|
|
Post by gladys on Sept 28, 2013 16:45:43 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! I'm sure Orpheous is talking about the same one I read, there was an article a little while ago (it could have been last summer) talking about raw feeding in some detail. It was either an answer to a question or a small article about it. I remember the bright photo of all the raw food within the article.  |
|
|
|
Post by orpheous87 on Sept 28, 2013 22:37:47 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'm sure it was in one of the magazines either last year or earlier this year. I know I still have it somewhere, but where exactly is a different story! I should also have got a binder! 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! I'm sure Orpheous is talking about the same one I read, there was an article a little while ago (it could have been last summer) talking about raw feeding in some detail. It was either an answer to a question or a small article about it. I remember the bright photo of all the raw food within the article. Glad you remember it too gladys! I wasn't sure if I was actually getting mixed up with one of the other magazines! |
|
|
|
Post by gladys on Sept 28, 2013 22:58:13 GMT
I'm sure it was in one of the magazines either last year or earlier this year. I'm sure Orpheous is talking about the same one I read, there was an article a little while ago (it could have been last summer) talking about raw feeding in some detail. It was either an answer to a question or a small article about it. I remember the bright photo of all the raw food within the article. Glad you remember it too gladys! I wasn't sure if I was actually getting mixed up with one of the other magazines! No I'm about 99% sure it was YD as I don't really read other dog mags but I think it was at least last summer. Have no idea why, seem to remember reading it outside on the decking and pretty sure it wasn't this year?? |
|
|
|
Post by caz2golden on Sept 29, 2013 15:14:38 GMT
I won raw food via the freebies and they have offered similar competition since so they cant be totally anti raw!!
|
|
|
|
Post by caz2golden on Sept 29, 2013 15:15:54 GMT
My question is I wonder what age range the magazine is really aimed at?
|
|
|
|
Post by caz2golden on Sept 29, 2013 15:30:06 GMT
I personally think that an article about feeding dogs in general will not have enough space to describe raw feeding properly. I never saw article in question so can not comment on the specific article. I guess they could have mentioned in passing but then what use is that!! I guess they could have limited to complete raw feeding and then they could be seen as being advocates of specific brands, and that would not be good for magazine. Hope they covered grain free as well as the cereal based foods and the difference between cereal and veg filled foods and high meat content foods. They should have also covered quality of the meats etc. There is potential for a lot of hot potatoes just in the normal dry, wet and semi moist options!
It would have been better to run as a series on feeding and have a dedicated article about raw feeding.
However in my opinion 2 page article is unlikely to give enough detail about raw feeding! Then what do they do, a series of articles over x months, then they could be seen as advocating raw too much!! Raw is not seen as the usual 'complete' food and perhaps that is why it was not covered. I think anyone considering raw should read a number of books from the different raw feeding ideas (lets face it RMB feeding is seen different from BARF for a start!) and there is actually some sound internet sources if you know how to discard the chaff!!
|
|
|
|
Post by SarahHound on Sept 29, 2013 16:04:14 GMT
My question is I wonder what age range the magazine is really aimed at? I've always thought its more aimed at younger/teen people, compared to Dogs Today anyway. Then there's Dogs Monthly magazine which in my opinion is an older childrens mag. |
|
|
|
Post by caz2golden on Sept 29, 2013 18:43:17 GMT
The reason I asked the age question is that if it is aimed at younger readers then editor has a responsibility to not influence minors too much to something which is not viewed as main stream feeding option yet!
It is therefore more sensible to keep advice to commercial diet which is complete and easy to feed than DIY Raw where the responsibility to create a balanced diet is strongly on the owner. Though that does not rule out the complete raw option!
|
|
|
|
Post by BorderTerrier on Sept 30, 2013 16:11:37 GMT
My question is I wonder what age range the magazine is really aimed at? Older children up to adults in my opinion! Almost all the articles featured in YD/DT/DM feature adults and their dogs. There are articles which state facts or information about things that I would expect to be more aimed at adults, e.g. talk about law. Even though I say this, I read all articles with interest! |
|
|
|
Post by AnnaAmber on Sept 30, 2013 16:39:04 GMT
I agree that they should have at least mentioned it, in an article that covers the different ways to feed your dog...but that's just me.
|
|
|
|
Post by petitsfilous on Sept 30, 2013 17:06:45 GMT
There is a letter from an Emily Osborne in the latest issue about 'Giving Raw a Chance'.
Was that one of you guys? Sorry I don't know your names lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Avansa on Sept 30, 2013 17:21:18 GMT
There is a letter from an Emily Osborne in the latest issue about 'Giving Raw a Chance'. Was that one of you guys? Sorry I don't know your names lol Nope, wasn't either of us two!  |
|
|
|
Post by BorderTerrier on Sept 30, 2013 17:23:27 GMT
There is a letter from an Emily Osborne in the latest issue about 'Giving Raw a Chance'. Was that one of you guys? Sorry I don't know your names lol Nope not me! |
|
|
|
Post by orpheous87 on Sept 30, 2013 17:24:28 GMT
Not me either!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pawsforthought on Sept 30, 2013 17:51:07 GMT
I just don't think it's mentioned enough times to be unbiased towards dry food. It's just a minor complaint really, not everyone (everymag) is perfect but I think they SHOULD be as balanced and unbiased as possible.
It's not the same as, for example, recommending a food to someone on here. I think that magazine editors influence their readers in general quite a lot, especially if they are younger, and it is or should be a responsibility of theirs to present things as equally as they can.
Not that magazines can't have an opinion but if they do, they need to make it clear it is opinion and not fact. Therefore in this case, present Raw as a possibility and then John Burns can have at and rant all he wants, as long as he puts IMO at the end.
|
|
). I always over-looked DT because it doesn't look quite so professional and well put together, but it's actually a great magazine.
Aug 11, 2024 20:01:15 GMT
*
Aug 11, 2024 20:01:15 GMT
*