Lately though, I find myself questioning authorities more and more frequently. One of the reasons is the fact that the more I try to get myself educated about what is best for my dogs, the more I run into conflicting opinions. Whether it regards dog training, nutrition or health care, no two experts seem to be able to agree on anything. Seriously people, I know you mean well, but you are not being helpful!
If I was a queen I would take all the experts, lock them in a room, and wouldn't let them out until they've reached some kind of consensus.
The latest and the greatest, in my opinion, is the FDA's release No Bones About It: Bones are Unsafe for Your Dog. I do appreciate that there are risks associated with giving dogs bones. I also do appreciate that there is a reason behind the release. However, I do find such a non-discriminatory across-the-board ban of bones for dogs an extreme solution at best.
A dog and a bone are two things that belonged together since the dawn of time. Just a few weeks earlier I read a wonderful article by Dr. Stanley Coren, Ph.D. Why Do Dogs Love Bones? The Answer Involves Fat, Climate and Evolution. Separating the two [a dog and a bone] feels like a completely unnatural act.
Yes, there are risks associated with giving dogs bones. It is important to be aware of those. But a non-discriminatory ban? If you stay away from cooked bones and stick with a few common sense rules, shouldn't your dog be able to enjoy the pleasure of chewing on a bone?
In closing the FDA suggests replacing bones with bone-like products made with materials that are safe for dogs to chew on. I assume they most likely mean rawhide chews?
I find that very interesting, because there are plenty of warnings against rawhide products, listing many of the same risks, including salmonella, choking, intestinal blockage … the list goes on. Are these the safe bone-like products the FDA is talking about? Just wondering ...
What do you think? Share your opinion.
Jana