Topic

pets

132 petitions

Update posted 3 days ago

Petition to Elaine Hays Councilmember Place One, Ginger Nelson

Reform The City of Amarillo Texas Animal Shelter to a No Kill Facility Shelter

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. "            Mahatma  Gandhi                           City Commissioners City of Amarillo Texas     Reform The City of Amarillo Texas  Animal Shelter to a No Kill Facility Shelter       Killing is the ultimate form of violence. While cruelty and suffering are abhorrent, while cruelty and suffering are painful, while cruelty and suffering should be condemned and rooted out, there is nothing worse than death, because death is final. An animal subjected to pain and suffering can be rescued. A traumatized animal subjected to savage cruelty can even be rehabilitated, this is scientifically proven.    SEEKING JUSTICE FOR SHELTER ANIMAL MURDER AND ABUSE  Make The City of Amarillo Texas Animal Shelter “Pound”    A  NO    KILL   SHELTER   FOR   ANIMALS     Require it mandatory that all staff know State and Federal Law concerning animals, especially assistance animals and wild life.                                    Named  #1  for animal  cruelty abuse in  the past years this facility has been operating from the start of existence by The City of Amarillo while the general public watches in horror of exposed event after event.  For many years I have personally witnessed these actions . . .  This cruel and horrendous facility is operated in the name of revenue only for the City, consider the fact that there have been many previous complaints of animal neglect, abuse and torture. .      Each animal who died or was abused at the hands of this operation  deserved a better option.  example :  A Senior/Senior man in tears begging for mercy on his best friend “dog” asking them the please wait a day so he could pay them his Social Security check would be available,  he didn’t mean to be bad when he crawled under the fence,  is only one of thousands of incidents ; they killed his Best Friend anyway.     There is plenty of room/land for expansion, if needed, many cages are empty now on a continued basis. Community volunteers constantly donate time and supplies. It would not be a tax payer burden nor has it ever been, only fund management has been a problem.     The  revenue will be increased actually and that is always been the goal . .  I have watched The Amarillo Municipal Court and saw the terror and frustration to everyday working people with  huge unnecessary high fines and tickets, that go beyond any reason and sometimes there was no actual real offence ..  but it cost more to fight the situation than hand over their family grocery money for the month. Some must pay a ticket on their family friend that was already killed at the pound, trying to explain to their children why “Rover”  can not play with them any more. Also violations of laws concerning wild animals, farm stock and even Assistance Animals..are ignored.  ANIMAL  TORTURE  is defined as: “infliction of or subjection to extreme physical pain, motivated by an intent to increase or prolong the pain, suffering, or agony of the animal.”Conviction is a Class 3 Felony. In addition to other penalties provided by law, the person  or persons will be required to undergo psychological evaluation and treatment. Why should this law bypass an Animal Pound Facility, and those who chose to do this there ?  Previous  petitions for change have been a Victory to some extent but past experience tells us that this facility will only return to it’s old mode of operation once it assumes the public is not watching, as quickly as possible for them. https://www.change.org/p/city-of-amarillo-terminate-employment-of-animal-control-administrators-currently-on-paid-leave-and-install-new-leadership-to-bring-the-facility-into-compliance?recruiter=2706795&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_facebook_responsive&utm_term=des-md-no_src-custom_msg&utm_content=rp_petition_fb_share_desc%3Adescription&fb_ref=Default ;      For decades, law-enforcement officers and psychiatrists have noted a consistent pattern: Violent criminals "start out" by tormenting, maiming and killing companion animals, wild animals or farm animals. The FBI has recognized the link since the 1970s, when agents analyzed in detail the life histories of various imprisoned serial killers, searching for patterns. When animals are abused, people are at risk. These findings deserves a RED FLAG, all over the Nation. !!   A few short months ago, the ASPCA and HSUS co-presented an adoption seminar where they finally admitted that there is a huge market for shelter animals that vastly exceeds the number of animals killed for lack of a home (17 million homes vs. 3 million killed); that we can adopt our way out of killing; that we should; and that we will when shelters change their practices." "Animals in shelters are not being killed because there are too many of them, because there are too few homes, or because the public is irresponsible. Animals in shelters are dying for primarily one reason--because people in shelters are killing them. " -Nathan Winograd, founder of the No Kill Advocacy Center https://www.facebook.com/nathanwinograd/posts/832630653427847 * Begin to address the true causes of shelter killing.* Force shelters to change the way they operate so that animals are kept alive long enough to get into those homes. .have the Shelter open hours that the normal everyday working public can visit, view and adopt. • Stop promoting and defending the practice of shelters killing animals when there are empty cages. .• Stop working to defeat laws that mandate all the programs and procedures that allow shelters to replace killing with alternatives . .• Stop telling shelters that they are free to keep killing, rather than implement those alternatives to killing . .* Return animals to owners after being on the watched row.* Have payment plans for adoption and return plan of lost animals that is reasonable. . below cost for low income hardships. Google search will turn up widespread complaints continuing to this very day, concerns about lack of quality care and/or killing that fall on defiant ears.  Statistics show  the city violent crime rate for Amarillo  was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 68.05%, this is the way Amarillo is seen by the world, also seen is  the crime and conduct toward helpless animals. Does Amarillo really want the stigma, and disgraceful conduct allowed by City Officials concerning animals ? Have you ever looked into the eyes of a dog or any animal. . . Please don't tell me there's no soul in there. A soul is energy. And basic physics states "energy cannot be created or destroyed. . . . Only transformed". There is a big difference between a plant, a pet or any animal.  A Plant or object  cannot love or feel pain or sorrow or loneliness or feel fear. If an entity can feel those things it has a soul. And since a soul is energy it cannot cease to exist. If you took science in high school or have common sense this is obvious.  The Animals belong to The Creator of All, not man to do as he choses.   Protected by universal laws, how will he see what you do to them ? To: All Viewers of this Petition Please sign   We  The Undersigned petition  a   NO KILL SHELTER for   “ Amarillo Texas “  to abolish the death chamber/manner of horrors there now.... expand, improve, update the 40 year old facility, remove  any sadistic people who intentionally seek those jobs for their own motives in the joy of pain or kill,  they can get by with it with the animals, but not humans.. . require strict compliance to all laws concerning animals, state and federal. . . these are easily available.. courses  though the college online also.   Many are there working diligently help them make it a compassionate model shelter.    Animals have feelings too !          Please consider a  forward to all you know are concerned distribute broadly to others for signature: 

Betty Garrity
8,980 supporters
Update posted 4 days ago

Petition to UK Parliament, Theresa May MP, Sadiq Khan

Change Breed Specific Legislation to Focus More on responsible Dog Ownership - Not Breed

Breed Specific Legislation, as part of the Dangerous Dogs Act, bans four breeds of dog from the UK. The issue here, is that despite being in place for over 25 years, the number of dog attacks is still rising. The reason for this is because the issue is not about the type of dog that is owned, but actually centres around responsible pet ownership. I have worked with vets for the last six years, and over that time have seen countless innocent dogs destroyed - not because they had attacked anybody or posed a threat to the public - but simply because of the breed they were (or look like in appearance) One personal experience that sticks in my mind, is when a dog warden had seized a pit bull type dog and brought it into the vets to be destroyed. This dog was only just a year old, still very much puppy like in nature. She had not been seized because she had attacked anybody, or because she posed a threat. The sole reason she had been seized was because she looked like a Pit bull. This does not coincide with the purpose that this legislation was created for. It does not prevent dog attacks, as these are rising, and in actual fact a lot of dog attacks are committed by breeds of dog that are not banned.  In addition, the legislation does not even give stringent guidelines to determine if a dog is a "banned breed" or not. The dog can be seized based on nothing except it's appearance - if the police have the opinion that your dog is a banned breed, it can be seized and can be destroyed. Again I must emphasise, why are we basing any part of our laws only on somebody's opinion? To make a law effective we need to base this in a balanced way on facts - such as the increase on dog attacks and hospital admissions related to dog attacks despite the ban being in place - proving that this law is ineffective as there are less of these banned breeds that are owned. A puppy does not even have to be born as a banned breed. The parents of a dog can be two labrador retrievers, and yet if one of their resulting puppies happens to bear some resemblance in appearance to a banned breed, it can and may very well be seized and destroyed. This also means that owners who are otherwise very responsible with their dog ownership, are having their pets callously taken away from them and destroyed for no justifiable reason. I have seen the impact this has, and so many people have the same concerns with this legislation. People such as veterinary surgeons or dog wardens are often forced by the law to destroy dogs that do not pose a threat, only because of their breed, which is greatly upsetting when you have pledged to do everything in your power to uphold animal welfare. I am very passionate that no innocent animal should be condemned simply because it has the misfortune to be born as a certain breed. We should not punish these animals where the blame does not lie with them. It is great we have the dangerous dogs act to help keep the public safe, but this must be based on responsible pet ownership in order to be effective. Some banned breeds, such as the pit bull, are also naturally people oriented. They may have originally been bred for the purpose of dog fighting back in the 1970's and 80's, but they were also bred to be people friendly, to allow the handlers to be able to get near them and train them. There is no hard evidence to suggest that a dog is more likely to attack somebody because of it's breed - whether a dog attacks or relies on a whole number of different factors. These are just some of the faults and issues that greatly concern me with breed specific legislation. A great number of attacks on children are the result of a child not being properly supervised. Dogs are still sentient animals and ANY breed of dog can be provoked to bite if the dog feels threatened or overwhelmed by a child gripping the dog's neck or smothering it. This is where education on basic dog behaviour and a dog's needs - as well as how to keep vulnerable people such as children safe, is invaluable and sorely needed. The law should instead focus on educating owners on dog behaviour, and the responsibility of owning a dog. A lot has been done in this regard in terms of the microchipping law that is now in place, but more innocent dogs are still being destroyed. There is still more that has to be done so that no animal, not even one dog, is seized simply on the basis of it's breed alone.  We can change the law so that this focusses on promoting responsible ownership by ensuring that not only are dogs microchipped, but that they are kept on lead except in a secure area. Even having to have a license in order to own a dog may help to promote responsible ownership, or making it compulsory to neuter a dog by a certain age, (unless you are a registered breeder) - there are a whole number of ways we can change this law so that it focusses on promoting responsibility among owners rather than simply a breed of dog. The penalties should also be more owner focussed, imposing fines and sentences on owners that allow their dogs to be dangerously out of control or do not comply with other aspects of the law, irrespective of breed.  The bottom line, is that breed specific legislation is ineffective for the purpose it was created for - evident by the fact that so many innocent dogs are destroyed based on their appearance, where they would otherwise live long and happy lives without posing any threat to the public. If we construct and change this law in the right way, then the result will be an increase in awareness among the public, and an increase in owners taking responsibility for their animals, and a decrease in dogs who do not pose any threat from being destroyed. This, I believe, is the only way the number of dog attacks is going to be lessened in the UK, and is why breed specific legislation must be drastically changed or otherwise, ideally, abolished altogether.  We are known as a nation of animal lovers - so lets prove that by making our laws fair not only for the public and people, but also for our animals who have nobody else to speak up for them.   Picture by USPCA animal hospital  

Hannah Barrick
17,609 supporters
This petition won 2 years ago

Petition to Jennifer Hawkins, OC Board of Supervisors

Stop the Killing of Karma the Dog(safe)/ Change leadership at Orange County Animal Services!

With the dog's life saved, we are now looking to change leadership at Orange County Animal Services.  As Karma is now safe in a sanctuary! Karma, a young, healthy, sweet Husky mix was taken from her loving family by Orange County Animal Care on May 25th, after adults in the family were alleged to have been engaged in a dispute. A judge then ordered Karma to be executed because they determined she is part wolf. Now, animal advocates worldwide are trying to convince authorities to spare her life. Please sign this petition urging the OC Board of Supervisors and OC Animal Care Chief Veterinarian Jennifer Hawkins not to kill Karma. Her family loves her and would gladly have her back. But if Orange County is unwilling to free her because of concerns that she is a wolf hybrid, let her live out her days at an appropriate sanctuary equipped to care for such dogs. For four months now, Karma has been in isolation with no access to run, take a walk, stretch her legs, or breathe fresh air. She’s allowed no visits from her owners. Karma is a wonderful and friendly dog. She is friendly and has never shown any indication that there is reason to question her loyalty to humans. Karma is also a licensed service dog, having helped her owner with the effects of PTSD. Only first generation wolf hybrids are illegal in the state of California, and counties are allowed to determine their own policies regarding second or third generation hybrids, of which Karma is one. When Karma was taken by Animal Care, officials looked into her history and found an extremely low wolf content on her DNA test. Karma is anything but wild, far from vicious, and she should not be condemned to this terrible fate when her breed is perfectly legal in the state.   Five dog rescue groups have stepped forward and said they are willing to take Karma. Why would Orange County stand in their way? Please help us convince the OC Board of Supervisors and OC Animal Care Chief Veterinarian Jennifer Hawkins not to kill Karma. Urge them to release her to a suitable facility.  

Michael W.
159,746 supporters