# RAW and SERVICE DOGS



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

I am an advocate of an all-natural raw diet. I cringe when the Vet or organizations like Pet Partners (formerly Delta Society) use scare tactics and/or disallow (RAW DIET). When done correctly it is truly IMO the best for your animal’s health. I guess in this regard politics and money truly mean more to them than your animals health and nutrition. 



What do you say to the scare tactics used about feeding an all-natural raw diet?


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

SFGSSD said:


> What do you say to the scare tactics used about feeding an all-natural raw diet?


Suck it


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

GatorBytes said:


> Suck it


:laugh: I like it. But is there a more Politically correct version?


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Who do you have to explain your dogs diet to? I don't think you'll ever change the mind of a person who can make $ from the kibble industry. And I bet some of those organizations get donations from them. So they'd be biting themselves in the butt if they advocated against them.


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

I say...

How can a highly processed denatured "food" with low _animal protein_ from diseased and rotting in the field animals, road kill, euthinized shelter animals, parasites feasting on these, the drugs used to PTS, processed and/or from china, paired up with high carbohydrates fraught with GMO's, rotting and mouldy fruits and veg (not fit for human consumption) other fillers to bind the food both in the finished product and in the gut, then a synthetic premix of vitamins and minerals (also from china) added back into the mix to make up for the natural nutrients that were cooked out just to meet AAFCO bare minimum and then hosed down with rendered fats that oxidize once the bag is cut open and starts to turn rancid producing cancer causing carcinogens "preserved with mixed tocopherals and/or vit. C" which also go rancid when exposed to light and air, that posesses a year plus exp. (like a box of crackers), be better then raw biologically appropriate natural to the carnivore with 100% of essential amino acids and enzymes req'd for every cellular process in the body and incl. immune health...?

yep. That is what I'd say


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

Service dogs also need to be fully vaccinated and bathed. No thanks for me.


----------



## GatorBytes (Jul 16, 2012)

Forgot the salmonella in kibble.
More likely to get sick from a sick dog - a kibble dog


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

GatorBytes said:


> I say...
> 
> How can a highly processed denatured "food" with low _animal protein_ from diseased and rotting in the field animals, road kill, euthinized shelter animals, parasites feasting on these, the drugs used to PTS, processed and/or from china, paired up with high carbohydrates fraught with GMO's, rotting and mouldy fruits and veg (not fit for human consumption) other fillers to bind the food both in the finished product and in the gut, then a synthetic premix of vitamins and minerals (also from china) added back into the mix to make up for the natural nutrients that were cooked out just to meet AAFCO bare minimum and then hosed down with rendered fats that oxidize once the bag is cut open and starts to turn rancid producing cancer causing carcinogens "preserved with mixed tocopherals and/or vit. C" which also go rancid when exposed to light and air, that posesses a year plus exp. (like a box of crackers), be better then raw biologically appropriate natural to the carnivore with 100% of essential amino acids and enzymes req'd for every cellular process in the body and incl. immune health...?
> 
> yep. That is what I'd say


WOW, that would send anyone straight to Google to look that up:laugh: Thank you, I get annoyed with politics and ignorance when it comes to these animals. Sadly the people that truly know how to care for them get ridiculed just because they are not following the acceptable perceived norm.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

I saw do your own research and make your own decision.

And actually, this has nothing to do with raw and *Service *Dogs. Pet Partners is a *Therapy *Dog organization.

No-one can tell a Service Dog owner what to feed their dog.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

SFGSSD said:


> WOW, that would send anyone straight to Google to look that up:laugh: Thank you, I get annoyed with politics and ignorance when it comes to these animals. Sadly the people that truly know how to care for them get ridiculed just because they are not following the acceptable perceived norm.


Who ridicules service dog handlers in the first place? Do you hear a lot of people complaining about getting ridiculed? I've never heard of anyone getting ridiculed for feeding any kind of food to their dog, be it a SD or a pet.

If this has to do with the training organization telling the handler what to feed their dog...I don't see a problem with it. They put a lot of time and effort into training the dog, gave it to that person for free, and if they believe kibble is the better food then they should be listened to.

In the previous thread about service dogs and therapy dogs, you used a couple of organizations as back up for the fact that they don't believe service dogs should do therapy, now you're saying those same organizations don't know what they're talking about when it comes to food and nutrition. I'm confused, should we just pick and choose what we feel like those organizations are "experts" in?


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

martemchik said:


> Who ridicules service dog handlers in the first place? Do you hear a lot of people complaining about getting ridiculed? I've never heard of anyone getting ridiculed for feeding any kind of food to their dog, be it a SD or a pet.
> 
> If this has to do with the training organization telling the handler what to feed their dog...I don't see a problem with it. They put a lot of time and effort into training the dog, gave it to that person for free, and if they believe kibble is the better food then they should be listened to.
> 
> In the previous thread about service dogs and therapy dogs, you used a couple of organizations as back up for the fact that they don't believe service dogs should do therapy, now you're saying those same organizations don't know what they're talking about when it comes to food and nutrition. I'm confused, should we just pick and choose what we feel like those organizations are "experts" in?


NO, I am not using those same orgs. as a hypocritical example here. 

This is not the point of this thread and what you are talking about is way off topic here. I do not nor did I ever say I supported Delta Society (Now Pet Partners) the forum mod made reference to them allowing a SD to be tested and registered as a Therapy Dog. I should have named and referenced Working Dogs in General for this thread. I had a Vet tell me it was "Illegal" to feed a Service Dog an all-natural raw diet. ADI and Delta now Pet Partners make reference to this. Who gives SD handlers a hard time? A lot of people, for various reasons mostly fueled by ignorance. But with this subject it is not just ignorance it is politics and money.



"If this has to do with the training organization telling the handler what to feed their dog...I don't see a problem with it. They put a lot of time and effort into training the dog, gave it to that person for free, and if they believe kibble is the better food then they should be listened to." Apparently not when it comes to the training do's and don’ts. but this should be addressed and stated in the other thread. This is just about the raw diet and the intimidation/fear Vets and orgs give a SD handler when they think about an all-natural raw diet... nothing more.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

Lauri & The Gang said:


> No-one can tell a Service Dog owner what to feed their dog.


 I agree fully. This has nothing to do with the training and performance of a service dog or therapy dog, but if you do your research you will find out that ADI and Delta have a disqualifying policy in regards to RAW diets. If that changed, it was just recently.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

So if a disabled person is feeding their guide or service dog raw, is the organization that provided the dog going to take the dog away from the owner? That sounds extraordinarily cruel, and possibly illegal, or at least grounds for a lawsuit.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

I've read about it with THERAPY dogs. I don't see how a service dog owner would have to even divulge what they fed, but a Therapy dog visiting cancer patients would have to be held to standards, I'm sure.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Freestep said:


> So if a disabled person is feeding their guide or service dog raw, is the organization that provided the dog going to take the dog away from the owner? That sounds extraordinarily cruel, and possibly illegal, or at least grounds for a lawsuit.


It's not illegal...most of the time the training organization retains ownership of the dog and can also take it away at anytime if it feels its not getting the care it deserves.

I'm not arguing against raw. I do believe raw is the best thing for the dogs, but I can't do it so I'm on a high quality kibble diet. In the case of an organization, that has put thousands of dollars and hours into training a dog, they should be able to not just recommend what to feed but as a person that was given a dog by them you should follow their wishes if they believe that feeding kibble is better. Are the organizations misguided? In my opinion, yes. But I can definitely see where they are coming from as hundreds of thousands of dogs have lived full and healthy lives on kibble diets.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

martemchik said:


> It's not illegal...most of the time the training organization retains ownership of the dog and can also take it away at anytime if it feels its not getting the care it deserves.


I am on the fence with this policy in general. I do not retain ownership of the dogs that are certified through SFGSSD. Although I do not retain ownership of the dog I do have the right to not recertify any dog that no longer meets acceptable tolerances in accordance with the guidelines of this company. We do check up on our clients quarterly throughout the year and re-test for certification on an annual basis. We also encourage our clients to contact us immediately if any performance issues surface so we can address and correct them in a timely manner. If the client chooses to not heed our advice and the dog fails recertification as a result, it is the client’s responsibility to bring the dog to acceptable levels of performance for certification by SFGSSD. In either case we do not use the threat of taking the dog away from them. I feel that is to emotionally tolling on the client. 

However, there are organizations that use this (*Leased* we will take the dog if you don't do what we say) clause as leverage to mask their own negligence. That is what I have a major problem with in regards to this policy. If the client is being negligent... well... I can see why this can be viewed as acceptable policy. But I do feel "taking the dog away" in most situations is to emotionally tolling on the disabled handler. This is why we will not take the dog but we will not recertify the dog if they (The handler) are the ones that messed the dog up and refuse to comply with our program guidelines. *NOTE Certification is NOT a requirement of Federal law to legally be considered a Service Dog in accordance with the ADA. I do feel that a certification process backed by the Federal Government is in order to clean up a lot of the questionable mess that goes on in regards to Service Dogs. The suggestion of a Federal (License/Certification) is met with a lot of resistance from the owner trainer crowd even with some Service Dog organizations. I guess if I had or was producing questionable Service Dogs I would not want to be accountable either.:laugh:
This is getting a little off topic. I appriciate your input and there is a discussion in the Service Dog forum about policy of SD orgs Owner trainers etc. Please join us there


----------



## BlackthornGSD (Feb 25, 2010)

By "certification" do you just mean your own testing standards? 

As I understand it, there's no official certification for any service dogs in the U.S.--no testing/training required by any local, state, or federal government in order for the dog to work as a service dog--as described by the ADA.

ETA: Oops--I see that you address this in the second half of your post.


----------



## BlackthornGSD (Feb 25, 2010)

I have a friend who has a couple of SDs that she's trained for herself. She doesn't feed raw because she is immune-compromised and her doctors feel that feeding raw will expose her to higher levels of dangerous bacteria than is a sensible risk. I believe that's the reason TD programs don't want therapy dogs eating raw--to minimize the chance that the dogs will bring dangers bacteria to the people they visit.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

BlackthornGSD said:


> I have a friend who has a couple of SDs that she's trained for herself. She doesn't feed raw because she is immune-compromised and her doctors feel that feeding raw will expose her to higher levels of dangerous bacteria than is a sensible risk. I believe that's the reason TD programs don't want therapy dogs eating raw--to minimize the chance that the dogs will bring dangers bacteria to the people they visit.


While I can understand and agree that there may be some risk associated with anything in general, the real controversy is what is justified and what just paranoia is. :laugh:

When I see orgs and doctors (vets) using scare tactics, then I see those same people attached to a major dog food brand I question the true motive. My clients are not required to feed raw, If they are not comfortable doing so for whatever reason I recommend Orijen or Taste of the Wild. 



There was a big blowout with ADI and Delta (now Pet Partners) in regards to this. One of the board members was with Purina anyone that knows anything about that brand knows that they definitely did not have the dog’s or others health and well-being in mind. They were obviously more concerned about their well-being $$$$$ :laugh:


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

> the real controversy is what is justified and what just paranoia is.


One could say the same (paranoia) about raw feeders and their feelings towards kibble


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

msvette2u said:


> One could say the same (paranoia) about raw feeders and their feelings towards kibble


:laugh: I guess you got a point. I do not think all "Commercial Dog Food" is bad. I do also recommend Orijen and Taste of the Wild


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

SFGSSD said:


> I am on the fence with this policy in general. I do not retain ownership of the dogs that are certified through SFGSSD. Although I do not retain ownership of the dog I do have the right to not recertify any dog that no longer meets acceptable tolerances in accordance with the guidelines of this company. We do check up on our clients quarterly throughout the year and re-test for certification on an annual basis. We also encourage our clients to contact us immediately if any performance issues surface so we can address and correct them in a timely manner. If the client chooses to not heed our advice and the dog fails recertification as a result, it is the client’s responsibility to bring the dog to acceptable levels of performance for certification by SFGSSD. In either case we do not use the threat of taking the dog away from them. I feel that is to emotionally tolling on the client.
> 
> However, there are organizations that use this (*Leased* we will take the dog if you don't do what we say) clause as leverage to mask their own negligence. That is what I have a major problem with in regards to this policy. If the client is being negligent... well... I can see why this can be viewed as acceptable policy. But I do feel "taking the dog away" in most situations is to emotionally tolling on the disabled handler. This is why we will not take the dog but we will not recertify the dog if they (The handler) are the ones that messed the dog up and refuse to comply with our program guidelines. *NOTE Certification is NOT a requirement of Federal law to legally be considered a Service Dog in accordance with the ADA. I do feel that a certification process backed by the Federal Government is in order to clean up a lot of the questionable mess that goes on in regards to Service Dogs. The suggestion of a Federal (License/Certification) is met with a lot of resistance from the owner trainer crowd even with some Service Dog organizations. I guess if I had or was producing questionable Service Dogs I would not want to be accountable either.:laugh:
> This is getting a little off topic. I appriciate your input and there is a discussion in the Service Dog forum about policy of SD orgs Owner trainers etc. Please join us there


Very true, it does suck that they can take the dog away. But that's just a fact of life that some of them do have to do that. I think you should only do it if the person is being really negligent though, and that's probably less than 1% of service dog handlers. I'm guessing the large majority is so thankful to have the dog that they treat it better than some of us treat ours.

With regards to federal regulation...it would help, but the reason people don't want it is that the government doesn't do things well. They get input from a small minority of "experts" and then they do things the way those experts tell them. So...they would pick an organization that is doing things one way, and try to get all other organizations to do things that way. They could really care less about the cost or benefit of it. Plus...its just one more thing that the tax payers will have to pony up for and to tell you the truth, I see better ways of spending tax dollars than hiring service dog regulators for the whole entire United States that would go around testing dogs.

Don't know if you've read through the "responsible breeder" bill or whatever its called and how wrong the government was in that one on what the majority of this board would feel is a responsible breeder. They pretty much wanted to make all dogs used for breeding living like farm animals. So something that was meant to stop puppy mills, would actually just put a lot of good breeders out of business.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

Let's keep this about raw feeding. The SD/TD stuff should go in that section of the board.


----------

