Hi everyone, does anyone get Dogs Monthly:rolleyes: ? can't believe it, got my dogs monthly this morning from the newsagents and settled down for a good read only to be amazed by the 'paws for thought' article in this months ed. It was about raw feeding and how it is a really dangerous fad food syndrome which some owners are practising at the moment, it went on to tell us all the pit falls of raw feeding and basically left you with the impression that you must be mad to feed raw. All well and good, but in December's issue there was a double page feature, paws for thought again only this time it was all about the benefits of raw feeding, the wonderful changes it can make to a dogs life, and really why aren't we all being good owners and feeding our dogs raw?

Two articles 2 months apart, in total contrast to each other. I emailed dogs monthly this morning, here is the email I sent:-

Hi, as a regular reader of Dog's Monthly, I am now feeling very confused. In your December 05 edition you were singing the praises of raw feeding yet in the February issue you are slating it, you can't have it both ways, and as a magazine which people rely on for advice, it is important that the advice remains consistant.

So which is it, is raw feeding good or bad, because at the moment I don't think you can make up your minds, imagine how your readers must feel. I have always looked forward to my copy of Dogs Monthly arriving, but now as a raw feeder myself I don't think I can take your advice seriously anymore, who knows you might change your minds again next month. You should decide one way or the other, not produce an article which makes us feel like we should be feeding our dogs nothing but raw because the benefits are so great and then produce one two months later to say no, actually, we didn't mean it raw feeding is very bad.

I would appreciate your comments on this matter.

If the articles had just been a debate, ie the positives and negatives of feeding raw then I would have been ok with that, but these 2 articles were poles apart one being 100% for and the other 100% against, did anyone else read these articles? I am now wondering which Dogs Magazine to order to replace my Dogs Monthly, any suggestions??

I appreciate that there are 2 sides to every coin and would have been quite happy to read 1 article outlining the pros and cons of feeding raw, but these articles were poles apart, the first being 100% in favour and the second 100% against. No real negatives were given in the first, and no positives whatsoever in the second!

If I had bought December's issue but not February's I would have an article which is so in favour of raw, I swear you would read it and start feeding. As I do feed raw, and would not swap for anything now, the against article annoyed me so much, it was not a debate, it was the slating of raw feeders, describing us as fad feeders, and a bit mad!! It made me feel really bad, there was not one single positive, which anyone who feeds raw knows there are plenty.

The problem is that these are "opinion pieces" rather than definitive articles. Hence the completely contradictory nature of them! If they are as sketchy about the facts as you say it's worth complaining about the generally ***-poor level of contributions the magazine commission though!

I stopped reading it because of various reasons but mostly beause its incredibly badly written, edited and produced and not worth the money!

Em

I will be changing my mag from now on too!!