Lol nice thread .For the record I feed Diamond Naturals, Chicken and Rice formula.I don't like the Lamb and Beef , so I give them a bag of 4 Health, Salmon and Potatoe for different taste.Switch every other bag.None of these feeds cost 50 a bag.My dogs look and feel good so I can't complain .
For the record, I wasn't directing what I said at you at all ... didn't think you fed Ol' RoyOriginally Posted by bamaman
Bama - I use to feed RAW, no matter what, but due to my job and my lifestyle interfering or limiting the time I can spend with the dogs, I had to go to a kibble. I started with Blue and then down to Taste of Wild, then 4 Health. I then dropped to the lower 4 health and got terrible results. Went back to the completely grain free 4 Health food and my dogs look fantastic. It's 37.99 a bag (30lbs) and more than I want to pay and more than I paid for RAW, but I don't have a choice.
I have too many dogs. Four of my dogs we relocated just this week to allow me more time per dog, but sometimes, life sneaks up on you and you have to do what is best for you and your family first. These dogs, as much as they fascinate me, are not THE priority in my life. One of them yes, but not THE ONE!
Good day
The man simply is selfish, and has too many dogs.
In a selfish sense, yes.
Smart for himself, smart for his wallet, but NOT doing his best for the dogs.
You're simply defending your hero, nothing more.
There are two subjects you're confusing: (1) what's convenient/cost-effective and (2) what is BEST for the dogs.
The subject of this thread is ULTIMATE (best)
If you want to start a new thread about feeding cheap shit as being more cost-effective, that's fine.
But on the subject of BEST practices, Ol' Roy and this man's feeding methods don't belong here.
You just said it: he's lazy when it comes to feeding optimally.
He is not even trying to feed "okay"; he is feeding PURE SHIT.
Why does he need 100 dogs that he feeds pure shit?
You don't need 100 dogs to have good dogs. You don't need 100 dogs period.
I have not been in as long, but I have bred winners all over the world with a lot fewer dogs than that.
You're rationalizing, nothing more.
Just because a man is an icon in the game, does NOT mean he's a flawless human being or actually does his very best on every level.
It means he's been around long enough to know what a good dog looks like, bred a lot of winners, etc., but that does NOT mean it's "a good thing" to be a dog on this man's yard.
Sure, there are worse yards to be on.
There are also FAR better yards to be on
The last thing I would EVER want to do would be sentenced to be 1 of 100 dogs on a chain in Texas, fed Ol' Roy dogfood for the rest of my God-forsaken, human-deprived life.
By contrast, there are people whose yards (if I was a dog) I would be "delighted" to be on.
WHY? Because I would be WORKED WITH and FED TOP NUTRITION ... not be one of dozens strewn all over the place on a dog-farm.
No. That is your moronic parallel, showing that you understand nothing.
I never, at ANY time fed pure shit feed like Ol Roy.
I did, however, feed Diamond when I was GREEN and IGNORANT.
Then, as I learned, and after watching enough dogs fall apart, I CARED ENOUGH to start investigating how much FEED affects my dogs ... and I tried other feeds (Abady, etc.), and I made the switch to Canidae.
You see, back then, 15 years ago, Canidae was top nutrition, and that was part of my own stages of evolution TRYING TO FEED BETTER ... going from Diamond to Canidae (which used to be top nutrition, now it too is junk).
No one will EVER accuse me of deliberately doing the same stupid, sub-standard shit ... for 40-50 years in a row ... that is not "evolution" that is STAGNATION
When I realized how important nutrition was, I studied as much as I could.
When Canidae switched ingredients, I again switched to Nature's Variety ... TRYING TO FEED THE BEST FEED I COULD ... until I realized RAW was the way to go. Period.
And I have been feeding RAW ever since.
More than that, in the exact OPPOSITE of laziness, I WROTE BOOKS, PRODUCED MAGAZINES, AND PRODUCED DVDS trying to **HELP OTHER DOGS AND THEIR OWNERS ALL OVER THE WORLD**
So please don't compare me in ANY WAY to some lazy old man, who's fed the same sub-standard shit for 50 years straight, NEVER tried to improve, and can only write a book about "himself."
There are not many people who are as UN-lazy as I am
Thanks,
Jack
You do have a choice. You could get up earlier or get rid of your dogs.
Good for you. This is the right solution.
Right. Things can change.
And the good dogman does what's best for his dogs, while the selfish dogman (dog hoarder) keeps WAY more dogs than he can tend to properly, feeds them all shit food, and gives them no life whatsoever.
Dropping down one's level of care "a little" (like what you're doing) is perfectly fine and understandable ... but just hoarding dozens and dozens of dogs, feeding them the cheapest shit they can survive on, is pretty wrong IMO.
Good dogs deserve better.
Jack
You are correct, I do have a choice. My bad. I am choosing to NOT feed RAW at this time b/c it does not fit my priorities in life at the moment.
I too think hoarding dogs is wrong and they deserve a good life, won't argue with you at all. Really not arguing with you about anything really. I don't condone feeding cheaply and am not defending it, I just don't think someone feeding dog food to dogs is a crime nor do I think it defines a person.
You missed your mark on assuming who I know. It's not GH. I assume you thought of him b/c of the blood I prefer, the "Texas" comment and the reference to a book. It is not him at all. Matter of fact, he has upped his quality of feed over the 20 years I've known him and feeds better now than ever as he's under 40 dogs now. The 100+ yard is a millionaire NOT in Texas and the other yard I referenced, of about 40 dogs, has more international winners and champions than any single yard of anyone on this board. So, while you assume incorrectly this assumption can lead to misconceptions about a particular individual (GH) that is not true at all. No offense taken on my end, but I did want to set the record straight.
Have a nice day!
Fair enough.
Every single person who does not do their best for their dogs has their reasons, some valid, some not, and all within the context of "how low" do they go.
"Feeding dog food" to dogs is such a simple way of putting it.
The question thus becomes IS IT really "dog" food?
My position is that corn gluten meal, soy pulp, sorghum, beet pulp, etc. can NOT properly be called "dog food" by even the loosest definition. There is no known species of dog anywhere on earth that seeks such ingredients out in its natural foraging efforts for food ... so, really, hoarding a group of 100 dogs together and feeding them PURE SHIT (ingredients they were never meant to eat, all of which are known to cause health breakdown) *IS* a crime IMO, chaining dogs down and forcing them to eat crap they really can't process.
So we simply disagree here.
IMO, if you're going to call yourself a DOG man, and confine a group of dogs on your property, the term seems easier to say when describing a man who FEEDS THE BEST, SPECIES-APPROPRIATE FOOD HE CAN to those dogs, as opposed to trying to use this term for the lazy **** who feeds Ol' Roy.
My bad, then, and glad to hear that
Being a millionaire doesn't make a person a good dogman (or owner of dogs). One of the worst, most brutal dog-butchers I know is a multi-multi-millionairs ... who kills, culls, and leaves dogs down to die on a consistent basis ... doesn't give a damn, means nothing to him. Millionaires are often the worst, most despicable dogmen at times.
Great, the guy who feeds Ol' Roy has multiple international winners. Like I said, I know many highly-competitive dogmen who feed crap feed. They tend to be on the "dog butcher" side, and not on the good caregiver side. The old man whose property I used to rent won more fights than probably everyone on this board (plus your friends) put together ... but that didn't mean he was a good feeder or knew the first damned thing about nutrition (or cared).
It meant he knew what a good dog looked like, had the money to buy it, pay someone else to condition it, and bet whatever he felt like betting, damned near every weekend of his life since the mid-1960s.
Again, didn't make him an optimal caregiver, it made him a highly-active, well-experienced dogman, who didn't give much of a shit what he fed the dogs he had spread out over 5 different dog yards.
Jack
Jack do think the APBT was ever wild or do you think he was created by man ?
This is a sophomoric question.
A pit bull's biological need to eat primarily raw, whole animals is the same as the wild dogs'.
Just because man made controlled breedings to eventually create different dog "types" does not mean the resulting animals are not still DOGS, with the same nutritional requirements as dogs.
Man did not turn wild dogs into cows, deer, or some new and different species of grain-eating animal.
All of the various breeds man created are still different breeds of meat-eating DOGS.
Jack
Lol Jack I don't disagree with you either .I really just wanted to see how fast you were lol..JK
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote