason you feed raw is because it is healthier and it just so happens that it's the ideal diet for dogs due to the fact that wolves are the closest extant species related to dogs. 

Why not compare them to wolves? Its the most logical comparison there is. They have the same physiology, morphology (for the most part since some breeds have been selectively bred to be "different"), biology, etc. Wolves and domestic dogs are so closely related that they can interbreed. Humans and chimps cannot do that let alone humans and bananas. Some people say that if two species can interbreed and produce viable offspring that they are essentially the same species (I don't believe in this species concept/theory). But the fact that wolves and dogs *can* successfully interbreed is a very strong indication of how closely they are related. 

The biggest difference between dogs and wolves is the subject of behavior. Wolves have much more complex and different behaviors. They have to because they are wild compared to the "immature" domesticated dog. Is this behavioral difference enough to negate all their similarities? I personally think it's not. 

Wolves may eat plant matter in the wild for a number of reasons we don't know why. In my experience with raw feeding communities is that dogs tend to not do well with added plant matter compared to feeding an exclusively carnivorous diet. Also, dogs fed an exclusively well rounded diet of meat, bones and organs thrive on this so why add anything to the mix? I can see your point of "if it doesn't hurt the dog then why not just play it safe?" well....my dogs get diarrhea when I give them veggies or fruit.


----------



## MissusMac (Jan 6, 2011)

Wolves in the wild are subject to injuries, diseases, infections, worms, etc. and have no human there to take care of them or take them to a vet. This has got to be a huge factor in why they do not live as long in the wild.


----------



## spookychick13 (Jan 26, 2010)

The wolves on the preserve we work with here at the clinic live to be around 20.

They eat raw.

Just sayin.


----------



## Northwoods10 (Nov 22, 2010)

Good discussion

I am going to say that it is unfair to compair life expectancy between dogs & wild wolves because I do believe that the conditions they are in and exposed to everyday play a HUGE role in their lives. Hunting for their food, often times in deep/heavy snow, being exposed to all weather conditions and dealing with other wild sometimes dangerous animals. Our dogs are handed their meals, most live indoors out of weather conditions and are protected from the harm of wildlife. That has to play a huge factor. 

And as Natalie said......why NOT compare them to wolves. Its the closest we can get. And sure, wolves will supplement their diet with veggies & fruit. But, give it the option of chosing a fresh carcass or a plant with berries on it and I'll bet you ten to one it will go for the fresh carcass. Same goes for dogs. Put a bowl of fresh meat/bone/organ down on the floor next to a bowl of veggies & fruit and I bet it goes for the meat. 

Can they eat it? Yes. Is it necessary for their health & nutrition?......I don't think so. 

We can eat frozen pizza, candy & pop for years on end and live a long life. Is that what is ultimatley the best for us? No. Eating a more proper, species appropriate diet is and is proven to help us live a longer more healthful life. 

So, I will feed my dogs what I believe is a species appropriate diet to help them endure a healthy life. And species appropriate to me, is following a wolves diet because that is the closest we can come to in comparison. Also the fact that wild DOGS, not wolves....did eat the same way for many years before being domesticated by humans. 

Thats enough evidence for me to believe its species appropriate.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Hehe, you are fun. I like you! :biggrin:



Cosmographer said:


> But for those that do care (just for discussion's sake), I wonder why they always point to the wolf. Yes, the wolf is an ancestor to the domestic dog and shares up to 99% of their DNA.


The dog is not "decended" from wolves. The dog is not a cousin to the wolf. The dog is not related to the wolf. The dog IS the wolf. Yes, they look different because of selective breeding but they are in fact actual wolves. They have the same digestive system, same all of their systems. Dogs just look different exernally. Internally they are the same.

DNA evidence done by Robert Wayne proves that there is no other animal other than wolf in the dogs DNA makeup. That means that wolves didn't breed with something else to create dog. When you breed 2 wolves, the offspring is always a wolf. If, through selective breeding, the next generation of wolves looks different than the previous ones, it doesn't mean they aren't wolves.

SOoooooo .... dogs ARE wolves. Hence, should eat the same diet.



> But depending on which studies you read, we as humans share up to 98.5% of our DNA with chimps.


But dogs/wolves are 99.08%. MUCH MUCH closer. This is closer than some races of humans.



> Should we eat exclusively what a chimp eats?


I think we probably would be healthier. BTW: Chimps eat meat as well as all the vegetable matter they eat.



> Is 98.5% enough of a similarity? Some studies say we are 95% similar (about the same for dogs vs. coyotes/jackals).


I don't discuss coyotes/jackals ... They are entirely different animals. I only discuss wolves/dogs. Coyotes & jackals are too far away on the tree of life to be a part of such discussions.



> My point is, ancestral origin and similarity between species seems to make for an extremely weak argument when choosing a diet.


We are not discussing ancestrial origin or similarity between species ... we are discussing the same species. A dog is a subspecies of wolf. Wolf is canis lupus and dog is canis lupus familiaris. "_The English word dog, in common usage, refers to the domestic pet dog, Canis lupus familiaris. The species was originally classified as Canis familiaris and Canis familiarus domesticus by Linnaeus in 1758.[10] In 1993, dogs were reclassified as a subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists._"
Dog - New World Encyclopedia



> Let's take a closer look at the wolf. They live for 8-10 years in the wild (on a prey model diet) which is less than most dogs. I've heard people attribute this short lifespan to lack of veterinary care. But that doesn't jive. People who feed prey model to their dogs often boast about how their dog rarely (indeed if ever) need veterinary care because they are so healthy. This should apply to the wolves as well, right?


Good point! However, the #1 killer of wolves is the bullet. Wolves eat prey that can kill them. If a wolf is injured, in most cases he is dead very shortly afterward. Then there is the lack of food thing. There are also other preditors. There are many things other than lack of vet care that causes shorter lifespan of wolves. Another thing is simple old age. My 11 year old Dane is not capable of catching prey now and has been that way for a few years. She, like all animals including humans, has slowed down in her old age. That is fatal to a wolf in the wild. Not to domestic animals. If you only counted domestic dogs that are as fast and agile as they were in their prime, they would probably have shorter lifespans than wolves. Most domestic dogs are incapable of catching prey even in their prime.



> So if you discount ancestry (as I do), then what else is left to support the wolf model?


As previously mentioned ... they are the same animal.



> If they had longer lifespans than dogs, then sure, maybe. But they don't.


I guarantee you if they lived in the same conditions, a wolf would outlive a domestic dog by a long shot.



> So is it back to ancestry?


No, its all the living conditions previously mentioned.



> If so, I wonder why people stop at the wolf. Dogs and wolves diverged anywhere from 10,000 to 140,000 years ago depending on the study you choose. If we're going to go that far back, then why not go a little further? Why not go back to the Leptocyon, father of canids, an ancestor that did eat plant matter. Just food for thought.


Here you are again, going overboard with your over thinking. Why not go back to the orginal bacteria ... in that case, every species should eat the same thing.



> But let's just say for the sake of discussion that the wolf model is indeed ideal. Now we're getting back to the omnivore topic - some argue that wolves don't eat plant matter. Yet:
> 
> "Wolves will supplement their diet with fruit and vegetable matter; they willingly eat the berries of mountain ash, lily of the valley, bilberries, blueberries and cowberry. Other fruits include nightshade, apples and pears. They readily visit melon fields during the summer months.[97]"
> 
> While I don't believe everything in Wikipedia, this quote references a study published by the Smithsonian Institution Libraries and National Science Foundation. While that might not mean much to some, at the very least, it shows that there is some disagreement among experts regarding a wolf diet.


No one has denied that wild wolves eat sugary fruits and berries just as we eat sugary ice cream and cake. Ice cream and cake have no nutritional value to us just as the sugary fruits and berries have no nutritional value to wolves. Most of those fruits and berries come out the back end looking exactly as they did going in the front end.



> So ... where does that leave us? Dogs should eat the same diet as wolves because:
> 
> 1) they are genetically similar?


No, because they are genetically identical.



> or 2) wolves are healthier?


Yes, I think they are. They have thrived for a million years on a PMR diet.



> As discussed above, these are weak arguments. And even if you concede that the wolf model is best, there is disagreement about whether wolves are exclusive carnivores.


There is no doubt that wolves are exclusive carnivores. I say this because eveything in a wolf's body points to digesting meat, bones, and organs only. There is nothing in their body to aid in the digestion of plant matter. Just because they eat a few fruits and berries when in season proves nothing except they like the taste of sugar.



> For the record, I am a raw feeder, but not because "that's what the wolves eat". I don't use that argument to justify my choice to my skeptical friends and family because it just doesn't make any sense to me for the reasons above.


Perhaps it makes more sense to you now. :smile:



> I really would love to see a convincing reason why people use the wolf diet. It would make things much easier for me. But even as a raw feeder, objectively, I can't buy into that line of reasoning. Yet.


You now know why my dogs have eaten a raw diet for almost 9 years. They are all perfectly logical reasons to feed PMR. I can't find a logical reason to feed plant material. Some say for additional nutrients but no one can tell me that those nutrients are. Thats a very weak argument to me.


----------



## 3Musketeers (Nov 4, 2010)

I'm going to derail a bit here, and correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I am concerned, all canids (wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes, etc.) are carnivorous.

They may eat plants and berries, and we may never know why. Maybe it just tastes good to them, maybe it's just easier to pick at if they are tired from a hunt, but the point is that the majority of their diet still consists of meat/bones/organs.

Saying that wolves live 8-10 years because of diet, when they can live up to 20 years eating similarly in a zoo just goes to prove that diet is *not* why their life-spans are short in the wild. Let's take a pack of dogs, release them into the everglades, and see how long they live. Sure, it's an extreme example, but regardless of what they eat, it won't be long will it? An appropriate diet may keep them strong and less prone to dieing from disease, but it won't help them not get eaten by a gator, attacked by a venomous animal, or poisoned, etc.

Going back to all canids, they eat different animals because of their location on earth and/or their size (won't see a fox taking down a bison). One may eat mostly lizards, and the other mostly deer, but as different as their prey are, the nutritional differences are closer than to any plant matter. So, given that said fox which eats usually lizards, gets a good supply of a small animal it can hunt (mice, birds, chickens) it should be much better off than having to rely on plants. 
What if the lizards it eats became extinct? It doesn't automatically mean the fox will too, or that will go vegan. If there are other critters in the area, chances are it will move on to hunting those.

Now, dogs are a subspecies of the wolf. SO, Dogs are wolves, Gray wolves, arctic wolves, Arabian wolves, are all wolves. They can reproduce with each other, they have the same internal anatomy, which includes their digestive system. They are all canids as well, therefore they should consume a similar diet. 
An arctic wolf may not eat the same as a Mexican wolf because of where they live, but both being a subspecies of wolf, they should still thrive if you were to feed them both the exact same thing. So, since the dog is also a subspecies of wolf, and on top of that, a canid, then basing a diet off of what wolves eat is perfectly logical.


----------



## Tekoah (Jan 24, 2011)

What about the wolves of the Great Bear Rain Forest who's diet - primarily in the fall - consists of spawning salmon? They frequent the shore line eating a diet of salmon, squid, seals, clams, crabs and anything else you would find along the shores of the Queen Charlottes here in coastal BC. These wolves are also referred to as "_The Salmon Eating Wolf_" 

The Arctic wolf will eat mice when hares and caribou are not in abundance.


----------



## funshine (Jan 21, 2010)

If you don't like the dog/wolf diet comparison, how about dogs now / dogs 300 years ago?

Correct me if I'm not right, but if kibble has been around about 50 years, and dogs have been fed some sort of cooked scraps lets say max 250 years prior to that (when food has been scarce I would think that dogs mostly had to find their own), wasn't the stuff dogs have been eating prior to scraps pretty much the same stuff than what wolfs eat now? I doubt that any cave man would had been cooking anything for their dogs. If they had dogs around with the help of food I'm pretty sure that it was raw bones (with meat). 

So because dogs "survived until the great kibble" showed up, doesn't it kind of mean that it worked?


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

Cosmographer said:


> But for those that do care (just for discussion's sake), I wonder why they always point to the wolf. Yes, the wolf is an ancestor to the domestic dog and shares up to 99% of their DNA. But depending on which studies you read, we as humans share up to 98.5% of our DNA with chimps. Should we eat exclusively what a chimp eats? Is 98.5% enough of a similarity? Some studies say we are 95% similar (about the same for dogs vs. coyotes/jackals). Is 95% similarity enough to justify using the same diet? How about 60%? - that's how much humans share with a banana. Is that enough? Should we just eat what a banana eats? *My point is, ancestral origin and similarity between species seems to make for an extremely weak argument when choosing a diet.*


99.98%, not 99%.



Cosmographer said:


> Let's take a closer look at the wolf. They live for 8-10 years in the wild (on a prey model diet) which is less than most dogs. I've heard people attribute this short lifespan to lack of veterinary care. But that doesn't jive. People who feed prey model to their dogs often boast about how their dog rarely (indeed if ever) need veterinary care because they are so healthy. This should apply to the wolves as well, right? Of course other factors like occasional difficulty in finding food, adverse weather conditions, etc. can all play a role, but I doubt that they make such a huge difference in life expectancy. (In fact, some raw feeders recommend fasting to replicate such challenges). So if you discount ancestry (as I do), then what else is left to support the wolf model? If they had longer lifespans than dogs, then sure, maybe. But they don't. So is it back to ancestry?


*cough* People attribute lifespan in wolves to veterinary care because wolves are exposed to many more hazards, such as broken bones, open and gaping wounds that fester and get infected, not just because of life threatening diseases. Remember also that wolves are prone to many illnesses that are not food related as well. They're also prone to dying from weather than is far too cold for them, or weather that is far too hot. There is starvation, and when a wolf is starved, their immune system is likely to be compromised, and they'll be more prone to diseases that food may relate to. They do not have care for worms or anything like that. Heck, they can be trampled by a deer and die! 



Cosmographer said:


> "Wolves will supplement their diet with fruit and vegetable matter; they willingly eat the berries of mountain ash, lily of the valley, bilberries, blueberries and cowberry. Other fruits include nightshade, apples and pears. They readily visit melon fields during the summer months.[97]"
> 
> While I don't believe everything in Wikipedia, this quote references a study published by the Smithsonian Institution Libraries and National Science Foundation. While that might not mean much to some, at the very least, it shows that there is some disagreement among experts regarding a wolf diet.


Oh yeah, because if you had the choice between surviving off of berries and grass and flowers, would you be willing to go out and expend all of your energy on finding and THEN chasing down a deer that you may or may not kill? That's why they invented McDonald's. That's why they invented boxed foods. When it's possible, I'm sure the wolves would much rather spend their time foraging on fruits and veggies and mating and taking care up pups than going out to hunt when they could, very well, come back empty handed. Not only that, but if you were stuck in the wilds and didn't have the energy to catch a hare, and you were starting to starve, would you not eat a pile of maggots?



Cosmographer said:


> So ... where does that leave us? Dogs should eat the same diet as wolves because: 1) they are genetically similar? or 2) wolves are healthier? As discussed above, these are weak arguments. And even if you concede that the wolf model is best, there is disagreement about whether wolves are exclusive carnivores.


Neither of those reasons are why we are trying to advocate for dogs being fed on a wolf modeled diet. We advocate feeding such a diet because it is what they were designed to eat. It is what mother nature intended.

And since we're at it, perhaps we should also take into consideration the fact that maybe a wolf's diet hinders them? Maybe when they eat all of those berries and grasses and flowers, their health gets worse because of it? Perhaps they are malnourished because they're not getting the proper nutrients?


----------



## Cosmographer (Jan 19, 2011)

SonjaWi said:


> Funny that many of us take more time to look into their dog's nutrition and feed themselves still on junkfood :biggrin:.


This is definitely the case in my situation!



SonjaWi said:


> As for the wolves, it is proven that they can live in captivity up to 20 years.


I did notice that they live longer in captivity, but I don't really know what they are fed and what supplements they get, so I focused just on those found in the wild, but it's a good point.



danemama08 said:


> Wolves and domestic dogs are so closely related that they can interbreed. Humans and chimps cannot do that let alone humans and bananas.


 Hmm.. I probably shouldn't even go there ...



danemama08 said:


> Wolves may eat plant matter in the wild for a number of reasons we don't know why.


 I guess this is kind of my point. At the risk of sounding like a hippie, I tend to believe that our bodies naturally crave dietary elements that we need or are deficient in. RFD once mentioned that they might just eat such things for the flavor, but I suspect there's a nutrition-based drive somewhere in there.



MissusMac said:


> Wolves in the wild are subject to injuries, diseases, infections, worms, etc. and have no human there to take care of them or take them to a vet. This has got to be a huge factor in why they do not live as long in the wild.


 I'm sure it plays a part, but like I mentioned in my OP, many raw feeders claim that their dogs are so healthy that they never need medical attention. If the wolves eat the same diet, then they should be equally healthy, so the lack of human medical intervention should be a relatively small causal factor for their shorter lifespan.



RawFedDogs said:


> Another thing is simple old age. My 11 year old Dane is not capable of catching prey now and has been that way for a few years. She, like all animals including humans, has slowed down in her old age. That is fatal to a wolf in the wild. Not to domestic animals.


 Excellent! This had not occurred to me; it makes perfect sense and could easily explain the life expectancy difference. 

As far as your other points, RFD, they seem to boil down to 2 issues: 1) Dogs and wolves are genetically identical. I would still disagree here. 1% genetic difference is pretty big, and I have seen some studies that explain how the two are biologically different. (of course, I'm sure there are experts who disagree, so I'm just throwing this out there). 2) Dogs are incapable of digesting plant matter. From what I understand, they are able to digest plant matter as long as the cellulose layer is breached. So small berries that they swallow whole will not be digested, but anything they chew should be. (yeah they might not chew as well those of us with molars, but it should be enough for digestive purposes).

As far as benefits go, I add crushed cranberries to create a more acidic environment in the bowels to reduce stones. That would be at least one example of how plant matter can be beneficial - tho I'm sure that's debatable too, lol.

Anyway, since I'm getting ready for next month's feeding, I find this discussion very interesting and timely. One thing I have not yet read here is a concrete reason for supporting the wolf-model. I know, I know, there are 2 pages already. But they mostly consist of "it's what nature intended" and "why not?". Obviously, these answers satisfy many people, but they just don't do it for me. 

I really wanted to see some facts about the wolf-model that would make a reasonably convincing case in favor of it, but so far, all we have is circumstantial evidence. But perhaps that's all there is. After all, kibble seems to have a lot of science and facts behind it, but I still wouldn't use it. It would be interesting to see how the prey model measures up to some kind of objective standard (maybe something like the AAFCO - tho I don't know enough about their standards to trust it).


----------



## Cosmographer (Jan 19, 2011)

xxshaelxx said:


> 99.98%, not 99%.
> And since we're at it, perhaps we should also take into consideration the fact that maybe a wolf's diet hinders them? Maybe when they eat all of those berries and grasses and flowers, their health gets worse because of it? Perhaps they are malnourished because they're not getting the proper nutrients?


Well, if we do this, it would open up a whole can of worms. Perhaps their diet's plant matter component hinders them. Sure. Or perhaps it's the meat .. maybe they need an all veggie diet. Or maybe eating fish exclusively would be even better. It's an open-ended discussion that would mostly be in the realm of speculation, I suspect.


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

Cosmographer said:


> It would be interesting to see how the prey model measures up to some kind of objective standard (maybe something like the AAFCO - tho I don't know enough about their standards to trust it).


Dog Food Standards by the AAFCO

Wouldn't really consider it an _objective_ standard, though, if you consider that was made by and for the pet food industry with lax standards and a bias toward money-saving techniques (such as the allowance of all kinds of fillers and god knows what).



> As a test a dog food was made up of leather boots to represent protein, motor oil to represent fat, and crushed coal to represent fiber. (Other tests also used boots, and motor oil, replacing coal with wood chips, or shavings) and water. Amazingly enough this food met the minimum standards as required by the [AAFCO] in the United States, having 10% protein, 6.5% fat, 2.4% fiber, and 68% moisture.


-source​


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

*I put my responses in bold to make the text easier to read I guess*



spookychick13 said:


> The wolves on the preserve we work with here at the clinic live to be around 20.
> 
> They eat raw.
> 
> Just sayin.


*I wish I could have thanked that post a thousand more times
*


Cosmographer said:


> As far as your other points, RFD, they seem to boil down to 2 issues: 1) Dogs and wolves are genetically identical. I would still disagree here. 1% genetic difference is pretty big, and I have seen some studies that explain how the two are biologically different.


*
They are genetically identical enough to interbreed. That's pretty darn identical if you ask me! That means that their body types have to be so similar that they can create offspring that is genetically compatible enough to function. Heck, their offspring can even reproduce! That's more than we can say for mules (horse-donkey mix)! 

As someone else pointed out, the difference in genes among the races of humans can be even further apart than that. Would you call us different species then? Would you say that perhaps tribespeople of Africa should no longer be considered human because their DNA may be 2% different from European peoples' DNA? That seems completely preposterous to me! 

We use the wolf-model because wolves are exactly identical to dogs internally. They may not look or act exactly identical on the outside, but they sure do on the inside! All canines have the exact same digestive system. Period. End of story. I'm sorry, I'm trying to stay calm about this but I really don't get why this point is so hard for you to understand. Canine digestive system, dogs, wolves, etc, and their food.

Where are these studies stating that the two are biologically different? I'd really love to see it.*





Cosmographer said:


> 2) Dogs are incapable of digesting plant matter. From what I understand, they are able to digest plant matter as long as the cellulose layer is breached. So small berries that they swallow whole will not be digested, but anything they chew should be. (yeah they might not chew as well those of us with molars, but it should be enough for digestive purposes).


*Dogs don't really chew anything they can swallow whole. Their jaws are not designed for it. I'm pretty sure that if I handed my dogs each a cranberry, if they didn't just spit it out, they would probably just swallow it whole, thus deriving no nutritional value from it whatsoever. 

And to say that they eat plants because they are craving their nutrients rather than because they love the taste is like saying that the reason I just ate too much ice cream is because my body must have been ice cream-deficient (a theory I would love to be true, but alas the cellulite in my thighs disagrees with me). 
*




Cosmographer said:


> As far as benefits go, I add crushed cranberries to create a more acidic environment in the bowels to reduce stones. That would be at least one example of how plant matter can be beneficial - tho I'm sure that's debatable too, lol.


*That's great if you have a dog that is prone to developing bladder stones, then I would definitely encourage that practice. However, none of my dogs are prone to that problem and have been on PMR for 2 1/2 years (except the puppy, she's only been on it for 11 months because that's as long as I've had her) and have never had any issues with that. *



Cosmographer said:


> Anyway, since I'm getting ready for next month's feeding, I find this discussion very interesting and timely. One thing I have not yet read here is a concrete reason for supporting the wolf-model. I know, I know, there are 2 pages already. But they mostly consist of "it's what nature intended" and "why not?". Obviously, these answers satisfy many people, but they just don't do it for me.


*Maybe if you actually read and paid attention to what everyone else stated and look at it more objectively, you would see that people have said far, far more than "it's what nature intended" (pretty sure Amanda said that to basically mean "... because they are carnivores!") and "why not?" Natalie said "why not?" and then explained why not! You can't just take tiny snippets of an entire response out of context and expect to extrapolate the entire meaning from a couple of words you chose to actually pay attention to. 

Why not? Because of all of the reasons I outlined above. Let me put it in a format you seem to understand best A) They are only different by less than 1% which is closer related than most human races are to each other; B) they are so closely related they can interbreed and form viable offspring; C) all canine share the exact same digestive system so comparing a wolf's digestive system and what they eat in the wild to that of a dog's digestive system (i.e. THE EXACT SAME THING) makes complete and total logical sense. That's like asking why we would dare to compare the photosynthesis process between that of a maple leaf and an oak leaf - because they are the exact same thing! 

Geez, now you have me sounding like RFD did when I first joined this forum, no wonder he got so frustrated 

I'm really sorry if this sounds mean in the slightest (I really don't mean to be at all), but I feel like you are just chasing your tail here, going around and around, completely missing the point. I'm just hoping the way I have explained it makes a little more sense to you so that you can put your worries at ease and educate your friends better. *



Cosmographer said:


> After all, kibble seems to have a lot of science and facts behind it, but I still wouldn't use it.


*Well thank goodness for that :wink:*


Cosmographer said:


> It would be interesting to see how the prey model measures up to some kind of objective standard (maybe something like the AAFCO - tho I don't know enough about their standards to trust it).


*Not only are their standards ridiculous (they'd have to be to say that Ol' Roy measures up), but there's no money for the dog food companies for PMR so we will likely never see such studies, unfortunately.* 



RawFedDogs said:


> I think we probably would be healthier. BTW: Chimps eat meat as well as all the vegetable matter they eat.


*Just so ya know, meat/animal based proteins only comprise about 5% of a chimp's diet. Just had to throw that in there. :wink: But that is completely off the subject.*


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

Cosmographer said:


> I'm sure it plays a part, but like I mentioned in my OP, many raw feeders claim that their dogs are so healthy that they never need medical attention. If the wolves eat the same diet, then they should be equally healthy, so the lack of human medical intervention should be a relatively small causal factor for their shorter lifespan.


When you're starving, your immune system weakens, thus allowing for such things as disease and illness. Many wolves in the wild starve for long periods of time, then gorge when they actually make a kill. This means that their immune system is weakened in that period of starvation. Even dogs who go days without food have a lowered immune system and are likely to catch a bug. However, domesticated dogs have the luxury of having food almost every day in most cases, thus they do not have that lowered immune system problem.



Cosmographer said:


> 2) Dogs are incapable of digesting plant matter. From what I understand, they are able to digest plant matter as long as the cellulose layer is breached. So small berries that they swallow whole will not be digested, but anything they chew should be. (yeah they might not chew as well those of us with molars, but it should be enough for digestive purposes).


Dogs have a jaw that only moves in two directions, up and down. They cannot grind their food as herbivores and omnivores do, and to chew that berry, they have to keep it precisely in one spot. What dog is going to do that to get ENOUGH nutrition out of it?



Cosmographer said:


> Anyway, since I'm getting ready for next month's feeding, I find this discussion very interesting and timely. One thing I have not yet read here is a concrete reason for supporting the wolf-model. I know, I know, there are 2 pages already. But they mostly consist of "it's what nature intended" and "why not?". Obviously, these answers satisfy many people, but they just don't do it for me.


Um...no, there are a LOT of conclusive arguments in this discussion as to WHY we support a wolf-modeled diet, including, but not limited to, the reason why wolves' lifespans are shorter, the fact that dogs and wolves can interbreed, whereas chimps and humans cannot, and certainly not humans and bananas (to produce young), or the fact that dogs ARE wolves by the fact that they were not bred with some other species to create an entirely new species.



Cosmographer said:


> I really wanted to see some facts about the wolf-model that would make a reasonably convincing case in favor of it, but so far, all we have is circumstantial evidence. But perhaps that's all there is. After all, kibble seems to have a lot of science and facts behind it, but I still wouldn't use it. It would be interesting to see how the prey model measures up to some kind of objective standard (maybe something like the AAFCO - tho I don't know enough about their standards to trust it).


Obviously you're just blind to what we've been saying.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

Might I also point out the increase of human longevity through the years due to the progress in medical sciences. Back in the middle ages, people were dying in their late thirties to early forties because they didn't have the medical attention that we do now, and they certainly didn't live with running water or closed sewers. They dumped their feces right out their bedroom windows into the streets. They ate just as we do now, if not...a lot healthier.


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

A dog's digestive system is exactly that of a wolf, just a different size. Humans have selectively bred dogs for appearance, size, behavior.. but not a particular digestive system.. so it remains the same as the wolf's. The fact remains that dogs are *largely* incapable of extracting nutrients from plant matter in raw form.. as you can see by the dental and digestive aspects of the dog's body. No grinding molars, no side-to-side jaw movement, no sectioned stomach, no extended caecal appendix, no longer intestine. This tells me that a dog is a carnivore. 

*The point of feeding a raw diet is to avoid processing, so why would I cook (process) inappropriate foods to feed to my dog just so he can extract SOME nutrition from it, when all needed nutrients in correct amounts are found in animal tissue? * 

The fact that people feed a prey model diet for a dog's whole lifespan with no nutrient deficiencies and an absence of chronic western diseases which are found in kibble fed dogs tells me this is the way to go. Plant matter is just not needed and indeed can be detrimental to a dog's health in large quantities.

As for the wolf vs dog lifespan.. wolves have to contend with a lot more than our furry friends. Extremes in temperature can cause repressed immune system and death. Distemper in wolves is endemic in some populations - I read an article that said the Yellowstone wolf population declined almost 30% in one year due to distemper. Starvation, predation and disease all play a major part as well as just slowing down.. An old wolf is not going to be able to hunt like a younger wolf and may die.

As others have pointed out.. this has been told over and over.. get rid of your selective reading! :twitch:


----------



## Jackielyn (May 27, 2009)

Cosmographer said:


> I'm sure it plays a part, but like I mentioned in my OP, many raw feeders claim that their dogs are so healthy that they never need medical attention. If the wolves eat the same diet, then they should be equally healthy, so the lack of human medical intervention should be a relatively small causal factor for their shorter lifespan.


I also wanted to point out that we give our dogs heartworm prevention and take our animals to the vet when they have worms. I know heartworms can kill and I'm sure having worms in the gut will definitely hinder a dogs immune system because they can't get what they need from their food. I know feeding a raw diet won't prevent our dogs from getting heartworms or just worms...so diet is irrelevant in this factor.


----------



## Cosmographer (Jan 19, 2011)

Rannmiller, there's no need to get worked up. You seem to have forgotten that I'm on your side here, just for different reasons. I suspect that you getting frustrated explains your lack of understanding of my post.

So far, everything offered DOES indeed boil down to 2 categories: 1) It's what nature intended and 2) "Why not?" 

You dispute this, then go on to support it by saying:


rannmiller said:


> people have said far, far more than "it's what nature intended" (pretty sure Amanda said that to basically mean "... because they are carnivores!")


 Does this not fall into the "it's what nature intended category?

And the other category of "why not":


rannmiller said:


> and "why not?" Natalie said "why not?" and then explained why not!


Umm.. I really think you need to calm down and read carefully, because you are again agreeing with me. Of course she and many others explained "why not". That's my whole point - that people are only offering negative arguments, not affirmative ones. Just to be clear, negative arguments are those that support a case by challenging the other side of the issue. An affirmative argument is one that supports the case by promoting the issue in question. Generally, affirmative arguments are considered much stronger.

The whole point of my post which you quoted is a search for an affirmative argument supporting the prey model. Aside from "it's what nature intended" (which is not a terrible argument, by the way - just not very satisfying or conclusive), there has been no affirmative argument offered. If I missed one, please let me know bc it's kind of hard to keep track of all the facts and opinions expressed thus far.



rannmiller said:


> You can't just take tiny snippets of an entire response out of context and expect to extrapolate the entire meaning from a couple of words you chose to actually pay attention to.


Ok, now we're getting ugly. It's fine to discuss, disagree, get frustrated, etc. I love a good discussion/debate. For those with open minds, good debates can be thought provoking and educational. That said, I think you crossed the line. You went from "debate" to "attack". You accuse me of taking things out of context. Prove it! You are basically charging me with tampering of evidence, an accusation which I find offensive. If you can demonstrate how I've done such a thing, I will apologize (indeed, when someone makes a good argument against me, I go out of my way to point that out like I did with RFD's lifespan-related post). I pride myself on objectivity, and when someone can provide a good argument against me, I get excited about it - I don't try to twist his words just for my own benefit. But if you can't prove your accusation, I will accept an apology since I suspect your accusation had more to do with bona fide frustration based on your misunderstanding of my post rather than malicious intent to undermine credibility. 

As for other posts about wolves not chewing, etc. I would suggest that when the wolves in that study regularly visited the melon fields, they did not swallow the melons whole :biggrin:


----------



## MissusMac (Jan 6, 2011)

It was pretty clear to me that Cosmographer wanted to start a friendly debate, so I don't see the need to get snarky. However, I know some people can't help it, especially when you feel so strongly about something. 

Let there be peace! eace:


----------



## Cosmographer (Jan 19, 2011)

Actually, Rannmiller's frustration identifies what could be a valid point: that I, as instigator of this discussion, am not replying to every counter-argument.

I do indeed pick and choose which counter-arguments I respond to. Otherwise, I would end up spending all day on these forums (and I spend way too much time on here already! :biggrin1: )

But my choice of which counter-arguments I address has nothing to do with ignoring those I don't like, or anything of the sort. I will address a counter-argument if:
1) I feel it makes particularly good sense and deserves recognition or 
2) It deserves a concession on my part or
3) If it makes a point which I feel is a valid argument _and has not been offered by others in some form _

I may not respond if:
1) The counter-argument is not on point (bc don't want to get sidetracked) or
2) Others have offered counter-arguments that are similar or are based on the same underlying principle or
3) The counter-argument, while relevant, is inconclusive or not pivotal to the discussion.

So if anyone else out there feels that I am ignoring their posts to support my own agenda, rest assured I'm not. I've read every post thus far, some which I feel make good points, a few, not so good. But I just don't have time to respond to each point, example, anecdote, fact, etc. And remember, I WANT to hear evidence supporting a prey model. It helps me explain it to those who challenge me, and it makes my food preparation much easier! :thumb: I support the raw diet - just not the reasons that most people offer for going raw (in other words, those 2 categories I talked about in the previous post).


----------



## hcdoxies (Sep 22, 2010)

Cosmographer said:


> I support the raw diet - just not the reasons that most people offer for going raw (in other words, those 2 categories I talked about in the previous post).


I'm sure I missed it... but can you explain why _you_ feed the raw diet? Since you do not feed it because 1) "it makes sense" and 2) "it's what nature intended"

ETA -- NM, I found it!



> 1) dogs on it seem to be healthier, 2) most kibbles are demonstrably unhealthy in many ways, 3) raw is more nutritious than cooked under most (but not all) circumstances, and 3) the dogs love it!


So why do you need anymore than that?

As a breeder, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot MAKE people feed PMR. I can explain everything to them, show them the science, facts, proof, etc. But when it comes down to it, they either want to feed because they understand and agree... Or they don't. It takes dedication to feed this diet -- and if you don't know why you're feeding and don't really agree that kibble is bad and PMR is good, then you're not going to feed it.

So many breeders say "it costs too much" or "it takes up too much time". Excuses like that show me that they don't really want to feed it... Because if they did, they would forgo those "costs" and "time" and do what is best for their dogs. But they don't.

(that's why I'm awesome... Teehee!)


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

hcdoxies said:


> I'm sure I missed it... but can you explain why _you_ feed the raw diet? Since you do not feed it because 1) "it makes sense" and 2) "it's what nature intended"
> 
> ETA -- NM, I found it!
> 
> ...


I wish I had known about Raw when I adopted a pregnant dog. I didn't even know she was pregnant until she went into labor, but I do wish I had given her the benefit of raw when she was nursing and such. The previous owners, who lied about everything including she was spayed, were feeding the poor pregnant dog beneful. She didn't really eat all during her pregnancy, so I'm sure she was lacking a ton of nutrients... 

I LOVE the fact that you're feeding your babies raw from the beginning, and if I ever get a dog that's not a rescue, I'd def. seek out a breeder who does raw... if possible, as I'm not sure how many do?


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

*Part 1*

Ok great, now I have to quote myself because it seems as though you completely missed the point of my entire post (or again only skimmed to the parts you deemed "worthy" of your time).
You asked why we use the wolf model. I told you it is because they are genetically identical in every way except for appearance and behavior. I am sorry if you think I'm being mean but I am sincerely confused as to why you think this is a negative argument rather than an affirmative one. I'd say that supports it pretty darn well. I said it here: 

1.


rannmiller said:


> They are genetically identical enough to interbreed. That's pretty darn identical if you ask me! That means that their body types have to be so similar that they can create offspring that is genetically compatible enough to function. Heck, their offspring can even reproduce!


2.


rannmiller said:


> We use the wolf-model because wolves are exactly identical to dogs internally.


3.


rannmiller said:


> They may not look or act exactly identical on the outside, but they sure do on the inside! All canines have the exact same digestive system.


4.


rannmiller said:


> Canine digestive system, dogs, wolves, etc, and their food.


5.


rannmiller said:


> A) They are only different by less than 1% which is closer related than most human races are to each other.


6.


rannmiller said:


> C) all canine share the exact same digestive system so comparing a wolf's digestive system and what they eat in the wild to that of a dog's digestive system (i.e. THE EXACT SAME THING) makes complete and total logical sense.


I honestly feel as if that supports the wolf argument in a totally affirmative way without saying "why not" or "it's what nature intended" but rather "because wolves and dogs are internally identical so that's why we use the wolf as our model." Does that make sense?

As far as your melon argument goes, I also said: 


rannmiller said:


> Dogs don't really chew anything they can swallow whole. Their jaws are not designed for it. I'm pretty sure that if I handed my dogs each a cranberry, if they didn't just spit it out, they would probably just swallow it whole, thus deriving no nutritional value from it whatsoever.


 Thus implying that they will surely chew something they cannot fit whole down their throat.


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

*Part 2*



Cosmographer said:


> That said, I think you crossed the line. You went from "debate" to "attack". You accuse me of taking things out of context. Prove it!


You said the only reasons you had seen to support the wolf model so far were "why not" and "because it's what nature intended." I said that they said those things and then elaborated on them. Perhaps "why not" at first implies a negative argument, but you seem to have missed that Natalie went on to explain "why not" in an affirmative way (have underlined exactly where she does this): 



danemama08 said:


> Why not compare them to wolves? Its the most logical comparison there is. They have the same physiology, morphology (for the most part since some breeds have been selectively bred to be "different"), biology, etc. Wolves and domestic dogs are so closely related that they can interbreed....Some people say that if two species can interbreed and produce viable offspring that they are essentially the same species (I don't believe in this species concept/theory). But the fact that wolves and dogs *can* successfully interbreed is a very strong indication of how closely they are related.


Ergo, saying that her argument ended negatively at "why not" was misleading and erroneous. I'm not saying you're a liar or trying to attack you. I just believe you needed to read what she said a little more carefully before you wrote it off as a negative argument. 

Now let's look at Amanda's post:



xxshaelxx said:


> Neither of those reasons are why we are trying to advocate for dogs being fed on a wolf modeled diet. We advocate feeding such a diet because it is what they were designed to eat. It is what mother nature intended.


Perhaps she could have expanded on that a bit more in-depth rather than how she worded it, but from what I got from the rest of her post, she first talks about why wolves live longer and perhaps why they forge for berries. So she says "neither of those are the reasons why we are trying to advocate for dogs being fed on a wolf modeled diet." She then goes on to say they were designed to eat it (implied because of the aforementioned reasons, that dogs' digestive systems are identical to wolves). Hence, why she then "it is what mother nature intended." Because nature intended the wolf to eat as it does and since dogs are direct descendants of wolves with identical digestive systems, it is also what nature intended for dogs to eat. 



Cosmographer said:


> You are basically charging me with tampering of evidence, an accusation which I find offensive.


No I was basically accusing you of not reading/understanding what people were saying well enough and making your own interpretation of it. You need to calm down and not take this so personally because I even apologized in advance:


rannmiller said:


> I'm really sorry if this sounds mean in the slightest (I really don't mean to be at all), but I feel like you are just chasing your tail here, going around and around, completely missing the point. I'm just hoping the way I have explained it makes a little more sense to you so that you can put your worries at ease and educate your friends better.





Cosmographer said:


> If you can demonstrate how I've done such a thing, I will apologize (indeed, when someone makes a good argument against me, I go out of my way to point that out like I did with RFD's lifespan-related post).


Ok, I'm ready for my apology, and perhaps one to nat and amanda would be nice as well. 



Cosmographer said:


> I pride myself on objectivity, and when someone can provide a good argument against me, I get excited about it - I don't try to twist his words just for my own benefit.


Good, then calm down, re-read what I just wrote above this and indeed what everyone else has been saying and see that we have all made arguments to support the wolf-model rather than just arguing against the other side of it. I'm not entirely sure how the arguments I posted in Part 1 could possibly be considered negative, so please explain to me how they are, if indeed that is the case.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

danemama08 said:


> They have the same physiology, morphology (for the most part since some breeds have been selectively bred to be "different"), biology, etc. Wolves and domestic dogs are so closely related that they can interbreed. Humans and chimps cannot do that let alone humans and bananas. Some people say that if two species can interbreed and produce viable offspring that they are essentially the same species (I don't believe in this species concept/theory). But the fact that wolves and dogs *can* successfully interbreed is a very strong indication of how closely they are related.


Interbreeding ≠ "it's what nature intended."



danemama08 said:


> Wolves may eat plant matter in the wild for a number of reasons we don't know why. *In my experience with raw feeding communities is that dogs tend to not do well with added plant matter compared to feeding an exclusively carnivorous diet.* _Also, dogs fed an exclusively well rounded diet of meat, bones and organs thrive on this so why add anything to the mix?_ I can see your point of "if it doesn't hurt the dog then why not just play it safe?" well....*my dogs get diarrhea when I give them veggies or fruit*.


Dogs not doing well with plant matter ≠ "it's what nature intended."

Dogs thriving on only meats = "why not?"

Her dogs getting diarrhea from veggies or fruit ≠ "why not*?*"

Her dogs getting diarrhea from veggies or fruit = "why not*.*"



MissusMac said:


> Wolves in the wild are subject to *injuries*, diseases, *infections*, *worms*, etc. and have _no human there to take care of them or take them to a vet._ This has got to be a huge factor in _why they do not live as long in the wild._


You went on to say AFTER this, again, about your argument that wolves should be healthier in the wild and not require any vet care. You seem to be mistaken when you say that we all brag about not having to pay for vet care for our animals, because really, we mean, we don't have to have teeth cleanings done on our dogs, they don't develop things like diabetes or IBD, they aren't getting allergies as often, and other FOOD related illnesses. I seem to remember that Nat and Jon did have to take their dane, Bailey, to the vet when she impaled herself on a piece of metal. I know Ryou had to get stitches when his neck got infected from a minuscule scratch inflicted when he was attacked by another dog. These are not food related illnesses. However, I will brag that since putting my dogs on a raw diet, I've never had to take them to the vet for *food related* issues. These things happen in the wild as well, and those wolves are unable to seek medical attention.



Cosmographer said:


> sure it plays a part, but like I mentioned in my OP, _many raw feeders claim that their dogs are so healthy that they never need medical attention_. If the wolves eat the same diet, then they should be equally healthy, so the lack of human medical intervention should be a relatively small causal factor for their shorter lifespan.


This can be considered a misinterpretation of our post, which you accused Rannmiller of falsely accusing you of.



spookychick13 said:


> The _wolves on the preserve_ we work with here at the clinic *live to be around 20.*
> 
> *They eat raw.*
> 
> Just sayin.


This entire statement ≠ "it's what nature intended" or "why not?"

This entire statement = conclusive evidence...or affirmative information.



Northwoods10 said:


> I am going to say that it is unfair to compair life expectancy between dogs & wild wolves because I do believe that the conditions they are in and exposed to everyday play a HUGE role in their lives. *Hunting for their food, often times in deep/heavy snow, being exposed to all weather conditions and dealing with other wild sometimes dangerous animals.* _Our dogs are handed their meals, most live indoors out of weather conditions and are protected from the harm of wildlife._ That has to play a huge factor.


Again...affirmative information.



RawFedDogs said:


> DNA evidence done by Robert Wayne proves that there is no other animal other than wolf in the dogs DNA makeup. That means that wolves didn't breed with something else to create dog. When you breed 2 wolves, the offspring is always a wolf. If, through selective breeding, the next generation of wolves looks different than the previous ones, it doesn't mean they aren't wolves.
> 
> SOoooooo .... dogs ARE wolves. Hence, should eat the same diet.


Two wolves being bred to produce another wolf ≠ "it's what nature intended."



RawFedDogs said:


> But dogs/wolves are 99.08%. MUCH MUCH closer. *This is closer than some races of humans.*





RawFedDogs said:


> We are not discussing ancestrial origin or similarity between species ... we are discussing the same species. A dog is a subspecies of wolf. Wolf is canis lupus and dog is canis lupus familiaris. "_The English word dog, in common usage, refers to the domestic pet dog, Canis lupus familiaris. The species was originally classified as Canis familiaris and Canis familiarus domesticus by Linnaeus in 1758.[10] In 1993, dogs were reclassified as a subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists._"
> Dog - New World Encyclopedia


Oh look, actual scientific names applied... ≠ "why not?" or "it's what nature intended"



RawFedDogs said:


> Good point! However, the *#1 killer of wolves is the bullet*. Wolves eat prey that *can kill them*. If a wolf is injured, in most cases he is dead very shortly afterward. Then there is the *lack of food* thing. There are also *other preditors*. There are many things other than lack of vet care that causes shorter lifespan of wolves. Another thing is simple old age. _My 11 year old Dane is not capable of catching prey now and has been that way for a few years. She, like all animals including humans, has slowed down in her old age. That is fatal to a wolf in the wild. Not to domestic animals. If you only counted domestic dogs that are as fast and agile as they were in their prime, they would probably have shorter lifespans than wolves. Most domestic dogs are incapable of catching prey even in their prime._


≠ "why not?" or "it's what nature intended."



RawFedDogs said:


> Here you are again, going overboard with your over thinking. Why not go back to the orginal bacteria ... in that case, every species should eat the same thing.


Why not? It's what nature intended.



RawFedDogs said:


> They have thrived for a million years on a PMR diet.


≠ "why not?" or "it's what nature intended."



xxshaelxx said:


> *cough* People attribute lifespan in wolves to veterinary care because wolves are exposed to many more hazards, such as *broken bones*, _open and gaping wounds that fester and get infected_, not just because of life threatening diseases. Remember also that wolves are prone to many *illnesses that are not food related* as well. They're also prone to dying from *weather than is far too cold for them*, or_ weather that is far too hot_. There is *starvation*, and when a wolf is starved, their *immune system is likely to be compromised*, and they'll be more prone to diseases that food may relate to. They *do not have care for worms* or anything like that. Heck, they can be *trampled by a deer* and die!







Okay, I'm done quoting back, but I've certainly quoted back enough evidence that people have given a lot more reasons as to why dogs and wolves are compared than just that they're 99.98% genetically identical...or 99% or 98%. No matter which way you look at it, people have told you that the dog's jaw is hinged to break through bones, not chew plant matter, that anything a dog takes in that's small enough to swallow whole, they're likely to swallow it whole. And by the way, in the wild, wolves don't have large fruits like melons. They're limited to berries and grasses and the wildflowers and the likes. They're not going to sit there and chew those, and they're not going to get HALF of the nutrition they should from it because they haven't HARDLY broken the cellulose layer that you speak of. Also, people have told you that when studies have been done on wolf scat, most of the time those berries come out looking just as they did going in. We have told you that the digestive tract of a dog/wolf is built for carnivorous meals, not veggies or fruit. Yet you continue to tell us that we give inconclusive evidence and only negative arguments. This is why we get offended. This is why we accuse you of being blind and not reading our replies.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

Cosmographer said:


> Or perhaps it's the meat .. maybe they need an all veggie diet.


Why would you even suggest this? If wolves/dogs needed an all veggie diet they would have been created with the teeth seen in herbivores.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

Cosmo - Going back to your original question, the comparison to grey wolves is the best comparison we have. The domestic dog (Canis lupis familiaris) is a subspecies of the grey wolf (Canis lupus lupus), and the grey wolf is its nearest extant relative.

Most comparisons are imperfect. My point on the omnivore thread was simply: we don't know how accurate or inaccurate the dog to grey wolf comparison is. How satisfied you are with the comparison depends largely on the degree to which you conflate inference with fact. I'm satisfied enough in practice - I feed my dog raw - but not satisfied intellectually - I'm impatient with the slow rate of research in this area.


----------



## sassymaxmom (Dec 7, 2008)

Cosmographer said:


> As for other posts about wolves not chewing, etc. I would suggest that when the wolves in that study regularly visited the melon fields, they did not swallow the melons whole :biggrin:


Uh, I had a JRT that hunted, caught, killed and ate apples from my tree. He 'chewed' them up and I picked up chunky apple sauce poop from the back yard the next day. He liked them and enjoyed the sweet taste but got very little from them.

I do run the numbers. I have the most up to date NRC numbers that were published in Optimal Nutrition by Monica Segal. A previous version is available online. Much of the book is available online to read, not just this bit. These numbers are 10 years more up to date than the AAFCO numbers which mean very little scientifically at this point. I mean just think about that feeding trial that doesn't even need to be done! If dogs don't actually die during the test the food passes? If the dogs don't lose 15% of their weight in 6 months? Wow.
Nutrient Requirements of Dogs, Revised 1985
I make up 'recipes' on this site
Nutrition facts, calories in food, labels, nutritional information and analysis – NutritionData.com
which are taken directly from this site
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/
I also have a few bony meat analysis from here
Raw Meaty Bones Analysis
and here
http://web.archive.org/web/20061016180846/www.serve.com/BatonRouge/nutrition/chickenfeet.htm
as well as a few from Optimal Nutrition

I am completely satisfied with how the numbers come out and that this diet is perfect for my dog.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

When I win the lottery I'm going to start an independently funded scientific study on raw feeding vs kibble diets. 

Cosmographer- you seem to be a fairly bright person....but impossible to satisfy. I don't know what else there is for anyone here to say to you about this whole topic. Guess you'll have to continue your own research, just keep reading!


----------



## Cosmographer (Jan 19, 2011)

Rannmiller. xxshaelxx, I'm not going to dissect all of your posts and show how you are wrong or off-topic on most of your points. That will take too much time. I will however, take 1 of xxShaelxx's post and demonstrate how it off topic or wrong. You can then analyze the logic and apply that to all of your other posts.



> Dogs not doing well with plant matter ≠ "it's what nature intended."


 *Wrong*. If you use the "dogs not doing well on plant matter" argument, then it does fall into the "not nature intended" category.


> Her dogs getting diarrhea from veggies or fruit ≠ "why not*?*"


 One person's experience with diarrhea is a pathetic reason for switching to PMR. When my vet challenges me on not including veggies, you really expect me to say "well, I know of one person whose dog gets diarrhea when on veggies"? Come on! I've read a lot more about raw dogs getting diarrhea than dogs who consume some veggies. That argument is totally inconclusive, but even if it were, it would fall into BOTH categories.


> You seem to be mistaken when you say that we all brag about not having to pay for vet care for our animals ...
> This can be considered a misinterpretation of our post


. Actually, this point is off-topic, but I'll answer anyway just to clear up something. I never said you all brag. In fact, I wasn't referring to either of your posts. In my months of research leading up to the switch, I encountered many many such examples fo raw fed dogs not needing vet care. I definitely wasn't referring to you two on this point. Perhaps these other people did not clarify their position like you did. You state afterwards that vet-visits for *food-related* issues are rare. If that's what these other people intended to say, then you are correct on this point. But who knows what they really meant to say.


> This entire statement ≠ "it's what nature intended" or "why not?"
> This entire statement = conclusive evidence...or affirmative information.


I assume you're referring to the lack of need for food-related vet care? If so, that is not evidence. It is not conclusive. It is only an example. There is a huge difference between fact and example. However, even as an example, it probably DOES fall into the "nature intended" category. If they are healthier on a diet, it is naturally the best one for them because it best suits their physiology.


> Again...affirmative information.


Yes, it is affirmative information. But again, it's not an affirmative argument or fact. Only affirmative examples. 


> Two wolves being bred to produce another wolf ≠ "it's what nature intended."


 Not sure where you're going with this one ...


> Oh look, actual scientific names applied... ≠ "why not?" or "it's what nature intended"


 Obviously, people point out scientific name similarity to prove that they are biologically similar or identical. Therefore, it DOES fall into the "nature intended" category.

I think I might have missed some of your other points bc when I hit the "quote" option, I don't see the quotes you're referring to. But perhaps my response to your concluding paragraph will be a good example:


> Okay, I'm done quoting back, but I've certainly quoted back enough evidence that people have given a lot more reasons as to why dogs and wolves are compared than just that they're 99.98% genetically identical...or 99% or 98%. No matter which way you look at it, people have told you that the dog's jaw is hinged to break through bones, not chew plant matter, that anything a dog takes in that's small enough to swallow whole, they're likely to swallow it whole. And by the way, in the wild, wolves don't have large fruits like melons. They're limited to berries and grasses and the wildflowers and the likes. They're not going to sit there and chew those, and they're not going to get HALF of the nutrition they should from it because they haven't HARDLY broken the cellulose layer that you speak of. Also, people have told you that when studies have been done on wolf scat, most of the time those berries come out looking just as they did going in. We have told you that the digestive tract of a dog/wolf is built for carnivorous meals, not veggies or fruit. Yet you continue to tell us that we give inconclusive evidence and only negative arguments. This is why we get offended. This is why we accuse you of being blind and not reading our replies.


Just about every single point you mentioned here falls under the "it's what nature intended" category. Surely, you realize that. I accept all of those points as valid arguments (some are debatable, but still a good argument). To repeat myself: the "its what nature intended" argument IS an affirmative argument, just one that is not very satisfying to me. Personally, that category is not conclusive for me, nor should it be for anyone. It's a good argument, but not a conclusive one. Imagine people using that example for all kinds of behavior or habits that we don't like - 
"mom, it's ok for me to eat bugs because my teacher says its what nature intended for primates." :biggrin: 

I give full credit to "nature intended" category of arguments. But don't expect me to say they are conclusive, because they are not. They are supportive of PMR, but you certainly can't win on that type of argument in court. (And perhaps therein lies the problem. As a former attorney, maybe I expect a higher, almost courtroom standard type of argument which just may not exist in the realm of dog food).

Oh, PS. Rannmiller, I'm not cherry-picking by ignoring your request for evidence that dogs and wolves are biologically slightly different. Researching for myself already takes up a lot of time, and I'm not going to waste time trying to re-dig up material to satisfy you. Besides: 1) it's not really relevant bc even if you are right, it still falls under the "nature intended" category and 2) I did point out that there is some disagreement by the experts on this so it wouldnt be conclusive evidence in any case.


----------



## Cosmographer (Jan 19, 2011)

danemama08 said:


> When I win the lottery I'm going to start an independently funded scientific study on raw feeding vs kibble diets.
> 
> Cosmographer- you seem to be a fairly bright person....but impossible to satisfy. I don't know what else there is for anyone here to say to you about this whole topic. Guess you'll have to continue your own research, just keep reading!


Your independently funded scientific study would satisfy me! :biggrin:

Actually, I did point out the kind of facts I'm looking for (ie. nutrition data), but the only thing that comes close that I could find so far is the AAFCO standards which someone confirmed to be unreliable (which I kind of suspected).

We have lots of great anecdotal evidence expressed thus far, but to use an analogy, it's kind of like saying "chicken soup is good for colds because my grandma says so, is nutritious, and I know these people who drank chicken soup and got over their cold super fast". I'm not saying that these examples are worthless. In fact, they indicate that there may indeed be something to chicken soup that is good for colds. But everyone would agree that these are not conclusive arguments.

For an argument to be conclusive, I would expect either an observational study of same breed, same health condition dogs on PMR, BARF, and kibble with a statistically valid sample size over a period of at least a few years; or scientific data saying dogs require XYZ nutrients in ABC amounts, and that PMR supplies all of this.

Maybe there are other conclusive or near conclusive arguments out there, but these are the only two I can think of for now.


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

As danemama pointed out, you are clearly impossible to please and refuse to look at any of the facts we have put before you. You can insult us by calling facts "anecdotal evidence" all you want, but that's the truth of it. 

For the record, my dogs also get diarrhea when fed any significant amount of fruit/veggies. 

I take great offense to you telling us that you want us to conduct studies and provide years of data and research that doesn't exist to help you figure out whatever it is you are asking about, but you tell me it's not worth your time to find a tiny bit of evidence you told me already exists that you already read? That is completely disrespectful. You asked why we use the wolf model. We told you. Now you want a study on PMR and in fact all types of raw feeding? No. You asked for why we use the wolf-model as our explanation of PMR and we told you why. You got your answer already. 

It seems like you are just trolling at this point and I am not going to participate any further.


----------



## Cosmographer (Jan 19, 2011)

If I had to choose between "impossible to please" and "impossible to teach logic to", I would choose the former every time :lol:.

Edit: You know, despite you're trolling behavior, I really do believe that you mean well. But I think you get so defensive and frustrated that you overlook some very obvious logical equations.

Whenever I enter a debate, I do so wanting to be wrong. If I can be proven wrong or even just "not as right as I thought", I've learned something and I'm better for it. Case in point, RFD's lifespan counterpoint has effectively destroyed one of my primary arguments against raw feeding, and I am very grateful for it.

However, some people (which I suspect includes you) enter into a debate wanting or trying to win. This causes frustration which in turn, can throw logical reasoning out the window. While this may fall on deaf ears, I urge you to try entering debates hoping to lose. It's not about being right or wrong but learning from every source possible.

Edit #2: I take back my statement about your trolling behavior. People involved in online debates who can no longer articulate their arguments often resort to dismissing the opposition as trolls. While I'm as tired of the same old arguments as you, I got plenty of articulation left in me  so no need for me to go down that path yet, hehe.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

I, too, am over this. There have been many scientifically proven FACTS laid down on the table before you, and you continue to ignore them and post for your own blind and selfish needs.

I, too, feel as though all you are doing now is trolling, and it'd take too much energy to "prove you wrong," because you're the kind of person who thinks you're always right, even when the facts are slapping you in the face.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

Cosmographer said:


> Edit #2: I take back my statement about your trolling behavior. People involved in online debates who can no longer articulate their arguments often resort to dismissing the opposition as trolls. While I'm as tired of the same old arguments as you, I got plenty of articulation left in me  so no need for me to go down that path yet, hehe.


Umm...no, it's because they generally are trolls...

Rachel has plenty of articulation left, but it's useless trying to use it on someone who won't actually read our posts and get the points we're making that are FACTS. Actual, scientifically proven FACTS.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Cosmo, I'm not going to address all your statements in your last few posts because most of them have been answered already. Like someone said, you refuse to see points when they are laid out perfectly for you.

Feeding veggies: The scientific side ... AGAIN .... look at the dog's body and tell me what you see there that indicates any part of the body is there to help digest plant matter. Every part of his digestive system is designed to digest meat, bones, and organs. BTW: There is nothing unhealthy about eating bugs. Custom is why we don't. They have a lot of protein.

My experience ... When I first began feeding a raw diet, I fed BARF. Not the paddies but a real BARF diet where you measured meat, RMB's and veggies. I fed my dogs a "veggie slop" every Tuesday evening. Veggie slop was a pureed mixture of different veggies. Every Wednesday my dogs had diarrhea, without fail. That alone kinda told me something.

I don't understand why you are so adamant about scientific studies proving the worth of a PMR diet and don't one time ask for studies proving the worth of feeding commercial foods. It's been proven over and over with hundreds of studies that processed foods are not as healthy as fresh whole foods, yet you continue to ask for MORE studies proving the same thing. Why don't you start a campaign to write the dog food companies asking them for scientific proof that their products are as healthy as fresh whole foods?

I don't know why you can't look at evidence and come to a logical conclusion without the need for "scientific studies". What you are asking for doesn't exist. We have told you about all we can on this subject. I don't know what else there is. Tell us what else we can tell you other than pointing out some study which doesn't exist.

One more thing ... makes you kinda weird in my mind ... why on earth would anyone enter an argument HOPING to loose? I don't understand anyone wanting to loose at anything in life. I always want to win regardless of what I'm doing. I always want to be successful in whatever endeavor I undertake.


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

Bugs ARE healthy. I went to Africa a couple years ago and had some traditional food which had grasshoppers in it :biggrin:

And I think the reason why people are getting annoyed and fed up with your debate is you are talking like you know everything and are doing it in a really condescending way. These 'scientific studies' are done by pet food manufacturers so they can claim dogs are omnivores and therefore justify the feeding of mostly grains and veggies in their dog foods. There is no money in prey model raw, so there are no studies. Until you can get your head around that, you are never going to be satisfied.

The fact that your dog does 100x better on PMR than on kibble should tell you everything you need to know - that dogs don't need vegetables.

The only great dane over are 13 I have ever met was fed raw, no veggies ever in his life.. and he is still going at age 15!


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

Cosmo,

Going back to your original question, which was distilled down to, "Dogs should eat the same diet as wolves because: 1) they are genetically similar? or 2) wolves are healthier?"

The answer to your nebulous multiple-choice question is "Neither".

Fundamentally, it's the *PHYSIOLOGY* of the wolf that _scientifically determines_ that it is a carnivore. Their entire body is designed to eat and process meat and it is horribly inefficient at processing plant matter. The same is true for felines and ferrets.

Forget about DNA for a moment but consider that domestic dogs basically exhibit the same *PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS* of the digestive system of a wolf. Ergo, dogs are carnivores. 

So the correct answer to your question is a choice that was never included in the question, which is, "Dogs should eat the same diet as wolves because..." they are both physiologically carnivores that are of the same basic size and have the same basic physical characteristics."

If you want to get technical, I'm sure most raw feeders with Pomeranians, Chihuahuas, or other toy breeds, don't feed a meal suitable for a wolf. It's probably more like a meal suitable for a small cat or ferret. But they are all carnivores nonetheless. The term "wolf" is simply used in common parlance when discussing the raw feeding of dogs simply because they are both canines and both carnivores.

Your lack of the correct choice in the original question convoluted this simple fact and created arguments that were flawed from the beginning. You have the art of sophistry down to a science, but your counter points to the fundamentals here hold no water.

Let's move on.

Jay


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

Cosmographer said:


> However, some people (which I suspect includes you) enter into a debate wanting or trying to win. This causes frustration which in turn, can throw logical reasoning out the window. While this may fall on deaf ears, I urge you to try entering debates hoping to lose. It's not about being right or wrong but learning from every source possible.


It's not about winning or losing. I didn't even realize that I was entering a debate at first. We are simply trying to tell you why we feed the way we do, and have provided evidence supporting our ways. I am truly sorry it isn't good enough for you! I suspect that no one who supposedly 'loses' this debate will change their way of feeding.


----------



## Cosmographer (Jan 19, 2011)

JayJayisme said:


> Cosmo,
> 
> Going back to your original question, which was distilled down to, "Dogs should eat the same diet as wolves because: 1) they are genetically similar? or 2) wolves are healthier?"
> 
> ...


Jay, I appreciate your efforts to clarify what you feel to be a misunderstanding. However, I am confounded by how you can believe that similar or identical genetics does not result in similar or identical physiology. Your point is that the physiology is similar. I don't see how that is a different from being "genetically similar". Sure, not everything that has the same physiology will have the same genetics, but as many people here have argued, same genetics will result in same physiology. So your point fits very neatly into choice #1.


----------



## Cosmographer (Jan 19, 2011)

Hi RFD, where've you been for the past couple of pages! :biggrin:



RawFedDogs said:


> Cosmo, I'm not going to address all your statements in your last few posts because most of them have been answered already. Like someone said, you refuse to see points when they are laid out perfectly for you.
> 
> Feeding veggies: The scientific side ... AGAIN .... look at the dog's body and tell me what you see there that indicates any part of the body is there to help digest plant matter. Every part of his digestive system is designed to digest meat, bones, and organs.


I feel like we're going in circles here. I see the point you and others are making, but it is you guys who fail to see my point: that just because something is not what nature intended doesn't mean that it can't be good for them. I'm not trying to prove this, just to explain why the physiology argument is not convincing for me.



RawFedDogs said:


> I don't understand why you are so adamant about scientific studies proving the worth of a PMR diet and don't one time ask for studies proving the worth of feeding commercial foods.


Why should I? I'm already sold on the idea that commercial pet food/kibble is bad for the dogs, and I already have lots of facts to back me up (ie unhealthy ingredients, fillers, etc.). When I make my argument to non-raw feeders, I will use these facts to make my point against kibble. But I have yet to find facts of similar caliber to make my point for raw. Hence my original post. Your question makes me wonder if you have gotten caught up in defending raw and have forgotten that I am a dedicated raw feeder.




RawFedDogs said:


> One more thing ... makes you kinda weird in my mind ... why on earth would anyone enter an argument HOPING to loose? I don't understand anyone wanting to loose at anything in life. I always want to win regardless of what I'm doing. I always want to be successful in whatever endeavor I undertake.


LOL. I enjoy being proven wrong because it's a learning opportunity. Imagine you are trying to prove to someone that 2+2 = 4. When you do win the argument, do you feel happy or triumphant? I wouldn't. I'd be bored. However, what if he proves me wrong with some complex mathematical equation that disproves my position? Well, I'd be pretty excited to learn more. That's probably the best example I can give. If everyone had responded to my post saying "you know what, you're right!" I would probably never visit this board again, lol.


----------



## Cosmographer (Jan 19, 2011)

bishopthesheltie said:


> It's not about winning or losing. I didn't even realize that I was entering a debate at first. We are simply trying to tell you why we feed the way we do, and have provided evidence supporting our ways. I am truly sorry it isn't good enough for you! I suspect that no one who supposedly 'loses' this debate will change their way of feeding.


Actually, despite the accusations thrown around by those who cannot articulate their arguments or think logically, I am eagerly waiting for reasons that will enable me to conclusively argue for PMR.

When it comes to the PMR debate, for years, I stuck with kibble because I felt that the lifespan of a pet was longer than that of a wild canid eating prey. There have been arguments about vet and medical care, but none of them convinced me because again, for the most part, vet and medical care should be a non-issue in a healthy dog/wolf (at least not big enough of an issue to explain the huge life expectancy difference). Then RFD comes along and explains that wolves cannot keep eating prey as they get older and slower, hence the shorter lifespan. 

This single point which I overlooked, has in one line, made me completely scrap the lifespan argument that I had come up with and used for literally years. So yes, I am very willing to change my position. In fact, I've already gone from 100% BARF to 50% BARF/50% PMR.

Why not 100%? Because while I've seen some thoughtful reasons for full PMR in this thread, none have proven that it's better than BARF, only that it might be.


----------



## Cosmographer (Jan 19, 2011)

Unless someone posts something provocative or enlightening, this will probably be my final post in this thread as there has been no new idea, fact, or point made for quite awhile.

That said, I think several people here have gotten offended for no reason. I would like to take this opportunity to summarize the line of argument in this thread:

1) I ask for evidence backing up PMR
2) People provide 1 affirmative argument (nature's intent) and several negative arguments.
3) I say that for me, that 1 affirmative argument is not conclusive.
4) Some people get upset and get snarky and claim there are lots of affirmative arguments presented.
5) I explain that all these so-called "arguments" are really part of the same argument I identified earlier: nature's intent.
6) People get upset and start attacking me and making accusations.

I began this thread in the spirit of learning, not to challenge people's opinions. My point was "please give me reasons that will encourage me to go PMR". When I only partially and not wholly accepted the reasons given, people got all upset and defensive as if I was attacking their feeding choices. Example - *Me:* Please give me some reasons to go PMR. *Them:* Here are reasons A, B, and C. *Me:* Those aren't convincing for me. Can you give me any others? *Them:* No, these reasons are fine, and if you don't accept them, then you suck.

When you strip down all the rhetoric and sidetracks, this is what it all boils down to. *Those attacking me as being impossible to please, or being intent on winning the argument, or being a troll, etc. are only doing so because I do not accept for myself their reasoning.* In other words, these people are saying "if you don't validate my choices, you are ____ " (fill in the blank). I think it is clear that if anyone here is obsessively defensive about their way of doing things, then it is these people. Talk about hypocrites! 

Anyway, that's ok because there are always a few immature hotheads on every forum. I appreciate the bona fide explanations and reasonings that were given by many of the level-headed people who kept the discussion civil and educational in the spirit it was intended, rather than mouthing off because someone doesn't agree with you. Just because I haven't accepted your reasons in whole doesn't mean that I disagree with or disapprove of your choice. Just that it's not right for me at this point. eace:


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

Calling people immature and hot headed is not the best way to talk to people on a forum either.. when we are all here for the bettering of our dog's wellbeing. You are doing exactly what you accuse us of doing. :biggrin1:

As far as feeding 50% BARF and 50% PMR.. well.. I think you likely won't notice a difference in that and doing 100% PMR. I fed BARF patties when my dog got neutered and had to wear a cone collar.. and about the only thing I noticed was bigger poops as the result of the vegetable matter in the patty.. more proof it's just going to waste. 

So in my opinion you are just making more expensive poop. :biggrin1:

Are you feeding homemade or commercial patties? If you are feeding commercial I would definitely make your own as the commercial ones contain denatured meat in some cases and really not the best quality meat.


----------



## Ania's Mommy (Feb 8, 2009)

Cosmographer said:


> I feel like we're going in circles here. I see the point you and others are making, but it is you guys who fail to see my point: that just because something is not what nature intended doesn't mean that it can't be good for them. I'm not trying to prove this, just to explain why the physiology argument is not convincing for me.


I understand that that is your point. I just don't understand your point. I am not aware of one instance where not doing something as nature has intended has been good or better.


----------



## bumblegoat (May 12, 2010)

You are missing one more thing, as there are things that can shorten an animal's lifespan that has _nothing to do with health_; *injuries*. An injured wild animal does not get veterinary care, but most pets do. Also, even healthy animals can be affected by disease, though an unhealthy animal is of course more vulnerable. Again, a pet affected by disease gets veterinary care, while a wild animal does not.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Cosmo: Lets look at what you have done and then you might understand why some have done what they have done. You come on here and ask for proof that PMR is a superior diet. 

MANY experienced raw feeders come on here and tell you their personal experiences with their dogs and what they observed when switching to a raw diet. You said, "Thats not good enough, I want conclusive proof." 

So we came back and showed you why a dog's body is not designed to eat anything but meat, bones, and organs. We explained how their body cannot efficiently digest plant matter if at all. You come back and say "Thats not good enough. I want REAL proof." 

So we go through the evolution of the wolf for a million years and how their bodies work and how our dogs are exactly like wolves internally. And ones again, you come back and say, "Thats not good enough. Are you people crazy? Can't you present real proof?" when we have been presenting proof from many different directions. 

Can't you see how some have gotten frustrated with your unwillingness to see the forrest for the trees?

Now I want to ask you some things.



> 1) I ask for evidence backing up PMR


Why don't you show us PROOF that the diet you feed your dogs (If I remember right you feed BARF.) is superior in any way to PMR?



> 2) People provide 1 affirmative argument (nature's intent) and several negative arguments.


I'll be happy with one valid affrimative argument.



> 3) I say that for me, that 1 affirmative argument is not conclusive.


Give us a number. How many affirmative arguments will satisfy you?



> 4) Some people get upset and get snarky and claim there are lots of affirmative arguments presented.


They are right and you should be able to see why they get snarky when you are presented with several different arguments from several different directions and all you can say is, "Thats not good enough." What the hell would be good enough?



> 5) I explain that all these so-called "arguments" are really part of the same argument I identified earlier: nature's intent.


Please explain in detail how your dog's diet improves on nature. EXACTLY how are your dogs healthier now than they would be on a PMR diet? If you can't name at least one, there is no reason for you not to switch to PMR.



> 6) People get upset and start attacking me and making accusations.


People get frustrated with your inability to look at many different facts and STILL not be able to see the logical conclusion. And yes, most of what you have been told are proovable facts, not opinions.



> I began this thread in the spirit of learning, not to challenge people's opinions.


Your actions say otherwise.



> My point was "please give me reasons that will encourage me to go PMR". When I only partially and not wholly accepted the reasons given, people got all upset and defensive as if I was attacking their feeding choices. Example - *Me:* Please give me some reasons to go PMR. *Them:* Here are reasons A, B, and C. *Me:* Those aren't convincing for me. Can you give me any others? *Them:* No, these reasons are fine, and if you don't accept them, then you suck.


Once again. I think you have never fed PMR for any length of time if at all. You come on here and ask questions, which in itself is admirable but then you refuese to accept ANY of the answers from experienced PMR feeders who have actually seen what you are trying understand but have never seen for yourself. And it doesn't matter how much they tell you, you refuse to accept the word of people who have been feeding PMR to multiple dogs for many years. Do you think we are crazy? Do you think we are stupid? We are telling you what we have observed. I don't know how much better information you can get anywhere.



> *Those attacking me as being impossible to please, or being intent on winning the argument, or being a troll, etc. are only doing so because I do not accept for myself their reasoning.*


I think they are pretty much right. We have all seen it and experienced it and you haven't and you are telling us we are wrong and you expect people not to get upset over that? No one got upset for a long long time but finally got fed up with your refusing to believe anything you are told.



> In other words, these people are saying "if you don't validate my choices, you are ____ " (fill in the blank). I think it is clear that if anyone here is obsessively defensive about their way of doing things, then it is these people. Talk about hypocrites!


NO one is asking you to validate anything. We don't need validation. We KNOW from years of experience what is what. Neither are we defensive. We are frustrated because we take time out from our lives ... time that can never be recovered ... to help you understand the why's and how's of PMR and you just continue to ask for more. Can't you see how frustrating that can be?



> Just because I haven't accepted your reasons in whole doesn't mean that I disagree with or disapprove of your choice. Just that it's not right for me at this point. eace:


Tell us exactly what words we need to say in order for you to accept what we have said so far. The exact words. I'm really curious as to what it would take to convince you.

I am curious as to why you feel it's not right for you at this point and what will be different at another point?


----------



## 3Musketeers (Nov 4, 2010)

Jeebus, it shouldn't have to turn into rocket science guys.

I don't think there is any definitive answer that can go into full scientific detail as to why BARF or PMR or whatever, is or can be more beneficial. 
You'd have to take a pack of wolves(or dogs, or both), stick them in a lab with a very controlled environment, like rats and experiment on them.

I'll just trust nature to be correct. Maybe we should all just start eating bananas.


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

Cosmographer said:


> Jay, I appreciate your efforts to clarify what you feel to be a misunderstanding. However, I am confounded by how you can believe that similar or identical genetics does not result in similar or identical physiology. Your point is that the physiology is similar. I don't see how that is a different from being "genetically similar". Sure, not everything that has the same physiology will have the same genetics, but as many people here have argued, same genetics will result in same physiology. So your point fits very neatly into choice #1.


Cosmo,

Guess what? It's *YOU* that is going in circles. In your first post you question whether 99% identical DNA is sufficient to justify the same diet. Then in this post (quoted) you state that you are, "confounded by how you can believe that similar or identical genetics does *not* result in similar or identical physiology". 

You just proved my (and others) point. A wolf is a dog and a dog is a wolf, genetically and physiology speaking. But as I said, it's a generalization with regards to diet since many domestic dogs are much smaller in stature than a wolf, and because of that, feeding them a "wolf diet" specifically, won't work. But feeding them a carnivore diet does. 'Nuff said. 

And as I stated in another thread that you were active in and, apparently, have chosen to ignore - if you want to continue to try to shake the trees for your precious "scientific proof", please refer to that thread here...

http://dogfoodchat.com/forum/dog-food-ingredients/2329-backed-scientific-study.html

All that being said (from me and everyone here), if you haven't fed RMB/PMR/etc. yet, why are you arguing and demanding "clinical" proof that clearly doesn't exist? Just try it and you'll get it. If you don't like it we offer a 110% money-back guarantee and you can go back to BARF or kibble or whatever jingles your bells. :biggrin:


----------



## Cosmographer (Jan 19, 2011)

Well, the responses since my last post add nothing to the discussion, and the questions that were asked of me have already been answered by me in my previous posts. 

The bottom line is: I asked for reasons and got none that were conclusive enough for me. As a result, some people got all pissy. If you can't respect my decision to disagree with the strength of your arguments (note that I'm not disagreeing with the arguments themselves, just their strength), then there really is nothing more to say. It's kind of sad that this board is dominated by such intolerant people.


----------



## Cosmographer (Jan 19, 2011)

Jayjay, perhaps you need to read what I wrote before commenting on my posts. 

1) I never demanded anything .. I merely asked out of curiosity if there was any conclusive evidence supporting raw. The answer, I now know, is no. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence. But nothing conclusive.

2) I already feed raw. I feed a combo of BARF and PMR. You obviously missed that important point.

3) The physiology and genetic quote u mentioned does not prove your point. The two statements are not mutually exclusive, but I'm not running a logic class here so I'll leave it to you to figure out why.

4) This is the only thread I have been "active" in.

Ugh, I'm getting drawn back in again ... :frusty:


----------



## Cosmographer (Jan 19, 2011)

Dammit, I just can't keep away ... I just came across this article that reminded me of y'all. 

Should You Eat like a Caveman?


----------



## hcdoxies (Sep 22, 2010)

This guy came here looking to "start something" - after reading through all of his snobby posts in which he speaks down to everyone, it's clear he is simply bored with life.


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

Cosmographer said:


> Jayjay, perhaps you need to read what I wrote before commenting on my posts.
> 
> 1) I never demanded anything .. I merely asked out of curiosity if there was any conclusive evidence supporting raw. The answer, I now know, is no. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence. But nothing conclusive.


And we have confirmed that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that PMR is better. There is no conclusive scientific evidence that BARF is better or that kibble is better either. How many different ways must this be stated?



Cosmographer said:


> 2) I already feed raw. I feed a combo of BARF and PMR. You obviously missed that important point.


I didn't "miss" anything. I didn't suggest you feed PMR and BARF. I suggested you feed PMR exclusively. The diet you are feeding your dog is being perverted by the BARF part. Try PMR for awhile before you pass judgment on it. You also stated in January that you have only been feeding raw for a month. You haven't been doing it long enough to see the benefits yet anyway. 



Cosmographer said:


> 3) The physiology and genetic quote u mentioned does not prove your point. The two statements are not mutually exclusive, but I'm not running a logic class here so I'll leave it to you to figure out why.


Oh brother. Another academic snob.



Cosmographer said:


> 4) This is the only thread I have been "active" in.


Really? So your two posts in this thread don't count? This WAS the thread, after all, that provided the impetus for this ridiculous thread we're in right now, right?

http://dogfoodchat.com/forum/raw-feeding/6453-dogs-omnivores.html

It's clear that you just enjoy arguing for the sake of an argument. This thread may have appeared to have been started for the legitimate purpose of discovery but it's clear now that it was really started with eristic intentions. It's been fun though Cosmo. Welcome to the forum.

JayJay signing off (this ridiculous thread)


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

Yeah I'm just gonna close this thread now since Cosmographer can't seem to stop insulting everyone on this forum. Hopefully if this is the only thread he's active in, then if the thread becomes closed/inactive.... well a girl can dream anyway


----------

