The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing this year the greatest amount of free Meals and Food Stamps ever, to 46 million people.

 

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us "Please Do Not Feed the Animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because "The animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves."

 

Thus ends today's lesson in irony.

:popcorn:

.......

Right here, paragraph 1, sentence 1 of the "It's Bad for the Animals" section.

 

"Animals that learn to depend on human handouts lose their instinctive abilities to find food for themselves."

 

Public assistance can certainly become habitual for some. However, to compare it to instinctive abilities of animals is a bit ludicrous. Further, when animals cannot find enough food in the wild, often their young starves. If they have multiple young, sometimes selective parenting (feed the stronger "cub" letting the other starve) will occur.

 

If we are like bears, are we okay with allowing children to starve? Allow parents to "select" which child to feed? Of course not. That's pretty ludicrous, too.

 

I don't know of many people in my personal life that don't see that there are problems with public assistance. However, I don't think that "not feeding the bears" is a morally viable solution.

Public assistance can certainly become habitual for some. However, to compare it to instinctive abilities of animals is a bit ludicrous. Further, when animals cannot find enough food in the wild, often their young starves. If they have multiple young, sometimes selective parenting (feed the stronger "cub" letting the other starve) will occur.

 

If we are like bears, are we okay with allowing children to starve? Allow parents to "select" which child to feed? Of course not. That's pretty ludicrous, too.

 

I don't know of many people in my personal life that don't see that there are problems with public assistance. However, I don't think that "not feeding the bears" is a morally viable solution.

 

You make a lot of good points, no doubt. However, as for your mention of instinctive abilities...one thing that I think the SNAP program is starting to run out of many of its recipients is the instinct that we - humans - as sapient beings, should be able to make the decision not to reproduce if we're not able to provide on our own for our children (or even to provide for ourselves).

 

You are correct though...although it doesn't make our system of enabling a good thing, it would be absolutely crazy to propose that we let children starve.

Public assistance can certainly become habitual for some. However, to compare it to instinctive abilities of animals is a bit ludicrous. Further, when animals cannot find enough food in the wild, often their young starves. If they have multiple young, sometimes selective parenting (feed the stronger "cub" letting the other starve) will occur.

 

If we are like bears, are we okay with allowing children to starve? Allow parents to "select" which child to feed? Of course not. That's pretty ludicrous, too.

 

I don't know of many people in my personal life that don't see that there are problems with public assistance. However, I don't think that "not feeding the bears" is a morally viable solution.

 

And neither is blaming a murder on a gun. Oh wait, that's another thread. Hmmmm.

Have you ever tried to take extra food from a party or a dinner to a place that serves the homeless? You can't. I have had alot of food from parties left over and it isn't good enough. It has to be sealed, nothing homemade. Beggers should never be choosers. Just trying to send some homecooked meals to the homeless.

Have you ever tried to take extra food from a party or a dinner to a place that serves the homeless? You can't. I have had alot of food from parties left over and it isn't good enough. It has to be sealed' date=' nothing homemade. Beggers should never be choosers. Just trying to send some homecooked meals to the homeless.[/quote']

 

Missions and shelters don't typically make that policy. Health Departments do.

 

Just for thought, such policy does protect those less fortunate from food borne illnesses caused by tainted food, or food improperly handled/stored prior to donation. It also protects them from intentional poisoning. I do feel it"s better to donate unopened food and volunteer to be a part of the team preparing and serving it on site

Have you ever tried to take extra food from a party or a dinner to a place that serves the homeless? You can't. I have had alot of food from parties left over and it isn't good enough. It has to be sealed, nothing homemade. Beggers should never be choosers. Just trying to send some homecooked meals to the homeless.

 

Seriously?

Have you ever tried to take extra food from a party or a dinner to a place that serves the homeless? You can't. I have had alot of food from parties left over and it isn't good enough. It has to be sealed, nothing homemade. Beggers should never be choosers. Just trying to send some homecooked meals to the homeless.

 

Must be unique to your circumstance.

 

We have a monthly Free Community Meal in our church. If there are leftovers of enough quantity (and this is not always the case), we package them up and take them to a local shelter called the Rainbow House which is for battered women and children who are in transition. They are very happy to receive them.

Organization I've worked with has run into the same problem. Due to health regulations they are not allowed to accept food donations unless they are unopened food items with date stamps on them. Leftover food from gatherings is a major no no. It's a shame as they could have used the donations many times.

Organization I've worked with has run into the same problem. Due to health regulations they are not allowed to accept food donations unless they are unopened food items with date stamps on them. Leftover food from gatherins is a major no no. It's a shame as they could have used the donations many times.

 

But the shelters and those they serve are not refusing such offers because they are choosy. I think it's important to make that distinction. It's easy to say beggars can't be choosers, but it's not a fair depiction of the issue.

But the shelters and those they serve are not refusing such offers because they are choosy. I think it's important to make that distinction. It's easy to say beggars can't be choosers, but it's not a fair depiction of the issue.

 

I know, which is why I said they are not allowed. I understand the reasons for the regulations, just wish there was a way people could donate the extra food while at the same time the organizations could make sure it was safe to serve to the needy.