Please Don’t Dog Me
July 21st, 2006 | by MadHacktress |SPCA visit upsets homeless dog-owner
When I lived in Ottawa I used to spend a fair amount of time at the drop-in centre for the Youth Services Bureau - the one near the Rideau Centre. Many of the youth who regularly attended the drop-in - homeless youth - owned dogs (among other pets, but it’s dogs we’re dealing with today).
While in some cases the dogs definitely looked like they lived outdoors I can’t recall a single animal that looked malnourished. I know, for a fact, that many of the youth who came to the drop-in centre ensured their pets’ were able to eat before they, themselves ate. That is a big part of the reason that this article irks me.
It is not an uncommon thing for the SPCA, or other animal protection agencies, to target homeless people, assuming that they cannot, or do not, take care of their animals correctly. The fact that these animal are relegated to living out doors all the time is an often cited concern.
I live in an area of Kingston with a number of automobile yards - “junk yards” if you prefer. Within a two block radius of me there are at least a dozen guard dogs in these various “junk yards”; probably more. These dogs are outside all night, they’re unruly, they’re unkempt and they’re left to spend all night outside - rain, sleet or snow.
I understand that SPCA or PETA or whatever want to leave no stone unturned but, seriously, let’s have a little more time spent on puppy mills and a little less time spent “profiling” people as bad pet owners because of their financial demographic. Money does not a good pet owner make.
Just look at me, the last time I cleaned my fish tank was… uh… what year is it?
Entry Filed under: In The News, Pure Opinion
Homeless people can barely even feed themselves without soup kitchens and food banks, yet we should expect that they will feed thier pets?
That makes no sense.
Thanks for posting this, I totally agree.
yes this is often why homeless people stay inthe street rather than go to a shelter because pets aren\’t allowed. We need to have more shelters that allow pets and stop judging the homeless.
Ok Berman, since you seem to know why homeless people are on the streets, perhaps you can tell us how many of them actually HAVE pets?
If they cannot afford to be feeding even themselves, they shouldn’t have pets. Do the responsible thing and put them up for adoption or ask the SPCA to take care of them. There are health regulations for a reason. Turning homeless shelters into kennels is not an answer.
I tried as hard as I could to dig up some stats online that showed how many homeless people do, in fact, have pets. From my own experiences when I lived in Ottawa I would estimate it at around a third. That’s just based on recollection.
Homeless people very often remark at the close bonds they have with their pets - you can find quotes and soundbites to support that all over the internet. With comments like, “[it's] the only thing that loves me”, I find it hard to tell this already marginalized group of people that they do not have the right to own a pet.
Whether or not a homeless person can afford, or is able, to feed themselves is not really material to this discussion. As long as the animal is taken care of then agencies like the SPCA should, in my opinion, butt out. The big problem I have is that a specific group of people is being targeted only because of a perception that they cannot provide for their pets.
As to shelters not allowing pets: that is changing. More and more the shelters are offering lodging for pets, or finding ways to accomodate individuals who own pets. Searching online you can find a number of sources that show that pets have a beneficial impact on the lives of their homeless owners (which stands to reason since they have a beneficial impact on their “homed” owners as well).
I tried as hard as I could to dig up some stats online that showed how many homeless people do, in fact, have pets. From my own experiences when I lived in Ottawa I would estimate it at around a third. That’s just based on recollection.
Incidental anecdotal experience of what YOU SAW is NOT the same as actual statistics. Sorry. And if you DO want to go anecdotal, I used to work as an intake worker with a Salvation Army Men’s homeless shelter for five years. A lot of times these people cannot even look after their own needs due to mental health issues. Some even choose to be on the streets. You may say that is not so,
but my direct involvement with these people has shown me otherwise. Many of them cannot even care for their own needs, I can’t see how they can even look after pets.
Homeless people very often remark at the close bonds they have with their pets - you can find quotes and soundbites to support that all over the internet. With comments like, “[it’s] the only thing that loves meâ€, I find it hard to tell this already marginalized group of people that they do not have the right to own a pet.
No one is questioning their right to own a pet or the value of that pet to them, just their expectation that their pet should be fed and cared for by taxpayers. These shelters are for homeless people, they are not kennels for animals. There are obvious health issues here and that is only one reason why its not or shouldn’t be permitted.
Whether or not a homeless person can afford, or is able, to feed themselves is not really material to this discussion.
It is if they are doing it at their own detriment in favour of the their pet. Sorry, people and basic needs first here.
As long as the animal is taken care of then agencies like the SPCA should, in my opinion, butt out.
And just how do we determine if a person who has no fixed address is actually taking care of or able to care for their pet?
The big problem I have is that a specific group of people is being targeted only because of a perception that they cannot provide for their pets
You see, I look at it the other way. They are being targeted because it is a valid question to ask if a a homeless person is not getting their basic need requirements like food in favour of their pet that they love. Of course, if the reverse is true, and they are unable to care for their pet let alone themselves, then of course the proper authorities should step in for that pet.
As to shelters not allowing pets: that is changing. More and more of the shelters are offering lodging for pets, or finding ways to accomodate individuals who own pets.
And that is the kind of country we live in nowadays; where practically anything is being permitted. Just because they are changing their rules doesn’t make it right. Where does it end? One pet? Three? Ten? Where should it end? If its only one, what happens to the others if they have them? This issue of pets in PEOPLE’S homeless shelters is just liberal compassion getting out of hand. I don’t want my tax dollars paying for pet care. Sorry, that is just stupid.
Searching online you can find a number of sources that show that pets have a beneficial impact on the lives of their homeless owners (which stands to reason since they have a beneficial impact on their “homed†owners as well).
Yes, pets are wonderful aren’t they? But I don’t want to pay for the care of other people’s pets when their own lives are in shambles because of their homelessness. That may sound harsh, but too bad; people first here.
Incidental anecdotal experience of what YOU SAW is NOT the same as actual statistics. Sorry.
Absolutely, and I never characterised it like that at all. I clearly stated that it was only my recollection - not to mention the fact that the subset of homeless folk with whom I was working were hardly representative of the demographic as a whole.
A lot of times these people cannot even look after their own needs due to mental health issues. Some even choose to be on the streets. You may say that is not so, but my direct involvement with these people has shown me otherwise.
That absolutely is so. My own grandmother’s brother was homeless by choice. He was a very intelligent and interesting man, but had no interest in being “homed”. He was, unfortunately, struck by a car on his bicycle a few years back.
[...]just their expectation that their pet should be fed and cared for by taxpayers.
I don’t think that these individuals are expecting their pet should be fed by taxpayers at all. Yes, perhaps the food that they share with their pet is provided by taxpayers they are not being any greater burden on the system as pet owners.
These shelters are for homeless people, they are not kennels for animals. There are obvious health issues here and that is only one reason why its not or shouldn’t be permitted.
Whether to allow pets in to shelters, or not, is an entirely separate issue, in my opinion. My concern is that a group of people is being specifically targeted as offenders due only to their demographic. The SPCA and other animal rights groups often assume there is an offense, or that the animals are living in less than optimal conditions for no reason other than their homelessness.
Sorry, people and basic needs first here.
Is the individual himself or herself not entitled to decide what are their basic needs?
And just how do we determine if a person who has no fixed address is actually taking care of or able to care for their pet?
The article in question clearly indicates that the SPCA feels themselves in possession of enough information to brand some of these homeless people as offenders. So this argument is moot - the SPCA is moving on homeless people, fixed address or not.
They are being targeted because it is a valid question to ask if a a homeless person is not getting their basic need requirements like food in favour of their pet that they love.
I feel that the individual has the right to decide what is in their own best interest.
[...]where practically anything is being permitted. Just because they are changing their rules doesn’t make it right. Where does it end?
I agree: it doesn’t make it right. I guess, however, that this is what makes me a social leftist because I don’t particularly think that extending the benefit of compassion to an animal in the custody of a homeless person is a more worse thing that extending it the same compassion in a government sponsored humaine society.
Yes, pets are wonderful aren’t they? But I don’t want to pay for the care of other people’s pets when their own lives are in shambles because of their homelessness.
Your tax dollars are going to pay - at least in part - for the animals whether they’re feral, in a humaine society or, (yes, I will concede) in the custody of a homeless person. How the money adds up, I don’t know I am not so privy to government budgets. But one way or the other tax dollars are going to be filtering down to both the animal and the person.
I, personally, would like to think that the pairing of a homeless person with an animal that they love and that loves them back is worth whatever little expense may be incurred.
For sure all these homeless people are attending dog shows and snapping up all the good ones, or laying down $1000+ for a pet. They likely find them and they, well, find them… on the street.
Lots of “homed” people get “tired” of pets, or their children grow up and move away to places where “No Pets are Allowed.”
Some of these poor animals are rescued by the SPCA or other agencies, and many wind up with a happy ending of living with a loving family and having “lots of room to roam.”
However, even the SPCA can’t hide the fact that the majority of these “street animals” get euthanized. (Often gassed in multiples; none of that quiet room and little pin-prick “good” pet owners opt for the the comfort of the family vet’s…
Yes, Virginia, they kill the feral and unwanted beasts, so others can live and also because of the dirth of cages.
Let the people have their one-eyed, one-legged or traumatized castaways of the more affluent society, please.
Someone has to look after these poor souls, and considering the options available, a loyal dog or a societal cat is a fair companion.
Good grief, what would St. Francis think of all this talk of people being too poor and downtrodden for animals to be allowed to love them and have that love returned?