Pet forum for dogs cats and humans - Pets.ca

Pet forum for dogs cats and humans - Pets.ca (http://www.pets.ca/forum/index.php)
-   Dog food forum (http://www.pets.ca/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=53)
-   -   Friend feeding IAMS (http://www.pets.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=10708)

tyr December 29th, 2004 10:53 AM

Friend feeding IAMS
 
I was over at my hubby's friends house the other day and I saw his wife pouring food into their cat bowls. As from the title you can reasonably assume it was IAMS - a great big bag of it :sad:

Instantly I blurted out "You feed your cats IAMS?!". Only to get an irritated response of "Yes. Why?". I went into all the cons of IAMS and how they mistreat their animals through animal testing for their products.

Well, I did not get the response I thought I would get. Instead I got "So what? I am sure all pet food creators do animal testing and IAMS is just the only one who has been caught because of how big of a corporation they are. The big companies always get caught if they are doing something like that.... Besides, it is the best possible cat food you can feed your cat. Everything else has high ash content. Ever since I started feeding them IAMS I have noticed they are healthier and create less waste".

I was really surprised by his response as he is a Vegetarian. I thought I could help show the light and stop another person from supporting animal cruelty, but all I got was irritation, defense and argument :sad:

glasslass December 29th, 2004 11:06 AM

He felt defensive, therefore was irritated. But, by the time he goes through that big bag, maybe he'll think about it and choose something else for his next bag. At least you planted a seed.

tyr December 29th, 2004 12:23 PM

I really hope so....though I think it is very doubtful :sad:

TobsterMom December 29th, 2004 12:28 PM

I fed Toby Iams. I had no idea till recently about the testing. Granted, Iams is a good food, but people just don't know. I know alot of people who buy Iams, and I tell them as well and get the same response, sometimes you can't convince people of anything. :sad:

tyr December 29th, 2004 12:42 PM

That is so true. I know most people just don't care (good food is good food regardless of how it is made). I just thought that he would definitely care due to him being a vegetarian and all. I am not a vegetarian and yet I care very much about the conditions of those animals, and participate and care about animals rights. I guess I just thought since he was able to take that stand after being a meat eater that he would be the type to take a stand against animal cruelty from another angle.

I am not an fighter either, I always back down when the discussion gets too heated...even if I am educated on the subject and know more than the other person. I guess that does not help either....

I wish I could have got into the food brands that are really good for your pets, that don't test - but I do not know them all and listing one does not do any good for my argument :sad:

Though, like glasslass said, I hopefully planted a seed. I am trying to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

I too learned of IAMs after joining this site (I love Pets.ca). Though, I did not feed it to my cats. I tried once, but my cats turned their noses to it and looked at me like I was crazy. I understood why after finding out about them here. My fur babies must have sensed that something was not right :D

Schwinn December 29th, 2004 01:07 PM

I haven't read all of this yet, so I'm only posting this for the sake of being fair. While companies do have an agenda (making money), just remember, so do a lot of activist groups. I'd take the info from both sides with a grain of salt, and make up your own minds.

[URL]http://www.iamstruth.com/iamstruth/en_US/jhtmls/home/IT_Home_Page.jhtml?li=en_US&pti=HP[/URL]

anniebananie December 29th, 2004 01:50 PM

Schwinn - I like your reply. I agree with you. I don't feed Iams to my animals because they don't like it. Both sides have agenda's that we no nothing about. Other companies could be worse for all we know. :yuck:

chico2 December 29th, 2004 03:56 PM

One of the reasons I stopped feeding my cats IAMS was way before the cruelty thing came out one way to find out is to read the ingredients.I never buy cat-food that has corn-meal or any kind of corn,chicken meal etc....
There was a time when IAMS was ok,but after the takeover,it's now no better than any grocery store cat-food.
Today we do not need to feed our animals garbage,there are plenty of good,nutricious foods out there,it will cost a little more but save money on vet-bills in the future.

mona_b December 29th, 2004 04:53 PM

[QUOTE=TobsterMom Granted, Iams is a good food, [/QUOTE]

Not true at all.Have you read the ingredients?If I'm correct,the second ingredients in Iams is corn.A big no-no.The first 4-5 ingredients in any dog food should not be corn.

Here is a good article.
[url]http://www.api4animals.org/79.htm[/url]

Scroll down and check out the Iams Ingredients.

[url]http://www.iei.net/~ebreeden/kibble.html[/url]

heeler's rock! December 29th, 2004 05:06 PM

Don't be so down tyr. My in-laws feed their malamute Eukanuba and I've tried getting them to stop, but they won't I think because it's conveinient or something. I did get my mom to stop feeding her cat Iams, but only because I completely insisted and practically dragged my mom to the specialty pet store by our house. Now she eats Natural Balance. :)

TobsterMom December 30th, 2004 12:14 PM

[QUOTE=mona_b][QUOTE=TobsterMom Granted, Iams is a good food, [/QUOTE]

Not true at all.Have you read the ingredients?If I'm correct,the second ingredients in Iams is corn.A big no-no.The first 4-5 ingredients in any dog food should not be corn.

Here is a good article.
[url]http://www.api4animals.org/79.htm[/url]

Scroll down and check out the Iams Ingredients.

[url]http://www.iei.net/~ebreeden/kibble.html[/url][/QUOTE]


I agree it's not the BEST food in the world, but I just mean compared to many other grocery store brands. I have seen what cheap department store and grocery store brands do to an animals coat and excrements...not good. .

I have to somewhat disagree with something metioned in the first link posted.

"Procter & Gamble allegedly took the opposite tack with its Iams and Eukanuba lines, reducing the feeding amounts in order to claim that its foods were less expensive to feed. Independent studies commissioned by a competing manufacturer suggested that these reduced levels were inadequate to maintain health. Procter & Gamble has since sued and been countersued by that competing manufacturer, and a consumer complaint has also been filed seeking class-action status for harm caused to dogs by the revised feeding instructions"

I fed my dog Iams up until 4 months ago, using the suggested feeding amounts. He was perfect weight and health, so I don't quite get that :confused:

I feed him Medi-Cal preventitive formula. He loves it and is thriving on it.

Writing4Fun December 30th, 2004 01:03 PM

Oh, Tyr. All we can do is offer our advice. You know the old saying: "Never offer advice. The wise don't need it, and the fools don't heed it.". I found out over the holidays that acquaintances of ours got a Toy Poodle. First of all, these are people who never, ever liked dogs, but got one now because a) their teen-age daughters bugged them for one, and b) they saw a neighbor walking a Toy Poodle down the street and thought "Gee, it's cute and small, so maybe we'll get that one for our daughters just to shut them up." (cringe). So they went to the pet store (cringe again) and picked up this Toy Poodle because it was the same sex and colour as the one their neighbor has (cringe once more). She's very cute (I'm still not convinced she's pure - her fur is very Shih Tzu-ish), but in the short time we were together, I saw them make every conceivable mistake a rookie pet owner could make. I was biting my tongue so hard I'm surprised it didn't bleed. The only bit of advice I did offer (because I sensed an impending disaster) was to nix their notions of litter training the puppy (which they were doing to avoid having to descend to the yard from their second story balcony). I suggested that it might confuse the pup when they were out visiting friends if it didn't find a convenient litter box and might end up messing in the house. They didn't like the idea of the pup doing something that bad in front of friends, so they thought they would train it to go outside after all. :rolleyes:

Schwinn December 30th, 2004 01:33 PM

Does anyone have any information from a reliable source in regards to Iams testing on animals? I've been researching it, and the only thing I have found is from PETA, and I would like to have multiple confirmations before I decide. I've found quite a few respectful organizations disputing allegations, who are in favour of Iams. In the grand scheme of things at this point, it isn't an issue, but I would like to be informed. I wouldn't take the word of one activist group any more than I would take the word of one company.

TobsterMom December 30th, 2004 01:47 PM

[QUOTE=Schwinn]Does anyone have any information from a reliable source in regards to Iams testing on animals? I've been researching it, and the only thing I have found is from PETA, and I would like to have multiple confirmations before I decide. I've found quite a few respectful organizations disputing allegations, who are in favour of Iams. In the grand scheme of things at this point, it isn't an issue, but I would like to be informed. I wouldn't take the word of one activist group any more than I would take the word of one company.[/QUOTE]

Well, this is true. Who do you belive these days? And what are the consequences for beliveing or not. It's quite frustrating.

chico2 December 30th, 2004 03:34 PM

Well,there is a video,I did not see it,I cannot handle that sort of thing :sad:
I am not sure if I have it right,but here it is.(I think!) [url]www.iamscruelty.com[/url]
I did write to IAMS(Proctor and Gamble)and they did not exactly deny their practises,but swore up and down that they do not test that way anymore.

Schwinn December 30th, 2004 04:12 PM

[QUOTE=chico2]Well,there is a video,I did not see it,I cannot handle that sort of thing :sad:
I am not sure if I have it right,but here it is.(I think!) [url]www.iamscruelty.com[/url]
I did write to IAMS(Proctor and Gamble)and they did not exactly deny their practises,but swore up and down that they do not test that way anymore.[/QUOTE]

Apparently (and again, this is Iams vs. PETA, as that is a PETA site), the arguement is that video contains images that had nothing to do with Iams, and the "undercover agent" had themself authorized some of the tests on behalf of Iams without thier knowledge (this "agent" had supposedly got themselves in a position of power to do thier "investigation".) But one question I have is, if the allegations are true, or even partly true, why has there not been a mainstream news journal investigation, like 60 Minutes or anything like that? They love this stuff. And why are there no other organizations supporting the allegations, instead of supporting Iams (such as many kennel clubs, the Canadian Human Society, etc?). Again, I am not defending either group, just trying to find answers. I have been told about companies who are evil before, and upon further investigation, found out things weren't quite as I thought (Just remember, when getting all those e-mails, Snopes is your friend! ;)) . I'm not condemning PETA in this case, just saying that there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for thier position outside of the organization, yet lots of support for Iams from well-respected groups. (Just remember, when getting all those e-mails, Snopes is your friend! ;) )

chico2 December 30th, 2004 04:29 PM

Schwinn,I do not support PETA in most cases,but lets not forget..huge companies like Proctor/Gamble are untouchable,they have a looong list of products still tested on animals in the most cruel way.
We all know it goes on,but how do you fight big CO's...$$$$$ always is more important than a few animals.
So,you are saying these animals on the Video(which I did not watch)were treated well and because PETA is what it is,it is all staged????

Schwinn December 30th, 2004 04:54 PM

[QUOTE=chico2]Schwinn,I do not support PETA in most cases,but lets not forget..huge companies like Proctor/Gamble are untouchable,they have a looong list of products still tested on animals in the most cruel way.
We all know it goes on,but how do you fight big CO's...$$$$$ always is more important than a few animals.
So,you are saying these animals on the Video(which I did not watch)were treated well and because PETA is what it is,it is all staged????[/QUOTE]

No, no, not at all. I'm saying what the counter arguement was for the video. I haven't seen the video myself, so I'm not really in a position to say whether it is valid or not (can't watch videos at work, and most of my surfing is at home on weekends, so it'll have to wait until Saturday). I'm not even saying that PETA is wrong. Just looking for support outside of PETA, as I find it surprising that no other group has joined in against Iams (that I have seen). The groups that support Iams (such as American Animal Hospital Association, American Kennel Club, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, American Veterinary Medical Association, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, Humane Society of the United States just to name a few) are well respected. I find that curious, especially given the video. I mean, especially for someone who has not seen the video, doesn't that sound odd? I know I've spoken out before about how I feel about PETA, but I'm not passing judgement in this case on them, only asking the question. If it were a case of Iams vs. PETA, I would probably lean towards the video evidence. But it's the fact that so many other groups who I respect are jumping to the defence of Iams. Also, I just started researching this, so I still don't have an opinion yet.

Please don't think I am dismissing the evidence based on the group. I just want to make sure I've satisfied all my questions before I start condemning Iams to everyone I know (I'm not being sarcastic, I really will be rather vocal about how I feel if this is the case)

twodogsandacat December 30th, 2004 09:39 PM

They don't do it - ANYMORE
 
It's so hard to say but:

I don't put much stock in the claim made by IAMS that the investigator authorized the tests as it is no more credible than the a dope dealers claim that a 'cop smoked the dope too' while undercover. In other words she did what they were already doing in order to investigate. If she had the authority to do that in the short time she was there then it would seem odd nobody stopped her [U]if it was against their policies[/U]. It is far more likely she continued doing what they were doing already.

Why nobody else but PETA is complaining may be because of the money. IAMS has made some large contributions to the Humane Societies so once again follow the money trail. Same with the TV stations (Protector and Gamble = every fifth commercial we probably see). Also remember that animal testing is not illegal - just ask Tim Dack.

If they have changed as stated then good. Still look at the product range of Protector and Gamble and then consider that they probably test on animals for other reasons. There are so many better foods to feed anyways from companies that have never done this - not once, not ever.

I too think that PETA often take things way to far (I do eat meat and don't support BSL), so much that they may actually harm their own cause but they have done some very credible work over the years.

Finally: As far as the HSUS statements go it's not really an absolution of IAMS it's a statement that they would rather work with not against IAMS to facilitate change:

[I]The HSUS has neither endorsed the past actions of Iams, nor the company's current practices. We are, however, working with the company to see that any animals under its care are properly treated. What's more, we are demanding that the company move away from laboratory tests that might cause harm to the dogs and cats, and put their resources into clinical studies that result in no harm.[/I]
[url]http://www.hsus.org/about_us/about_hsus_programs_and_services/hsus_believes_in_working_with_not_against_groups_to_foster_change.html[/url]

chico2 December 31st, 2004 08:12 AM

TDAAC,you are very right,it's all about money :sad: if anyone would stand up against P/G,they would have to be prepared to deal with unending lawsuits and lose contributions to help more fortunate animals..I suppose the torture and maiming of a few hundred former pets is easily forgotten with a few handouts :sad:
Some Humane Societies contribute to this horror by selling former pets to research,I doubt they believe they are giving the dogs/cats a"good home"in a research-facility,why would they raise their voices when they are part of the problem??
I do not know enough about PETA,only about the items ending up in the newspaper,like spraypainting furbearers(sounds like fun!!!)and that the one woman(forgot her name)supports BSL,which I don't,but I believe basically they care about animals,care about the torture that goes on behind closed doors,something we rather not want to be reminded of.
Schwinn,I did not see the Video,I just do not have the stomache for it,but spoke to many who did,even my vet,people were sickened and horrified,that is all I need to know.To me it does not really matter where it came from,who is doing it...the fact is other animals are suffering so we can feed our Fido and Fifi foods that are relatively safe.The fact the report came from PETA does not make it any less real,whether we support PETA or not.The animals and their un-ending suffering is very real :mad:

chico2 December 31st, 2004 08:18 AM

TDAAC,thank you for the site from HSUS,it feels good to know someone is taking action :thumbs up

Schwinn December 31st, 2004 08:28 AM

You're right, it isn't an absolution. I also agree that Iams explanation of what the person hired to do is quite possibly lip service. I do question, though, that the only evidence is this video, which, supposedly, is off a research facility that Iams, along with other organizations used, not an Iams research facility. Thier research policy has been produced many times, and the only arguement against it has been that "they're lying". While I would never doubt the power of the almighty buck, and the PR department, I wonder why it is that there has never been any documented proof that thier policy is anything other than what they have released (when I say documented proof, I mean things like internal memos, or former employees who say that this document they release is bogus).

I'm trying to look at this from the point of view of sitting in the middle, kind of they way a judge would look at it, if you will (maybe it's the wannna be cop in me). On the one side, we have this video, pretty damning evidence. Iams arguement is that it shows parts of the facility that were not involved in anything Iams was researching. There is no rebuttal to that, other than to say "they knew what was happening". Perhaps, but we have no proof of that, so I ignore that part of the video. Iams says that had they known, they would have stopped using the facility. They then stopped using the facility. The arguement is, "Well, yea, because you were caught". Maybe, but the bottom line is they pulled out of the facility as soon as it became apparent what was going on. We can assume it was a PR move, or use it as evidence to support what Iams says. If we are going to judge this impartially, I think we have to either "rule" in favour of Iams on this point, or ignore it completely. Another piece of evidence is the person who is seen cleaning up before an inspection (again, I haven't seen the video, I read this on the PETA site). This isn't a fair damnation of Iams, it isn't thier facility. How do we know that a similar thing did not happen when "the suits" from Iams came to visit? It can be argued that because this is caught on film by someone who was supposed to be an Iams employee. However, this "employee" had a mission to prove wrong-doing. It could also be argued that they purposely won the confidence of the lab to see things that normally wouldn't be seen by an employee. Flimsy arguement, but plausible. Again, it falls back to Iams pulled out shortly after the video became apparent, not after a long boycott campaign.

My take on it at this point? I'm a little unsure. If this were a trial, and I were a judge, I'd have to say, okay, stalemate. I need some more proof. On Iams side, we have these respected organisations standing up for them (to varying degrees), on the the other side, we don't have anything else, except things from the distant past and rebuttles of "they're lying".

Again, I'm bringing this up as a point of debate, and I hope it is being taken that way. Also, I'm starting to feel a little like I might be thread-jacking, and if that's the case, I'm sorry. Let me know, and I'll shut up. :o

Schwinn December 31st, 2004 08:44 AM

[QUOTE=chico2]I suppose the torture and maiming of a few hundred former pets is easily forgotten with a few handouts :sad:...
...the fact is other animals are suffering so we can feed our Fido and Fifi foods that are relatively safe.The fact the report came from PETA does not make it any less real,whether we support PETA or not.The animals and their un-ending suffering is very real :mad:[/QUOTE]

I agree, it doesn't matter where the evidence comes from, and again, I am not arguing because of how I feel about PETA. I'm only trying to debate the point from both sides. I've worked for large corporations before, and I've seen what happens when the public gets a hold of negative information. No matter what they do, it becomes "of course you say that. You don't want to lose millions of dollars". While this is quite often true, it isn't always the case. I've been on the inside while the company tries to right a wrong, for the right reasons, but the media and the public only see the "evil corporation". Also, owning a pitbull and fighting the negative perceptions and now the BSL, I know how one-sided arguements can seem in the media. And I'm a fan of bodybuilding (I say fan, because a few too many bulges in the wrong spot to feel like a bodybuilder! ;) ), and I've fought negative perceptions there. ("All bodybuilders are on steroids" is one that always got to me. I think what really got to me though, was the doctor who kept asking me if I was on anything, and finally when I said, "If I was taking steroids, I'd want my money back" and he looked me up and down, and kind of went "good point". But I digress...)

Anyway, the whole point I'm trying to make is that Iams states that the animals they do trials on already have the afflictions they are trying to cure, and they use public animals who have owners and are returned afterwards. That is no different than human trials of medication. Other than a video of a research facility which belonged to an outside company, which was used by several food companies, and that Iams stopped using because of thier treatment, there has been nothing to refute them except to say, "They're lying" and "They have a lot of money, they can pay people off". If we are going to push a boycott of a company, then I don't think it is fair to base it on that.

chico2 December 31st, 2004 08:49 AM

No Schwinn,don't shut up :D I am just a regular person who loves animals,my own and any other on this planet.
Whether it's IAMS or any other company conducting horrific testing,I am pleased if someone has the courage to speak up.
No animal,in my view,in 2004/05 should be subjected to cruelty to make sure I will not be blind from using a certain shampoo,I believe we have outgrown such practises.
But I am being very naive in thinking it will ever stop :sad: I do my small part in trying to buy products not tested on animals.
As for IAMS,in my opinion it is crappy food,we now have so many choices of good foods out there,no need to feed junk anymore.

Schwinn December 31st, 2004 09:55 AM

[QUOTE=chico2]No Schwinn,don't shut up :D I am just a regular person who loves animals,my own and any other on this planet.
Whether it's IAMS or any other company conducting horrific testing,I am pleased if someone has the courage to speak up.
No animal,in my view,in 2004/05 should be subjected to cruelty to make sure I will not be blind from using a certain shampoo,I believe we have outgrown such practises.
But I am being very naive in thinking it will ever stop :sad: I do my small part in trying to buy products not tested on animals.
As for IAMS,in my opinion it is crappy food,we now have so many choices of good foods out there,no need to feed junk anymore.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you there, and I do hope that we will some day get to the point where cruel testing will stop. One thing I will say, in regards to animal testing and products that are "cruelty free", is that just because a product does not say it is cruelty free, does not mean it isn't. I remember during university talking about this, and a LOT of products that are sold as "animal testing free" and "cruelty free" are that way because the ingrediants have already been tested, and no longer require those methods. I found it interesting that a lot of companies that brag about thier products not being tested on animals are leaving out the fact that it is because thier ingrediants were proven years ago to be safe through animal testing. What happens is they will use these ingrediants after a period of time when a previous company tested it on animals, and then they can use the ingrediants without having to test it. For example, make-up. There are lots of companies that sell make-up that they have not tested on animals. But unless you are wearing crushed berries, the ingrediants in the products were animal-tested at some point. It's kind of like a group of people being afraid to cross a bridge because they don't know if it is safe. Four or five cross and make it. Person number six crosses then brags about how they weren't nervous when they were crossing. Of course not, the work has already been done. I too try to buy products that I feel are "animal friendly". I only say that because I was surprised to know that, and I think it is important to keep in mind.

glasslass December 31st, 2004 10:22 AM

I respect individuals who research both sides before making a judgement on any issue. Their opinions carry more weight with me ultimately because I feel they know more what they're talking about. Information is so readily available now via the Internet. The key to being informed is taking the time to do it personally and using caution in which sources you choose to believe. Anyone can write anything on the Internet. You have to discern what the motives and credentials are. Learning Resources 101!

Iamcanuck January 1st, 2005 10:20 AM

Hello. I just registered and thought I'd come look around. I doubt if I'll be here often because the conversation is looking very depressing, to be honest. I don't know what torture & inhumane treatment and videos you talk of, but I am sickened to think of it! I will not continue buying Iams just based on the opinions here, but what can I get in lieu? My precious 19 year old cat is in very good health, and I'd like to keep her that way. I've always bought 3 brands of dry food, a seniors diet, a dental diet, and what I call junk food (Friskies etc). She refuses the senior diet alone - it must be awful. I also give her assorted moist food and a multitude of treats. My dog refuses the same brand of dry food two days in a row, so I get a few brands for her as well. Both pets get Iams off and on. I foolishly assumed I was paying for quality. So, I'd value any advice you can offer. You are so much more in touch with the industry than I (or than I care to by the sounds of it). I add that both of my dear pets are fussy and demand variety, and being senior my cat, Velvet, needs high absorbency nutrients. Thank you, I respect your opinions. ~

twodogsandacat January 1st, 2005 05:37 PM

What's the desired goal of the boycott - behaviour modification or bankruptcy?
 
I certainly understand Schwinn's point. No company should be hated simply because they are big and big companies aren't necessarily evil. Maybe though they should be held to higher standards in order to show smaller companies that you can be ethical and still make money.

We certainly aren't going to drive IAMS into the ground by boycotting against them which appears to be PETA's goal. Maybe the best we can hope for is to change the way they behave and move on from there. They have saved far more dogs and cats by supporting agencies such as the Humane Society than they have harmed. While this is no justification for the way they have acted maybe the way HSUS is dealing with it is the best way. If they are driven out of the pet food business then they would have no reason to support any animal causes. Still we should keep our eyes on them.

Chico2: There is a difference between Animal Services (pounds) and organizations like the Humane Society. Winnipeg has both. Tim Dack is the 'commandant' for the city run Animal Services. I have never heard of Humane Societies selling animals for research.

Pound seizure is not a legal requirement in Manitoba so Tim Dack (the :evil: )had no reason to support it. [B]Ontario however does have a law[/B] and if Bill 132 passes we can only guess what fate will await pit bull pups. The SPCA however breaks this law every day - which means I fully support an outlaw organization. Cuff me Bryant. I take that back who knows what sick ideas would cross his mind if I were cuffed.

[I][B]Ontario[/B]
The Ontario Animals for Research Act requires pounds to relinquish dogs and cats they have held for more than three days if requisitioned by a registered research facility. This is hardly enough time to find a new home for these animals, or even for someone to find a well-loved, but lost family companion. The Animals for Research Act was created to ensure a cheap source of animals for experimentation, and stipulates that laboratories pay only $6 per dog and $2 per cat. In contrast, a person wanting to adopt one of these animals as a companion could be required to pay up to $150 for a dog and $80 for a cat. At least 10 pounds in Ontario continue to provide animals for experimentation; however, [U]humane societies and shelters affiliated with the Ontario SPCA will not supply animals to laboratories, despite the legislation[/U]. :thumbs up :angel:
[url]http://www.cruelscience.ca/pound-prov.htm[/url][/I]

chico2 January 2nd, 2005 08:36 AM

TDAAC,Schwinn,thank you for all the info and your opininons,you obviously have dug deeper into this and are more knowledgable than I.
Although,in my opinion even one dog beeing debarked and force-fed,spending his life in a cage,is worthy of protest,I realize the futility of it all..
There is just too much cruelty to animals in our"modern"world,slaughterhouses,factory-farms etc...

Iamcanuck,welcome!!! If you have a 19yr old healthy cat,you are obviously doing something right :thumbs up I would not change a thing if I were you.
I have a friend with 5 cats,two of whom are very elderly,relatively healthy and they have been fed nothing but,Friskies and Meow Mix and I am suggesting nothing to him,his cats are doing great.
I have had cats before,who died of different diseases,but now with my 3,I am more informed and feed them the best I can afford,always read the ingredients.I too feed dry and canned and I vary their canned food,as for dry it's always available 24/7 and their and my favourite is"Chicken-soup-for-the-catlovers-soul"only good ingredients NO Corn.
But like I said before,whatever you are feeding your cat,he's doing great at 19,so do not change a thing :thumbs up
Also,this Forum can at times bring you to tears,but we also have many good-luck stories of rescued,cured animals and a whole bunch of experienced people able to help with advice.So,stick around :thumbs up

Schwinn January 2nd, 2005 08:48 AM

[QUOTE=chico2]Iamcanuck,welcome!!!
Also,this Forum can at times bring you to tears,but we also have many good-luck stories of rescued,cured animals and a whole bunch of experienced people able to help with advice.So,stick around :thumbs up[/QUOTE]

And, more importantly, those tears aren't always bad tears! ;)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.