Giving Machines

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Amulek said:

This is just silly. Do you honestly think these charities aren’t using the donations well?

 

So, in the hypothetical I gave earlier about the child in need of life saving medicine, you’re in the ‘I bought you a goat, and you’re getting a goat. Everything else be damned’ camp. That’s fine.

For me, I would be able to sleep at night if it turned out that the money I donated ultimately ended up being spent on something which was needed more than a stupid goat.

 

It's all about who get to choose. The vending machines are innovative and cool because it gives the choice to the individual to decides to donate. There will always be other needs. It's sad but true. There will be need for goats and there will be need for medicines. Do I get to decide where my donated money goes or does an organization/charity get to decide? That's all this is about. You're opting for the organization to decide despite the donor wanting and thinking he is deciding.

Mocking a donation for a "stupid goat" doesn't reflect well on you. It's actually kind of pathetic.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

That's a big "if"

90%? 

Where are you getting this from?

The only way someone wouldn't understand that disclosure is if they couldn't read or understand English.  How much more clear could that statement be?

 

Its just hypothetical.  I have no idea how many people actually know about the disclosure.  The actual % isn't entirely relevant, even if it were 50%, that is still a significant # of people who think the process works a certain way because of how its structured.  People rarely read or even notice disclosures.  How many people really read the terms and conditions of things they agree to? 

[cinepro]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I think there could be a problem if everyone chooses the goat and other needed options are neglected.  Enthusiasm for donating might be dampened if they put a limit on how many goats could be purchased, etc. and at the end of the weekend all that was left in the vending machine was the boring stuff (kind of like the dorms' vending machines always having the blah fake cheese and  crackers available Sunday night even if everything else had been stripped), so not seeing that method being used to ensure they get what they donated as being allthat wise.

A village might not benefit from getting a thousand goats, after all.  There should be some discretion about the use of funds over what type of necessities are bought imo to avoid overpurchase of a particular need while not providing other more important necessities though the target of the donations should be kept consistent (only villages in a defined area at a certain level of general need eligible, for example).

I apologize if I misunderstood.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with buying the goat card and the funds going to Heifer International and them disbursing the funds according the their mission.  The wording as quoted made it sound like the Church, as custodian of the vending machines, could divert the funds from the group named on one card to another charitable purpose (i.e., you bought the goat card, but we're going to direct those funds to the Red Cross, or even other LDS charities or purposes). 

The former seems logical.  The latter seems like a can of worms.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When all the people of the world have clean water I would decide to donate elsewhere, but as you probably know, that need is so great it will likely never be solved in full.

But, charities don't work that way.  They don't have unlimited access to fix all the ills in the world.  They have specific places they work and specific groups or people they try to help.  They are limited by geography, infrastructure, and country relationships.  Just because someone in the world needs clean water doesn't mean that the charity can provide it, even when they have it in excess. 

And there are things that people need but that they can have too much of (things like goats, or sewing machines, for example).  If there is a need for goats, but that need is more quickly filled than expected, what would you like the charities to do with the money that was donated to purchase a goat when they have no one in their scope of usefulness that needs one?  Sincere question.  Let's drop the theoretical aspect and talk real world logistics.

Quote

 

The vending machines are really cool. The concept is great and people are excited about it, precisely because they have choice. They get to choose to buy something tangible like a goat or a hog or a sewing machine for someone in need. It's exciting to have that kind of connection. I have accounts with Kiva which provides micro loans to individuals around the world to help them become self-sustaining. They are mini loans to help them in their business. I get to decide who I donate to and for what purpose; I've donated money to a person in Africa to buy a sewing machine, and to a person in Lima to purchase a milk cow and a number of other things. It's a neat concept that helps me feel like I'm making a difference in a small but specific way. It's that same concept that makes these vending machines so neat.

But remove that concept and it's standard charitable giving. Nothing wrong with that, except that it's advertised as something different. I think HFT has a good question and is right to wonder how we can verify that the $$ I gave to purchase the cow, actually purchased a cow. It's a reasonable request. The fact that so many people on this board are offended by the very basic desire for transparency in the way a charity uses donated funds is troubling. Not only are they offended but they mock the request for verification. They impugn his character for merely asking the question. It says far more about them than it does HFT. Some of the responses on this board are absolutely shameful.

 

I don't think anyone is offended, mostly just bewildered.  Especially those who actually have boots on the ground working for different charities and know that some of the complaints on this thread are illogical and cause harm, and especially knowing that he has no desire or plan to use the machines anyway.

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its just hypothetical.  I have no idea how many people actually know about the disclosure.  The actual % isn't entirely relevant, even if it were 50%, that is still a significant # of people who think the process works a certain way because of how its structured.  People rarely read or even notice disclosures.  How many people really read the terms and conditions of things they agree to? 

What if it were 0.000001%?  I can throw out random numbers too!  

I think it is a sloppy smear campaign when people make accusations based on hypotheticals that they can't back up.  You are making accusations of not being transparent and of being intentionally deceptive based on hypotheticals?   We are not talking about pages of fine print that most people don't read.  We are talking about one simple, well worded, paragraph posted clearly on all the machines right above the money slot.  I think most people are going to look around the machine to find out who the organization is and how much of their donation is going to the actual charity, and if they can trust them or not.

Edited December 19, 2018 by pogi

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's all about who get to choose. The vending machines are innovative and cool because it gives the choice to the individual to decides to donate. There will always be other needs. It's sad but true. There will be need for goats and there will be need for medicines. Do I get to decide where my donated money goes or does an organization/charity get to decide? That's all this is about. You're opting for the organization to decide despite the donor wanting and thinking he is deciding.

Mocking a donation for a "stupid goat" doesn't reflect well on you. It's actually kind of pathetic.

I think that most people fall into the camp of 'Yay, I get to choose my donation, but if something else is needed more, then I'm good with that!" camp.  And I don't think that Amulek is mocking the donation of a goat, but the negative reaction of someone who's money didn't go towards the specific donation he made despite it not actually being needed anymore.  

He seems to be mocking the idea that someone would be upset that a family that didn't need a goat didn't get one but got something they needed more instead.  And if we think about it, it really is an odd reason to be upset. It just doesn't seem like something a reasonable person would be upset about.

Edited December 19, 2018 by bluebell

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

What if it were 0.000001%?  I can throw out random numbers too!  

I think it is a sloppy smear campaign when people make accusations based on hypotheticals that they can't back up.  You are making accusations of not being transparent and of being intentionally deceptive based on hypotheticals?   We are not talking about pages of fine print that most people don't read.  We are talking about one simple, well worded, paragraph posted clearly on all the machines right above the money slot.  I think most people are going to look around the machine to find out who the organization is and how much of their donation is going to the actual charity, and if they can trust them or not.

How the funds are spent is not at all transparent, that was the core of my OP and that point is not a hypothetical, its a fact.  Also, asking questions on an obscure message board on the internet doesn't constitute a "smear campaign".  

I don't know how many people read the disclosure statement, that is pure speculation.  I think its relevant because of the nature of the way the machines are constructed and the impression they give that you are donating very specific items for specific dollar amounts.  Its confusing at best and a bate and switch at worst, in my opinion.  

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But, charities don't work that way.  They don't have unlimited access to fix all the ills in the world.  They have specific places they work and specific groups or people they try to help.  They are limited by geography, infrastructure, and country relationships.  Just because someone in the world needs clean water doesn't mean that the charity can provide it, even when they have it in excess. 

And there are things that people need but that they can have too much of (things like goats, or sewing machines, for example).  If there is a need for goats, but that need is more quickly filled than expected, what would you like the charities to do with the money that was donated to purchase a goat when they have no one in their scope of usefulness that needs one?  Sincere question.  Let's drop the theoretical aspect and talk real world logistics.

I don't think anyone is offended, mostly just bewildered.  Especially those who actually have boots on the ground working for different charities and know that some of the complaints on this thread are illogical and cause harm, and especially knowing that he has no desire or plan to use the machines anyway.

If people weren't offended, they sure were rude about their responses to HFT.

Charity Water will not run out of need. They are in many countries. If they outlive their ability to provide clean water then I will donate elsewhere. I will choose. I won't leave it to them to redirect my funds for some other purpose.

I would suggest that if the need for goats is met, the church should remove goats from the vending machine in favor of other needs people may donate to. Seems pretty simple. If they don't need to provide 20,000 goats, don't stock 20,000 goats in the machine. Why is it theoretical to expect the church to use monies donated for a certain purpose to be applied for that certain purpose? If they don't have the ability to provide goats, they shouldn't offer that as a donation option. If they really only have the ability to donate $$ for Malaria, and don't have the ability to ship 2000 sewing machines to needful places in the world, they shouldn't offer to provide sewing machines.

If the church can't logistically fill the needs it claims to be allowing people to fill, they should scrap the concept of the vending machine.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, I didn't catch the part about the donations possibly being used for other charitable purposes and that this notification is on the vending machines.  That sounds similar to the fine print at the bottom of the tithing submission slips.  

I wasn't at all suspecting criminal misuse.  I'm not sure what an auditor would review to make sure they are compliant with IRS regulations.  I'm more interested in knowing how much of the funds donated actually end up helping people in need.   I know many charities report on this kind of information so that those contributing can now how much of the funds donated actually go to helping people. 

100 % of all donations go to help those in need. No administrative costs are deducted by LDS Philanthropies or affiliated charities.  LDS Charities (Humanitarian Services) / LDS Philanthropies are under the direction of the Presiding Bishop of the LDS Church. 

[Thinking]

Quote

The charities reserve the right to use the money donated through the vending machines for items or services of greater need.

This sounds familiar.

Quote

Though reasonable efforts will be made to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission.

 

 

[Amulek]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's all about who get to choose. The vending machines are innovative and cool because it gives the choice to the individual to decides to donate. There will always be other needs. It's sad but true. There will be need for goats and there will be need for medicines. Do I get to decide where my donated money goes or does an organization/charity get to decide? That's all this is about. You're opting for the organization to decide despite the donor wanting and thinking he is deciding.

Donors who demand control over how their money is spent would be better served by participating with charities devoted to the specific cause they're interested in, as you seem to do. 

The vending machines, however, make clear that there is a possibility the money you donate for a specific commodity might not be used for that end if there is a greater need. So the vending machine set-up is basically saying that, while your decision will probably come to fruition, there is a possibility that it won't - but only if something more pressing comes up. Again, that seems like a fairly sensible way to handle things.

 

Quote

Mocking a donation for a "stupid goat" doesn't reflect well on you. It's actually kind of pathetic.

I didn't mock anything. Go back and re-read what I wrote. I was talking about myself. If I had purchased a goat from the vending machine, and that money was ultimately spent on something that was needed more - I would be okay with that. You on the other hand, would demand the goat be delivered come hell or high water.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that most people fall into the camp of 'Yay, I get to choose my donation, but if something else is needed more, then I'm good with that!" camp.  And I don't think that Amulek is mocking the donation of a goat, but the negative reaction of someone who's money didn't go towards the specific donation he made despite it not actually being needed anymore.  

He seems to be mocking the idea that someone would be upset that a family that didn't need a goat didn't get one but got something they needed more instead.  And if we think about it, it really is an odd reason to be upset. It just doesn't seem like something a reasonable person would be upset about.

You can call me unreasonable if you like, but I disagree. I find it very reasonable to expect an organization/charity to utilize my donation in the way I designate. If I don't care how my money is used I can donate it to the general humanitarian fund. But if I want to decide where my funds go (maybe it's more meaningful or fun or helps me feel more involved) and a charity claims I can get to decide, it seems reasonable to be upset when they don't actually let me decide. Like I said earlier, they are merely supplying the illusion of choice. Some people don't mind that illusion. Some people do. I think both are reasonable reactions.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Donors who demand control over how their money is spent would be better served by participating with charities devoted to the specific cause they're interested in, as you seem to do. 

The vending machines, however, make clear that there is a possibility the money you donate for a specific commodity might not be used for that end if there is a greater need. So the vending machine set-up is basically saying that, while your decision will probably come to fruition, there is a possibility that it won't - but only if something more pressing comes up. Again, that seems like a fairly sensible way to handle things.

 

I didn't mock anything. Go back and re-read what I wrote. I was talking about myself. If I had purchased a goat from the vending machine, and that money was ultimately spent on something that was needed more - I would be okay with that. You on the other hand, would demand the goat be delivered come hell or high water.

 

I don't think I'm demanding anything. I'm simply expecting the church to fulfill the service they are offering to me. I didn't go out and demand that they allow me to purchase and donate a goat. They offered me the option but then seem take it away and you seem to think that means I'm demanding.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

It's not bait and switch if it is clear on the machine. 

I can tell you that our family would have a lot of fun buying a goat as we have stories about my husband and goats from his childhood, but not one of us would care if it went for greater needs at the moment.

I think that is the purpose of such things rather than just asking for money in general.  It creates a concrete target to think about and to create your own story around rather than a vague sense of 'we did something to help, but we are not sure what' (this is why so many charities provide a specific narrative coupled with a specific person/animal/place to view as the target of donations, I believe), but few if any imo would care what was given to help as long as those targeted to be helped receive what they need to be happy, especially if the givers could see the effect.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Then why even structure the giving machines in the way they do?  Why give the illusion that you're picking a specific item to be donated?  They should instead just give a list of all the possible things someone's $50 could be donated toward.  Instead the machine is setup to give you the distinct impression otherwise.  

Because it turns donating from a relatively boring, unconnected to a person or thing obligation to a fun, eyecatching, story creating moment that helps givers connect in a more concrete way with those they give to by giving them something tangible to focus on.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Calm

[Vanguard]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think I'm demanding anything. I'm simply expecting the church to fulfill the service they are offering to me. I didn't go out and demand that they allow me to purchase and donate a goat. They offered me the option but then seem take it away and you seem to think that means I'm demanding.

Come on, HJW. The Church in this instance didn't take away any option you didn't already consent to having taken away. You're moving the goalposts to buttress your argument. If there were not a disclaimer on the machine then your argument would have cause. That is, unless you then want to argue about the placement of the disclaimer and whether it should be in neon lights. Good grief...

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's all about who get to choose. The vending machines are innovative and cool because it gives the choice to the individual to decides to donate. There will always be other needs. It's sad but true. There will be need for goats and there will be need for medicines. Do I get to decide where my donated money goes or does an organization/charity get to decide? That's all this is about. You're opting for the organization to decide despite the donor wanting and thinking he is deciding.

Since few people can or want to make the effort to deliver charity face to face, they need to choose an agent to act on their behalf.  If they don't want to make the effort and pay enough attention to who that agent is and how they intend to use the funds provided (information provided on the machine in this cases) and just expend minimal effort to choose without really thinking about it or taking the time to investigate (as in reading the info provided and easily accessible and then thinking about it long enough to register its meaning), then that is on them imo.  As long as the agent follows the mission they clearly identify to the donator, I don't see the issue.  No one is being forced to use the machines or told to ignore the information provided.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You can call me unreasonable if you like, but I disagree. I find it very reasonable to expect an organization/charity to utilize my donation in the way I designate. If I don't care how my money is used I can donate it to the general humanitarian fund. But if I want to decide where my funds go (maybe it's more meaningful or fun or helps me feel more involved) and a charity claims I can get to decide, it seems reasonable to be upset when they don't actually let me decide. Like I said earlier, they are merely supplying the illusion of choice. Some people don't mind that illusion. Some people do. I think both are reasonable reactions.

Once again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm simply expecting the church to fulfill the service they are offering to me

Which they are.

That you choose to understand it as a different service is on you, not them, imo.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Charity Water will not run out of need. They are in many countries. If they outlive their ability to provide clean water then I will donate elsewhere. I will choose. I won't leave it to them to redirect my funds for some other purpose.

We're not just talking about Charity Water though.  And you never actually answered my question.  I'll post it again.  If there is a need for goats, but that need is more quickly filled than expected, what would you like the charities to do with the money that was donated to purchase a goat when they have no one in their scope of usefulness that needs one?

Quote

I would suggest that if the need for goats is met, the church should remove goats from the vending machine in favor of other needs people may donate to. Seems pretty simple.

I'm sure it does seem pretty simple, especially to someone who has no idea if it's actual simple or not.  Rain, on the other hand, has posted in this thread that she is one of the people that is responsible for removing things from being able to be donated to the local charity she works with and she has stated that it sounds simple to keep on top of that, but it's actually not simple or easy at all.  I'm sure that is even more true when you have thousands of people donating to the machines on any given day.

Quote

If they don't need to provide 20,000 goats, don't stock 20,000 goats in the machine.

Do they actually stock 20,000 goats?  Is that how it works?

Quote

 

Why is it theoretical to expect the church to use monies donated for a certain purpose to be applied for that certain purpose? If they don't have the ability to provide goats, they shouldn't offer that as a donation option. If they really only have the ability to donate $$ for Malaria, and don't have the ability to ship 2000 sewing machines to needful places in the world, they shouldn't offer to provide sewing machines.

If the church can't logistically fill the needs it claims to be allowing people to fill, they should scrap the concept of the vending machine.

 

Thank goodness the church doesn't have the same perspective. 

Edited December 19, 2018 by bluebell

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

How the funds are spent is not at all transparent, that was the core of my OP and that point is not a hypothetical, its a fact. 

I don't know how you can say this is not transparent:

Quote

100 percent of your donation will be used for the purchased item or for similar items or services of greater need as determined by the applicable charitable organization. Administrative costs for this campaign and costs associated with its nonprofit partners are covered by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

That is 100% full disclosure.  If you don't like that there may be a chance that the charity may decide what services would be most beneficial, then don't donate...but in no way can you claim this is not transparent. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If people weren't offended, they sure were rude about their responses to HFT.

Charity Water will not run out of need. They are in many countries. If they outlive their ability to provide clean water then I will donate elsewhere. I will choose. I won't leave it to them to redirect my funds for some other purpose.

I would suggest that if the need for goats is met, the church should remove goats from the vending machine in favor of other needs people may donate to. Seems pretty simple. If they don't need to provide 20,000 goats, don't stock 20,000 goats in the machine. Why is it theoretical to expect the church to use monies donated for a certain purpose to be applied for that certain purpose? If they don't have the ability to provide goats, they shouldn't offer that as a donation option. If they really only have the ability to donate $$ for Malaria, and don't have the ability to ship 2000 sewing machines to needful places in the world, they shouldn't offer to provide sewing machines.

If the church can't logistically fill the needs it claims to be allowing people to fill, they should scrap the concept of the vending machine.

And if it isn't about ability to fulfill the need, but uncertainty about what the need will be because a lot can change from moment to moment when living at survival mode?  Should they be required to go out and canvas villages prior to the campaign to get a specific commitment on needs, spending a great deal of money to do so and then rigidly follow that plan no matter what has happened to those in need in the intervening time or should they depend on rough estimates of need upfront and put more of their resources into figuring out what is needed in the moment they are there with those in need?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

What if it were 0.000001%?  I can throw out random numbers too!  

I think it is a sloppy smear campaign when people make accusations based on hypotheticals that they can't back up.  You are making accusations of not being transparent and of being intentionally deceptive based on hypotheticals?   We are not talking about pages of fine print that most people don't read.  We are talking about one simple, well worded, paragraph posted clearly on all the machines right above the money slot.  I think most people are going to look around the machine to find out who the organization is and how much of their donation is going to the actual charity, and if they can trust them or not.

And if they don't, that is on them.  That is their choice to not invest the effort to do so.

A vending machine that is clearly marked that it will substitute a comparable item if out of stock and thus gives a seven-up instead of a sprite is not at fault if the customer didn't bother to figure out what they were buying before they put the money in.  If it is complicated (or even just more than a paragraph where people are likely to skip reading), hidden (on the back for example) or a lie, that would be different, but if clearly marked (and a few sentence sign is often read automatically as soon as your eyes hit it) and positioned for best access (which it appears to be in the case of the giving machines, right where you have to look to put in the money), it takes less effort to register that info than it likely does to choose which button to push ...be a responsible shopper.  If that isn't what you want to buy, don't buy it and walk away.  If you choose to buy it anyway, then don't complain.  No one forced you.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

100 % of all donations go to help those in need. No administrative costs are deducted by LDS Philanthropies or affiliated charities.  LDS Charities (Humanitarian Services) / LDS Philanthropies are under the direction of the Presiding Bishop of the LDS Church. 

Thanks, I know that is what they state up front, just wondering if there is any verification mechanism.  

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We're not just talking about Charity Water though.  And you never actually answered my question.  I'll post it again.  If there is a need for goats, but that need is more quickly filled than expected, what would you like the charities to do with the money that was donated to purchase a goat when they have no one in their scope of usefulness that needs one?

I'm sure it does seem pretty simple, especially to someone who has no idea if it's actual simple or not.  Rain, on the other hand, has posted in this thread that she is one of the people that is responsible for removing things from being able to be donated to the local charity she works with and she has stated that it sounds simple to keep on top of that, but it's actually not simple or easy at all.  I'm sure that is even more true when you have thousands of people donating to the machines on any given day.

Do they actually stock 20,000 goats?  Is that how it works?

Thank goodness the church doesn't have the same perspective. 

I did answer your question. I said...

Quote

I would suggest that if the need for goats is met, the church should remove goats from the vending machine in favor of other needs people may donate to. Seems pretty simple. If they don't need to provide 20,000 goats, don't stock 20,000 goats in the machine. Why is it theoretical to expect the church to use monies donated for a certain purpose to be applied for that certain purpose? If they don't have the ability to provide goats, they shouldn't offer that as a donation option. If they really only have the ability to donate $$ for Malaria, and don't have the ability to ship 2000 sewing machines to needful places in the world, they shouldn't offer to provide sewing machines.

When the need for goats is accomplished, stop accepting money for goats.

I admit that I cannot fathom why this would not be a simple task. In a day and age when everything is tracked electronically, when vendors track supplies, merchandise, sales via sales software, I can't understand how the church could accidentally sell an extra 20,000 goats and then be stuck with the donated funds they need to distribute elsewhere. I'm not familiar with the vending machines. I've never seen one in person. When someone chooses "Goat" do they get anything? Do they get a card or a receipt or anything that indicates the purchase of a goat has been completed? If they do, the sale is tracked. If they do, there is a method of stocking "goats" in the machine. And we're not talking about hundreds or thousands of machines. We're talking about a handful, right? Are you really suggesting that the church is incapable of tracking what they are selling, and/or are incapable of changing the offering if the need for goats has been met? The church is not inept. I would imagine that at HQ they could run a report today and know exactly how many goats have been sold, how many sewing machines etc, and they would also know their goal for what they were hoping to collect and distribute. So if they plan to donate 5000 goats and they can see they've already sold 5000 goats, they should start providing a different product for purchase.

42 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Come on, HJW. The Church in this instance didn't take away any option you didn't already consent to having taken away. You're moving the goalposts to buttress your argument. If there were not a disclaimer on the machine then your argument would have cause. That is, unless you then want to argue about the placement of the disclaimer and whether it should be in neon lights. Good grief...

I'm not moving the goal posts. The vending machine implies a person chooses where the funds go. A disclaimer may state that it won't necessarily work that way. Actually I think it would make some difference how prominently the disclosure is displayed. Can someone provide a picture of this vending machine and the disclaimer? Maybe it is displayed prominently. I don't know. But I do know that people rarely read disclaimers so I would be surprised if the majority of the people purchasing a goat knows it may not be actually purchasing a goat.