PETA balks at SF plan to pay panhandlers $75/wk to care for shelter puppies. Regardless of any pros and cons here, the economics don’t make sense; we’ve heard that panhandlers get much more than $75 a week by panhandling.
This post was last modified on July 16, 2012
View Comments (19)
How about we spin it this way, The homeless, drunks, crackheads get put in a shelter and we pay PETA to watch them in their little cages.
The libs would never go for it once PETA starts euthanizing them, unless they figure out that they can all still vote.
This idea will fail for one simple reason. Work. This whole concept is based on getting the dregs of society to show up and earn money for work.
Lot of interesting discussin over at the article itself. Not entirely sure what to make of this, but I think I have to agree with those opposing it. Just no way to make it work without even more government supervision of what's going on. They'd do better to foster the animals out into regular families, or at least someone who has an actual job and home.
For sure they'd need some oversight, but with the correct oversight (it's a stretch I know) it might be a good thing. I've seen that show where prisioners care and train animals and it's a positive thing. And let's not generalize, there are homeless people who have wound up that way through no fault of their own, they were just dealt a really crappy hand and a little responsibility and a little cash might help them move out of their situation. I hope I'm right. I love dogs (have 2 of my own) and would hate to see harm come to poor defensiveless puppies.
Sorry Geoff but altruism only works in a perfect world and we don't live in one. The program works with jailbirds because they have a home, one they cannot leave at any time until they have done their time, with constant supervision over their actions with the animals.
The percentage of those homeless due to bad circumstances is very low, maybe 5%, the rest are homeless because they are too lazy to work. It makes no sense to give someone $75 per week to take care of a pet when they have no job. That little pittance won't feed one person for a week so how are they going to feed their pet? Panhandle to get more money for dog food? In a city where they are trying to stop people from begging on the streets? Ain't gonna work pal, sorry.
I don't like the idea of thrusting the innocent animals into the kind of world that the homeless live in. But the article IS very confusing, speaking at one point as if this is a program for the homeless, at another point about the people's homes. Of course, it's to be administrated by government people in SF, so it won't be a good thing.
I actually think this could work out well.
The homeless I have seen that have a dog for a companion tend to be more calm and non -combative. Having a pet makes them feel like they have worth because they are loved and actually become somewhat more responsible.
The dogs are generally healthy and happy too.
I'm thinking of a guy that used to be pretty well known in Long Beach, CA. He was filthy, looked like he just climbed out of a dumpster, had about a half dozen dogs all on leashes made of assorted trash, and walked around cursing at imaginary people, and spitting on real people.
But, were the dogs well fed and healthy?
This makes me think of my father in law. He has dementia, forgets many things, and acts spacey at times, but loves and cares for our dogs.
No, the dogs were no better cared for than "the dog man." But then, that's just one man. I hear what you're saying about people and animals. I did some carpet work in a retirement home where they had dogs and cats to sit with the folks on the porch, and it was definitely a good thing for both people and pets.
Great idea! Let's turn the care of helpless, lovable puppies over to alcohol and drug abusing, brain damaged, irresponsible street people. We're talking about people whose only ambition is to get wasted, people with a two minute attention span, people who boast of their lack of a work ethic, people with STDs and other chronic diseases, people who would steal the dog food and try to sell it.
This is an idea so stupid only San Francisco could support it.
Actually serious felons are raising and training dogs in prison and the dogs are getting through to them when nothing and nobody else is. They are monitored, and taught the proper care and exercise and traing. As for being drunk or high, that's what the $75 a week is for-take the edge off!
Wait are talking about the homeless or John and Olivia?
yes
It's the stupid bitching that the other stupid is stupid. Stupid.
I'm not sure what the bigger mystery is. That SF actually came up with a good idea, or that anyone with an IQ over 20 gives a crap about anything PETA has to say.
Unbelievable. The San Fartcisco loons want to take animals away from PETA, who killed over 100,000 dogs and cats last year because they could not afford to take care of them? Shame on the city leaders!
Believable. Television news outlets no longer employ editors or proof readers. In the second and third paragraphs of the article the goombahs claim that the dogs will be given to panhandlers, along with a check, but those panhandlers live in city housing. In the last paragraph some manager, Bevan Doofass or something, claims that the pets would be a great benefit to the cities homeless. Which is it Mr. news director, are the panhandlers homeless or do they live in city housing?
Unbelievable again. $75 bucks per week? Are you kidding me? A good panhandler in a liberal looney bin like The Gay Bay can make more than that in a day! Even though it is not as big a waste of money as the states plan to build a choo-choo train to nowhere, it is still a very stupid idea and a waste of badly needed funds. Funds that could be used to pay for the homless panhandlers city housing.
Well...being a dog lover the answer is simple:
Paying homeless to help "shelter pups" is very cool. PETA needs to STFU and
grow some real balls.
If the puppies are abused in any fashion, shoot the abusive bastards because we all know if a person abuses an animal its only a matter of time until they abuse humans. Good riddance.
So simple even a liberal can understand it.