>From:    Deborah Kemmerer DVM
>Consider the current fad to feed dogs "archtypal" or "ancestral" natural
>diets.  We know that our dogs' ancestors as well as contemporary wild
>dogs have a life span of three to four years.  They don't have a chance
>to reach old age, get cancer or die from natural causes.  Why would one
>assume that a diet which evolved for this short-term hunter-forager
>lifestyle would necessarily be good for a pet who can expect to live to
>about twelve years?
 
Hmm, maybe the same way someone would assume that feeding grains to an
animal that doesn't need them is good because most vets push kibble?
Wild dogs,or any wild animal, usually has a shorter lifespan because of
having to encounter predators, food shortages, getting hurt with no
medical attention, etc., not because of an inadequate diet.  Comparing
the lifespan of wild versus domesticated has been used as a scare tactic
along with a host of other ones (some of which Bob C.  has addressed) to
convince people not to feed a raw diet.  As for it being a "fad" I would
say kibble is the "fad", it only having been around for about 50 years
whereas the species appropriate diet has been around, well, for as long
as the species.  I don't know what kind of diet the ferrets you mention
had been fed, while a raw diet isn't rocket science some people don't do
any research and figure tossing a piece of meat to the animal is fine,
which may be the case with them.  A raw diet does take a little bit more
than opening up a bag and pouring it in a bowl.  Some people probably
shouldn't feed a raw diet because of that, but I think the majority of
people can manage it just fine, more vets should give their clients a
little more credit than they do and be more open to the "alternative" way
of thinking.  Alot of the people that feed a species appropriate diet
probably have researched more and know more on nutrition than their vets.
 
>The reason we see so many more cancers in pets as well as in people is
>that none of us as a species has EVER lived as long as we do now--not
>even close.  The longer you live, the greater the chance you'll
>eventually get cancer or a host of other problems.
 
While I agree with your statement, unfortunately things are cropping
up in younger and younger animals (and people).  We have vaccines for
almost everything and overuse them (and are working on more as we speak),
medications to treat the SYMPTOMS of just about everything under the
sun without trying to get to the CAUSE of the problem, a quick fix for
everything, and feed processed foods that the main ingrediants are
inappropriate.  Maybe looking at how we feed our pets is the first step
in the right direction.  Think about it, how many people here obsess
about feeding themselves and their families?  Why do we make it so
difficult to feed our pets (especially the carnivores, just feed like a
prey animal!) but for the most part don't worry about what we eat?  Plus
where is the stimulation in eating the same thing, day after day, after
day?  If kibble is the greatest way to feed why haven't they come up with
a human kibble that we all can eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner???
Doesn't Total or one of those cereals claim to have all or most of the
daily requirements people need?  Would certainly make my shopping easier
to just buy that!
 
Maybe in light of the infected Mad Cow ending up in pet food more people
may opt to feed a species appropriate diet instead of a processed, unfit
for human consumption, main ingrediants not easily digested or
bioavailable, product.  To quote you: "All may not be as it seems on the
surface".
 
~Amy~
[Posted in FML issue 4163]