By Christine Swingle, Jane Fink, and Wendell Marumoto

When we started ARF4Westies (“A4W”), an email discussion List, in March, 1999, we had no idea that it would still be an active Internet forum with 200 members three years later. When we wrote an article for the Summer 1999 Imprint to introduce the Westie fancy to ARF (an Appropriate Raw Food diet for the canine species), we did so both to help us understand ARF better, as well as trying to educate the uninitiated. We had no idea then that we would be writing follow up articles in each subsequent Summer issue. Least of all, we never expected to be commenting on an attack on ARF by a leading member of the multi-billion dollar processed pet food industry.

Early this year, we became aware of an article on the Purina website, entitled “Dangers of Raw Meat,” that fascinated us for its clever, sugar-coated misrepresentations of alleged dangers of ARF. Misrepresentations that are obviously designed to scare those unaware of the growing mountain of evidence against the “healthfulness” of processed dog food, the manufacture and sale of which is now a thriving industry ringing up in the neighborhood of 12 billion dollars in annual sales. This article will address these misrepresentations. (The article to which we refer was initially found at http://www.purina.com/dogs/nutrition.asp?article=10, but we don’t know if it is still accessible there. If it isn’t, but you are interested in reading it, Wendell will be pleased to send you a copy if you will email him at dside@hawaii.rr.com)

What we feed our Westies is of utmost importance to their health. After all, as far as the health of all living creatures is concerned, we are what we eat. And with the limited exception of humans and those creatures dependent on humans for their feeding, what living creatures are designed to eat has been predetermined by nature in her food chain. All of its essential items are natural – what nature intended. Man, not satisfied with being at the top of the food chain, has had the temerity to try to improve on nature. Predictably, this has had disastrous results, reflected in the huge increase in diet-related diseases for both man and dog.

In the half-century or so since processed dog food took over as the “accepted” standard of a dog’s diet, their average life span has shortened dramatically, and they are falling victim to diseases previously unheard of in all but the superannuated and infirm. It shouldn’t take a Rhodes scholar to think that maybe, just maybe, it all starts with food. We hope that the following essays will help you consider this.

As the owner and primary instructor of a dog obedience school, I am often asked by my students what brand of dog food I feed my own dogs. This always brings a smile to my face because I know the response they are about to hear is probably the one they are least expecting. "I feed real food in the raw form." Short and sweet. The student then has the opportunity to inquire further about raw feeding, ask about the brand of pet foods I might recommend, or let the subject drop. Nine times out of ten, the conversation will continue with the student asking for details regarding raw feeding, particularly why I feed raw and what, precisely, do I feed. I always preface my response by telling the person that I took my dogs off commercial food for very personal reasons and only committed to feeding raw meaty bones after doing a lot of reading on the subject.

The next question usually concerns what most people worry about, "What about disease, isn't feeding raw meat dangerous?" I think Wendell and Christine cover this topic realistically and thoroughly so there is no need for me to repeat the information here. My response is the same. When I talk about feeding raw, I underscore how crucial it is NOT to just feed plain raw meat, how meat must be accompanied by a calcium partner, be it a raw meaty bone like chicken wings or backs, or by adding the necessary amount in a calcium supplement like bone meal or egg shell powder.

Last year I had a discussion with a vet internist regarding the raw diet. While he didn't support the diet entirely, the only real objection he had was the lack of knowledge with which pet owners would go about it. His concern was that most people would not take the time to do it properly and just end up dumping raw hamburger meat in a bowl and calling it the raw diet. If an animal were to eat meat only, it would create a very unhealthy picture, for the very reason that the diet would be completely unbalanced. Raw meat alone is not the proper raw diet and this may be what many vets are afraid their clients will do and what the average person may believe IS the raw diet. One popular acronym for the raw diet is B.A.R.F., which is catchy but unpleasant sounding, and stands for BONES And RAW FOOD. We raw feeders in Westies refer to it as ARF, for Appropriate Raw Foods. Mind you, the nutrition course offered in vet school is short and completely biased toward commercial foods so most vets are only taught the "dangers" of feeding real food, be it cooked or raw, and highly supportive of scientifically created ingredients and combinations which are supposed to pass as nutritious food. In speaking with another vet recently, I was told that when "dog food" came on the market early last century, it was actually a nutritional vitamin biscuit designed as a supplement to real food, never to be the meal itself. Certainly when animals in the wild eat on their own, they choose what nature intended; kill an animal, eat what they need, and leave or bury the remainder for a later meal. When domestic animals no longer ran free and were forced to eat what their caretakers provided, it consisted of leftovers from the human meal. If the animal received enough meat, bones, milk, egg, vegetable and bread, the animal would remain healthy. If, however, the animal received very little meat, and mostly bread and an occasional vegetable, the animal would indeed suffer nutritional deficiencies.

The danger in feeding raw meat alone are the nutritional deficiencies which will occur if calcium is not added, not the meat itself. Muscle meat contains protein, enzymes, vitamins, minerals, fatty acids, phosphorous and calcium, it just doesn't contain calcium in the proper ratio, meat being high in phosphorus without the calcium provided by bones. Pet owners need not be stymied by this information. There are many informative books and step-by-step guides which take all the worry and guesswork out of feeding the raw diet. Raw meaty bones from smaller animals such as rabbits and chicken, are akin to the type of prey our breed would pull down in the wild. These meaty bones are typically the best choice to feed, and since they contain calcium and phosphorous in nature’s ratio, provide the perfect balance. However, the fear factor often prevents many people from feeding highly nutritious raw meaty bones. This can easily be overcome by grinding them in a meat grinder.

I did not go blindly into feeding ARF to my animals when I began three years ago. I relied on information written by highly respected vets, including Dr. Richard Pitcairn, Dr. Martin Goldstein, Dr. Cheryl Schwartz, Dr. Ian Billinghurst and Dr. Tom Lonsdale, just to name a few. These vets are the brave ones who went against the norm and urged the public to return their animals to good health and eliminate previously unknown or rare, yet now common, diseases such as epilepsy, diabetes, pancreatic insufficiency, skin problems, yeast overgrowth, ear infections, and immune system disorders.

I also joined Wendell and Christine in the start-up of A4W. In exchanging information over the Internet about the nuances of doing the diet and the many “how’s” and “why’s” of it, we have all learned a lot and gained even more confidence in what we do. We believe that such sharing is an essential part of our practice of ARF and invite all who might be interested to join us.

Responsible breeders have worked tirelessly in an attempt to eliminate certain diseases from their breeding programs, but what most aren't aware of is that if the diet is changed back to real food, many of these serious diseases and chronic ailments will no longer appear. Why not? Because when a body is fed substandard products which pass for nutrition, the body compensates for the lack of usable nutrition and over time, or over a few generations, weaker and weaker animals are produced and disease takes over. Feed real food, feed raw food, feed the proper ratio, then reap the rewards of sturdy, long lived and extremely healthy animals for generations to come.

Mythical Bugaboos

This past January, the National Geographic ran a couple of articles on dogs. The first showed the genetic kinship between dogs and wolves, and the second elaborated on the bond of affection between dogs and humans. To show that “the DNA makeup of wolves and dogs is almost identical,” the first article used computer graphics to illustrate “how the skeleton of the wolf has been manipulated – without losing a single bone,” by comparing skeletons of the gray wolf, Great Dane, Dachshund, and Pomeranian. This substantiates the decision made by scientists in 1993 to officially designate the wolf and dog as members of the same species, Canis lupus.

In relating its main story of “A Love Story” between man and dogs, it tells us that “[d]ogs are kept in 40 million

U.S.

homes these days, and Americans spend billions of dollars a year on dog food and dog health care.” How many billions? By latest accounts, the processed pet food industry generates sales of around $12 billion annually. Processed pet food has been the largest seller of any super market product for more than 25 years, long ago surpassing breakfast cereals.

It is clearly understandable that such a cash cow is going to be nursed and protected by its benefactors. Unfortunately, but predictably, the processed pet food industry has been less than completely truthful in informing the public about the “nutritiousness” of its products. In the process, the industry has become masters of sophism, taking sophistry to a level rarely achieved.

A prime example of this is its continuing and extremely clever use of “scare tactics” to keep their clientele. For example, the recent Purina article states:

Raw meat carries the threat of bacteria and parasites. Salmonella is a bacterial organism that can cause a variety of disease in humans and animals. The risk of salmonellosis is always present when pets are fed raw meat diets.

Each sentence, taken separately, is true. Raw meat does carry such threat. Salmonella is what the sentence says. And the risk is always present. Then, shouldn’t one correctly expect residents of the 40 million homes in the U.S. in which dogs are kept, in spending some of the billions of dollars on dog food they do, be concerned about spending them on raw meat? Of course they should, and this is what the industry counts on. Regrettably, taken in the context of a proper diet for dogs, these statements are quite misleading.

In feeding “raw,” we are concerned about bacterial diseases like salmonella, but not to the extent that the industry hopes and implies we should be. Why not? For one thing, we know that dogs were designed to be scavengers. The National Geographic article is replete with references to dogs’ penchant for this characteristic as somehow helping bring man and dog together. It says that dogs “would assist in the hunt, clean up the camp by eating garbage, warn of danger, [and] keep humans warm.”

If nature designed dogs to be scavengers, she must have made their digestive and immune systems more than able to handle these bacteria, since we know that nature takes care of her own. She did so primarily by designing shorter digestive systems for dogs that will not give these bacteria time to fester and grow in them. If dogs were susceptible of readily developing salmonella from bacteria proliferating in rancid meat or feces, they would have become extinct ages ago.

Another target for the misleading mind and word games played by the processed pet food industry is a misleading literal reference to nomenclature associated with ARF. The major problem confronting proponents of these diets is that today’s society has so complicated communication that we no longer understand one another simplistically. No one simply feeds dog food or kibbles anymore. Besides a multitude of brand differentiation, we have age/organ orientation – puppy, maintenance, senior, kidney, liver, skin, etc.

And so it goes with ARF – which, in kinder, gentler times, would have been simply called a “natural diet” that most everyone would have understood. That’s all it is – the diet provided by nature, or one as close to it as possible. In their natural state, the forbears of Westies thrived on small game, their flesh, organs, bones and all. They did not leave the bones and carcasses of those below them on the food chain strewn amidst the heather on the hills. They ate all of what was before them, because they somehow simply knew that what nature provided was good for them. Their survival and continued existence over thousands of years shows the effectiveness of this diet.

Then, in the early 20^th century, man developed an artificial treat for our companions that proved quite popular. One thing led to another, and the inexpensiveness of its production coupled with the extremely high profitability of its sale and distribution created a huge industry at the expense of the health of our pets.

To maintain these high profits, the industry has subjected dog owners to an intensive public relations program that has been sadly misleading about the nutritional value of their product. Apparently, a growing segment of the dog fancy is finally becoming aware that “going back to natural” is a start to restoring the health of our pets to earlier levels, giving the industry great concern.

So the industry’s reaction is now a growing selective attack on individual components of the natural diet, entirely out of context. “Raw meat is dangerous.” “Bones are dangerous.” There is little question that in certain circumstances, they are. By the same token, “cars are dangerous”, if driven at sixty miles an hour in a residential neighborhood. In the hands of an unattended two-year old, “kitchen utensils are dangerous.” Even “buttons are dangerous”, if large enough to be lodged in the throat if swallowed by young children.

We are endowed with common sense. Let’s go back to using it. A good place to start is by considering what Christine has to say.

The Tiresome Arguments

Like many Americans today, I was once apathetic and ignorant when it came to politics, bureaucrats and the inner working of government on all levels. I read newspapers and watched major network television news and believed that the information that was fed me via the national media was correct, truthful and unbiased. I bought it all, hook, line and sinker, never questioning it. After all, this information was being relayed to me by professional journalists. They are supposed to be impartial and report facts as they are known. Then one day, I heard a radio talk show host talking about an issue that did not add up to what I was hearing via the six o’clock news. I decided then that I should do some research on my own, and lo and behold, I discovered that there was much more to the story than the general media was telling the public. I learned then that if I am to be completely informed, and not just conveniently, it is up to me to do the research and find the facts, the true facts. Armed with this new in-depth knowledge, I was able to better understand different issues and make informed choices.

Like many dog guardians today, I was once apathetic and ignorant when it came to the feeding and health care of my Westies. I listened to my allopathic vet like a dutiful child and believed everything I was told without questioning. I was told that processed dog food was good for my dogs. I was told to vaccinate my puppies and then revaccinate my dogs every year to keep them healthy. I was told that I could use flea, tick and heartworm products because they were safe. I bought it all, hook, line and sinker. I never gave my dogs a bone because I was told bones are bad for dogs. I always fed kibble because my vet, backed by the pet food manufacturers, said it was scientifically balanced for the nutritional needs of dogs. If my vet couldn’t be trusted to know the facts, then certainly I could trust the dog food companies. After all, they spent millions of dollars on research each year to make sure our dogs received only the best-balanced foods for good health. And, these conglomerates didn’t stop with success. They were constantly finding ways to improve the mouse trap, or in this case dog food. Each year new and “improved” dog foods make their way to the consumer to the tune of billions of dollars in profit for the dog food industry. Who was I to argue with scientists, vets and researchers? After all, weren’t they more concerned about the health of our dogs than monetary profit? Never did I wonder why they had to keep “improving” the food they made, year after year.

Then one day, my Westies were not healthy, and when a beloved Westie of mine was misdiagnosed and died two weeks later without any definitive diagnosis as to what took her life, I woke up and started to ask questions. I began by dissecting everything. I started by looking into the foods I was feeding my dogs. I researched and discovered incredible information that I was never told by my vet, let alone the pet food industry. Even my calls to the dog food companies for information about their products always came back with the same answer – ”proprietary information.” What were they hiding? I also began to question the role vaccinations and flea, tick and heartworm products had on the long term health of my Westies. Armed with new courage, determination and the Internet, I found my way to the “Mother of Natural Rearing”, Juliette de Baïracli Levy, and from that day, I never looked back. I was smarter, understood much more, and boldly took back my responsibility of being the advocate and decision-maker for my dogs’ long term health. I became empowered enough to enable myself to make informed choices. I found myself taking a new path to raising my Westies to greater wellness and well-being.

The article on Purina’s website about the so-called dangers of raw meat diets epitomizes the ignorance, narrow-mindedness, arrogance, double talk, greed, lying, and ultimate scam that the pet food industry has spun on the dog owning public for over 60 years. I would love to discuss the contents of pet foods compared to ARF. However, earlier articles in the IMPRINT have tackled that subject in great depth. You can also visit www.arf4westies.info and www.drianbillinghurst.com for more information and links. For this article, and constraints of space, the Purina article is the focus.

Purina’s article states that feeding dogs a raw meat diet “could be threatening to our pets’ health.” I would agree with that statement if it means an all meat diet and nothing else. But what do they mean? What specifically about dogs’ health is being threatened if they eat meat? Informed people who feed ARF properly to their dogs know that an all meat diet is NOT a proper diet. I have observed that many people feed raw incorrectly, or make the switch to ARF incorrectly, and/or too quickly. Thus, when problems occur, all raw foods are condemned. ARF properly consists of a great variety of raw muscle meats, raw organ meats, raw meaty bones, and some raw vegetables and fruits.

With a little research, I discovered that in 1993 scientists (love them or hate them) officially designated both the dog and wolf to be Canis lupus. L. David Mech, internationally renowned research biologist and wolf specialist with over 30 years of research in the field states in his book, The Way of the Wolf: “How would you like to have a wolf in your home? Chances are you already do. The civilized model comes as a dog. But delve deep into any dog’s genes, and you will find a wolf. This is not merely word play. The dog is, in every way really a domesticated wolf…both animals have the same digestive system specialized to use meat and fat.”

So, when the Purina article states, “there is no scientific substantiation for raw meat diets”, are they referring to only meat and nothing else or to a diet with meat included? Again, there’s the arrogance of the pet food industry to spin that word “scientific” like it’s some stamp of approval to which only they have access. Think about it. Long before scientists were roaming the earth, didn’t our dogs’ ancestors eat and survive without processed dog foods? The living proof is the dogs in our lives today, whose ancestors can be traced back millions of years. So, who’s to say raw meat (and bones) are not a scientifically acceptable diet for our “mainly carnivorous” companions? I no longer accept without question what the pet food industry preaches, since they have billions of dollars of annual revenue at stake.

Let’s see. Dogs have the same digestive system as wolves. Their ancestors go back millions of years. I know they CAN digest raw foods just like their cousins and ancestors because I’ve been feeding it to my own Westies going on 7 years, and I know other people who have been feeding raw for fifteen years and longer. I talk with many people who feed ARF and our dogs are thriving. Wolves don’t eat an all meat diet, neither did their ancestors. I think most of us have watched the Discovery channel long enough to know that. They bring down their prey and go for the stomach contents, which contain vitamins, minerals and other excellent nutrients in the pre-digested foods of the prey animal. Organ meats (liver, kidneys, heart, etc.) are consumed for more wonderful nutrients, then they go for muscle meat. Finally, surprise! They eat some of their prey’s bones – raw! Nature provides a perfect way to “balance” phosphorus and calcium and provide the proteins, carbohydrates and fats necessary for all stages of life. ARF mimics nature’s diet. Wolves are still in existence today so from that point,I guess we could say that nature is providing all the “proper nutritional values” in their diet that they need to thrive.

Some people think our dogs have been so domesticated that they can’t handle eating the diet nature intended for them, and that’s why they have to eat processed dog food. Does it make sense to believe that dogs’ digestive systems that hadn’t changed over millions of years, suddenly changed in less than 60 years when their natural diet was selectively altered to a processed one, one that the consumer chose mainly for convenience? How healthy is that?

Many dogs today have digestive problems and IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome). I can remember when I was a vet tech back in the 70’s, the vet I worked for actually had a term for the diarrhea problems of dogs we saw that were being fed Purina dog food – Purina diarrhea. Today, I know of numerous cases where just switching the dog to ARF corrected many digestive problems. Sadly, processed dog food has weakened the ability of some dogs to eat a natural diet. However, if switched correctly and gradually, many more are able to go back to the food nature intended for them. Not processed dog food, as the spinmeisters would have us believe.

The Purina article also states, “proponents of this belief [that raw meat is o.k. to feed dogs] question the wholesomeness and nutritional value of commercial pet foods.” To me, that’s an oxymoron – moron emphasized! Armed with my research, how can food processed from the rendering of dead, dying, diseased and disabled animals, including euthanized dogs and cats (with flea collars and all), supermarket meats past expiration dates (including the Styrofoam and plastic wrapping) be wholesome and nutritious? Alas, I guess one can produce a product with an acceptable nutritional value called processed dog food by adding chemicals, fillers and supplements and cooking it all together. However, what does acceptable mean and to whom?

Processed dog food, I was told once, was merely created to supplement the raw meat, scraps and bones that were fed to dogs. Along the way, kibbles became very convenient. It is understandable that the dog owning population greeted this food as an easy way to feed their pets. It is also no wonder that enterprising business entrepreneurs saw it as a wonderful way to make a lot of money while recycling by-products that were considered garbage. Just where do you think supermarkets’ spoiled meats and left over grease from McDonald’s fries go? Let me be frank. Pet food today exists for two main reasons: profit for the pet food industry and convenience for the pet owner.

“The truth is that good quality pet foods are backed by years of feline and canine nutrition studies,” so the Purina article states. “They are the result of scientific studies by researchers in veterinary colleges and animal nutritionists at reputable pet food manufacturers.” I see a little conflict of interest here. My research, as well as speaking to some vets, enlightened me to the fact that vet students are given free Hill’s dog food, their veterinary nutrition textbooks have been underwritten by Hill’s, and have been written by Hill’s researchers. How objective is that? Coupled with the fact that vet students receive very little teaching in nutrition and the dog food companies continue to promote their foods through vets by offering discounts and prizes for sales, well, is it any wonder why these foods are recommended so much by most vets. I would ask for a little common sense here. If the pet food industry were never created, that first kibble never fed, do you actually think we would not have found proper foods to feed our dogs and that they would be extinct today?

It is interesting to note that, further in the Purina article, it actually states that …”eating muscle meat, bones, intestinal contents and internal organs do ‘come closer’ to providing a complete and balanced diet.” What does “come closer” mean and to what? Without those words does that mean then that they are agreeing that a proper raw food diet is complete and balanced?

Finally, the last paragraph says, “When a myth involving pet nutrition is suddenly exploited, [I assume they mean the myth that dogs should eat a raw food diet] we should ask ourselves, ‘What scientific research supports this statement?’” Again, another example of the pet food industry’s arrogance and narrow-mindedness. If something doesn’t fit into their agenda and has the potential to take profits away from their pockets, it’s a myth or worse. Why is it that many people can’t accept facts unless they have clinical scientific validation? For crying out loud, let’s use our brains. What was it like before scientists? Did the world still turn? Did early man still live to hunt another day? How did dogs (and humans for that matter) and their ancestors survive for millions of years without “scientific research”? I challenge some scientist or organization to do an in-depth study of dogs that ARE fed a natural diet today. If the cynics say they are committed to finding better ways to keep our dogs healthy, why aren’t these studies being conducted, except by those of us who feed raw? Would they not provide proof one way or the other? If it proved that ARF was indeed a better diet for long-term health, wouldn’t we all want to feed it? Oh, dear. That would not work. The pet food industry would not like it and where would all that garbage go?

Images of having the fox watch the hen house come to mind when I think about the pet food industry and how it is regulated. There are two organizations that “control” what ends up in dog food. The NRC (National Research Council) is comprised of a group of people under the jurisdiction of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and the Dept. of Agriculture. The NRC is responsible for supplying guidelines to the pet food industry. How do they come up with those guidelines? Research information comes from independent labs and university studies. I wonder how much influence the pet food manufacturers have on these studies? The information covers the basic components of dry food – protein, carbohydrate, fat, vitamins and minerals. These apparently are not complete studies either, as the guidelines include many statements such as “no data were presented” or “ remain to be determined.”

Then there is AAFCO (Association of American Feed Control Officers). This non-governmental advisory committee sets the standard that all foods must meet. However, AAFCO doesn’t really have any clout or resources to keep watch on the pet food industry.

For adult maintenance dog food to pass the AAFCO test, the following are required: eight dogs older than 1 year must start the test and, at the start, all dogs must be of normal weight and health. A blood test is to be taken from each dog at the start and finish of the test. For 6 months, the dogs used must only eat the food being tested. The dogs finishing the test must not lose more than 15% of their body weight. During the test none of the dogs used are to die or be removed because of “nutritional deficiencies.” Lastly, 6 of the 8 dogs starting must finish the test. That, as they say, is all there is to it! Now, don’t you feel better knowing there are such “strict” guidelines for testing the food most dogs eat for their lifetime (however long that lifetime may be)?

The relatively short periods of time to test a food before going to market continue to bother me. Wouldn’t a lifetime feeding test net more information about the long-term health of the animal being fed this processed food? How can 6 months eating a test diet equate into a lifetime of good health? If there is going to be an accumulation of toxins in the dogs body from say, chemical preservatives or questionable rendered ingredients in the processed food, it is unlikely to manifest itself in 6 months. Can processed dog food sustain a dog’s life? Yes, but at what price to long-term health and what does “life” exactly mean? As I learn of dogs dying at 9 months, 2 years, 7, 8, and 10 years of age from cancer – is that an acceptable fact of “life”? Feeding dogs an unnatural diet of manufactured food that happens to give them formulated “daily” nutritional requirements does not equate to good health in my book. Would feeding appropriate species-designed foods to Westies help to promote good health for a long life of say, 16, 18 or more years of age? Isn’t it worth a try? To me, a 16-18+ year old Westie should be common, not the rarity it is today! Breeders and owners of other breeds are also reporting their dogs living longer when fed ARF and when other natural rearing methods are practiced. So what motivates the pet food industry – profits or a desire to put profits second to helping keep dogs truly healthy?

Why are dogs dying younger? Why is there so much disease and illness today with more problems being labeled “syndromes” every day? The allopathic vet community tells us that cancer is the leading cause of death among dogs today. It is common today! It was not common when I started in Westies back in 1964. Cancer was a rarity! And why is “common” accepted today? Do we just blame genetics and the pollution we all live in and move on? NO! Is there nothing we can do? Yes! As mentioned earlier, ear infections, allergies, runny eyes, periodontal disease, etc., all signal an unhealthy dog. So the question should be – what role does processed dog food play in long term health, or does it? What we eat, as well as what our dogs eat, is the foundation for building strong and healthy immune and digestive systems, which does count for a long life of wellness and well being. I must mention that there are other factors that also play an integral part and they include vaccinations (re-vaccination and over vaccinating). Aside from the fact that I support natural immunity and I believe vaccinations are more detrimental than good for health over the long term, I don’t think preservatives in vaccines like mercury and formaldehyde are substances I want in my dogs! Flea and tick products, which are basically toxic pesticides, are also not going into my dogs. If you believe the manufacturers when they say toxic chemicals are safe, just stop and think about it. Shouldn’t common sense prevail? How can these substances promote long term good health?

I do agree that “they said” or “I heard that” are not solid reasons to make choices or changes. Informed choices take into consideration both sides of an issue and a determination of what is true. It is up to each of us to weed through that information, ask more questions or do more research before we make our informed choice. Once that choice is made, consider that it will have a great impact on the long-term health of your dog. Maybe not today or even in 2 or 5 years, although we are seeing more dogs developing disease and illness younger all the time. In time, what you feed today, how you address all the issues relating to health and well being over time, will make a difference. The path we choose for our dogs will ultimately make their journey healthy or unhealthy. Our dogs depend on us for these answers. Make your informed choices count, for them. I firmly believe that we can eliminate disease and illness over time. Our Westies are dying younger today and illness and disease is epidemic. This is not acceptable to me as a breeder.

A species appropriate raw food diet is what nature, not scientists, dictates that Canis lupus eat to create and maintain healthy immune and digestive systems – which translates into being free of disease and illness. How many have dogs with ear infections, allergies, auto-mediated diseases, cancer, runny eyes, whelping problems, digestive problems, or arthritis, to name a few? These dogs are not healthy. Their immune systems are compromised and there is an imbalance in their bodies. A prescription dog food or a drug is not going to help regain true health. This has been proven over and over. As a side note, vaccinations, for people who still choose to vaccinate or revaccinate their dogs, should never, ever be given to an unhealthy animal. Vets know this and the manufacturers of the vaccines know this because it is printed right on the label.

You are what you eat. If we ate cheeseburgers at every meal for our lifetime, I dare say we would not be very healthy as time went by. Oh, we would do all right for a period of time (and that period of time would be different for everyone) but eventually it would catch up with us. If we were concerned about staying healthy and free of disease and illness as we age, why would we not want the same for our cherished companions? They are what they eat, too! Change their natural diet to a processed one, and I absolutely believe it will greatly contribute to disease and illness in time. Sadly today, despite the spin, dogs are living shorter lives. One list that I saw in Groom & Board magazine (April, 2000), compiled by two doctors that I assume are vets, indicated that the age Westies became “seniors” is 7 to 9! Is that what it has come to today? I have twelve-year-olds who bounce around the yard chasing balls. A geriatric Westie, to me, is one approaching its 14^th year! As a holistic breeder, I take that fact very seriously, and as a natural rearing breeder who feeds ARF, supports natural immunity and doesn’t use any flea/tick or heartworm chemicals, I have committed myself to making a difference in the Westies that I raise. What is the price to pay for a truly healthy Westie that can live to 18 years or older, disease free, or one who dies at age 9 because of some disease or illness? It’s ultimately up to breeders to pave the way. The old adage, “you can’t see the forest for the trees” comes to mind. Instead of only focusing on how we can identify genetic markers for disease, produce better drugs, and improve diagnostics and treatments for disease and illness, would it not be beneficial to also see what has caused dogs to become so unhealthy today? Can we not also address what role diet plays in the scenario, as well as the role of vaccinations and toxic chemicals? Would it not be better to breed and raise our dogs with a focus on doing what we can to help avoid disease and illness instead of waiting for our dogs to succumb to them and then have to treat them? Make informed choices based on true facts and don’t be afraid to walk down a road less traveled.