Homeless People With Animals...

It a one that tugs at the heartstrings for sure. On the one hand the dog is his sole companion and gives him lots of comfort. On the other hand he has a responsibility to look after the dog and that entails having money to feed and pay for vet fees. Really he needs to sort himself out before having a pet. Harsh maybe, but that's how I see it.

That might have been his dog BEFORE he became homeless. Having pets can be very therapeutic. My boyfriend is a combat veteran, but when he feels down, he just hugs his dog Yoda and kinda curls into him. Yoda senses his pain, and it makes Jim feel better. I'm sure that this man didn't ask to be homeless either. From what I've seen in documentaries, he's more likely to feed his dog than himself.

I think they are human like everyone else, they have feelings and needs, and if a dog give them a little joy in life let them have them.

Hi! I think if one is poor and it is difficult for him to manage his own affairs, then there is no fun of keeping a dog. Dog has its own requirement of food and space, how a poor fellow will meet those requirements.

No, I don't think that homeless people should have animals. These people can't take care of themselves and so why would they give an animal a good life? I certainly understand that they must be lonely but an animal is not the way to go. Its a form of selfishness i think.

I am fine with that...honestly, the last couple of days our television has been showing the plight of homeless people in our capital, and I am truly moved to tears, partly out of gratefulness that god didnt give me that fate, and partly because I can understand how horrible it is to be out there on road without proper warm clothing at 2.7 degrees centigrade. We dont mix with them, dont socialize with them, we dont call them over to our parties or marriages. So if having a dog helps them feel loved, its a very small luxury. The dog may be accompanying his master from the days when he was not homeless, or the master may have shared his meals with a dog who had been left on the roads. Whatever the case, it is a right to love. So I am ok with it.

Most certainly not, but it does rather depend to some degree on the circumstances. If a person has a dog and then becomes homeless it is understandable to a degree. For anyone to acquire a dog while homeless would be unforgivable because they know full well that they are not in any position to care for the animal properly. I often see people sat in doorways in the centre of town begging, with a dog lay at their side and looking very neglected. I suspect that some of these people are not actually homeless but prefer to berg rather than work. That is their choice, but as you rightly say it is not something that the dog has any choice in at all. They are used as a symbol to extract pity from passers by. We are taught as children that a dog is a responsibility and should be treated accordingly, which does not include keeping it on the street all day in winter or in the rain. It genuinely infuriates me when I see this sort of behaviour.

Is this the guy that DOES NOT want to work? If it is, then a big NO!!, he shouldn't have a dog. That is the most selfish thing he could do is make his dog suffer when this jerk doesn't want to take care of himself or the dog. Now I'm pretty angry. What the heck is wrong with him? I'm sure some homeless people DO take care of their pets and would probably give up their life for them. I give them much credit and I'm sure they feel it is their best friend at the moment, bless their hearts. BUT, this guy, NO!

I don't think that you should be able to tell a person that they cannot have pets unless they have a history of abuse with animals. Now I don't know the man that you are talking about and I don't know his situation. However, I would assume that in the economy that we are in right now that there are a lot of people that have lost their homes and when they have to leave, they take their pets with them because their pets are a part of their family.

Well, I think that some homeless people would want a dog for company. Atleast there would be somebody beside him while he is talking, right? But really, having a pet would somehow make them secure in a way. The bad thing only is that since he has difficulty finding food for himself, then he might not be able to take care of the dog well.

If I were to consider things strictly, homeless people shouldn't have pets as they could hardly feed themselves. But then I'm trying to widen my thoughts on this and came to ask myself when did that man acquire this dog? Was it before he became homeless? Did he ever try to give away his dog for adoption but nobody would accept? Or maybe the dog didn't want to leave his master alone? We all know that dogs are very loyal to their masters especially if they were treated with love and care and dogs could feel when we need them the most. The man is homeless, but I think his dog doesn't feel it is homeless because it is home with its master.

I think I can't make a judgement. Maybe anybody has the right to own a pet whether you are homeless or not. Unless otherwise Animal Welfare groups could lobby for the formulation of a law governing this.

Some people will stick beside their pet forever, and vice versa. Now for me I would give them everything before myself. But if I was living on the street I would ask a close friend or family member to take care of them for the time being. I know they would.

Well I'm not a pet hater or something but I'm more concerned for the human before the pet... No homeless people shouldn't have a pet if they can't feed themselves. They have had that pet before though.

The other option would be for the dog to be a stray, caught by the pound & euthanized. At least with the homeless man he get's some companionship. The two are probably far better off together.

This reminds me of a homeless guy featured in one of our local tv station. The old man keeps his dogs are companions. Though the old man is homeless he never failed to feed his dogs (at least he is responsible on that matter)

I know of a scavenging couple, homeless but they have a bicycle with a sidecar which they use for scavenging and maybe as home at night. They have two dogs and a cat riding the bicycle. The dogs look well fed and so with the cat. Months ago, this couple did not have a bicycle and I saw the woman carrying the dog like a baby when the dog probably felt tired. My answer to your question is: it depends. There are big houses here of rich people who have dogs and whose dogs are skin and bones.

I don't understand it, either. Peeople should be responsible for their animals... the only exception I see is when it's a stray animal basically, but most of the time I see homeless people with dogs, the dogs seem so healthy or... like not a mutt, but a valuable dog. Most of the time they even get the dogs to evoke pity for the dog in the people, and give money... yuck.

I think homeless people really need someone's care and a cuddle,so if they can not find somebody then a dogs are good choices for them.

I don't believe that people who cannot properly care for themselves should be adopting pets. I can't help to wonder though if the dog was already a stray and they're just both two homeless friends who found each other.