Classification of dogs: the taxonomy vs. the evolutionary and dietary reality (WAS: raw for pets)

[Guest guest]

Hi Belinda,

 

What you say is correct and incorrect at the same time, and goes to a lack

of understanding the meaning of the biological taxonomy. The taxonomy widely

in use today is old, it is based upon premises that are simply incorrect.

Animals are classified largely in terms of certain structures, largely

without regard to the actual way in which they live. The following serves to

illustrate this point, with respect to dogs specifically:

______

According to Rebecca Remillard, DVM, a Specialist in Veterinary Nutrition:

 

" Canines are in the order Carnivora, but I think their feeding behaviors are

best described as omnivorous. The term carnivore applies to their taxonomic

classification, not their feeding behavior. Taxonomically, dogs are members

of the order Carnivora, a very diverse group, that includes 12 families of

more than 260 species, some of which are herbivorous mammals (the panda).

There are three types of feeding behavior (omnivorous, herbivorous and

carnivorous) all of which can be found among different members of the order

Carnivora. "

______

 

As I wrote in post earlier today, dogs evolved roughly 16,000 years ago from

wolves, specifically out their contact with humans. Dogs are scavengers ...

they came into existence scavenging human trash ... and they do well eating

a much wider selection of foods than do most animals on the planet. They can

thrive on a largely (but not entirely) carnivorous diet AND they can thrive

on a largely herbivorous diet, as well. This adaptive capacity has helped to

make dogs ideal pets for humans, as they can travel almost anywhere and

thrive on almost any diet.

 

So while dogs may be classified in the antiquated taxonomy is as carnivores,

they are definitely omnivorous, and among the most flexible and adaptive of

omnivores, at that.

 

Best,

Elchanan

_____

 

rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of

Belinda

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 3:49 AM

rawfood

[Raw Food] Re: raw for pets

 

 

Dogs are classified as carnivorous. You can look at their teeth and see

that. Wild canines could not survive at all on a vegan diet. That is why

they eat meat and all that goes with it.

 

Dogs have the very same nutritional needs as their cousins in the wild.

 

Raising a dog as a vegan is the same as raising horses and cows as

carnivores and feeding them a meat only diet.

 

Dogs are omnivores and can and do eat fruits and veggies. Even cats can eat

them, but they are harder to raise vegan. I know some who do, though. I

would never raise a non-vegan dog.

 

Belinda

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Most all of this is quite true. (and I do understand it)

 

Dogs can, with mans help live, on vegetation only. However, in the

wild they could not, nor would they choose too. It is not natural

for them to do so. Their bodies are designed for priamrily a meat

diet. However they are highly adaptable and can live on a lot of

different things. Even cornbread, bisquits and milk with whatever

else they can get on their own. But I assure you that is not the

best diet for them. My MIL's poodle spent his whole 15 or 16 years

eating primarily hot dogs. My aunts little dog lived 16 years eating

off the table. Pancakes for breakfast, sandwich for lunch, whatever

for dinner, ice cream for dessert, beer while watching the ball game,

etc. But I don't think anyone would call that a healthy diet for

anybody on a full time bases.

 

Man can live on all sorts of stuff that is not healthy for them. We

all know of people that seem to thrive on eating junk.

 

I know of pediatricians that say that a kid can live on peanut butter

and jelly sandwiches. My pediatrician believed my children would be

better off with flouride in their diet. And we all know of doctors

that say all sorts of things that raw foodist would never believe to

be healthy.

 

Veteranarians are no different than our medical doctors.

 

So, I know that dogs can live on a vegetarian diet, with help from

the humans that feed them, but it is not an appropriate diet for them.

 

If it were. Wild canines would be grazing instead of hunting.

 

 

Belinda

 

 

 

 

 

> Hi Belinda,

>

> What you say is correct and incorrect at the same time, and goes to

a lack

> of understanding the meaning of the biological taxonomy. The

taxonomy widely

> in use today is old, it is based upon premises that are simply

incorrect.

> Animals are classified largely in terms of certain structures,

largely

> without regard to the actual way in which they live. The following

serves to

> illustrate this point, with respect to dogs specifically:

> ______

> According to Rebecca Remillard, DVM, a Specialist in Veterinary

Nutrition:

>

> " Canines are in the order Carnivora, but I think their feeding

behaviors are

> best described as omnivorous. The term carnivore applies to their

taxonomic

> classification, not their feeding behavior. Taxonomically, dogs are

members

> of the order Carnivora, a very diverse group, that includes 12

families of

> more than 260 species, some of which are herbivorous mammals (the

panda).

> There are three types of feeding behavior (omnivorous, herbivorous

and

> carnivorous) all of which can be found among different members of

the order

> Carnivora. "

> ______

>

> As I wrote in post earlier today, dogs evolved roughly 16,000 years

ago from

> wolves, specifically out their contact with humans. Dogs are

scavengers ...

> they came into existence scavenging human trash ... and they do

well eating

> a much wider selection of foods than do most animals on the planet.

They can

> thrive on a largely (but not entirely) carnivorous diet AND they

can thrive

> on a largely herbivorous diet, as well. This adaptive capacity has

helped to

> make dogs ideal pets for humans, as they can travel almost anywhere

and

> thrive on almost any diet.

>

> So while dogs may be classified in the antiquated taxonomy is as

carnivores,

> they are definitely omnivorous, and among the most flexible and

adaptive of

> omnivores, at that.

>

> Best,

> Elchanan

> _____

>

> rawfood [rawfood ] On

Behalf Of

> Belinda

> Wednesday, June 27, 2007 3:49 AM

> rawfood

> [Raw Food] Re: raw for pets

>

>

> Dogs are classified as carnivorous. You can look at their teeth

and see

> that. Wild canines could not survive at all on a vegan diet. That

is why

> they eat meat and all that goes with it.

>

> Dogs have the very same nutritional needs as their cousins in the

wild.

>

> Raising a dog as a vegan is the same as raising horses and cows as

> carnivores and feeding them a meat only diet.

>

> Dogs are omnivores and can and do eat fruits and veggies. Even cats

can eat

> them, but they are harder to raise vegan. I know some who do,

though. I

> would never raise a non-vegan dog.

>

> Belinda

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Belinda,

 

Humans produce saliva whose pH remains stable within a narrow range,

regardless of what we eat.

 

Cats (any type of which I am aware) produce saliva whose pH remains stable

within a narrow range, regardless of what we eat.

 

Dogs produce saliva whose pH varies dramatically in response to what they

eat. This is but one of many examples indicating that what you say is, in

fact, false. Sorry ... and of course, you are free to hold onto whatever

belief you wish!

 

Best,

Elchanan

_____

 

rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of

Belinda

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 2:38 PM

rawfood

[Raw Food] Re: Classification of dogs: the taxonomy vs. the

evolutionary and dietary reality (WAS: raw for pets)

 

 

Dogs can, with mans help live, on vegetation only. However, in the

wild they could not, nor would they choose too. It is not natural

for them to do so. Their bodies are designed for priamrily a meat

diet.

 

<<< snip >>>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Elchanan,

I am not saying that dogs cannot eat vegitation or get nutrition from

it. I KNOW this to be true. I also believe that they need some

vegetation in their diet to obtain optimal health.

 

Even in the wild they will eat berries and fruits along with some

grasses and greenery. As well as some grains. I know they get

nutrients out of all of these things.

 

This topic started with the idea of feeding dogs a raw diet, that is

species appropriate. To know what that diet is, you study what the

wild canids eat. In particuarly the wolf because it is so closely

related to our dogs. Both dog and wolf require the same nutrients to

be healthy. Whether those nutrients are obtained in the wild or

whether they are obtained by man.

 

Dogs are highly adaptable at getting what they need to eat to keep

them alive by eating a wide variety of stuff. People are very

adaptable at that too.

 

I know plenty of people that are living and have lived a long time on

a predomantly meat and animal product diet. Only supplementing with

very few vegetables. None of which are leafy greens and very rarely

fruits. Amazingly they live to be very old, eating just this way.

 

But I think all on this board would agree, that eating this way is

not the way to optimal health. Yet, these people do it.

 

I have a cousin, whose little girl is now 3. She has grown to be 3

years old on consuming predominately pasturized cows milk. The only

solid food that child eats is a bite here and there. Her days are

spent drinking milk. And yet, she is growing well and all test show

her to be a healthy little girl. But is she really?

With all that I read on this board, this would seem be an impossible

feat.

 

It would seem that some humans, like some dogs have the ability to

adapt to all sorts of diets and live just fine.

 

So I am not saying dogs cannot live on vegitables. I am saying that

it is not natural for them to do so and they would never live on

vegetation in the wild unless there was absolutely nothing else for

them to eat.

 

 

Belinda

 

 

 

> Belinda,

 

> Humans produce saliva whose pH remains stable within a narrow range,

> regardless of what we eat.

>

> Cats (any type of which I am aware) produce saliva whose pH remains

stable

> within a narrow range, regardless of what we eat.

>

> Dogs produce saliva whose pH varies dramatically in response to

what they

> eat. This is but one of many examples indicating that what you say

is, in

> fact, false. Sorry ... and of course, you are free to hold onto

whatever

> belief you wish!

>

> Best,

> Elchanan

> _____

>

> rawfood [rawfood ] On

Behalf Of

> Belinda

> Wednesday, June 27, 2007 2:38 PM

> rawfood

> [Raw Food] Re: Classification of dogs: the taxonomy vs. the

> evolutionary and dietary reality (WAS: raw for pets)

>

>

> Dogs can, with mans help live, on vegetation only. However, in the

> wild they could not, nor would they choose too. It is not natural

> for them to do so. Their bodies are designed for priamrily a meat

> diet.

>

> <<< snip >>>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Thursday 28 June 2007 11:16, Belinda wrote:

> But I think all on this board would agree, that eating this way is

> not the way to optimal health.  Yet, these people do it.

 

Yes Belinda,

 

that certainly seems the case. Interestingly I have just been reading about

placebos. I so love anomolies.

 

It is a very real and well established effect. Perhaps that is all that is at

play here. They are so convinced (believe) that their diet is fine, that for

practical purposes it is. It is what we believe that is TRUE for us!

 

Similarly with people that smoke and live to be 100. Not very often true, but

*it happens*, enough to say that there are no hard and fast rules and that we

don't fit in convenient little mental boxes of others.

 

There also seems to be some obfuscation of truth in this discussion with

regards the term 'natural'. That means how it would happen on its own without

interference (which usually refers to man with his thinking mind).

 

I would question the idea that a dog needs to supplement its diet were it to

eat naturally. It gets all it needs especially from the blood of its prey.

Blood is known to be the richest and most nutritious substance there is.

 

Nature is " red in tooth and claw " , the natural order does not offer the

comfort of a pacifists' heaven. It is the struggle of the wilderness where

lunch means you go after it or you become it.

 

I love how nature is so loving and wise, providing us with the perfect means

of living full healthful lives with raw food, its natural bounty...

*except* for all the bits the thinking mind has objections to and must be

changed at all costs! LOL

 

neal.