MYTH: DOGS ARE OMNIVORES

FALSE. Dogs are carnivores, not omnivores. The truth about dogs being carnivores is very well-supported by the evidence available to us. Dogs have the internal anatomy and physiology of a carnivore. They have a highly elastic stomach designed to hold large quantities of meat, bone, organs, and hide. They have a relatively short foregut and a short, smooth, unsacculated colon. This means food passes through quickly. Vegetable and plant matter, however, needs time to sit and ferment. This equates to longer, sacculated colons, larger and longer small intestines, and occasionally the presence of a caecum. Dogs have none of these, but have the shorter foregut and hindgut consistent with carnivorous animals. This explains why plant matter comes out the same way it came in; there was no time for it to be broken down and digested (among other things). People know this; this is why they tell you that vegetables and grains have to be preprocessed for your dog to get anything out of them. But even then, feeding vegetables and grains to a carnivorous animal is a questionable practice. Dogs do not normally produce the necessary enzymes (amylase, for example) in sufficient quantities to deal with the starch, cellulose, and carbohydrates in plant matter. Feeding dogs as though they were omnivores taxes the pancreas and places extra strain on it, as it must produce more of the 'unusual' enzyme amylase and must work harder for the dog to digest the food.

MYTH: WOLVES EAT THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF THEIR PREY

FALSE! Only if the prey is small enough (like the size of a rabbit) will they eat the stomach contents, which just happen to get consumed with the entire animal. Otherwise, wolves will shake out the stomach contents of their large herbivorous prey before sometimes eating the stomach wall. Even on a common sense level this could be proven false. Stomach acids have a pH near 1, which means they are incredibly acidic and bitter. The acid attacking the plant matter is strong enough to burn the enamel off teeth. Why would any self-respecting wolf willingly stick its nose into something that will burn its skin, burn the enamel of its teeth, and severely burn its lips and esophagus? No, wolves do NOT eat the stomach contents of their prey. The following quotations are taken from L. David Mech's 2003 book Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. Mech (and the others who contributed to this book) is considered the world's leading wolf biologist, and this book is a compilation of 350 collective years of research, experiments, and careful field observations. These quotes are taken from chapter 4, The Wolf as a Carnivore.

MYTH: DOGS AREN'T WOLVES. DOGS AND WOLVES ARE SO FAR REMOVED FROM EACH OTHER, AND WE'VE CHANGED DOGS SO MUCH THAT THEY CAN'T HANDLE A RAW DIET

FALSE. The only truth found in this statement is that humans have changed dogs. BUT, we have only changed their external appearance and temperament, NOT their internal anatomy and physiology. The claim that dogs can't handle a raw diet because they are so domesticated is only true in that we have been feeding them commercial diets for so long that a dog's system is not running up to par. The result of feeding dogs a highly processed, grain-based food is a suppressed immune system and the underproduction of the enzymes necessary to thoroughly digest raw meaty bones (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones). This does NOT mean, however, that the dog doesn't "have" those enzymes. Those enzymes are present, and once the dog is taken off the grain-based, plant matter-filled food those enzymes quickly return to the proper working level that allows for optimal digestion of raw meaty bones. Dogs are so much like wolves physiologically that they are frequently used in wolf studies as a physiological model for wolf body processes (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation). Additionally, dogs and wolves share 99.8% of their mitochondrial DNA (Wayne, R.K. Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family) Dogs and wolves can freely interbreed and produce fertile offspring--even little dogs like Westies and Chihuahuas are capable of this! This is a dramatic indication that dogs and wolves aren't just similarly related, but are the same species. Dogs and wolves share 100% of their genes. The genes for different coat colors, lengths, conformations, and structural differences are present in the wolf population to a certain degree (otherwise wolves wouldn't have been able to give rise to the different dogs we have today. In order for a phenotypic change to occur, there has to be a genetic basis off which to work. If the genes aren't there, then the phenotypic change isn't going to "magically" occur), but are selected against by nature because they aren't advantageous to wolf survival. Humans are the ones that manipulated the breedings to "create" smaller dogs and dogs of varying colors, shapes, and sizes. Additionally, dogs that are left to their own devices in the wild will form packs and hunt other animals, exhibiting the same range of behavior seen in wolves. The dog is, by all scientific standards and by evolutionary history, a domesticated wolf. And, as we have already established, the wolf is a carnivore. And since a dog's internal physiology does not differ from a wolf, dogs have the same physiological and nutritional needs as those carnivorous predators, which, remember, "need to ingest all the major parts of their herbivorous prey, except the plants in the digestive system" to "grow and maintain their own bodies" (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation.).

MYTH: DOGS HAVE BEEN DOMESTICATED FOR SO LONG THAT THEY HAVE ADAPTED TO COOKED DIETS

FALSE! Dogs were domesticated from wolves thousands of years ago, and then selectively bred by humans for desired sizes, shapes, and characteristics. However, they have NOT adapted to a cooked food diet, as evidenced by the millions of pets sitting in the waiting rooms of veterinary clinics with periodontal disease, skin diseases, cancers, organ diseases, diabetes, obesity--diseases that have strong connections to cooked and processed foods. Kibbled foods (which are cooked and highly processed) have only been around for the last 100 years. Evolutionary adaptations require much more time than this. The evolutionary changes - from gross anatomy down to the molecular level - that would be required for the development of such different digestive capabilities would take MUCH longer than the time that wolves have been living with humans.

MYTH: DOGS ARE LIVING LONGER TODAY BECAUSE OF THE BETTER NUTRITION PROVIDED BY KIBBLE

FALSE!. Dogs are living longer today because of improved social status and advances in medical care. "Back in the day" dogs were not considered the valuable family members and companions they are now. Dogs were left outside to brave the elements. They were guardians of house, possessions, and livestock. Dogs had a purpose, a job, and when they couldn't do that job, they were retired or disposed of. Medical care for dogs was scant and typically unimportant, as more prestige was gained from being a livestock vet than a canine vet. Very little notice was given to the dog's health as long as it could still do what was asked of it. Nowadays, dogs enjoy a better life, one that is easier and less taxing (except for the great injustices that are kibble and excessive vaccination). They sleep inside with their owners. They enjoy the social status of family companions. People care more about their welfare. They receive the benefits of improved health care--much of which has evolved in the last 50 years because of the ailments caused by processed foods--and the added bonus of people caring about them receiving that care. For example, 100 years ago people would have never paid thousands of dollars to give their dog a hip replacement, or hundreds of dollars to get routine dentals performed on their pets. Nutrition has had a very negligible role to play in increased longevity other than the fact that dogs are no longer starving and don't have to hunt or scavenge (both of which are energetically costly). Instead of contributing to longevity, these "nutritional advances" have contributed to more and more health problems previously unheard of in dogs--diabetes, various cancers, inflammatory bowel syndrome, and bloat, for example. Granted, these diseases are diagnosed more frequently today because people actually know what to be looking for, but the amount of dogs suffering from these ailments today as opposed to earlier dogs indicates a VERY strong link to the foods they eat, links that have been proven to exist between humans in developed countries and processed foods.

MYTH: WOLVES DON'T LIVE LONG IN THE WILD BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY EAT, SO WE SHOULDN'T FEED THAT TO DOGS

FALSE Wolves don't live as long in the wild as their domestic counterparts, but this is NOT because of the food they eat. Why would nature design an animal to be sustained on a diet that inevitably kills it? How could eating what it was designed and has evolved to eat decrease a wolf's lifespan? Its diet is what keeps a wolf alive! If it didn't eat, how would it live? These questions aside, we must look at how absurd it is to link wolf longevity solely to diet. Living in the wild is a tough job. Wild wolves face the brunt of nature and must deal with the bitter elements every single day--heat, cold, rain, storms, blizzards, ice storms, etc. They also must deal with the high energetic costs associated with bringing down huge herbivores like elk, deer, and moose. They also encounter intraspecific competition for food among other wolves in addition to interspecific competition with bears, cougars, and humans. They face predation, habitat loss, and prey loss by humans as well as a decreasing environmental quality in habitat and food. They also must deal with parasites (every wild animal has them and usually coexists quite peacefully with them), with foreign toxic pollutants, with wolf-wolf altercations, with wolf-prey altercations, with wolf-other carnivore or scavenger altercations, and with increasing encroachment and habitat destruction by humans. They face a sporadic prey supply and starvation routinely and may go several weeks without food. In spite of all this they can still thrive well enough to expend precious energy in reproductive forays, producing litters of healthy pups and creating an increased demand for food. These are the reasons a wolf's lifespan in the wild is shorter, NOT because of its diet. It is precisely their diet and genetic hardiness that keeps them alive, even in the face of disease. It is not that their food is somehow lacking and incapable of sustaining them, but that they can't always get enough of that food to meet all their metabolic requirements. It is that very food that fills, heals, and sustains them. Hopefully you can now see how ludicrous it is to assume diet is the reason for a decreased lifespan in the wild. When we look at our domesticated wolf companions--our dogs--this lifespan issue becomes a moot point. Our dogs don't live in the wild and therefore do not face most of the energetically costly factors wolves face. Our dogs live comfortably in our homes where they will always receive enough food and care, and where the raw food they need can be obtained from parasite-free sources.

MYTH: THERE ARE MILLIONS OF DOGS SAFELY EATING 'COMPLETE AND BALANCED' KIBBLES STAMPED WITH AAFCO'S SEAL OF APPROVAL

FALSE! Millions of dogs eat kibble. And millions of dogs--85% of all dogs--suffer from periodontal disease by age 3 as a result of eating these processed foods (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones.). This translates to teeth covered with plaque and teeming with bacteria. These bacteria get into the gums and provoke the body's inflammatory response continually for the rest of the animal's life. Dogs (and cats!) are doomed to have nasty teeth and rancid dog breath. "It's normal," people said. "Dogs are supposed to have bad dog breath." But as greater awareness of periodontal disease and its effects on the heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, joints, skin and other systems of the animal grew, so did the industry for 'alleviating' the problem. Now you can buy a myriad of dental chews and plaque-scrubbing "bones"--most of which work minimally. Special dental formula foods were formed to clean pets' teeth, but these effects are inconsequential. Vets hand out toothbrushes, toothpaste, dental washes, and dental bones to their clients' owners, instructing them to brush their carnivore's teeth regularly and to schedule frequent dental cleanings for the pets--dental cleanings that cost hundreds of dollars. Instead of treating the problem at its source, veterinarians and pet food companies and pet industries market hundreds of different products and services that are simply band-aids and attempts to cover up the problem. Millions of dogs eat kibble, and millions of dogs fill the waiting rooms of veterinarians, bad breath and all. These pets suffer from dermatitises of all sorts, or from cancers, joint problems, heart problems, kidney problems, digestive problems ("lack of enzymes"), liver problems, pancreas problems, coat problems, tooth problems, anal gland problems, glandular disorders, allergies, and soft doughy bodies brought on by eating a grain-based, artificial, highly-processed, additive-filled food touted as "healthy" for your dog. Thousands of dogs die from diet-induced diseases like bloat each year (and that's not to say all diseases are caused by diet, but many of them link strongly with processed diets and diet-induced periodontal disease. Refer to Raw Meaty Bones for a more in-depth discussion.), and yet the industry keeps on churning out artificial pet foods and vets keep recommending them to their clients. The veterinarians don't know any better; most vets receive on average only 8 hours or less education on pet nutrition (in their 3-4 years of study). Much of their nutritional education is sponsored or even administered by pet food companies. In addition, they receive a good deal of revenue by selling special "veterinarian-administered only" commercial diets designed to "fix" and cover up the problems created by artificial diets in the first place. There are weight management formulas for older or obese dogs, special diabetes formulas for diabetics, protein formulas for kidney patients, easily-digested formulas for older patients or those with digestive problems, hypo-allergenic formulas for dogs with allergies. For almost every ailment there is another commercial food designed to help the poor suffering animal, and pet owners are now forced to keep their pets on this expensive, processed food that will "manage" the problem. Ironically, most of these diseases are dramatically improved by taking the pet off a processed diet and by feeding it raw meaty bones--the very food many vets say is unsafe and unhealthy for dogs. Think of how much revenue would be lost if no one bought kibble from their vets, had healthy dogs, and didn't need to get doggie dentals done. There would be a lot fewer veterinarians! Granted, veterinarians hold a valuable place in society, but they too need to look critically at these problems caused by processed foods. They need to step up and hold true to their creed of first doing no harm!! Millions of dogs are eating kibble, suffering from bad teeth and stinky breath, decreased longevity and quality of life, and underlying health problems. Millions of dogs are being maintained on an artificial, grain-based diets containing synthetic vitamins and minerals plus a myriad of chemical preservatives and additives--the collective effects of which have NEVER been researched. The key here is that dogs are merely existing. Sure, kibble (even "premium" kibble) is sufficient for keeping your dog alive, but is it the best, most appropriate food for your dog?

MYTH: RAW-FED ANIMALS POSE A SERIOUS ZOONOTIC HEALTH RISK TO HUMANS

This is a myth made possible by our society's pathological fear of bacteria. Of the millions of bacteria on this earth, it is estimated that less than 1% are harmful. Media and society as a whole have played up bacteria, painting it as an evil nemesis that must be stomped out with disinfectants, antibacterial everything, and unnecessary vaccination. This has resulted in the emergence of super-bacteria and "super-viruses", no thanks to the improper use of antibiotics and the plethora of antibacterial soaps and products. Developmental biologists have recently learned that bacterial exposure is absolutely necessary for the development of a healthy immune system, among other things. Humans and dogs have evolved in the presence of bacteria, and insisting on a sterile environment has created more damage than good. So where does this intersect with raw feeding? Raw feeding critics tout this myth as a main reason for not feeding raw. Yes, there is bacteria in raw meat. Yes, this bacteria can harm you. Yes, this bacteria is shed in dogs' feces. So if a raw-fed dog licks you, are you going to get sick? I suppose all things are possible, but on the whole: no, you won't get sick. This bacteria does not persist in the mouth of a raw-fed canine. Saliva has mild antibacterial properties, but more importantly, the absence of plaque means the dog's mouth is no longer a hospitable place for bacteria to inhabit. A kibble-fed dog's mouth, however, provides the perfect environment for bacteria growth--plaque-covered teeth with sugary and starchy complexes provide both food and shelter for bacteria. The bacteria thrive in the mouth of a kibble-fed dog because it provides both a perfect atmosphere and a good food source. A raw-fed dog's mouth provides neither. So which dog would you be more worried about being kissed by and contracting disease from? As for dogs shedding bacteria in their feces--don't eat dog poo and wash your hands after feeding your dogs or cleaning up after them. If you have kids, teach the children not to eat dog poo and clean up immediately after your dog, and you won't need to worry. Bacteria is absolutely everywhere. You are just as likely, if not more likely, to get sick from your produce or a strange bathroom. You don't need to worry about the dog tracking bacteria through the house--there is plenty of bacteria throughout the house anyway, so any additional bacteria a raw-fed dog might add is negligible. Thousands of people--even immunocompromised people--feed their dogs raw with no bacteria issues and with stronger immune systems as a result. The dogs themselves are healthier and happier as well. It is actually a well-supported theory that pets decrease the incidence of allergies and boost the immune system. If this can be said of the rancid-breathed, bacteria-laden kibble-fed dogs, imagine how much nicer a healthy raw-fed dog is to have around while still boosting the immune system! People proclaiming this "serious health risk" claim seem to think people are incapable of a) properly feeding their dogs and b) cleaning up after themselves. Use good hygiene practices: clean countertops and utensils used to feed dogs, and wash your hands.

MYTH: RAW DIETS ARE NOT VERY DIGESTIBLE

If the diet is based on vegetables, then no, it isn't very digestible. Whoever uttered this statement (actually, several veterinary doctors have uttered this statement in articles, some of which are posted on the web!) has the burden of proof on them--it is up to them to prove this statement since everything we know about raw foods, including literature discussing the digestibility of wolves' food in the wild, indicates that raw diets are VERY digestible. This is the primary evidence: dogs fed a raw meaty bone diet produce stools that are one-third the size of the voluminous stools of kibble-fed dogs. That equates to a two-thirds size reduction in fecal output!! This indicates a higher digestibility; vets and dog owners know this very well. Smaller stools = better digestibility. Raw diets are 90-97% digestible (includes the bone!!), whereas kibbled foods are 40-70% digestible. This explains why kibble-fed dogs have such huge poops: most of it is undigested grain and filler. If someone thinks raw diets aren't very digestible, then they must answer the question of where all that meat and bone go! It is ingested in large quantities and then comes out the other end in small, odorless, well-formed stools. If it isn't very digestible, then what happened to all that "undigestible" stuff?