Hi Bob and Ellie,

>>Bob:
>>Them Instinctos would claim that forest fires, volcanoes, etc. are not
>>frequent enough occorances to allow our ancestor's instincts to
>>properly select or reject animals "cooked" thereby.  The beasts eating
>>human garbage do so for the same reasons humans do; their instincts
>>have not developed on cookled food & therefore can't protect them
>>against it.  Seems to make a bit of sense?

>Ellie:
>Hi Bob: This puzzles me too. Do you think a wild instinctively fed
>animal would find the gabage distasteful. How would its instincts
>protect it if hungry. My cat has eaten only raw for over a year.
>Yesterday he chose some canned cooked cat food over a piece of raw tuna
>I offered him.

Cooked food in general can be much more attractive speaking in terms of
smell and taste, than raw food. In nature there also will occur
unattractive cooked food, e.g. burnt food. Animals will select those
parts which they are attracted to. So if there was a forest fire, they
will select cooked foods that are "properly" cooked, i.e. heated in a
way that makes them attractive.

Cooked food prepared by humans will always be made in a way, that it
is overly attractive in smell and taste (which other purpose should it
be designed for?)

So if offered cooked and raw foods, your cat is likely to fall into
the pit of the cooked things. In contradiction to claims, that are
often made by some raw eaters, a child also will fall into this pit
and select the denatured food (not always but frequently).

As Bob stated, nature didn't prepare us for this trap. So every ani-
mal, including us humans will be cheated by the attraction of cooked
foods.

By the way: cooked fooders not knowing about instincts often argue,
that their pets are "choosing" cooked food over raw things, so in
their oppinion it must be good for the animals. :-(

Raw instinctive wishes,

Stefan