Brent Rolfe Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 No, he's got no phobias that I've noticed! I named him Ragnar! I'm wondering if he's getting a little rough with me lately though. Is it wise to play rough with him this early? I lightly smack him around and he gets all rilled-up and lightly nibbles on my hands. Felipe Hi Felipe, Re phobias....no I had noticed in one picture you were holding Ragnar at arms length up in the air and he did not seem to have any fear! I think Ragnar is a great name! And from the pictures it suites him very well!Five of our six animals are named with human names: Nigel and Monty (the dogs), Eddie, Sophie, Roger and Smokey (the cats). Whether I am rationally correct or not our animals will always be a part of our family and I just like human names for them. Re roughness, I rough-housed with my younger Golden, Monty and have not had any problems with him biting or nipping me or others. However, and this is a big however, I don't think you will find any training book that would suggest you allow a puppy to get used to their-teeth-to-human-flesh contact. If he thinks it is ok with you now (while he's a puppy) then how will he realise that it's not ok with you or anyone else when he's a 75lb monster of muscle? And even if he would never bite anyone, nonetheless if he play-bites them....causing no damage or skin breaks of any kind, some (non-doggy) people will still be frightened and perhaps offended. And I can see their point. Also remember that to some (very strange) people a boxer is a pretty intimidating looking dog ! It would be better for you to get a tug-toy for those times when he wants to play rough. And even then teach him the command "Enough!" when either he gets too rough or you get fed up or tired of the game (and looking at Ragnar it is almost guaranteed that you will tire before he does! ). On the command he must release the tug-toy IMMEDIATELY and calm down. Of course, at first he won't! So you completely ignore him until he does and then you praise him and even let him play tug again. He has to realise that by obeying you his fun isn't necessarily over. BTW when playing with the tug-toy he will probably try to nibble his way up the toy to get to your fingers.....stop that too! Ah, the fun of a pup! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 And a healthy dog's digestive tract is almost always acidic enough to cope with bacteria in raw food, is it not? Human digestive juices are extremely acidic too, but you can still get very sick from eating undercooked chicken (most of which is contaminated with Salmonella and/or Listeria and/or Campylobacter, etc) Raw beef, maybe, but no way would I feed a pet raw chicken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Rolfe Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 Human digestive juices are extremely acidic too, but you can still get very sick from eating undercooked chicken (most of which is contaminated with Salmonella and/or Listeria and/or Campylobacter, etc) Raw beef, maybe, but no way would I feed a pet raw chicken. Well, as I wrote, I have been feeding mine raw chicken for three years, so that's a total of six years of experience. The only verifiable difference in health is that the older dog, Nigel, now has a completely normal thyroid function, wheras before the raw food diet he was on thyroid medication. I think the dog's digestive system is far more acidic than ours hence the ability, in a healthy dog of course, to deal with the bacteria that we cannot. Beef seems to produce diarrhea in my dogs?! Chicken is recommended in most raw diets for dogs and the originator of the raw diet is a vet himself....Dr. Billingshurst....and he recommends chicken. My dogs also seem to find the entrails of mice that even our cats (who killed them) won't eat quite a delicacy....again with no ill effects.... although even I draw the line at this if I can pull them away in time! Again, how many wolves eat Purina? and do zoos feed their animals kibble...or the food that is biologically appropriate for them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 Wolves don't eat Purina, no, but wild food is less likely to be contaminated than commercially raised meat. Plus wild carnivores do get nasty things like tapeworms from eating raw meat. And I believe zoos do use kibble to some extent; for example Purana makes something called "monkey chow." I'm not aware of any evidence for any harmful effects of feeding pets high-quality kibble; certainly my 4 critters are quite healthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Rolfe Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 I'm not aware of any evidence for any harmful effects of feeding pets high-quality kibble; certainly my 4 critters are quite healthy. Well hopefully there aren't any! But if you look into the ingredients of even high quality kibble (and I used to have mine on the best available) I don't think you would be impressed. What really turned me off was the use of waste frying fat from restaurants sprayed on the food to make it palletable to dogs! Also, think about it, the temperatures that kibble is cooked at basically kills any active ingredients in the food (as well as any bacteria, admittedly) like the enzymes required for healthy teeth, any anti-oxidants etc. etc. Also, the incidence of premature cancers in Goldens specifically but pure-bred dogs in general nowadays it is alarming. Now is this caused by too close line breeding, environmental factors other than food or food (or some other factor)?! I don't know, but I'm guessing that eating processed food every day for 8-10-12 years has something to do with it? And, since I am seeing no ill-effects from a raw diet and am seeing plenty of positive effects I am happy. BTW I forgot, Nigel also had chronic ear problems (fairly common in Goldens)before we switched diet and now none. Tape worms have never been a concern of mine and they are easily dealt with anyway. But anyway Godless, I am a little concerned that this whole thread has absolutely nothing to do with Objectivism, so perhaps we should cease and dessist or carry on off-line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 It's not the only thread in here unrelated to Objectivism. The mods don't seem to mind or they would have killed it. Anyway, I'm not an expert on animal nutrition and have said pretty much everything I want to say. The only other thing I will say, and this IS related to Objectivism, is that deciding on a proper animal diet should be based on scientific methods and evidence, not anecdotes about a few specific animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Rolfe Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 The only other thing I will say, and this IS related to Objectivism, is that deciding on a proper animal diet should be based on scientific methods and evidence, not anecdotes about a few specific animals. I agree with this. But, my observations are based objectively on the health of my dogs , which is better than it was and the anecdotal evidence of hundreds of raw food users, not just a few. Also, on the statistical evidence of high cancer rates. This is actually one of the mysteries of Objectivism as far as I am concerned! i.e. how I can be objective in my context and you can be objective in yours and we get two completely different answers!? It's like the thread on who you guys should vote for in November.....if all were completely objective shouldn't Objectivists be voting for one candidate? As I say this is a puzzle to me ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 That trouble me sometimes too. As far as the diets go, you would have to do a massive double-blind study to see which was better. Even then, you might find that kibble is better for some breeds or even specific animals and raw food was better for others. As far as choosing who to vote for, there is no clear preferred candidate. There are an enormous number of factors to weigh and different Objectivists will put greater weight on different factors. I don't really see a problem with that; it's an honest difference of opinion not a difference in principle. It's impossible to predict the future precisely so there is no way to know for certain who would be a better President. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Rolfe Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 As far as the diets go, you would have to do a massive double-blind study to see which was better. Even then, you might find that kibble is better for some breeds or even specific animals and raw food was better for others. I agree with you and since that is never going to happen I guess that is the end of that thread? As far as choosing who to vote for, there is no clear preferred candidate. There are an enormous number of factors to weigh and different Objectivists will put greater weight on different factors. I don't really see a problem with that; it's an honest difference of opinion not a difference in principle. It's impossible to predict the future precisely so there is no way to know for certain who would be a better President. I understand this (i.e. the complexity of the issue and the weight one gives to the various factors), but if we were all completely rational Objectivists wouldn't we come to the same logical conclusion? The only way this would not happen is if your self-interest were at odds to my self-interest....which can't happen in Objectivist theory....can it? I must admit I am reticent to start a new thread on this problem for fear of being torn apart by the big boys of the board! ! And right now there are probably only the two (or perhaps three) of us reading this humble thread!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 I understand this (i.e. the complexity of the issue and the weight one gives to the various factors), but if we were all completely rational Objectivists wouldn't we come to the same logical conclusion? The only way this would not happen is if your self-interest were at odds to my self-interest....which can't happen in Objectivist theory....can it? As I said, I think the reason for the disagreement is the impossibility of predicting the future. There is no way anyone can have all of the information needed to make a fully objective choice. Dr Peikoff thinks that Bush is worse because he will lead the US towards theocracy. His opinion is based on careful scholarship and reasoning, so I don't reject it outright. It's still an opinion about the future, though, and other Objectivists can and do disagree with it. I actually think it would be an interesting thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.