Here’s an interesting article that has me in a quandry:

City Hounds the Homeless for Dog Licenses

(First of all, I’m going to try and ignore author Matt Smith’s passing reference to “surly bums” and focus on the greater picture here – the “homeless with pets” issue.  BUT just for the record, I equate the word “bum” with a derogatory slur.)

I’ve blogged before about being homeless with a dog because, well, I was… and even with a job and income, I couldn’t keep it up long-term.  My Neo Mastiff, Fezzik, is currently cared for by the wonderful Sage, who has been boarding him for several months.  Even being in a better position than many homeless individuals, I was still only able to keep up care of a dog for two months while living at Wal-Mart.  It is simply very, very difficult to maintain an animal when you’re homeless.  Animals are expensive and time-consuming, and (surprise!) they will get sick at some point, even with the best of care.  It’s just what animals do.

I do understand why many homeless people keep animals, however.  Companionship and protection are two huge motivating factors.  I occasionally had run-ins with some creepy people during the Wal-Mart days, and I felt a hell of a lot safer with 160 lbs. of muscle and teeth snoozing between my bed and the trailer door.  Plus, as we all know – your dog is always happy to see you.  Rarely a day goes by for a homeless individual in which he or she is not looked down upon as a second-class citizen.  A dog doesn’t care about all that caste system crap, though.  A dog just wants to be fed, watered, and petted… in exchange he’ll devote his last dying breath to you.

So yes, I see the attraction.  And I even pulled it off for a while – Fezzik was licensed, had all his shots, was fed/watered/walked, and was the picture of health.  However, I’ve also seen well-meaning homeless people with animals that were clearly suffering.  Probably the worst case was a homeless regular that Matt and I saw outside of a local Starbucks, a few months ago.  His Chow was matted and mangy, covered in scabs, losing hair in clumps, and could barely walk.  I stooped to pet the dog and it gave my hand a few feeble licks, but you could tell that there wasn’t much energy left to speak of; it couldn’t have been too far from death.  Matt had to console me because I wanted to just scoop the dog up and run away with it.  It may be a hard life, but homeless people should not, as a general rule, drag their pets down that road with them.  I won’t say there aren’t exceptions and extenuating circumstances, but they are rare.

However, there’s also a bigger implication to the San Francisco article.  Slapping homeless individuals with tickets and fines for unlicensed dogs won’t solve the problem.  It just adds another unmanageable financial burden on a human being who often doesn’t even know where his or her next meal will be coming from – how is such a person capable of purchasing a dog license, or paying accruing fines?  If San Francisco wants to crack down, then they should look into having these animals adopted and rehomed, but nobody is helped by giving a homeless person just another nuisance citation.  As the author points out, when tickets pile up, they can result in an arrest warrant, which can cause a homeless man or woman to lose all possessions and social services benefits.  It simply accomplishes nothing.

So, my thoughts on this article are twofold:

1)  Homeless people – don’t have pets.  Really.  Don’t.  You’re probably not among the 1% of the dehoused population that can handle it.

2)  San Francisco – quit looking for picky reasons to ticket homeless individuals.  They need help, not another fine to mire them down.