• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feeding Wildlife and Government Entitlements... Amazing Similarities.

Recently during my internet travels, I found myself at of all places, the California Department of Environmental Health website, in the "Vector Control Services" section. It's basically Alameda County pest control... Anyway, I came across this article that they had posted about the negative side effects of people feeding wildlife. About half way through the 2 page article, it dawned on me that if you changed a few words here and there, that article can be applied just as well to the negative effects of government entitlement programs and the welfare state.


First, here are the relevant excerpts from the original article:

The Negative Effects of Feeding Wildlife

...For centuries, these animals have existed without our need to feed them. This is
still the case. While feeding the animals can be fun for humans, it is usually detrimental for
the animals, and will harm them more than it helps them. The following information will
explain this more thoroughly.

When wild animals begin to depend on humans for food, their foraging skills may be
diminished. When young wild animals are taught to depend on humans for food, they may
become less experienced at foraging and consequently less likely to survive. Furthermore,
wild animals that are accustomed to being fed by humans commonly lose their fear of
people. Animals that are unafraid of people will approach them for food and are sometimes
mistaken as rabid, or otherwise ill and subsequently killed because of the perceived threat.
They also become easy targets for people who mean them harm. An instinctive wariness of
people is important to a wild animal's survival.
...
Animals are opportunistic and will be attracted to the most convenient food source available.
When food is readily available, animals will gather in abnormally large numbers...
...
Reproduction rates may also be affected when an artificial food source is readily available.
In the wild, the number of animals being born is often directly related to the amount of food
naturally available. The number of animals surviving will also depend on how much food is
available. This is nature's way of keeping a balance and assures there are not too many
animals in one area. When an unnatural food supply becomes available, animals may
produce more young and soon there may be more animals living in an area than the natural
food sources can support. If that food source is no longer available, animals may become
persistent pests to adjacent areas in their effort to acquire food, or eventually starve to
death. Also, a large population of one animal may attract predators further up the food chain
into a neighborhood with disastrous results!


Now take a look what happens when you replace a few words, and add some context here and there...

The Negative Effects of Government Entitlements

For centuries, the poor existed without the government needing to provide for them. This is
still the case. While government entitlements providing for the poor can seem the best to liberals, it is usually detrimental for them, and will harm them more than it helps them. The following information will
explain this more thoroughly.

When poor families begin to depend on the government for their necessities, their ambition and self respect may be
diminished. When children of subsidized families are taught to depend on the government for food and shelter, they may become less motivated to look for work or to take entry level employment and consequently are less likely to become independent and self sufficient. Furthermore, poor families that are accustomed to being taken care of by government subsidies commonly lose their humility and self respect. Many Welfare recipients become unembarrassed over time about their government dependence, and will not accept losing any of those subsidies, and aren't shy about publicly demanding more.

In spite of their good intentions, many poor people who have become dependent on the government to take care of them, and have lost their sense of pride and self worth, become opportunistic and will gravitate to the easiest, most convenient way to keep food in their stomach and a roof over their head. So even when jobs are readily available, many poor won't see any value in working, because their basic needs are already provided for them.

Pregnancy rates are also affected when the poor are dependent on a government subsidized living.
In many poor neighborhoods, the increasing number of pregnancies and children born is often directly related to
their belief that the government will always take care of them. The number of children born to poor families used to depend on having employment and how much income they earned. That was the societalal norm, the way we kept balance and assured that not too many children were born into poverty, and limited the number of people who became dependent on the government. When cradle to grave government subsidies became available, poor people gave birth to more young and there are more poor families living off government handouts in rural and inner city areas than the American tax payer can support. If government handouts are reduced significantly or no longer available, the poor and lower income earners may become violent and destructive in their communities and adjacent areas in their effort to force the government and those who earn a decent income, to give them the subsidies they have grown dependent on.
Also, a certain number of poor people may become predators to others due to the lack of self reliance and pride government dependence breeds, opting for neighborhood gangs, theft and drug dealing drug use, that only yields disastrous results!

I find it interesting how people can fully understand how animals at a zoo who were born in captivity can't survive if returned to the wild, because they have become dependent on humans feeding and taking care of them... and how feeding the bears at Yellowstone can create a dependency for them, resulting in them no longer hunting for food and becoming angry and violent if you stop feeding them... Yet many of these same, intelligent, seemingly common sense people find it inconceivable that the welfare state and government entitlement can create the same kind of dependencies with poor, inner city people including minorities, and have many of the same types of negative effects on them, as feeding animals at Yellowstone has on the bears.


Animals have natural instincts and tendencies, just as people do... For us it's called "human nature" and it's amazing how many people out there either forget it exists, or are foolish enough to believe they can change it.


Grim17
4/24/2014
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
33,838
Reaction score
39,764
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Partisan garbage Grim.

The reason you don't feed wildlife is that they begin to associate food with humans and so become less scared of approaching humans which can lead to confrontation especially in the case of bears, however elk and deer can and do attack humans.

I live in a national park.

It's for the betterment of both sides, if a bear associates humans with food it will come into town/approach humans and camp sites, at which point he park must kill it.

People are not animals.
 

Middleground

Pretty beaver!
Bartender
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
27,837
Reaction score
14,406
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Jetboogieman;bt2643 said:
Partisan garbage Grim.

The reason you don't feed wildlife is that they begin to associate food with humans and so become less scared of approaching humans which can lead to confrontation especially in the case of bears, however elk and deer can and do attack humans.

I live in a national park.

It's for the betterment of both sides, if a bear associates humans with food it will come into town/approach humans and camp sites, at which point he park must kill it.

People are not animals.


Exactly, Jet. People are not animals. Sheesh.
 

pogomutt

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
182
Reaction score
92
Location
colorado remote
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Bunk. Cornell's ornithology dept. estimates that 4 times as many birds exist in North America today than were here before the Europeans. That's because so many of us feed them. Some species don't migrate in winter any longer because of the ready supply of food in countless backyard feeders. If there's a net negative effect to feeding wild birds, I'm unaware of it.
 
Top Bottom