hhhmmm....if you didn't find anything useful on that thread, I'm wondering if you availed yourself of the many many links posted?...:thumbup: :thumbup: yeah, everything she said - Plus: seeing an improvement in your senior dog (13th year). Less pain w/arthritis, easier mobility. Depends, if your talking about raw meat for a human or raw meat for a canine. Humans are more suited to eating fruits, grains, and nuts as is evidenced by their teeth. We have grinders, and just a few canines. Neither are we equipped with enzymes that will fight bacterial nasties that canines' systems can handle. Dogs, on the other hand, have a mouth full of canines, and a digestive system ideally suited for eating a prey model diet (raw meat). Cooking destroys proteins that the canine (dog) needs. Plus, cooking makes any bone dangerous.Correct: "raw meat could be potentially harmful to you"; as, YOU are not a dog, and therefore not equipped to safely process raw meat. We should resist the urge to lick raw chicken legs.Yes. While evolution may be a theory, the FACT is that your dog is a member of the wolf family, and one look in his/her mouth should assure you that s/he is equipped to a prey model diet...:thumbup: :thumbup:

Granted they are in the same family as wolves, but that does not mean that they can be treated the same in every aspect. The domesitcation and selective breeding of dogs over centuries time has altered them so that they are far from 'wolves.' Other than the basic aspects, the species are quite different. I wouldn't think it safe to assume that even their most basic requirements for life are the same.... I really don't see where you can compare one to another and act as if what is good for one is good for the other. Just generally speaking....

this is a great debate thread! Reading through some posts i did have some comments, but Lara has gotten to them first LOL so i won't repeat.

Great info and thoughts from everybody.

Isn't it great (and informative) when people can express and discuss differing opinions like real adults.:)

"The basic aspects", being...?(what)? *I* wouldn't think it safe to assume their basic requirements for life have changed - since their 'basice' digestive systems have not.

I do agree that we cannot treat wolves and Yorkies the same "in every aspect". We might loose an arm if we try dressing a wolf in clothes and putting froo-froo bows in her/his hair :D.

I think their basic requirements for life are still basically the same regarding food and water. The shelter part is the problem when it come to the selective breeding we've done to create so many breeds. Some just cannot live outdoors. I think they're food requirements have stayed the same. Their abdominal cavity has stayed the same.

Dogs and Wolves have the same genetic makeup and have actually been reclassified as one species:

http://www.geocities.com/havens_home/feedraw.htm

Your dog—your little Toy Poodle or Great Dane sitting there in you lap—is a wolf. The scientists have agreed—the dog is a wolf. They’ve even been reclassified is Canis lupus familiaris. Well, with only a .02 difference between mitochondrial DNA (mDNA—the little stuff, not the big stuff), go figure. There’s that much difference between human races.

This is a great thread, very interesting. As I'm reading the posts regarding the evolution from wolves I'm picturing the look on the wolf's face if they could see our little furbabies with bows in their hair wearing a beautiful dress laying on their princess bed, with us completely wrapped around their little paws, they come a long way baby! LOL!:D

Hmmm...kind of hard to put into words what I mean....:rolleyes: And this is all just something I'm throwing out there for consideration and disscussion...

Basic requirements for life meaning food and water...yes, clearly they both reqire that. I would think though that the selective breeding and domestication (due to human interference) has had much more impact that could affect the bigger picture on a scale a bit bigger than just 'some can't live outdoors.'
We know that Yorkies, like all breeds, are succeptable to certain illnesses, genetic faults, immune deficiencies, allergies, etc....all the resulting from many years of being bred to create a breed, bad breeding, etc. Can the same be said about wolves? I'm sure there are some things that wolves are more succeptable to, but are the specific issues the same? Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years...you don't think there have been genetic mutations thanks to humans and their selective breedings in that amount of time.
A domestic dog's system in general is compromised by many factors that wolves are never exposed to. Immunizations, disease not neccessarily found in the wild (and vice versa), medical treatment, changes in the bodies natural balances due to surgeries, spay and neuter, etc. How do we know that these things are not compromising aspects of the dogs system that are comparable to those of wolves making them not as efficient?
Do these things not create huge differences for the two? Making them quite different from one another in some ways?

Hi Misty, OK, that's cleared up. Well, yes, obviously there are mutations - look at the many sizes, shapes and breeds of dogs. But, their basic digetive systems have not changed. The way they ingest and process fuel (food and water) is, basically, unchanged.Agreed. Human interference with over-vaccinating surely has compromised immune systems in the domesticated dog, resulting in a host of diseases and conditions not suffered by their cousins, the wolf. However, compromised immune systems and weak teeth have not changed their digestive systems into something that is suddenly (kibble/commercial dog 'food' has only been around about 70 years) more apt to processing ingredience in 'domestic' manmade commercially produced food-like substance: grains, carbs, sugar, plastics, and diseased animals (which, given a choice, the dog would not eat) found in kibble/canned. Do they survive on manmade food-like substance? Obviously. Survival of the fittest dictates that a species survive and procreate, therefore any species will exist on limited fuel. Humans survive this way too, in captivity. That doesn't mean that our basic internal workings require less than optimum fuel. Just that we adapt to certain criteria of survival.

[QUOTE=lara2913;1558885]

Ummmmm, well some of us would beg to differ. More than anything its the type of bone that needs to be considered. Generally speaking, its cooked bones, beef bones, the leg bones of large animals and bones that are an inapropriate size for the said dog that can cause problems. Its all about research and 'know thy dog' really. Myself, I consider the risks of appropriate raw meaty bones doing damage to my dogs to be lower that the risk of serious dental dieseses that they could get if they were not

Ellie already has periodontal disease (from eating kibble and not brushing teeth). I brush her teeth everyday and that is fine with me. I agree that toothpaste could be recalled and I have thought about it. There is a lower risk of that happening then her choking on a bone or tearing herself up inside and requiring emergency surgery in my opinion.

When I say cooked meats don't contain bacteria, I am talking in general. Of course there is always a low risk whatever we do. There is a higher chance of a dog getting E coli, salmonella and toxoplasmosis when eating raw meat. I'm pretty sure that's a fact. Yes, if the dog has a strong immune system these things should be no problem, but who is the judge of that. I don't think anyone knows for sure if their dog has a strong immune system.

[QUOTE=lara2913;1558997]


Some of them may have been for salmonella, but then of course another debate is that fresh sources that may have low levels of salmonella would be safer than salmonella infested kibble that has been sitting in a bag multiplying for months or even years. They were infected with all sorts of other harful things too. I guess the way it is, I personally choose to take responsibility of my own dogs diet, rather than let a commercial company do it for me.


I agree that kibble can be full of the stuff but I choose not to go that way either. Why not just buy fresh meat and cook it?

So, I have been looking online to read about a wolf's diet. It seems as though they eat larger animals like caribou and deer, so I guess you raw feeders would say our dogs should get what they get in the wild. When someone posted a link to a website that an animal had eaten deer bones and was hurt because of it you said it was the wrong type of bone. That is what a wolf would eat in the wild. How can it be he wrong type?

Also, I don't think wolves eat cow and chicken in the wild. Why do you feed it? When you read about what small animals they eat, they do eat rabbit but also mice (yummy). Are you going to start putting this on the menu?

As for dogs not wanting to eat grain, I know of dogs who lived outside so they could hunt. They liked the corn in the garden.

I like debating with all of you but somehow I don't think we are convincing each other...:)

Hi Ellie May,

If you're looking for basic existence, it's at least a better choice than commercial dog stuff. If you're looking for the optimum diet for your canine pet, cooking kills most of the nutritional value, thereby making it more difficult for your dog to use it efficiently. He may have to eat more because he is hungry, thus becoming more prone to obesity, diabetes and heart disease.

JMO

:) True. We can theorize until the proverbial cows come in; but, I (for one) feed RAW, because it saved my Mozart's life. THAT I did not get from someone else's opinions, books, or research studies. I'm living it.