I would lay most of the blame on Vet School Administrators who decide what nutritional training is required of, and provided to students (the lax training part). And then apathy rears it's ugly head.

I know I did a lot of sweating when I took the plunge to start feeding raw, think about a vet who may think his clients dog/s will drop dead from eating raw. (It may drop dead by slow nasty conditions, "but at least it wasn't because of raw food, and they were feeding that "good" SD like everyone else does.")

I think it is a big hurdle to overcome for most vets to take an unbiased look at raw diets. That is not to say that I think they should sit back in their SD chair and scoff at raw feeders.

Vets have to learn about new drugs and surgical procedures, they could certainly look into raw feeding.

I'm sure there are some vets who care more about the money than the truth.

Most people think that VET is god and are too intimidated or apathetic to do their own research and question vets on their views.

 Quote: randy allen

Something as fundamental as nutrition though should be a gut course for the people smart enough to get though 4 years of hard work.
Randy

100% agree. I was astounded when I first heard that vets get almost zero nutrition in school. Talk about the foundation of animal care! IMO, it should be a progressive course throughout the entire duration of the school years, and through internships (and throughout their career, actually): They have at least cats and dogs to get through, not to mention small animals and farm animals. Maybe I'll write a letter and ask Tuft's. IF I get a reply, it should be comical (or sad).

 Quote: connie sutherland

Again: Follow the money. From every single angle, money answers the question. Vet schools want the funding from Hills. Vet associations need the "corporate partnership" with Hills. Researchers can't do research without funding. Hills is not funding unbiased research, obviously. Extremely sophisticated reading material and company reps who make the "franchise" simple and lucrative for practicing vets -- all this is possible with the money from selling a zillion bags of cheap crap instead of costly meat.

But some vets actually have the spine and brains and lack of money-lust to say no, and that number is growing.

100% agree with all of this, as well. And again, money (or the lack of a profit) is exactly why we'll likely never have a scientifically sound study on raw diets. Not that we need one, but it would be nice to have something concrete to refute all of the Hill's crap, wouldn't it? But, sigh, they'd just publish another study to refute OURS and so on and so on. In the end, each person has to just think logically when it comes to our animals. And nothing about Hill's is logical.

 Quote: randy allen

Something as fundamental as nutrition though should be a gut course for the people smart enough to get though 4 years of hard work. And I do believe they have to work hard.

I agree with you totally, Randy. And I agree there is a failing. That failing falls in varying degrees from SD to the schools to the vets to the people who won't stand up to their vet, or even admit that they feed raw to their vet.

But I do think (my original point) that it's getting better by small degrees. The pet food recalls, if nothing else, got people to at least listen to the idea of alternatives. Raw diets got a lot of press during that time.

And forget the vets, the proof is in the dogs. The change in my dogs since they've been on raw has been impossible to ignore and I have more than a few people who have changed their dog's diet as a result. One of them was even a vet!

True, most of them are going for Bravo-type patties to begin with, but it's a good start and kibble has taken a tiny blow as a result. Multiply that by everyone here who is impacting their small world of friends/family/clients and eventually we'll see a real change. I think there's even a post on the board now from Ben Colbert who's giving raw a chance because of all of us. I've actually seen it happen over and over again on this board--I was one of the converted!

So, I'm not naive. I'm optimistic, and I don't think blindly. Meanwhile I'll be thankful that I don't have to spend time worrying about my dog's health and can instead spend time engaging in lively debate on this forum!

Cheers!

Just an update on the mom and pups. The remaining pups and mom are doing well. The owner has been supplementing with Ed's puppy formula and all are thriving and gaining 100 grams a day. He did lose the runt on the same day as my last post. I asked if he ever spoke with the original vet and he said that he did call him to tell him about the problems as a result of his advice and the guy acted totally disinterested and told him he should have just rotated the pups onto the nipples that were producing milk. I kid you not. This just gets better and better.
I know there are vets out there who are wonderful, caring folks and this was not meant to bash vets in general, just the ones like this guy who should not be permitted to give medical advice to any animal owner ever.