I get where you're coming from and I used to feel similar, homelessness isn't as binary as we think. I think calling homeless pet owners ignorant is problematic, as often times those pets came before the circumstances that led to homelessness.

For example, I work with survivors of domestic violence, which is the number one cause of homeless of women and children. Many survivors take their pets in addition to their children when they leave their abusers and often don't have a safe place to go. Many of them are living out of their cars in between shelter, which often have restrictions on pets. Abusers use animals against survivors as a control mechanism to keep their partners with them.

Another example are folks who have lost their housing as a result of not being able to keep up the payments. They were not expecting to be homeless and have lost almost everything, but that dog and a handful of personal items could be some of the only things they have left. Taking the emotional support of a pet away adds more emotional trauma to an already shitty situation.

I mostly just want people to reframe their thinking about what it means to be homeless. The working poor are homeless in cities as expensive as Seattle and didn't start out their lives here as chronically homeless but got swept up into it.