RAW and SERVICE DOGS

[SFGSSD]

Originally Posted by martemchik

Who ridicules service dog handlers in the first place? Do you hear a lot of people complaining about getting ridiculed? I've never heard of anyone getting ridiculed for feeding any kind of food to their dog, be it a SD or a pet.

If this has to do with the training organization telling the handler what to feed their dog...I don't see a problem with it. They put a lot of time and effort into training the dog, gave it to that person for free, and if they believe kibble is the better food then they should be listened to.

In the previous thread about service dogs and therapy dogs, you used a couple of organizations as back up for the fact that they don't believe service dogs should do therapy, now you're saying those same organizations don't know what they're talking about when it comes to food and nutrition. I'm confused, should we just pick and choose what we feel like those organizations are "experts" in?

NO, I am not using those same orgs. as a hypocritical example here.

This is not the point of this thread and what you are talking about is way off topic here. I do not nor did I ever say I supported Delta Society (Now Pet Partners) the forum mod made reference to them allowing a SD to be tested and registered as a Therapy Dog. I should have named and referenced Working Dogs in General for this thread. I had a Vet tell me it was "Illegal" to feed a Service Dog an all-natural raw diet. ADI and Delta now Pet Partners make reference to this. Who gives SD handlers a hard time? A lot of people, for various reasons mostly fueled by ignorance. But with this subject it is not just ignorance it is politics and money.



"If this has to do with the training organization telling the handler what to feed their dog...I don't see a problem with it. They put a lot of time and effort into training the dog, gave it to that person for free, and if they believe kibble is the better food then they should be listened to." Apparently not when it comes to the training do's and don’ts. but this should be addressed and stated in the other thread. This is just about the raw diet and the intimidation/fear Vets and orgs give a SD handler when they think about an all-natural raw diet... nothing more.

[SFGSSD]

Originally Posted by Lauri & The Gang

No-one can tell a Service Dog owner what to feed their dog.

I agree fully. This has nothing to do with the training and performance of a service dog or therapy dog, but if you do your research you will find out that ADI and Delta have a disqualifying policy in regards to RAW diets. If that changed, it was just recently.

[Freestep]

So if a disabled person is feeding their guide or service dog raw, is the organization that provided the dog going to take the dog away from the owner? That sounds extraordinarily cruel, and possibly illegal, or at least grounds for a lawsuit.

[msvette2u]

I've read about it with THERAPY dogs. I don't see how a service dog owner would have to even divulge what they fed, but a Therapy dog visiting cancer patients would have to be held to standards, I'm sure.

[martemchik]

Originally Posted by Freestep

So if a disabled person is feeding their guide or service dog raw, is the organization that provided the dog going to take the dog away from the owner? That sounds extraordinarily cruel, and possibly illegal, or at least grounds for a lawsuit.

It's not illegal...most of the time the training organization retains ownership of the dog and can also take it away at anytime if it feels its not getting the care it deserves.

I'm not arguing against raw. I do believe raw is the best thing for the dogs, but I can't do it so I'm on a high quality kibble diet. In the case of an organization, that has put thousands of dollars and hours into training a dog, they should be able to not just recommend what to feed but as a person that was given a dog by them you should follow their wishes if they believe that feeding kibble is better. Are the organizations misguided? In my opinion, yes. But I can definitely see where they are coming from as hundreds of thousands of dogs have lived full and healthy lives on kibble diets.

[SFGSSD]

Originally Posted by martemchik

It's not illegal...most of the time the training organization retains ownership of the dog and can also take it away at anytime if it feels its not getting the care it deserves.

I am on the fence with this policy in general. I do not retain ownership of the dogs that are certified through SFGSSD. Although I do not retain ownership of the dog I do have the right to not recertify any dog that no longer meets acceptable tolerances in accordance with the guidelines of this company. We do check up on our clients quarterly throughout the year and re-test for certification on an annual basis. We also encourage our clients to contact us immediately if any performance issues surface so we can address and correct them in a timely manner. If the client chooses to not heed our advice and the dog fails recertification as a result, it is the client’s responsibility to bring the dog to acceptable levels of performance for certification by SFGSSD. In either case we do not use the threat of taking the dog away from them. I feel that is to emotionally tolling on the client.

However, there are organizations that use this (*Leased* we will take the dog if you don't do what we say) clause as leverage to mask their own negligence. That is what I have a major problem with in regards to this policy. If the client is being negligent... well... I can see why this can be viewed as acceptable policy. But I do feel "taking the dog away" in most situations is to emotionally tolling on the disabled handler. This is why we will not take the dog but we will not recertify the dog if they (The handler) are the ones that messed the dog up and refuse to comply with our program guidelines. *NOTE Certification is NOT a requirement of Federal law to legally be considered a Service Dog in accordance with the ADA. I do feel that a certification process backed by the Federal Government is in order to clean up a lot of the questionable mess that goes on in regards to Service Dogs. The suggestion of a Federal (License/Certification) is met with a lot of resistance from the owner trainer crowd even with some Service Dog organizations. I guess if I had or was producing questionable Service Dogs I would not want to be accountable either.
This is getting a little off topic. I appriciate your input and there is a discussion in the Service Dog forum about policy of SD orgs Owner trainers etc. Please join us there

[BlackthornGSD]

By "certification" do you just mean your own testing standards?

As I understand it, there's no official certification for any service dogs in the U.S.--no testing/training required by any local, state, or federal government in order for the dog to work as a service dog--as described by the ADA.

ETA: Oops--I see that you address this in the second half of your post.

[BlackthornGSD]

I have a friend who has a couple of SDs that she's trained for herself. She doesn't feed raw because she is immune-compromised and her doctors feel that feeding raw will expose her to higher levels of dangerous bacteria than is a sensible risk. I believe that's the reason TD programs don't want therapy dogs eating raw--to minimize the chance that the dogs will bring dangers bacteria to the people they visit.

[SFGSSD]

Originally Posted by BlackthornGSD

I have a friend who has a couple of SDs that she's trained for herself. She doesn't feed raw because she is immune-compromised and her doctors feel that feeding raw will expose her to higher levels of dangerous bacteria than is a sensible risk. I believe that's the reason TD programs don't want therapy dogs eating raw--to minimize the chance that the dogs will bring dangers bacteria to the people they visit.

While I can understand and agree that there may be some risk associated with anything in general, the real controversy is what is justified and what just paranoia is.

When I see orgs and doctors (vets) using scare tactics, then I see those same people attached to a major dog food brand I question the true motive. My clients are not required to feed raw, If they are not comfortable doing so for whatever reason I recommend Orijen or Taste of the Wild.



There was a big blowout with ADI and Delta (now Pet Partners) in regards to this. One of the board members was with Purina anyone that knows anything about that brand knows that they definitely did not have the dog’s or others health and well-being in mind. They were obviously more concerned about their well-being $$$$$

[msvette2u]

the real controversy is what is justified and what just paranoia is.

One could say the same (paranoia) about raw feeders and their feelings towards kibble