The following statements appeared in a reply to posts about keyhole surgery.  I wanted to reply to the statements made, without hi-jacking the thread so I have started a new one.  I hope Calmstorm sees this and has the chance to reply.

>he only did well on Eukanuba regular (this was a few years ago) so thats what he had, and I wouldnt have let him eat anything else, no matter what any vet said.<

No vet that I know would recommend changing a dog with a sensitive tummy off a brand of food that it does well on.

>Vets tend to have a certain companies prescrition food, and if that works for the dog, fine, but if no improvement then I would feed something else.<

No vet that I know would disagree with you on that.  My vet sells Hills but knows that sometimes Chappie works when other diets don't.

>if a vet prescribed to a puppy owner a food which the breeder knows wont suit<

How would the breeder know that a prescribed food wouldn't suit a puppy - unless, of course, they had already tried it for that particular puppy?  In which case the vet would be pleased to hear about it, so he/she could recommend something else.

Maybe you have met some unreasonable vets but the ones I know would not disregard reports from an owner that their dog was well on a certain brand of food.  Nor would they recommend diets known to be "unsuitable" for a puppy.  Maybe you have specialist knowledge of a certain breed, which cannot be fed a certain proprietary brand, in which case, please put me right on this - I am willing to learn.

Sorry if this seems antagonistic or personal, especially after yesterday's slightly heated discussion on health matters, but you seemed to be suggesting that vets cannot see reason over feeding, which would be unfair comment about vets I have known.

Definitely hiding this time.

I go on a site in America and breeders over there wouldn't touch Hill's with a barge pole!  I've only tried it a couple of times and my dogs didn't like it one bit!

This wasn't intended to be a discusssion of the merits of one food over another - that belongs in the feeding section.

The point I was trying to make was about the way vets do and don't behave.  My vet sells Hills but isn't trying to make me feed it to the dog that I think is better on JWB.

When a post is locked, please do not start another one. Wait.

If this is in reply to Calmstorm, why can't you carry on the conversation via PM?

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be only Calmstorm.  I just felt it was important that she be asked for her opinion first. 

It can end here, if it's annoying for people.

>but you seemed to be suggesting that vets cannot see reason over feeding.

There are many vets, some that I know; some that I've heard off who don't endorse raw feeding.  And yet there are many posters on here and no doubt many dog owners throughout the UK who feed raw with great success. 

So, am I being unfair if I say that it could be perceived that some vets cannot see reason over feeding, using the example of raw feeding?

>which would be unfair comment about vets I have known

Yes, vets you have known, that doesn't mean to say it's like that with every vet in the UK.  Nor does it mean that other people perceived experiences with vets are the same as yours, I'm afraid.

>So, am I being unfair if I say that it could be perceived that some vets cannot see reason over feeding, using the example of raw feeding?

Vets are human beings like the rest of us, so I suppose it depends on their experiences. If they've had to do several operations for impaction from bones, then they're duty bound to advise caution.

Equally there are some vets who advise total raw feeding (particularly those who write books on the subject!), ignoring the fact there there are many thousands of people who feed commercial diets with great success too.
:)

Exactly JG, they are indeed human beings.  Owners are human beings too and sometimes the 2 can clash with what they perceive is best for that particular animal.  Both are trying to do their best.  :-)

Raw versus commercial feeding is a contentious issue and no doubt the vets who oopose it could put forward a reasonable arguement for their beliefs but I think that is a far step from suggesting that vets cannot see beyond one commercial food to another.  Clearly that would be an much more extreme view that it would hard to imagine any intelligent person doing.  Certainly I have never experienced a vet who quibbled with a food that was clearly suiting a dog well just because it was not the one they usually recommended by default.

but I think that is a far step from suggesting that vets cannot see beyond one commercial food to another.  Clearly that would be an much more extreme view that it would hard to imagine any intelligent person doing.  Certainly I have never experienced a vet who quibbled with a food that was clearly suiting a dog well just because it was not the one they usually recommended by default.

As far as I am aware, no-one has suggested this is happening.   Think we need to calm down here and stop suggesting anti-vet feeling exists where it doesn't.  Surely because an owner feels they have a clear idea of what kind of food suits their dog best, they shouldn't be accused of being anti-vet? :(

>Think we need to calm down here and stop suggesting anti-vet feeling exists where it doesn't

I completely agree with you Annie - I don't see what can be gained from starting a thread on a public board addressed to an individual simply to "pull them up" on some remarks disagreed with elsewhere :(   Can you imagine how confusing this forum would get should each member do this in similar situations :rolleyes:

That occasionally some people make throw away remarks and let off steam about a veterinary based issue doesn't mean that anyone is encouraging or promoting anti-vet feelings nor that any reasonable individual will suddenly throw caution to the wind and set about "curing" a sick animal without professional intervention :rolleyes:

Feeding a different food was described as conflicting with the vet it is just my experience that that would not create any conflict :)

>Surely because an owner feels they have a clear idea of what kind of food suits their dog best, they shouldn't be accused of being anti-vet?

Definately not, I believe I have described myself as someone who had a clear idea of what suited my dog and I certainly would not say I was anti-vet :)

Lilleth - are you perchance a vet?     Your profile gives very little away:) - and I notice that you do post mostly on vet/patient subjects?

Just being nosy ;)

Margot

First

>Maybe you have specialist knowledge of a certain breed, which cannot be fed a certain proprietary brand, in which case, please put me right on this - I am willing to learn.<

then...

>This wasn't intended to be a discusssion of the merits of one food over another - that belongs in the feeding section<

So what is it? ;)

Hi Lillith,

In my honest opinion,a vet wouldnt be one of the first people i would consult about diet,a canine nutritionist or holistic vet,yes,a run of the mill vet ,no! I would especially NOT consult a vet who sells and recommends science plan and warns against RAW bones.Any vet who knows what dogs need would not be selling such an awful food and warning owners not to feed their dogs part of their natural diet,eg raw bones!
Yes i trust my vet to treat my dogs illnesess because thats what they were 'trained' to do.They were not trained on the fine art of nutrition,this is not included in their schooling,or which ingredients in which foods are best...

Hi Kate,

this is one of those threads which was just bound from the word go to head down a route that would incite inappropriate comments and disproportionate vehemence at extreme ends of the scale :rolleyes:

FWIW I think you have a lot of valid comments to make about diet and make, or potentially could make, a valuable contribution to food related topics but by heck girl, you're all too ready willing and able to blow that notion out of the water by making ill thought remarks :(  If you have a valid point to make why risk having it consigned to "ignore" by putting it forward in such a way as to undermine those that feel differently from yourself   You can bet your life on it this will not be your only reply but may well be one of a precious few that is attempting to protect you from yourself ;) 

>I would especially NOT consult a vet who sells and recommends science plan and warns against RAW bones

Just take the above - not many vets in the country, whether you agree with it or not, will not stock Hills just as not many pet feed stores will stock raw bones!  Fact - distasteful to you and maybe countless others but fact nonetheless.

>Any vet who knows what dogs need would not be selling such an awful food

FYI there are thousands, probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of dogs who would literally die without Science Plan or it's counter parts!  Making a generalisation about a brand that most certainly has a place in the physical wellbeing of a substantial number of dogs is foolhardy at best and certainly deeply offensive to anyone who has had the trauma of trawling through every type of food known to man and beast before finding that Science Plan may be their beloved four legged friend's only hope of not dying from malnutrition!  The internet is full of canine disease specific sites where the pros and cons of any and every type of food are regularly debated but responsible ones actively discourage their members from belittling others' choices, and rightly so.

As it happens I'm not a fan of the brand either but fully accept it has its place - more limited IMO than the profile it has warrants, but a necessary player for some dogs in some circumstances.

I've probably introduced my vets to a wider *interest* in diet than they previously held but I don't expect them to disregard their prescription lines in favour of setting up a chest freezer full of bones and offal ;)  If you feel the need to spread the news of BARF and more species appropriate ingredients, please understand from a fellow enthusiast in nutrition that aggressive tactics which spark off tiresome and argumentative responses only ensure that few continue to read the information and fewer still take anything useful from it.

regards, Teri