Along-time reporter friend of mine was once tapped to also begin writing editorials for this newspaper. "What's that like," I asked.
"It's great, I love it," he said. "It's like being asked to throw gasoline on fires for fun."
Note then, please, there is an online petition drive afoot aimed to add pets to the eligibility for the USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. Some call it food stamps.
Don't laugh yet, it has attracted almost 84,000 signatures to date.
No, the notion didn't come from California. Instead it is the brainchild of Mississippian Edward B. Johnston Jr., 59. He has it posted here: https://goo.gl/a4PVZ9.
"Each year, over 40 million low- or no-income people in the United States rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to help purchase food for themselves and their families," wrote Johnston in his appeal. "But what about their pets? Unfortunately, SNAP benefits cannot be used to buy pet food, leaving poor families with pets in a difficult position.
"I am one of those Americans. 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."
Critics of such benefits refer to them as entitlements and don't even want humans getting such at government expense in most cases. It is hard to imagine a more polarized issue, even though this idea is likely to go nowhere.
The lack of progress will not be due to its unpopularity. It will be due to fundamental definitions in law. Since the program's passage back in 1964, "food" is defined as " any food or food product for human consumption." In order to change the USDA program, Congress would have to change the definition.
Imagine how that might go over.
"Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor and courage that I rise among my body of peers today to force the USDA to include in its definition of the word 'food,' as used in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP program, the words, 'Ol' Roy, Little Friskies, Milk Bones, Nutrish, and all other pet foods marketed in the United States.'
"Further, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you immediately summon emergency medical care for my esteemed colleagues from the Republican Party that seem to have suddenly and collectively popped blood vessels in their eyes and lost consciousness. I yield the remainder of my time."
All humor and vitriol aside, consider if you will, though, the needy who own pets. Many are homeless. And just this past week, students and faculty from the WSU College of Nursing and the WSU College of Veterinary Medicine joined to host a health-screening clinic for homeless and low-income people and their pets. Under the guidance of faculty, the group provided both humans and pets with no-cost health screenings, vaccinations and simple treatments. And yes, there were nutritional treats and samples on hand as well.
People in need own pets too, and both benefit when they are properly fed and are healthy. Healthy pets make for more stable needy people in a society when mental health care has been ripped, not fallen, through the cracks and affects some. Show me a person who cares for a pet, and I will show you someone who has at least a degree of care for their fellow members of society.
Save your hate mail. I know this petition is silly and there is never enough money to go around for all the needs much less the wants.
Just recall change never happened without someone trying.
Charlie Powell is the public information officer for the Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine, which provides this column as a community service. For questions or concerns about animals you'd like to read about, email cpowell@vetmed.wsu.edu.
