# any raw feeding breeders?



## zontee (Oct 12, 2012)

i wean my pet quality puppys on to kibble because i feel it makes for a less stressful transition at 12-14 weeks. i have had puppys returned to me bacause they wouldnt eat kibble in their new home. all my puppys go home crate leash and house trained and they also go home sexualy altered i feel that is lots for a puppy to learn in a short time and i dont want to deal with a hunger strike at the and of all those things am i a bad breeder for not weaning my pet quality puppys onto raw ?


----------



## CavePaws (Jan 25, 2011)

My pup coming will be weaned on to raw! Very excited to have found the perfect breeder!


----------



## zontee (Oct 12, 2012)

i cant find enough pet buyers that will feed raw thats why im struggleing


----------



## SaharaNight Boxers (Jun 28, 2011)

Does aspiring breeder count?

I don't think it's wrong. You do have a small breed though, what about weaning them onto a dehydrated or freeze dried food? I think it would still stay pretty economical for new owners.


----------



## zontee (Oct 12, 2012)

that is a great idea i think that would be easy to talk new owners into doing that


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

We feed all our adults PMR, and though we have not weaned to raw YET I'm thinking I might take the plunge next month. I have the same hesitation- that not that many people feed raw and it could be a tough transition on top of going to a new home.


----------



## zontee (Oct 12, 2012)

i wean my show potental pups to raw but thats because i keep them till they are 6months ols


----------



## twoisplenty (Nov 12, 2008)

Our puppies are weaned to Raw and I have had a very high success rate keeping them raw fed with their new owners. Its about properly screening and educating your clients. People come to us for healthy puppies from health tested parents. You don't get any healthier than weaned to Raw  It about setting the right foundation for your puppy. 

Also how do you know who is show and who is pet quality at 12 weeks of age and why on earth do you alter them so early?


----------



## zontee (Oct 12, 2012)

most of my pet puppy buyers are elderly people that belive alot of the myths about raw feeding or that have no intrest in doing it for 1 toy dog. i have tried educateing my buyers but i wont turn my back on a great home if they wont feed raw because i feel it is a personal choice.

as far as picking pet pups out of the litter anything that is mismarked is pet quality as as anything with a small head.

i alter at 7 weeks because the pros outweigh the cons and i feel it is better for the pet puppys to be in their new homes sooner than 6 months and i would never sell in intact pet.


----------



## Liz (Sep 27, 2010)

We are Naturally Rearing. We feed raw, do no vaccines and will not breed to vaccinated dogs, and use no chemicals. After all the time and research as well as money invested into our dogs and raising them as naturally as possible I will not place a pup in anything other than a NR home. I don't breed often and see no purpose in breeding these wonderful dogs to have them fed cereal and injected with toxins. Youwould be surprised how many people come to understand the gift of a Naturally Reared dog.


----------



## Savage Destiny (Mar 16, 2011)

Not to start a huge uproar or anything but... Those of you who breed or are considering breeding, but don't feel you can find enough raw feeding homes for the puppies, why breed in the first place? If you don't have enough acceptable homes, why produce the puppies? 

I'm honestly not trying to start a war here... I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## Liz (Sep 27, 2010)

Savage Destiny - you are 100% correct. We will not place outside of a NR home and will not breed without a waiting list. I know we breed and keep pups from our breeding to show, and currently we do have waiting list for a few pets but mostly service dogs. I feel if you are breeding a quality dog only to have it end up fed kibble, given vaccine and topicals, etc. Why bother. My pups are worth more than that to me. I don't even want to start on the neuter/spaying of infant dogs. This is acceptable for rescues and humane society as they cannot monitor every household their dogs are placed in, but for a breeder to neuter/spay infant pups is not right. Hormones serve a purpose just like raw feeding and not vaccinating. There are good homes out there.


----------



## twoisplenty (Nov 12, 2008)

Savage Destiny said:


> Not to start a huge uproar or anything but... Those of you who breed or are considering breeding, but don't feel you can find enough raw feeding homes for the puppies, why breed in the first place? If you don't have enough acceptable homes, why produce the puppies?
> 
> I'm honestly not trying to start a war here... I'm genuinely curious.


We are very thorough with our client screening process. All of our clients are well aware that puppies come from Raw raised parents and will be weaned to Raw. We even send our clients home with a months worth of raw food, a feeding schedule and give them any information we have explaining Raw feeding including PMR websites to join. Like Liz, we also have waiting lists for our future litters. 

I am still shaking my head with the fact that you choose to spay/neuter so early. To me this is irresponsible as a breeder and shows no regard for long term health. It shows me that you are only interested in protecting your own interests/lines. If you are properly screening your clients, then you should also trust that they will spay/neuter. 

Here are a few article if you are interested:

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf

Don't Make This Mistake When Scheduling Your Dog's Neutering Procedure


----------



## Fundog (Oct 25, 2012)

Liz said:


> We are Naturally Rearing. We feed raw, do no vaccines and will not breed to vaccinated dogs, and use no chemicals. After all the time and research as well as money invested into our dogs and raising them as naturally as possible I will not place a pup in anything other than a NR home. I don't breed often and see no purpose in breeding these wonderful dogs to have them fed cereal and injected with toxins. Youwould be surprised how many people come to understand the gift of a Naturally Reared dog.


What about rabies vaccine? In many of the United States, rabies vaccination is required by law.


----------



## Liz (Sep 27, 2010)

We titre for rabies. We have had no problem in 9 years. I do have two service dogs who could not get around the rabies so we worked with them to build their immune system and to mitigate and repair after the vaccine.


----------



## nortknee (May 5, 2011)

I wasn't going to post, but I feel like some things need to be asked.

First off, WHY would you alter that young!? The only thing that says to me is that you are too lazy to find proper homes for your puppies. You shouldn't be selling puppies to these people if you can't trust to alter them at the appropriate age.
Second, raw feeding is appropriate for all dogs, regardless of size, or whether they're "show quality" or not. If your puppy buyers aren't willing to feed raw (and it's important to you) then they shouldn't be approved for one of your puppies!
Third, isn't syringomyelia a major problem in your breed? Shouldn't you be taking a closer look at the conformation of their skulls as opposed to just the overall size of their heads?

I definitely think you should reconsider some of you breeding practices. What do you breed for? What do you hope to achieve from each breeding you do?

There's a lot more to being a great breeder than just providing perfect companions... :\


----------



## Celt (Dec 27, 2010)

Not everyone knows of the problems that pediatric neuterings can cause. When we got Scotty, at 9 weeks, he was already neutered. We were told that his being neutered so young wasn't a "bad" option because he had a quicker recovery, less surgical trauma, lots of other "good" stuff. Now I'd never heard of fixing a dog that young before, so I went on a fact search. At first, it seemed that what we were told was the "truth" but I kept digging. Eventually, I came across the negative aspects. It easier to find this negative information now but so many people don't know whether or not to believe and ask their vet and are told that pediatric neuterings are better. And with the vet being the professional...


----------



## NewYorkDogue (Sep 27, 2011)

zontee said:


> as far as picking pet pups out of the litter anything that is mismarked is pet quality as as anything with a small head.


Not to be rude, but this phrasing just really bothers me--- using the word "anything" in describing a living pup that you just bred...sounds more like something an assembly line worker would use to sort out manufactured parts that may or may not be defective...

Sorry, but....yikes. :shocked:


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

I don't think feeding raw is such the end all be all to good homes. There are so many wonderful pet owners who feed kibble, and I'm happy to place puppies with them. 
For me it's not an issue of not enough raw feeding homes, it's a matter of not disregarding those who feed kibble and other diets. I am not defending the OP's practices, some of which I find downright scary, I just can't get behind the idea that someone who feeds kibble is a bad owner.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

schism said:


> Agreed. It is to the breeder's discretion what they do/don't do with their puppies but to say "I won't adopt out to non natural rearing homes" is a little over the top IMO.


I don't think it's over the top, if that's what breeders want to do more power to them! That's great! I'm all for raw feeding and I think it's wonderful... But to peg it as something that makes or breaks a good breeder is silly to me. Not all breeders are created equally but the things in which some people choose to use to determine good vs. not good baffles me sometimes.
Of my last litter of 9 pups, two are raw fed. All were sold before 8 weeks despite most of my wait list falling through. I am in contact with all 9, all are healthy and doing well and have superb families, and are well cared for. I can't imagine any reason to rule them out.


----------



## Liz (Sep 27, 2010)

As I stated before I have seen the change in my dogs since going to Natural Rearing. Someone wanting one of my dogs would understand how they have been bred and raised and I expect that they are like minded individuals. I would rather not breed at all than place them in less than a NR home. If that bothers someone they probably should not be contacting a NR breeder - we are pretty outspoken about that. My dogs health and happiness is my first concern and that is one reason we choose to raise them they way we do. No one has to agree and it doesn't bother me at all. Over the top? So be it. Less than what I feel is the best is not acceptable for my pups pet, show or service they should all receive the same care.


----------



## zontee (Oct 12, 2012)

sorry to have created drama i was trying to figure out what to do to make the puppys lifes less stressful in the long run. my pet buyers i try to educate them on raw but most arent intrested in doing it. one of you gave me the great idea to wean onto freeze dried so i will give that i try on my pet puppys.

as far as my pratices i feel that i am ethical and i am doing what is in the best intrests of my pups and their familys and i do not feel i need to explane those pratices to you since i asked a feeding question. if i wanted to talk ethics i would do that somewhere else.

as far as the amount of breeding i do i breed once every few years when i need a new show prospect for myself so that works out to 7 pups in 8 years in my current breed. so no they are not a product to me.

the pet pups recive way more care than most breeders seing as i spend that 4-12 week period doing constant training so that the pups and their owners have the best start possiable. i have had puppys that are 6 months old coming from the breeder that arent even leash trained.


----------



## doggoblin (Jun 6, 2011)

Not a breeder but do wonder at times how many people do research on breeds, take time to find a decent ethical breeder but know nothing about raw feeding or vaccines. Most raw feeders I personally know learned about it after running into health problems with their dogs such as allergies. Many only want the best for their dogs and rely on breeders to assist them to be able to give the best all round care but are prepared to take the effort to do so. With a good relationship between the breeder and "client" I do not see any problem with the breeder insisting on natural rearing. To me that shows they are taking responsibility for the puppy during it's life, not simply producing puppies for money.

Don't know if it's known but saw an advert in the Raw Instincts Magazine for the Natural Rearing Breeders Association


----------



## Liz (Sep 27, 2010)

Schism - the NR breeders I know do maintain the same standards for their human family. They eat very healthy, generally do not vaccinate their children and use little to no chemicals in their household. It is a way of life, granted it is extreme for some people but it makes sense to us. I understand there are some fine families but for us not vaccinating and raw feeding and other natural practices are part of what makes a family "right" for my pups. I have a very close friend who breeds shelties and is not NR. I have no problem with her and she has some lovely dogs. Mine will never be bred to hers and I would not have one of her pups nor would I place one of mine with her. She is a good home and she knows shelties - she will not NR, that is just not acceptable. She is a good breeder with nice dogs. That is not enough for us. We agree to disagree.  And yes my children very rarely eat processed food and no the have not been vaccinated.


----------



## pogo (Aug 28, 2011)

zontee said:


> most of my pet puppy buyers are elderly people that belive alot of the myths about raw feeding or that have no intrest in doing it for 1 toy dog. i have tried educateing my buyers but i wont turn my back on a great home if they wont feed raw because i feel it is a personal choice.
> 
> as far as picking pet pups out of the litter anything that is mismarked is pet quality as as anything with a small head.
> 
> i alter at 7 weeks because the pros outweigh the cons and i feel it is better for the pet puppys to be in their new homes sooner than 6 months and i would never sell in intact pet.


I wasn't going to comment, but this i find so sad and wrong.

You should not neuter dogs so young, no the pros do not outweigh the cons, in fact overall the benefits at any age are in favour of keeping dogs entire but at such a young age is so wrong.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

schism said:


> I can't say that I have a problem with breeders deciding to rear their dogs naturally (as their dogs/puppies are their property and can do with them what they wish)- more, that they turn potentially amazing homes simply because they decide not to feed raw or because they prefer to vaccine. That seems counter productive and a bit ridiculous.
> They don't even have these standards for children...


I think that you find it "counter productive and a bit ridiculous" because you've misunderstood the REASON behind ethical breeding. When GOOD breeders have litters, it's not to appeal to a broad audience or sell a bunch of pups. They are not breeding to make a buyer happy. In fact, many breeders ONLY breed when they are looking to keep pups. No breeder should feel the need to compromise their own personal standards. There is NO shortage of dogs and breeders, and if one doesn't suit what someone is looking for, there's a hundred more that will. 

So if the purpose is to sell as many puppies as possible, then yes these requirements would be counter productive... but if that's not the goal, how in any way is it a negative thing?


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

I agree with some of your points, which is why I think it's SO important that people take the time to find a breeder they are on the same page with. :smile: I think the breeder/buyer relationship is incredibly important.


----------



## Mandy (Aug 30, 2012)

I just want to say that before my Logan I was not a raw feeder, but I did my best to ensure they were getting the highest quality kibble that I could afford. I also neutered (at 6 months of age) and vaccinated. I'm not a stupid person, I'm not irresponsible with my pets, and I feel that I make a better home for my animals than a lot of people do with their own skin children. I won't say it's offensive to read that I apparently would be make a poor home/family for some of the puppies theoretically mentioned here, but I do find it to be a bit surprising that I'd be viewed as such. That's how I feel like I'm being portrayed here anyway. I have no children and my pets are spoiled rotten! Pretty much every decision I make with my life has been decided around if it'll fit their needs or not. 

I can totally understand that you as breeders have high expectations when placing your pups and rightfully so! I'd probably be just as picky with any pups I had to place. I wouldn't however demand that my buyers feed their puppies a raw diet. Surely I would recommend it and offer as much info and advice as possible, but to say if you don't feed raw you're not getting one of my puppies, I just don't think I could do it. Why? Well because even though raw feeding really isn't rocket science there is a LOT to learn and a LOT of time and research needs to be put into it. If a buyer agreed to it and decided a few weeks or months down the road that just boneless chicken or boneless turkey would serve as the diet that would do far more harm than good. There's really no way to guarantee even if a buyer agrees to feed raw that they'd do it correctly. In the end what you're demanding could potentially end up with the exact opposite of what you're trying to accomplish.

I obviously take nutrition very seriously with my animals especially seeing how much my boxer has been thriving on it for the past few months. The change in him is clearly obvious, BUT nutrition is really only one aspect of being a pet owner. If placing puppies in my breed I'd be far more concerned with how much attention and training my puppies would be getting in their new home, that they'd be kept as indoor pets, that they'd be loved and that they'd get medical attention whenever needed, etc. It would crush me far more knowing that one of my puppies lived a solitary life chained up outside as a lawn ornament than finding out they're being fed kibble. Just my personal opinion.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

With so many dogs out there if you can't find enough owners who want to put forth the effort to feed a diet that will help the dog thrive the most, and let's face it, kibble isn't that -- it's nutritionally dead -- then yeah, why breed? There's thousands of dogs people can adopt that are already out there. Why bring more into the world to suffer from toxins being pumped through their veins and fed a diet that, like I said, is nutritionally dead. If someone does the research, and still agrees kibble is the way to go and vaccines are acceptable, I wouldn't give them a dog either. If I owned a rescue, it would be different, but breeding dogs, bringing MORE dogs into this world, requires a home that will only put their best interests. We can't keep the breed alive and healthy if we don't have these people protecting the breed. As someone who is bringing more dogs into a world with enough already I believe you have to assure they're given the BEST life and I happen to agree the best life is one without kibble/vaccines.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

schism said:


> This is YOUR opinion. MY opinion is that I would rather have my dog alive and vaccinating her assists with that, that doesn't mean you don't limit the vaccinations! Of course you can begin a vaccination regime that works well for your dog. If you don't vaccinate, fine. That doesn't mean that it is the "right" thing to do.
> Just like feeding raw. It is opinion that raw is "optimal". There are plenty of other ways to feed your dog that are very efficient and nutritional, and just as "optimal" as raw feeding.
> There are many amazing breeders that do not feed raw and what you are saying is offensive. An opinion and not the "law" concerning canine care.


I would consider home-cooked as an option, but definitely not processed food. It is nutritionally dead. I don't agree with bringing a dog purposefully into this world to feed it a diet made of processed chemicals. I don't think any living creature should be fed something from a bag. Creatures need live food to thrive and its not too much to ask for. I don't believe they're amazing breeders unless they're going the extra effort to feed a raw or home-
cooked diet. Take a look at studies done on animals fed genetically modified ingredients and look at how bad the genetics get. There are quite a few done on cows eating gmo corn.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

schism said:


> This is YOUR opinion. MY opinion is that I would rather have my dog alive and vaccinating her assists with that, that doesn't mean you don't limit the vaccinations! Of course you can begin a vaccination regime that works well for your dog. If you don't vaccinate, fine. That doesn't mean that it is the "right" thing to do.
> Just like feeding raw. It is opinion that raw is "optimal". There are plenty of other ways to feed your dog that are very efficient and nutritional, and just as "optimal" as raw feeding.
> There are many amazing breeders that do not feed raw and what you are saying is offensive. An opinion and not the "law" concerning canine care.
> I would also like to touch on what Mandy pointed out-- she said something about people possibly not knowing exactly how to do raw (or not doing the proper research). Even if you give a person all of the information in the world, people can still mess it up! Even of you instruct them down to the letter, they can still mess it up! What then? A balanced high quality kibble is far superior to an unbalanced raw IMO. Especially considering you can't give out tailored advice for each specific dog-- which is what is mandatory in using PMR.


well if you're not capable of properly feeding the animal then you shouldn't be getting one. If its too difficult to understand then maybe you should stick with a fish.


----------



## Savage Destiny (Mar 16, 2011)

Sheltielover25 said:


> well if you're not capable of properly feeding the animal then you shouldn't be getting one. If its too difficult to understand then maybe you should stick with a fish and jot make the dog suffer an inadequate diet solely because owner isn't bright enough to feed it correctly.


This is a little off topic but... Why would a fish be any less worthy of proper care in your eyes? Fish can feel pain, fear, and live in misery just like other creatures. They're some of the most abused animals in the pet keeping world. They deserve proper care just as much as a cat or dog. Sorry to go off topic, but as someone who loves her pet fish, this is upsetting to me.


----------



## Mandy (Aug 30, 2012)

Sheltielover25 said:


> well if you're not capable of properly feeding the animal then you shouldn't be getting one. If its too difficult to understand then maybe you should stick with a fish and jot make the dog suffer an inadequate diet solely because owner isn't bright enough to feed it correctly.


WOW! I didn't find this thread offensive until now!

I lost my almost 10 year old boxer in 2011. He had cardiomyopathy which he was diagnosed with 10 months earlier. ARVC is a condition known to affect boxers and it is NOT diet related. He was kibble fed and VERY MUCH LOVED AND SPOILED ROTTEN his whole life. When I had to decide that he had suffered enough from his heart disease NOT HIS KIBBLE, I layed down on the cold tile floor of the vets office petting him, telling him much I loved him, and how much I was going to miss him while they prepped him him to be euthanized. When he died, a huge piece of me died. He was my first dog as adult and we had an amazingly tight bond.

Going by your comments, even though I loved him to the moon and back and paid well over $5,000 in vet bills trying to treat his heart condition in just 10 months, it just wasn't enough. Apparently I just had no business having him in the first place. Furthemore, going by your comments, the almost 10 years I had him, I was making him suffer for not feeding raw. Even though I loved him and he loved me I was irresponsible and failed him. Just a little judgemental of you don't you think? Who are you to say that I (or anyone else for that matter who feeds kibble) has no business owning a pet. If you want to feel strongly about feeding raw, by all means that's your right. However, you have no right to say that I had no right to own my Riley boy or that anyone else who feeds kibble has no right to own their dog. Especially, when they DO provide a loving home and take good care of them.


----------



## Mandy (Aug 30, 2012)

Thanks! I didn't share that story for sympathy or to try to add drama to the conversation. It just REALLY got under my skin that someone thinks that I had no right getting Riley because I was feeding him kibble. To me that is absolutely ludacris and really an insane judgement to make, especially when this person does not know me and does not know what I've done in the past to make sure my pets are taken care of to the best of my ability. I met Riley when he was just 8 days old and he came home live with me when he was 8 weeks old. In that time he was nothing but loved and spoiled. There are TONS of suitable homes out there who feed kibble. What about the elderly folks who have dogs for companionship. Does it make them horrible people for feeding kibble? What about people who start off feeding raw and for whatever reason have to go back to kibble?Are they horrible people too? Feeding raw is a choice and it's not for everyone. That doesn't mean they're bad owners. That's all I wanted to say.


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

Of course, there are many GREAT homes that feed kibble and vaccinate. There are many great breeders that feed kibble and vaccinate, but breed ethically and health test, etc etc. However, if someone (I'll use you, Liz, as an example since I don't know any other NR breeders... lol), spends a lot of time and effort developing a NR line and only breeding to other raw fed, unvaccinated dogs, why, with the limited amount of pups she has, would she adopt out to people who do not share the same mindset? It is such a priority for her, and she did not say anyone was a bad owner for it, but just not an ideal owner for her breeding program. 

For my next pupper (won't be for a looooong time...) if I don't decide to adopt again, will probably be from a NR breeder if I can find one in IGs. If I can't, I will go to a breeder that weans to raw and vaccinates minimally.. but I would never, EVER, adopt a dog from someone who sterilizes at seven weeks.


----------



## twoisplenty (Nov 12, 2008)

As a breeder I would love if my clients kept their dogs on Raw. We talk about Raw feeding right from the get go, I explain my reasons for starting my puppies off this way and I try to guide them and answer any questions or concerns they may have. However, in the end it is their choice if they decide to continue feeding Raw. I dont void any of my contract if they choose to feed kibble BUT I do clearly state that it has to be grain free and of high quality and will even make suggestions to them on a few varieties.

We also do minimal vaccinations and I would prefer if everyone just titre tested. I am at a place where my breeding program is slowly changing. I am aiming towards NR but am just not in the same place as other NR breeders such as Liz. Just like becoming a Raw feeder, its a learning process that you have to be comfortable with and I am just not there yet. I completely appreciate the NR breeders and where they are going with their dogs. If you disagree with what they are doing or find it extreme then dont look to NR breeders for your next dog.

We have a very good rate of our puppies staying on Raw but I would never say that those who chose to go to kibble were bad owners. Their dogs are loved and treated as members of their family, they are mentally and socially balanced, well trained, in active homes and never go without.


----------



## meggels (May 30, 2010)

schism said:


> This is almost cruel. I really will not even respond to this because it is an over the top extremist point of view. You are entitled to it but I am entitled to completely ignore it.


I agree. It's disgusting.

I guess I'll just go drop Abbie off at the pound now in hopes that someone who feeds raw and is obviously more deserving to have a dog will come along and adopt her. 

And people on this board wonder why many people have complained that raw feeders here come off as elitist. I mean really, there couldn't be a better example of why.


----------



## nortknee (May 5, 2011)

Caty M said:


> However, if someone (I'll use you, Liz, as an example since I don't know any other NR breeders... lol), spends a lot of time and effort developing a NR line and only breeding to other raw fed, unvaccinated dogs, why, with the limited amount of pups she has, would she adopt out to people who do not share the same mindset? It is such a priority for her, and she did not say anyone was a bad owner for it, but just not an ideal owner for her breeding program.


That's exactly it.  

If someone is going to devote the amount of energy/funds/research/time it takes to create an entire line of naturally raised, raw fed, chemical free dogs, why would they adopt it out to someone who doesn't appreciate the work that went into that, especially if they don't intend to continue with that same lifestyle? 
That would be like me, someone who knows zilch about cars, going and buying a pristine, classic hot rod car, restored with all original parts. I don't care. I just want the car. Doesn't matter to me what's inside it, or how much work it took to get it that way. And I'll be the first to say it. No one in their right mind should sell me that car.

This applies to all things when that much dedication is put into something.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

I applaud anyone who live as they preach. Shows character and determination. If I or anyone else agree or not is less important.


----------



## Mandy (Aug 30, 2012)

Caty M said:


> Of course, there are many GREAT homes that feed kibble and vaccinate. There are many great breeders that feed kibble and vaccinate, but breed ethically and health test, etc etc. However, if someone (I'll use you, Liz, as an example since I don't know any other NR breeders... lol), spends a lot of time and effort developing a NR line and only breeding to other raw fed, unvaccinated dogs, why, with the limited amount of pups she has, would she adopt out to people who do not share the same mindset? It is such a priority for her, and she did not say anyone was a bad owner for it, but just not an ideal owner for her breeding program.
> 
> For my next pupper (won't be for a looooong time...) if I don't decide to adopt again, will probably be from a NR breeder if I can find one in IGs. If I can't, I will go to a breeder that weans to raw and vaccinates minimally.. but I would never, EVER, adopt a dog from someone who sterilizes at seven weeks.


Very well said! I couldn't agree more. As a reputable breeder it is your right to make sure any potential buyers meet all of your criteria. Likewise as a buyer it's my right to make sure any breeder I buy from meets my criteria. It goes both ways. Being comfortable with each other is crucial and if there's any issue at all, there should be no deal. I'm not criticizing this point.

My issue was with Sheltielover25 who said *"well if you're not capable of properly feeding the animal then you shouldn't be getting one. If its too difficult to understand then maybe you should stick with a fish and jot make the dog suffer an inadequate diet solely because owner isn't bright enough to feed it correctly."*

It's just absurd to say something like that. Just because I wouldn't meet your criteria does NOT mean I'm not worthy of owning a dog and that I should stick with fish. Which by the way, I do also own fish who are fed the best food I can get my hands on as well as fresh vegetable matter. And, another thought just occured to me as well. What about people with learning disabilities? Should they not own pets? I have a 13 year old cousin who is autistic. He can function well and should be able to live on his own when he's old enough. He knows how to care for his pets, but going to the extent of researching raw? No, that won't happen. Guess we should just not allow him to own any dogs then huh? Dogs are trained to be used for theraputic purposes for people like my cousin, but I'm sure not all of them are fed raw. That doesn't mean that they're suffering. Quite the opposite really. They could be thriving in a home where they can develop a strong bond with someone who is needy.

Just to clarify, I do feed my dogs raw now. Going forward I will continue feeding raw and will recommend it to those who ask, but I would not badger someone or tell them they should give up their dogs for not choosing the same route as me. It's their choice. There are far worst things people can do to their dogs than to feed it kibble.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

It comes down to priorities. What does the breeder think are the MOST important components to quality of life? Health? Safety? I, for example, would never ever in a million years consider placing a puppy with someone whose dogs spend any chunk of time on a tie out, sleep outside, or are otherwise equally outside dogs as they are inside. Many argue that they do this and their dogs are perfectly happy, healthy, and needs are met. I don't care, it's not what I want for my puppies.
So, if a breeder chooses to ONLY place with NE homes then more power to them! They get to make that decision for their puppies, and that's wonderful. 
None of that is extreme to me at all. A breeder breeding to please people and deny no one a puppy... That is a scary thought. 
What I can't STAND is people who think people who disagree with them don't deserve animals, or are bad people/ owners. Get over yourselves.


----------



## Liz (Sep 27, 2010)

As a dog person I agree you should choose to feed, rear and train your dog as you see fit. Many people are good people with good homes. I don't deny that. We are all however looking for different things. I see much insult where I don't believe any was intended. With any breeding program you should be passionate about what you are doing.  In NR defense people do not understand what it takes to stick to that goal. The expenses of traditional breeding are magnified. My dogs have their testing, are show and proven for trainability, desire to work and instinct. On top of all that I go to extremes to locate other NR breeders to take my dogs to and they must also be a match in quality. So yes, I am very particular that puppy owners have a mindset like I do. Does that make other people doing the best they can, know how or believe "bad" - no. Neither does it make them what I am looking for. I don't understand why that is such an insult. I know there are people in rescue who will not let a renter adopt - there are no good renting owners?? How about a senior citizen who "wants" a nigh energy pit bull puppy? Not ever dog is suitable for every person. I would not make a good owner for any retriever, hound, or toy dog and bully breeds obviously lack some features I find appealing. I don't get angry about not being the right place for these dogs. I say we just stay open to learning and growing in how to best care for our animals.


----------



## Liz (Sep 27, 2010)

I do understand Schism. NR is a base for us and everything else is built on that foundation.  I have been researching and learning on vaccinations and chemicals damage for about a decade now and also have some awesome mentors on that front so after over 9 years vacc free I can honestly say I do not worry about it at all. Precautions are taken, exposure is made in appropriate ways and natural healing protocols are ready for just about any problem that can occur. My dogs are more and more being used for therapy and service work and that is extremely gratifying - even more than for show. We breed every litter for the best and tend to get that, show pups and pups that will work.  I don't take offense at what others believe I just won't downplay what I believe in any longer to make others feel better. So I appreciate this discussion which for the most part has been civil and adult. Thank you.


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

BTW, glad your back Liz! OK, go back to topic! LOL!


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

My point was if you're BREEDING you need to be sending these dogs on to homes who take the time to feed them a proper diet and again, I feel kibble isn't that. I didn't say ALL organizations should follow this. That's where you're misunderstanding. The point is if you're bringing more dogs into this world and are doing it to protect the breed then you bet it's your responsibility to find homes who will ensure only the best diet (which leads to health) for the ones who don't make the cut to continue on keeping the best of the best alive. THAT'S my point. Should shelters require a certain diet? NO! Those dogs are alive already and need to just be loved, but PURPOSEFULLY bringing a dog into the world to let it grow up on a processed diet is wrong IMO.

And to add to that, if you're breeding to keep the breed alive and well then you're not going to be having a lot of litters. So I would think if you worked hard enough it wouldn't be too hard to find natural homes. It's not like the group of people who feed appropriately and don't use toxins is THAT small. The best of the best should go for quite a pretty penny so money shouldn't be an issue for people purchasing a dog. I don't think it's even that absurd so I'm not sure why everyone is so offended. Everyone saw it was oh, she's saying anyone who feeds a diet other than raw/homecooked shouldn't have a dog. But take the time to read and see what's actually being said which is those bringing pups into this world bear a big responsibility and part of that is making sure homes feed them properly.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

Umm... I think we are all actually in AGREEMENT for the most part. 
No need to not pick or argue about the nitty gritty.


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

Sheltielover25 said:


> My point was if you're BREEDING you need to be sending these dogs on to homes who take the time to feed them a proper diet and again, I feel kibble isn't that.


Not every person though, or every breeder for that matter, feels that raw or natural rearing is best. The majority, vast majority of breeders do NOT think this way. Yet they still are devoted to their dogs and their breed... does that make them not worthy of breeding? Breeders who health test, breed for health, temperament and show, does that make them "not worthy" in your eyes of owning and breeding purebred dogs?

Remember, raw is not the mainstream.. here it is, yes, but not in the "real world". Plenty of breeders, GOOD breeders, do not share the same opinion as you, and yes, it's opinion, not fact. Do I agree with you that raw/natural rearing is best? Absolutely. But for you to say that nothing except your ideal should be breeding, well, that's wrong.


----------



## Liz (Sep 27, 2010)

*Caty - breeders are non infallible. They get in a rut, set in their ways and like some vets will not research anything new. Like many owners if they do not see a reaction then everything must be fine. It is not. Too many of our breeds are failing and we like to blame line breeding and such without looking at enviornment and feeding. Devotion does not correct such damage and it takes many generations to finally see the results of our lifestyles. *


Not every person though, or every breeder for that matter, feels that raw or natural rearing is best. The majority, vast majority of breeders do NOT think this way. Yet they still are devoted to their dogs and their breed... does that make them not worthy of breeding? Breeders who health test, breed for health, temperament and show, does that make them "not worthy" in your eyes of owning and breeding purebred dogs?

Remember, raw is not the mainstream.. here it is, yes, but not in the "real world". Plenty of breeders, GOOD breeders, do not share the same opinion as you, and yes, it's opinion, not fact. Do I agree with you that raw/natural rearing is best? Absolutely. But for you to say that nothing except your ideal should be breeding, well, that's wrong.


*Whether raw or NR is mainstream really doesn't matter. The real world has been wrong on many fronts. People should be allowed to have any opinion they want. Why is it then that if a NR breeder or owner states that what they are doing is the best they are attacked. I wish I could source some of the foods Sheltie lover regularly feeds her pack, Her care is optimal and her lifestyle follows suit, there is no hypocrisy in her statements. Maybe if the same regard was given to people who NR their pets as to those who don't we would not always feel the need to defend our practices. Why should she not say that NR is the best situation to breed and raise a dog. She knows not everyone will. If someone is very sensitive and feels attacked by her statements or mine for that matter then maybe take a look at how your are doing things and do what you need to in order to be comfortable with your decisions. She is, I am. I hope you are. 
*


----------



## meggels (May 30, 2010)

I think people get defensive when statements that people who don't feed raw perhaps shouldn't have a dog get thrown out.

I think natural rearing and raw feeding are ideal for most situations. But it doesn't mean I'm okay with the "if you don't do things my way you should not have a dog" thought or statements. I can't get on board with that. I think it's so arrogant and closed minded. I think NR and raw feeding are super interesting, and I enjoy reading your posts Liz bc I feel you do try to educate people, not put them down. I think sheltiovers post was way overboard.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Liz said:


> *Caty - breeders are non infallible. They get in a rut, set in their ways and like some vets will not research anything new. Like many owners if they do not see a reaction then everything must be fine. It is not. Too many of our breeds are failing and we like to blame line breeding and such without looking at enviornment and feeding. Devotion does not correct such damage and it takes many generations to finally see the results of our lifestyles. *
> 
> 
> *Whether raw or NR is mainstream really doesn't matter. The real world has been wrong on many fronts. People should be allowed to have any opinion they want. Why is it then that if a NR breeder or owner states that what they are doing is the best they are attacked. I wish I could source some of the foods Sheltie lover regularly feeds her pack, Her care is optimal and her lifestyle follows suit, there is no hypocrisy in her statements. Maybe if the same regard was given to people who NR their pets as to those who don't we would not always feel the need to defend our practices. Why should she not say that NR is the best situation to breed and raise a dog. She knows not everyone will. If someone is very sensitive and feels attacked by her statements or mine for that matter then maybe take a look at how your are doing things and do what you need to in order to be comfortable with your decisions. She is, I am. I hope you are.
> *


It's all fine Liz but you or anyone else shouldn't be surprised or feel attacked if others feel they and you are misguided and extreme in your opinions. I do hope you see the difference between that and calling others with opposing views sick and less intelligent. You are just loosing the audience having this persons back. When you express extreme opinions in public you open up for the majority to react, and most grown ups do it without calling others sick or less intelligent. Most have a social kill switch kick in before that happens.

I hope you are back to further animal health in ways you prefer and not bash everything and anything you don't agree with.


----------



## Celt (Dec 27, 2010)

This is the way I feel and see things. Liz, when I read your post I see someone who is sure of her decisions. You state your belief, explain why you believe that way and describe how it works for you. This makes me stop and think about this belief, makes me want to look further, to understand more. I feel that I can ask questions and that I won't be judged, for which I thank you. On the other hand, when comments are made that say that if I don't follow someone's belief that I'm a "bad" owner, it turns me off. I find myself being defensive. I can't seem to get past the fact that this person is judging me and finding me lacking when I believed that I was doing my best. These kind of comments make me wary of asking questions, and disinclined to learning more of this belief.


----------



## Liz (Sep 27, 2010)

Nice to hear from you DaViking - I was wondering where you were.  Extreme and elitist I believe is actually how I and others have been referred to. I am okay with that. Like I stated I am happy with how we live and don't feel attacked, neither will I say all is equal as it is not. I do respect others choices and opinions without agreeing. I have purposely stayed away because of fruitless arguing, I just couldn't let this one pass - it made my fingers itch.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Liz said:


> neither will I say all is equal as it is not.


You don't have to say all is equal. No one is looking for that and quite frankly I would suspect someone stole your computer if I saw that :smile: I am not a subscriber but I would imagine that everyone who believe in the same things you believe in or a potential believer would appreciate more how to make what you all are doing better instead of wasting energy on negativity. Just my $0.02


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

Liz, it's not that I don't think people should be able to state their opinions, I do and readily admit that I think you are right on in raising dogs naturally. I also agree that you should be able to say you will only put pups in NR homes. I have a problem with people stating that it's WRONG to breed if you do not follow a rigid belief of care. If someone does not believe in no vax or raw feeding, if they are an ethical breeder in all other points then I don't see the need to be so extreme and judgemental.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

I guess where I don't line up with most folks is I don't believe there's any room for debate on the fact raw/home cooked foods are superior to processed foods. This isn't an opinion to me. I've researched hours and hours of nutrition, read countless studies and taken the time to learn how the body really works and what it needs to operate at optimal levels, along with taking several colleges classes solely focused on genetics and toxins. I believe there's no wiggle room on fresh foods being the only way a living creature should be fed, and there's mounds of evidence to show this. There's nothing at all wrong with expecting someone whose whole purpose is to better a breed feeding and expecting owners to feed an a species-appropriate diet, which again, you can't really argue kibble is not that. Dogs might be surviving on the outside and have nice coats, but in the end, without FRESH food that's ALIVE the living creature will suffer. There are cancer-fighting benefits to live food that just isn't there in dead, processed food. Like I said, I don't think rescues should require owners to feed raw... they're just lucky to turn a bad situation around and get the animal loved. But when you're in control of pups being born and you can't find owners willing to feed an appropriate diet then I don't see why would continue to breed. If the world is too busy and too unwilling to educate themselves to proper nutrition then it's probably time to stop bringing them into this world. They deserve better than that. They don't deserve to be deprived because people are too busy! It would be like selling a snake and the owners refusing to give it proper food.. why is it acceptable in some pets but not others?! All creatures need LIVE food. And I don't consider it rigid care taking extra time to feed my dogs correctly. I work very hard and spend a decent amount ensuring my animals are fed right and expect nothing less from others.


----------



## Fundog (Oct 25, 2012)

schism said:


> I believe that raw meat is also dead...? Perhaps you feed a slab of steak when it is still alive? Sarcasm aside.



Yes, Schism, I get that you're just being funny, but I'm going to be serious for just a second here, to back up a point: 

Human breast milk. It's "alive." Granted, it is a product of a living mammal, and does not breathe or do any of the things that constitute being "alive," but it is "alive." That is, it contains essential white blood cells and antibodies that the human infant needs to thrive. Based upon this knowledge, breast feeding mothers who express their milk for their babies are instructed to always warm the milk up slowly, under hot water, and never in the microwave, as the radiation "kills" all of the essential properties of the milk, making it practically useless to the human infant.

Taking the analogy of human breast milk, it is quite logical then to say something to the fact that a raw steak is indeed "live" food for your dog.

Just saying...


----------



## doggoblin (Jun 6, 2011)

schism said:


> research that proves the contrary-- that in fact kibble maintains and supports a dog's health and they thrive on it...


Show me unbiased, peer reviewed scientific studies, not marketing which show dogs thrive on kibble. I know the unbiased LippertSapy report of 2004 used statistics (not just about raw or diet by the way) which showed dogs fed home prepared meals (not necessarily raw) lived approx 3 years longer on average compared to those fed commercial food. Personally I prefer reports based on facts and statistics, like this, rather than those who fund scientific reports influencing, on purpose or not, the results.


----------



## Mandy (Aug 30, 2012)

Sheltielover25 said:


> I guess where I don't line up with most folks is I don't believe there's any room for debate on the fact raw/home cooked foods are superior to processed foods. This isn't an opinion to me. I've researched hours and hours of nutrition, read countless studies and taken the time to learn how the body really works and what it needs to operate at optimal levels, along with taking several colleges classes solely focused on genetics and toxins. I believe there's no wiggle room on fresh foods being the only way a living creature should be fed, and there's mounds of evidence to show this. There's nothing at all wrong with expecting someone whose whole purpose is to better a breed feeding and expecting owners to feed an a species-appropriate diet, which again, you can't really argue kibble is not that. Dogs might be surviving on the outside and have nice coats, but in the end, without FRESH food that's ALIVE the living creature will suffer. There are cancer-fighting benefits to live food that just isn't there in dead, processed food. Like I said, I don't think rescues should require owners to feed raw... they're just lucky to turn a bad situation around and get the animal loved. But when you're in control of pups being born and you can't find owners willing to feed an appropriate diet then I don't see why would continue to breed. If the world is too busy and too unwilling to educate themselves to proper nutrition then it's probably time to stop bringing them into this world. They deserve better than that. They don't deserve to be deprived because people are too busy! It would be like selling a snake and the owners refusing to give it proper food.. why is it acceptable in some pets but not others?! All creatures need LIVE food. And I don't consider it rigid care taking extra time to feed my dogs correctly. I work very hard and spend a decent amount ensuring my animals are fed right and expect nothing less from others.


It's great that you've researched it for so long and that you feel so strongly about it. However, there's a difference in supporting your own beliefs and trying to educate others and flat out making judgements and criticizing other's who don't believe the same and making them out to be poor pet owners. By your comment earlier implying that if you're not bright enough to feed a dog a raw diet you should not own one, that's doing nothing to help those who are trying and willing to learn. Raw feeders are sometimes given a bad name because of this superior attitude. The goal of this site is to help, not judge the last I knew.

In doing my research I also feel that raw is best. I will continue to feed as long as I possibly can. I don't know what my future holds so it's impossible to say I'll "always" have the means to do it. If for some reason I'm forced back to kibble, yes I would feel bad about it. I'm seeing first hand with my boxer the great effect raw has. He was skinny, had a dull coat, would vomit his kibble up almost daily, had very loose stools. Since switching to raw his coat is super soft and shiny, his vomiting has stopped, and he's got amazing muscle tone. And this was only after 4 months of being raw fed! If I did have to go back to kibble though, I certainly would not feel that I'm a bad pet owner and that I'm making pets suffer. I would simply need to search for a kibble that fit him. I also don't feel that others who feed kibble, espcially when it's a grain free and high end kibble, is making their pets suffer. There's no need to feel superior about feeding raw. Again I say it's not for everyone. There are many reasons why a person could be forced to feed kibble. There's no need to judge them for it. I prefer to save my judgement for people who actually physically inflict injury and harm to their dogs. They are the real monsters here!


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

schism said:


> So. Within this analogy- I could not breast feed my daughter... am I a less worthy mother? See where I am getting at? If it weren't for the "poison" that they sell on market shelves my daughter would have starved to death.


TOTALLY UNTRUE. I have researched homemade formula should something go wrong when I birth my child. So, you don't have to rely on the store-bought formula, which does indeed contain toxins. Same thing, you could have fed a nutritious homemade formula over the store-bought kind with chemicals in it. So once again, it's a situation where putting in more effort is called for and most people won't do it. They don't want to spend time making their own formula -- they want to feed a store-bought, most likely genetically modified diet. There's also breast milk banks all around the country. I wouldn't feed my newborn store-bought formula either! To top that, I wouldn't feed my child store-bought milk with its insane amount of hormones in it. I shutter at the thought. This convenience factor is part of the reason THIS generation will be the FIRST to live a shorter life than the previous.


----------



## amaterasu (Oct 17, 2012)

I only found this for the LippertSapy report:
http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/LippertSapySummary.pdf

This was the home site.
United Kingdom Raw Meaty Bones Support & Action Group

Couldn't find any(on google) unbiased studies available for either kibble or raw diets.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

Mandy said:


> It's great that you've researched it for so long and that you feel so strongly about it. However, there's a difference in supporting your own beliefs and trying to educate others and flat out making judgements and criticizing other's who don't believe the same and making them out to be poor pet owners. By your comment earlier implying that if you're not bright enough to feed a dog a raw diet you should not own one, that's doing nothing to help those who are trying and willing to learn. Raw feeders are sometimes given a bad name because of this superior attitude. The goal of this site is to help, not judge the last I knew.
> 
> In doing my research I also feel that raw is best. I will continue to feed as long as I possibly can. I don't know what my future holds so it's impossible to say I'll "always" have the means to do it. If for some reason I'm forced back to kibble, yes I would feel bad about it. I'm seeing first hand with my boxer the great effect raw has. He was skinny, had a dull coat, would vomit his kibble up almost daily, had very loose stools. Since switching to raw his coat is super soft and shiny, his vomiting has stopped, and he's got amazing muscle tone. And this was only after 4 months of being raw fed! If I did have to go back to kibble though, I certainly would not feel that I'm a bad pet owner and that I'm making pets suffer. I would simply need to search for a kibble that fit him. I also don't feel that others who feed kibble, espcially when it's a grain free and high end kibble, is making their pets suffer. There's no need to feel superior about feeding raw. Again I say it's not for everyone. There are many reasons why a person could be forced to feed kibble. There's no need to judge them for it. I prefer to save my judgement for people who actually physically inflict injury and harm to their dogs. They are the real monsters here!


I'm not judging the average pet owner who has taken in a dog who need a home and is going the best they can. That's not what I'm saying.

If someone is going to purchase a dog and they're going to a quality breeder, money isn't going to be an issue. I get that people rescuing dogs don't have a lot of money and do their best, yes, and I applaud them. But if you have the money to pay thousands for a dog, you have the money to order food for you pets and make it as convenient for you as possible. Money shouldn't be an issue for people purchasing a dog! I right now spend $270 a month on my three dogs weighing 45lbs total and my 8lb cat. And I don't have the money go to out and buy a thousand dollar dog. So that shows that people who have money to invest in a dog, better have the money to feed it properly. Dog breeders are in the position to JUDGE! They're supposed to judge very highly and screen people very good. Why wouldn't you judge someone trying to buy a dog you bred??? It's a whole different ballgame when we flip into breeding/purchasing than when we're dealing with rescuing/average pet owner. You see? Breeders are in a business where judging is critical! I rescued a pregnant dog and did I require the owners to feed raw? NO! I can't demand people taking my mutts feed a desirable diet, so I'm not saying everyone owner should be held to this...But breeders like Liz , I definitely hold people like her accountable to ensure her pups get the best


----------



## amaterasu (Oct 17, 2012)

Did you only retrieve the best/ worst cases?


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

Just because a dog lives a long life doesn't mean it was healthy. Also, how many humans do you know eating horrible diets and smoking who seem "okay"? My mom abused drugs and eats like crap, is she healthy because she doesn't have diabetes or high blood pressure? You can't argue eating processed food hasn't had a toll on people and why would that be different to dogs? Dogs are living shorter lives, rotting teeth, and having much more problems which is evident by the pharmaceuticals sold at vets office. More dogs are on medicine than every before and more dogs are overweight than ever. So writing down fluffy ate kibble and lived to be 14 doesn't show much. There's a lot more to health than living to be old.


----------



## Roo (Oct 17, 2010)

Schism, no offense but I'm confused, honestly what is your objective here? Is there a point in coming back to this forum after being banned (3 or 4 times already) to share your anti-raw objective over and over again under new member id's and cause unnecessary drama? We get it, raw isn't for you or Ruby, it seems by your attitude and actions that you're happy with your current feeding situation, so I'm not sure why you seem to think you're on the fence about trying to feed raw again.


----------



## doggoblin (Jun 6, 2011)

> research that proves the contrary-- that in fact kibble maintains and supports a dog's health and they thrive on it...


So when I ask you to back up your claims, you cannot.



schism said:


> Show me the exact same studies (unbiased, peer reviewed scientific studies) supporting raw/home cooked... I have only anecdotal experience


Haven't found any other than the LippertSapy statistical study but then, never said there are. Who researches this? Funding simply isn't available. How come with all that money available and funding being spent, you cannot list some to support your statement? Best you could probably do is come up with some trying to discredit raw. So you switch to anecdotal experience where ours, from feeding our own dogs raw convinces us we are doing the right thing. I sometimes hear the story about a bloke who fed raw.. expensive steaks every day to his dog. Dog died early. Raw therefore is no good. You could use this as your evidence. No representative though as any raw feeder on this forum or who has done their homework knows that is not a balanced diet.

At the end of the day, nobody is forcing you to raw feed. Don't believe in it, don't feed it. Want evidence.. there isn't any but common sense. Why are you so easily convinced by commercial food?


----------



## Roo (Oct 17, 2010)

> If you can all provide links for what you stand behind, I would gladly read them.


What does what I believe have to do with your personal feeding decision? Ruby is your dog, and it's your decision on what you feed.


----------



## Mandy (Aug 30, 2012)

Sheltielover25 said:


> I'm not judging the average pet owner who has taken in a dog who need a home and is going the best they can. That's not what I'm saying.
> 
> If someone is going to purchase a dog and they're going to a quality breeder, money isn't going to be an issue. I get that people rescuing dogs don't have a lot of money and do their best, yes, and I applaud them. But if you have the money to pay thousands for a dog, you have the money to order food for you pets and make it as convenient for you as possible. Money shouldn't be an issue for people purchasing a dog! I right now spend $270 a month on my three dogs weighing 45lbs total and my 8lb cat. And I don't have the money go to out and buy a thousand dollar dog. So that shows that people who have money to invest in a dog, better have the money to feed it properly. Dog breeders are in the position to JUDGE! They're supposed to judge very highly and screen people very good. Why wouldn't you judge someone trying to buy a dog you bred??? It's a whole different ballgame when we flip into breeding/purchasing than when we're dealing with rescuing/average pet owner. You see? Breeders are in a business where judging is critical! I rescued a pregnant dog and did I require the owners to feed raw? NO! I can't demand people taking my mutts feed a desirable diet, so I'm not saying everyone owner should be held to this...But breeders like Liz , I definitely hold people like her accountable to ensure her pups get the best


*SIGH*

If you go back and read my threads I DID say it's the breeder's right to be very picky on who they sell their pups too. I never once said that's the problem that I had with this thread. Breeders have every right in the world to turn down ANYONE or ANY reason. If they only sell to blondes and I'm a turned down for being a brunette, oh well. Likewise I could decide not purchase a puppy from any breeder for any reason. When trying to find Logan's litter I met up with a great reputable breeder. She did health testing, she was involved in conformation, the dam and sire were both proven in the ring, and she fed raw. Why didn't I purchase from her? Her attitude sucked! She seemed to be very stuck up. I did not feel comfortable talking to her so I moved on. I found Logan's breeder next and she was a sweet lady who also breeds champions and does thorough health testing, but she fed kibble. Imagine that... she fed kibble and I bought a puppy from her. I guess that means we're probably both rotten people in your eyes. I'll tell you one thing though, Logan is my 3rd boxer and he has the best temperament out of my priors and he also resembles the breed standard the closest. I do not regret my decision at all. In fact, I've refered a friend to her.

The part where you say if you can afford thousands on a dog you can afford to feed raw. Well, when I got my first two boxers I had to save up for months to get them. My monthly income was not enough to just plunk down that much money in one whack. Nor could I afford to feed them raw, but back then I didn't even know raw was an option. I was an adult, but a young one at that. I guess I really shouldn't have gotten them then huh? It's just rediculous how you feel you're the almighty on deciding who should be able to have a dog and who shouldn't based on solely on if they're fed a raw diet. I was barely on the internet and was still learning the ropes on how to work the damn thing. I opted to feed them a high quality kibble and I was happy and they were happy.

What about the people who purchase a puppy with the full intentions of feeding a raw diet it's entire life, but the LIFE HAPPENS and they get laid off from work and can't afford the raw food anymore. They're forced to go back to kibble. Are they viewed as the devil now too? Should they get rid of the dog to go to a raw feeding home? I'll tell you one thing, I'd give up every single possession of mine before the thought even occured to me to get rid of my dog.

As for the analogy of using store bought formula to feed your baby, good for you. Thankfully I don't want children. This world is such a messed up place and I don't want to be responsible for bringing a life into it. So thankfully I won't have to worry about this one. One less thing to go against me to make me look like some monster if I didn't follow your beliefs.

Let me ask you, which of the following scenarios is better for providing for a dog... a family where one of the adults is a stay at home parent so that the dog is very rarely alone, they live on a farm where there is tons of room to run and play, they spend quality time training and playing with the dog, but they feed it kibble. Or, a family where the dog is chained up outside and never allowed inside, they never take the time to play with or train the dog, the only contact they make with this dog is to throw some raw meat in it's dish. The second dog is a raw fed dog so I guess it's getting the best life out of the two right? It's just absurd! I know that those two examples are going to extermes either way, but it fits along with your argument that kibble fed dogs are suffering while raw fed dogs are thriving.

At this point I'm done arguing about this. I've said what I wanted to say and I'm not going to continue beating a dead horse. Whatever you want to believe is fine just don't judge me or anyone else for that matter for not following along with you and you're almighty way of thinking. I KNOW that regardless of what my dogs are fed (right now raw) they are living a great life with a lot of love and attention. Diet only plays one part of being a responsible pet owner. I do not find breeders being picky over who they choose will make suitable homes for their puppies offensive. Again I say it's their right. There are too many backyard breeders out there who will turn down nobody and I'm sure some of those puppies go to awful homes. What I found offensive is your superior attitude in saying that if you don't feed a natural diet you should not own a pet. It's just absurd that you feel you have any right in the world to judge someone so harshly without knowing them over something such as diet. As far as I'm concerned there are other members here who may feel the same way, but are much more respectful and less judgemental in their responses. I value and respect and where they're coming from.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

There's twp things I honestly don't understand about this thread. 

1. Why people take other's beliefs so offensively. 

2. How anyone can justify a completely processed diet for any living creature.

Feed your dog what works for your dog and your situation, but just because someone else thinks that there's better ways of doing it doesn't mean we all need to start freaking out. I *don't* think kibble is ideal. In fact, I think it's pretty awful JUNK, and the root of a HUGE portion of the health issues that plague dogs today. I think feeding processed foods is begging for trouble. BUT, that's me. That's how I feel. That's the stance I take with MY dogs in MY situation. It should not offend you, and I don't really care what you feed your dogs. Every person participating in this thread is an above-average dog owner in my opinion.... and I DON'T think raw feeding is the end all be all to a dog having a happy life. I think it's ideal for health, but I don't judge others who can't do it or are not convinced or comfortable. The thing is, I don't think what to feed your pets needs to be a huge stress contributor to your life. 
Also, the mere notion that processed food is GOOD for an animal and Fresh food is NOT ideal is mind boggling, and probably the reason such a HUGE chunk of the population-both human and companion animal- suffers from health issues.


----------



## Mandy (Aug 30, 2012)

CorgiPaws said:


> There's twp things I honestly don't understand about this thread.
> 
> 1. Why people take other's beliefs so offensively.
> 
> ...


1. I don't take people's beliefs offensively at all UNTIL my love for my dogs or my intelligence level is questioned. That's precisely what I feel happened when it was stated "_if you're not bright enough to feed raw you should not have one_". As I said, when I got my first boxers I was barely an adult and I honestly had no idea that raw feeding was acceptible. It's still relatively new to the vast majority of people. I've gotten asked several times what I feed mine and when I say raw I'm asked if it's going to make them blood thirsty and I'm also reminded that bones are dangerous. I've educated and squashed those myths when I could. Just because I didn't know of raw feeding back then does not mean I was not worthy of having my dogs nor does it mean I'm stupid or "not bright enough". I just didn't know. Simple as that.

2. I also agree that raw feeding is the far better choice. I feed raw so I'm not at all questioning that point of this debate. I'm 100% comfortable with my decision to feed raw. That's not to say I don't get nervous every now and then when one of my dogs doesn't look quite right or when they're getting a new type of bone, etc. I "fight" through my nerves and realize I was nervous about nothing.

I've bolded a part of your message which pretty much sums up how I feel about this whole thing. Of all the pet owners that I know personally, I'm the only one who feeds a raw diet. Do I think any less of my friends and family who do not? Heck no! They all love their animals and provide for them the best they can. When they ask for my advice I give it to them. I see no reason to sit here feeling all superior while trying to beat the idea of raw feeding into their heads.

I personally don't understand why people can't just agree to disagree without making judgemental comments or questioning someone's integrity and/or intelligence. The fact of the matter is not everyone can afford to switch to raw or stay on it once switched. Not everyone is in a living situation where they can feed raw. After researching it, some may just feel it's not for them. Whatever! This is their choice. This does not make them bad people.

As a side note, what breed is in your signature? Those puppies are adorable!


----------



## meggels (May 30, 2010)

Mandy* said, much better than I could, how I felt lol.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

schism said:


> My opinion is that whether a person feeds raw or kibble shouldn't be (wouldn't be if I did breed) the bottom line decision factor in a breeder choosing a home.


I respect that opinion 150% and I actually agree with you. I educate our puppy homes on nutrition, as I do feel diet is important, but I also am completely comfortable placing puppies in homes that feed high quality kibble, home cooked, BARF, etc. BUT, since we've already danced in the circle of "You're right, I just think you're wrong" a million times on what criteria breeders should use to place puppies I don't understand why it's continuing. 
We've established that 1. You think breeders can do what they want, and 2. but if they only place in NR homes you disagree with that decision several times now. 



schism said:


> Kibble is a slurry of ingredients that raw feeders feed their dogs.


Wrong.



schism said:


> Kibble is meat/bones/organs-- just not recognizable after being processed.


Meat, bones and organs of questionable quantity and quality.... that looks nothing like meat, bones, or organs. 
The fact you have NO way of telling if it is a carnivore, omnivore, vegetarian, or vegan diet just by LOOKING at it is alarming. Does this not concern anyone? Might I refer you here. 



schism said:


> At the end of the day it is the same thing as raw- after processing, mixing and adding of binders (or fillers). Then baked.


Let me get this straight. Take a piece of chicken. Let it sit and rot. Then add rice, potato, a mix of veggies, some chemicals, preservatives, maybe some fruit. Now grind it up. Now remove the moisture and cook it to oblivion. Are you trying to tell me that's the SAME as a fresh chicken breast? 
Are you going to tell me the following three pictures are pretty much the same thing:
























No. They are the same.... aside from being completely different. 



schism said:


> If you sat down and created your Venn diagram or your list of pros and cons. Great. I did it also and the conclusion I came to might just be different from yours. So what? Not as big of a deal as some make it out to be.


THIS I agree with. 
AND I think a lot of raw feeders, quite frankly, have an unhealthy obsession with feeding raw. 
AND I think that it often times come across incredibly conceited, the way a lot of raw feeders talk about people who choose to feed kibble. 
AND I think it's incredibly annoying when raw is pushed on people who clearly have no interest or ability to make it work for them.
AND I don't think that feeding raw is the end all be all to happy, healthy dogs. 

But to say kibble is just like raw? No... just, no.


----------



## Mandy (Aug 30, 2012)

CorgiPaws said:


> THIS I agree with.
> AND I think a lot of raw feeders, quite frankly, have an unhealthy obsession with feeding raw.
> AND I think that it often times come across incredibly conceited, the way a lot of raw feeders talk about people who choose to feed kibble.
> AND I think it's incredibly annoying when raw is pushed on people who clearly have no interest or ability to make it work for them.
> ...


I couldn't agree with this more! Thank you for saying it! I've seen this attitude on several websites. It's certainly not limited to just here. To me, this attitude does nothing but hurt the cause. It's a real put off for those who are really interested in learning or seeking help.


----------



## Roo (Oct 17, 2010)

> At the end of the day it is the same thing as raw- after processing, mixing and adding of binders (or fillers). Then baked.


Schism, this statement, and some of the other statements you've made in the past, tell me one factor that you don't seem to be looking at with kibble and raw are the nutrient profiles between the two, as they are different. 

I'll give you an example, raw meat contains high amounts of glutathione, which is a very important antioxidant, it's a tripeptide made from 3 amino acids: glycine, glutamate (glutamic acid), and cysteine.
Mark Hyman, MD: Glutathione: The Mother of All Antioxidants 
TotalHealth Magazine - Glutathione?The Miracle Molecule

While the body can make it's own glutathione by using glycine, glutamate, and cysteine, the high heat cooking process of kibble can destroy amino acids like methionine, an essential amino acid (meaning the body can't make it on it's own) and precursor of cysteine and, ultimately, cystine, needed to make glutathione. 

_"By the heat treatment, the sulphur-containing amino acids of proteins (cystine, methionine) are damaged primarily because of oxidation, but the decrease in the amount of threonine, serine, tryptophan, and lysine is observable too. According to the formation of enzyme resistant cross-links, the in vitro and in vivo digestibility of protein decreases after the heat threatment and the communication with oxidized fats. Besides the amino acids mentioned, the possibility of enzymatic break-off of leucine and isoleucine is reduced too."_
Nonenzyme browning and its effect on ... [Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 1980] - PubMed - NCBI

Supplementation of isolated glutathione does not seem to be very possible, leaving sourcing it from foods a better option. Glutathione is found in many raw fruits and vegetables, but one of it's highest and most rich sources is raw meat.
Nutrition Advisor: Glutathione content in foods and dietary sources of glutathione. April 3, 2005

The nutrient profile in food does change with cooking, and the high heat cooking process of kibble will destroy enzymes, amino acids, etc. nutrients needed for the body and aid in digestion, so there is no way chemically that kibble can be the same as raw. 

_" There are a number of degradative reactions resulting from the processing or storage environment which can cause undesirable changes in food proteins. As a result of these reactions protein can exhibit losses in functionality, nutritional quality, increased risk of toxicity, and both desirable and undesirable flavor changes. Nutrients are destroyed when foods are processed, largely because they are sensitive to pH of the solvent, to oxygen, light, heat, or a combinations of these things. The amino acid composition of food protein is of fundamental importance in determining nutritional quality and functionality. 

Nutritional value of proteins can be significantly affected even when there is little or no apparent significant difference in amino acid composition. Even when pure proteins or foods containing minimum amounts of carbohydrate are heated, changes in nutritional quality can be observed." _ 
-Thomas Richardson and John W. Finley, (1986) _Chemical Changes in Food During Processing_ (pg 443, 445)

Kibble does add supplements back in to the food after the cooking process, but when not sourced directly from food, how bio-available to the body are they? The vitamins and minerals sometimes are in synthetic forms, and they are isolated compounds, unlike whole foods which are complex with micro-nutrients. Supplements are meant to supplement a diet of nutritional foods, not be most of the nutritional source of nutrients themselves, which I think is how a lot of commercial dry foods use them considering the addition of the vitamin/mineral packets.
Supplements: Nutrition in a pill? - MayoClinic.com


----------



## Roo (Oct 17, 2010)

You're welcome Schism.:smile:



> What I was saying (and perhaps should have stated it better) is that the beginning creation of a kibble product (a high quality one) is basically what many raw feeders would feed their pets. Yes there MAY be by-products like chicken heads/feet/bull penis, for example, but many raw feeders include these items in their dogs diet. Kibble begins as raw, whole food. BUT then the company does mix it into an unrecognizable slurry (I am admitting this).


They may not even start out the same if the quality of foods used is different, for example using grass fed meat in a raw diet vs using grain fed meat in a kibble, the nutrient profiles of those two meats will be different starting out. That said, even if the same quality of foods/ingredients is used starting out, the end product (what gets fed to the dog) is very different, so I'm not sure what the point of them starting out the same is in your post. I want to add that by stating that raw foods are more food sourced nutrient packed than kibble or home cooked (usually) is not a "raw feeder elitist" type of comment or theory, it's just a fact, that's all. 



> The two main differences is that the food is no longer raw and no longer in its whole state.


Yes and those are differences that can affect the nutrient profile and absorption of nutrients in the diet fed.



> I know that kibble isnt ideal. Even if one doesn't like the idea of RAW meat they can begin home cooking. If one doesn't like the idea of whole bone, they can grind it in a meat grinder. BUT sometimes kibble.... just does the trick. Whether it is for convenience sake, out of fear of messing it up, or their dogs doing very well on it whilst their owners are debating back and forth if they can handle the commitment that raw requires


Yes kibble is one of a few different diet options a dog owner has available that they can personally choose to feed or not feed. Home cooking is another option, however home cooking will require much more supplementation than raw when it comes to nutrients, and still lack the natural enzymes found in raw foods.



> We can ALL admit that an unbalanced raw diet could be detrimental to a dogs health. It could have a very negative impact on our pets and I'm sure no one on this forum would want that for their dog/s. I am just doing ALL of the research that I need to *possibly* make the 100% switch... and I think that is better then jumping in without any knowledge/comprehension.


I don't think you'll find any raw feeders who would disagree with you on this statement. This is one of the reasons raw feeding forums exist, to share information and for experienced raw feeders (who feed raw properly with good success) can help others wanting to try and do the same.


----------



## Roo (Oct 17, 2010)

> You may know exactly what you are speaking about in reference to nutrient profiles, or you may be talking out of your ass lol (no disrespect meant)... I would have literally no idea! I am your average joe blow dog owner just trying to feed my dog the best I personally can.


No disrespect taken :smile:, if you think I might be full of BS and have the time, look up the nutrient profiles for raw vs cooked foods, look up the nutrient values for grass fed meats vs grain fed meats, look up the amino acids and enzymes, and what different temperatures of heat can do to some of them. The information is available and out there for anyone wanting to read up on and learn for themselves. 



> I have *learned* to respect every and ALL methods of feeding as long as it is done properly. Feeding your dog chicken only is as inappropriate as feeding Alpo in my personal opinion.


Thought we established this point already in prior posts, but either way I still agree with you, as I'm sure many other raw feeders would also.



> You seem to have done you research and you might know much more then me concerning dog nutrition BUT I will say one thing- my dog seems to be doing very well on kibble. I think I could tweak her diet and do better for her but I refuse to disregard the fact that I have had some dogs on some pretty rough kibble and have had what *I* would consider success. I can't disregard what I have seen, just like you and other raw feeders can't. We both go by anecdotal experience simply because all dogs are unique and have had success in their own way...
> Do I think whole food is superior- yes. Do I disregard the health of many dogs on kibble- no.


Thanks I feel I have a vested interest in learning about the diet I chose to feed my dogs. I try to use what I've learned so far about nutrition as a guide, and then go by the anecdotal experience (results) of my own dogs. If you consider feeding your dogs kibble a success, and are pretty happy with the results you're getting feeding it, then I can understand why you may not see a need to switch to a different diet like raw or home cooked etc. 



> I appreciate your opinion and I hope you can at the very least respect mine... even though I may not have reciprocated this respect in the past *apologies yet again.


I appreciate the apologies, I try to always respect others and their opinions no matter how different they may be from mine.


----------



## Roo (Oct 17, 2010)

Speaking of respect, my apologies to Zontee for taking her thread WAY off topic, I guess I got a little carried away with the discussion.:redface:


----------



## hcdoxies (Sep 22, 2010)

I breed mini dachshunds and do wean to PMR. 

Ground chicken, turkey, pork, beef, organ and bone - 80/10/10 from Site Unavailable

Then switch to whole chicken necks and a ground beef/organ blend at about 9 weeks.

They all do really well, AND because I do this, it causes so many of my new owners to keep them on raw and switch their other dogs! About 75% of my customers keep their puppies on PMR.


----------



## InkedMarie (Sep 9, 2011)

This is for the OP: I'd like to know what health testing you do on your breeding dogs. They look like Cavs in your picture; if they are, I know that have their share of health issues.


----------

