Some Dogs are Angels
  • Home
  • The Rescue
  • Get Involved
  • Barking Mad Blog
  • Books
  • Cool vegan propoganda products
  • Angels in Canada
  • Contact
  • Great stuff for dogs!

a dog food DILEMMA?

6/25/2015

8 Comments

 
 
Picture
Some of you reading this will undoubtedly have read my recent condemnations of the meat producing industry and meat eating in general. I make no secret of my repugnance for the way in which harmless animals are brutally treated and abused for reasons which have their origin in our eating habits and convenience, rather than necessity. As you may well imagine, the strength of my views is by no means acceptable to all and I have lost long term (of more that 30 years) friends as a result of the discomfort caused by my postings on Facebook regarding the issue! I am not the least bit concerned by this and do not apologise. To me, it's an important enough issue to stand up and be counted for, and people's reactions speak volumes for their true nature, as well as being a reasonably clear indicator of where they stand in their progression on the ascension pathway.

Of course people are not easily dislodged from the habits of a lifetime, and In response to my less than subtle exhortations to 'go vegetarian' I am met with a range of responses, which although occasionally positive and curious, more usually stem from guilt and fear, and range from hostility and anger through to scorn and justification. As a consequence, I am well used to countering the numerous and faintly ridiculous arguments I get from those who would seek to justify their carnivore tendencies. I am vaguely surprised that so far, I have only received hints that maybe the fact that we  feed our dogs meat makes us hypocrites. It's certainly something that has occurred to us, and a question I had to take to the etheric to clear up. And their answer? Well actually, "No, it doesn't", and here's why. 

Unlike humans, dogs are omnivores and actually meant to eat meat, along with a whole host of other things. It is a natural thing for them to do, and they are designed and equipped to chase, catch, kill and eat their prey, as well as scavenge and make do with what's around. (I'm sure you don't need me to point out the physical attributes of a dog that make this self evident.) Humans are not. But what is even more important to understand is the difference between us in ascension terms. We do not play the same 'game' as any species of animal, even though we are playing on the same playing field. What we need to understand, learn, act upon and grow as a result of, has precious little to do with their criteria, despite there being some overlaps. In many respects, our treatment of dogs, cats and any other creature as pets is 'unnatural' in the scheme of things. In doing so we are effectively forcing the juxtapositioning of two alternate experiences of reality. The fact that we do in itself explores a parameter of the possible with regard to relationships that is both interesting and beneficial, and certainly extends the boundaries of consciousness. However, if we try to impose one reality on to the other in a way that alters the essential nature of its being, there exists the potential to damage it; which in ascension terms means negating the value of existence for one or more lifetimes. One aspect of reality for all incarnate beings relates to what we are intended to eat and how we are supposed to feed ourselves. So whilst there may certainly be some value (for all) in experiencing alternative foodstuffs, it would be every bit as much potentially damaging for dogs to be vegetarian as it is for us to eat that which we are not intended to i.e. meat.

Of course, domesticated dogs have very little choice in the matter. Their diet is, by and large, forced upon them. However, the all encompassing nature of their omnivore physicality means that effectively, this is not too much of a problem. They do not experience the same level of freewill as humans, either from a spiritual perspective (the ability of their higher selves to intervene in their lives is discussed in Some Dogs are Angels) or from a practical, incarnate one. Humans on the other hand experience an abundance of choice and what we eat is a matter of availability. Unless we live in geographical areas that suffer from food production issues (which are in themselves necessary and fully intended) eating is a matter of conscious decision making based on the incredibly extensive menu of items for consumption that present themselves. The problem for humans is that they tend not to make conscious decisions and instead rely upon the habits that were enforced upon them as children to inform their choices. 

So basically what I'm saying is that it's OK for dogs to eat meat, but not humans. When we feed our pack the meat that they eat, I don't feel good about it. But don't feel bad about it either because I am aware that their diet is actually more in accordance with the way things should be; certainly more so than that experienced by the countless numbers who have no choice but to eat abominable kibble, a total travesty upon foodstuffs if ever there was one.

But then perhaps we should be open to the accusation that our feeding them meat is supporting the very meat industry that I decry. There is some truth in this and I can't pretend to be comfortable with it, but my use of products that come from a cruel and savage institution is more by force of circumstance than choice. It has been suggested to me that I seek out meat from farms that kill their livestock using 'humane' methods, and I do agree that this would be preferable. But let's be real about this. Such places don't really exist. Killing is awful and brutal however it happens. It's just an issue of the degree of the horror that animals are put through. No being wants to loose it's life for the sake of ending up as fodder for another. It's a precious thing to one and all. And were I to accept that livestock could meet less dreadful ends, how do you find a place that deals death kindly? And will they have enough quantity of meat to meet our needs? And do they have the facility to grind and bag the meat? And a dozen other questions... I too buy out of convenience. Mea culpa.

Overall, it is neither a comfortable nor a happy thing for me to dwell upon. If the meat production industry did not exist, I would gladly feed the dogs only vegetables. Their omnivore physiology would permit this (despite the fact that they, like humans, have become habitualised in their intake expectations) although they would struggle to come to terms with it because of the deficits that such a diet would present to their systems, to say nothing of their 'intended' intake. In the meantime, I believe that feeding the dogs the meat that the slaughterhouse sells to our suppliers is a way of honouring the creatures that have unwillingly given their lives. I take comfort in the knowledge that were the 'natural' order of things to prevail, there is a far higher likelihood of one of these poor creatures falling victim to a pack of hungry dogs than there is of them finding their way to a human table. The unfortunate and rather unpleasant truth is that meat belongs in their mouths and not ours. I know this because an Archangel told me.

8 Comments
Helen
6/27/2015 10:51:53 pm

This Topic has come at just the right time for me!! i am vegan and i do feed my 4 dogs Raw meat & bones as well as Veg, i dont like the process of sourcing the meat/bones but i do agree & feel it is a totally natural way for the dogs too eat, I have been discussing this topic with people that feel i am being hypocritical by feeding meat to the dogs when i feel that i cannot justify imposing a totally un natural feeding regime on them just because of my eating choices, my hounds caught and ate a Hare last week while we were out walking in the fields! totally natural :) thank you for Mark

Reply
john
8/21/2015 07:19:55 am

One of the longest living dog is the world was owned by a Vegan. The dog was feed the diet as the owner.

The dog was named Bramble and lived in England. Chocolate Lab.

Here is a link with some info on Bramble. Seems the Etheric had a hand in getting him out of the Pound.

Reply
anon
8/2/2018 10:00:57 am

I agree that when we talk about dog ownership, we've already intrinsically taken "natural" out of the equation. While canines do naturally eat meat, in nature they do so on a sustainably large expanse of land as an important component of the ecosystem. When wolves hunt, their prey (which has been living free in the wild) at least has a chance to escape, and the wolves' presence can even prevent mass suffering of the animals by keeping their population under control and preventing the disease/hunger/etc that overpopulation brings.

But let's not kid ourselves. Dogs aren't wolves, and remember, we've already taken "natural" out of the equation. And honestly, the excuses you've given here are very similar to the excuses you've condemned from meat eaters, except you're doing it by proxy through the *dozens* of dogs you have chosen to sustain. This "force of circumstance" comes entirely from your own decisions- the dogs didn't just fall out of the sky and they don't just happen to be there. If we wield our free will for a pet's sake in the stewardship of said pet, this makes us no less responsible for our choices than if we wield that same free will for ourselves.

- If it's wrong to steal a life to give to yourself, is it truly better to give that stolen life to a dog instead?
- Why should your dogs be more important than the thousands of animals killed to feed them?
- If "their omnivore physiology would permit [eating vegetables]" then why is the dogs' "struggling to come to terms with it" the thing to be prevented, and not the other animals' terrifying and agonizing deaths?
- Would the animals that died at your request have felt one iota of comfort from knowing their flesh would be torn and consumed by a dog instead of a human?
- Do you truly believe the killed animals are "honored" by this?
- Do you truly feel no remorse when you order over a ton of dead animal flesh every single month to fuel your decision to own 30+ dogs?
- To ask your own question, is this who you are?

Reply
Mark Starmer
8/2/2018 11:35:04 am

When people are so cowardly as to not own the comments they make and post anonymously, I don’t feel the need to respond to them. Clearly what they have written is not important enough for them to feel the need to stand up and be counted for.

Reply
Louise
8/3/2018 10:43:54 am

I'm not sure what the difference would be, since we've never met in person my name wouldn't mean anything to you in the first place, and my argument didn't hinge in any way upon my identity. But here you go, now you have a name. I'll assume you were being sincere, instead of using the completely separate topic of what I entered in the Name field as a distraction to hide behind, and I'll respond again in good faith.

I do realize yesterday's comment came on a little strong, when I found your blog I had originally believed I found a kindred spirit who wanted to stop animal suffering, so when I came across this entry I was shocked and upset to see the animals you defended with such passion in other articles being coldly dismissed as nothing more than fodder that "belongs" in pet dogs' jaws in this one, and I'll admit my reaction showed in my response. But I do stand by what I said.

Especially since as another commenter and even you yourself mentioned, there are non-meat diets available for dogs and they can thrive on them. I looked into the dog Bramble that the other person mentioned, and this dog lived to 25 years old eating lentils, textured vegetable protein, and rice. I'd highly recommend learning more about this type of diet for dogs.

Just to put things in perspective, the average American (one of the most meat-eating countries) eats 222 pounds of meat per year, or 18.5 pounds per month. Since you use 2000+ pounds of meat per month, in a tangible sense you currently give more support to the meat industry (and everything it represents) than over a *hundred* of the people who eat the most meat. While I appreciate your efforts in calling out meat eating as a selfish, cruel, and destructive practice, those words inextricably remain within this context.

Mark Starmer
8/3/2018 04:17:44 pm

I am unable to reply to the thread directly following from your second set of comments. However, my response has been posted in the general flow.

Reply
Mark Starmer
8/3/2018 04:07:01 pm

Are you not aware that the Internet abounds with ‘trolls’ whose sole purpose seems to be to spread hate and malice? Social media seems to encourage discourtesy, and sniping attacks from those who lack basic integrity. In my experience, anonymity empowers people to exhibit behaviours that they would not demonstrate in face to face situations. So yes, I see it as very important to put your name to something. I fail to comprehend why anyone would choose to be anonymous if they have confidence in themselves and the correctness of the stance they take. Consider that even now, I have no idea who you are, where you are, or what your agenda is; whereas you have ample data to draw conclusions about me and my intentions. Not knowing to whom one is speaking is not a desirable way of communicating as far as I am concerned. Frankly, everyday I am confronted with faceless haters who want to let me know how stupid, or ignorant, or shortsighted I am, just for championing the vegan cause. If someone will not own up to who they are, it does not impress me.

I found it disappointing to be taken to task by another vegan, questioning my integrity and sincerity, especially when they don’t seem to have read my blog properly or grasped that the blog is entitled as it is, because feeding meat to our dogs genuinely is a dilemma for me. My ‘excuses’, as you call them, bear no resemblance to those proffered by carnists. If you find similarities, consider that at least there is legitimacy in them, rather than the spurious outpourings humans offer. Am I blasé about our complicity in using the products from unnecessary deaths? Not at all. Do I turn a blind eye? I confess to that in the blog, don't I? My own hair shirt is ample punishment for this fact.

I conclude that the main issue you have with what is written stems from the fact that you don’t accept a single thing I have said in the blog regarding my reasoning. I therefore imagine that you haven’t read any of my books and perhaps neither understand nor accept the validity of anything that is declared in this blog. To you the reasoning must seem like hollow justification. From my perspective, it is not. It is the only reason I find it even vaguely acceptable and that my conscience can live with our use of animal products. That does not mean it does not trouble me.

Having this many dogs, and the beliefs I clearly do about veganism, you might at least credit me with having knowledge of vegan diets for dogs. Your didactic comments imply I am ignorant of the possibilities, which I can assure you I am not. On reflection, you might also choose to accept that in spite of my reasoning about what we feed, we would not feed this way if it were practical to change. It might well be possible with as many as 6 dogs, but not 46. (A few more than just ‘30+’, no?) Do you have experience of trying to feed that many? It’s quite something, both in terms of time taken and the costs involved. Can you imagine what (for instance) 60lbs of cooked rice looks like, or how much space it takes up, or the receptacles required to cook it? And that’s everyday!

Overall, do you feel sufficiently equipped, from what is written in a blog from 3 years ago, to know enough about what we feed our dogs to condemn us? Surely you cannot assume that the meat we feed is the ‘prime’ that the animals are slaughtered for to begin with? So when you talk about us being culpable because of the quantity of meat the dogs eat, you might understand why it doesn’t really sit well with us. Let me make one thing very clear, NO animal has died at our request. The meat we feed does NOT come from animals slaughtered to feed our dogs. We are using the byproducts and leftovers that would otherwise not be consumed by carnivore humans.

Not for one second do I dismiss innocent lives as ‘fodder that belongs in pet jaws’. If that were the case, we would not also be the guardians of the 37 rescued farm animals that share our lives, who get to live out their lives in peace and safety at our sanctuary. If that were the case, I would not write blogs about veganism (you are seeing less than 50% of my output if you only visit this site). If that were the case, I would not be actively involved with animal rights and welfare groups. If that were the case, I would not train vegan activists in advocacy skills. If that were the case, I would not have spent the past 12 years of my life solely devoted to trying to make a difference in the lives of animals.

Reply
Mark Starmer
8/3/2018 04:13:26 pm

I understand your passion and I admire it. I totally empathise wth your agenda. But I do not accept that dogs are not natural carnivores and more importantly, for all of the reasons stated in my blog, (which you seem to have discounted) I do not propose to change their diet. You may well find that many, many vegans are similarly inclined. Were we to not feed our dogs at all, the prey they would find to satisfy their hunger would not consist of rice, lentils and TVP. (Even though, by the way, they regularly eat the 2 former items as part of their diet.)

The reliance humanity places upon animal flesh is a travesty. The struggle to reach a tipping point where there is wholesale change in human behaviour towards animals is one I am actively engaged in, as perhaps are you. Picking holes in how we feed our dogs and trying to guilt me into recognising my own hypocrisy serves little purpose when you don’t full understand who I am or my motives. As it’s a bit of a waste of effort when there are much more important targets out there, no? I’m sorry if you feel let down by me, but if you find it a disappointment that I am not a ‘kindred spirit’, then you might like to reflect upon whether that also makes me deserving of being treated like an enemy. In a battle where the odds are so heavily against the better cause, targets for influence are best chosen with care. Taking potshots at those who should be allies is surely an unfortunate thing to do. Wouldn't you agree?

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    These blogs are written by Mark Starmer. Although they may often contain input directly from the etheric, this is his opportunity to sound off about what's important to him. Apologies in advance!


    ALL BLOG INDEX
Website Design by Inward Reflection
contact us