Senior Dog Food

[birddog1968]

18 months old


11yrs


There is not fact one in your faith based arguments....someone please give me a virtual slap if I respond to him again I'm done responding to nonsense, my apologies to OP and the board.

[Bounty_Hunter]

OK, they are awesome looking dogs and they do look healthy. I'm not here to point fingers, its the fingers pointing at me that bother me. I seem to be the only one with an agenda on this forum yet when Sharon posted that simple article with concern for older dogs she was immediately challenged by at least 3 kibble supporters because they couldn't handle the truth. Again the article was posted by someone who has fed and supported feeding dry dog food with the intent to share something of importance to others. When they began bashing the article they opened the barn door. If my 3 year old raw fed dog dies 3 years before your 5 year old pointer I'll still be right because that's how nature works. Its not really about faster, stronger, or older its more about odds and whole foods give people and dogs the best odds.

[ezzy333]

Bounty Hunter, A saying that always comes to mind after reading most of your posts that covers them all, " I think, therefore it is". That seems to cover your reasoning for all that you post. You need to have better reasons if you want to inform people and have them believe.

Ezzy

[Bounty_Hunter]

Bounty Hunter, A saying that always comes to mind after reading most of your posts that covers them all, " I think, therefore it is". That seems to cover your reasoning for all that you post. You need to have better reasons if you want to inform people and have them believe.

Ezzy

To say I think leaves room for discussion or at least room for correction and one certainly needs all the room for correction on here. I sure would not want this forum to be the jury if I had to go to court. I might as well just bring a rope with me.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer, dogs are animals and built to ignore pain and not built to think like humans. They can eat out of the sewer and still run fast and perform but its long term effects that catch up, and in some it isn't even long.....

No, an out of shape "sewer" dog will not be able to perform as well as a dog that is in shape, whether from exercise, feeding, wise vetting, taking a day off, whatever....that is far different than a dog wanting desperately to hunt or working through pain.
We humans often do the latter re going hunting.

Birddog owners, most of us, know that as owners we need to monitor what our dogs do as they indeed, in most cases, always want to go....that is why we all feed our dogs based upon what we see they need and how they respond to the feed, all while knowing well what is required of them from experience and an honest viewing of each dog.
We love our dogs.
My assumption is that "performance" is a word when applied to a birddog for which you have little understanding and therein lies part of the problem.
And so, you are mixed up a bit in trying to support the agenda that gives you pleasure.
Agenda, like an old favorite Bean boot, fits.

I believe you say that you live near the W-B area of Pennsylvania and it appears that some of your hunting is for state-released pheasants.
I would not be terribly surprised that you do see some out-of-shape dogs in that scenario, amid the better in-shape specimens.
That activity, and I hunt Pa released pheasants as well at times as they have a great program, can attract those with the same attitude as trouters following a stocking truck.....their focus is often just about shooting stuff and a dog becomes a hammer and for photo ops back at the truck.
Not the same, in any measure, as for what a Grouser or Trialer may set down a food bowl in the Keystone state.

I had my youngest setter at a trainer up near Lake Ariel last summer....I never saw any overweight dogs in his kennel.
He would not abide that as he cares about his dogs.
There are, I think, still some wild bird trials in that area???, there certainly are other trials.....attend some WSD or HB or Coverdog and then report back on the degree of overweight(that is a bit ironic) or low energy dogs you see.
I think a portion of your problem is that you really have nothing on which to judge....that which you constantly decry.

Persecution complexes can be treated successfully.
The first step though is likely admitting that blame is not always set upon another's stoop.

[Bounty_Hunter]

My assumption is that "performance" is a word when applied to a birddog for which you have little understanding and therein lies part of the problem.And so, you are mixed up a bit in trying to support the agenda that gives you pleasure.Agenda, like an old favorite Bean boot, fits.

Hunting maybe but performance comes in many venues. This would have been a better read if you could leave the insults out and focus on the point of view. I usually never hunt the day of a stocking and if your so called trials are anything like on the TV hunting shows they would be a warm up for my dog. If my mixed up agenda helps someone on here make better choices for feeding themselves or their dog then I have accomplished something. I don't see it as an agenda but more as someone sharing helpful information on an open forum. What's kind of funny is its always the same ones trying to correct my view that keep using the word agenda. It could be that they have their own agenda, which is trying to correct me regardless of what's true.

[ezzy333]

Bounty Hunter, A saying that always comes to mind after reading most of your posts that covers them all, " I think, therefore it is". That seems to cover your reasoning for all that you post. You need to have better reasons if you want to inform people and have them believe.

Ezzy

To say I think leaves room for discussion or at least room for correction and one certainly needs all the room for correction on here. I sure would not want this forum to be the jury if I had to go to court. I might as well just bring a rope with me.

Probably right but you need to take a look and see why that is? Remember this forum is just a cross cut of people that in the dog world, who are reading what you post and it isn't there fault they come to the same conclusion.

Ezzy

[Bounty_Hunter]

Probably right but you need to take a look and see why that is? Remember this forum is just a cross cut of people that in the dog world, who are reading what you post and it isn't there fault they come to the same conclusion.Ezzy

It kind of makes me wonder about all the innocent people in the old west that were hung because of that group reasoning, or posse chasing the wrong guy. I'm the wrong guy and they just don't know it.

[Mountaineer]

Hunting maybe but performance comes in many venues. This would have been a better read if you could leave the insults out and focus on the point of view. I usually never hunt the day of a stocking and if your so called trials are anything like on the TV hunting shows they would be a warm up for my dog. If my mixed up agenda helps someone on here make better choices for feeding themselves or their dog then I have accomplished something. I don't see it as an agenda but more as someone sharing helpful information on an open forum. What's kind of funny is its always the same ones trying to correct my view that keep using the word agenda. It could be that they have their own agenda, which is trying to correct me regardless of what's true.

I never said you hunted the day of a pheasant stocking :roll: ....I said that some who hunt stocked pheasants in Pa. do so with the dog being used in the positions I noted and...that is why you may have seen overweight and unenergetic dogs hunting birds.
With that view being very unrepresentative of actual hunting birddogs....seen successfully hunting ruffed grouse in Pa or running in trials.

I do not trial.
I have said my youngest setter ran a trial last summer as that made my pickup of him...more convenient and ...just to see.
I have said that I prefer washed-out of FTing dogs...because, I do....for me and to give them a good home and to provide them opportunities to have a happy tail.
The "trials" seen on tv such as the tennis shoe scamper trials are not anywhere near WSD, HB or Coverdog.
Some of the NSTRA trials would be another good choice, in fact for you, a likely better choice.
However, if you go...then go with an open mind rather than only gathering evidence to support that agenda of yours re one route to feeding superiority.

Just an idea, BH but TV and the Internet are not serving you well as to gathering information on trials or feeding...consider other options.
Until you do, then I don't believe it is unlikely that your claims that fly in the face of reality, facts and stacked decades of experience will cease to see those who care about dogs continuing to point out the flaws in your...unreasoning conclusions.
There is enough bad information being spit on the Internet as it is....you appear to find a lot of it....pointing out the errors in your reasoning is what will benefit readers.
If facts fall the other way then benefit will follow there as well.
Honesty, rather than a blinding agenda or savior fixation, is the key.
That you find the error notes uncomfortable could be used as a learning experience for you....fingers crossed that it will.

[slistoe]

Bounty Hunter, A saying that always comes to mind after reading most of your posts that covers them all, " I think, therefore it is". That seems to cover your reasoning for all that you post. You need to have better reasons if you want to inform people and have them believe.

Ezzy

To say I think leaves room for discussion or at least room for correction and one certainly needs all the room for correction on here. I sure would not want this forum to be the jury if I had to go to court. I might as well just bring a rope with me.

http://skepchick.org/2013/02/ai-why-eve ... -is-wrong/

[Bounty_Hunter]

OK then I'm wrong and whole foods produced by nature served fresh are not a healthier choice for man nor beast. Children and teens should get their nutrition from Mc Donalds and snack at convenience stores and everything they eat should be pre packaged as it is for dogs. Does that make you feel better?

[slistoe]

That is the logic of a 10 year old on a tantrum.

[Neil]

I do not know of a serious dog man, hunter or trialer, that feeds 100% raw.

Partly because of the logistics in traveling, but mostly because they recognize they do not have the knowledge nor the wherewithal to ensure the dogs get full nutritional value.

I do know many that suppliment with raw meat, with mixed results. Usually 25% raw - 75% kibble. Some dogs get to be picky eaters at undesirable times, like right before a big hunt or trial, when the meat runs out. I have a 14 year old that spends a minute or two hopfully searching his food dish for meat he hasn't been given in 4 years. I use to tote two weeks of frozen venison for the longer trials. It was a pain for a couple of dogs, nearly impossible for a pro with 20+ dogs.

So like so many of our arguments here, I believe both sides have some validity. And I am not swayed to change anything.

[Sharon]

Sharon,

Please do not take offense, you posted an article you said you found of interest. I found it interesting for different reasons. Nothing personal intended.

I'm fine ; just got up after 12 hours of sleep. . I don't mind disagreements but comments like this get my back up , "the entire rest of the article is truth bending agenda. Not sure how anyone could miss that." So be it. Life goes on.

[Bounty_Hunter]

I do not know of a serious dog man, hunter or trialer, that feeds 100% raw.

Partly because of the logistics in traveling, but mostly because they recognize they do not have the knowledge nor the wherewithal to ensure the dogs get full nutritional value.

I do know many that suppliment with raw meat, with mixed results. Usually 25% raw - 75% kibble. Some dogs get to be picky eaters at undesirable times, like right before a big hunt or trial, when the meat runs out. I have a 14 year old that spends a minute or two hopfully searching his food dish for meat he hasn't been given in 4 years. I use to tote two weeks of frozen venison for the longer trials. It was a pain for a couple of dogs, nearly impossible for a pro with 20+ dogs.

So like so many of our arguments here, I believe both sides have some validity. And I am not swayed to change anything.

And I don't have a problem with this kind of thinking. My goal was never to try to persuade anyone to feed raw but to admit there is a distinct difference in the quality of the nutrition. I don't always buy the best quality foods or even the most nutritious for myself, but I do know the difference. Here's the catch, they want proof by means of some kind of valid scientific study which they know I cant produce but what I can, is a comparison between whole foods and processed foods. So if they want to believe that appropriate natural whole foods are not a better choice for good health then there is nothing lift to debate.

[Neil]

BH,

I am thinking you totally missed my.point, few that are feeding raw have any idea of the total natritional needs of a canine, let alone one that must perform. So their dogs are getting a much inferior diet than those that are fed all but the cheapest of commercial feeds. So unless you have the knowledge and means to safely mix all the necessary ingredients for a full balance diet, you are much better off feeding a quality kebble.

Saying whole foods are better is misleading, feeding organic fresh spinach will starve a dog.

[nanney1]

Bounty Hunte:

Your stated that your goal is not to persuade anyone to feed RAW, but just to get the kibble feeders to admit that RAW is better quality. And when someone asks for proof, you admit you can't provide any, but you can give the example of processed vs. whole foods.

With that type of argument, I can't see why anyone would disagree with your views. It is clear that you have an agenda and you are one of the RAW zealots that have turned RAW food into your religion.

I'll call it like I read it. you're a TROLL.

[Bounty_Hunter]

BH,

I am thinking you totally missed my.point, few that are feeding raw have any idea of the total natritional needs of a canine, let alone one that must perform. So their dogs are getting a much inferior diet than those that are fed all but the cheapest of commercial feeds. So unless you have the knowledge and means to safely mix all the necessary ingredients for a full balance diet, you are much better off feeding a quality kebble.

Saying whole foods are better is misleading, feeding organic fresh spinach will starve a dog.

What is a balanced diet? Who determined that it was balanced? How? why can a wolf in the wild go weeks without a meal and suffer no nutritional deficiency and no muscle loss between meals but yet the dog food industry claims dogs need a daily balanced diet? Dog vs wolf DNA 99% nearly exact. If you want to go down this road its a long one with lots of turns. The Bottom line is there is plenty of good information out there for even the average guy to feed a good raw diet. We could also talk about the poor quality of nutrients in commercial kibble too but it leads to the same road. If I thought kibble was a quality food I would feed it.


http://rawfed.com/myths/balance.html

[Bounty_Hunter]

Bounty Hunte:

Your stated that your goal is not to persuade anyone to feed RAW, but just to get the kibble feeders to admit that RAW is better quality. And when someone asks for proof, you admit you can't provide any, but you can give the example of processed vs. whole foods.

With that type of argument, I can't see why anyone would disagree with your views. It is clear that you have an agenda and you are one of the RAW zealots that have turned RAW food into your religion.

I'll call it like I read it. you're a TROLL.

I cant be a troll because my dog eats trolls and I'm still here.

[Chukar12]

C'mon...

I don't know why but I actually read that link on "myths." Unsubstantiated. Nature is an increasingly cruel and brutal place the further down the food chain we travel. Wolves do not choose to wait weeks to eat, they are opportunists as well as hunters and would eat daily if they could. When they "feel" they are missing a nutrient nature sends them off to look for it in a plant or prey, how is the dog in your kennel going to trot out and get what their body is telling them they are deficient in? Furthermore, in contrast to humans, they cannot communicate ailments or feelings about their bodies, therefore we have no idea how they feel now do we? What would happen if you put Purina Pro Plan feeders stocked constantly with Pro Plan all around the great northern country, would the wolves eat dog food rather than killing elk, would they live longer than 6-7 years? If the 99% genetic commonality works as justification for diet, you cannot ignore it in the argument for early mortality, and most of these "studies" do just that. Just wanting something to be does not make one enlightened.

[Neil]

C'mon...

I don't know why but I actually read that link on "myths." Unsubstantiated. Nature is an increasingly cruel and brutal place the further down the food chain we travel. Wolves do not choose to wait weeks to eat, they are opportunists as well as hunters and would eat daily if they could. When they "feel" they are missing a nutrient nature sends them off to look for it in a plant or prey, how is the dog in your kennel going to trot out and get what their body is telling them they are deficient in? Furthermore, in contrast to humans, they cannot communicate ailments or feelings about their bodies, therefore we have no idea how they feel now do we? What would happen if you put Purina Pro Plan feeders stocked constantly with Pro Plan all around the great northern country, would the wolves eat dog food rather than killing elk, would they live longer than 6-7 years? If the 99% genetic commonality works as justification for diet, you cannot ignore it in the argument for early mortality, and most of these "studies" do just that. Just wanting something to be does not make one enlightened.

Well said. Thanks.

[Bounty_Hunter]

C'mon...

I don't know why but I actually read that link on "myths." Unsubstantiated. Nature is an increasingly cruel and brutal place the further down the food chain we travel. Wolves do not choose to wait weeks to eat, they are opportunists as well as hunters and would eat daily if they could. When they "feel" they are missing a nutrient nature sends them off to look for it in a plant or prey, how is the dog in your kennel going to trot out and get what their body is telling them they are deficient in? Furthermore, in contrast to humans, they cannot communicate ailments or feelings about their bodies, therefore we have no idea how they feel now do we? What would happen if you put Purina Pro Plan feeders stocked constantly with Pro Plan all around the great northern country, would the wolves eat dog food rather than killing elk, would they live longer than 6-7 years? If the 99% genetic commonality works as justification for diet, you cannot ignore it in the argument for early mortality, and most of these "studies" do just that. Just wanting something to be does not make one enlightened.

First of all thanks for a debate in a civil manner, I'm not used to this. You raised some good tough questions too. I could not say for sure that my dog is getting proper nutrition any more then someone feeding kibble can because you are right, dogs can't talk. But providing meals close to what a dog would hunt in the wild seems to be working well for my dog. Is my neighbor who feeds kibble shorting his dog nutrients? Maybe. Or is he providing too many vitamins or too much protein? Maybe. As far as I have heard pet food tests last about two years yet nutritional deficiencies may take 3or4 years to show up in many dogs. Would wolves eat dog food rather then killing an elk, I really cant answer that one. You would have to ask a wolf. Could a wolf fill up on kibble then go two weeks in brutal cold without eating and survive? Not sure where your going with the last question as many factors come into play when discussing lifespan of wildlife. If we could just do away with your last sentence this would be a good clean discussion.

[Neil]

I misspoke in an earlier post when I commented on the difficulty of pros feeding raw on the road. A top All- Age dog will make $100,000+ a year in winnings, stud fees or puppies. So if they could get even another year out of a top performer they would hire a refrigerator truck to follow them.

Another way of saying the pros have seen no value in the practice.

And without a single valid scientific study on the positive effects in length of life nor quality of it, I will go with the pros.

[Neil]

Purina has ran a number of studies on the certified lifespan of dogs, and would have done more without the intervention of the animal rights groups. Seems they felt the control groups were being mistreated. The unrefuted winner were dogs fed a high fat, high protein diet, such as ProPlan.

[ezzy333]

BH,

I am thinking you totally missed my.point, few that are feeding raw have any idea of the total natritional needs of a canine, let alone one that must perform. So their dogs are getting a much inferior diet than those that are fed all but the cheapest of commercial feeds. So unless you have the knowledge and means to safely mix all the necessary ingredients for a full balance diet, you are much better off feeding a quality kebble.

Saying whole foods are better is misleading, feeding organic fresh spinach will starve a dog.

What is a balanced diet? Who determined that it was balanced? How? why can a wolf in the wild go weeks without a meal and suffer no nutritional deficiency and no muscle loss between meals but yet the dog food industry claims dogs need a daily balanced diet? Dog vs wolf DNA 99% nearly exact. If you want to go down this road its a long one with lots of turns. The Bottom line is there is plenty of good information out there for even the average guy to feed a good raw diet. We could also talk about the poor quality of nutrients in commercial kibble too but it leads to the same road. If I thought kibble was a quality food I would feed it.


http://rawfed.com/myths/balance.html

Tell us how you know if a wolf can go for weeks without a meal and suffer no loss of muscle. This what gets you in trouble, you make statements that you have never checked out and have no prove it is true. There is all the information available as to what a dog needs whether you want to feed raw, half cooked or kibble. The needs stay the same. However you or no other individual have the equipment or the analysis of what you are feeding so that you can measure out what the dog needs on a daily basis. And again where did you do the lab work to find out that the nutrients that are in dry food are so poor.

You know you really insult me when you start running down the dog food business and the quality of it and the ingredients they use. You know absolutely nothing about the quality of the ingredients and yet you profess to know more than those of us that have spent a life times making and using those feeds. When I think of the millions of dollars we spent on research and feeding tests plus what Purina spent and the Universities here in the Midwest and then you come along and tell everyone it was all for naught, you know more than the rest of us all put together.

Sorry about the rant but I have about had it with your logic that is much like dealing with some little kid. I think, so it is. Wolves that go weeks without eating, no loss of muscle when the go without food, nature provides the best of diets, and a thousand other supposed truisms you come up with. And the best one is everyone is against me, gee, wonder why.

Ezzy

[ezzy333]

Bounty Hunter, I shouldn't post things like I just did. Would you please come up with just one fact that you can show us the proof of that shows raw is better than dry. And you can't use "I think".

Ezzy

[Neil]

Ezzy,

I think you showed a lot of restraint.

After I went back and read some of the rantings of Bounty Hunter, I need a nap.

[Bounty_Hunter]

Ezzy,

I think you showed a lot of restraint.

After I went back and read some of the rantings of Bounty Hunter, I need a nap.

So when I'm defending what I believe to be true or accurate like the words of a professional who devotes her life to helping people care for their pets, I'm ranting? I don't need to insult people to get my points across. And by the way, read the other feed topic because coveyrise has been in touch with a trial guy who is getting very good results since he switched to raw.

[Bounty_Hunter]

Bounty Hunter, I shouldn't post things like I just did. Would you please come up with just one fact that you can show us the proof of that shows raw is better than dry. And you can't use "I think".

Ezzy

Here's a question for you Ezzy. Why would most dogs choose a bowl of fresh ground beef over a bowl of their favorite kibble? Here is another question for you Ezzy. Why are wild animals extremely strong and powerful with the ability withstand conditions many domestic pets could not, yet no one cooks or processes their food for them?

[Del Lolo]

Last Fall, I found a dead deer (had been wounded and died, but not recovered by the hunter).
I had a small bag of Purina Pro Plan (the 3 lb. size that is handed out at HRC Hunt Tests). I don't feed Purina, so I emptied the sack about 5 feet from the dead deer.
Guess what the coyotes (and maybe wolves) decided to eat first........ The Pro Plan.

[cjhills]

I know the question was for Ezzy, but how do you know there is any truth in the last question? If they are I would guess genetics..Cj

[Del Lolo]

Dogs may well be 99% the same as wolves, but a big portion of that other 1% is directly related to what dogs can digest. As wolves became domesticated, their genes adapted to a starch-rich diet of human leftovers (and the majority of those "leftovers" had been cooked).
Does anybody remember this study from about a year ago ?
Click Here : http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles. ... riculture/

[Neil]

Ezzy,

I think you showed a lot of restraint.

After I went back and read some of the rantings of Bounty Hunter, I need a nap.

So when I'm defending what I believe to be true or accurate like the words of a professional who devotes her life to helping people care for their pets, I'm ranting? I don't need to insult people to get my points across. And by the way, read the other feed topic because coveyrise has been in touch with a trial guy who is getting very good results since he switched to raw.

It becomes a rant when it is what you believe to be true without facts or studies.

[Bounty_Hunter]

It becomes a rant when it is what you believe to be true without facts or studies.

So then there is a lot of ranting going on by the kibble support community yourself included. My dog looks very healthy from the tip of his nose to the tip of his tail, with loads of energy and I feed raw. I cant prove his diet is superior to what you feed. Your dog is just as healthy as mine and you cant prove what you feed is superior to raw. I listed several times above and since I know you read it well I said feeding raw is no guarantee ones dog will live longer, run faster or hunt better then a kibble fed dog. My whole argument is that there is an immaturity of sort at work when no one in your corner will admit to the fact that whole foods provide better nutrition then processed foods. And the reason they wont do it is because admitting that would make me look more right, and we cant have that!

[Bounty_Hunter]

Can we believe any of this article or is it all just another sales pitch?

http://www.totallyrawdogfood.com/resour ... in-on-raw/

[Bounty_Hunter]

Dogs may well be 99% the same as wolves, but a big portion of that other 1% is directly related to what dogs can digest. As wolves became domesticated, their genes adapted to a starch-rich diet of human leftovers (and the majority of those "leftovers" had been cooked).
Does anybody remember this study from about a year ago ?
Click Here : http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles. ... riculture/

Yes and there seem to be lots of quotes in the article that came from people that were not involved in the study. Why do you think they made that so clear? I also posted another article by a doctor a while back that said this study could be affected and somewhat inaccurate because it would depend on what the dogs were fed weeks leading to the experiment and that very little has really changed other then the belief that dogs can do well on starch rich diets.

[ezzy333]

Bounty Hunter, I shouldn't post things like I just did. Would you please come up with just one fact that you can show us the proof of that shows raw is better than dry. And you can't use "I think".

Ezzy

Here's a question for you Ezzy. Why would most dogs choose a bowl of fresh ground beef over a bowl of their favorite kibble? Here is another question for you Ezzy. Why are wild animals extremely strong and powerful with the ability withstand conditions many domestic pets could not, yet no one cooks or processes their food for them?

Thanks for asking but I thought everyone knew the answers to these. They will eat the raw meat first because they like it better. In other words it taste better. Much the same as if you set a bowl of spinach and a bowl of ice cream in front of you or some kids which do you suppose they would eat first? Now I can change which your dog would eat first and do the same for you by just adding or taking away sugar. Sugar is the greatest appetite enhancer we could ever find. We experimented with a hundred other substances and sugar won every time for every different animal we tried it on from pigs, dogs cattle or humans. We used it by the railcar load primarily in baby animal feeds to get them started eating a dry food as early in their life as we could because we found that to be very important in having them grow quickly into big health animals. We didn't use it in dog feed since getting them to grow quickly created more problems than it solved. We found a limited dry kibble provided the best results and this is especially true in the larger breeds.

Second question, many wild animals are not particularly strong or healthy. This has been proven over and over. There are no examples of wild animals that do not live longer and healthier in captivity where they get a balanced diet on a regular basis. As far as standing severe conditions that our pets couldn't says wonders about the condition of their coats and their ability to find shelter much the same as the dogs that wonder the streets of our bigger cities primarily but also occasionally in our smaller towns and country side. A hole dug into the side of a hill gives them much more protection from the elements than the average dog house ever could. With shelter that never gets below 35 or 40 empty and probably 50 to 60 occupied is pretty comfortable living for any wild northern animal. And of course, many have a coat that is so good they can swim in ice water and not get wet or cold as long as they can get enough to eat to keep them warm. And for most of them that means a lot of fat in the diet and in the extreme cold a large body with an unhealthful amount of fat through out their body. Probably the one universal thing that stands out is that larger body mass is very important. That is the main reason you will see the same animals that habitat the whole N. American continent are larger the further north you go. Larger means less surface area in comparison to body mass.

As for the wolves eating habits, they like all animals in the wild do not have the luxury of having a balanced health diet brought to them everyday. They have to hunt for every morsel of food no matter what their health is like or die. You express your idea that all are healthy strong animals and that is the picture PETA and Animal Rights people always picture for the unknowing public to see. And of course those of us that have actually been out in the wild and have a true concern for our wildlife on a realistic basis know a far different world. There is, always has been, and always will be a lot of suffering that goes on when you have to provide all of their own food and shelter. Not only is it hard to find but then in many cases their is life and death completion over who gets to eat and who doesn't. Many at best, get the left overs and that is all. Diet is probably the number one reason that most wild animals die young. Either they can't find enough to eat or the fighting and competion with other animals takes its toll. That is exactly the reason wolves, coyotes, and foxes do not live together or even in the same area, They can not stand the competion when there already is a shortage of food. Wolves as well as most wild animals have had to resort to stuffing them selves so full they can hardly move when they do find food to the extent that they can't get up and do much of anything for a couple of days and that makes them vulnerable to other animals that will kill them on site. Again the advantage of being large comes into play. As far as the healthy aspect you talk about, animals do try to vary their diet in the wild so they can get all of the nutrients they need but it seldom happens unless they have an extremely rich and diversified habitat. The true carnivore will eat mostly meat but do eat the stomach contents and occasionally other material to try and provide some of the nutrients that are very limited in just a meat diet. Same goes for the vegetarians of the animal world. The gorillas and most other members of the ape and monkey world will kill and eat other animals on occasion, a fact that was not known for many years. The alternative to eating a varied diet is to over eat on a single source, trying to get enough of the lesser nutrients in that source. That may be one of the reasons we see so many of the animals that gorge themselves when they do eat.

Sorry this is so long but it is clear to me that you have this outlook on life that is prevalent in the world of the Easter Bunny, Bambi, and every other fictional story that gets thrown at the public that depicts their wonderful full life of our outdoor world and it is father from the truth than most people can even imagine. I think this comes about through our insane fear of death. We will do and think anything to avoid it and yet we all are going to die regardless. But we just can't stand the thought of animals or humans actually having a life and death battle going on most of their lives with finding the essentials of life. Mother Nature has not bought into that scenario where everything is healthy, strong, happy, and content in their habitat. It is a constant battle but luckily we have been able to learn and react to things that are important and that make our lives as well as our animal's healthier and happier that those still fighting the daily battles of finding a place to live and enough to eat.

And it is fine if you want to feed raw, it can work, but there are many problems that negate most of the advantages, the biggest is the fact that you can not provide a balanced diet on a regular basis and it is a lot of work for something that does not provide any advantage to your dog. It is just a difference in what you want to do, nothing more and nothing less. It is your choice and should not be used to pressure any one else to do the same by telling them it is better. The tests have been run and reported by people who did the research with an open mind and not the "I Think" mentality. For open minded people research is a way of deciding what they think.

[Bounty_Hunter]

Ok, there are some things we agree with like in your 3rd paragraph where you say diet is one of the main reason animals don't survive long ( because they cant get enough to eat or they have to fight to get it) and I totally agree with that, meaning, the food they are getting is very nutritious but in short supply. I don't agree with you when you say that a dog would choose ground meat because it taste better then kibble because I have also seen a few dogs that would not eat fresh meat if they have been on a strict kibble diet for a long time. As far as my vision on how nature works I do have a good understanding but no one really has all the answers as to why some things happen the way they do. That goes for human nature as well. If I agreed with all of those on here who tell me feeding kibble will provide the same nutrition as a raw diet I would be lying to myself. The science to prove superiority of the raw diet is there if you know how to break it down. Kibble has also come a long way and is likely to get better because of forums like this one that brings the truth to the surface.

[ezzy333]

BH, I have no idea of any way to change your mind and I have never wanted to but it is absolutely amazing how you can blow the whole world off and tell us your idea is more accurate than anything ever studied or researched by everyone else. After 50 years in the business and 70 years in the field you tell me if I just knew how to find or understand the material available I Would see how you are right. Example of your unreasonableness, I told you that the animals in the wild had a real problem finding enough to eat to satisfy their needs and you come back with the reply that it shows how good the food really is.

Have a good da, I'm through even answering the questions you ask me to answer. Open your mind. YOu can still feed whatever you want but I don't want to hear anymore of this junk you keep repeating. I know one requirement to learning is wanting to learn, and that seems to be beyond your abilities.

Ezzy

[cjhills]

This is what I would call a silly argument...................Cj

[ezzy333]

This is what I would call a silly argument...................Cj

Me too if it is an argument

[Del Lolo]

They will eat the raw meat first because they like it better.

Not always. Did you read my post above, where I said :
"Last Fall, I found a dead deer (had been wounded and died, but not recovered by the hunter).
I had a small bag of Purina Pro Plan (the 3 lb. size that is handed out at HRC Hunt Tests). I don't feed Purina, so I emptied the sack about 5 feet from the dead deer.
Guess what the coyotes (and maybe wolves) decided to eat first........ The Pro Plan."

[Mountaineer]

They will eat the raw meat first because they like it better.

Not always. Did you read my post above, where I said :
"Last Fall, I found a dead deer (had been wounded and died, but not recovered by the hunter).
I had a small bag of Purina Pro Plan (the 3 lb. size that is handed out at HRC Hunt Tests). I don't feed Purina, so I emptied the sack about 5 feet from the dead deer.
Guess what the coyotes (and maybe wolves) decided to eat first........ The Pro Plan."

Raccoons, et al?

[Del Lolo]

They will eat the raw meat first because they like it better.

Not always. Did you read my post above, where I said :
"Last Fall, I found a dead deer (had been wounded and died, but not recovered by the hunter).
I had a small bag of Purina Pro Plan (the 3 lb. size that is handed out at HRC Hunt Tests). I don't feed Purina, so I emptied the sack about 5 feet from the dead deer.
Guess what the coyotes (and maybe wolves) decided to eat first........ The Pro Plan."

Raccoons, et al?

Nope -- Plenty of tracks in the mud.

[Mountaineer]

Mud?...then maybe both...or dogs, + birds.
Corvids love dog food....others as well.

I dumped some moldy cracked corn years ago where I could see it from the house...a fox kept returning to chow down.

Lot of critters are opportunistic, easy feeders....a lot of critters rely on assumptions as well.

[Bounty_Hunter]

Mud?...then maybe both...or dogs, + birds.
Corvids love dog food....others as well.

I dumped some moldy cracked corn years ago where I could see it from the house...a fox kept returning to chow down.

Lot of critters are opportunistic, easy feeders....a lot of critters rely on assumptions as well.

Could be the coyotes were using the food pile as an ambush place with all the critters coming to feed on the dog food. Cant understand why they would leave a yummy deer there untouched and eat stale kibble. Unless, the bag was left there too and they read the nutrition label and decided it was a healthier choice...

[Bounty_Hunter]

BH, I have no idea of any way to change your mind and I have never wanted to but it is absolutely amazing how you can blow the whole world off and tell us your idea is more accurate than anything ever studied or researched by everyone else. After 50 years in the business and 70 years in the field you tell me if I just knew how to find or understand the material available I Would see how you are right. Example of your unreasonableness, I told you that the animals in the wild had a real problem finding enough to eat to satisfy their needs and you come back with the reply that it shows how good the food really is.

Have a good da, I'm through even answering the questions you ask me to answer. Open your mind. YOu can still feed whatever you want but I don't want to hear anymore of this junk you keep repeating. I know one requirement to learning is wanting to learn, and that seems to be beyond your abilities.

Ezzy

Ezzy, you make it sound as though I am showing disrespect but I'm not. Every time I post some evidence that support my belief you and your kibble support team discredit it and apply the usual comments, its a sales pitch or there's no science to support it, but If I say that about the claims you and the kibble manufactures make I'm rotten to the core. Don't you think I would prefer to feed my dog from a bag and forget it, I would, really. I would like to do the same for my family but I know it doesn't work that way, at least not in the real world. Sure lots of folks eat prepackaged meals and pizza and fast food but they usually pay for it down the road. Knowing what real whole food can do for us is important. It has changed many lives for the better, dogs included. Keeping an open mind also means sticking up for what you believe in regardless of what the opposition is. We may never agree with each other over this nutrition dilemma but we can agree to show respect for each other and that goes for the others who might disagree.

[Mountaineer]

Could be the coyotes were using the food pile as an ambush place with all the critters coming to feed on the dog food. Cant understand why they would leave a yummy deer there untouched and eat stale kibble. Unless, the bag was left there too and they read the nutrition label and decided it was a healthier choice...

Nope, an ambush point would be a bit too Beatrix Potter on a bad day...kibble would have a smell to a coyote or a coon, a corvid would simply see it as potentially....something, of course.

I can well imagine a coyote or wolf first eating a bag of dog food(opened) beside a deer...it's easier....as simple as that.
Often food opportunities for them may be a grab...whatever....fast and get out! or get a mouthful before another coyote snags a mouthful.
Silly to overthink such a situation.

[ezzy333]

BH, I don't disagree with feeding raw and never have if that is what you want. My posts are not my opinion but is what I learned from schooling and working in the manufacturing, quality assurance, and the purchasing and marketing area of the dog food as well as other animal feed for 43 years. It was offered so you might change some of your opinions that fly in the face of reality. Nothing more. And as it has become evident that change is not part of your agenda I am backing away from trying to help. Simple as that.

I don't have any animosity towards you but sure do find fault with anyone that refuses to acknowledge anything they think might be wrong even in the face of facts that are so evident every place you look while at the same time having you state many opinions with your only evidence is "I think".

Ezzy

[Bounty_Hunter]

I don't have any animosity towards you but sure do find fault with anyone that refuses to acknowledge anything they think might be wrong even in the face of facts that are so evident every place you look while at the same time having you state many opinions with your only evidence is "I think".Ezzy

You are correct, I do use the "I think" phrase to describe my thoughts or opinions but not as facts. What I have been providing is information through documented experiences from other dog owners along with the research and findings from well respected vetrenary professionals. But that does not satisify many of those who have relied on their favorite brand of kibble for so long. And I can understand that and I accept it. What I don't accept is all of them telling me how wrong I am and how everything I believe is based on nonsense and unscientific findings. Yet I have not seen any of their so called scientific evidence with the exception of, my dogs lived to 13 or 15 and I have been using xx brand for 30 years. How did your dog spend his last 3 years of his life? How many trips to the vet? What meds was he on? What is the average life expectancy of your breed of dog? How do you know that, did the dog food industry tell you that so that's what you based your dogs life expectancy on? You see I don't know the whole story so I cant accept this kind of information as scientific evidence. Now do you see where I'm coming from...