Well Keg1, I'm glad that Dr. Richard's started off his statement with saying that what follows is opinion rather than fact, as many of his opinions are misguided.
Starting with what appears to be his strongest argument of wild canids surviving a short time compared to domestic dogs ... The lifespan of a wild canid is not dependant on nutrition alone. When considering all that a wild canid has to deal with, nutritional balance makes up a very small portion. Other factors that lead to a shortened lifespan of wild canids include, but are not limited to, weather, environmental conditions, habitat availability, the fact that they actually have to hunt for their food instead of sitting in front of their bowl, impacting their success in hunting is the vegetation growth of that year to allow for growth of prey animals. Also poaching/hunting, trapping, natural predators, disease, injury, traffic fatalities. The list goes on. So to say that wild canids have short lifspans so therefore it must be because of their diet is somewhat silly. Yes, wild canids have shorter lifespans than domestic dogs, but they also have a lot more hazards to deal with than our pets. Physiologically, wolves and domestic dogs are the same. Their intestinal tract is built the same way, they produce the same enzymes, they harbor the same gut flora, their dentition is the same.
Dr. Richards shows the ignorance of the vast majority of conventional vets out there in many of his statements. Like the one about how a dog fed a diet similar to what our human food pyramid suggests would be fine ... That is totally inaccurate! Our food pyramid is designed recognizing that we are omnivores, bordering on herbivores. Canids are carnivores. There are dramatically different requirements nutritionally between an omnivore like humans and a carnivore like dogs. So not only is his advice inaccurate, but very dangerous! If someone were to feed their dog a diet based on human requirements, they would be guaranteed to run into nutritional deficiencies and imbalances.
Then the whole bacteria thing. Yes, dogs harbor bacteria, whether they are raw fed or kibble fed. But they have natural physiology designed to deal with that. The key points being that their stomach acid is considerably stronger, more acidic, than humans. Somewhere around 2-3, where humans are closer to 5. That acidity will kill off much of the bacteria they ingest immediately. Additionally, their intestine is considerably shorter than an onmivore's intestine and, when fed an appropriate diet, the rate of passage of food through the intestine is considerably faster. A raw fed dog will pass food through it's entire tract in roughly 5 hours, where a kibble fed dog does the same thing in about 12 hours. This rate of passage ensures that any bacteria present in the food matter will be passed through faster than it is able to colonize or get a good foothold on the intestinal wall.
Of course, some dogs will have more issues with bacteria than others, but this is more to do with poor genetics or poor health than it is their natural ability to digest raw meat.
So there is another side of the story. I'm sure Dr. Richards meant well and truly believes what he is saying. But unfortunately, some people are just incorrect and biased because of their educational background. The vet med educational system is horribly out of date when it comes to nutritional information, and is strongly skewed in the direction of brand name commercial diets due to funding issues.
