Non-Believers

[cattreats]

Okay, this isn't a super serious thing. I just wanted to get input from everyone. I have this person that I'm friends with on my Facebook (a cousin of a friend), who adamantly believes that "premium" pet foods (kibbles and such) are healthy. This all started when I began posting about the raw food diet (which I've only recently heard about) to inform my fellow pet owners. I'm not trying to force this onto anyone, more just informing and offering links to some of the awesome pages that I've been provided on this site.

Anyways, this person believes that her vet and the "class she took on pet biology" is more informative than the "unreliable websites" that I've provided. I've pretty much laid out all of the facts to her about how bad kibble is, etc., and she won't accept it. She continues to say things like "my friend feeds Wellness to her dog and its fine" and "you can't blame the food companies for health problems" etc etc etc. I don't care that much, I just wonder how you would go about trying to show that ... seriously, kibble is bad.

What do you say to help inform the people in denial?

And on a side note: What do you do when your vet disagrees with your pet's raw diet, or if they absolutely will not listen to anything you say and continue discouraging it?

* She's majoring to become a veterinarian, and it bothers me to see someone like that going to become another vet that will continue promoting poorly made dry foods and adamantly discouraging any other alternatives. :/

 

[odiakkoh]

You say you're not trying to force it on anyone but this thread makes it look like you are. Why does she need to stop and think whoa? You shared the facts now your job is done. You can lead a horse to water...

I don't think you need to insult her intelligence either. Honestly you might not mean to but how you're wording things rub me the wrong way.

 

[cattreats]

Okay I guess when I re-read that it did sound a bit rude. ^^;

I really am not forcing this on anyone, it's just a little disheartening when you see someone so close-minded about it. She wouldn't touch any links and disregarded the facts I laid down for her - including going as far as to say that cats and dogs don't need meat and would thrive on a 100% vegetarian diet.

I was just asking for input because it's more that I really hoped to convince her to at least look into it because right now she's feeding all of her pets straight kibble, not even wet food at all.

And she's majoring to become a vet, I just get scared when I see people becoming vets and they're already brainwashed by one class. .~.

 

[carolina]

Well, there will always be people who have different opinions than yours, and that's ok. Everyone has the rights for their own opinions.
My own mother after seeing all I went through with my cat with prescription diets and drugs not working for a very long time, doesn't like that I feed raw because her vet in Brazil said I am in terrible danger of contracting toxoplasmosis
She even wanted to take me to her vet while I was on vacations in there :lol3: - I simply told her I have my own vets who are well aware of the diet I feed, who support my choice and know I am in no danger. I trust them better and my cats have never been healthier - end of story.
As for vets who are against raw diets.... Not sure how I would deal with that..... My vet has seen how the diet has pretty much saved my cat's life, so he has nothing but good things to say about it. I am sure he now recommends it to tough IBD cases - he has learned from this process as much as I have. I think sharing the successes with them is a good thing because of this - they learn from it too. They start noticing more and more how healthy raw fed cats are, and I am sure they notice the tremendous impact the diet has on cats with IBD, urinary issues, food allergies, and other problems too.
In the end, you have the right to feed your cat what you want. So does everyone else.... You have the right to share information as much as you want, but you can't force anyone to force a certain diet - it is just not up to you to do that :nod:

 

[cattreats]

but you can't force anyone to force a certain diet - it is just not up to you to do that

I know, that wasn't what I meant. I'm just trying to enlighten people because it's surprisingly not known about very much.

That, and like I said, she wants to be a vet, and won't even look into it at all. Won't even consider anything but dry food.

 

[carolina]

I know, that wasn't what I meant. I'm just trying to enlighten people because it's surprisingly not known about very much.

That, and like I said, she wants to be a vet, and won't even look into it at all. Won't even consider anything but dry food.

All you can do is share information and your own successful experiences :nod:
A LOT of vets are like that - you just need to take it with a grain of salt.....

 

[ldg]

Well, what I hear you saying is that this person is annoying you, and you want to be better armed with more scientific information in order to be able to debate the subject.

I'm happy to provide resources, it's just a PIA from my phone, and my bookmarks are on the laptop anyway, so it'll have to wait until tomorrow.

 

[carolina]

hehe there you go...... Now you will be armed for the challenge - this girl will be taken for a loop with the amount of information Laurie can give you

 

[southpaw]

I let the results speak for themselves.

Oh, look how shiny and soft my cat's coat is.

Look how he's not vomiting anymore.

Look at the minimal amount of waste in his litter box.

My family is SOO anti-raw and I'm amazed I even convinced them to let me try raw with Jinx. But they see that the results on this diet are way better than what we were experiencing with kibble. Do they still believe it's the best diet, would they ever put another pet on this unless they felt they HAD to... no. For them it's a last ditch effort. But at this point they also would not dream of putting Jinx on any other diet, because it's evident that raw is what he needs.

My vet only knows Jinx is on raw because he has IBD. Diet plays a huge role in managing that, so diet was a big discussion between us, so when I put him on raw it was only natural that eventually she would ask and find out. She is actually an older vet so I am surprised she is so tolerant of it. It is not something she would necessarily recommend, but she sees that it is working so she encourages me to keep him on it. But otherwise for normal healthy pets, or issues not relevant to diet... the subject doesn't really come up. The vets don't know what my dogs eat, and they have never asked.

But honestly I would not care what my vet thinks about what I'm feeding. They can disagree with it all they want and that's fine. But if they want to blame EVERY potential health problem on the raw diet, then there would be an issue and I'd find another vet. Pet has diarrhea? Must be raw diet. Pet has bad teeth? Must be raw diet. Pet has allergies? Must be raw diet. THAT would be annoying.

Some people just can't wrap their heads around raw diets and really that's fine. You feed what you want to feed and I'll feed what I want to feed.

 

[missymotus]

I really am not forcing this on anyone, it's just a little disheartening when you see someone so close-minded about it.  .~.

Several of the raw feeding 'experts' currently on this site are actually very new to the diet and were quite against raw for a long time, so don't think that people can't change their minds. 

 

[mschauer]

Okay, this isn't a super serious thing. I just wanted to get input from everyone. I have this person that I'm friends with on my Facebook (a cousin of a friend), who adamantly believes that "premium" pet foods (kibbles and such) are healthy.

If you want to avoid the label of "fanatic" and so increase the chance that people will listen to you a good start would be to not label commercial pet foods as "unhealthy". That is an unsupportable statement and that is from someone (me) who feeds a raw diet precisely to address health issues 2 cats had when eating commercial processed foods. I don't think that just because 2 of my cats have problems with them means those foods are "unhealthy". I do think a raw diet is healthier but largely for other reasons such as increased energy and better body composition. And I think there are some chronic ailments that cats fed an exclusively commercial processed diet are more susceptible to. But there is little concrete proof of that. If there were it would be a simple matter to convince people to make the switch. Even when there is some evidence that feeding commercial processed foods can increase the risk of some ailments it is an easy argument for others to make that it just shows some cats have dietary intolerances just as some humans have.

Until there are long term, controlled studies that definitively prove that feeding a raw diet is healthier the must convincing arguments are testimonials from cat owners who have seen first hand the affect a raw diet can have on a cat. And it is perfectly reasonable that people are suspicious of such accounts. They can't be relied on to contain all pertinent facts.

Maybe you should confine yourself to just discussing the improvements you've seen in your cats since making the switch. Let others draw their own conclusions.

 

[ldg]

mschauer, an excellent post. :nod: But the OP isn't switching cats that have been eating commercial canned or kibble to raw, she'll be starting her kitten(s) off on raw when she adopts them.

Certainly being preachy or fanatic doesn't help. And clearly, commercial canned and kibble is capable of keeping our pets alive, many in good health. Acknowledging this will help and is important.
.

As to this
.

Several of the raw feeding 'experts' currently on this site are actually very new to the diet and were quite against raw for a long time, so don't think that people can't change their minds.

.

While I definitely don't consider myself an expert - or even an "expert," I am active on the forums, interested in cat nutrition (among other issues feline), and I do a lot of research.

I am one of the people that actively argued against raw - until this past November or December. And it was in the process of researching raw that I decided I should be feeding it. :nod: Actually, it was at the point that I began research on commercial canned and kibble pet foods that I became convinced I shouldn't be feeding it to my cats, which is part of what informs my opinion on this issue, mschauer.

There are healthier choices that can be made within available options, but no diet, not even raw, is "ideal" in the sense of being "natural." There are diets that are closer to being more species-appropriate than others. Yet I do have to take issue with the notion that highly processed commercial pet food, in general, is healthy.

IMO, there are several components to this.

1) The argument is made that cats and dogs live longer since the advent of commercially available pet food. I've made the argument that Gary's grandfather lived to be 101, smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, eating something approaching a pound of bacon almost daily, many deep fried foods, etc. etc. etc. Genetics plays a role. Long life is not necessarily reflective of the quality of one's diet.

2) In fact, the argument can be made that a greater percentage of our pets living inside or with access to indoors at will has contributed to their longer life spans, and they’re living longer despite the food we feed them. Dr. Elizabeth Hodgkins, DVM, Esq., who worked at Hill's Pet for 20 years, solved her cat's diabetes with a raw diet, left Hill's, and is now arguably the country's leading expert on feline diabetes, has this to say.

The statement in italics is from a Pet Food Industry guide. Dr. Hodgkins' response is below it.

This is from "Rebuttal to Pet Food Industry Response to Hearings Held April 12, 2007." (Dr. Hodgkins provided testimony to the U.S. Senate in hearings held regarding the massive melamine poisonings that killed in excess of 8,000 pets in 2007). http://www.mousabilities.com/nutrition/rebuttal.html
.

Veterinarians agree that pets are living longer, healthier lives since the use of commercially prepared pet foods became widespread. Decades of research have gone into the development of pet food to make sure the special nutrition needs of pet dogs and cats are met.

Veterinarians DO NOT agree about this, they can’t, it is totally unproven. Evidence about changes in the life span of pets over the past several decades is sparse, and no scientist would dare draw the conclusion that pets today live longer on average than pets 30-40 years ago because of commercial pet foods, for example. What does seem clear is that today’s indoor pets live much longer than those that live outdoors. The evidence for this conclusion is strong.

Those who would give commercial pet food even partial credit for this increase in life expectancy in the indoor pet, however, have absolutely no evidence to back up this conclusion. There are many factors that affect the life span of pet animals under indoor and outdoor circumstances. Indoor pets are more protected from death due to automobiles and predators, they are more protected from exposure to infectious disease and often receive more medical care than outdoor pets, to name just a few of the important differences between these two groups. It is easy to sweep commercial food consumption right along with all of these other factors as contributing to longer life in today’s pets. Unfortunately for this particular factor, there is no reason to believe it has anything to do with the longer life of house pets. Let’s look at an analogy to understand how this might be so.

Humans in the US enjoy longer life expectancy today than they did fifty years ago. During those decades of improving average life span, those same people have consumed ever-increasing amounts of fat-laden, sugary, carbohydrate-rich “fast” food and other types of over-processed “convenience” foods. We are far more obese today than in decades past, and human nutritionists nag us endlessly about changing our diets to include better quality, fresh whole foods. Imagine anyone believing that this increasing consumption of highly processed “fast” foods and increasing obesity is the reason, or even makes a positive contribution to our increasing life spans! We are living longer in spite of our diets, not because of them. Many other factors, such as less tobacco smoking, the use of seatbelts, better prenatal and postnatal care, and astonishing high-tech medical advancements for defeating disease and injury account for our increasing life spans. Our convenience-oriented diets are actually working against longer life, but cannot defeat all of these other strong protective factors in our lives.

So it is with our pets. When they live indoors, they live longer than if they lived outdoors, but commercial foods likely have no part in adding those extra years. Like our own “overprocessed” diets, they may even be depriving our pets of even greater health and longevity....

(Bold, my emphasis).

3) The regulation of pet food that allows dead, dying, diseased and downed animals in the food; has allowances for amounts of things like rat feces and mold; the ingredient can be rotting meat covered in maggots; they include stuff like out-of-date product from supermarkets and restaurants where the packaging is not removed prior to the rendering process, so trace amounts of styrofoam and plastic wrap are in the rendered products that go into the food our pets eat. Rendered tissue is not allowed in human foods. Why not? Because it is adulterated.

From "The Harvard Paper," Deconstructing the Regulatory Façade: Why Confused Consumers Feed their Pets Ring Dings and Krispy Kremes, http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/784/Patrick06.html

United States rendering companies pick up 100 million pounds of “waste material” every single day. This “waste material” includes: heads, feet, stomachs, intestines, spinal cords, tails, restaurant grease, feathers, bones, and dead or diseased animals rejected from slaughterhouses.[167] Remember that under FDA and USDA regulations half of every cow and at least one third of every swine is not consumable by humans. Cancerous tissue, tumors, contaminated blood, injection sites and any tissues treated with a substance not permitted by or in excess of FDA or EPA limits is also rendered.[168] The inclusion of such items in pet food violates the FDA’s requirement regarding unadulterated food. Recall that foods containing “any part of a diseased animal” is deemed adulterated. [169] With an understanding of the rendering process and its ingredients, it is then unclear how AAFCO (and thereby the FDA) approves ingredients such as meat and bone meal for use in pet foods.

In addition to the “waste material,” six to seven million dogs and cats killed every year in animal shelters make their way into rendering vats.[170] The city of Los Angeles alone sends 200 tons of dogs and cats to a local rendering firm every month.[171] Road kill that is too large to be buried roadside, expired grocery store meats, and dead zoo animals are also thrown into the mix.[172] Recall from the discussion of the AAFCO ingredient definitions that meat and bone meal must exclude hair and stomach contents “except as may occur in good manufacturing processes.”[173] Considering that a 40 lb bag of dog food costs only $15-$17, that price cannot possibly cover the amount of time necessary to remove all the hair and stomach contents from the thousands of diseased and euthanized animals thrown into the rendering vats, not to mention the Styrofoam and saran wrap packaging from expired grocery store meats.[174] In fact, it seems downright impossible. The rendering industry readily admits that meat wrappers are mixed in with its raw materials, their inclusion betrayed by the presence of polyethylene (used to make saran wrap) in rendered products.[175]

The citations are provided to support the statements.

IMO, if one wants to take the time, the argument can be made that commercial pet food is unhealthy for our pets, and the incidence of many diseases and their link to food has been established. :dk:

The flip side to this “negative” approach is the positive approach. And that is the link that is seen in improved health when switching to a species appropriate diet. While the studies, so far, are typically focused on the macronutrient content of commercial canned and kibble foods, these support the anecdotal evidence many people are seeing in the switch to raw.

Further, the biology of cats supports why they improve when fed a species-appropriate diet. There are plenty of studies and scholarly articles documenting their nature as obligate carnivores, indicating why – while they may survive on a vegetarian diet – they should be expected to thrive on a diet close to one they would eat naturally.

The difference is surviving versus thriving, and anticipated quality of life as our cats age.

I'll be providing information for each of these. This is likely a several day project.

 

[mschauer]

mschauer, an excellent post.

But the OP isn't switching cats that have been eating commercial canned or kibble to raw, she'll be starting her kitten(s) off on raw when she adopts them.

 

Oh yeah, I knew that. 

 

[otto]

Several of the raw feeding 'experts' currently on this site are actually very new to the diet and were quite against raw for a long time, so don't think that people can't change their minds. 

As I was reading the post my thoughts were formulating into something similar to this. Not that I would ever call myself an expert. But years ago I used to even speak in defense of Hill's "prescription" diets and against raw feeding. Then I stopped speaking against raw feeding but felt it was not for me, or for most people for that matter. And that "prescription" foods still had a place in things. And the years passed I continued to read...... and now here I am with partially raw fed cats, and a loathing of most "prescription" foods, with the exception that if they feed the canned versions it's not too bad. :lol3:

So, my advice is like the others, educate as much as you can, but don't push. I have friends who feed their cats "whatever is on sale" on the kibble shelf. For years I've been urging them to improve their cats' diet. One of their cats recently died. The other day I noticed the male cat seemed to be looking a bit sleek, instead of his usual seedy appearance. I saw the same old kibble in the same old bowl, so I was wondering.....until he volunteered the information that he was now giving his male cat a 3 ounce can of Fancy Feast every morning!

I have another friend who feeds her male cat...Deli Cat. He has a host of health problems, but she refuses to discuss diet with me. I'm sure she must be able to see the difference between my cats and her boy, but either she has not made the connection yet, or chooses not to. I used to urge her to feed her cats better, but it didn't take well so I don't try that any more. I simply discuss my own cats' diet for a few minutes whenever we get together. Lately I notice she's been taking more interest in what I am saying, and even asked a couple questions the last time she was here. So, you never know, maybe her boy is on his way to a better diet, too.

As for your vet.....same thing. Just keep talking about it. Your vet will see how your kittens thrive, and won't be able to deny that the diet is working for them.

When I first started going to the vet I use now, she used to recommend dry foods all the time. As our relationship developed and she watched me improve my cats' diets over the years, and listened to all the things I was learning about feline nutrition, her opinions have changed. She writes down the names of foods I feed. She asks for website links. She is learning more and more about feline nutrition, because I talk to her about it every time I bring a cat in, (which, for many years was at least monthly because of special needs cats, they are both now, but my current three get check ups twice a year, so I am still there 6 times a year) which sparks her interest and causes her to do her own research and learning.

If it becomes a serious problem, find another vet.

 

[cattreats]

Until there are long term, controlled studies that definitively prove that feeding a raw diet is healthier the must convincing arguments are testimonials from cat owners who have seen first hand the affect a raw diet can have on a cat. And it is perfectly reasonable that people are suspicious of such accounts. They can't be relied on to contain all pertinent facts.

When I first found out about the raw diet, I did a TON of research. I do recall a lot of amazing stories and supposed "studies" that were quite impressive. Of course, this is the internet, and what really defines an official "study" when you just read it on the net, right?

But anyways, I do recall reading a documentary about diabetic cats that either no longer needed insulin when switched to raw, or just needed very little in comparison. If the raw diet is both curing, or extremely effectively treating diabetes, I think that's really good. But again, who knows if this was an official study that can be backed up by solid proof.

Another story talked about a dog that had some sort of colon problem (anal fissures, perhaps? I've forgotten now), and the owner's vet told her that she would have to put him on incredibly expensive steroids to save his life, and he would be on the 'roids for the rest of his life. The owner, somewhat taking matters into her own hands, researched other options and found the raw diet. She stated that within 24 hours of switching to the new diet, the problem had ceased and never returned.

Anyways, there's really no solid "proof," but there are so many stories of drastic improvement in their pets' lives when switching that you can't ignore it. And I think eventually people are going to have to start considering that option (even vets) because the more people are switching to raw diets and having pets that live long, healthy lives, the more people will look negatively on any non-raw diet options, especially the commercial foods.

On top of all the stories of improvement, I have yet to find anything negative happening when people make the switch. The only "risk" that I found was that we, as humans, might catch some bacteria (salmonella) while preparing the food, if we aren't careful. But in terms of the pet's health, I haven't found any negatives. However, if you look up ANY brand of food (even the "premium" ones), you will find at least a handful of stories about how their pet got sick or had some sort of allergy or any negative reaction. So it just makes you think ... 

Blah blah blah, rambling. I agree that it's perfectly normal for people to be suspicious. When I first saw the sign "RAW FOOD" in the back of the pet store I go to, I was like "I wonder why anyone would do that." And when I saw it on the cat forums, I still thought it was just like a way to spoil your pet with human-grade food, like those people that make full steaks for their dogs, heh.

I just think it's a little disappointing to see people so against it, they can't even take the time to read about it. Especially if someone is planning to become a vet, you would imagine that they would at least be interested in reading it. If anything, they would want to read it and find all the things wrong with it if they believe that it's so wrong. *shrug*

As everyone said, you can't force anyone to do it. I really wasn't trying to sound like a crazy fanatic or giving off the impression that I'm forcing anyone to do it. 

 Honestly if just feels like the idea of raw food is so well hidden, and commercial foods are so well marketed, that without word of mouth, people rarely ever find out the truth about it. And since I have a ton of pet owners (that I know don't know about it), I wanted to inform them.

It would make me really happy to know that everyone is improving their pet's health, starting with their diets. 

Also about the vet thing: I intend to find a vet that's at least tolerant of it. As mentioned above, I would absolutely hate any vet that started using my cat's raw diet as the reason for any problems that arise. "Fleas? Must be the raw meat." Reallyyyy ... lol. I just wanted to see how people deal with it (or if they even have to deal with it at all) because I've read sometimes that people will end up in debates right there in the office because the vet is flipped out about it. Some people have even been called an animal killer because they believe that anything but premium food is poison (irony?), and that the raw food is a death sentence or something. Honestly I'd never go back to a vet like that. 

 But I was just curious how many people ever have that brutality from a vet. 

 

[ldg]

When I suggest it to people for their kitty's health issues on TCS, I always point out that it makes sense to feed cats a species-appropriate diet. For those that don't want raw - fine. But please make it a high protein, grain-free low carbohydrate wet food diet.

I happen to work with feral cats, so the concept that cats live entirely on raw meat, bones, and organs does make sense. In the end, people don't put up a fence around their gardens to keep out the cats - they put them up to keep out the things that cats eat. :lol3: So naturally, a cat won't eat a carrot or an ear of corn, they'll eat the animal that ate it.

 

[ldg]

When I first found out about the raw diet, I did a TON of research. I do recall a lot of amazing stories and supposed "studies" that were quite impressive. Of course, this is the internet, and what really defines an official "study" when you just read it on the net, right?

.

Actually, by "studies," most people mean controlled, scientific studies published in peer review journals. You might find this thread interesting, someone asked for such studies: http://www.thecatsite.com/t/239547/scientific-studies-supporting-raw-food-diet
.

 

[mschauer]

But anyways, I do recall reading a documentary about diabetic cats that either no longer needed insulin when switched to raw, or just needed very little in comparison. If the raw diet is both curing, or extremely effectively treating diabetes, I think that's really good. But again, who knows if this was an official study that can be backed up by solid proof.

Did you know the same results can be achieved by feeding a low carb canned diet?

Another story talked about a dog that had some sort of colon problem (anal fissures, perhaps? I've forgotten now), and the owner's vet told her that she would have to put him on incredibly expensive steroids to save his life, and he would be on the 'roids for the rest of his life. The owner, somewhat taking matters into her own hands, researched other options and found the raw diet. She stated that within 24 hours of switching to the new diet, the problem had ceased and never returned.

Yup, something in the poor dogs previous diet didn't agree with him and a change in diet did the trick. Who knows if it had to be a change to raw though?

Anyways, there's really no solid "proof," but there are so many stories of drastic improvement in their pets' lives when switching that you can't ignore it. And I think eventually people are going to have to start considering that option (even vets) because the more people are switching to raw diets and having pets that live long, healthy lives, the more people will look negatively on any non-raw diet options, especially the commercial foods.

There are many, many, many more stories of people who have never had a problem feeding a commercial processed diet or who have had a problem but don't know it. *Those* people are going to be a hard sell. 

 

[cattreats]

Did you know the same results can be achieved by feeding a low carb canned diet?

Yeah, that's true. The reason that I would recommend homemade raw vs commercial raw or canned food is just knowing exactly what you put in it. I do this with my own diet - I can't butcher my meat or grow my veggies, or make my pasta from my own dough, but at least my pasta sauces and other things are made as close to "scratch" as possible. I like to go as far back in the "creation line" as possible.

Originally Posted by mschauer  

Yup, something in the poor dogs previous diet didn't agree with him and a change in diet did the trick. Who knows if it had to be a change to raw though?

This is plausible. As I haven't had personal experience and only have a few days of - rather deep - researching, I can't confidently make any serious statements. But, I have looked into the ingredients of nearly all the pet foods from different stores that I could find (from cheap Meow-Mix crap to expensive "premium and organic" foods), and in terms of the balance between protein, carbs, veggies, etc., they weren't different enough that I could imagine swapping brands being as drastic of a difference as dry to raw. But again, it's not like I've ever personally tested animals on different brands and then compared those, compared with different wet foods, and then raw.

Originally Posted by mschauer  

There are many, many, many more stories of people who have never had a problem feeding a commercial processed diet or who have had a problem but don't know it. *Those* people are going to be a hard sell.

Well that's for sure. But I think as more people switch to raw food and see both the positive changes, and lack of health problems in their pets over the years, I think it'll eventually be impossible to ignore. This is, of course, assuming that everyone who makes the switch does truly see the benefits (and there are no side effects that we aren't aware of, if there are any).

 

[carolina]

Yup, something in the poor dogs previous diet didn't agree with him and a change in diet did the trick. Who knows if it had to be a change to raw though?

Depends what the parents/owners have tried before.
Being myself in a similar situation, I can say that when you try it all, all diets and treatments you can possibly try, and raw works immediately like that.... Yeah - you know for certain that the change to RAW did it. I don't have a shadow of a doubt, nor does Bugsy's vet :nod: