|
|
Post by Pawsforthought on Sept 27, 2013 10:26:11 GMT
I wrote an email to the letters section already but thought I'd see what others think of this.
In the September issue, I noticed that raw feeding as a diet option was not even mentioned. The guide was on different types of foods, and how to weigh out your options and see which diet would be best for your dog. The food types were wet, dry and semi-moist.
Confused as to how a diet adopted by SO MANY can be completely missed out.
Well, not THAT confused considering one Mr. Burns was probably the culprit? Perhaps he hates the idea of raw so because he views it as competition?
|
|
|
|
Post by petitsfilous on Sept 27, 2013 10:35:01 GMT
Hmm, I see where you're coming from. I find, dealing with customers, that many get confused just by wet, dry and semi-moist! without throwing Raw into the mix. lol. I see raw in a completely different league to packaged/processed foods as well so maybe that is why they did not mention it this time round?
|
|
|
|
Post by Avansa on Sept 27, 2013 10:42:49 GMT
Your Dog seem to be quite openly anti-raw, and I think that they just choose to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, rather than putting forward different arguments.
PFT says that the first ever thing she read in Your Dog was written by the vet saying that BARF diets aren't necessarily beneficial, are dangerous, and aren't as good as "scientifically formulated" foods. She then thought (being 15 inexperienced with dogs) that it must be a bad thing because the magazine article written by a vet said so.
I take everything they write with a pinch of salt now as I very rarely trust their "experts"!
|
|
|
|
Post by petitsfilous on Sept 27, 2013 11:30:32 GMT
Your Dog seem to be quite openly anti-raw, and I think that they just choose to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, rather than putting forward different arguments. PFT says that the first ever thing she read in Your Dog was written by the vet saying that BARF diets aren't necessarily beneficial, are dangerous, and aren't as good as "scientifically formulated" foods. She then thought (being 15 inexperienced with dogs) that it must be a bad thing because the magazine article written by a vet said so. I take everything they write with a pinch of salt now as I very rarely trust their "experts"! Oh dear. I've only been reading Your Dog for the last 6 months so didn't see that magazine. Raw feeding is quite a controversial topic isn't it. They could do a feature on it but then they'd be opening themselves up to an onslaught of negativity from vets and people who don't like 'Raw Pushers'. It's a become a difficult subject with so many pros and cons on both sides. :/ |
|
|
|
Post by gladys on Sept 27, 2013 11:31:11 GMT
Your Dog seem to be quite openly anti-raw, and I think that they just choose to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, rather than putting forward different arguments. PFT says that the first ever thing she read in Your Dog was written by the vet saying that BARF diets aren't necessarily beneficial, are dangerous, and aren't as good as "scientifically formulated" foods. She then thought (being 15 inexperienced with dogs) that it must be a bad thing because the magazine article written by a vet said so. I take everything they write with a pinch of salt now as I very rarely trust their "experts"! ?? If PFT read it when she was 15, that was a while ago now. And I've seen many answers in the magazine telling people about raw feeding and how to feed it in a balanced way. I remember reading one article that was quite detailed and informative but it was a while ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Pawsforthought on Sept 27, 2013 11:43:45 GMT
I wouldn't ever want a magazine with articles being ANYTHING-pusher. I think people should make their own minds up, and I respect the decision to feed dry food, it's more practical and easier for people who aren't comfortable handling raw food.
All I mean is that the mag should at least give a FULLY balanced review on feeding raw, and in a food guide, which was intended for people who are new to dog owning and need help deciding what to give their dog, it should at least be mentioned, even if they said 'most vets don't like it, but many are now feeding raw and loving it' or whatever. To not mention it at all isn't giving people a fair chance to consider it, and the only reason they wouldn't do that, SURELY, is if they are anti-raw? John Burns is openly anti-raw, and he is their nutritionist!!
PF - not every raw feeder is a raw pusher! That's almost like saying every German is a Nazi! >=P NEIN!
Gladys - It was Roberta, I believe, so nothing had changed, except that raw was slightly 'newer' to the world at the time. They have written about raw a handful of times, I was simply confused as to why they would leave it out in a guide listing all the types of food you can give your dog! :S
|
|
|
|
Post by gladys on Sept 27, 2013 12:00:50 GMT
Rightly or wrongly I know I don't class raw in the same way as I do other foods like wet, dry etc.
If you feed those sorts of food then you probably don't want a detailed article on raw at the same time. I'm going down the lines that most raw feeders don't feed other foods as well.
But maybe if the magazine is going to do a full article on dry & wet etc then they should follow it up with a bigger article on raw too.
|
|
|
|
Post by petitsfilous on Sept 27, 2013 12:07:52 GMT
I wouldn't ever want a magazine with articles being ANYTHING-pusher. I think people should make their own minds up, and I respect the decision to feed dry food, it's more practical and easier for people who aren't comfortable handling raw food. All I mean is that the mag should at least give a FULLY balanced review on feeding raw, and in a food guide, which was intended for people who are new to dog owning and need help deciding what to give their dog, it should at least be mentioned, even if they said 'most vets don't like it, but many are now feeding raw and loving it' or whatever. To not mention it at all isn't giving people a fair chance to consider it, and the only reason they wouldn't do that, SURELY, is if they are anti-raw? John Burns is openly anti-raw, and he is their nutritionist!! PF - not every raw feeder is a raw pusher! That's almost like saying every German is a Nazi! >=P NEIN!Gladys - It was Roberta, I believe, so nothing had changed, except that raw was slightly 'newer' to the world at the time. They have written about raw a handful of times, I was simply confused as to why they would leave it out in a guide listing all the types of food you can give your dog! :S Hehe! I'm on a lot of french bulldog facebook pages and there's blimmin'undreds of 'raw-pushers' on there. (That is not my nickname for them but I have seen others using it). A new owner will ask; "which dry food is the best?" and you always get the same people saying "DRY?!?! WHAT IS THIS ABOMINATION!?! THESE DOGS ARE DESCENDENT FROM WOLFS AND THEREFORE MUST EAT MEAT AND BONE!" Now I'm sorry, but a frenchie is quite possibly the furthest thing from a wolf. lol That is not to say that they can't eat raw... but it's not suited to all; Bernie being a perfect example. |
|
|
|
Post by petitsfilous on Sept 27, 2013 12:10:04 GMT
Rightly or wrongly I know I don't class raw in the same way as I do other foods like wet, dry etc. If you feed those sorts of food then you probably don't want a detailed article on raw at the same time. I'm going down the lines that most raw feeders don't feed other foods as well. But maybe if the magazine is going to do a full article on dry & wet etc then they should follow it up with a bigger article on raw too. Exactly this^ Raw would need a much more detailed article because the word 'Raw' simply doesn't cut it. It doesn't explain portions/supplements/meats etc. |
|
|
|
Post by SarahHound on Sept 27, 2013 12:25:35 GMT
Rightly or wrongly I know I don't class raw in the same way as I do other foods like wet, dry etc. If you feed those sorts of food then you probably don't want a detailed article on raw at the same time. I'm going down the lines that most raw feeders don't feed other foods as well. But maybe if the magazine is going to do a full article on dry & wet etc then they should follow it up with a bigger article on raw too. I agree with this personally. I have no problems with an article on raw, but I don't see the need for it to mentioned every time dry food is. |
|
|
|
Post by Avansa on Sept 27, 2013 12:48:02 GMT
I have no problems with an article on raw, but I don't see the need for it to mentioned every time dry food is. It wasn't an article about dry food, it was an article giving options on what dogs can be fed. Now, many people don't agree with raw, don't want to feed it, or are just uninterested in it, but it remains a method of feeding none the less and it's only right to mention it there as an option - if only a side note! Personally I'm uninterested in reading about the dry, cereal filled food that they recommend but I appreciate that many people feed it and want to know about it. At the end of the day, I'm happy with people feeding whatever they like to their dog as long as they're properly informed and educated about what is in the food and their dog is happy and healthy. The information needs to be there for people to be educated though. Times are moving on and people are beginning to realise that there is more to feeding dogs than trusting what a bag of old dry crap says (I mean the food, not the vet but same difference in some cases  ). I just believe that the magazine needs to move with the times a bit more and give people all the information that they need to make an educated decision. (I'm not trying to offend anyone or look down on any method of feeding, I'm referring to specific brands of food when I'm thinking of dry food - obviously there are good 'uns out there!) |
|
|
|
Post by orpheous87 on Sept 27, 2013 21:07:54 GMT
I wouldn't say that YD are openly anti-raw. Granted, it's not mentioned as much as dry/wet food etc., but a couple of issues before the one PFT mentions, they did give away a raw food guide booklet. Admittedly, that particular booklet was produced by Nature's Menu and therefore solely referred to their food, but it was a step in the right direction for raw feeders. I'm almost positive they had an article about it in the magazine too, or at least mentioned it.
|
|
|
|
Post by SarahHound on Sept 28, 2013 8:59:37 GMT
I have no problems with an article on raw, but I don't see the need for it to mentioned every time dry food is. . Now, many people don't agree with raw, don't want to feed it, or are just uninterested in it, but it remains a method of feeding none the less and it's only right to mention it there as an option - if only a side note! Personally I'm uninterested in reading about the dry, cereal filled food that they recommend but I appreciate that many people feed it and want to know about it. At the end of the day, I'm happy with people feeding whatever they like to their dog as long as they're properly informed and educated about what is in the food and their dog is happy and healthy. The information needs to be there for people to be educated though. Times are moving on and people are beginning to realise that there is more to feeding dogs than trusting what a bag of old dry crap says (I mean the food, not the vet but same difference in some cases ). I just believe that the magazine needs to move with the times a bit more and give people all the information that they need to make an educated decision. (I'm not trying to offend anyone or look down on any method of feeding, I'm referring to specific brands of food when I'm thinking of dry food - obviously there are good 'uns out there!) Ah, didn't realise that, I think I've lost my magazine somewhere and I don't remember the article. In which case, then I do agree with you, they should mention raw as well. Dogs Today have done quite a lot of raw bits, but as you've just made me realise, I don't think I've ever noticed much about raw in YD. |
|
|
|
Post by BorderTerrier on Sept 28, 2013 9:30:38 GMT
Your Dog seem to be quite openly anti-raw, and I think that they just choose to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, rather than putting forward different arguments. PFT says that the first ever thing she read in Your Dog was written by the vet saying that BARF diets aren't necessarily beneficial, are dangerous, and aren't as good as "scientifically formulated" foods. She then thought (being 15 inexperienced with dogs) that it must be a bad thing because the magazine article written by a vet said so. I take everything they write with a pinch of salt now as I very rarely trust their "experts"! ?? If PFT read it when she was 15, that was a while ago now. And I've seen many answers in the magazine telling people about raw feeding and how to feed it in a balanced way. I remember reading one article that was quite detailed and informative but it was a while ago. I agree with this on the matter. I have seen in magazines articles etc on raw food. Mainly commercial food talk but its still there. They could talk about how to prepare and get into raw DIY correctly and healthily but apart from that I haven't seen a dramatic loss of this feature. Maybe YD are not keen on the concept of raw feeding, therefore don't want to support it by not publishing as much material on it as other foods that they may agree with? Like dry, wet, and semi-moist. I can think of a few points why they wouldn't be so keen on the idea. Like they do not accept photos entered into the gallery playing with sticks or wearing clothes - they obviously disagree with letting your dogs play with sticks and dressing your dog up. They may feel the same way about feeding a BARF diet. Still, they don't seem that anti-raw to me! Not so that I have picked up on it! Dogs can be fed raw, plenty do it. So when they were talking about what dogs can be fed, raw should have been mentioned, I agree. That it isn't though, does seem a little suspicious before you come up with a possible explanation. At the end of the day, it is up to the individual responsible dog owner to decide what they feed there dog. This diet needs to suit everyone involved, including the owner (costs, freezer space, choice) and the dog (simply whether it suits or not!) not just what appears in a magazine  Anyway, the proof will be in whether or not PFT's letter she wrote in gets published or not, and whether the Ed or someone else makes a response at the bottom like they sometimes do when to feel the need. Or whether or not PFT gets a personal response. |
|
|
|
Post by Avansa on Sept 28, 2013 12:52:22 GMT
I wouldn't say that YD are openly anti-raw. Granted, it's not mentioned as much as dry/wet food etc., but a couple of issues before the one PFT mentions, they did give away a raw food guide booklet. Admittedly, that particular booklet was produced by Nature's Menu and therefore solely referred to their food, but it was a step in the right direction for raw feeders. I'm almost positive they had an article about it in the magazine too, or at least mentioned it. I'm not sure if it's the same time, but the only article I ever remember on raw was saying that it's dangerous and that their vets wouldn't recommend it. I've lost all of my old mags somewhere though so I have no way of checking - should have got a binder! SarahHound, yeah that's one of the reasons that Dogs Today are quite good (plus it's nice to not have to read all the same articles over and over again  ). I always over-looked DT because it doesn't look quite so professional and well put together, but it's actually a great magazine. BorderTerrier, that's the point though. They shouldn't be for or against a method of feeding, they should remain unbiased and give people the information they need. Just because an editor (or feature writer, or whoever) of a magazine thinks something, it doesn't make that the right opinion! They could risk isolating some of their readers this way. If they want to do that then it's up to them but I'm one of those people who have stopped buying the magazine unfortunately. (We do have an iPad subscription but only because we get it for free courtesy of PFT's folks...) |
|
). I just believe that the magazine needs to move with the times a bit more and give people all the information that they need to make an educated decision.
). I always over-looked DT because it doesn't look quite so professional and well put together, but it's actually a great magazine.
