Food Stamps for Pets

I posted a comment on the story, but then I realized it has to be approved.  I don't think it's going to get approved..

Mine did. 

DanielG - 2013-02-26 10:52 AM

trinnas - 2013-02-26 10:47 AM

julio26pt2 - 2013-02-26 10:40 AM

I posted a comment on the story, but then I realized it has to be approved.  I don't think it's going to get approved..

Mine did. 

You're the one who called Jon a urinalysis taste tester, right?

I plead the fifth. 

Hehe..  Mine did too..  

I thought that might have been you.

If that is what you cconsider being a jerk you need lots of practice!  I will be glad to help.

No a Jerkie..  It's like a jerk, but much more light-hearted..  Almost endearing version of jerk...  

Ah well that is different.  I say carry on with gusto!

DanielG - 2013-02-26 9:26 AM I thought this rather interesting and along the lines that a lot here might find of interest as well. It's not tax dollars, it's donations, so I'm perfectly okay with this. Have at it. Hey, it's not a gun thread

I'm ok for a helping hand for pets, but then they'll grow up to be dependent on someone else to feed them the rest of their lives. (oh wait, nvm)

If my "tiger" gets any bigger and imported pet food (to my knowledge, there isn't locally made stuff, and I'm not cooking for a cat) gets any more expensive, I may need to apply!

We have a charity (ARC) here in Saigon (and one in Oregon--called Pro Bone-O; they also help with food) that helps low-income owners with vaccines, basic pet care such as worming, and neutering--great at keeping pets off the streets when owners hit hard times. Regardless of what your opinions on food stamps for people may be, programs like this do reduce the number of abandoned, starving, and sick animals on the streets and in shelters.

DanielG - 2013-02-26 10:26 AM I thought this rather interesting and along the lines that a lot here might find of interest as well. It's not tax dollars, it's donations, so I'm perfectly okay with this. Have at it. Hey, it's not a gun thread

And yet, you brought it here.

As a charitable endeavor, my concern would be whether it is effectively meeting the needs of enough pets. The Golden Retriever rescue that I support constantly needs donations to provide food and vet care for the dogs in their program. I absolutely get the idea of not wanting to give up the dog, but if I cannot afford to support my dog, I am not sure it makes sense to keep him

If $1000 can help one pet or 20 pets, which is the better way to spend that money? The problem with the "If it helps even one ______, it's worth it" is that it misses two important points - one is the opportunity costs of helping too few; the other (not really a factor here), is whether the intervention also hurts some. In medicine, we often face this issue - if treatment X helps 10 people for every 100 it hurts, it is not a good treatment. 

If the money were to help my personal pet, of course I would, at an emotional level, support being the "one pet". But if that means that 10 of my neighbors' dogs are going without, I think at a non-emotional, more rational level, that it is an effective allocation of money.

I agree with you Daniel that this is a great story. Donation dollars which means people who are donating have chosen (whether wisely or not) that this is where they want to donate their money. If we can keep pets in homes with their owners then they might not have to be given up to shelters, left on the street, or Euthanized. I would rather see a loyal pet stay with a family that fell on hard time and donate money to that than to a specific rescue (as an aside my wife and I donate to one of the local humane societies because we love the work they do, they care they take for the animals left with them and have gotten one of our dogs and our cat there. They also take donations and have a program, or at least used to, to provide some dog/cat food for people who would otherwise have to give up there animals. If this program is paired/done in a similar way that would be fantastic)

I'm a veterinarian and I'm going to add a slightly different perspective.  When I see clients in my office and they cannot afford pet care, the vast majority have:  1) Multiple pets  2) an iPhone5 in the hands of each family member 3)A car that's much, much newer than mine.

While helping others in need is admirable, I wonder how this group assesses their candidates' needs?  Only very few pets owners I encounter have truly fallen on hard times and are unable to feed their pets as a result.  The large majority simply made poor financial and life decisions and now they prefer that others shoulder the responsibility of feeding and caring for their pets.  

This also is true of so many "rescue" organizations.  They want to "rescue" more pets than they can afford, but they prefer that their local veterinary professionals provide free services and that others donate food and supplies so they can "rescue" more pets.  They profess their desire to rescue animals but they have no intention of assuming financial responsibility.  It makes no sense to me, and yeah, it makes me angry. 

That is the honest reality for most situations.  As with many things in life, it mostly boils down to personal choices. 

GB, I couldn't agree with you more. There is no place in society for this kind of thing, this is something the Federal Govt. should either be doing or regulate so heavily that they control what is being done.

Oh, one thing regarding what I bolded, the President and VP disagree with you on that point.

Dude, you forgot Hookers and Strippers.

They only take credit these days.

Never seen em refuse a black chip from any of the casinos.