Bulldog Breeds Forums banner
1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,815 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Mason will be 12 weeks on friday... where can I go to learn more about this raw diet I hear about every now and then?

Not quite sure if he'll benefit from it or not but just want to look into it..

Any suggestions from anyone?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,975 Posts
I joined a couple of message boards on yahoo groups. Some are pretty hard core but there is one called Barf Lite that is much more beginer friendly.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BARF-lite/

Also I joined a co-op that Care sent me. I think you could be part of it too. They order meats in large bulk to get a really good price for all the members. They deal with southern California only. There is a message board on there that answers alot of questions but it's mostly about the products.
http://www.socalbarf.com/

there are alot of links on this site that give info about raw feeding. Hope it helps. I'm really new to the whole thing as well. Kogeki's pics and post a couple of weeks ago got me interested in researching it.... I think it sounds pretty great. The only problem I'm having is that my two are really picky. I think it would be much easier to start with a puppy. They haven't really developed their dislikes yet. Good luck!
http://socalbarf.com/socallinks.htm
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,815 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
thanks soo much.. im gonna look into those!! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,723 Posts
Feed Raw, don't feed Raw, its all one persons opinion against the others. THere are alot of sites that rave it, and I personally have experienced so much good feeding it. I think it gave Bruno a year or so on his life, the difference was amazing. He was on good kibble, yet once we fed raw, his eyes brightened, he had more energy, his coat went shiny black again.

Just research both sides and do what you think is best for you and your dog :D
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,815 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
definitely will do... thanks everyone for there thoughts on this..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
I refused to feed RAW for a long time. I had read the secondhandranch site and was scared away from it. Once I spent some time around dogs who are on a RAW diet though, I saw that they had much more stamina, shinier/softer coat, and awesome muscle tone. I decided it was worth a try with Loki. She started with results in a week! She also has harder/smaller stools, no doggy smell, and clearer eyes. Plus she LOVES the food.

Bremner is right though. This is one topic that people can argue forever. I had to finally just try it and see what I thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,846 Posts
Either way you compare the two, the raw or BARF diet is healthier than kibble. The ingredients say it all. Do some research into what really goes into processed kibble, and you'll see what I mean. There's several articles about the subject floating around on this forum. I really don't know why vets discourage the diet, except that maybe if all dogs and cats ate the raw diet they would see a marked reduction in clientele.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Beetle said:
Either way you compare the two, the raw or BARF diet is healthier than kibble. The ingredients say it all. Do some research into what really goes into processed kibble, and you'll see what I mean. There's several articles about the subject floating around on this forum. I really don't know why vets discourage the diet, except that maybe if all dogs and cats ate the raw diet they would see a marked reduction in clientele.
It's like when Jen's dad was dying of cancer. They asked the doctor about the "natural" remedies. The doctor said that if they actually worked, he'd use them every day.

I think it's a the height of cynicism (and more than a bit foolish) to suggest that people who dedicate their lives to healing and caring for animals would want to keep them sick in order to generate revenue...

It's not like it's just a few vets saying that BARF is bad. It's ALL of them, with a relative handful of exceptions.

And to say that raw ingredients are better isn't really true at all. Premium quality kibbles are virtually identical in ingredient quality to anything that you would feed raw. It's just that they're...you know...cooked, in order to kill things like e. coli and salmonella and god-knows-what else is growing on raw meats (and don't be fooled, dogs are vulnerable to those things just as we are - it's perfectly "natural" for wild canidae to die of salmonella poisoning).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,846 Posts
Chrisnjen said:
Beetle said:
Either way you compare the two, the raw or BARF diet is healthier than kibble. The ingredients say it all. Do some research into what really goes into processed kibble, and you'll see what I mean. There's several articles about the subject floating around on this forum. I really don't know why vets discourage the diet, except that maybe if all dogs and cats ate the raw diet they would see a marked reduction in clientele.
It's like when Jen's dad was dying of cancer. They asked the doctor about the "natural" remedies. The doctor said that if they actually worked, he'd use them every day.

I think it's a the height of cynicism (and more than a bit foolish) to suggest that people who dedicate their lives to healing and caring for animals would want to keep them sick in order to generate revenue...

It's not like it's just a few vets saying that BARF is bad. It's ALL of them, with a relative handful of exceptions.

And to say that raw ingredients are better isn't really true at all. Premium quality kibbles are virtually identical in ingredient quality to anything that you would feed raw. It's just that they're...you know...cooked, in order to kill things like e. coli and salmonella and god-knows-what else is growing on raw meats (and don't be fooled, dogs are vulnerable to those things just as we are - it's perfectly "natural" for wild canidae to die of salmonella poisoning).
Well, I doubt you've spoken to ALL vets in the world, and you've certainly not spoken to Dr. Ian Billinghurst. You've obviously never been ripped off by a vet like many others have, either. Unfortunately human and animal doctors alike often nickel and dime people, prescribe uneeded meds, call for useless treatments and so many other unethical things to generate revenue. I don't want to get into it because it's so sad, but I've had terrible experiences with two different offices, with two different dogs that showed me cut and dry that their new Mercedes was far more important than my dogs health. You're very lucky if this has never happened to you, but the reality is that it happens all too often.

Raw ingredients are healthier, if not for the sole fact they do not contain the preservatives found in kibble, not to even mention all of the other benefits of having a well balanced and biologically proper diet. Processed foods and byproducts are not as nutritious as natural foods, and it's crazy to suggest that they are. BTW, a HEALTHY dog is not affected by many bacteria that would harm a healthy human, including E. coli and Salmonella.

I don't want to get into cancer preventatives and whatnot, but I think any knowledgeable doctor would agree that a proper, balanced, and appropriate diet is one of the most important things, if not the most important, to living a long and healthy life. Like people, dogs have evolved to function optimally on a particular set of nutrients, determined by the foods they have access to in the wild. For Canines, these optimal nutrients are obtained by eating an array of meats, organs, bone, eggs, soil minerals, stomach contents of herbivores, etc.; none of which have been processed, injected with preservatives, mixed with corn and other non-essential filler foods, bagged, and placed on a shelf in a pet store. Kibble just isn't included in their ideal and biologically appropriate diet, just like McDonalds and other processed foods are not included in the human food pyramid. Feeding a biologically appropriate diet is not a "natural remedy", as you call it, but one more way to optimise your dogs health and quality of life.

You're free to whatever opinion you want, but you just sound like one of the many skeptics that have been programmed to believe all the rubbish, like chicken bones are dangerous and kibble manufacturers are really concerned with the health and longevity of dogs. You know, all those myths that cloud the fact that dogs are still Canines and, just like wild canines, will thrive on a biologically appropriate diet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Beetle said:
Well, I doubt you've spoken to ALL vets in the world, and you've certainly not spoken to Dr. Ian Billinghurst. You've obviously never been ripped off by a vet like many others have, either. Unfortunately human and animal doctors alike often nickel and dime people, prescribe uneeded meds, call for useless treatments and so many other unethical things to generate revenue. I don't want to get into it because it's so sad, but I've had terrible experiences with two different offices, with two different dogs that showed me cut and dry that their new Mercedes was far more important than my dogs health. You're very lucky if this has never happened to you, but the reality is that it happens all too often.
Well, let's see...you have Billinghurst, MacDonald, Shultze and a handful of others - all of whom are hawking books! And of course they'll stand by their "findings" to the bitter end - no real surprise there, I suppose. There are millions of people buying these books! Which means they are making many millions of dollars!

Of course, there is no empirical or scientific evidence in support of their methods (which Billinghurst himself admits, "To date there have been no scientific trials conducted to determine if the re-introduction of dogs to the diet they all ate until about 60 years ago is having benefits...") - so at best it's junk science and guesswork. But that doesn't stop them from pushing their books, by God!

Kinda makes you wonder who's in the rip-off game here....

I could give you pages and pages of extremely highly educated people opposed to this diet. Predictably, you can point only to Billinghurst.

Raw ingredients are healthier, if not for the sole fact they do not contain the preservatives found in kibble, not to even mention all of the other benefits of having a well balanced and biologically proper diet. Processed foods and byproducts are not as nutritious as natural foods, and it's crazy to suggest that they are. BTW, a HEALTHY dog is not affected by many bacteria that would harm a healthy human, including E. coli and Salmonella.
In pretty much any premium kibble the only preservative ingredient you'll find is mixed tocopherols - basically vitamin E, citric acid and other vitamins. What preservatives are you talking about, exactly?

Other than cooking it and mashing it up, there isn't much processing going on in a premium kibble. If you are suggesting that cooking food somehow makes it less nutritious to the point that it is actually unhealthy, I know about 6 billion humans that will probably disagree with you. If that were the case, we'd all be malnourished with a plethora of nutrient deficiencies. Where food is readily available, we are not. Processing foods in this manner is crazy, you say? Feeding raw, bacteria infested meat and bone and operating under the assumption that natural is automatically better is even more crazy, in my estimation.

Very few people who are educated on the matter feed a kibble with any by-products in it, so that point is moot. Keep in mind I'm not arguing in favor of the Purinas and Iams of the world.

Please cite evidence showing that dogs (even healthy dogs) are somehow invulnerable to pathgenic bacteria. I know I've had dogs get sick from eating garbage, etc. I think most vets would laugh at your claim.

I don't want to get into cancer preventatives and whatnot, but I think any knowledgeable doctor would agree that a proper, balanced, and appropriate diet is one of the most important things, if not the most important, to living a long and healthy life. Like people, dogs have evolved to function optimally on a particular set of nutrients, determined by the foods they have access to in the wild. For Canines, these optimal nutrients are obtained by eating an array of meats, organs, bone, eggs, soil minerals, stomach contents of herbivores, etc.; none of which have been processed, injected with preservatives, mixed with corn and other non-essential filler foods, bagged, and placed on a shelf in a pet store. Kibble just isn't included in their ideal and biologically appropriate diet, just like McDonalds and other processed foods are not included in the human food pyramid. Feeding a biologically appropriate diet is not a "natural remedy", as you call it, but one more way to optimise your dogs health and quality of life.
Really? So how do you explain that captive born and kept "wild" dogs living on kibble and processed foods outlive their wild counterparts by, oh, about twice as long on average (not including accidental deaths)? By your logic, wild canidae should live longer an healthier lives than their captive-born counterparts. Interestingly enough, most wild canidae captured for whatever reason are malnourished, disease and parasite ridden and in an overall pathetic state of health. You can't get a more "natural" diet than the one wild wolves are on...why, then, aren't they the epitome of thriving, healthy animals?

You're free to whatever opinion you want, but you just sound like one of the many skeptics that have been programmed to believe all the rubbish, like chicken bones are dangerous and kibble manufacturers are really concerned with the health and longevity of dogs. You know, all those myths that cloud the fact that dogs are still Canines and, just like wild canines, will thrive on a biologically appropriate diet.
Ah yes, it's a great conspiracy. I'm programmed and brainwashed and completely incapable of thinking outside of the little box I've been told to stay inside of. *yawn*

Billinghurst is on the same page here...it is HE who is enlightened and the rest of the veterinary world that is foolish!! "Ostritch science!" he calls it.

You'll hear cult leaders spewing the same nonsensical garbage...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,846 Posts
Chrisnjen said:
Beetle said:
Well, I doubt you've spoken to ALL vets in the world, and you've certainly not spoken to Dr. Ian Billinghurst. You've obviously never been ripped off by a vet like many others have, either. Unfortunately human and animal doctors alike often nickel and dime people, prescribe uneeded meds, call for useless treatments and so many other unethical things to generate revenue. I don't want to get into it because it's so sad, but I've had terrible experiences with two different offices, with two different dogs that showed me cut and dry that their new Mercedes was far more important than my dogs health. You're very lucky if this has never happened to you, but the reality is that it happens all too often.
Well, let's see...you have Billinghurst, MacDonald, Shultze and a handful of others - all of whom are hawking books! And of course they'll stand by their "findings" to the bitter end - no real surprise there, I suppose. There are millions of people buying these books! Which means they are making many millions of dollars!

Of course, there is no empirical or scientific evidence in support of their methods (which Billinghurst himself admits, "To date there have been no scientific trials conducted to determine if the re-introduction of dogs to the diet they all ate until about 60 years ago is having benefits...") - so at best it's junk science and guesswork. But that doesn't stop them from pushing their books, by God!

Kinda makes you wonder who's in the rip-off game here....

I could give you pages and pages of extremely highly educated people opposed to this diet. Predictably, you can point only to Billinghurst.

Raw ingredients are healthier, if not for the sole fact they do not contain the preservatives found in kibble, not to even mention all of the other benefits of having a well balanced and biologically proper diet. Processed foods and byproducts are not as nutritious as natural foods, and it's crazy to suggest that they are. BTW, a HEALTHY dog is not affected by many bacteria that would harm a healthy human, including E. coli and Salmonella.
In pretty much any premium kibble the only preservative ingredient you'll find is mixed tocopherols - basically vitamin E, citric acid and other vitamins. What preservatives are you talking about, exactly?

Other than cooking it and mashing it up, there isn't much processing going on in a premium kibble. If you are suggesting that cooking food somehow makes it less nutritious to the point that it is actually unhealthy, I know about 6 billion humans that will probably disagree with you. Feeding raw, bacteria infested meat and bone and operating under the assumption that natural is automatically better is even more crazy, in my estimation.

Very few people who are educated on the matter feed a kibble with any by-products in it, so that point is moot. Keep in mind I'm not arguing in favor of the Purinas and Iams of the world.

Please cite evidence showing that dogs (even healthy dogs) are somehow invulnerable to pathgenic bacteria. I know I've had dogs get sick from eating garbage, etc. I think most vets would laugh at your claim.

I don't want to get into cancer preventatives and whatnot, but I think any knowledgeable doctor would agree that a proper, balanced, and appropriate diet is one of the most important things, if not the most important, to living a long and healthy life. Like people, dogs have evolved to function optimally on a particular set of nutrients, determined by the foods they have access to in the wild. For Canines, these optimal nutrients are obtained by eating an array of meats, organs, bone, eggs, soil minerals, stomach contents of herbivores, etc.; none of which have been processed, injected with preservatives, mixed with corn and other non-essential filler foods, bagged, and placed on a shelf in a pet store. Kibble just isn't included in their ideal and biologically appropriate diet, just like McDonalds and other processed foods are not included in the human food pyramid. Feeding a biologically appropriate diet is not a "natural remedy", as you call it, but one more way to optimise your dogs health and quality of life.
Really? So how do you explain that captive born and kept "wild" dogs living on kibble and processed foods outlive their wild counterparts by, oh, about twice as long on average (not including accidental deaths)? By your logic, wild canidae should live longer an healthier lives than their captive-born counterparts. Interestingly enough, most wild canidae captured for whatever reason are malnourished, disease and parasite ridden and in an overall pathetic state of health.

You're free to whatever opinion you want, but you just sound like one of the many skeptics that have been programmed to believe all the rubbish, like chicken bones are dangerous and kibble manufacturers are really concerned with the health and longevity of dogs. You know, all those myths that cloud the fact that dogs are still Canines and, just like wild canines, will thrive on a biologically appropriate diet.
Ah yes, it's a great conspiracy. I'm programmed and brainwashed and completely incapable of thinking outside of the little box I've been told to stay inside of. *yawn*

Billinghurst is on the same page here...it is HE who is enlightened and the rest of the veterinary world that is foolish!! "Ostritch science!" he calls it.

You'll hear cult leaders spewing the same nonsensical garbage...

Have you ever fed your dog the raw diet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,658 Posts
Chrisnjen said:
Really? So how do you explain that captive born and kept "wild" dogs living on kibble and processed foods outlive their wild counterparts by, oh, about twice as long on average (not including accidental deaths)? By your logic, wild canidae should live longer an healthier lives than their captive-born counterparts. Interestingly enough, most wild canidae captured for whatever reason are malnourished, disease and parasite ridden and in an overall pathetic state of health. You can't get a more "natural" diet than the one wild wolves are on...why, then, aren't they the epitome of thriving, healthy animals?
I get what you are trying to say, but you also have to understand that wolves don't live as long because they don't receive vet care. So the parasites stick around, the worms, the fleas, and no vaccinations, or medical help whatsoever. Maybe they are looking so malnourished because of the worms and whatnot living in their intestines...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Your implication being that anecdotal evidence is more convincing than that crazy science stuff?

No, I haven't, and I don't intend to. I don't need to do a lot of things to know they shouldn't be done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,723 Posts
You are kinda making it sound like we feed our dogs bones, that came from the garbage, or have sat outside for days, with flies all over them :p

I only feed, meat that is human grade, NO MATTER how good your kibble is, you don't know for sure that the meat in that kibble is human grade, I bet its not.

I feed RAW because my dogs do very well on it, and look wonderful, and feel wonderful..... Also I know what they are eating. I don't have to worry about my food getting recalled for some crazy reason! That makes me feel better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,846 Posts
Well, since you have no experience to backup your claims you're simply repeating what others have told you, which does sound a little programmed and cubicle to me. I fed kibble for several years, and I've been feeding the raw diet for several years so I know from experience the difference a biologically appropriate diet makes to any living animal. I suggest maybe you do some research into the physiology of dogs and their evolutionary habits before you condemn something you've likely never even tried. Biology has been around since the dawn of time, veterinary clinics haven't.

I think you're going off the deep end a bit with your "brainwashing", "cults", and "conspiracy" statements. I've been robbed by more than one vet, as have others, and if it ever happens to you, you will likely think twice before blindly believing everything they have to say. I never said they're all like that, but some of them are.

Isn't it obvious why wild Canines have shorter lifespans than captives? That's true for every captive animal because they have an easier life, plain and simple. It's not because of their diet.

"Interestingly enough, most wild canidae captured for whatever reason are malnourished, disease and parasite ridden and in an overall pathetic state of health."

First off, I seriously doubt this is based on any factual occurance. Even if it were, maybe the reason those dogs are captured is because they're in poor health and make an easier target than a healthy one. Aside from that, what does this have to do with their diet? Do you really believe that diet is the only factor in the life quality of a wild animal?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Bremner53 said:
You are kinda making it sound like we feed our dogs bones, that came from the garbage, or have sat outside for days, with flies all over them :p

I only feed, meat that is human grade, NO MATTER how good your kibble is, you don't know for sure that the meat in that kibble is human grade, I bet its not.

I feed RAW because my dogs do very well on it, and look wonderful, and feel wonderful..... Also I know what they are eating. I don't have to worry about my food getting recalled for some crazy reason! That makes me feel better.
No, I understand that. I mean, if your dog is doing ok on it, so be it. It is your choice. I would disagree and say that I'm confident that the meat sources in any kibble I use are not only human grade, but free range and antibiotic & hormone free (which may be more than you can say about a lot of what you get at the grocery store). I know this from doing research, talking to factory reps and people in the know. I don't just go buy a bag of whatever looks pretty at the feed store. I'm just saying that I think feeding raw puts a dog at unneccary risk, mostly from choking, bowel perforation (bones) and bacteria contamination, as well as the possibility of other things like calcium/phosphorus ratio imbalances, nutrient deficiencies, etc etc - ALL of which are tightly controlled with a high grade kibble.

Sometimes the mainstream is the mainstream for a good reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,846 Posts
Chrisnjen said:
Your implication being that anecdotal evidence is more convincing than that crazy science stuff?

No, I haven't, and I don't intend to. I don't need to do a lot of things to know they shouldn't be done.
I'm not the only one who feeds a raw diet, you know. There are thousands of people who do, some of which I would venture to guess have far more experience with dogs and diets than you. So, I guess it's not really anecdotal evidence, but a fact of matter. Here's a site I plug all the time, http://www.skansen.com/. She's the nations authority on Giant Schnauzers, with over 950 champions and over 50 years experience. Seeing as though she has been around dogs the majority of her life, breeding them, feeding them, caring for them, I would take her advice and opinions over a vet any day. Name me another reputable breeder in the same caliber that has erradicated hip dysplasia from a breed notorious for it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,846 Posts
Chrisnjen said:
Bremner53 said:
Sometimes the mainstream is the mainstream for a good reason.
$$$$. Look how many 7-11's and Burger Kings we have. They're mainstream too, but that sure doesn't make them the best choice does it? The average person is not educated in zoology and physiology enough to know that dog food is not the best diet for a dog. It's certainly not the worst, but it's definitely not the best.

What do you think they would eat in the wild? Bones, meat, stomach contents, organs, etc. Like Bremner said, it's not likely the sources of food in kibble are better or even comparable to those for humans, but they do have lots of preservatives to make sure they don't go rancid. Although dog food still does often goes rancid and causes dogs to become ill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Beetle said:
Well, since you have no experience to backup your claims you're simply repeating what others have told you, which does sound a little programmed and cubicle to me. I fed kibble for several years, and I've been feeding the raw diet for several years so I know from experience the difference a biologically appropriate diet makes to any living animal. I suggest maybe you do some research into the physiology of dogs and their evolutionary habits before you condemn something you've likely never even tried. Biology has been around since the dawn of time, veterinary clinics haven't.
Right...the 99% of the veterinary community saying barf is a bad idea have no knowledge of biology, animal physiology or evolutionary history. 8+ years of higher education for nothing. If I were them, I'd be pissed.

I think you're going off the deep end a bit with your "brainwashing", "cults", and "conspiracy" statements. I've been robbed by more than one vet, as have others, and if it ever happens to you, you will likely think twice before blindly believing everything they have to say. I never said they're all like that, but some of them are.
So, because some of them are, all of them are wrong (except Billinghurst et al - they couldn't POSSIBLY be in it for the money). Got it.

"Interestingly enough, most wild canidae captured for whatever reason are malnourished, disease and parasite ridden and in an overall pathetic state of health."

First off, I seriously doubt this is based on any factual occurance. Even if it were, maybe the reason those dogs are captured is because they're in poor health and make an easier target than a healthy one. Aside from that, what does this have to do with their diet? Do you really believe that diet is the only factor in the life quality of a wild animal?
I didn't say that, this guy did:

Statistics from Wolf Studies
Read what Mike Ferreira, a 20-year veteran of wolf and wolfdog studies has to say.

I myself, have done extensive studies on wolves and wolfdogs over the years. I actually own a wolfdog, myself. Chinook is a high content Timber Wolf. Wild dogs often suffer from liver, kidney, an pancreatic problems from the raw meat in their diet. The bones they eat are covered with cartilages and fur - a wolf skat (feces) looks like a hairy stick. The barf diet recommends raw, meaty chicken bones and it has killed and injured thousands of dogs. It is a WELL known fact amongst vets that dogs who eat raw bones often have dental problems ... it wears the teeth down flat, and they splinter in the jaws and gums (also throat and stomach).

The barf diet that is so-called "evolutionarily correct" does not seem to coincide with the reality of evolution. Pomeranians, corgis, labs, jack russells (for example) and most of the other breeds we have today did not evolve from wolves over thousands of years. They are man-made breeds that have come about from our intervention with genetics. Domestic dogs are similar to wolves but there are many genetic differences --- wolves have a different dental structure (size and angle of teeth) and completely different skull measurements. From the nose to the top of their head, it's flat with no indentation....the area by the ears is much wider than a domestic dog. Wolves mature physically at a completely different rate.

The following quotes from Jennifer Sheldon's "Wild Dogs, The Natural History of Nondomestic Canidae" show that many wolves and wild dogs do die of intestinal parasites which are contracted from eating raw meat. Of course, this is not the primary reason wolves die, but it does happen.

Regarding the red wolf (extinct in the wild, except for small reintroduced populations); "Their decline is thought to be due to a complex of factors including aggressive long-term control programs... and high mortality from susceptibility to parasites." (Parker, 1988; Paradiso and Nowak, 1971, 1972, Carley, 1979; Ferrell, et al., 1980)

"Parasites exact a heavy toll. Of 27 wild-caught wolves tested, all 27 had heartworm (Riley and McBride, 1972). Intestinal parasites, distemper, and mange are also widespread (Riley and McBride, 1972; Paradiso and Nowak, 1972). The high parasite burden carried by all red wolves may indicate that they were occupying marginally suitable habitat. The majority of animals captured during the intensive capture efforts of 1972 were less than 4 years old (Carley, 1979), indicating a very high mortality rate for older individuals. Paradiso and Nowak (1972) noted that there appeared to be very low levels of pup survivorship on the Texas gulf cost in the late 1960s, with most pups dying before 6 months of age. Potential lifespan, if comparable to that of free-ranging coyotes, should have been as much as 12 years."

Regarding the diet of red wolves, "...small animals such as rabbits, raccoons, and nutria, are their primary prey. The consume fish, insects, carrion, and plant material as well (Paradiso and Nowak, 1972; Carley, 1979; Riley and McBride, 1972; Shaw, 1975). Only occasionally do they prey upon ungulates.

Regarding the grey wolf;

"Disease, parasites (intestinal), starvation take their toll as well"

Regarding the maned wolf;

"In free-ranging individuals, parasites (particularly nematodes, which may destroy the kidneys), cystinuria (a potentially fatal inherited metabolic disorder), and human-caused deaths seem to be the most important factors contributing to mortality (Meritt, 1972; Dietz, 1984)." NOTE: the meat aspect of their diet was an important contributing factor to mortality!!
He runs a wolf sanctuary and preserve. I'll defer to his expertice on this one.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top