Personally, I think BabyDane is right on the money and she strikes me as very knowledgable. She has done her research and is trying to pass it on to others, some of whom are too stubborn to take it.
Okay seriously? You need to relax.
a) Yes, dogs are all the same species, but they are still individuals and no one diet is going to suit every dog in the world. Just like people, some dogs have health issues, sensitivities, etc. that require alterations in the plan.
Actually a PMR diet will suit every single dog ever born. The dogs with health issues, if those issues were diet caused were caused by kibble. PMR diets cure digestive problems, not cause them. Have you ever seen a cow who can't eat grass? Same with a dog who can't eat meat, bones, and organs.
b) PMR is only one of many ways to feed raw food. Raw is fantastic, and people should be encouraged towards it, but even the experts disagree on what's required.
No need to look at the so called experts. One big problem with raw feeding today is that there are way to many self proclaimed experts who have very little knowledge of canine nutrition. You don't look to experts, you look to nature. Dogs have been eating a PMR diet for millions of years and thriving. They haven't been eating kibble but 50 or so years and the whole canine world has been falling appart healthwise ever since kibble was introduced. They didn't eat grains until the commercial dog food market began.
There is no argument that dogs are carnivores. As such they eat meat, bones and organs and nothing else. If they also ate plant matter, we would call them omnivores. So feeding them anything else but those three items is not natural and unhealthy.
Don't try to equate a dogs nutritional needs to human nutritonal needs. We are an entirely different animal whose bodies are designed completely different.
Pushing one form at people as the ONLY appropriate way is not only disrespectful to those who have done their own leg work and research, found their own conclusions and are raw feeding in a manner that suits their dog, but also incredibly intimidating to people who are just starting out.
It's not disrespectful to attempt to teach someone the proper way to feed a dog. If their conclusions determine that dogs need nutrition from sources other than meat, bones, and organs, their conclusions are not based on science. I suspect they are trying to equate dog's nutritional needs to humans.
c) Just as a statement to your last sentence, Buddy's Parents DOES feed raw. It DOES work for her dogs. Just not YOUR definition of what is an appropriate way to feed raw foods. *gasp*
I myself am tiring really quickly of how forceful you two are being about this. I get that you're passionate, but guess what, other people around here are too.
I don't see BabyDane as being all that forceful. I see her as stating facts even if some people don't like those facts. They are still facts.
Dogs are carnivores ... that is a fact.
Carnivores satisfy all their nutritional needs from meat, bones, and organs ... that is a fact.
Dogs cannot properly digest or extract nutrients from plant matter ... that is a fact.
Regardless of how much dogs like to eat fruits and veggies the same way I like to eat ice cream and cake and candy, they derive little nutrition from them just as we I derive little nutrition from ice cream, cake, and candy. ... that is a fact.
There are plenty of members on this forum who have just as much raw feeding knowledge and experience as you do (some more, believe it or not).
I don't believe it. At least not in my case and I suspect not in BabyDane's case either. From what I've read of her posts, she is pretty dang knowledgable.
Bringing your knowledge to the table is one thing. Jamming it down people's throats and stomping on toes is another entirely.
I haven't seen jamming down throat. I've seen facts stated by BabyDane. I assume you don't like those facts but that doesn't make them untrue, just inconvenient.