[tribulant_slideshow gallery_id="299"] |
Recently there has been a petition put up to extend food stamps to cover things such as dog food or cat food. So far, it has garnered lots of support, with 234,000 signatures on Care2. However, the petition has also sparked controversy. Millions of people are on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP or food stamps. This program allows for those with low income to buy nutritious food, and contrary to popular belief, it is a strict program that does not allow purchases outside of its guidelines. These restrictions include a controversial ban on buying pet food.
The petition on Care2 says, “I have only been on SNAP benefits for a few months, but I have been unable to feed my little dog due to government regulations […] Being poor is hard enough without being expected to give up your companion. For most people, pets are considered family, not property.”
Right now, SNAP benefits can be used for fruit and vegetables, meat, grains and dairy products. They cannot be used for junk food, alcohol, tobacco, household products or pet items; these restrictions are specifically outlined on the United States Department of Agriculture website.
There are many arguments for the petition and many against it. Although the chances of this passing are slim, with both our current government and the controversy that already exists about how food stamps work, it’s an interesting subject to be broached. Most would agree that pets are a part of the family, and just because someone has come across financial hardship doesn’t mean they should have to rehome their family member. The other side of the coin, however, is that aside from service animals, pets are not a necessity and people should not be getting pets they can’t provide for.
A lot of conservatives view food stamps as a way of the taxpayer providing. With the heated arguments already existing about how welfare works, and some questioning if welfare should even exist, it’s hard to approach the subject of expanding what food stamps should cover.
A positive argument for expanding food stamps to pet food is that it would drastically benefit animal welfare. When people don’t have money for dog or cat food, they end up sharing their people food, which does not have the nutritional content needed for animals. If pet owners do not share their own food, they may end up not feeding their pets at all. In turn, people opt to give their pets up to shelters, a problem that’s already so large it results in hundreds of thousands of dogs being put to sleep every single day. If people were able to get food stamps for their animals, it would put a dent in this issue, allowing more people to care for and keep their pets.
On the other hand, in the interest of animal welfare, if someone cannot afford even the food for their animal, how will they afford the other things many pets need? Vet visits, vaccinations, accidents, flea and heartworm medicine and enrichment are all expensive necessities. If someone can’t afford to feed the animal, then they surely can’t afford the rest of the things that come with it.
SNAP is a program with good intentions, already stretched thin by demands of the public and the constant criticism by taxpayers and government alike.
Financial hardship is something that can happen to anyone, and no one can tell them how exactly to manage their money, but when it comes to animal welfare, people have to keep in mind what’s best for their pet.
