163 petitions

Update posted 22 hours ago

Petition to Matt Mead, Anna Munoz, Roya Mogadam, Liz Cheney, Wyoming State House, Wyoming State Senate, John Barrasso, Greg Sheehan

Stop The Trophy Hunt of Wyoming Grizzly Bears

Yellowstone grizzlies have recovered from near extinction.However, Wyoming’s own Game and Fish Chief Warden, Brian Nesvik sees a potential hunt as “part of the success story” of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’s grizzly population. The recovering of grizzly populations is a result of protections. Without those protections and a policy of peaceful coexistence, grizzlies will disappear again.In the 1970's, hunters and trappers decimated grizzly bear populations across the US. Why should we allow history to repeat itself? Today grizzly bears face even more threats from climate, habitat loss, development, mining and an increase in deaths by automobiles. A hunt this time could mean they may never recover. Is that a risk we are willing to accept?How can we trust that any hunt will be conducted in a conservative manner when it would be lacking scientific merit?We see the transparent interests at play in pursuing this hunt: ranchers, trophy hunters, and opportunistic mining companies and developers. We will not stand by as these self serving interests greedily advance their personal agendas.A hunt would not only disturbs the balance of nature, but it would have negative consequences for eco tourism. With grizzly bears serving as the main draw, “government and independent economists have placed the combined value of nature-based tourism in Yellowstone and Grand Teton at close to one billion dollars annually. (NPS 2016 Report)Clearly, the motivation for a Wyoming bear hunt is recreational, trophy hunting. It serves no biological or conservation purpose. We must commit to conserving wildlife and protect it for the benefit of all Americans and future generations. Unscientific hunts directly oppose conservation efforts. Therefore, we ask the addressed parties to end the pursuit of a grizzly bear hunt in Wyoming. NPS Report:  

172,310 supporters
Started 4 days ago

Petition to Brian D. Helman, Jeffrey j Horowitz

Boycott Vitacost for Selling Shark Cartilage

 Sharks require about 4-5 years to reach the age of maturity for reproduction, as many of us know, Shark populations are on a sharp decline...please read ahead for why we need to boycott this company until they stop selling this product!! Shark cartilage is promoted as a remedy for arthritis, inflammation and joint support from the “sharks head and fins” There are no reputable scientific studies demonstrating that shark cartilage supplements have any effect on immune function. Shark cartilage, the logic that started the fad: The use of shark cartilage (in the form of chondroitin sulfate) as a therapy for osteoarthritis started because cartilage has been found to suppress new blood vessel development. There is no difference between shark cartilage and that from say a cow aside from the fact that sharks are full of cartilage and have more than a cow. The effectiveness of shark cartilage has been called into question. In a study conducted in the New England Journal of Medicine on the effect of gulcosamine and chondroitin sulfate on patients with osteoarthritis in the knee found that "glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate alone or in combination did not reduce pain effectively in the overall group of patients" (Clegg et al. 2006). In a study of the influence of information found on the world wide web on arthritis patients found that despite its prevalence online, shark cartilage "has (NOT) been proven to be beneficial for the treatment of arthritis. Most of these therapies may be innocuous in their biological actions, but there are some concerns about the overall safety, in relation both to the expected contents of the product and to undeclared substances" (Suarez-Almazor et al 2001). The European Food Safety Authority Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to shark cartilage states "a cause and effect relationship has not been establishes between the consumption of shark cartilage and the maintenance of normal joints" (EFSA 2009, The composition, potency, and purity are not checked by any outside authority. Supplements do not need to be proven as safe or effective to be sold in the United States.The National Institute of Health found virtually no information on the potential toxicity of chondroitin sulfate, no information on the manufacturing process, and no standard of guidelines ( There have been cases of contamination of shark cartilage products. Researchers selected sources of chondroitin sulfate and determined that shark cartilage contained "too many other contaminants were excluded from consideration" (Barnhill et al. 2006).The FDA has recalled shark cartilage pills because of Salmonella contamination ( and and - Salmonella detected in shark cartilage capsules from the United States (August 200). There is a reference to the Korean FDA declaring high levels of Mercury and Cadmium in shark cartilage pills but cannot find the primary reference for that statement, however, 70 uncooked fins (i.e. cartilage) from a Hong Kong market, ¼ contained mercury concentrations well above the World Health Organization’s guidelines, enough to be identified as a significant threat to children and babies (Timms et al. 2009). If you feel that chondroitin sulfate is something that will definitely help your condition, there are other sources from which it is derived. A 2007 study found that shark cartilage produces the LOWEST amount of chondroitin sulfate compared to the other sources (Garnjanagoonchorn et al. 2007). You can search for bovine-only sources online. Garnjanagoonchorn et al. (2007) also claim that the shark cartilage was a by-product of the shark fin soup restaurant so there is a clear link between that unsustainable and ecologically destructive practice and shark cartilage pills! INFO GATHERED FROM SHARK SAVERS WILDAID

Isabella Ornaf
24 supporters
Update posted 1 week ago

Petition to City of Rocklin, CA

Stop High Density Housing At Sierra College/Rocklin Rd Intersection(400 Oak Trees Destroyed!! 400 Extra Cars on Your Travel Route!!)

An LA developer with zero investment in the natural beauty of Rocklin plans to build 9 three-story apartment buildings, 195 apartments, approx 400 new residents near the intersection of Sierra College/Rocklin Road. Being planned for the first quarter of 2015 - act now!! An extra 400 cars are expected to exit onto the already busy Sierra College/Rocklin Rd intersection each day from this new construction. Apartment direct entry/exit located both on Rocklin Rd, and Water Lily Ln. It will be hell on your commute! 400 oak trees will be destroyed along with the natural habitats of many birds and other wildlife.  10 acres of land flattened, natural hills and landscape demolished. This high density housing project will also bring increased crime and decreased safety for our homes, families and children, in addition to increasing noise and other forms of pollution.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DO ANY OF THESE ISSUES AFFECT AND  CONCERN YOU!?  ACT NOW!!!! PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO PETITION AGAINST THIS DEVELOPMENT (AND GIVE A REASON FOR YOUR PETITION IF POSSIBLE). Read more below!---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE IMPACT TO ROCKLIN’S OAK TREES - THE CITY’S FAILED PROMISES In the past, Rocklin City has recognized the value of oak trees as a valuable natural resource for the area with their oak preservation guidelines stating; "Oak woodlands constitute a valuable natural resource for the city.  They also provide habitat for many wildlife species.  They contribute to the City's beauty and varied scenery.  They also provide shade in parks as well as developed areas. Oaks enrich the soil and protect watersheds and streams from erosion". They have a clear and  strong message, demonstrating how they will honor their commitment to "....address the decline of oak woodlands due to urbanization.....".  However, with this proposal they do not appear to be honoring that commitment.   The project will completely destroy 400 oak trees, and will flatten 10 acres of land.  The natural beauty and wildlife will be replaced by 9 very large three story buildings, housing approx 400 residents. This will contribute to noise, light and other pollution, possible crime, decreased safety for our homes, family and children. Is the City paying lip service to us all as residents?  In reality, the city allows developers the options simply pay into a fund to mitigate the loss of these trees.  This mitigation fund collects money and stagnates….. With over $1.3 million accumulated in this fund already, it would appear that very little is being done to truly preserve these precious trees. INCREASED TRAFFIC Those who use Sierra College and Rocklin Road on a regular basis strongly believe that the proposed entry and exit routes into the development will cause significant delays to travel time and increased congestion.  After all there will be approx. 400 extra cars entering and exiting the Sierra College Blvd intersection from the apartment complex. They will be entering just around 100 feet from two of the entrances of the intersection (north from Sierra College, West from Rocklin Rd), on this already very busy intersection. It’s clear to see how this will disrupt commuter traffic and the major trucking/transport companies, for whom Sierra College Blvd is essential route.  A traffic impact study is being conducted for this development. These studies assess the impact of developments upon the traffic systems, such as intersections. However, the experiences of residents/commuters and their opinions about the current state of traffic, and how they feel the changes will impact upon delays and safety, are not taken into consideration as part of such studies.  Furthermore, this traffic analysis study is conducted by a third party company hired by the developer, which though entirely compliant with the State guidelines, gives a general feeling of uneasiness, lack of confidence, and a feeling that there may be partiality within whole process.

David Vickers
1,216 supporters