I know there are certain regulations in wildlife parks that you shouldn’t feed the animals, because they might depend on humans, get aggressive, etc…
but does this apply in all circumstances?
what about just the random squirrel on the side of the road? or the birds in your backyard?
i’m a bit torn on the issue. it’s not necessarily a sin, but I now we’re supposed to follow civil laws, rules and regulations whenever possible
I just don’t know how far it extends. there are animal activists that will say that you should never give animals anything and make a huge deal out of it. but there are examples in the bible and lives of saints where they gave leftover food to wildlife etC…
I am asking myself if my answering these questions is not, perhaps, in your best interest ultimately.
SIgns asking us not to feed animals in a given area is addressing a specific issue that some civil authority is trying to address. We are exercising good citizenship to comply with the request. I suppose in an extreme case, we could be fined for disregarding the instruction.
But this is not a sin. We are violating some sort of civil ordinance designed to keep the peace.
In our own yards or in wild areas, one could feed a random squirrel or bird. Again there is no sin.
I once knew a couple who set out on the fence three buckets of oats every night because they loved to see the deer come to visit them and eat the oats. It was a family of deer. Needless to say, the deer were quite taken with this couple and happily trotted out each evening to collect their evening meal.
This nightly ritual that was not without a quaint charm, however, caused a growing herd to emerge eventually from the woods. This became a source of consternation to their neighbors who were bothered by the deer rummaging around their homes. One could come to recognize old-timers that had once appeared as youngsters in previous years.
These lackadaisical deer, after years, were quite habituated to receiving their regular meal and tended to become very ill-disposed when the couple was away. I do not think the couple was thinking with much forethought about what they would create by the time they left the area, which was after a span of years.
Unfortunately, the couple’s sojourn was long enough that they had established a very eclectic group of nightly visitors who viewed the couple as their benefactors. Collecting din-din at the fence seemed, from their behaviour, a much more genial and tasty enterprise than foraging for it. As this experiment came to its end and the couple sold their home, the significance of this very human activity was lost upon the deer. The four legged diners were not content to merely express gratitude for the many meals they had enjoyed – they were belligerent that the meal service was not going on in perpetuity but was being terminated by the very different human beings buying the house and not so interested in becoming caretakers a domesticated herd of deer.
This is not a story about sin but rather that even an absence of common sense and courtesy can create a situation that is disruptive to those who are acting (the couple, in this case) those who are directly affected (the nearby households) and even animals lacking intellect and will (the deer). Even in the absence of sin, there can be problems. Human actions can have consequences.
In this case, really harmful to wildlife.