View Single Post
  #19  
Old September 1st, 2011, 07:58 AM
kmoose kmoose is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rgeurts View Post
This may seem very unimportant and even frivilous to you, but to both of my boys (and I'm sure thousands of others), it could mean the difference between being healthy or getting very ill/dying. My old boy has no immune system due to the cancer/chemo and our "baby" who is a year and a half old now has almost no immune system. Human grade means everything to them both. Things that dogs with a healthy immune system can easily tolerate could kill either of mine, not to mention parasite load. They don't have what it takes to fight off the "bad" stuff. So if someone such as yourself thinks it's bad to feed their dogs good food, or feed them like "kings", then so be it. It isn't out of your pocket. And the vet bills associated with feeding them cheap food isn't either. Again, I'm not tyring to be disrespectful, but I couldn't disagree with your way of thinking any more than I do at this point. You're right, they are not human, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be treated with any less care, love or respect. Animals are by far more loving, forgiving and innocent than the majority of people I have ever known. Just my
It is too bad that your dogs have gone through any of this. No creature deserves that kind of discomfort or pain.

I suppose we will agree to disagree. I love my dog, and all dogs I have had in the past (yes, even the cat we had too....shrug) but I do see them as pets, not my children. There is a definate pecking order in my family, and it is humans, then the dog, then the other pets. I don't think my dog is any worse for wear as a result (she has her chin on my leg as I type this).

There was an article in the Toronto Star this summer about the trend to see animals as furry humans and not to call them "pets" but "animal companions". In this case, I thoroughy disagree with this line of thinking, although it is making the owners of boutique pet food stores very, very rich. The young guy at my local Bark and Fitz, where I do buy premium food for my dog (I don't want a sick dog nor the bills that come with it either), told me a customer spent more on her dog in one visit than he spent on Tuition last year. That is messed up in my mind.

My original point was that the best food isn't always the best for your dog. My dog was suffering on Orijen - it was obvious, and it is a "5 star". But she does well on what I may call the "4-star" foods like Merrick, Canidae, and TLC. When she was at the Vet for surgery, they gave her some Hill's prescription kibble. She had the runs for 3 days after getting home. Food or surgery? Not sure.

My brother in law fed his 2 Vizlas Iams for their whole lives, and they lived to 12 and 14 respectively with no major issues. I don't beleive the major companies are trying to kill my dog, but I do agree that perhaps they do not have maximum nutrition at heart. But they have nice websites!

I do think people need to work out the cost of feeding! It actually costs more to feed a Dog Iams ($23 avg for a 15lb bag) than Canidae ALS ($32 avg for a 15lb bag) and this advantage grows with bigger dogs. My dog would need 3 cups a day of Iams vs 2 cups of Canidae for the same calorie count, etc. Canidae works out slightly cheaper per feeding, but is miles better in Nutrition....even a fool like me can see that!
Reply With Quote