Tuesday, December 18, 2007


I belong to a form for natural rearing of dogs. I joined a little while ago when I began to change our lives with more of a holistic health bend. I found I beleived in doing many of the things they do.
However, not for the same reasons and not to the degree.
For one, I beleive that raw feeding can be the healthiest diet option for your dog. However, I beleive in creating your raw diet with the help of a vetrinary nutritionist to make certain that you get the best balance. Additionally, I do beleive that dogs as opportunistic scavengers will utilize nutrition in fruits, vegetables, dairy and eggs if those are fed more as supplements or treats.
I do NOT beleive that raw diets will make impeccably behaved animals, keep your dog from getting ticks (if anything, the blood on an unwashed muzzle may attract them), or keep them from numerous genetic ailments.
I simply beleive it offers mental statisfaction by feeding in a manner they instinctively prefer, some minor behavioral benefits by giving them something to chew, and allows you to tweak nutrition to match individual dogs sometimes extensive needs. Therefore, making for a healthier immune system and mental well-being. Additionally, highly processed food does have some of the nutritional value removed and therefore is not as healthy.
I do NOT beleive that feeding a high quality kibble that closelly matches my dogs needs and tastes is a bad thing. In some cases it may be better (like when I need them pupsat and they have resource guarding issues).
I, like the Natural Rearing people, beleive that minimal vaccination is best and that immuniztion protocols often call for over innoculation in our pets. I also beleive that over immunization is a very bad thing at worst and at least is an unnecessary inconvenience, expense, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
But unlike them, I do beleive in getting an initial immunity down, and then titering yearly...giving boosters only when it's shown that my dogs are no longer immune. I do not beleive people are putting cancer in shots. That all shots are evil. Or that there is no benefit to innoculation. IAlso, I do beleive in trying homeopathy when at all possible. For example, taking ginger cubes for my motion sickness isn't going to have a weird reaction with a medication or knock me out. But it does it for me. Diet, excercise, and clean living are what are the best first steps. If those aren't going to address a root cause, however, it's time for something more. Medications, surgery, etc. are sometimes what are called for.
have looked at the materials and often they cite use of metals in shots. Something that hasn't been in them since they were reformulated many years ago. I beleive these people are trying hard to do whats best, but might be working off out-of-date info. Also, the papers written to support their beleifs sound more like emotional accounts of particular instances than of scientific studies. The hypothesis they hope to prove also don't seem to make a lot of sense to me. The cause and effect don't jive. And dont seem to back up their claims with definitive answers....for example, what cancers? How long? What lot numbers???? Just vagueries. Like stories you later find on Snopes.com
So when someone tells me that the Hound chewed up the carpet because she had puppy shots, or because she has occasionally eaten kibble... I just smile, nod and say I haven't come to accept that part yet because I don't find the evidence wholly convincing.
I'm always open to changing my mind should someone really wow me...but I've always beleived this: "Keep an open mind--just not so open your brain falls out" So I take some convincing before I truly embrace a beleif.

While this looks like I'm against them...I seem to be following many of their practices so I must feel their on to something, right??

No comments: