Therapy dogs Vermont Bans Raw fed dogs?

[Ayoka]

I just recieved this link from a friend after we had a discussion about feeding raw...

http://www.therapydogs.org/raw_food_diet.html

Raw Feeders, what do you think?

[AngelBunny]

While I feed kibble, I also feed raw.

In discussing bones splintering, the CDC implies all bones are created equal. This is not true since we know cooked bones are much more likely to splinter than raw bones.

The CDC neglects to mention the fact dogs have very acidic stomachs which helps them do a fine job digesting raw.

Finally, since the "recent article written about contamination of raw food diets" states
Bacteria are not the only health concern, there are also parasites and protozoal organisms that can be transmitted in raw meat, even meat labeled fit for human consumption [emphasis added]

it appears the CDC's agenda is for none of us--dogs or humans--to eat meat.

[moondog]

I also feed part kibble, part raw.

While there are lots of holes in their argument, the single fact that a therapy dog could bring zoonotic bacteria into a setting where people ARE infirm, elderly, and/or have weakened immune systems is no joke and enough for me to have no argument against the policy.

Raw feeding is not the only healthy way to feed a dog.

[Tywaknya'sBABY]

They have a point. Someone who is limited might not be able to clean up and handle the meat properly but they did a horrible job supporting that point.

Most of the article just sounded like a bash on raw diet. A poor one at that.

Again I see the danger in bringing raw food into a household where people have a weakened immune system but not every person who has a therapy dog has a health issue like that. I know two raw fed therapy dogs and their owners are doing just fine at preparing and cleaning up the raw meat and I think the owners should have a choice.

[Gunsey'sMom]

I dp see what they are trying to accomplish with this. Like Moondog said, if someone who was infirmed and wasnt able to clean up properly after a raw diet it wouldnt be worth the potential risk. (not implying that those with companion or aid dogs are all necassarily infirmed)

I am not sure why it is being made into a written in stone policy. Is that correct? or am I reading that incorrectly.....

Why dont they inform the owners of these dogs of the risks, and let them decide personally based on their own situation?

[AngelBunny]

Originally Posted by Tywaknya'sBABY

I see the danger in bringing raw food into a household where people have a weakened immune system...

What are these people eating themselves? Don't they go grocery shopping?

Advice such as the CDC gives overlook the fact that raw feeders feed food suitable for people to eat. If the CDC is upset over the food raw feeders feed their dogs, by extension they're upset over the food people eat.

[Ayoka]

Originally Posted by AngelBunny

Advice such as the CDC gives overlook the fact that raw feeders feed food suitable for people to eat. If the CDC is upset over the food raw feeders feed their dogs, by extension they're upset over the food people eat.

I'm sure the CDC also advices cooking your steak until it's dry as a popcorn fart and leathery...I've eaten semi-rare steak for years and survived.

The most obvious missing link to me is that the "research" mentioned was done on food samples, not fecal samples &/or swabs from raw & kibble fed animal's bodies. We need to know how much of the bacteria from raw meat ends up on a dogs body and compare that to how much is normally found on human skin. Because if it's the same or less, in my opinion this is hogwash.

[2rotties2luv]

I might have read it wrong or not understood, but I had a different take on the article. I didn't get the impression that the problem was with people handling the raw food incorrectly.

If a piece of meat is contaminated with a pathogen at the store, even if the person handles it correctly and cleans up correctly, the raw meat will still contain the pathogen if the dog eats it raw. I would guess that the dog would then have some of the pathogens in its mouth for a while (or maybe for a long while?) after eating. If the dog were then to go on a therapy visit, he could spread the pathogen onto whomever he licked.

I didn't read into it any criticism of people eating meat, since most people eat it cooked rather than raw. When proper sanitary handling procedures are followed, the cooking kills the pathogens and the meat will not be recontaminated after cooking. The dog, on the other hand, would ingest the pathogens because the meat is fed raw and the pathogens are not killed by cooking.

Years ago, my daughter had constant strep infections, she would get medication and recover, but within a week or two after finishing the meds she would be sick again. The strep was not antibiotic resistant, and the doctor felt she was being reinfected somehow. Finally, the doctor asked that we do a culture on our dog. Sure enough, the dog's culture came back positive for the same strain of strep. The dog had been carrying the strep without being sick and had been reinfecting my daughter by licking her. Both dog and daughter were put on antibiotics and there was no more strep infection.

From this experience I know that dogs can be carriers of human pathogens without being sick themselves and that they can infect humans with these pathogens by licking them. This could certainly be a concern in a situation where the dog comes in contact with persons who have impaired immunity.

[Tywaknya'sBABY]

Trust me I completely agree with you.

But what I meant was that I know when I buy meat for my dog it goes from the garage (where i bag my meat), to the kitchen, to the kennel, and sometimes outside. If someone wasn't physically capable of cleaning all those areas up properly then it could cause a health risk. More of a risk then if they only handled meat from the kitchen to the stove. Atleast thats what I got from the article. I agree with you that its NOT enough of a risk to make policy against feeding raw.
I don't agree it should be a policy because therapy dogs are used for such a wide variety of ailments ....not just physical impairments.

[Tywaknya'sBABY]

Originally Posted by Ayoka

We need to know how much of the bacteria from raw meat ends up on a dogs body and compare that to how much is normally found on human skin. Because if it's the same or less, in my opinion this is hogwash.

Great idea!

Originally Posted by 2rotties2luv

From this experience I know that dogs can be carriers of human pathogens without being sick themselves and that they can infect humans with these pathogens by licking them. This could certainly be a concern in a situation where the dog comes in contact with persons who have impaired immunity

Ok this makes it more realistic now. I see your point. I'm glad you found the cause and your daughter was able to get better for good.

[moondog]

Originally Posted by 2rotties2luv

I might have read it wrong or not understood, but I had a different take on the article. I didn't get the impression that the problem was with people handling the raw food incorrectly.

If a piece of meat is contaminated with a pathogen at the store, even if the person handles it correctly and cleans up correctly, the raw meat will still contain the pathogen if the dog eats it raw. I would guess that the dog would then have some of the pathogens in its mouth for a while (or maybe for a long while?) after eating. If the dog were then to go on a therapy visit, he could spread the pathogen onto whomever he licked.

I didn't read into it any criticism of people eating meat, since most people eat it cooked rather than raw. When proper sanitary handling procedures are followed, the cooking kills the pathogens and the meat will not be recontaminated after cooking. The dog, on the other hand, would ingest the pathogens because the meat is fed raw and the pathogens are not killed by cooking.

Years ago, my daughter had constant strep infections, she would get medication and recover, but within a week or two after finishing the meds she would be sick again. The strep was not antibiotic resistant, and the doctor felt she was being reinfected somehow. Finally, the doctor asked that we do a culture on our dog. Sure enough, the dog's culture came back positive for the same strain of strep. The dog had been carrying the strep without being sick and had been reinfecting my daughter by licking her. Both dog and daughter were put on antibiotics and there was no more strep infection.

From this experience I know that dogs can be carriers of human pathogens without being sick themselves and that they can infect humans with these pathogens by licking them. This could certainly be a concern in a situation where the dog comes in contact with persons who have impaired immunity.

This is the way I understood it, too. Instead of confusing the issue by attempting to strengthen it with a bunch of irrevelant and open for dispute arguments against raw food for dogs, they would have been wise to just stick with the real concern - exposing those with compromised health to pathogens that ultimately can be life threatening for them.

That's a HUGE liability issue, but the biggest concern (for me, at least) is for the health and wellness of those who enjoy the needed visits by therapy dogs.