Quote: Jennifer Marshal

Yes, sorry Connie I didn't mean to make it sound like everyone who buys these foods is that way.

No, no, you didn't.



To the O.P.: Are you just wondering how SD got its contract?

Members of the United States Military follow orders. We don't get to argue with Uncle Sugar about what the dogs get fed.

In the Army, there are specific regulations that cover the care and feeding of MWDs, to include that the handlers may only feed "authorized" food, eg, Science Diet.

The Army listens to the ill-informed vets, not the handlers.

Thanks for the correction Alyssa I was thinking of PSDs in the areas I've lived. Sucks that the handlers are not given a choice but I wouldn't argue either.

I think the basic premise of the thread is, if Science Diet was so awful, then MWD handlers wouldn't feed it to their dogs.

There are several problems with that, the biggest being that MWDs are kenneled on the military base, in a military controlled kennel. The handlers don't pick the food, they are issued the food. Heck, depending on the shift the handler works, they don't always feed their own dogs (despite regulations to the contrary).

MWDs don't belong to their handlers- they belong to the military. Most MWDs will have more than one handler in their life, as not all dogs stay with the handler when the handler changes duty station.

We have a dog on Fort Lewis, Sue, that has run the gamut of handlers.

The military chose the food they issue, based on a winning contract bid.

By the by, several MWD handlers I've known, feed their personal dogs raw.

 Quote: Alyssa Myracle

I think the basic premise of the thread is, if Science Diet was so awful, then MWD handlers wouldn't feed it to their dogs.

 Quote: Alyssa Myracle

The handlers don't pick the food, they are issued the food......The military chose the food they issue, based on a winning contract bid.

I think you inarguably answered it, too.

EXCUSE me, the topic was the effectiveness of SD on mwd's - that's why i put it in the mwd section :-) - i thought that was clear and i provided specific Q's related to my MILITARY related topic. none have received any comments or replies. i know all about Hills vet subsidies, inadequate vet nutrition training - but that has NOTHING to do w/ mwd's unless they are in ANY way subsidising dod and i think that would be illegal :-) simply put another way, if it's crap then the nutritional effect of that crap should be manifested in the mwd program if that's what our nations FIRST line of canine defenders are being subjected to. otoh, if it's NOT crap, we should have some very healthy hard working pups who also enjoy the benefits of a longer life than pups fed crap. or, maybe our entire mwd handler community doesn't care if their pups are fed crap, or they are too lazy to think they can make a difference - both NOT good. also, the civilian types reading may not be aware it is not that difficult for ANY military procurement dept to specify NON standard stock items provided there is a justification, and according to the BARF supporters that justification would be CLEAR - in black/white or other colors right on the label and backed up by science not speculation. military procurement has a LOT of leeway and that leeway could be used by mil vets and handlers who happpen to care about nutrition, and believe it or not, not all mil vets are SD supporters(many of them actually trust and respect the advice and suggestions they get from handlers). special orders for military stock items are processed every day, all over the world, for a huge variety of supplies in every facet of the military - i experienced a LOT in my own area as a diver working in the marine mammal program .... looks like maybe there aren't any mwd related personnel on the forum at this time :-) ....was hoping there were and i would like to hear from them...frustrated ... but thnx

EXCUSE me, the topic was the effectiveness of SD on mwd's - that's why i put it in the mwd section :-) - i thought that was clear and i provided specific Q's related to my MILITARY related topic. none have received any comments or replies. i know all about Hills vet subsidies, inadequate vet nutrition training - but that has NOTHING to do w/ mwd's unless they are in ANY way subsidising dod and i think that would be illegal :-) simply put another way, if it's crap then the nutritional effect of that crap should be manifested in the mwd program if that's what our nations FIRST line of canine defenders are being subjected to. otoh, if it's NOT crap, we should have some very healthy hard working pups who also enjoy the benefits of a longer life than pups fed crap. or, maybe our entire mwd handler community doesn't care if their pups are fed crap, or they are too lazy to think they can make a difference - both NOT good. also, the civilian types reading may not be aware it is not that difficult for ANY military procurement dept to specify NON standard stock items provided there is a justification, and according to the BARF supporters that justification would be CLEAR - in black/white or other colors right on the label and backed up by science not speculation. military procurement has a LOT of leeway and that leeway could be used by mil vets and handlers who happpen to care about nutrition, and believe it or not, not all mil vets are SD supporters(many of them actually trust and respect the advice and suggestions they get from handlers). special orders for military stock items are processed every day, all over the world, for a huge variety of supplies in every facet of the military - i experienced a LOT in my own area as a diver working in the marine mammal program .... looks like maybe there aren't any mwd related personnel on the forum at this time :-) ....was hoping there were and i would like to hear from them...frustrated ... but thnx

EXCUSE me, the topic was the effectiveness of SD on mwd's - that's why i put it in the mwd section :-) - i thought that was clear and i provided specific Q's related to my MILITARY related topic. none have received any comments or replies. i know all about Hills vet subsidies, inadequate vet nutrition training - but that has NOTHING to do w/ mwd's unless they are in ANY way subsidising dod and i think that would be illegal :-) simply put another way, if it's crap then the nutritional effect of that crap should be manifested in the mwd program if that's what our nations FIRST line of canine defenders are being subjected to. otoh, if it's NOT crap, we should have some very healthy hard working pups who also enjoy the benefits of a longer life than pups fed crap. or, maybe our entire mwd handler community doesn't care if their pups are fed crap, or they are too lazy to think they can make a difference - both NOT good. also, the civilian types reading may not be aware it is not that difficult for ANY military procurement dept to specify NON standard stock items provided there is a justification, and according to the BARF supporters that justification would be CLEAR - in black/white or other colors right on the label and backed up by science not speculation. military procurement has a LOT of leeway and that leeway could be used by mil vets and handlers who happpen to care about nutrition, and believe it or not, not all mil vets are SD supporters(many of them actually trust and respect the advice and suggestions they get from handlers). special orders for military stock items are processed every day, all over the world, for a huge variety of supplies in every facet of the military - i experienced a LOT in my own area as a diver working in the marine mammal program .... looks like maybe there aren't any mwd related personnel on the forum at this time :-) ....was hoping there were and i would like to hear from them...frustrated ... but thnx

EXCUSE me, the topic was the effectiveness of SD on mwd's - that's why i put it in the mwd section :-) - i thought that was clear and i provided specific Q's related to my MILITARY related topic. none have received any comments or replies. i know all about Hills vet subsidies, inadequate vet nutrition training - but that has NOTHING to do w/ mwd's unless they are in ANY way subsidising dod and i think that would be illegal :-) simply put another way, if it's crap then the nutritional effect of that crap should be manifested in the mwd program if that's what our nations FIRST line of canine defenders are being subjected to. otoh, if it's NOT crap, we should have some very healthy hard working pups who also enjoy the benefits of a longer life than pups fed crap. or, maybe our entire mwd handler community doesn't care if their pups are fed crap, or they are too lazy to think they can make a difference - both NOT good. also, the civilian types reading may not be aware it is not that difficult for ANY military procurement dept to specify NON standard stock items provided there is a justification, and according to the BARF supporters that justification would be CLEAR - in black/white or other colors right on the label and backed up by science not speculation. military procurement has a LOT of leeway and that leeway could be used by mil vets and handlers who happpen to care about nutrition, and believe it or not, not all mil vets are SD supporters(many of them actually trust and respect the advice and suggestions they get from handlers). special orders for military stock items are processed every day, all over the world, for a huge variety of supplies in every facet of the military - i experienced a LOT in my own area as a diver working in the marine mammal program .... looks like maybe there aren't any mwd related personnel on the forum at this time :-) ....was hoping there were and i would like to hear from them...frustrated ... but thnx

Rick, I can live on McDonalds for every day of my life and not die, still be able to work, and still be able to live a normal life. If I don't stuff my face with it, then it won't cause me to get fat either.

Does that mean that McDonalds isn't as bad as people make it out to be?

Lots of dogs live to good ripe ol' ages with crappy food. That doesn't mean the food isn't crap. Maybe the dog wouldn't have the issues he did at 17 years of age if the food was better? And face it, a 17 year old dog will have issues. But how many of those are related to the crap food?

How about the news articles from, where was it, China? Where they found out that many foods use CARDBOARD as "filler" because it is cheap and readily available. The people aren't dying from it as far as I know, but cardboard has the nutritional value of, well, cardboard.

Not to say you have to wait till the dog is old and decrepit to see the negative effects of crap foods. And not to say the dog will die from eating crap food either. Obviously the food was allowed to be sold in the first place, which means it's at least approved enough to allow dogs to live.

The number one argument people give me for feeding crap food is always "My last dog lived to be 234903284 years old on this food so it must be good." Just like, "I don't need to eat healthy food myself because I am healthy."

So lets say someone is exposed to radiation throughout their life, and at age 96 they die from something not relating to the radiation (natural causes perhaps). Does that make radiation exposure "not so bad" because the person led a normal life while exposed to it?

There will always be arguments stating that unhealthy things "aren't that bad." It is up to us as intelligent human beings to look at things objectively and make our own decisions. Some people look like they're in their 40's when they are in their 60's, and other people look like they are in their 70's when they are just hitting 50. Some people wait till things go wrong before starting a healthier lifestyle. Other people start the healthier lifestyle as a preemptive measure. Nobody can really prove these points one way or the other, you just have to decide as a person what you feel is best.

Personally, dogs have such a short lifespan as it is, if I can extend it or make it more pleasant down the road, or prevent problems in the short term with a better diet then I will do it. Unfortunately there is no way for me to prove that my dog would have a hotspot on his ass right now if I were feeding Science Diet without switching to it. There are plenty of people that see improvements in their dogs health problems by switching to better foods. Coincidence? Who knows.

As far as military goes, if the dogs do what they are supposed to do then I don't see a problem, right? After all, didn't dogs just get put down at retirement not too long ago? Doesn't sound like the military, on the whole, cares that much about feeding better food. It's sufficient to keep the dogs healthy enough to work. Medical issues are likely never attributed to food either. I know a dog broker that feeds true crap in a bag, the cheapest crap there is. His dogs have sores and hotspots and all kinds of things. He attributes the hotspots to dogs spinning in crates and has some other explanation for all the other medical issues. Food is never brought into question. He has many dogs to feed, crap in a bag is cheaper than good food. Odds are the new homes will feed crap in a bag too so it doesnt matter that much apparently.