We haven’t reviewed dehydrated diets for quite some time – long enough that there have been quite a few additions to the pool of companies who make and sell this type of dog food. It’s increasingly popular, for a lot of reasons.
For one thing, “raw diets” are increasingly popular, too, and most of the products in this category incorporate raw animal proteins in their formulations. People who believe in the superiority of canine diets that include raw meat (often referred to as biologically appropriate or evolutionary diets) can use a dehydrated or freeze-dried food as a convenient replacement for their dogs’ fresh, home-prepared or commercial frozen raw diet. This is especially helpful when traveling with a raw-fed dog, or when the dog is left with a sitter who doesn’t want to deal with raw meat in its wet, bloody form. (One maker of dehydrated diets, ZiwiPeak, describes its products as “raw without the thaw.”)
When it’s dehydrated or freeze-dried, raw meat doesn’t seem so, well, raw. Most of us don’t think of beef jerky as raw meat, either, but it actually is. The drying process (and, in jerky, the use of salt and nitrates) “cures” the meat, altering its appearance and texture and concentrating its flavor – and, significantly, halting the biological action (decay) in the food – with less damage to the meat’s natural enzymes or vitamins than cooking temperatures would cause.
All the ingredients in canned food are cooked in the can. Some ingredients in kibble are actually cooked twice; meat “meals,” for example, are first subjected to rendering (essentially boiling, drying, and then grinding) and then extrusion (pushed through a tube under high pressure and subjected to a short blast of high-temperature steam) and drying. Plainly, the proteins in the meat ingredients are still nutritious after being extruded, but, raw food proponents allege, not nearly as healthful for canines as they were in their raw form.
Most of the other ingredients in freeze-dried or dehydrated foods are raw, too. Plus, they are very lightly processed, in comparison to the ingredients in other types of dog foods.
Raw diets aren’t for every dog or owner. Cooked foods may be safer for immune-compromised individuals. Some dogs digest cooked foods better.
Note: At least one maker of dehydrated foods (NRG USA) uses cooked meats in some of its products.
Benefits of Feeding Dehydrated Dog Food
In addition to being raw and lightly processed, dehydrated diets offer a number of other benefits to dogs – and their owners.
1. Dehydrated dog food won’t go bad (for a while).
Very low-moisture foods can be stored longer at room temperature (in unopened packages) without spoiling or rancidity than conventional kibble. Most dehydrated diets contain less moisture than conventional kibble, which generally contains about 10 percent moisture. The less moisture there is in a food, the less biological activity can occur.
2. Dehydrated food is lighter and more portable.
Dehydrated foods weigh less and are more compact than foods containing more moisture. This makes them especially well suited for travel. It also means they cost less to ship!
3. Raw dehydrated/freeze-dried food tastes amazing to dogs.
When rehydrated, these foods are highly palatable to most dogs. It may be due to the concentration of flavor in dehydrated food ingredients or their light processing. Dogs with poor appetites (like very senior or chronically ill dogs) may accept these foods when nothing else appeals.
4. Top-quality ingredients are the rule, not the exception, in dehydrated dog food.
As a generalization, the makers of these products are targeting the top end of the market, and have an extraordinary commitment to sourcing top-quality ingredients; in some cases, “human-quality” (“edible”) ingredients are used (though this claim can be made and verified by only one dehydrated dog food manufacturer: The Honest Kitchen).
The Different Categories of Dehydrated Dog Food
The dehydrated foods on the market are diverse in content, appearance, and form. Some contain grains and some don’t. Some are very high in protein and fat, and some compare in these respects to conventional kibble. Always check the “guaranteed analysis” when switching to a product in this category; they are so nutrient-dense that you may have to significantly reduce the volume of food that you feed your dog.
Most of these products are meant to be rehydrated with water before serving, although one (ZiwiPeak) contains a higher amount of moisture than kibble, and is fed without rehydration. One (DNA) comes in a cubed form, and reabsorbs a relatively small amount of water. Some are very powdery, which makes them turn into a sort of mush (or gruel, depending on how much water you add) when rehydrated. Some are powdery with large chunks of identifiable dehydrated meats, fruit, and/or vegetables – either an advantage (if your dog enjoys the contrast in taste and mouth-feel) or a disadvantage (if your dog seeks out only the chunks or mush and eschews the other). The products that come in dried “burger” or “medallion” form reconstitute in a form that most resembles an actual ground meat patty.
If you read the descriptions of each product, note that some contain “air-dried” or “dehydrated” (same thing) or freeze-dried ingredients. The difference in nutritional content of foods processed in either manner is negligible. However, dehydration alters the cellular structure of meats, fruits, and vegetables more radically altering their appearance and taste than freeze-drying. Rehydrated, freeze-dried ingredients taste remarkably similar to their fresh, moist counterparts. Does this matter to your dog? You’d have to try different products to find out. Note that the freeze-drying process requires higher-tech, more expensive machines, making the cost of foods that contain freeze-dried ingredients quite a bit higher.
Because the cost of these products is so high, we’d imagine that few people feed them full-time, especially if their dog or dogs are large. I calculated the cost of feeding some of these products to my 70-pound, active dog at more than $200 a month – more than what it would cost to feed a home-prepared diet. Personally, I’d most likely use them only for a small dog, or on a short-term basis while traveling, as a special treat, to jump-start a sick dog’s recovery, or to extend the life of a chronically ill dog.
“Human-Quality” Dog Food Ingredients
As we’ve discussed many times in WDJ, there is only one way that a company can legally claim that its dog food contains ingredients that are “human quality” (the legal term is “edible,” though of course regulators mean only “human edible” in this context): If it is made in a manufacturing facility that contains only edible ingredients. The presence of a single “inedible” ingredient in a manufacturing facility, by law, would re-classify every ingredient and product present at that location as “pet food.” By law, you can take a refrigerated truckload of the world’s finest, freshest, cleanest filet mignon to a facility that makes pet food, but the second the truck drives onto the facility’s property (or the moment the truck’s door is opened, accounts vary), none of that meat can be called edible or human-quality again.
This is frustrating to the pet food makers who genuinely use ingredients of that quality, and to consumers who want proof – a certain way to verify – the true quality and provenance of the ingredients in their dog’s very expensive food. But unless a food company wants to use only edible ingredients, and have its products made in a facility that uses only edible ingredients, jump through a million bureaucratic hoops to demonstrate completion of these requirements to the regulators in every single state – and price its products accordingly – it can’t say it uses “human-quality” ingredients. Only one company that we know of (the Honest Kitchen) can make this legal claim for its products, which are made in a human food manufacturing facility in Illinois (which also makes human soup mixes and other human foods that contain dehydrated human food ingredients).
Pet food makers who do use “edible” meats and other ingredients in their products sometimes resort to using code words to give consumers a hint about their ingredient quality. They have to be subtle, though, because if they are too overt, state feed control officials can hit them with a warning, fine, and/or stop-sale order.
Here’s the problem with that approach: Because it’s illegal, it’s not verifiable! And because it can’t be confirmed (say, by checking the manufacturer’s registration as a human food manufacturing facility), any company can slyly hint about their alleged “human-quality” ingredients, whether they really use them or not.
If ingredient quality is critical to you – if you insist on and are willing to pay for foods that contain only “edible” ingredients, your only sure options are to home-prepare your dog’s food with ingredients you buy from human food sources, or to buy products from The Honest Kitchen.
Alternatively, you can engage in conversation with representatives of pet food companies who make what appear to be (based on their ingredients lists) very high-quality foods, and ask them about the provenance of their ingredients. If they claim (or hint) that some of their ingredients are “human-grade,” “just like the ones you buy in the supermarket,” “USDA,” or some other code-phrase, ask them to discuss this further – and do a gut-check on their reply. It’s all you’ll really have to go on.
My mom met her best friend when she was in high school, and they remained close friends until my mom’s death in 2002. They met their husbands-to-be at about the same time, married within a year of each other, had a similar number of kids. They arranged for their two families to spend a lot of time together, and all of us kids became friends, too. As we matured, we grew closer to our moms’ best friends than we were to our genetic aunts.
288
It wasn’t until I was a young adult, however, that I noticed an interesting thing about the relationship between my mom and her best friend: As much as the two women took an interest in and genuinely loved each other’s kids, they were sometimes rather critical of the other’s offspring, and competitive (in a deceptively subtle way) about their own kids’ accomplishments. For example, my brother was wild in his youth (drugs, booze, motorcycles, trouble in school) – and so was my mother’s friend’s son. But my mom overlooked the varied hijinks of her own delinquent boy, even as she tsk- tsked her friend’s equally errant kid. And her friend was very forthcoming with criticism of my brother, but appeared to be perfectly proud of her own wayward son. It was odd – the only fly in the ointment of their close relationship; their kids were the only thing they ever snarked at each other about, the only thing they had to agree not to discuss at times.
I have my own kid (well, he’s an adult now) and my own close friends, and many of them have children, too. Any time I have felt the slightest bit critical of a friend’s kid, I’ve been immediately reminded of the occasional tension and unhappiness between my mom and her friend because of some harsh remark about one of us kids, and I’ve quite deliberately zipped my lips. What’s the point of saying anything? In the long run, my siblings and I turned out fine, and so did my mom’s friend’s kids. My friends’ kids – even the spoiled rotten ones! – are probably going to turn out fine, too.
Given all this background, you’d think I would know better than to say anything critical about my friends’ dogs. But no – I’m an idiot. Albeit an penitent one.
I once greeted a friend I hadn’t seen for months with, “Oh my goodness, Carly (her dog) is FAT! What happened?!” It took me a few weeks to realize that my friend hadn’t been returning my calls or e-mails since that visit. When I called to ask her if anything was wrong, she admitted her feelings had been hurt by my bald comment about Carly’s condition. I had to reflect. Why had I felt free to say something like that about her dog? I never would have made a similar remark about her weight, or one of her children!
I apologized – and then I did it again. Two summers ago, I helped one of my cousins adopt a Labradoodle from my local shelter. I frequently see photos and videos of the dog on Facebook and in texts, but hadn’t seen the dog for a year or so. When I visited that cousin recently, and she answered the door with the dog at her side, I did it again! “Oh Bev, she’s so FAT!” I blurted without thinking.
I won’t even mention how I couldn’t help but make helpful (but unsolicited) comments about how another friend could train her dog to stop humping every other dog he meets, or how my sister could reduce her dog’s yapping at the door. Forehead smack! And apologies!
For penance, I’m reading (and re-reading) Denise Flaim’s excellent article in this issue (“My Dog, Myself,”), about being a better dog person. I strongly (but tactfully) recommend it.
To continue reading this article or issue you must be a paid subscriber. Sign in
If you are logged in but cannot access this content, a) your subscription may have expired; b) you may have duplicate accounts (emails) in our system. Please check your account status hereorcontact customer service.
Immediate access to this article and 20+ years of archives.
Recommendations for the best dog food for your dog.
Dry food, homemade diets and recipes, dehydrated and raw options, canned food and more.
Brands, formulations and ingredients all searchable in an easy-to-use, searchable database.
Plus, you’ll receive training and care guidance to keep your dog healthy and happy. You’ll feed with less stress…train with greater success…and know you are giving your dog the care he deserves.
Subscribenow and save 72%! Its like getting 8 issues free!
Lots of dog owners I know are making plans for summer travel – and negotiating with friends to dog-sit.
I had agreed to care for a lovely young Border Collie for a friend’s parents while they traveled to their native Germany for a month, but they’ve decided to “award” her custody to their next-door neighbor, who owns her favorite playmate, a young Boxer. I’m hideously disappointed; I have a crush on that dog! But maybe it’s for the best. I don’t know if Otto could handle my ardor for the BC, or a month of playing patient Uncle Otto to a pushy canine “teenage” girl.
And as it turns out, I know another family who is traveling to Germany for a month the following month, and their regular dog-sitter is unavailable. So their sweet, middle-aged Papillon-mix will come stay with me for a few weeks – until a few days before I take a week to go see my son play in an international tournament in Toronto. Then she’ll go to another family, and my dogs will be looked after by Christine, the receptionist at my local shelter – my current favorite dog-sitter.
Of course, there are reciprocal understandings. Anyone who sits my pets has a standing offer for my services when they need them.
Professional pet sitters have their place, but personally, I feel a lot better swapping care with people I know well and trust – especially people who have similar styles of caring for and adoring their pets like I do. Even if I’m just out of town for a day, Christine emails me photos of my dogs (and cats) snoozing and playing and looking cute – and texts me mini reports like, “They were so glad to see me and Brandi (her dog) when we got here after work! Otto woo-woo-wooed for a whole minute!” and “Tito has been guarding his empty bowl for about an hour. I finally had to throw his ball so that I could pick it up and he could relax.” She GETS my dogs!
The only trick to all of this is early scheduling. I can’t believe I am making plans now for late July, but thank goodness I am, because my friends are, too, and we need to coordinate these trips. Otherwise, especially after a bad experience with a marginal sitter last summer, I just wouldn’t go anywhere.
Over a lifetime, chronic allergies can leave dogs depleted and irritable, with low-level infections constantly breaking out on their skin, feet, and in their ears; worn front teeth (from chewing themselves); and smelly, sparse coats that neither protect them well from the elements nor invite much petting and affection from their owners. Chronic allergies can also deplete an owner’s time and financial resources – especially if the owner fails to take the most effective path to helping her dog.
Unfortunately, most dog owners rely solely on their veterinarians to take care of the problem with a shot or a prescription or a special food; they are unaware that they are in the best position to help their dog in a significant way. While veterinary diagnostic and treatment skills will be important in the battle, it’s the owner’s dedication to his dog, acute observation skills, and meticulous home care that will ultimately win the war against allergies.
California has a well-written, fair and comprehensive dangerous dog law. Some of most notable provisions are below (with my comments added). The law can be found in its entirety here: http://animallaw.info/statutes/stuscafoodagcode31601.htm
§ 31601. Legislative declarations and findings
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs have become a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of citizens of this state. In recent years, they have assaulted without provocation and seriously injured numerous individuals, particularly children, and have killed numerous dogs. Many of these attacks have occurred in public places.
(b) The number and severity of these attacks are attributable to the failure of owners to register, confine, and properly control vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.
(c) The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.
Comment: It is common for legislatures to write a brief statement justifying the need for the law that follows. This can help you understand what they were thinking when they passed the law.
§ 31602. Potentially dangerous dog defined
“Potentially dangerous dog” means any of the following:
(a) Any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior 36-month period, engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog are off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog.
(b) Any dog which, when unprovoked, bites a person causing a less severe injury than as defined in Section 31604.
(c) Any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior 36- month period, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted injury, or otherwise caused injury attacking a domestic animal off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog.
Comment: These definitions are critically important to understanding and enforcement of the law. If, for example, a law includes the term “provoked,” then provocation should be clearly explained within the language, in order to avoid large loopholes. A behavior professional could argue that a dog doesn’t bite unless provoked, therefore all bites are provoked. The law can and should be clear about what constitutes provocation for the purposes of this specific statute. The California law is a good example of a two-tiered system as mentioned in the article on the previous pages.
§ 31603. Vicious dog defined
“Vicious dog” means any of the following:
(a) Any dog seized under Section 599aa of the Penal Code and upon the sustaining of a conviction of the owner or keeper under subdivision (a) of Section 597.5 of the Penal Code.
Comment: This section (a) pertains to dogfighting.
(b) Any dog which, when unprovoked, in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being.
(c) Any dog previously determined to be and currently listed as a potentially dangerous dog which, after its owner or keeper has been notified of this determination, continues the behavior described in Section 31602 or is maintained in violation of Section 31641, 31642, or 31643.
§ 31604. Severe injury defined
“Severe injury” means any physical injury to a human being that results in muscle tears or disfiguring lacerations or requires multiple sutures or corrective or cosmetic surgery.
§ 31605. Enclosure defined
“Enclosure” means a fence or structure suitable to prevent the entry of young children, and which is suitable to confine a vicious dog in conjunction with other measures which may be taken by the owner or keeper of the dog. The enclosure shall be designed in order to prevent the animal from escaping. The animal shall be housed pursuant to Section 597t of the Penal Code.
§ 31621. Hearing on declaration of dog as potentially dangerous or vicious
If an animal control officer or a law enforcement officer has investigated and determined that there exists probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious the chief officer of the public pound or animal control department or his or her immediate supervisor or the head of the local law enforcement agency, or his or her designee, shall petition the superior court of the county wherein the dog is owned or kept for a hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the dog in question should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious…
…The chief officer of the public pound or animal control department or head of the local law enforcement agency shall notify the owner or keeper of the dog that a hearing will be held by the superior court or the hearing entity, as the case may be, at which time he or she may present evidence as to why the dog should not be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be served with notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition, either personally or by first-class mail with return receipt requested. The hearing shall be held promptly within no less than five working days nor more than 10 working days after service of notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog. The hearing shall be open to the public…
…The court may find, upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious and make other orders authorized by this chapter.
Comment: This is not the entire section regarding the notice and scheduling of a hearing. The important point is that law enforcement must give you “due process” before depriving you of your “property” – in this case, your dog. This is where you need a good attorney. A well-written law requires that hearing to be held promptly, so that you are not deprived of your dog indefinitely.
(a) After the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 31621, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be notified in writing of the determination and orders issued, either personally or by first-class mail postage prepaid by the court or hearing entity. If a determination is made that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the owner or keeper shall comply with Article 3 (commencing with Section 31641) in accordance with a time schedule established by the chief officer of the public pound or animal control department or the head of the local law enforcement agency, but in no case more than 30 days after the date of the determination or 35 days if notice of the determination is mailed to the owner or keeper of the dog. If the petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog contests the determination, he or she may, within five days of the receipt of the notice of determination, appeal the decision of the court or hearing entity of original jurisdiction…
Comment: Again, this is not the entire section. The important point is that there should be some avenue for appeal – the law cannot take your dog away from you without due process. A good attorney will serve you well here, too.
§ 31623. Failure of owner or keeper to appear; decision
§ 31625. Seizure and impoundment pending hearing
(a) If upon investigation it is determined by the animal control officer or law enforcement officer that probable cause exists to believe the dog in question poses an immediate threat to public safety, then the animal control officer or law enforcement officer may seize and impound the dog pending the hearings to be held pursuant to this article. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be liable to the city or county where the dog is impounded for the costs and expenses of keeping the dog, if the dog is later adjudicated potentially dangerous or vicious.
(b) When a dog has been impounded pursuant to subdivision (a) and it is not contrary to public safety, the chief animal control officer shall permit the animal to be confined at the owner’s expense in a department approved kennel or veterinary facility.
Comment: This is the very scary part. Yes, they can come and demand that you turn your dog over to them. You can insist they wait while you get your attorney on the phone.
§ 31626. Circumstances under which dogs may not be declared potentially dangerous or vicious
(a) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an unjustified attack or assault. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if an injury or damage was sustained by a domestic animal which at the time the injury or damage was sustained was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.
Comment: This is the language in this statute that clarifies what the court would consider “provocation.”
A potentially dangerous dog, while on the owner’s property, shall, at all times, be kept indoors, or in a securely fenced yard from which the dog cannot escape, and into which children cannot trespass. A potentially dangerous animal may be off the owner’s premises only if it is restrained by a substantial leash, of appropriate length, and if it is under the control of a responsible adult.
Comment: Pay attention to the sanctions placed on your dog. Failure to do so can result in further legal action against you, including seizure and, worst case scenario, euthanasia of the dog.
§ 31644. Removal from list of potentially dangerous dogs
If there are no additional instances of the behavior described in Section 31602 within a 36-month period from the date of designation as a potentially dangerous dog, the dog shall be removed from the list of potentially dangerous dogs. The dog may, but is not required to be, removed from the list of potentially dangerous dogs prior to the expiration of the 36-month period if the owner or keeper of the dog demonstrates to the animal control department that changes in circumstances or measures taken by the owner or keeper, such as training of the dog, have mitigated the risk to the public safety.
Comment: Here’s that valuable rehabilitation component discussed in the accompanying article.
Your Local Laws There is much more to the California statute, but of more relevance to you and your dog are the dangerous dog designations in your own jurisdiction. You may think your dog will never be the subject of such an action. But, just in case, it’s a good idea to research the laws that pertain to you, and do everything you can to make sure your dog never enters the dangerous dog law spotlight. It’s also a good idea to identify attorneys in your area who, like Heidi Meinzer, dedicate their careers to animal law. Ask for their thoughts on your local dangerous dog laws. If they are poorly written you can be part of the force for changing them to ensure better protection for the dogs in your community as well as the humans.
Almost all of my friends have dogs. And I like almost every one of those dogs — but that doesn’t mean I want to walk with all of them. I actually really enjoy walking with just a few of them.
One reason has more to do with our walking styles. I really like to walk fast. Most dogs I know like to get out and really cover some miles, too. (The one exception to this was a female dog I knew who was the most persistent urine-marker I’ve ever known. Fun for her was stopping every five feet to mark the territory. I dog-sat her from time to time and it was torture for both of us: I made her walk faster and mark less than she wanted to, and she forced me to stop way more times than I liked.)
I also like to walk on trails, in places where well-behaved dogs can go off-leash. I am lucky enough to have miles and miles of trails and open space quite close to my house, making this experience a daily possibility.
However, at risk of sounding snobby, I just can’t feel comfortable walking with someone whose dog is poorly trained or who has bad canine social skills. It makes me so tense that I just can’t enjoy the company, the exercise, or even my own dog.
One friend’s dog tries to hump many of the dogs we pass on the trail. It’s not sexual, it’s just canine rudeness. He’s a young adult male, neutered, and I think he’s just bored and looking for a little excitement — which he certainly gets, because at least half of the dogs he tries to hump naturally take exception to this behavior from an absolute stranger, and they respond with some aggressive behavior: a snarl, snap, whirling about, growling, or an outburst of barking. When this happens, my friend’s dog whirls away gaily, like he was just given a prize. Other dogs just stand there, afraid or uncaring, and in this case, it’s always the owners who react. My friend yells ineffectively at her dog, and the other owner may yell, too. Either way, the humper doesn’t quit until someone is proximate enough to attempt to drag him off the other dog, at which point he dances joyously away again. Such a jerk!
The same dog also makes it a habit to cross the trail directly in front of anyone coming in the opposite direction, whether it’s a jogger, bicyclist, or another walker. This behavior isn’t just rude, it’s potentially dangerous for him and the other trail users.
My friend doesn’t seem to notice how obnoxious her dog’s behaviors are to other people. But my discomfort about these encounters definitely diminishes her enjoyment of our time together. I try to stifle my own response — it’s not my dog and for sure not my responsibility to address these issues. And I hate it when people offer unsolicited advice about other people’s dogs or children. But it’s difficult enough that I’d prefer to just not repeat the experience.
I know other people who frequently badger their dogs on the trail, calling them back (from puddles or poison oak or areas that appear to contain stickers) so frequently that the dogs just tune out and disregard the calls 90 percent of the time.
I don’t know anyone who yanks on her dog’s collar all the time, but that would be a deal-breaker for me, too.
Fortunately, I have a few friends who have a similar comfort level with letting their dogs enjoy themselves on the trail — without endangering or aggravating any other dogs, people, or wildlife. We allow our dogs to run ahead or fall behind as much as a hundred yards without yelling at them, approach and even sniff at the very edge of the cliff above the railroad tracks without freaking out, drink out of mud puddles (yes, even though giardiasis and other perils lurk in some dirty water), and even to roll in cow poop. Our poopy, stickery dogs may not contribute to a pleasant ride home in the car, but I am certain that no one else in town will ever feature one of our dogs in a story about the dog that made them fall on the trail or that made their dog so mad it started a dog fight.
I do sound like a snob.
What about you? Do you have friends with dogs you don’t want to walk with?
A dog in the wrong place at the wrong time can be bit by dozens or even hundreds of ticks. Deer ticks go through three stages of life (larva, nymph, and adult), and feed only once in each of these stages; a blood meal ends each stage.
Larval ticks dine on mice and other small rodents, but nymphs and adults are a threat to dogs.
Because they are small and their bites don’t itch, ticks are easily overlooked, especially adult deer ticks and the nymphs of any species. Ticks prefer warm, moist conditions, so double-check under collars and around ears. If you aren’t sure what a lump or bump is, inspect it with a magnifying glass. Warts, similar skin growths, and nipples can feel like feeding ticks.
Be careful when removing a tick to grasp it with tweezers firmly at the head, as close to the dog’s skin as possible, and slowly pull straight back. Never twist, press, burn, or apply irritating substances like kerosene to an attached tick because doing so can cause the parasite to expel the contents of its digestive tract, creating an unwanted hypodermic effect.
Three-percent hydrogen peroxide, the common disinfectant, is recommended for tick bites because the oxygen it contains destroys the Lyme disease bacteria. Hydrogen peroxide can be liberally poured over bites on light-haired dogs (keep away from eyes and apply directly to the skin) but because it’s a bleach, this method is not recommended for black or dark-haired dogs.
Using an eyedropper to apply hydrogen peroxide directly to the bite helps prevent unwanted bleaching.
To continue reading this article or issue you must be a paid subscriber. Sign in
If you are logged in but cannot access this content, a) your subscription may have expired; b) you may have duplicate accounts (emails) in our system. Please check your account status hereorcontact customer service.
Immediate access to this article and 20+ years of archives.
Recommendations for the best dog food for your dog.
Dry food, homemade diets and recipes, dehydrated and raw options, canned food and more.
Brands, formulations and ingredients all searchable in an easy-to-use, searchable database.
Plus, you’ll receive training and care guidance to keep your dog healthy and happy. You’ll feed with less stress…train with greater success…and know you are giving your dog the care he deserves.
Subscribenow and save 72%! Its like getting 8 issues free!
I think of my dog Otto as a really well-behaved dog. And he is, mostly. But no dog is perfect. And he definitely has some flaws.
One is that, if an unnamed husband leaves one of the gates on the side of our house open, or even just unlatched, Otto will wander out to the front yard, and eventually, if he’s left out there unsupervised long enough, he’ll do something naughty.
There are two gates in our front yard: a wide one crossing the driveway, and a narrow one at our front steps. Our yard is about two feet above the sidewalk, so if the gates are closed (as they always should be) then the “naughty” thing Otto does is run along the fence (at waist to shoulder height to most people) and bark ferociously at anyone walking by. It’s scary, even if he can’t get out. I hate it when other people’s dogs do this to me when I’m walking down a sidewalk, and I hate it when Otto does it, too. If I hear him barking, and yell for him, he’ll come immediately and sheepishly. He knows I’ll be mad at him I catch him doing this. Of course, I’m even more angry at whomever happened to leave the side gate open!
The worst thing he will do can only happen if a side gate AND one of the front gates are open. Then he may well go out onto the sidewalk and bark at people. Super bad dog! Super-duper bad dog owners!
This doesn’t happen very often; I usually monitor the gates carefully, or take the dogs to work with me, and my husband is usually well-trained. But of course it just happened this morning, as I was just getting out of the shower. My husband has been doing a lot of yard work, and has been going through all the gates so many times that he’s been getting sloppy. I heard Otto barking out front, and someone yelling, “Hey! Go home!”
I don’t want to repeat what I thought, but I was furious with my husband, immediately. I yelled for Otto out the bathroom window, grabbed a towel and ran to the back door, still yelling his name. Otto was already slinking through the side gate back into the back yard. I looked out toward the street, and there was a guy I often see bicycling with his dog. He was just getting back onto his bike; he had obviously had to dismount to deal with Otto. When he saw me in my bath towel, though, fortunately, he laughed. “I’m soo sorry!” I yelled. “I’m going to KILL whomever left the gate open!” “No harm done,” he yelled back.
I turned around and saw my husband looking out the door of his office, which is in an outbuilding in the backyard. He looked as crestfallen as Otto. “Ah shoot,” he said. “Did I leave the gate open?”
I’ve owned dogs with serious behavior problems in the past. One of my childhood dogs was seriously dog-aggressive, and had to be managed assiduously. It was always upsetting if management failed and he did something awful (like attacking a visiting neighbor’s dog) – but I have to say that it’s almost more upsetting when my nearly perfect dog does something bad. Otto has never bitten anyone, but he certainly has had the opportunity to do so, and this makes me feel terrible.
When buying food for their dogs, owners depend on the product manufacturers to deliver a “complete and balanced” diet in those bags, cans, and frozen packages. Perhaps without even being aware of it, owners also understand that there are government agencies responsible for setting standards as to what constitutes a “complete and balanced diet” for dogs, and for making sure that pet food makers meet those standards. We count on manufacturers and regulators alike to “get it right” so we can feel confident that our pets are getting everything they need, in just the right amounts.
288
So, it’s a bit disconcerting to learn that the three most important players in the setting of those nutritional standards have made changes to the nutrient lists and nutrient levels in recent years – and that each organization’s recommended nutrient “profiles” or “guidelines” differ from the others in some significant ways.
The Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) is the arbiter of American pet food’s “nutrient profiles” – a table of all the vitamins, minerals, protein and its constituent amino acids, and fat and its constituent fatty acids that are needed (and a minimum amount or acceptable range for each nutrient).
AAFCO’s ingredient definitions and nutritional guidelines are developed with substantial input from the pet food industry, such as the Pet Food Institute (PFI, a lobbying organization for pet food companies), American Feed Industry Association, National Grain and Feed Association, and the National Renderers Association. Academia plays a role, too, as lots of nutrition research (often funded by pet food companies) is conducted at universities with agricultural and/or veterinary departments. Industry representatives are non-voting advisors to the committees who set the standards. AAFCO itself has no regulatory authority; it’s up to states to adopt and enforce the AAFCO model regulations of feed ingredients and nutrient guidelines as laws.
Historically, to build its “Dog and Cat Food Nutrient Profiles,” AAFCO relied heavily on guidelines created by the National Research Council (NRC), a branch of the National Academies. (Scientists are elected to the National Academies to serve as independent advisers on scientific matters. The Academies do not receive direct appropriations from the federal government, although many of their activities are mandated and funded by Congress and federal agencies.)
The NRC substantially revised and updated its “Nutrient Requirements for Dogs and Cats” in 2006; the previous version was published in 1985. AAFCO has been revising its own guidelines, and expects to publish the updated “Dog and Cat Food Nutrient Profiles” in 2014, presumably with a grace period before companies must comply with the changes. Additional changes scheduled to be put in place around the same time include requiring all pet food labels to provide information on calories, and adding new minimum requirements for omega-3 fatty acids for growth and reproduction.
A European group analogous to AAFCO, called the European Pet Food Industry Federation (FEDIAF), published its own revised guidelines in 2012. (The FEDIAF regulations are important to U.S. pet food companies, since many manufacture foods that are sold in both the U.S. and Europe.) Both AAFCO and FEDIAF relied at least in part on the NRC guidelines, yet there are substantial differences between the three groups’ recommendations.
Pet foods sold in the U.S. that display “complete and balanced” on their labels must meet AAFCO requirements, while those that are also sold in Europe must meet AAFCO and FEDIAF guidelines. Exceptions are made for foods that use feeding trials to prove nutritional adequacy, or meet product family criteria (where foods that are substantially similar to another food made by the same company do not have to be separately tested). There is no requirement that any foods comply with NRC recommendations.
Comparison Difficulties It’s not easy to compare nutritional guidelines between these three organizations. For starters, nutrient requirements can be presented in three different ways:
– As a percentage of food on a dry matter (DM) basis. This value is complicated by the assumption that the food has a particular energy density.
–As an amount per 1,000 kilocalories (kcal, or what is commonly referred to as calories). NRC calculates nutrient values for calories based on the needs of a healthy, active dog, not the calories a dog actually consumes. A dog’s nutritional needs are not reduced when he consumes fewer calories as he gets older or slows down.
–As an amount per body weight of the dog. Body weight is computed to the ¾ power, a mathematical computation that accounts for the fact that large dogs eat less for their weight than small dogs do. That critical step, however, is often overlooked or ignored when people talk about nutrient requirements based on body weight. In addition, these guidelines should be applied to a dog’s ideal weight, not actual weight. An obese dog does not require more nutrition than a dog of proper weight, nor does a thin dog need less.
Each of these methods will produce the same results if the energy density is accounted for and the caloric requirement is calculated based on the ideal body weight of a healthy, active dog.
NRC provides nutrient guidelines presented in all three ways, while AAFCO and FEDIAF use only the first two methodologies. FEDIAF increases many NRC values by 20 percent to account for its assumption that pet dogs need fewer calories than what NRC calculates.
To make comparisons even more difficult, different units of measurement are used with some nutrients. For example, NRC shows vitamin A recommendations in RE (retinal equivalents), vitamin D in micrograms, and vitamin E in milligrams; AAFCO and FEDIAF both use international units (IU) for all three. Complicated conversions are required to compare the different units.
Additional differences arise between how life stages are grouped. NRC provides separate recommendations for growth (including subsections in some cases for puppies 4 to 14 weeks old, and those older than 14 weeks); adult dogs for maintenance; and late gestation and peak lactation (pregnancy and nursing). Further modifications are made based on the number and age of puppies during lactation. AAFCO and FEDIAF use just two categories, “adult maintenance” and “growth and reproduction,” grouping puppies and females who are pregnant or nursing together. Foods that meet the requirements for both groups can be classified as meeting the guidelines for “all life stages.”
Lastly, the target amounts for the nutritional guidelines can be expressed in several different ways. NRC uses the following categories, not all of which are provided for every nutrient:
The “recommended allowance” is not meant to be an ideal amount, but rather takes into account practical considerations of formulation and ingredients, and is therefore the most appropriate category to use for comparison to AAFCO and FEDIAF.
AAFCO provides only a recommended minimum amount, and, in many cases, a maximum amount. FEDIAF does the same, but also includes some maximums based on European laws. Surprisingly, NRC does not show a safe upper limit for most nutrients, including some that are known to be toxic in high amounts, such as zinc and iron.
When units per 1,000 kcal are compared between the three agencies, many of the recommendations are identical, and others are close enough that any differences are probably due to minor conversion and rounding discrepancies. This likely reflects both AAFCO’s and FEDIAF’s reliance on the NRC guidelines. But some values are markedly different.
Some discrepancies can be explained by the difference in life stage groupings. For example, AAFCO and FEDIAF may choose to use NRC’s recommended allowance for young puppies for their “growth and reproduction” category, even though NRC’s recommendations for lactating females may be higher. Other cases are not readily explainable. NRC’s recommended protein amount for adult dogs, for example, is just 10 percent protein on a dry matter basis, which is extremely low. Fortunately, both AAFCO and FEDIAF use more moderate values, requiring a minimum of 18 percent protein (DM) for adult dogs.
Varying calcium levels are similarly inexplicable. NRC gives a single acceptable range of calcium per 1,000 kcal for growing puppies after weaning, while FEDIAF has different ranges for puppies before and after 14 weeks of age, plus separate categories for puppies in the older group, based on whether their anticipated adult weight is below or above 15 kg (33 pounds). The FEDIAF’s more comprehensive guidelines appear to reflect knowledge gained in the last two decades of how excess calcium causes bone and joint abnormalities in large breed puppies, who are especially vulnerable prior to the age of about six months, but that doesn’t explain why the NRC does not account for the greater risk of too much calcium in this group.
Ideally, pet foods would be formulated to meet the requirements for all three agencies, to ensure that foods provide at least the highest minimum value and do not exceed the lowest maximum value of the three for each nutrient. In addition, even though a food does not have to meet AAFCO guidelines if a feeding trial is done, it still should do so. Feeding trials are considered the “gold standard” by the industry, but in our opinion, they are not of long enough duration to reveal health problems caused by many nutritional inadequacies or excesses, especially for adult dogs. The use of feeding trials and the narrower range of nutrient guidelines agreed on by the three agencies provide the best guarantee that the diet you feed really is “complete and balanced.”
Mary Straus is the owner of DogAware.com. She lives with her Norwich Terrier, Ella, in the San Francisco Bay Area.
No good deed goes unpunished. That’s what Pam Rowley of Upper Brookville, New York, discovered last November, when the hospital administrator who always greeted her and 8-year-old Vizsla Gunner at the start of their monthly therapy-dog visits quietly took her aside to deliver some bad news.
288
“She said that the hospital has some new rules for the therapy dogs,” Rowley remembers. “One of the rules stated that there can be no dogs in the hospital who have eaten raw food within 90 days of a visit. I told her that Gunner is on a diet that includes raw food, and I felt that it was beneficial to his health.”
The administrator was sympathetic, but the rule was non-negotiable. After four years of these monthly visits – never with any documented incidents or illness resulting from them – Gunner was no longer welcome.
Rowley’s predicament is emblematic of the challenges faced by many who decide to take an “outside the box” approach to their dogs’ care and rearing – and these challenges do not apply only to therapy dogs. Owners who opt to vaccinate minimally often encounter similar obstacles when they board their dogs at kennels, register them for doggie day care, or even enroll them in training classes, because their individualized vaccine protocol falls short of across-the-board “requirements” such as annual or non-core vaccinations.
What to do? Capitulate and give up health practices that you think are optimal for your dog, even if you believe the rules are misguided? Or eschew any activity that requires you to subject your dog to a diet or veterinary procedure that you feel is potentially harmful to your dog’s long-term health?
Only you can make the decisions that are best for you and your dog. You may choose to “go along to get along” if the activities are important enough to you. Or you may regard your dog’s health as your ultimate priority – and want to have no regrets about your choices later. In some cases, there may be relatively unexplored middle ground – a place where you can provide responsible care for your dog while continuing to participate in a mainstream activity.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT In the case of Pam Rowley and her raw-fed therapy dog, the hospital’s change of policy regarding Gunner’s visits resulted from guidelines that the administrator said were issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
For someone who is committed to feeding raw, that could be the end of visits to that facility. Rowley could try to find another hospital or type of program for Gunner to visit – perhaps one that doesn’t care for medically fragile patients, such as a behavioral health unit or a reading program for kids, which he already participates in. If she felt a strong commitment to the program she’s volunteered with for years, she could consider another type of healthy diet for Gunner, such as a home-prepared cooked diet.
Or, she could dig in and try to find the source of the hospital administrator’s edict, and try to educate folks along the bureaucratic chain of command that a raw-fed dog transmitting Salmonella to patients is not a foregone conclusion.
She could start with the fact that, despite what the administrator told her, the CDC does not have a formal position on raw-fed therapy dogs. Instead, its 2011 document, “Compendium of Measures to Prevent Disease Associated with Animals in Public Settings,” refers to “guidelines” that the CDC says were developed by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) and the Animal-Assisted Interventions Working Group (AAI).
However, “Guidelines for Animal-Assisted Interventions in Health Care Facilities” is not a position paper of the APIC, according to a media spokesperson for the group. It was published in March 2008 in APIC’s peer-reviewed journal, American Journal of Infection Control. Among the paper’s recommendations: “Exclude any animal that has been fed any raw or dehydrated (but otherwise raw) foods, chews, or treats of animal origin within the past 90 days,” which presumably also covers pig ears and bully sticks.
Certainly, studies have shown that dogs can shed bacteria into their environment. A 2007 study by Sandra Lefebvre, DVM (one of the authors of the APIC-published paper), found that therapy dogs that were fed raw meat were “significantly more likely” to shed salmonella than those not fed it. In 2002, a study published in The Canadian Veterinary Journal isolated Salmonella from 80 percent of bones-and-raw-food diet samples and 30 percent of dogs fed the diet.
Yet commercial kibble diets are not guaranteed to be bacteria-free, either. In the past year, a number of pet food companies have announced voluntary recalls of dry dog foods due to possible Salmonella contamination, including Wellness, Natural Balance, Taste of the Wild (Diamond), AvoDerm (Breeder’s Choice), and most recently, California Natural, Innova, and other products made by Natura Pet Products.
The larger question that looms is, how much of a problem is a Salmonella-shedding dog to the human population?
Dogs who are fed diets that contain Salmonella can shed the bacteria in their feces and saliva. The mere act of normal self-grooming (licking their coats) can transfer the Salmonella organisms to their fur. “And my answer is: ‘Yes, and …?’ This is not the end of the conversation,” says canine nutrition consultant Monica Segal of Toronto, Canada. “We probably could agree that poultry-processing plants have the highest Salmonella counts, and we should expect that people who work at those plants would be hospitalized daily.”
They aren’t, suggesting that fears over Salmonella shedding in raw-fed dogs are, in her words, “over the top,” though of course, special precautions should be taken with severely immunocompromised individuals with all dogs, not just raw-fed ones. “Frankly, I don’t believe that it has been proven that, yes, this dog eating kibble is perfectly safe to be around, but this raw-fed one is not,” Segal concludes. Integrative veterinarian Dr. Julie Mayer, DVM, CVA, CVC, CCRP, of Tucson, Arizona, has a rather straightforward way of reassuring those whose conventional veterinarians warn against the multitudes of microbes lurking in a raw-food diet.
“I say, go back to your vet and say, ‘Dogs lick their butts,’” she says. “Dogs are out there eating goose poop, eating grass, eating other dogs’ poop. They are going to be shedders of Salmonella and E. coli,” even if they aren’t raw-fed.
There are many things that therapy dog owners can do – and should do, regardless of the dog’s diet – to protect any patients who interact with their dogs from any sort of potential infection. These practices include not permitting licking or doggie kisses, and providing patients and staff with hand sanitizer after all interactions.
These practices also protect therapy dogs from getting exposed to infectious agents that patients may transmit. And, given the current epidemic of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection in human hospitals, that’s a valid concern. A recent Canadian study of 26 therapy dogs in hospital and long-term-care facilities found that while none of the dogs were contaminated with common infection-causing bacteria before they entered the facilities, two were positive afterward. One, a Greyhound, had Clostridium difficile (a Gram-positive bacteria that can cause severe diarrhea) on his paws. The other, a Pug, had MRSA detected on his fur after he spent time on patients’ beds and was kissed repeatedly by two of them.
Hospitals are not the only place where therapy dogs can be of benefit. Library reading programs, day programs for the mentally challenged, rehabilitation and outpatient centers – all are possibilities for therapy dogs where concerns about immunosuppression are minimal. Practicing proper protocol is crucial for all therapy dogs, no matter how they are fed.
It is also important to remember that the opportunity to share the emotional benefit and support that dogs give isn’t legislated by therapy-dog organizations or medical facilities. It’s a natural part of sharing your life with dogs.
Allen M. Schoen, DVM, author of Kindred Spirits: How the Remarkable Bond Between Humans and Animals Can Change the Way We Live, as well as books on veterinary acupuncture and complementary and alternative veterinary medicine, recalls one of his clients, a woman who was blessed with a comfortable lifestyle – and a period of remission from the cancer that eventually took her. Dr. Schoen recalls asking her, “What are you going to do now?” with the new lease on life that she had been given. One of her acts of celebration and thanks was to invite another cancer patient, a person who just wanted to be around animals, to visit her farm, where she kept horses, goats, and dogs. That was animal-assisted therapy at its purest, without the rules, regulations, or limitations.
Segal points out that raw-fed therapy dogs aren’t the only ones who should be steeled against having doors slammed in their bewhiskered faces due to the diet their humans have chosen for them.
“There are some emergency clinics that will not accept a raw-fed dog,” she says. Some clinics may only admit a raw-fed dog on the condition that his owner consent to feeding the dog whatever the hospital feeds while hospitalized – likely a commercial kibble, which from a holistic point of view is often the least healing diet a dog might have during such a stressful time. “The hospital will do this for multiple reasons, the main one being that they have very sick animals there. Also, dogs and cats who are being boarded overnight usually are being given mega-drugs, so their immune systems are compromised and they can’t afford to have animals shedding bacteria,” says Segal.
Some specialty veterinary practices may have taken an anti-raw stance because they see more (and more serious) cases of salmonellosis than the average veterinary practice, leading them to believe that the illness is more common than it really is.
“Everything is relative,” Segal reminds us. “Go to a neurologist, and ask about brain tumors, and they will have seen a lot of them.” That doesn’t mean that brain tumors are a significant problem in the general population – just that the neurologist sees many more cases than occur normally.
288
It’s prudent for the owners of raw-fed dogs to check with any local emergency and specialty veterinary clinics that are likely to treat their dogs. Ask if they have any restrictions on treating or admitting patients that are raw-fed, so you aren’t surprised in an emergency situation. If you do find yourself in an emergency situation with a veterinarian who disapproves of raw diets, and your regular veterinarian is supportive of your dog being fed this way, enlist the latter’s help; a call or an e-mail from your veterinarian expressing reluctance to change your dog’s diet during such an already stressful time might get a better reception.
WORTH A SHOT? Vaccinations can be another area where the holistic-minded find themselves battling rules that are based as much on assumptions and tradition as rigorous science. But a shift in attitude among influential veterinary organizations has created an awareness of the risks of overvaccination and the importance of tailoring a vaccine schedule to the health and needs of the individual dog.
In 2011, the American Animal Hospital Association updated its canine vaccination guidelines. The guidelines identify distemper, parvovirus, and canine adenovirus as core vaccines, but also stress that they should not be given more frequently than every three years.
The AAHA guidelines are a great starting point, but “they shouldn’t be interpreted as dictating a protocol, because certainly there are variations in practice,” says Carole Osborne, DVM, of Chagrin Hills, Ohio. “Let’s say you have a dog with cancer or an autoimmune disease. Vaccination can aggravate those underlying immune-mediated illnesses.” Age is also a consideration. “As dogs get a bit older in years, reducing vaccines is one of greatest things you can do to help them,” says Dr. Osborne. “As a practicing vet, I see and work with many people who pets experience a demise of health as a result of yearly vaccines.”
Boarding kennels, obedience schools, groomers, and other canine businesses that require vaccinations – sometimes even annual ones – can’t just dismiss their rules. But often they will accept documentation that shows that the dog is otherwise protected.
“For people who decline their dogs’ vaccines, antibody titers are an excellent idea,” says Dr. Osborne. “They will validate that an animal’s antibodies are at a protective level.”
Understand, though, that titers are not the be-all and end-all of evaluating immunity. “These titers look at only one branch of the immune system; we can’t read cellular immunity,” says Dr. Mayer. There could still be immunity, even if the titer shows antibody levels that don’t appear to be protective, she explains.
For dogs who are at risk of having a vaccine reaction, or whose health status suggests that vaccination could do more harm than good in terms of their overall wellness, Dr. Osborne notes that most states provide vaccine waiver forms that can be used for vaccinations such as distemper and parvovirus as well as rabies. Sometimes a health certificate from your veterinarian will also be accepted.
While the persuasive might be able to wangle individual exceptions for their animals, the fact remains that consumers are up against an increasingly corporate culture within veterinary medicine and related industries, leaving very little room for independent thinkers.
Consider, for example, the potential dog boarder who doesn’t want to give her dogs the intranasal vaccine for bordetella, or the kennel-cough complex. Instead, in the doggie version of that once common human solution, the “chickenpox party,” she takes her unvaccinated dog to a dog run or dog show and allows him to get the disease and build natural immunity. (Perhaps with a little holistic help along the way: Drosera is an often effective homeopathic remedy for acute upper-respiratory infections.)
After he recovers, that dog is arguably as well protected as if he had gotten a vaccine, if not more so. But the management at a boarding facility may still insist on something “on paper,” in order to show that the kennel has gone to every length possible to avoid exposing its other clients to infectious disease.
Reliance on intuition and common sense about your dog’s immune status may be an important part of your approach to his care, but “Common sense about natural immunity doesn’t carry you very far where there are regulations and guidelines; you’re stuck!” Dr. Schoen says.
Actually, you’re only stuck if you decide to play by the rules. Instead, you always have the option of creating some of your own. Dr. Schoen points to friends with different households who both have busy lifestyles and find themselves traveling quite a bit. “They have a purebred Mexican beach dog,” he explains, tongue firmly planted in cheek, “so they share him. And to me there’s a whole possible movement there: What if you set up, for boarding, a little community of friends, so you dog-share?”
The Internet is already there. National sites such as rover.com connect dog lovers who are willing to board dogs in their homes instead of traditional kennels. And there are more micro-focused networking sites, such as goodnightlucky.com, which serves Long Island in the metro New York area. Certainly, the absence of guidelines and licensing means that there will be more legwork – and risk – on your part. But self-policing, in the way of reviews from previous patrons, can go a long way toward making you feel comfortable.
While it’s easy to sink into a “why bother” attitude about the bureaucracy that can stymie even the most dedicated holistic dog lover, Dr. Schoen sees the silver lining. “Crisis equals opportunity,” he says. “It comes back to creativity and being local.”
It’s sometimes easy to forget, in the face of obstacles like the ones described in this story, that this was once the attitude about any kind of a holistic approach for our dogs – or ourselves, for that matter. Today, holism – the idea that one size doesn’t fit all – is much more widespread and increasingly not just tolerated, but accepted. That kind of shift in the culture didn’t come through copious sighs and hastily beaten retreats. It came through challenging the conventional wisdom.
As an example, Dr. Schoen points to the work of immunologist and veterinarian Jean Dodds, DVM, who for years has sounded the alarm against overvaccination. “Jean Dodds started a real revolution with a critical mass of dog breeders saying no – too many vaccines are not good,” he says. “And there was a mass movement among dog breeders to recommend titer tests.”
Those breeders in turn recommended Dodds’ protocol to their puppy people, who in turn insisted on it with their veterinarians. Such a shift in the paradigm has to come from the grassroots, Dr. Schoen adds, because the corporate interests in veterinary medicine – as with much else in the world – present “an inherent conflict of interest.”
“Corporations have taken over veterinary medicine – the education, the requirements, the guidelines,” he continues. “The American Veterinary Medical Association is now saying veterinarians should not be recommending raw, yet what you see over and over again is how many commercial dog foods have been found contaminated with Salmonella. It seems to me some cognitive dissonance.”
288
With so much of veterinary research funded by corporations like pharmaceutical and dog-food companies, it is very unlikely that the issues they pay researchers to explore will be those that could potentially result in a loss of revenue for them. For example, what dog-food company is going to fund a study of Salmonella transmission by raw-fed dogs?
That said, it’s possible to undertake that kind of study if progressive dog lovers and the groups that represent them are galvanized. Consider the rabies challenge trial organized by Dr. Dodds, vaccination reformer Kris Christine, and pathologist Dr. Ron Schultz of the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine, who is the trial’s principal investigator. No pharmaceutical company would rush to fund a vaccine trial to prove that its three-year rabies vaccine had a five- or seven-year duration of immunity: What’s the opposite of cha-ching?
But the rabies trial – in its fifth year – is doing just that, paid for largely with private dollars, including donations from organizations that are overwhelmingly training, performance, and conformation dog clubs. [Editor’s note: To help, see rabieschallengefund.org.]
Even with such grass-roots support, change doesn’t come easy – and it isn’t accomplished overnight. Dr. Mayer says she encounters “head-butting” between progressive-minded dog owners and businesses like boarding kennels on a daily basis. “However, there are more and more facilities that are stepping outside the box – ones that will accept a veterinarian’s statement that a dog is healthy, or titer test results in lieu of vaccines,” she says. Depending on your location, it might be helpful to seek out individually owned rather than franchised businesses where you can develop a relationship with the principals and work out a solution where you both feel comfortable.
DON’T GIVE IN TO FEAR While no one wants their dog to be a Typhoid Rover, or to cause anyone else – human or canine – to develop disease, Dr. Schoen points out that reasonable thinking on this issue is often clouded by an unreasonable amount of fear.
“When you have a collective consciousness of fear, it pervades everything,” he says. “We’re looking for a guaranteed world. And there are never any guarantees with anything.”
But if there is one thing that corporations always pay attention to, it is the bottom line. Whether you are choosing a boarding kennel or contemplating a significant bequest to a hospital, you can decide to make openness to alternative approaches your deal-breaker. “Take your money elsewhere,” Dr. Schoen suggests, “and let them know why.”
As for Rowley, she worries that the opportunities for Gunner and dogs like him will keep shrinking. Another friend with a raw-fed Golden Retriever has stopped her therapy-dog visits, too. “There is only one therapy dog left who is visiting at the hospital now,” Rowley says.
Dr. Mayer sees a larger cultural crisis in the predicament Rowley and Gunner are experiencing: our almost obsessive focus with creating a germ-free environment. In the case of severely immunocompromised individuals, this is understandable. But for everyone else, the war on bacteria – from the widespread use of everything from antibacterial wipes in the house to prophylactic antibiotics, in dogs as well as humans – has arguably made us less capable of defending ourselves against those organisms when we do encounter them. And, as the MRSA crisis shows, it can lead us to places that are worse than what we were originally trying to avoid.
Even in the face of this cultural shift, “people have options. They just need to talk and educate,” Dr. Mayer concludes. “But it’s always going to be a battle, because our society is becoming more and more aseptic. We grew up without having to wash our hands after touching a shopping cart, and we’re still alive, right? Today, there’s nothing to challenge us.” Except, perhaps, the status quo itself.
Denise Flaim of Revodana Ridgebacks in Long Island, New York, shares her home with three Ridgebacks, three 9-year-old children, and a very patient husband. Her dogs have been raw-fed and minimally vaccinated for three generations.
