ECONO RAW FEED PROGRAM

[Officially Retired]

This is a perfect example of the warm fuzzies and "YOU feed your and I will feed mine".

No, actually, it is merely a perfect example of self-justification for laziness and minimalism.

The difference between one owner trying his best for his dogs (as he expects his dogs to try their best for him), and another owner being a half-ass and only feeding what is necessary "to keep his dogs alive," but no more than that.

I feed the dogs they way that works for me, and what I think is working for them.

This is nonsense. What do you define as "working for you?" How to spend as little money as possible, just to ensure your dogs are "still alive" when you wake up?

To bury one's head in the freaking sand as to the difference between optimal nutrition, and 'barely passable' nutrition, is simply negligence. Laziness.

Is it the absolute best plan out there? I doubt it. But it works for me.

I doubt it is the best plan out there as well ...

Don't know what "works for you" means; it's a nonsensical statement.

The 18 year old and potato chips is a pretty good analogy but people who eat healthy and exercise and best use the medical advice available to them kick off early too. It is an odds game.

You are confusing the FACT that optimal nutrition = optimal health with ANOTHER FACT that some people/dogs are born with genetic weaknesses to make them expire early. (But you, and people like you, argue this mixing of facts to justify feeding shit food.)

The FACT is, feeding one 18 year old nothing but potato chips will ALWAYS create a sad-looking, unhealthy, middle-aged adult.
The other FACT is, feeding another 18 years old optimal nutrition + exercise will make that person a healthy, vibrant middle-aged adult.
(Genetic predispositions for problems notwithstanding.)

In keeping with this, EVERY dogman I have ever known, who fed kibble to his dogs their whole lives, has fat/soft, fucked-up looking middle-aged/elderly dogs. EVERY one of them.

They ALL look the same "when they're young," no matter what you feed them ... just like an 18 year old eating potato chips looks the same as an 18 year old eating optimally ...

The difference is not in how they look young ... the difference becomes unmistakable as to how they age

Put things is your favor the best you can and then after that, "It is what it is".

That is EXACTLY the point: feeding an optimal raw diet *IS* putting things in your (dog's) favor ... not feeding shit-kibble.

Realize the difference.

Anyone here who has had dogs for any length of time have seen the next guy put half the effort with half the knowledge and have dogs live much longer still producing.
EWO

Again, you're confusing genetic predisposition with one group of dogs for THE FACT optimal nutrition = optimal results, in ANY group.

And, genius, I *AM* a guy who fed a group of dogs (that were genetically pre-disposed to cancer) kibble for the first 10 years of my dogmanship ... and watched dog-after-dog die of cancer at ages 3-6 ... and watched that same group of dogs live and produced 2-3 TIMES as long, fed a raw diet.

Ultimately, this is a waste of my time.

Lazy foggen people are lazy foggen people. They will "look for a way OUT" of doing their best, every time.

Conscientious people are contientious people, and they will look for a way TO DO their best, every time.

It is pretty much as simple as that.

And I know which ones deserve the good dogs they get, and which ones do not.

The desire to do one's best (willingness) is an admirable trait, while the desire to avoid doing so (unwillingness) is a character defect.

The great irony is the fact that, in the dogs, we breed for the former, and cull the latter ... so it is difficult to observe the latter trait in those "dog owners" who try to call themselves dogmen.

Jack