# Question From a Future Vet



## karisma11

I've seen on this forum and other forums that some raw feeders feel angry, insulted, or alienated from their vets when their vets warn them of the dangers of feeding raw, even going so far as to find another veterinarian. I'd like to offer a different perspective, as well as get some honest input on how I, a future vet, can best handle these situations. 

I am an uber responsible person- almost to a fault. I have never gone a single day without car/health insurance. I've never paid a single bill even a day late. I've never forgotten a birthday- ever. I'm almost anal retentive about things, including my part time job as a technician- I document EVERYTHING. And I am already visualizing myself 2 years down the road as a DVM- fearing lawsuits, and documenting, documenting, documenting. With my license on the line, I'm not about to take any chances, especially when many people like to sue for anything.

When getting a history from a new client and asking about diet, if someone tells me they feed raw, I do not know what to say that includes what I need to say about the risks, without potentially offending and losing that client. In order to cover my ass, I feel I need to be able to document in the medical record that I covered risks with the client, so that if something happens with that animal- I can't be sued. 

I would like to be able to say something comprehensive such as, "It looks like your dog is doing well on that diet. However, there are some risks associated with raw feeding, such as making sure the diet is complete and balanced, risk of either your pet or yourself acquiring an infectious disease from raw meat, GI perforations and broken teeth." I know that many of you feel strongly about feeding raw, and that's fine. I certainly don't want to get into any arguments about raw feeding with any clients. I just feel I need to make sure- for my own sake- that I mention those risks and document it in the medical record, so that in the event something *does* happen, I have it well documented. I've heard of some vets going so far as to make clients sign a form stating their vet has gone over the risks, however I feel that is going overboard and may alienate people more. 

How would you feel as a client if your vet said something similar to what I suggested above? Or is there a better way that I can get across what I need to say, in a way that is more appealing to you?


----------



## xellil

You mean, you are afraid of being sued because a client feeds their dog raw meat?

What in the heck is this world coming to?

By the way, my dogs have two vets - a regular one and a cardiologist. Both support the diet. Neither have felt it necessary to warn me about anything.


----------



## karisma11

Yes. If a person acquired salmonella poisoning after improper handing of raw meat for their dog, and the vet did not warn them of the risks, this is a potential lawsuit. This is just how the world works. I probably would not be sued if a dog suffered an intestinal perforation, however I would certainly have an angry client and if they complained to the Board, I may have to answer to them.


----------



## SerenityFL

karisma11 said:


> I've seen on this forum and other forums that some raw feeders feel angry, insulted, or alienated from their vets when their vets warn them of the dangers of feeding raw, even going so far as to find another veterinarian. I'd like to offer a different perspective, as well as get some honest input on how I, a future vet, can best handle these situations.
> 
> I am an uber responsible person- almost to a fault. I have never gone a single day without car/health insurance. I've never paid a single bill even a day late. I've never forgotten a birthday- ever. I'm almost anal retentive about things, including my part time job as a technician- I document EVERYTHING. And I am already visualizing myself 2 years down the road as a DVM- fearing lawsuits, and documenting, documenting, documenting. With my license on the line, I'm not about to take any chances, especially when many people like to sue for anything.
> 
> When getting a history from a new client and asking about diet, if someone tells me they feed raw, I do not know what to say that includes what I need to say about the risks, without potentially offending and losing that client. In order to cover my ass, I feel I need to be able to document in the medical record that I covered risks with the client, so that if something happens with that animal- I can't be sued.
> 
> I would like to be able to say something comprehensive such as, "It looks like your dog is doing well on that diet. However, there are some risks associated with raw feeding, such as making sure the diet is complete and balanced, risk of either your pet or yourself acquiring an infectious disease from raw meat, GI perforations and broken teeth." I know that many of you feel strongly about feeding raw, and that's fine. I certainly don't want to get into any arguments about raw feeding with any clients. I just feel I need to make sure- for my own sake- that I mention those risks and document it in the medical record, so that in the event something *does* happen, I have it well documented. I've heard of some vets going so far as to make clients sign a form stating their vet has gone over the risks, however I feel that is going overboard and may alienate people more.
> 
> How would you feel as a client if your vet said something similar to what I suggested above? Or is there a better way that I can get across what I need to say, in a way that is more appealing to you?


To be very honest with you, I would still be upset with my vet. The reason? Because it assumes that I have not done any research at all in to raw feeding before I started.

I'm well aware that some bones can break teeth, (weight bearing bones from a larger animal), and I'm well aware of what they need in order to have a balanced meal.

What would tick me off is telling me I'm going to get an infectious disease from raw meat. If you're going to say that to raw feeders, you may as well say it to every single client who comes in to your place who eats meat at all because at some point, those people prepare raw meat to cook for dinner. I would also state that I know how to wash my hands, I know how to clean my dishes and utensils and I know how to disenfect the counter tops when I am done preparing their food. JUST like I do when I prepare my own food.

The only way I would get any sort of infectious disease from raw meat is if I decided to get down on all fours and start eating dog poo which I have no intention of doing. As for dogs, it goes through their system far too fast for it to ever take hold. So I would assume that my vet hasn't done the proper research.

I would also wonder what on earth the vet is talking about when they say, "perforated GI tract" because I don't feed cooked bones, I feed raw bones. I know that my dogs can handle raw bones. I know that feeding cooked bones can cause a perforated GI tract...which is why you don't feed an animal cooked bones.

I would then question my vet what on earth did they think wolves did for millions of years? And what did the vet think dogs ate before commercial dog food every became available.

And then I would be highly offended that they wanted to "warn" me about something that they clearly have not researched.

Do you know what is most appealing to me? My vet. And his vet techs. Do you know why? Because they asked me what I feed. They've asked me twice, on two separate visits. I tell them. The first time, they just notated it. The second time, the vet tech told me his uncle feeds raw. (Although it was really BARF cause there was veggies included). But neither time did the vet feel the need to tell me that I needed to watch out for this or that. My vet simply takes care of what I came in for. My vet even went so far as to show me the x-rays and give me an anatomy lesson on my dog's wrists. My vet cares and I can tell he cares because he most certainly enjoys educating but he knows enough not to get in to the business of what people feed their pets.

NOW, If I said, "I feed my dog chocolate all day long" by all means, warn me. But raw feeding? Please do full research, have FACTS to back you up and give the client the benefit of the doubt that they have done their own research. 

When someone talks to me like that I get the impression that they think I'm stupid and that's the fastest way to get me to find another vet. Seriously.

Now, this is not directed AT you, I'm simply answering your question, "How would you feel as a client if your vet said something similar...?"


----------



## Northwoods10

First I would highly suggest that you educate yourself on the diet before giving any advice. Is this something you plan on doing? If so, that will set you apart from many of the vets out there who know little to nothing about the raw diet. 

I personally think that any client that is feeding a raw diet will be 10x more likely to listen and comprehend what you have for advice if you know what you're talking about. Its a HUGE turn off for any raw feeder to go to a vet to be told "Bones are dangerous" or the like. 

Secondly, if you were to have an in depth conversation with me about raw and GENTLY suggest any risks that may be there, I would have no issue with you. But I REALLY don't think you need to be that in depth with a particular way of feeding. 

Do most vets now tell us that "by feeding Beneful, you understand that you are feeding your dog absolute crap that is full of fillers & food coloring, right?" No...they don't. Choosing a food is the owners choice, not yours, nor would it be your fault should anything happen related to what they decide to feed.


----------



## xellil

Are there any documented cases of someone suing their vet for catching salmonella from raw meat? And if so, who won? I think you worry too much. i would be MORE worried about not killing their dog with medical treatment YOU provide.

Everything is a POTENTIAL lawsuit. I could sue anyone for anything. Doesn't mean I have a case.


----------



## karisma11

@Serenity: I can't make any assumptions about you as an individual. When I have a client walk through my door, I have no idea how much/little they know or think they know about raw feeding. Would you suggest instead of a direct warning of those risks, I ask if they are aware of them as risks?


----------



## xellil

I don't think most of us would agree that what you think of as risks, we think of as risks. That's very subjective.

I loathe it when a vet tries to teach me about nutrition - and this was WAY before I started feeding raw. Loathe it.


----------



## karisma11

Northwoods10 said:


> Do most vets now tell us that "by feeding Beneful, you understand that you are feeding your dog absolute crap that is full of fillers & food coloring, right?" No...they don't. Choosing a food is the owners choice, not yours, nor would it be your fault should anything happen related to what they decide to feed.


I don't need to worry about warning about Beneful because any potential litigation would be directed at the company, not me


----------



## SerenityFL

karisma11 said:


> @Serenity: I can't make any assumptions about you as an individual. When I have a client walk through my door, I have no idea how much/little they know or think they know about raw feeding. Would you suggest instead of a direct warning of those risks, I ask if they are aware of them as risks?


To be completely and perfectly honest with you, I think you should not say anything. Just notate it. It is not for you to say what they choose to feed their pets be it pet food, (kibble), BARF diet or raw diet. 

Most clients that walk through your door have NO clue about what they are giving their dogs in the form of kibble. The ones who feed raw, I can almost guarantee you they have done their research so, again, I really don't think they need any sort of warnings. If you want to warn someone of something, let them know what they are feeding their pets when they give them kibble. THAT is what should be warned against.


----------



## luvMyBRT

I just think that you need to educate yourself with raw feeding....whether you agree with it or not. This way if a client comes in you will actually know what you are talking about when it comes to raw. Maybe even write up something to give to people with information about raw and dog nutrition (if the client is interested in raw, etc).


----------



## xellil

I don't understand why you are asking these questions at all. Don't you have more important things to worry about than whether you will get sued if a client gets salmonella from handling raw meat? Like how to pass your tests?

Me smells a rat.


----------



## Northwoods10

So wouldn't any potential litigation be directed to the producers of the meat we feed our dogs then too? 

Honestly, if you want to avoid a lawsuit, its simple. Be honest with people. But in order to be honest, you have to know what you're talking about. Just a tip.


----------



## karisma11

SerenityFL said:


> To be completely and perfectly honest with you, I think you should not say anything. Just notate it. It is not for you to say what they choose to feed their pets be it pet food, (kibble), BARF diet or raw diet.
> 
> Most clients that walk through your door have NO clue about what they are giving their dogs in the form of kibble. The ones who feed raw, I can almost guarantee you they have done their research so, again, I really don't think they need any sort of warnings. If you want to warn someone of something, let them know what they are feeding their pets when they give them kibble. THAT is what should be warned against.


I can't make that assumption though. Because you have done your research, does not mean that others have. The veterinary oath states that we must protect public health. And things that seem like common sense still need to be stated, in our lawsuit happy society. This is why we have warnings on plastic bags to not place them over children's heads, and not to use the toaster in the bathtub. Someone out there has done it!


----------



## SerenityFL

karisma11 said:


> I can't make that assumption though. Because you have done your research, does not mean that others have. The veterinary oath states that we must protect public health. And things that seem like common sense still need to be stated, in our lawsuit happy society. This is why we have warnings on plastic bags to not place them over children's heads, and not to use the toaster in the bathtub. Someone out there has done it!


But you are assuming that they have not. 

And I really don't think it's your place to tell people how to handle raw meat. As I said in my earlier post, if you're going to do that to raw feeders, you should do it to every single client who comes in and is a meat eater if you're so worried about protecting public health.


----------



## Ania's Mommy

Instead of figuring out ways to "cover your ass", wouldn't your time be better spent researching the diet you seem to be so afraid of? I believe that once you do, you will see that the "risks" you feel the need to warn your clients about are baseless when a raw diet is done properly.

I don't know that I would see a vet who was more concerned with being PC and "covering [their] ass" than they were about practicing educated, informed medicine.


----------



## karisma11

Northwoods10 said:


> So wouldn't any potential litigation be directed to the producers of the meat we feed our dogs then too?
> 
> Honestly, if you want to avoid a lawsuit, its simple. Be honest with people. But in order to be honest, you have to know what you're talking about. Just a tip.


That's why raw meat states it needs to be cooked to X number of degrees before eating. I thought I had a decent statement that included what I feel is necessary to state risks. However, it seems that stating anything bad about raw feeding is objectionable. Am I correct in that assessment?


----------



## karisma11

Ania's Mommy said:


> Instead of figuring out ways to "cover your ass", wouldn't your time be better spent researching the diet you seem to be so afraid of? I believe that once you do, you will see that the "risks" you feel the need to warn your clients about are baseless when a raw diet is done improperly.
> 
> I don't know that I would see a vet who was more concerned with being PC and "covering [their] ass" than they were about practicing educated, informed medicine.


I've done research. Those are the risks. The risks may be large or small, but they are there.


----------



## Northwoods10

karisma11 said:


> That's why raw meat states it needs to be cooked to X number of degrees before eating. I thought I had a decent statement that included what I feel is necessary to state risks. However, it seems that stating anything bad about raw feeding is objectionable. Am I correct in that assessment?


I also thought you came in here to not argue about raw. 

Troll??? 

Get your facts straight before you try and have BEEF with raw feeders. 

Feel free to state all you want about raw, but until you educate yourself on it and KNOW just as much if not more than the average raw feeder, be prepared to hear what they have to say.


----------



## Tobi

karisma11 said:


> @Serenity: I can't make any assumptions about you as an individual. When I have a client walk through my door, I have no idea how much/little they know or think they know about raw feeding. Would you suggest instead of a direct warning of those risks, I ask if they are aware of them as risks?


We discussed the Raw diet with our vet, She admitted that she didn't have much knowledge in the area, so she did some homework. She doesn't disagree with the diet she just doesn't recommend it to everybody as they may not do things right and that is where the lawsuit would come from. Most raw feeders are going to do their own homework as i did and most of the people on this board. My vet approached me in the same way you explained an I find it is just fine, She made sure we knew the risks and that we were willing to run them for the dog.

On a side note, if a vet did disagree with the diet it would be nice if they would let them know in a manner that wasn't fear based etc, disease/broken teeth/infection/perforations... the list goes on, you should also inform about the benefits as well, and the risks associated with kibble feeding.


----------



## SerenityFL

karisma11 said:


> I've done research. Those are the risks. The risks may be large or small, but they are there.


You've done the research? Really? Please, tell me, what research has told you that dogs food must be cooked to "x" degrees before feeding otherwise they'll get salmonella? PLEASE share this with me, I would LOVE to see it.


----------



## Northwoods10

SerenityFL said:


> You've done the research? Really? Please, tell me, what research has told you that dogs food must be cooked to "x" degrees before feeding otherwise they'll get salmonella? PLEASE share this with me, I would LOVE to see it.


Me too! 

Please, tell us what you know about the raw diet.


----------



## karisma11

Tobi said:


> We discussed the Raw diet with our vet, She admitted that she didn't have much knowledge in the area, so she did some homework. She doesn't disagree with the diet she just doesn't recommend it to everybody as they may not do things right and that is where the lawsuit would come from. Most raw feeders are going to do their own homework as i did and most of the people on this board. My vet approached me in the same way you explained an I find it is just fine, She made sure we knew the risks and that we were willing to run them for the dog.


Thank you! This is very helpful.


----------



## karisma11

SerenityFL said:


> You've done the research? Really? Please, tell me, what research has told you that dogs food must be cooked to "x" degrees before feeding otherwise they'll get salmonella? PLEASE share this with me, I would LOVE to see it.


Raw meat for humans states it needs to be cooked to X degrees. That's what I was referring to. Settle down.


----------



## Northwoods10

If you go back and read my first response to you, it was very similar to Tobi's. 

You asked. Be prepared for all types of replies. 

And please, do share with us what you know about raw and how you are so inclined to know the risks vs. benefits.


----------



## SerenityFL

karisma11 said:


> Raw meat for humans states it needs to be cooked to X degrees. That's what I was referring to. Settle down.


Don't tell me to settle down. You implied that raw meat must be cooked to x degrees and did we know the risks of salmonella for dogs and people because of raw meat. Don't back peddle now.


----------



## Northwoods10

karisma11 said:


> Raw meat for humans states it needs to be cooked to X degrees. That's what I was referring to. Settle down.


You won't keep many clients with that attitude.


----------



## xellil

Come on you guys - this is a TROLL rabble rousing the raw feeders to get a quote or two for a paper to raise their grade to a C

Real vets don't worry about such stupid stuff. Wanna be vets certainly don't


----------



## Northwoods10

xellil said:


> Come on you guys - this is a TROLL rabble rousing the raw feeders to get a quote or two for a paper to raise their grade to a C
> 
> Real vets don't worry about such stupid stuff. Wanna be vets certainly don't


I agree completely...I just am the type that if you want to stir the pot....be prepared to take the wrath! Its just part of their game!


----------



## karisma11

Northwoods10 said:


> If you go back and read my first response to you, it was very similar to Tobi's.
> 
> You asked. Be prepared for all types of replies.
> 
> And please, do share with us what you know about raw and how you are so inclined to know the risks vs. benefits.


I have no interest in a never ending debate on raw. That's not the purpose of this thread. I refuse to get sucked in to it. I simply asked for opinions on how best to state risks so I can cover my ass. Period. I got one direct, helpful response from one person on here, and that's fine. The rest of you seem to think that I should say nothing at all (which is not an option for me). However that is still helpful to know that there are going to be diehard clients that will refuse to hear any risk associated with raw.


----------



## Ania's Mommy

Ahhh NOW I remember you. http://dogfoodchat.com/forum/introduce-yourself/6819-hello-2nd-year-vet-student.html


----------



## luvMyBRT

karisma11 said:


> Raw meat for humans states it needs to be cooked to X degrees. That's what I was referring to. Settle down.


Since when do we feed raw meat to humans??? I thought we were referring to feeding raw meat to DOGS....you know....CARNIVORES. :twitch:


----------



## Northwoods10

Ania's Mommy said:


> Ahhh NOW I remember you. http://dogfoodchat.com/forum/introduce-yourself/6819-hello-2nd-year-vet-student.html


Well....there's popcorn involved in that thread. opcorn: So...it must be good!!! 

:laugh:


----------



## karisma11

Ania's Mommy said:


> Ahhh NOW I remember you. http://dogfoodchat.com/forum/introduce-yourself/6819-hello-2nd-year-vet-student.html


Yeppers!


----------



## luvMyBRT

karisma11 said:


> I have no interest in a never ending debate on raw. That's not the purpose of this thread. I refuse to get sucked in to it. I simply asked for opinions on how best to state risks so I can cover my ass. Period. I got one direct, helpful response from one person on here, and that's fine. The rest of you seem to think that I should say nothing at all (which is not an option for me). However that is still helpful to know that there are going to be diehard clients that will refuse to hear any risk associated with raw.


I like how you are so concerned with covering the risks. What about the huge number of benefits?? I am sure you will be sure to mention those..... hwell:


----------



## SerenityFL

karisma11 said:


> I have no interest in a never ending debate on raw. That's not the purpose of this thread. I refuse to get sucked in to it. I simply asked for opinions on how best to state risks so I can cover my ass. Period. I got one direct, helpful response from one person on here, and that's fine. The rest of you seem to think that I should say nothing at all (which is not an option for me). However that is still helpful to know that there are going to be diehard clients that will refuse to hear any risk associated with raw.


Translation: I got one person who agreed with me and every one else who gave me their honest opinions that I asked for are big, fat meanie heads. 

And yes, it IS an option NOT to say anything. Why don't you ask my vet who has been a vet for over 30 years.


----------



## karisma11

SerenityFL said:


> Translation: I got one person who agreed with me and every one else who gave me their honest opinions that I asked for are big, fat meanie heads.
> 
> And yes, it IS an option NOT to say anything. Why don't you ask my vet who has been a vet for over 30 years.


I said it's not an option for ME. See my OP, in which I tried to detail my need for fastidious record keeping and documentation.


----------



## karisma11

SerenityFL said:


> Translation: I got one person who agreed with me and every one else who gave me their honest opinions that I asked for are big, fat meanie heads.
> 
> And yes, it IS an option NOT to say anything. Why don't you ask my vet who has been a vet for over 30 years.


Any post which addresses my original request, which is how can I best state risks without offending anyone, is helpful and what I'm looking for. Not agreement/disagreement.


----------



## Northwoods10

luvMyBRT said:


> I like how you are so concerned with covering the risks. What about the huge number of benefits?? I am sure you will be sure to mention those..... hwell:


LIKE X ONE MILLION!!! 

You came here NOT to start a debate or argument. Yet you have not said ONE good thing about raw. 

Give it up already.


----------



## SerenityFL

karisma11 said:


> I said it's not an option for ME. See my OP, in which I tried to detail my need for fastidious record keeping and documentation.


Fastidious record keeping: You notate that the client feeds raw. Period. What is so difficult about that? Why do you feel the need to "warn" them about something you clearly do not know about? The very fact that you started this post by stating:

"...Risk of either your pet or yourself acquiring an infectious disease from raw meat..." shows me you have not done the research. I suggest that rather than worry about covering your "ass", you spend a little more time studying the dog anatomy.

You asked for opinions, I am giving you my opinion. If you only want people who agree with you, please state that at the beginning of the thread.


----------



## luvMyBRT

karisma11 said:


> I have no interest in a never ending debate on raw. That's not the purpose of this thread. I refuse to get sucked in to it. I simply asked for opinions on how best to state risks so I can cover my ass. Period. I got one direct, helpful response from one person on here, and that's fine. The rest of you seem to think that I should say nothing at all (which is not an option for me). However that is still helpful to know that there are going to be diehard clients that will refuse to hear any risk associated with raw.


OH....and another thing. I really hope that you will be sure to cover the HUGE RISKS in feeding your dog kibbles like Science Diet. Things like the inappropriate fillers, by products, synthetic preservatives, and my personal favorite powdered cellulose (aka sawdust)!!! GAG!


----------



## karisma11

SerenityFL said:


> Fastidious record keeping: You notate that the client feeds raw. Period. What is so difficult about that? Why do you feel the need to "warn" them about something you clearly do not know about? The very fact that you started this post by stating:
> 
> "...Risk of either your pet or yourself acquiring an infectious disease from raw meat..." shows me you have not done the research. I suggest that rather than worry about covering your "ass", you spend a little more time studying the dog anatomy.
> 
> You asked for opinions, I am giving you my opinion. If you only want people who agree with you, please state that at the beginning of the thread.


Ok. I have noted your belief that one cannot acquire infectious disease from raw meat. Thank you.


----------



## SerenityFL

karisma11 said:


> Any post which addresses my original request, which is how can I best state risks without offending anyone, is helpful and what I'm looking for. Not agreement/disagreement.


I addressed your original request. You then chose to tell me that you don't think those people will know what they are doing therefore you feel the need to "warn" them against make believe risks that you have "researched". 

No, sorry, I did well in debate...you're gonna have to work on this or just admit that you did come looking for an argument.


----------



## Northwoods10

SerenityFL said:


> Fastidious record keeping: You notate that the client feeds raw. Period. What is so difficult about that? Why do you feel the need to "warn" them about something you clearly do not know about? The very fact that you started this post by stating:
> 
> "...Risk of either your pet or yourself acquiring an infectious disease from raw meat..." shows me you have not done the research. I suggest that rather than worry about covering your "ass", you spend a little more time studying the dog anatomy.
> 
> You asked for opinions, I am giving you my opinion. If you only want people who agree with you, please state that at the beginning of the thread.


Ditto!! 

I'm sensing that this "future vet" is a bit biased about the raw diet.


----------



## xellil

Ack. Ack ack ack. urp.


----------



## Northwoods10

where'd they go?

eep:


----------



## SilverBeat

I recently went to my vet's office for the first time with my first dog. I got a tired, beaten-down speech about basically everything you said were the "risks" associated with raw feeding. I felt like I was being treated like a child. But I played along. When my vet said, at the end of our appointment, "So no more raw meat and we'll see you in three weeks. Okay?" I smiled back that same $*!*-eating grin that she was flashing me and said, "sure." If I hear even one [negative] remark about raw feeding again, they're going to get an earful. And a mouthful. And they'll never see me or my dog again. THAT's how much it pissed me off, to be talked down to by someone who clearly knows nothing about the diet I'm feeding, let alone dog nutrition in general. 

I spent months researching the diet I chose for him--before I even met him--and I'm pretty sure that 99% of people who _pay_ for veterinary care and feed their dog raw meat, have done even a basic amount of research. So to assume that they haven't in and of itself is an insult, because more often than not you're going to start off on the WRONG foot making that assumption.

You don't have to feed raw, recommend it or even approve of it. But you'll keep a lot more clients by actually looking into it *for yourself* and weighing the benefits, THEN making an UNBIASED decision.


----------



## SerenityFL

karisma11 said:


> Ok. I have noted your belief that one cannot acquire infectious disease from raw meat. Thank you.


Straw man. Again, I'm very good at debate so don't even try that. You stated that dogs run the risk of acquiring "infectious diseases" from raw meat. Later you talked about dogs getting salmonella. No, I do not believe that a dog is going to acquire salmonella from eating raw meat. You stated you have done the research. I have asked you to please show me the research that shows dogs will get salmonella from eating raw meat.

Thus far, you have not provided. You are making the claim, you back it up. I will ask you again, show me the "research" you did that shows dogs will get salmonella from eating raw meat.


----------



## karisma11

SerenityFL said:


> Straw man. Again, I'm very good at debate so don't even try that. You stated that dogs run the risk of acquiring "infectious diseases" from raw meat. Later you talked about dogs getting salmonella. No, I do not believe that a dog is going to acquire salmonella from eating raw meat. You stated you have done the research. I have asked you to please show me the research that shows dogs will get salmonella from eating raw meat.
> 
> Thus far, you have not provided. You are making the claim, you back it up. I will ask you again, show me the "research" you did that shows dogs will get salmonella from eating raw meat.


1- I'm not debating. 2- I never said DOGS would get salmonella. I'm talking about the human owners. Chill the **** out. :/


----------



## karisma11

SilverBeat said:


> I recently went to my vet's office for the first time with my first dog. I got a tired, beaten-down speech about basically everything you said were the "risks" associated with raw feeding. I felt like I was being treated like a child. But I played along. When my vet said, at the end of our appointment, "So no more raw meat and we'll see you in three weeks. Okay?" I smiled back that same $*!*-eating grin that she was flashing me and said, "sure." If I hear even one [negative] remark about raw feeding again, they're going to get an earful. And a mouthful. And they'll never see me or my dog again. THAT's how much it pissed me off, to be talked down to by someone who clearly knows nothing about the diet I'm feeding, let alone dog nutrition in general.
> 
> I spent months researching the diet I chose for him--before I even met him--and I'm pretty sure that 99% of people who _pay_ for veterinary care and feed their dog raw meat, have done even a basic amount of research. So to assume that they haven't in and of itself is an insult, because more often than not you're going to start off on the WRONG foot making that assumption.
> 
> You don't have to feed raw, recommend it or even approve of it. But you'll keep a lot more clients by actually looking into it *for yourself* and weighing the benefits, THEN making an UNBIASED decision.


I'm not making any decisions. Just asking opinions on how best to state risks. From what I have read, it sounds like you believe I should assume that people have done research and not state any risks at all. I've already mentioned that is not an option for me, but appreciate your input anyway.


----------



## MollyWoppy

Maybe it’s because I’ve recently had to endure thinly veiled ‘your killing your dog’ comments from my vet, I will admit it would be such a refreshing change to be able to discuss the subject with a vet who was even somewhat educated and open minded on the subject. 
I feel so beaten down at the moment, that I would even welcome questions about what I feed; making sure it’s a balanced diet, discussing weight bearing bones, stuff like that. I guess that way I know my vet is listening and making sure I have done my homework.
My best advice would be to totally research and understand the diet, don't treat me like a child and use common sense when giving advice.
My next advice would be to explain to those who feed Pedigree, Beneful and the other crap foods what exactly is in the food and why it is such a terrible diet for a canine.
That’s my biggest beef, my vet makes disapproving comments about what I feed, but ‘friends’ who go to the same vet and feed Pedigree or Beneful never hear one word about what a terrible food it is and believe they are feeding a premium diet.


----------



## luvMyBRT

karisma11 said:


> 1- I'm not debating. 2- I never said DOGS would get salmonella. I'm talking about the human owners. Chill the **** out. :/


I think you'd be the safest if you advised all your clients to never touch any raw meat....even if it was for themselves. Do you know how ridiculous you sound??? Did it not cross your mind that humans touch raw meat all the time to prepare and cook it for themselves???? :der:


----------



## karisma11

MollyWoppy said:


> Maybe it’s because I’ve recently had to endure thinly veiled ‘your killing your dog’ comments from my vet, I will admit it would be such a refreshing change to be able to discuss the subject with a vet who was even somewhat educated and open minded on the subject.
> I feel so beaten down at the moment, that I would even welcome questions about what I feed; making sure it’s a balanced diet, discussing weight bearing bones, stuff like that. I guess that way I know my vet is listening and making sure I have done my homework.
> My best advice would be to totally research and understand the diet, don't treat me like a child and use common sense when giving advice.
> My next advice would be to explain to those who feed Pedigree, Beneful and the other crap foods what exactly is in the food and why it is such a terrible diet for a canine.
> That’s my biggest beef, my vet makes disapproving comments about what I feed, but ‘friends’ who go to the same vet and feed Pedigree or Beneful never hear one word about what a terrible food it is and believe they are feeding a premium diet.


Thanks for the comment. Since I'm not planning on pursuing board certification in nutrition, I would not be able to help with making sure a diet is complete and balanced, and would have to refer a client to someone else for that. I agree that the "you're killing your dogs" is an inappropriate statement for your vet to make.


----------



## Tobi

I think the point that she was trying to get at is how would he/she go about talking to knowledgeable raw feeders about it as a vet, Everybody seems to get really heated about this and in reality people as a mass are idiots, as stated there are labels on everything stating not to do really dumb things with it. people get sick from handling raw meats all the time, i honestly think if he/she is just trying to cover bases what is the problem with that? i have a book by tom lonsdale stating that taking proper precautions etc when handling raw meats is a must... would you speak to him the same way? he's warning of the same things.


----------



## SilverBeat

I really don't see how it's not an option. If you're going to "note the risks" of raw feeding with your clients, I sincerely hope you'll note the risks of feeding kibble, as well.

Furthermore, if you were just looking for people to agree with you that it's okay to insult raw feeders by giving them a tired laundry list of BS they've probably already encountered, and then expect them to still come to you for medical advice, you came to the wrong place. All you've done is refute people who disagree in the slightest with you. I thought Serenity's post was thorough and and honest answer to your question. She's been nothing but civil with you, you're skirting around her questions [and others'] saying that WE'RE not answering YOUR questions [the right way]. If you want people to cooperate with you, YOU've gotta cooperate too. As my mom says, *"you get what you get and you don't get upset."*


----------



## karisma11

luvMyBRT said:


> I think you'd be the safest if you advised all your clients to never touch any raw meat....even if it was for themselves. Do you know how ridiculous you sound??? Did it not cross your mind that humans touch raw meat all the time to prepare and cook it for themselves???? :der:


Le sigh... can you really not anticipate a single situation where a human may do something stupid after feeding raw meat to their pet? Such as letting Fido lick their face/mouth while he's chewing on a chicken bone? Yes, it seems common sense, but we seem to lack that in this country.


----------



## Northwoods10

karisma11 said:


> 1- I'm not debating. 2- I never said DOGS would get salmonella. I'm talking about the human owners. Chill the **** out. :/


Again....you won't keep any clients with that attitude. 



karisma11 said:


> Thanks for the comment. Since I'm not planning on pursuing board certification in nutrition, I would not be able to help with making sure a diet is complete and balanced, and would have to refer a client to someone else for that. I agree that the "you're killing your dogs" is an inappropriate statement for your vet to make.


Then why don't you forget about even TRYING to educate any of your clients about ANY diet, whether it be good or bad. Forget about it all. If you aren't going to do the research, don't preach it. It won't get you very far!!!


----------



## karisma11

Tobi said:


> I think the point that she was trying to get at is how would he/she go about talking to knowledgeable raw feeders about it as a vet, Everybody seems to get really heated about this and in reality people as a mass are idiots, as stated there are labels on everything stating not to do really dumb things with it. people get sick from handling raw meats all the time, i honestly think if he/she is just trying to cover bases what is the problem with that? i have a book by tom lonsdale stating that taking proper precautions etc when handling raw meats is a must... would you speak to him the same way? he's warning of the same things.


This. Thank you!


----------



## karisma11

SilverBeat said:


> I really don't see how it's not an option. If you're going to "note the risks" of raw feeding with your clients, I sincerely hope you'll note the risks of feeding kibble, as well.
> 
> Furthermore, if you were just looking for people to agree with you that it's okay to insult raw feeders by giving them a tired laundry list of BS they've probably already encountered, and then expect them to still come to you for medical advice, you came to the wrong place. All you've done is refute people who disagree in the slightest with you. I thought Serenity's post was thorough and and honest answer to your question. She's been nothing but civil with you, you're skirting around her questions [and others'] saying that WE'RE not answering YOUR questions [the right way]. If you want people to cooperate with you, YOU've gotta cooperate too. As my mom says, *"you get what you get and you don't get upset."*


You're not reading my posts or completely misunderstanding.


----------



## SerenityFL

karisma11 said:


> I've seen on this forum and other forums that some raw feeders feel angry, insulted, or alienated from their vets when their vets warn them of the dangers of feeding raw, even going so far as to find another veterinarian. I'd like to offer a different perspective, as well as get some honest input on how I, a future vet, can best handle these situations.
> 
> I am an uber responsible person- almost to a fault. I have never gone a single day without car/health insurance. I've never paid a single bill even a day late. I've never forgotten a birthday- ever. I'm almost anal retentive about things, including my part time job as a technician- I document EVERYTHING. And I am already visualizing myself 2 years down the road as a DVM- fearing lawsuits, and documenting, documenting, documenting. With my license on the line, I'm not about to take any chances, especially when many people like to sue for anything.
> 
> When getting a history from a new client and asking about diet, if someone tells me they feed raw, I do not know what to say that includes what I need to say about the risks, without potentially offending and losing that client. In order to cover my ass, I feel I need to be able to document in the medical record that I covered risks with the client, so that if something happens with that animal- I can't be sued.
> 
> I would like to be able to say something comprehensive such as, "It looks like your dog is doing well on that diet. However, there are some risks associated with raw feeding, such as making sure the diet is complete and balanced, risk of either your pet or yourself acquiring an infectious disease from raw meat, GI perforations and broken teeth." I know that many of you feel strongly about feeding raw, and that's fine. I certainly don't want to get into any arguments about raw feeding with any clients. I just feel I need to make sure- for my own sake- that I mention those risks and document it in the medical record, so that in the event something *does* happen, I have it well documented. I've heard of some vets going so far as to make clients sign a form stating their vet has gone over the risks, however I feel that is going overboard and may alienate people more.
> 
> How would you feel as a client if your vet said something similar to what I suggested above? Or is there a better way that I can get across what I need to say, in a way that is more appealing to you?





karisma11 said:


> 1- I'm not debating. 2- I never said DOGS would get salmonella. I'm talking about the human owners. Chill the **** out. :/


Unless you've changed your mind since you originally appeared here, YES, you have. You most certainly have.

Case in point:

"It's true, dogs and cats can get Salmonella and E. coli poisoning. How common is that? Probably not very common, but it can and does happen. Yes, I know you will point out that Salmonella has been detected in dry food, but that is very rare, whereas Salmonella is almost ubiquitous in raw meat."

Posted by you on February 14, 2011 in "Hello from a 2nd year vet student" Page 1.

So, again, PLEASE tell me what "research" you have done that proves they will get salmonella from raw meat. Thank YOU!


----------



## Northwoods10

karisma11 said:


> Le sigh... can you really not anticipate a single situation where a human may do something stupid after feeding raw meat to their pet? Such as letting Fido lick their face/mouth while he's chewing on a chicken bone? Yes, it seems common sense, but we seem to lack that in this country.


And if you want to get technical....I'm still alive. My dogs have ALL licked me after they've eaten. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE.


----------



## karisma11

SerenityFL said:


> Unless you've changed your mind since you originally appeared here, YES, you have. You most certainly have.
> 
> Case in point:
> 
> "It's true, dogs and cats can get Salmonella and E. coli poisoning. How common is that? Probably not very common, but it can and does happen. Yes, I know you will point out that Salmonella has been detected in dry food, but that is very rare, whereas Salmonella is almost ubiquitous in raw meat."
> 
> Posted by you on February 14, 2011 in "Hello from a 2nd year vet student" Page 1.
> 
> So, again, PLEASE tell me what "research" you have done that proves they will get salmonella from raw meat. Thank YOU!


I told you I'm not debating this. Sorry.


----------



## karisma11

Northwoods10 said:


> And if you want to get technical....I'm still alive. My dogs have ALL licked me after they've eaten. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE.


Ok. Thanks.


----------



## Northwoods10

karisma11 said:


> I told you I'm not debating this. Sorry.


So what exactly are you doing???


----------



## SerenityFL

karisma11 said:


> I've seen on this forum and other forums that some raw feeders feel angry, insulted, or alienated from their vets when their vets warn them of the dangers of feeding raw, even going so far as to find another veterinarian. I'd like to offer a different perspective, as well as get some honest input on how I, a future vet, can best handle these situations.
> 
> I am an uber responsible person- almost to a fault. I have never gone a single day without car/health insurance. I've never paid a single bill even a day late. I've never forgotten a birthday- ever. I'm almost anal retentive about things, including my part time job as a technician- I document EVERYTHING. And I am already visualizing myself 2 years down the road as a DVM- fearing lawsuits, and documenting, documenting, documenting. With my license on the line, I'm not about to take any chances, especially when many people like to sue for anything.
> 
> When getting a history from a new client and asking about diet, if someone tells me they feed raw, I do not know what to say that includes what I need to say about the risks, without potentially offending and losing that client. In order to cover my ass, I feel I need to be able to document in the medical record that I covered risks with the client, so that if something happens with that animal- I can't be sued.
> 
> I would like to be able to say something comprehensive such as, "It looks like your dog is doing well on that diet. However, there are some risks associated with raw feeding, such as making sure the diet is complete and balanced, risk of either your pet or yourself acquiring an infectious disease from raw meat, GI perforations and broken teeth." I know that many of you feel strongly about feeding raw, and that's fine. I certainly don't want to get into any arguments about raw feeding with any clients. I just feel I need to make sure- for my own sake- that I mention those risks and document it in the medical record, so that in the event something *does* happen, I have it well documented. I've heard of some vets going so far as to make clients sign a form stating their vet has gone over the risks, however I feel that is going overboard and may alienate people more.
> 
> How would you feel as a client if your vet said something similar to what I suggested above? Or is there a better way that I can get across what I need to say, in a way that is more appealing to you?





karisma11 said:


> I told you I'm not debating this. Sorry.


You are debating it when you make a claim. If you make a claim, you have to back up that claim. You can't just make a statement and tell everyone "I'm not debating it", you started the debate when you made the claim. I'm simply asking you to provide the "research" you have done that shows they will get salmonella. All you have done is tell me to "settle down" "chill the **** out", (nice...you gonna talk to your clients that way?), and avoid answering my question. Clearly you have no proof.


----------



## karisma11

Northwoods10 said:


> So what exactly are you doing???


Please see OP.


----------



## karisma11

SerenityFL said:


> You are debating it when you make a claim. If you make a claim, you have to back up that claim. You can't just make a statement and tell everyone "I'm not debating it", you started the debate when you made the claim. I'm simply asking you to provide the "research" you have done that shows they will get salmonella. All you have done is tell me to "settle down" "chill the **** out", (nice...you gonna talk to your clients that way?), and avoid answering my question. Clearly you have no proof.


Ok.

-Karisma


----------



## Ania's Mommy

karisma11 said:


> Thanks for the comment. Since I'm not planning on pursuing board certification in nutrition, I would not be able to help with making sure a diet is complete and balanced, and would have to refer a client to someone else for that. I agree that the "you're killing your dogs" is an inappropriate statement for your vet to make.


After reading this, I believe that in order to protect yourself from a lawsuit the best thing you can say is, "I'm sorry. I know nothing about pet nutrition. Should you be interested in furthering your own knowledge, I suggest that you seek the advise of someone more qualified. As I am not. I am completely ignorant about pet diets and choose not to further my own knowledge."

THere you go. No lawsuit. No hurt feelings. Done aaand done.


----------



## SerenityFL

karisma11 said:


> Ok.
> 
> -Karisma


And, to make this go all the way back to your original question, if you have no proof to back it up, then "warning" me about the "risks" you have "researched" would have me find another vet because it's obvious you haven't.


----------



## Mokapi

As I think someone here already said, if you're not planning on getting the proper, thorough education in diets, then perhaps you should refer all clients you're not comfortable with out to someone who took the time to learn about a subject before speaking about it. You are clearly not comfortable with raw, which is fine. All of my close friends think I'm crazy for feeding my dog raw. I think they're crazy for feeding Purina and Friskies. If you are not honestly well-versed in something, then don't pretend like you are. By regurgitating information you've heard from professors or veterinary books or "research" and not actually having experience in it, you are doing your clients and their pets an extreme disservice. You can disagree with raw, but frightening them out of a healthy diet to make sure you "cover your ass" is not the way to do it. If you want to argue your opinion of raw diet negatives with patients, be sure to actually have multiple sources to back them up. Otherwise, the clients that know what they're doing won't take you seriously, and the clients that don't will not have been educated and may revert back to kibble diets that are unhealthy. 

I have a vet that I adore, but I will only take my cat to him because he admitted he did not have a background with raw and while he could give me information from peers on it, he did not have a thorough knowledge. I'm taking Chip to a holistic vet that knows raw to make sure I get the best possible care for him. Don't forget, your profession is not about you, even if you believe it is or it should be. It is about the welfare of your four-legged patients.


----------



## karisma11

Ania's Mommy said:


> After reading this, I believe that in order to protect yourself from a lawsuit the best thing you can say is, "I'm sorry. I know nothing about pet nutrition. Should you be interested in furthering your own knowledge, I suggest that you seek the advise of someone more qualified. As I am not. I am completely ignorant about pet diets and choose not to further my own knowledge."
> 
> THere you go. No lawsuit. No hurt feelings. Done aaand done.


Ok. Thanks.


----------



## karisma11

SerenityFL said:


> And, to make this go all the way back to your original question, if you have no proof to back it up, then "warning" me about the "risks" you have "researched" would have me find another vet because it's obvious you haven't.


Ok. Thanks for your input.


----------



## karisma11

I appreciate you all taking time to comment. I think I have learned all I have needed to here  This has been educational, somewhat entertaining, and a great chance to practice self restraint. Back to the grind...


----------



## SilverBeat

Fine. I'll dance along.



> I would like to be able to say something comprehensive such as, "It looks like your dog is doing well on that diet. However, there are some risks associated with raw feeding, such as making sure the diet is complete and balanced, risk of either your pet or yourself acquiring an infectious disease from raw meat, GI perforations and broken teeth."


This = tired laundry list of bologna.



> I can't make that assumption though. Because you have done your research, does not mean that others have. The veterinary oath states that we must protect public health. And things that seem like common sense still need to be stated, in our lawsuit happy society. This is why we have warnings on plastic bags to not place them over children's heads, and not to use the toaster in the bathtub. Someone out there has done it!





> I said it's not an option for ME. See my OP, in which I tried to detail my need for fastidious record keeping and documentation.


If you truly feel that you can sit idly by while your clients feed their pets sawdust and euthanized pets, yet the moment someone who takes an active role in providing a higher quality of nutrition for their dog walks through your door you have to "warn them of the risks" so that you can file that little nugget away to avoid a lawsuit, your best bet is to engage them. Make it a discussion, with you asking questions like "what kind of research did you do" "what style of raw do you feed" "what kind of bones do you feed" etc etc. 



> I don't need to worry about warning about Beneful because any potential litigation would be directed at the company, not me


this really makes it seem like you're just out to cover your own butt and you couldn't give a **** about your clients' pets' health needs being met. Am I correct in that assessment?

See, I read your posts. :becky:


----------



## luvMyBRT

Tobi said:


> I think the point that she was trying to get at is how would he/she go about talking to knowledgeable raw feeders about it as a vet, Everybody seems to get really heated about this and in reality people as a mass are idiots, as stated there are labels on everything stating not to do really dumb things with it. people get sick from handling raw meats all the time, i honestly think if he/she is just trying to cover bases what is the problem with that? i have a book by tom lonsdale stating that taking proper precautions etc when handling raw meats is a must... would you speak to him the same way? he's warning of the same things.


I think the biggest problem that people have here (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that this "karisma" person is wanting to share the "risks" of raw feeding. Okay...that's fine and dandy....BUT what do they know about a raw diet? What research have they done to BACK UP what they are saying about a raw diet? They can't even tell us anything about a raw diet!! If she/he is just wanting to cover the bases don't you think they should know something about what they are talking about?

Tom Lonsdale is in a category of his own. He HAS done his research and he KNOWS what he's talking about. He can back up his information.


----------



## Liz

Karisma, my vet tries to give me that same lists of risks. He admitted he could not advise me or agree with my choice of diet. When I go to the vet it is for medical care not for their opinion. Now we go to a holistic vet when care is necessary - though due to their raw diet that is extremely rare. So if you said that to me that would be my visit.


----------



## CavePaws

I think the only time you need to "warn" a patient is when you are suggesting a raw diet...And if you're going to be a decent veterinarian you need to research research research and not be bias because of the Hills funded nutritional education you receive.

Don't "warn" a person who is already feeding it. Chances are they have done their research and it honestly isn't your business and you couldn't possibly be sued for their choice in feeding a raw diet.


----------



## MollyWoppy

Blast, I misread your very first post. Now, I’ve re-read it, I hate to say it, but you do sound very much like the vet I’ve been doing battle with for the past few days. The one who has told me to stop feeding raw.
This is what I don’t understand.
They say - "Oh yes, your dog looks great, teeth look perfect (other than the broken one), BUT, (insert all the normal negative things: salmonella, broken teeth, impactation in the bowel, perforating the stomach, bacteria in stools)". This is what makes me so frustrated and confused, the praising of my dogs condition, but the total disapproval of the way she got that way.
What do you want? Me to feed Pedigree and have an unhealthy dog, but that’s ok because I’m feeding an acceptable brand or type of food?
Confuses the heck out of me.


----------



## Savage Destiny

WOW this thread is unbelievable! Absolutely insane! 

We have a future vet here who is actually trying to learn something, and instead of being civil everyone gets their panties in a bunch and calls her an uneducated troll. Did any of you stop to think that maybe you could politely correct her and give her some links to good information she could look at? 

Clearly some of you have never worked in a setting where you talk to people about what they feed their pets! Not even CLOSE to everyone who claims they feed a raw diet has done any research or does it properly. I work in a retail setting, and let me tell you that MOST people who feed a "raw" or "homemade" diet think they can throw some hamburger, broccoli, carrots and rice at their dog with a vitamin supplement and call it good. A vet talking to their clients about the "raw diet" they're feeding DOES need to make sure the diet is complete, because I can tell you right now most people don't do it right. 

Karisma, I appreciate wanting to cover your butt a little bit. I have to do somewhat similar things at my job. However, as everyone else not so politely pointed out, a lot of what you're listing as risks are really misconceptions. I think that everyone can probably agree not to bother warning someone about themselves contracting bacterial illness from the raw meat. IF they ask, then you can always tell them to handle it just as they'd handle meat for themselves. 

Intestinal perforations and broken teeth are a very low risk, enough that I would not bother warning about it. Take a look at this survey:
rawfitpet.com - Survey Results

1800 raw feeders were surveyed. Only a very tiny percent of them had any issues with broken teeth or blockages, and its noted that most people said those were with weight bearing bones, which any raw feeder worth their salt won't feed anyway. 

Here is my advice to you. Learn about the raw diet- everything from pre-made to BARF to PMR. You can't judge whether or not someone's diet is balanced if you don't know about the diet. Associate yourself with what risks (or lack thereof) there are, so you can knowledgeably converse with your clients. I think everyone would agree to be happy with that.


----------



## SerenityFL

Savage Destiny said:


> WOW this thread is unbelievable! Absolutely insane!
> 
> We have a future vet here who is actually trying to learn something, and instead of being civil everyone gets their panties in a bunch and calls her an uneducated troll.


I would like to address this really quick and then I'm going to bed. Way past my bedtime.

No, not everybody called her a troll. I didn't call her a troll. I answered her question as she requested.

Also, if you want civil, I'm sure being told to "chill the **** out" isn't exactly civil so, as was said, you're gonna get what you give.

Finally, she HAS been educated, very well, by some very knowledgable people, in the past, February, to be exact. No, she didn't come here looking to learn, she came her to share her bias with raw feeding. Again.


----------



## monkeys23

Damn I guess I'd better stop sampling their food and nevermind eating me some tasty sushi... LMAO.

In all seriousness, there are much better ways to probe into whether or not someone is feeding a balanced diet, but its all moot if you are going to be that willfully ignorant about proper raw feeding honestly.

My vet fully supports my feeding raw and raved about how my animals' health. Especially their proper weights, good muscle, and clean teeth. She asked me what exactly I was feeding, so I outlined the variety we do in a week, and she said it sounds great and she's glad its working for us.

In all honesty if I'd gotten a lecture about risks I'd probably be on the hunt for a new vet practice. Which would suck because I really like them. Luckily they really do go above and beyond to keep educating themselves and doing the best job possible.


----------



## RawFedDogs

Karisma, I really think you should consider another line of work. You really aren't suited to be a vet or have any job with responsibility as you just can't handle it. You worry more about lawsuits than the well being of your patients. 

Anytime you have a raw feeding client, you automatically have a client that knows more about it than you do. You would do well to keep your uninformed mouth shut about that topic. It will make you look smarter.

Most of the "dangers" you listed aren't dangers at all. Salmonella isn't a problem to dogs or the people who live with them. GI tract perforations are so rare as to make a dog more likely to get hit by lightening. How do you advise against that? I've been feeding raw for 9 years. There aren't many vets in the world that have the knowledge I have about the subject. 

Honestly, I'm trying to help you here. You really aren't suited for this line of work. If you insist on trying to be a vet and want to become familiar with raw feeding, stay here and learn AND feed your own dog a raw diet for the next 2 years and you will then be knowledgable enough to help your patients. If you have never fed raw, you will never be able to help a patient with raw feeding problems. No vet can. I know they all think they can but they can't.


----------



## Savage Destiny

SerenityFL said:


> Also, if you want civil, I'm sure being told to "chill the **** out" isn't exactly civil so, as was said, you're gonna get what you give.
> 
> Finally, she HAS been educated, very well, by some very knowledgable people, in the past, February, to be exact. No, she didn't come here looking to learn, she came her to share her bias with raw feeding. Again.


What did you guys expect? There's a scant handful of posts in this thread that aren't outright hostile, a person can only take so much before they snap back. 

In Feb, was she actually educated or just told she was a moron like she has been in this thread?


----------



## SilverBeat

monkeys23 said:


> Damn I guess I'd better stop sampling their food and nevermind eating me some tasty sushi... LMAO.
> 
> In all seriousness, there are much better ways to probe into whether or not someone is feeding a balanced diet, but its all moot if you are going to be that willfully ignorant about proper raw feeding honestly.
> 
> My vet fully supports my feeding raw and raved about how my animals' health. Especially their proper weights, good muscle, and clean teeth. She asked me what exactly I was feeding, so I outlined the variety we do in a week, and she said it sounds great and she's glad its working for us.
> 
> In all honesty if I'd gotten a lecture about risks I'd probably be on the hunt for a new vet practice. Which would suck because I really like them. Luckily they really do go above and beyond to keep educating themselves and doing the best job possible.


THIS x ten jillion.

My vet did ask me what I was feeding but it was basically rhetorical because as soon as I said "well, right now he's having chicken---" about to note that he was new to the diet and I didn't want to overwhelm his system, when she chimed right in telling me how chicken is low in calcium and high in phosphorous, and it isn't suitable to JUST feed chicken to a dog. 
When I butted in to note that there is calcium in the bones he is eating, she again jutted in with "bones? It's really dangerous to give chicken bones to a dog...." After that the subject was buried. But not the hatchet, clearly.


----------



## luvMyBRT

Savage Destiny said:


> WOW this thread is unbelievable! Absolutely insane!
> 
> We have a future vet here who is actually trying to learn something, and instead of being civil everyone gets their panties in a bunch and calls her an uneducated troll. Did any of you stop to think that maybe you could politely correct her and give her some links to good information she could look at?
> 
> Clearly some of you have never worked in a setting where you talk to people about what they feed their pets! Not even CLOSE to everyone who claims they feed a raw diet has done any research or does it properly. I work in a retail setting, and let me tell you that MOST people who feed a "raw" or "homemade" diet think they can throw some hamburger, broccoli, carrots and rice at their dog with a vitamin supplement and call it good. A vet talking to their clients about the "raw diet" they're feeding DOES need to make sure the diet is complete, because I can tell you right now most people don't do it right.
> 
> Karisma, I appreciate wanting to cover your butt a little bit. I have to do somewhat similar things at my job. However, as everyone else not so politely pointed out, a lot of what you're listing as risks are really misconceptions. I think that everyone can probably agree not to bother warning someone about themselves contracting bacterial illness from the raw meat. IF they ask, then you can always tell them to handle it just as they'd handle meat for themselves.
> 
> Intestinal perforations and broken teeth are a very low risk, enough that I would not bother warning about it. Take a look at this survey:
> rawfitpet.com - Survey Results
> 
> 1800 raw feeders were surveyed. Only a very tiny percent of them had any issues with broken teeth or blockages, and its noted that most people said those were with weight bearing bones, which any raw feeder worth their salt won't feed anyway.
> 
> Here is my advice to you. Learn about the raw diet- everything from pre-made to BARF to PMR. You can't judge whether or not someone's diet is balanced if you don't know about the diet. Associate yourself with what risks (or lack thereof) there are, so you can knowledgeably converse with your clients. I think everyone would agree to be happy with that.


Obviously you must have missed this thread: http://dogfoodchat.com/forum/introduce-yourself/6819-hello-2nd-year-vet-student-9.html

She/he was here to "learn" back in February......Yah right. I'm with Serenity. This person didn't want to learn anything, they wanted to stir the pot. So my question is why hasn't this future vet taken the time to actually learn about raw feeding???


----------



## Savage Destiny

RawFedDogs said:


> Anytime you have a raw feeding client, you automatically have a client that knows more about it than you do.


This is so FAR from the truth it is not even funny! As I said before, its pretty obvious that most of you guys have never worked with the general public when it comes to dog food. We get a skewed perspective from forums like this, where everyone is very knowledgeable and has done their research. 

I can promise you, the people on this forum are the MINORITY. You would be appalled by the amount of "raw feeders" who are feeding horrible, horrible diets that are a far cry from complete or nutritious.


----------



## SilverBeat

Savage Destiny said:


> This is so FAR from the truth it is not even funny! As I said before, its pretty obvious that most of you guys have never worked with the general public when it comes to dog food. We get a skewed perspective from forums like this, where everyone is very knowledgeable and has done their research.
> 
> I can promise you, the people on this forum are the MINORITY. You would be appalled by the amount of "raw feeders" who are feeding horrible, horrible diets that are a far cry from complete or nutritious.


Do you work in a vet clinic? I know you stated somewhere what you do and I'm just going to end up looking like a :llama:

EDIT: Went back to your intro post, question answered! Sorry! :tape:

But I do hold to the belief that people who actually pay for vet care for their animal, and feed raw, aren't just tossing their dog a ham bone every now and then.


----------



## Tobi

luvMyBRT said:


> I think the biggest problem that people have here (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that this "karisma" person is wanting to share the "risks" of raw feeding. Okay...that's fine and dandy....BUT what do they know about a raw diet? What research have they done to BACK UP what they are saying about a raw diet? They can't even tell us anything about a raw diet!! If she/he is just wanting to cover the bases don't you think they should know something about what they are talking about?
> 
> Tom Lonsdale is in a category of his own. He HAS done his research and he KNOWS what he's talking about. He can back up his information.


Just because he has done research he can give advice about safe meat handling procedures without chastising? Safe meat handling is common knowledge alot of people lack this. 
As far as how much this person knows or doesn't know...who knows? The question that people are getting so worked up about was hypothetical, and the person was seeking knowledge or opinions on how to approach the subject. No where in this thread was it posted that this person Wouldn't talk to their future clients about poor kibbles etc, who knows maybe this person is on board with High end kibbles etc etc.


----------



## CavePaws

Perhaps you posted at the same time as other people, Bill. Happens to me a lot and the like button isn't there until I refresh. 

I really really think that Karisma needs to consider feeding her dogs a raw diet, as well. Go to seminars about nutrition like Bill, RawFedDogs, has done and then you'll be more qualified to speak on the subject. You aren't qualified to speak on nutrition, in my opinion, if your only education has been through veterinary school. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but it's true, unless you've been there and done that with Raw feeding or at least done hours upon hours upon weeks upon years of research you should just be quiet about it.

Perhaps asking people what exactly they feed and the frequency and variety would be a better question than to start it off with, "oh well here are the risks of the diet you've chosen to feed"


----------



## Savage Destiny

SilverBeat said:


> Do you work in a vet clinic? I know you stated somewhere what you do and I'm just going to end up looking like a :llama:
> 
> But I do hold to the belief that people who actually pay for vet care for their animal, and feed raw, aren't just tossing their dog a ham bone every now and then.


Nope, I work in a natural pet supply store- we sell pre-made raw food, meat/bone grinds for people who want to make a diet but don't want to do whole bones, as well as high end kibbles like Orijen and Acana. We also sell a lot of toys, treats, etc. We have a reputation for knowing a lot about nutrition (we have to go through a lot of training) and raw diets, so a large part of my job is helping people choose appropriate food for their dog or cat. 

I spend an unbelievable amount of time at my job correcting misconceptions about raw food and trying not to show my shock and horror at what most people consider a complete raw diet.


----------



## DaneMama

Ok, I've read the thread....some really good points have been covered and of course the drama associated with the pot being stirred.

Now here's my opinion:

I've been working at my vet clinic for nearly 4 years. I can tell you that only TWO people came in who do any sort of raw feeding. Raw feeders are definitely a minority, especially ones like the members of this forum. 

I can appreciate karisma wanting to "cover her ass" because in all honesty, there are a lot of dumb people out there that WILL take advantage of the system even though the responsibility doesn't fall on her. All you'd have to do is say that you don't know ANYTHING about a raw diet so you cannot comment on it. If they are still interested in raw feeding, refer them to another holistic vet that does know about raw feeding. I'd say most raw feeders are more interested in holistic/natural medicine more for their pets anyways.

OR

You could read, research and learn about a proper way to feed raw diets, become an expert. This of course doesn't mean that you have to do it yourself, or even recommend it but at least you'd be armed with the information if someone were to ask. You'll quickly learn that more benefits come along with raw than the few "warnings" you'd give. Yes, there are warnings with raw feeding, but they are almost negligible compared to the benefits. So, with that....not so much to worry about. 

Knowledge is power, the more you know the better the vet you'll become. BUT with more knowledge comes more responsibility. The best clients are those that really, really care about their animals and who want a vet that can be supportive and helpful as much as possible. Put out there what you want to get back because its frustrating to have clients come in that obviously don't put their pets health and wellbeing at the top of the priority list. I think its safe to say that owners who are interested enough to research what they feed their pets are ones that really, really care. THOSE are the clients you want!!!

Good luck.


----------



## BrownieM

The most responsible thing you can do is to explain the benefits of raw feeding and how to do it properly, using common sense. It is a fallacy that vets need to fear lawsuits regarding raw feeding. I have been told this by both my traditional vet and my holistic vet. I think you have a bit of learning to do and need to open your mind. :smile:


----------



## BrownieM

This thread makes me very angry. So many things I wish I could say...

All I know is that MANY vets DO support raw feeding. NONE of these vets have had a lawsuit yet. Fear mongering is what leads so many people to behave erratically in fear of a lawsuit. 

How many times will threads like this appear? Where a future vet or new vet comes and asks questions they are not willing to hear the answer to? Thank HEAVENS the OP is not my vet and never will be. I am truly blessed to have two vets who support raw feeding. Two vets who actually put the animal's health first.


----------



## candiceb

karisma11 said:


> I've seen on this forum and other forums that some raw feeders feel angry, insulted, or alienated from their vets when their vets warn them of the dangers of feeding raw, even going so far as to find another veterinarian. I'd like to offer a different perspective, as well as get some honest input on how I, a future vet, can best handle these situations.
> 
> I am an uber responsible person- almost to a fault. I have never gone a single day without car/health insurance. I've never paid a single bill even a day late. I've never forgotten a birthday- ever. I'm almost anal retentive about things, including my part time job as a technician- I document EVERYTHING. And I am already visualizing myself 2 years down the road as a DVM- fearing lawsuits, and documenting, documenting, documenting. With my license on the line, I'm not about to take any chances, especially when many people like to sue for anything.
> 
> When getting a history from a new client and asking about diet, if someone tells me they feed raw, I do not know what to say that includes what I need to say about the risks, without potentially offending and losing that client. In order to cover my ass, I feel I need to be able to document in the medical record that I covered risks with the client, so that if something happens with that animal- I can't be sued.
> 
> I would like to be able to say something comprehensive such as, "It looks like your dog is doing well on that diet. However, there are some risks associated with raw feeding, such as making sure the diet is complete and balanced, risk of either your pet or yourself acquiring an infectious disease from raw meat, GI perforations and broken teeth." I know that many of you feel strongly about feeding raw, and that's fine. I certainly don't want to get into any arguments about raw feeding with any clients. I just feel I need to make sure- for my own sake- that I mention those risks and document it in the medical record, so that in the event something *does* happen, I have it well documented. I've heard of some vets going so far as to make clients sign a form stating their vet has gone over the risks, however I feel that is going overboard and may alienate people more.
> 
> How would you feel as a client if your vet said something similar to what I suggested above? Or is there a better way that I can get across what I need to say, in a way that is more appealing to you?


I have a few suggestions. And I really am trying to provide constructive criticism here so please don't read any kind of tone into my words because it isn't there.

I think it's a good thing to make sure a client understands what kind of diet they're feeding their dogs, regardless of what they're feeding. If someone comes in and says they're feeding kibble, then you should ask what brand. If they're feeding Ol'Roy or Alpo, you definitely should let them know about the benefits of higher quality kibble, and the risks of feeding low-quality kibble. Likewise, if someone says they're feeding raw, then ask them what they feed and the amounts. If they start talking about the percentages of meat to bone to organ, and list off several varieties of protein sources, then they probably would be offended by you asking them if they are aware of any risks. In that case, simply noting the fact that they feed raw would be best, and then move on. However if they say something like "Oh well you know Old Smokey gets soup bones and ground hamburger every night", then you should probably let them know the risks of large ungulate weight-bearing bones, and encourage them to research different ways to balance the diet. You don't have to advocate raw to everyone who walks in, but it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the material. Why not pick up a copy of Tom Lonsdale's "Raw Meaty Bones" or "Work Wonders"? At least then you could carry a decent conversation with most raw feeders, as well as give a few tips to those who need them. 

There are risks with everything in life. There are risks in kibble. Dogs develop periodontal disease and illnesses from it. Dogs can wolf down their kibble, and choke or bloat and die (speaking from personal experience). Kibble is often recalled for salmonella contamination. In fact if you look into it a little more, many cautious vets recommend treating kibble just as you would contaminated meat; washing hands after handling, keeping kibble away from kitchen areas, and protecting the immuno-compromised by limiting exposure. There is Salmonella in kibble just like there's Salmonella on some raw meats. There are risks to raw as well, but again as I said above I think a little education would go a long way in helping you best serve any future raw-feeding clients and their dogs.


----------



## rannmiller

I haven't read all 10 pages so I'll just jump right in and hope I'm not being redundant. Not even sure if you guys have scared her off already by now in all honesty. But if she's still here, how about just saying something non-insulting like "Well you dog seems to be doing well, as long as you use common sense like washing your hands and sanitizing things like you would when handling meat with yourself, it should be fine." And then also talk to kibble-feeders about the risks of feeding awful kibbles and the benefits of a raw diet if kibble doesn't seem to be working out :smile:


----------



## bernadettelevis

man, why am i always late to the party? 

So here'swhat i think! I haven't told my vet yet that i feed raw! She's a good friend of our family and i really like her.
I honestly don't know how much she knows about canine nutrition.
When i first got Levis i fed him Royal Canin. And she asked what i feed, but no negative or positive comment on that.
I never really asked her for an opinion on nutrition. I educated my self.
So probably even if she's against raw, iwould probably stick with her, because medically i trust her and i know i can call her whenever. Since i've known her for quite a while i think i can really discuss this with her even if she is against it and we could agree to disagree and nottalk about it. But i really don't know how she feels about it.
However if had a vet who is not a friend of our family and whom i don't know, and the first thing they tell me when i say that i feed raw is, that it'S dangerous, i would probably find a new vet.

When i got Levis as a puppy i have to admit i didn't know anything about canine nutrition and i trusted the guy at the pet store that royal canin is a good food (i know stupid me). 
Of course i would have been happy if my vet told me that this is crap and that i should feed something better, but i'm not mad at her because she didn't give me advice on nutrition. It's not what i go to her for.

Another aspect, i also don't really talk to my horse-vet about horse nutrition and if she told me about the dangers of feeding fresh gras to a horse, i would be really disturbed.

I don't know about law in the US, but here in Austria if you wanted to sue a vet because you yourself got salmonella, every lawyer would probably laugh at you. You wouldn't even have a lawsuit because you couldn't find a lawyer for that and you would never have a chance of winning. 

So i believe that if it is really just about saving you a**, and not about what is best for you dog/cat, don't state the risks, unless they maybe ask you for it.

oh i could go on and on...


----------



## xellil

We are feeding the trolls here, people, giving her the exact response she came for 

" a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, *with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional responseor of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion"* 

From wikipedia.


----------



## Chocx2

First of all I commend you on interest in raw feeding. I think that just your interest in different feeding will benifit you in your future business as a vet. I think people are quick to be insulted and take everything way to personal. It is so hard in my area to find any vet with an open mind. I would think to protect yourself from being sued vets should post all the pros and cons in their offices the same as they would for anything else. Being objective with all the do's and don't should keep you from being sued.


----------



## Kofismom

> How would you feel as a client if your vet said something similar to what I suggested above? Or is there a better way that I can get across what I need to say, in a way that is more appealing to you?


I never had my vet voice any hazards about Kofi's diet when I was feeding kibble. We had been with her since the beginning. 
I wish she had just advised me to do careful research,perhaps mentioning that many people don't, and that's when problems arise. She did not. 
The anti-raw sentiments she espoused caused me to lose complete confidence in her.
The new vet told me that he knew very little about feeding raw, but was open to it. He suggested that we work as a team and learn together.
How could that possibly leave him open to a law suite?


----------



## xellil

Kofismom said:


> How could that possibly leave him open to a law suite?


It can't. The OP is just here to stir up trouble - not to discuss, share, ask opinion, anything. Just to troll. Apparently this is a ripe fishing hole.


----------



## hcdoxies

I haven't read through all of the posts yet (just half-way thru pg 2), but IF you feel the need to say something:

"I know several people who feed a raw diet and it seems to do well for many dogs. I'm sure you already know all of this, as I'm sure you've done extenstive research, but just in case:

"As with preparing ANY raw meat, make sure to wash your hands and sanitize where you prepare it"
"Make sure you feed raw bones only, as cooked bones can cause perforated intestines"
"But make sure not to feed any weight-bearing bones, as this can cause your dogs' teeth to chip because they are so hard"


----------



## Northwoods10

Now that I've slept on it...I have a few things I'd like to add.

First of all, I’d like to apologize for calling you a troll. If you are really here to learn & educate yourself for the future, that’s great. If not, please realize that you’ve picked a tough battle. Based on past posts from you, its hard to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Secondly, if you really are studying to be a vet, please educate yourself on whatever it is you are going to give warnings about. It really does make yourself look like a fool if you are the one who *should* know more than the average client on nutrition in which you are trying to give warnings about if you don’t have the information to back it up. Several of the things you claimed was false information or biased opinions. You came into a forum and into a specific topic and group of people who are very well educated (and some that are on their way) about the raw diet. You have to expect that some of your comments would upset us. 

The average client probably doesn’t know squat about raw. I admit that. But we’re not you’re average client. I wish I could tell you the hours I’ve spent researching & learning about this diet. And you never know, you might just run into one of those clients some day. Be prepared, that’s all.


----------



## Chocx2

I have to say, when I asked about raw with my friend, vet, she was a total put off leading me to believe I was doing the wrong thing and yes I lost total confidance in her also. But after taking my dog to a vet who stated they knew about raw and found out I knew more than she did made me go back to my friend/ vet. She at least was up front with me and told me she didn't agree with it and doesn't like that I do it, and makes fun of me, but when I ask her questions she answers them with I don't know but I can check into it. And I think as people change and the way we feed our dogs and cats vets will change too.:wink:


----------



## xellil

I'm not sorry for calling a troll, well, a troll. 

Trolls are especially successful on boards such as this, where the folks are so nice. It's the nature of the helpful personalities that allows trolls to succeed.

This person.. is a troll.


----------



## tem_sat

Dearest Karisma,

Coming from a real estate background, I will make a suggestion. If your primary goal is to avoid lawsuits, then simply draft a pamphlet titled, "Canine (and/or Feline) Nutrition". List foods (kibble, canned, raw, home cooked) that you advise. List the pro's, con's, and risks of each. Send the draft to your practice owner. Have the practice owner submit that draft to the attorney who is hired to represent the practice, and/or sumbit that draft to your malpractice insurance carrier. I assume some editing will be done by all involved, and then voila, you have your "a$$" covered. 

Now, is that what you wanted to know? It should be a no brainer, if so. Obviously, there will be plenty of inaccuracies within the pamplet but: #1 give pamphlet to client, #2 note in file. 

I am suprised you even bothered to ask this question.


----------



## 3Musketeers

The drama llama isn't my buddy so I'll stay out of that and just answer a few questions the best I can.



> making sure the diet is complete and balanced


Meat, Bones, Organs. Somewhere in the Ballpark of 80-10-10, numbers can vary.
A lot of kibble's claims to be "complete and balanced" is utter BS anyways, *much* more likely you'll see a problem from them.
Soooo, instead of warning them to make sure it's balanced, just ask them what style of raw they feed, if they say BARF then you can go ahead and analyze what they are feeding, if it's PMR then you won't have to worry. Maybe just go on and ask how much variety they get, although even just chicken is fine.



> risk of either your pet or yourself acquiring an infectious disease from raw meat


To the pet...it ain't gonna happen. If it does then that dog/cat is probably very immunocompromised to begin with and could have gotten it from anything. Probably easier to get it form eating poop. To the human, heck they can get it preparing their own meals, if they cook/eat meat for themselves, they have to handle it raw at some point. So, don't even bother.



> GI perforations and broken teeth


GI perforations, not gonna happen. You'll get more of those from people feeding pre-cooked bones like the ones sold at petstores.
Broken teeth, avoid marrow bones and large bones, again, many of those are sold at petstores, they can sue the petstore. Maybe just ask them what kind of bones they feed first, and depending on that decide what to tell them or if it's worth to even bother.

There are better things to worry about , but you can go and figure them out.


----------



## CorgiPaws

I had fish for dinner last night.
No one told me to wash my hands after prep.
I didn't know I had to wash my counter either.

Can I sue my vet? 


Ok, in all seriousness... we live in a lawsuit happy society. I can understand where the op is coming from there. But the question was not about IF there are risks, it was HOW to express things you THINK are risks without losing clients. 
You probably can't. Why? Because beyond "clean the same way you would after handling meat for yourself" once you go into how "dangerous" raw can be, you've lost their faith in you. You, in their minds, have already proven yourself to be far less educated in canine nutrition than they'd like. I'd recommend saying something like, "I assume you've done your research and clean up properly." So you don't seem to assume they're idiots. No one likes their knowledge disregarded. That covers yourself enough (folks, people with liability HAVE to cover themselves.) Without making yourself out to be just another ignorant vet.

But even if they are put off by your seemingly uneducated response, don't worry.... they aren't the ones who are going be spending hundreds on allergy treatments, digestive issues, and diarrhea anyway. No big loss. Hang onto those science diet and pedigree feeders. They will write those paychecks.


----------



## 1605

I have no opinion one way or other about raw. So I'm really not concerned about a discussion on the pros and cons of the practice. What I am dismayed about is the very argumentative and hostile attitude about people on this board when anyone questions raw or brings up anything remotely negative about it. It's really quite alarming. This thread is just a case in point.

The OP put forth the fact that as a vet(to be) she has the potential for a very real exposure to liability. Thus she is obligated to ensure that her clients are apprised of the POTENTIAL for RISKS if they exist, no matter how remote the likelihood is of this risk coming to fruition. Also, she realizes that some people may not be as knowledgeable of these risks as others, so she is duty bound to inform her clients of things that most people would consider common sense. Because as we all know, there sometimes seems to be a shortage of this commodity in people.

Unfortunately, the idiots in this society engage lawyers on a contingency basis to file pointless lawsuits against people for no reason other than they are idiots who do not want to take responsibility for their own actions. IT'S ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT, SO SUE! You may not win, but you may get someone to pay you money rather than go through the expense of having to hire a lawyer to defend against your bogus lawsuit. 

Unfortunately, this is why everyone from scuba instructors to doctors have to pay exorbitant rates for liability insurance in the US. And why there are countless forms to sign reminding people of what was talked about & how they have been duly advised about why this medication needs to be taken in this particular way or why you shouldn't hold your breath underwater while scuba diving.

So please, people, stop walking around with this antagonistic chip on your shoulder. Patient education of people will win more understanding of your POV than telling them they are ignorant, unprofessional, or don't care about their dogs. 

Pax,


----------



## BrownieM

I honest to goodness believe that the risk of a vet being sued over this matter is very slim. I'd like to know, does anyone here know of a vet that this has happened to? I have several lawyers in my family and they always talk about how society (I am referring to American society, here) is paranoid about lawsuits in general. This is actually how certain people make a living. By mongering fear so that companies will invest in protection against lawsuits, that honestly, have a slim chance of actually occurring.

My holistic vet supports raw, hands out a VERY vague pamphlet on how to feed raw (I am confident that I know much more about her than raw feeding - but at least she supports me :smile and does not detail all of the risks of raw feeding in order to cover her a$$. In fact, the pamphlet she gave me was really just a copy out of Kymythe Schultz's book that suggests feeding turkey necks, etc. Never once did my vet detail all of the steps I need to take to ensure my dog doesn't choke or I don't contract salmonella. That is my job. 

Think about it. Honestly, how successful would a lawsuit against a vet be in this matter? There are just too many factors for a vet to be held liable unless the vet gave explicitly TERRIBLE advice. I have even been told by vets that fear of lawsuits is NOT an issue that keeps them from promoting raw. Rather, it is a lack of knowledge of the diet, or a personal distrust of the diet, in many cases.


SubMariner, the reason many of us are hostile toward the OP is because she has made it clear that she doesn't want to hear the answer. Perhaps we are just a little tired of this happening repeatedly. It is nobody's job to make things rainbows and butterflies. Nobody is being paid here to give bubbly advice when it contradicts what we believe. There is nothing more frustrating than someone asking for advice, giving advice, and then having them ignore your advice.


----------



## luvMyBRT

BrownieM said:


> SubMariner, the reason many of us are hostile toward the OP is because she has made it clear that she doesn't want to hear the answer. Perhaps we are just a little tired of this happening repeatedly. It is nobody's job to make things rainbows and butterflies. Nobody is being paid here to give bubbly advice when it contradicts what we believe. There is nothing more frustrating than someone asking for advice, giving advice, and then having them ignore your advice.


Ditto to this! 

We are now on page 11 of this and the OP has YET to provided any knowledge of raw feeding. I think she/he would have had a much better reception of her question if she came on here and had done a bit of research since her/his last post in February. She knows nothing about raw feeding and yet wants to warn everyone of the "risks". And since she/he is going to be a VET and has "a very real exposure to liability" don't you think they'd want to learn about the very thing they could get sued for???? Oi vey.

I don't know...maybe I'm just crazy.....:tongue1:


----------



## Northwoods10

Submariner-

If you're going to start a subject like this among a group of people that support & feed raw, PLEASE take advice when advice is given. It was stated in the beginning that they were not here to start an argument or debate, but when you deliberately argue with the facts and advice given, its pretty hard to not get upset or wonder what their true intentions really were. This poster had also started a similar thread that went down in a similar fashion. You have to wonder. 

I think as a whole, DFC is a great place for discussion & friendly debate. 

This topic would be like me going into the kibble section and saying I was going to be a vet but I was wanting to cover my butt about all the risks associated with feeding kibble. I don't think it would be taken very well over there, especially when the risks are clearly just about kibble---no other diets.


----------



## xxshaelxx

Personally, I think people are reading too much into some of the replies here. They're reading emotional, attacking replies, when it could just be "this is how I would feel." The OP asked how she could phrase it, and they were given numerous GOOD responses. I also think that MOST of the hostility is coming as a reaction to a certain someone REPEATEDLY calling the OP a troll. Now, I may not agree with everything that the OP is saying, but I don't believe they are a troll, and I certainly don't believe this person needs to REPEATEDLY be called that. The OP may be reacting hostilely to that, because that certainly gives this thread a hostile air in my opinion.

Personally, I would be offended if a vet were to quote all the risks associated with a raw diet, simply because I didn't ask. However, I would be open to a vet saying something along the lines of "Now, I assume you did all your research and know how to properly balance this diet and all of the risks and benefits involved?" Something short and sweet, not assuming that I haven't. If I say "yes," it all comes back on me, because said vet was offering me advice, but I turned it down. I also believe that the vet should at least do a minimal amount of research on raw, all the myths and facts, the statistics, etc., and make sure when actually giving advice, to say that it COULD happen, not WILL.


----------



## xellil

The OP IS a troll - why not call her that? Troll.


----------



## bumblegoat

Okay, I haven't read through everything, but I do have some suggestions to the OP.

I think the best thing you can do, is to start asking the raw feeding client EDUCATED questions. Show the client that you have done your research on various raw diets. This way, you will find out if the client has done their research, and you will win respect from educated clients. After asking some questions about what the client feeds, you can start talking about the risks. Ask questions again! Something like: "You do know of the risks right? Like the risk of breaking teeth?". Don't make a big deal out of it.

Just make sure you _do not_ belittle your clients, and do not make them feel stupid. Make them feel smart, make them think you know what you are talking about (and of course, you SHOULD have some knowledge of raw feeding!).

If I went to a vet like that, that vet would gain many points in my book. It would definately be a vet I would go to again.


----------



## SerenityFL

Well, this is still going.

I started out yesterday giving my answer to the question asked. My OPINION was then "debated", (which, we all know, you cannot debate an opinion, only facts). Because the OP stated they wanted to know how I would feel if MY vet said these things, I informed the OP just what kind of conversation my vet and I would have should they respond the same way the OP did to my answer.

I'll say it again, if you are going to state that there are risks, you better have the facts and sources to back up that claim. You cannot just tell a client, "These are the risks, end of story, don't debate me." No, you prove them to me. Show me your evidence. Show me where you got that information.

I think, if the vet wants to "cover their ass", whatever vet it may be, then how about a simple, non threatening exchange like this:

Vet: So, what do you feed your pets?

Client: I feed them raw, prey model raw, (or BARF, whatever)

Vet: Ah. So tell me about the diet, what do you do? (With actual interest, not attacking.)

Now, IF at any point in this PLEASANT conversation, with questions being asked, "I see, so, do you feed bones too? What kind of bones? I mean, chicken, turkey...?" and "Do they get organs as well? What kind of organs?", the client says something like, "Oh I just toss a hamburger patty to them every once in awhile", then ok, feel free to go in to what you think is the proper way to feed raw, what they need to look out for, (such as the weight bearing bones), and give the positives AND any negatives. Hey, maybe even throw in a "how interesting" at points to show the client you actually CARE about what they are feeding, how they are doing it and HELP THEM to do it the right way instead of telling them why they are wrong.

To respond to their answer to "What do you feed your pets" with, "Well, this is bad, this is bad, this is bad, this is bad and that is bad..." and never ever bother trying to even have a sociable conversation with the client, guess what you're going to get? You're going to get someone who never comes back to you.

And again, if you're going to make a claim, you better back it up with facts.


----------



## Savage Destiny

xellil said:


> The OP IS a troll - why not call her that? Troll.


You do realize that replying strictly with inflammatory remarks and no information whatsoever is also being a troll, right?


----------



## xellil

Look, I am not a rabble rouser, but I never said I can't be a troll.

Like Judge Judy says - if it doesn't make sense it's not true.

Go ask your vet if in their wildest dreams they would think there was any likelihood of being sued because a customer of theirs didn't wash their hands in their own kitchen. How stupid is that? It's ridiculous.

There has not been one post from the OP that wasn't meant to ridicule people that feed raw. There is no way any explanation, argument, nicey-nice, or rationalizing is going to create any kind of fruitful dialog with this person.

We are all being laughed at here, made fun of and laughed at. If i have to be a troll to keep pointing that out, so be it.


----------



## Tobi

xellil said:


> Look, I am not a rabble rouser, but I never said I can't be a troll.
> 
> Like Judge Judy says - if it doesn't make sense it's not true.
> 
> Go ask your vet if in their wildest dreams they would think there was any likelihood of being sued because a customer of theirs didn't wash their hands in their own kitchen. How stupid is that? It's ridiculous.
> 
> There has not been one post from the OP that wasn't meant to ridicule people that feed raw. There is no way any explanation, argument, nicey-nice, or rationalizing is going to create any kind of fruitful dialog with this person.
> 
> We are all being laughed at here, made fun of and laughed at. If i have to be a troll to keep pointing that out, so be it.


People sue for many different things, but calling somebody a troll repeatedly is pretty much uncalled for... I haven't read anything from this person on this thread that is ridiculing raw feeding, in fact i have spoken to the person in question over pm's a few times, and this person is a pretty level headed person, and has not once said anything to me about not feeding raw i've actually only received compliments on how my dog looks from raw feeding. If it was indeed just a troll why would they even chat via pm?

My multi millionaire grandmother sued a safeway in Portland Oregon because her bag ripped and a jar of pickles broke her foot... 1.5 million dollars says she sued and won over something so idiotic. People are Sue happy especially dumb/poor people with nothing to lose in trying to make a quick buck... I can honestly see some person suing over this.

Point is... calling somebody out on a thread, and repeatedly calling them a troll because you haven't conversed with them at all long enough to know that they aren't is rude.


----------



## xellil

People have tried... and failed. I have seen quite nice comments directed to her and were ignored or told to "settle down."

Of course, people can be sued for anything. She could also be sued because someone's dog drowned and she didn't warn them of the danger of water, or told them it would be good for them to swim. Is she worrying about that? Where is she on the water dogs board, asking these same questions?

Or what about poodles with curly hair? What if one of them gets an ingrown hair and she didn't warn the owner to brush backwards, not forward? Where is she on the poodle board?

On and on, ad nauseum.

Im sure she is totally enjoying herself about now.


----------



## Tobi

:tinfoil3:I think you are reading a little too far between the lines here :tinfoil3:

This is a touchy subject for some raw feeders and it was a legitimate question imo.I dunno where she is on the poodle in grown hair forums, stalk her


----------



## RawFedDogs

OK, I'm tired of "troll" talk. Let's end it here. Not only in this thread but any thread from this moment forward. Nothing positive is accomplished by using that word. If you don't like where a thread is headed then don't read it. It's as simple as that. It's time we all acted more civil here. Most of the time we are. Occasionally we slip a little. :smile: 

In the future, I will delete any post that has the word "troll" in it.


----------



## xellil

I'm very sorry if I offended people. It's not nice to tell people to "chill the **** out"


----------



## CorgiPaws

xellil said:


> I'm very sorry if I offended people. It's not nice to tell people to "chill the **** out"


I can't seem to find in the thread where that was said.

If you're referring to Bill's post, it's moderators duty to throw water on the fire. So chill.


----------



## SilverBeat

PuppyPaws- it was pretty far along in the thread...



karisma11 said:


> 1- I'm not debating. 2- I never said DOGS would get salmonella. I'm talking about the human owners. Chill the **** out. :/


Regardless of how I feel about the OP, the thread he/she started, or what she knows about poodle dogs' coats, I know how it feels to be jumped all over just for making/asking an unpopular statement/question. Xellil, I know you know how that feels, too, regarding positive training. Emotions run high; it's not right, nor polite, to keep pointing at one or two statements the person made and deeming them a character from the Billy Goats Gruff because of it. Could he/she have been more tactful? Yes. I think we all could have, but we weren't. And then it just became a cycle of "you were rude to me/my friend so I'm going to be rude to you!" 

And then, well... :behindsofa:


----------



## xellil

Mea culpa, I won't call anyone a t**** any more.

Edited to add: I didn't mean Bill, about the chill the **** out

That was what was said, from one person to another, earlier in the thread.


----------



## xxshaelxx

xellil said:


> Look, I am not a rabble rouser, but I never said I can't be a *****.
> 
> Like Judge Judy says - if it doesn't make sense it's not true.
> 
> Go ask your vet if in their wildest dreams they would think there was any likelihood of being sued because a customer of theirs didn't wash their hands in their own kitchen. How stupid is that? It's ridiculous.
> 
> There has not been one post from the OP that wasn't meant to ridicule people that feed raw. There is no way any explanation, argument, nicey-nice, or rationalizing is going to create any kind of fruitful dialog with this person.
> 
> We are all being laughed at here, made fun of and laughed at. If i have to be a troll to keep pointing that out, so be it.


Man Slips in Dog Poo, Sues for $1 Million

Did dog-food-eating burglar really get $500,000 award? - Morning Call

Top 10 Bizarre or Frivolous Lawsuits

15 Crazy Lawsuits that Make You Want to Sue Someone

The 10 Most Ridiculous Lawsuits of All Time

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...wsui_n_570512.html#s89448&title=Women_Sue_For


Xellil, I hope this makes it obvious to you how many absolutely ridiculous lawsuits are out there, that people can come up with at any time. And if someone REALLY wanted to, they COULD sue their vet for something absolutely ridiculous such as bad advice. They may not win, but it still takes a lot of time, stress, and money to deal with these things. It's just BETTER to cover your a$$.

However, I would also like to point out that someone could ALSO sue a vet for undue stress caused by the vet listing off all of the precautions to raw feeding and treating someone like a child. *cough* So maybe that would stand as good advice for the OP to NOT just randomly start spouting off issues.


----------



## bernadettelevis

xxshaelxx said:


> Man Slips in Dog Poo, Sues for $1 Million
> 
> Did dog-food-eating burglar really get $500,000 award? - Morning Call
> 
> Top 10 Bizarre or Frivolous*Lawsuits
> 
> 15 Crazy Lawsuits that Make You Want to Sue Someone
> 
> The 10 Most Ridiculous Lawsuits of All Time
> 
> The Most Frivolous Lawsuits Of All Time: Blowing Your Mind With Stupidity (PICTURES)
> 
> 
> Xellil, I hope this makes it obvious to you how many absolutely ridiculous lawsuits are out there, that people can come up with at any time. And if someone REALLY wanted to, they COULD sue their vet for something absolutely ridiculous such as bad advice. They may not win, but it still takes a lot of time, stress, and money to deal with these things. It's just BETTER to cover your a$$.
> 
> However, I would also like to point out that someone could ALSO sue a vet for undue stress caused by the vet listing off all of the precautions to raw feeding and treating someone like a child. *cough* So maybe that would stand as good advice for the OP to NOT just randomly start spouting off issues.


opcorn:ound:

i so wanna move to the US now and sue someone :grouphug:


----------



## xxshaelxx

bernadettelevis said:


> opcorn:ound:
> 
> i so wanna move to the US now and sue someone :grouphug:



:usa2:ound::rofl:


----------



## SpooOwner

Karisma - I like your statement. It might take some practice to get the words and tone right. I liked it when my Vet replied, "Great!" Enything he said afterward, I took as supportive. I would also suggest talking to other vets and members of the Board to see what they recommend, knowing that not all of their recommendations will be worth following.


----------



## xellil

Yes, but you can't anticipate the lawsuit - there's no way. There are also people who create situations where they are able to sue - throw a little water on the floor and fall. 

That could also happen in a vet's office, because in my opinion it would be a good place to throw some pee on the waiting room floor and fall. 
A thousand times more likely than getting sued for food you didn't buy from the vet, aren't preparing on the vet's recommendations, never entered the vet's door, and happens in your own kitchen.

And that would be even remotely provable, which a salmonella suit would not - it would be laughed out of court. 

i could file a lawsuit tomorrow, on anyone for anything -that's the way our court system works. 


It's just not realistic (nor reality) to worry about this stuff, especially long before you even take your license. Would I want a vet who cared about stuff like this, rather than the health of my dog?


----------



## SpooOwner

xellil said:


> Yes, but you can't anticipate the lawsuit - there's no way. There are also people who create situations where they are able to sue - throw a little water on the floor and fall.
> 
> That could also happen in a vet's office, because in my opinion it would be a good place to throw some pee on the waiting room floor and fall.
> A thousand times more likely than getting sued for food you didn't buy from the vet, aren't preparing on the vet's recommendations, never entered the vet's door, and happens in your own kitchen.
> 
> And that would be even remotely provable, which a salmonella suit would not - it would be laughed out of court.
> 
> i could file a lawsuit tomorrow, on anyone for anything -that's the way our court system works.
> 
> 
> It's just not realistic (nor reality) to worry about this stuff, especially long before you even take your license. Would I want a vet who cared about stuff like this, rather than the health of my dog?


It sounded to me like the OP was concerned about a malpractice suit. The standard of care applied in such cases is what other vets in her area do in a similar situation. If all the vets recommend against raw feeding, and she doesn't, then the suit will have merit. If all the vets in her area discuss risks - no matter how ridiculous they seem to us - and she doesn't, the suit will go forward. As many posters point out, law doesn't always make sense. Neither do the things you have to do to protect yourself from a lawsuit.


----------



## Angelwing

xellil said:


> It's just not realistic (nor reality) to worry about this stuff, especially long before you even take your license. Would I want a vet who cared about stuff like this, rather than the health of my dog?


People worry about all sorts of things for reasons that may not be approved by you. That doesn't mean they shouldn't worry about it. And just because the OP is worried about a potential lawsuit doesn't insinuate that she doesn't care for the health of the dog. And lol about the whole troll business, this is not what a typical troll acts like.

I think some of us need to take a step back and consider what we're saying before we get into heated arguments over nothing. The OP asks a valid question and a bunch of you jump down her throat. Not everyone is well versed in feeding a raw diet or knows how to do it properly. Yes, I think the OP should be researching the diet herself before she made this thread but she is asking for help and very few of you actually helped her.

OP, I wouldn't even mention the salmonella risk but would focus more on proper percentages of meat/bone/organ, ask if they are feeding weight bearing bones and the risk with those, and of feeding appropriate bone size to dog (to help eliminate choking risks).


----------



## BrownieM

I would not recommend that the OP give *any* advice about raw feeding as I don't get the opinion that she understands raw feeding well enough to do so properly. I would suggest that the OP recommend a good book like Tom Lonsdale _Works Wonders_ or Lew Olson's book. I too, would not mention the salmonella risk because it simply is no different from preparing raw meat for your own family.


----------



## 1605

xellil said:


> Yes, but you can't anticipate the lawsuit - there's no way. There are also people who create situations where they are able to sue - throw a little water on the floor and fall.
> 
> That could also happen in a vet's office, because in my opinion it would be a good place to throw some pee on the waiting room floor and fall.
> A thousand times more likely than getting sued for food you didn't buy from the vet, aren't preparing on the vet's recommendations, never entered the vet's door, and happens in your own kitchen.
> 
> And that would be even remotely provable, which a salmonella suit would not - it would be laughed out of court.
> 
> i could file a lawsuit tomorrow, on anyone for anything -that's the way our court system works.
> 
> 
> It's just not realistic (nor reality) to worry about this stuff, especially long before you even take your license. Would I want a vet who cared about stuff like this, rather than the health of my dog?



Unfortunately, you still are not getting the point about getting sued. *The majority of the time the suit never gets to court.* However, the person being sued is still forced to get a lawyer to defend themselves against the mountain of paperwork associated with being a defendant in a lawsuit. Plus, depending on where the suit is filed or the type of suit, it can be YEARS after the _alleged_ incident occurred when you get served with papers that you are being sued.

No offense, but you have obviously never been in a profession that requires liability insurance. So how do you feel you are qualified to determine whether or not it is "realistic to worry about this stuff"?


----------



## Northwoods10

SubMariner said:


> Unfortunately, you still are not getting the point about getting sued. *The majority of the time the suit never gets to court.* However, the person being sued is still forced to get a lawyer to defend themselves against the mountain of paperwork associated with being a defendant in a lawsuit. Plus, depending on where the suit is filed or the type of suit, it can be YEARS after the _alleged_ incident occurred when you get served with papers that you are being sued.
> 
> No offense, but you have obviously never been in a profession that requires liability insurance. So how do you feel you are qualified to determine whether or not it is "realistic to worry about this stuff"?


I think that if this particular person is worried about that subject....what else are they worried/paranoid about? Maybe being a vet isn't the best choice in career if they're worried about being sued. There are endless opportunities for a client to try and sue a vet for a whole array of issues. 

I personally think that part of being a vet is being confident & in control of your practice. There are much better ways to go about this issue and better ways to bring it up with this crowd than the way it was. And based on past posts from this member, it just didn't sit well. Arguing facts & advice given also doesn't look to good for someone who is looking into dealing with the public and their beloved animals everyday either.


----------



## xellil

SubMariner said:


> Unfortunately, you still are not getting the point about getting sued. *The majority of the time the suit never gets to court.* However, the person being sued is still forced to get a lawyer to defend themselves against the mountain of paperwork associated with being a defendant in a lawsuit. Plus, depending on where the suit is filed or the type of suit, it can be YEARS after the _alleged_ incident occurred when you get served with papers that you are being sued.
> 
> No offense, but you have obviously never been in a profession that requires liability insurance. So how do you feel you are qualified to determine whether or not it is "realistic to worry about this stuff"?


Well, i kinda think not many are understanding MY point. That no vet (and definintely no wannabe) worries about a lawsuit generated from a clients kitchen, feeding food not provided by the vet, not recommended by the vet, and not approved by the vet. 

Anyone who says they worry about stuff like that is either a) not telling the truth, or b) incredibly OCD and would be worried about specific lawsuits coming from so many directions they could never get out of bed in the morning.

there is no way to stop these lawsuits, or protect against them INDIVIDUALLY. Otherwise, a client would never get through signing the liability releases to walk back to the examining room.

Edited to add: I am quite neurotic. This is how much i worry about lawsuits - I have a 1991 Escort GT that I drive almost everywhere, because I am worried that someone will get me to rear end them just so they can sue me, and i think if I am in an old rusted out car they will think I'm not worth the trouble.


----------



## 1605

Northwoods10 said:


> I think that if this particular person is worried about that subject....what else are they worried/paranoid about? Maybe being a vet isn't the best choice in career if they're worried about being sued. There are endless opportunities for a client to try and sue a vet for a whole array of issues.
> 
> I personally think that part of being a vet is being confident & in control of your practice. There are much better ways to go about this issue and better ways to bring it up with this crowd than the way it was. And based on past posts from this member, it just didn't sit well. Arguing facts & advice given also doesn't look to good for someone who is looking into dealing with the public and their beloved animals everyday either.


I don't believe OP never indicated that she was "worried about that subject", but that as a vet it was still something that had to be taken into consideration when discussing the topic with her clients. Let's put it this way: if you had your pet in for a procedure, wouldn't you want to hear ALL the pros and cons about it, not just all the "feel good" stuff? That's why they call it "making an _informed _decision": you make it upon getting ALL THE INFORMATION.




Northwoods10 said:


> 1Arguing facts & advice given also doesn't look to good for someone who is looking into dealing with the public and their beloved animals everyday either.


Well, that's just the point. It looked to me that she was disagreeing with what individuals were saying & was presenting the other side of the discussion. She wasn't being confrontational, she simply wanted proof. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't make something irrefutable or a fact. It's nothing "personal"; it's simply logical.


----------



## Northwoods10

SubMariner said:


> I don't believe OP never indicated that she was "worried about that subject", but that as a vet it was still something that had to be taken into consideration when discussing the topic with her clients. *Let's put it this way: if you had your pet in for a procedure, wouldn't you want to hear ALL the pros and cons about it, not just all the "feel good" stuff? That's why they call it "making an informed decision": you make it upon getting ALL THE INFORMATION.*
> 
> 
> Well, that's just the point. It looked to me that she was disagreeing with what individuals were saying & was presenting the other side of the discussion. She wasn't being confrontational, she simply wanted proof. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't make something irrefutable or a fact. It's nothing "personal"; it's simply logical.


EXACTLY. 

So the advice was given that the OP should have ALL the information. Not just bits & pieces. 

And the OP came in here giving false information that was biased towards raw being dangerous.


----------



## luvMyBRT

Northwoods10 said:


> EXACTLY.
> 
> So the advice was given that the OP should have ALL the information. Not just bits & pieces.
> 
> And the OP came in here giving false information that was biased towards raw being dangerous.


This is EXACTLY what I was going to say. If they are wanting to give information on a topic, it would be best for them to know something about it so they can give EDUCATED advice about BOTH the pros and cons.


----------



## xxshaelxx

SubMariner said:


> I don't believe OP never indicated that she was "worried about that subject", but that as a vet it was still something that had to be taken into consideration when discussing the topic with her clients. Let's put it this way: if you had your pet in for a procedure, wouldn't you want to hear ALL the pros and cons about it, not just all the "feel good" stuff? That's why they call it "making an _informed _decision": you make it upon getting ALL THE INFORMATION.


That's why I said that the OP should discuss the positive WITH the negative. But only if the client seems to welcome the information, because as some people have pointed out here, there are those of us who WOULD get offended, because we've already done our research. Personally, I wouldn't mind discussing a raw diet with a vet, as long as they're not looking down on me and just listing off a number of the rumored negatives that COULD happen.


----------



## jiml

Anytime you have a raw feeding client, you automatically have a client that knows more about it than you do. You would do well to keep your uninformed mouth shut about that topic. It will make you look smarter.
>>>>

RFD. I dont see how he was being disrespectful at all. your comment was uncalled for. Regardless of his lack of exp in raw he does have some training in anatamy, biology, biochemistry etc that some can learn from if they care to. how about learning from each other?

Your comment is coming from a long time positive trainer who insists training can be 100% positive something scientifically impossible. Dont believe me? ask dunbar, mcconnell, or pryor.


----------



## magicre

we do live in a litigious society and i can see your dilemma.....

and since you're anal and i say this in a comrade way....as i am..

you may want to consider that feeding raw carries with it the same risks, possibly less, than feeding kibble...where dogs choke, get salmonella (research is now leaning toward the increase of salmonella in dry and wet food)

you may want to warn your patients about rawhide chews which can crack a dog's tooth.

you would want to include the gingivitis and gum disease from the sugar in dry food, plus you'll want to warn about endocarditis and diabetes from sugar

and let's not forget the amount of salt and other 'innocuous products' in kibble.

there is a danger to feeding everything....

gi perforations aren't just from raw feeding. 

there are dogs who eat rocks, who eat sharp objects from the trash, there are dogs who eat things we don't see...but feed a dog raw and it HAS to be the bones? i don't think so...

when you become a vet, try to look at the bigger picture, for what you're saying here will make you the vet that we leave.

and, if you go into veterinary medicine and your concern is being sued, then as a medical doctor, i suggest you find another profession. 

my vet did say all that to me. i only go to him because i have an older dog and in spite of his ignorance, he is a good vet and knows my dogs. but once she dies, we will be switching vets.

i need a modern vet, not a vet who lives in the world of ignorance....food is as important to my dog's health as everything else is....



p.s. i wish i had noticed this thread start on april 21.....if i had i wouldn't have posted..i would have had another cuppa coffee.


----------



## RawFedDogs

jiml said:


> Anytime you have a raw feeding client, you automatically have a client that knows more about it than you do. You would do well to keep your uninformed mouth shut about that topic. It will make you look smarter.
> >>>>
> 
> RFD. I dont see how he was being disrespectful at all.


I guess you didn't read the whole thread. He made 27 posts in this thread alone before I made the post you are questioning. He had been so argumenative that several posters had already called him a troll. He never asked for information about raw feeding. All he was asking was how to explaine his imagined dangers of feeding a raw diet. Most of his imagined dangers were not dangers at all. All he is concenrned about is that sometime in the way off distant future if he ever graduates from vet school, how does he avoid getting sued for failing to warn experienced raw feeders of what he imagines to be the dangers of raw feeding.



> your comment was uncalled for.


My post in question was very good advice for this ill advised person.



> Regardless of his lack of exp in raw he does have some training in anatamy, biology, biochemistry etc that some can learn from if they care to. how about learning from each other?


He wasn't trying to learn about raw feeding. He was trying to avoid possible law suits some time in the distant future.



> Your comment is coming from a long time positive trainer who insists training can be 100% positive something scientifically impossible. Dont believe me? ask dunbar, mcconnell, or pryor.


I think I have probably spend a lot more time talking to all three of those people than you have. I have personally met all of them and have communicated privately with each in receiving consultations about problems I was having with different client dogs dogs. I have also attended seminars by all three. 100% positive training is possible with any animal, teaching it anything it is mentally and physically capable of doing. The only possible exception is brain damaged animals. I have personally trained dogs, cats, birds of prey, rats, mice, and chickens using positive reinforcement methods of teaching. I have observed in person other trainers training most any species of wild animals from lions, tigers, elephants, gorillas, rhino, orangutans, otters, exotic birds, dolphins, killer whales and even gold fish. Yes, I watched Karen Pryor training a gold fish. :biggrin:

I know what I'm talking about in regards to training. I have used all methods over the years until I learned positive reinforcement. Once that light bulb came on, I NEVER had to resort to compulsion to train any animal again.


----------



## mischiefgrrl

We met the new vet at our practice on Thursday and I told her that they eat raw. She gave both Tanis and Tiffa a good examination and said that she's heard wonderful things about feeding raw to dogs who are suffering from allergy problems. Tanis has a "crunchy" wrist that concerned her and when I brought up that maybe I should be giving him chicken feet for the glucosamine she agreed. She said the only thing she would discuss with someone who asked about the diet is safe handling practices of the meat - for the human's sake. I think that was the perfect answer.


----------



## Chocx2

wow thats great don't loose her follow her if she leaves that practice!!
mischiefgrrl, you have an aussie, do you have cannon ball but with the aussie alot?


----------



## mischiefgrrl

All of the doctors in this practice have been excellent and supportive of my non-kibble feeding choices. I think they make sure they are all in the same frame of mind when it comes to how they practice medicine. 

The aussie has had cannon butt a few times since feeding raw... it comes down to too much liver. Took us a while to figure out his perfect amount that doesn't make him squirt. I'd say 85% of his meals have bone in them too. The aussie I had before him got cannon butt from all kibbles so I switched to home cooked food (before finding out all of the benefits of raw) and that was much better for his stools. I imagine he would've done even better if he'd been on raw.


----------



## jiml

RFD, As a long time trainer Im assuming you understand operant conditioning and its definitions.

here is a blog post by mcconnell

Positives of Negatives & Negatives of Positives
Tuesday, February 22nd, 2011
Thanks to all who have commented so far in answer to the questions “Are you a 100 % positive trainer?” and “Would you sign a pledge to only use positive reinforcement and never use punishment?” I appreciate the thoughtful discussion that the questions have generated. I’ll jump in now, with the caveat that this topic deserves an all day seminar (at least) and I can’t begin to say all I’d like to in one post. I’ll start however, by summarizing some of my thoughts on the issue.

Let me start by saying that I consider myself to be an overwhelmingly “positive” trainer. I would imagine that those who have seen me work would agree that I am a kind and gentle trainer, and primarily use positive reinforcement when working with dogs. That said, I’d never sign a pledge saying I’ll only “use positive reinforcement” in all my dealings with dogs. I wouldn’t consider it for a moment. Here’s why:

1. As most of us are well aware, the word “punishment” itself refers to two completely different concepts, depending on whether you are talking to the public or to professionals in animal training or psychology. I virtually never use the word when talking to the general public or a client, unless I define it first in operant conditioning terms. That’s because the public and generic dog owner usually defines “punishment” as something inherently aversive, and often as something involving pain or fear. But in operant terms, punishment simply means anything that decreases the frequency of a behavior, and that should be well understood by any professional group involved in dog training. If someone in the dog training field asked me to sign a pledge that I’d never use “punishment,” I’d assume they were aware of its precise meaning, and decline, being unable to say “I’d never do anything to decrease the frequency of a behavior.”

2. I love “Negative Punishment.” What? Trisha loves “negative” and “punishment?” Oh my, say it isn’t so. But remember: in learning theory terms, “negative” means to take something away and “punishment” means to decrease the frequency of a behavior. Period, that’s all. Nothing about aversive, or even “good” or “bad” for that matter.

Here’s an example: Say I’ve been working with a young dog for six months on sitting when asked. We’ve proofed the behavior in a million contexts, and Fido has gotten 10 gazillion pieces of chicken and 5 gazillion other times he’s got to run and play with another dog when he did as asked. Now we’re at home, there’s little going on, but Fido didn’t sit when I gave the cue. I’m as sure as one can be without speaking ‘dog” that there’s nothing physically bothering him, he just seems more interested in ignoring me and going somewhere else to sniff. I’ll take a piece of said chicken, let him sniff it and then withdraw it, saying, melodramatically, “Too bad…. ” and possibly, depending on the state of the chicken and my stomach, “Mmmm, this sure is good! Too bad you don’t get any.”

That’s “negative punishment:” I took something away (food) to decrease a behavior (ignoring my cue). I didn’t learn this technique until I’d been in the business for quite awhile, but I use it, in the right context, and have found it to be really and truly effective. (Leslie Nelson, for her great Reliable Recalls, uses a similar technique in which one dog ends up watching other dogs get treats when he didn’t come when called.) In the example above, once I’d withdrawn the food, I ask for a sit again, and then I’d back up so that my feet don’t get squished by the dog’s hindquarters hitting the ground. That’s how effective it is. I only use this once a dog has received positive reinforcement literally over and over and over again, and when I feel confident that he understands the exercise and is capable of performing it (not feeling poorly that day, not overwhelmed by a new environment, for example). But let’s be clear: it’s punishment, if you are going to use the term correctly.

3. What’s Positive for the Trainer may not be Positive for the Dog: As the opposite of “Punishment,” “Reinforcement,”is something that increases a behavior, period. If it’s “positive” (I’ll use +R here for Positive Reinforcement) then you have added something to the system, if it’s negative (-R), you’ve taken something away. In either case, you are looking for a behavior to increase. So how would you evaluate these scenarios:

Scenario One is, regrettably, astoundingly common: A shy dog is greeted by a person, whether it’s a vet tech or a neighbor, with shrieks of joy and looming hugs and/or kisses to the nose. The person is being “positive” in their eyes, but the dog is being punished for its very existence, terrified as it is by the rude and overwhelming approach by the stranger. A perfect of example of +P to the dog and +R to the human.

In Scenario Two, a trainer is waiting for a dog to raise it’s paw so that she can use +R and give it a treat, on her way to shaping a “high five.” The dog, having no clue what the trainer wants, tries sitting, circling, and lying down. The trainer stays still and quiet, an atypical posture for her, and turns her head away very slightly. She has just used +P to communicate to the dog, adding in an unnatural posture and an obvious turn of the head (obvious to the dog anyway) to decrease the frequency of the dog’s response in that context.

4. Positive Punishment (in which something is added to decrease the frequency of a behavior) isn’t always aversive. For example, after watching herding dogs influence the behavior of sheep without touching them, I took a page from their lesson plan and began using what I called “Body Blocks.” For example, while teaching Stay, I’ll give a dog infinite quantities of treats for staying still when asked, but also move forward to block her movement if she starts to get up. “Taking the space” I’ve called it, and I’ve found it to be incredibly useful in helping dogs understand what you want. (This is similar to the Psych study one commenter noted, in which students were “trained” to perform a new behavior by either 1) only being told “Yes” when they did right, 2) only being told “No” when they did wrong or, 3) being told both “Yes” and “No.” The students who were told both what was right and what was wrong learned fastest.)

I realize that some people consider Body Blocks to be highly aversive to dogs, and don’t use them. One commenter noted that she never used Body Blocks, feeling that they were too aversive to use on her dogs. Two things come to mind here: one is that I’ve done Body Blocks on one or two dogs now (or maybe 5,000), and can tell you that they respond in a myriad of ways. Some field-bred Labradors seem to think it’s the best game in town, and try their best to beat you, eyes shining, until they figure out soon enough that something even better happens if they just stay still for a moment. They behave as though, if they could, they’d say “That was fun! Got any more cool games up your sleeve?” However, super soft dogs, let’s imagine a melty little Shetland Sheepdog, need a quiet little forward lean to be influenced, and if someone moved too fast and too abruptly they could indeed scare them. This is a perfect example of how important it is for a trainer to be able to ‘read’ a dog, no matter what method they are using I would argue, and adjust their behavior based on the personality of the dog him or herself.

5. However, this does raise the question, the elephant in the room really, of using “aversives.” Are “Aversives” always bad? Ah, here’s where the rubber hits the road, isn’t it? We can all debate about what is +P and -P and +R and -R to our heart’s content, but isn’t the issue really “Is it ever acceptable to purposefully respond to a dog’s behavior with something that they perceive as aversive?” My own answer is another reason why I’d never sign a pledge to never use punishment, even as defined by the public. Life is just too complicated to be summed up in simple categories of black and white.

Do I think that we have a responsibility to be kind and gentle to our dogs? Yes.

Do I think that Positive Reinforcement is overwhelmingly the most effective method of training? Yes.

Do I use it 99.99% of the time? Yes.


----------



## jiml

Have I ever done something to a dog that I knew he would think was aversive to get him to stop doing something? Yes. Would I again? Yes.

Here’s an example:

When Willie first started working sheep, he had a bad habit of dashing into the flock and scattering them as if he was playing pool. Alisdair McRae, a brilliant trainer and teacher, explained that I simply had to prevent it from happening during the early stages of training, because there was nothing I could do that was more reinforcing to Willie. Not only did he get to watch the sheep bolt away (look what I can do!) and then chase them (wow is this fun!), he got to disperse the tension inside of his own body (and boy do I feel better!). So I set up practice after practice in which I was between him and the sheep, and just my presence was enough for him to stay back where he should when working. But once I had to move back away from the flock to begin short outruns, he began doing it again. We went back to working in closer, but every time I backed away far enough he’d eventually dash in, scatter the sheep and turn around, body relaxed, eyes shining, mouth open, having gotten the best reinforcement he could possibly get.

I began walking him away in response: you bolt in, session over. This helped a great deal, but not enough. Eventually, after several months of work, Willie charged in, for what I believed to be the simple joy of it. I responded a gruff voice (“Cut it out!”) and a fast and direct march toward him. I stopped a long way away but looked directly at him and said again, in no uncertain terms “You cut that out!” Willie, an extremely biddable dog, backed up and looked absolutely shocked . . . and didn’t do it again. He now has the most gorgeous outrun you can imagine, and he works right on balance 99.99% of the time. Every once in a while, when he’s very tense, he’ll begin to dash in and I’ll say his name low and quiet, and he’ll curve back out again.


----------



## magicre

maybe i'm on too many drugs, jiml....but i don't see that as negative for anyone.....if she took the dog and whalloped him across the face, i'd call that negative training.....but she told him to cut it out....i don't see that as negative. i see that as a verbal direction...i hardly think it hurt his feelings..

and this is in no way a disrespect toward you...

some dogs.....are like that...i have one. we can't use food because he focuses on the food and not on the training, he is that food driven, so we find other ways...

sounds to me like that's what she is doing....situational training.....isn't always negative.


----------



## CavePaws

Magicre, negative in the training world to anyone who understands operant conditioning simply means to take away. Positive means to add in. 

As noted in the post, she asked the dog to sit, knowing well the dog knows how to sit, the dog does not sit, so she shows the dog she has treats, then withdraws the treats without giving the dog any. This is taking something away, the reward. Making it negative punishment. When trainers use these terms the emotions are taken out and we use them strictly on set definitions. 

Negative - To take away
Positive - To add in
Punishment - To decrease the behavior
Reinforcement - To increase the behavior

Jiml, it is completely possible to train a dog with 100% positive reinforcement depending upon the dog. That's just it, DEPENDING UPON THE DOG. If we are going to add emotions in you could say I am a 100% positive trainer, in that I will do nothing to hurt the dog physically or mentally. I'm not a 100% positive trainer however in that I will take something away from a dog if they know fully well what I've asked and they do not listen. No I won't add something in like a leash correction, so it's not often I use positive punishment.


----------



## magicre

> Magicre, negative in the training world to anyone who understands operant conditioning simply means to take away. Positive means to add in.
> 
> As noted in the post, she asked the dog to sit, knowing well the dog knows how to sit, the dog does not sit, so she shows the dog she has treats, then withdraws the treats without giving the dog any. This is taking something away, the reward. Making it negative punishment. When trainers use these terms the emotions are taken out and we use them strictly on set definitions.
> 
> Negative - To take away
> Positive - To add in
> Punishment - To decrease the behavior
> Reinforcement - To increase the behavior


are you trying to teach me something here that you believe i've missed or misunderstood?

and whilst i realise i am not a world class animal trainer, i do have common sense.


----------



## RawFedDogs

jiml said:


> RFD, As a long time trainer Im assuming you understand operant conditioning and its definitions.


Yes Jim, I know and well understand +/-R and +/-P and have for many years. I try my best to avoid getting this techincal in training discussions on general dog boards as most people don't. SOOOooooo ... if you want to get techinical, yes I do use -P while training animals. Even though it uses the word "netative" I personally don't consider it a negative effect on the animal being trained. It's just another nonaversive method of encouraging the proper behavior. Like all humans, I have sometimes lost my temper or gotten frustrated and raised my voice in a negative way towards the animal being trained. I feed the same about this as about -P. So in the most technical terms, I guess I am not a 100% positive trainer but in common usage of the term, I am. 

Of course when discussing training methods on strictly training discussion boards, I use the more technical terms. The greatest majority of people on DFC are not training at that level so I stick with more common definitions. Also, in general, I find the discussions of +/-R and +/-P to be pretty boring. I had much rather discuss specific actions rather than labels.


----------



## CavePaws

magicre said:


> are you trying to teach me something here that you believe i've missed or misunderstood?
> 
> and whilst i realise i am not a world class animal trainer, i do have common sense.


No, I'm not trying to teach you anything if you already understand and know. Lots of people don't know of -p, +p, -r, +r. If they are reading the discussion but don't feel like reading through that entire blog post to understand what all these technical terms truly mean, then they can get it put simply right there in what I posted. My definition of common sense doesn't really involve all of those technical terms to be honest.


----------



## magicre

ok, just making sure. it's hard, sometimes, to tell what the tone of the words are when our fingers are flying across the keyboard.....whilst i've never studied animal behaviour, i've made it my life's work to study human behaviour.....and of course, there are similarities between the two...

with the exception of speaking which is not always advantageous in humans : )

thanks for explaining.


----------



## jiml

if you want to get techinical, yes I do use -P while training animals. Even though it uses the word "netative" I personally don't consider it a negative effect on the animal being trained.>>>


Ok Ive been in and seen you in these conversations before and you never gave me this. LOL

I still think you were a little hard on the vet kid. In the 2 threads I read of his I thought he got jumped on a little quick. A lot of the concerns he has are valid in a lot of people/vets minds. I think he could have been educated as to why his views were wrong and/or not as concerning as he may have thought in a better way. Did you expect him to instantly transform his views?


----------



## CavePaws

Understandable, I didn't mean to sound like I was questioning your intelligence at all or anything of the sort. Just trying to clarify, because I was too lazy to read through the entire blog post, and I know if I didn't have background training in this then I probably wouldn't have understood what everything meant.


----------



## magicre

jiml said:


> if you want to get techinical, yes I do use -P while training animals. Even though it uses the word "netative" I personally don't consider it a negative effect on the animal being trained.>>>
> 
> 
> Ok Ive been in and seen you in these conversations before and you never gave me this. LOL
> 
> I still think you were a little hard on the vet kid. In the 2 threads I read of his I thought he got jumped on a little quick. A lot of the concerns he has are valid in a lot of people/vets minds. I think he could have been educated as to why his views were wrong and/or not as concerning as he may have thought in a better way. Did you expect him to instantly transform his views?


i really like the thoughtful posts you write...and normally, i agree and love how you phrase things...

in this case, this person came on and was more concerned about being sued than he was in learning. as a doctor, i've certainly met my fair share of medicos who want to get hold of the sally sue list. and yes it is real.....

and quite frankly, i did not get the impression he was here to learn. he wanted us to give him the language needed so he could write a disclaimer...plus he wanted us to tell him of all the concerns and risks of feeding raw...since kibble is perfectly safe....so that he could put those risks and concerns into the 270 page disclaimer he would make raw patients sign.

i think that pissed off some people, including me.


----------



## magicre

i actually went to sleep thinking about this....and i realised he didn't go over to the kibble and canned section to ask these questions about disclaimers, warnings, and risks.


----------



## jiml

i really like the thoughtful posts you write...and normally, i agree and love how you phrase things.>>>>

well thanks. 

I did not read that into it, I just read it as him being a skeptic. As you stated their are no shortage of Dr's/vets
that practice defensive med.

Im a chiropractor myself.


----------

