I don't know how there is a logical jump from me not thinking that it is a good idea to give random people puppies to me wanting them euthanized. Though there are minimal controls on the program, such as the people who receive the puppies can no longer panhandle and they have to be living in a homeless shelter. The article,the source of my information on the program, didn't cover the many aspects to the program that are left open. Things such as, who is going to make sure that these people are still living at the shelter and aren't panhandling, how do they know they are still in SF, how are they screening candidates other than the controls given above?
Instead, and this is one of the few times I'll agree with PETA, they are planning on giving people who live in precarious situations already, the responsibility for another living being. How are they going to afford the medical bills that come with a pup? How are they going to make sure that the pup eats? Who is going to make sure that these people aren't abusing the dogs, given that many people who are in this situation have many afflictions already (such as alcoholism and mental disorders)?
I think that someone in the SF government thought it was a good idea, someone other than the tax payer is paying for the program (for now), and since they are government, even it it is a bad idea, you'll obey and like it. Hence their audited toward skeptics.
Pin it! 
2 comments
Login to comment →
egro 12 years, 3 months ago
So they should just put down the dogs instead?
Reply
Nessue 12 years, 3 months ago
I don't know how there is a logical jump from me not thinking that it is a good idea to give random people puppies to me wanting them euthanized. Though there are minimal controls on the program, such as the people who receive the puppies can no longer panhandle and they have to be living in a homeless shelter. The article,the source of my information on the program, didn't cover the many aspects to the program that are left open. Things such as, who is going to make sure that these people are still living at the shelter and aren't panhandling, how do they know they are still in SF, how are they screening candidates other than the controls given above?
Instead, and this is one of the few times I'll agree with PETA, they are planning on giving people who live in precarious situations already, the responsibility for another living being. How are they going to afford the medical bills that come with a pup? How are they going to make sure that the pup eats? Who is going to make sure that these people aren't abusing the dogs, given that many people who are in this situation have many afflictions already (such as alcoholism and mental disorders)?
I think that someone in the SF government thought it was a good idea, someone other than the tax payer is paying for the program (for now), and since they are government, even it it is a bad idea, you'll obey and like it. Hence their audited toward skeptics.
Reply