|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:30 am
 |
|
|
 |
I do not usually send any kind of forwards or petitions, especially to my friends. BUT there is this CRAZY bill, House Bill 1847 (Most recent version, here to be put into effect THIS AUGUST!!!!!) being pushed in Missouri that says, in short, that the only pets allowed in the state will soon be dogs, cats, horses, hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, rabbits, SOME turtles, ferrets, fish, coral and all aquatic invertebrates.
Everything else will be considered wild and illegal. Like, for instance, sugar gliders like mine, obviously, and some of my best sugar glider-loving friends are in MO. BUT that's not all. Some of these "wild" animals that will be banned? ALL Birds, including parrots, parakeets, finches, doves and pigeons, and canaries. That's right, canaries. The parakeets that grandmas have. ILLEGAL. Reptiles. Leopard Geckos. Those cute little geckos so many people have. Chameleons. Other fluffies as determined by the government. Chinchillas, hedgehogs, etc.
This is being backed by Representative Beth Low (You can write her there) and co-sponsored by Sara Lampe and Maria Chappelle-Nadal ...and, well, PETA who would rather we not "enslave" animals by having them as pets, but that's another issue, I suppose. evil
There is, at the very least, an online petition here Sign it?
If you are not in Missouri you might be wondering why I am telling you this. Because 1. It could be your state next. Imagine being told you could not have your beloved pet?
2. We should stand up for the rights of individuals, regardless. Don't let the government tell people they can't have things like finches, sugar gliders, and lizards. This isn't about owning a tiger or a monkey. This is just ridiculous and extreme and we need to make sure they don't get away with this.
3. You never know when you or your friends with pets might be *ahem* asked to move to Missouri and what will we do then?
Please please please help. Sign things, Write letters. And SPREAD THE WORD. Email friends and family that have animals and get on message boards galore and do everything short of spamming to stop this injustice. The cuteness of my sugar gliders compels you! NOW GO!
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:51 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:58 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:34 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:13 pm
|
|
|
|
Or, if you want a purebred dog for a specific reason and know what you're doing, buy from a responsible breeder only! =D
The major problem with these kinds of laws, to me, is that it really doesn't solve the overall problem. The actual heart of the political matter has nothing to do with pet shops or domesticated animal care. These kinds of laws are currently being made to prevent non-native species from taking over US habitats. So tell me which owner would be more likely to follow a new law banning a certain type of animal? The responsible owner not wanting to potentially lose a pet if they get caught who wants to be law-abiding, even if they hate the law, or a less responsible person who just wants that kind of animal and doesn't care what anyone says or threatens to do about it? Now, which of those tow is more likely to tire of the animals and/or not want to be caught with it, releasing it into the wild or otherwise abandoning it to get rid of the responsibility?
Basically, laws like that would slow down problems, but it would also mean that the people left with those types of animals would be far more likely to be the problematic types. Granted, I'm not saying this mentality works for every law, but it just to me seems like there's not going to be any real purpose behind this at all.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:44 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:20 pm
|
|
|
|
Xx Emma x Lee xX I have always feared some law would come and pass in Connecticut (where i live). I'd probably just move to Mass only 15 minutes away just to keep my pets/rights. I really love my home here. People always come up with a "Better Idea" but they don't know the consiquenses (sorry i cant spell). Like ethenol gas for example: Yaeh its great, less pollutants right? Sure thing. We just need to cut a couple hundred acres of rain forest and nature so we can grow enough corn. (Sarcasim) I feel so bad for those poor little pets that should belong in the wild. Lets just outlaw them, where half the people stuck in homes cannot move and end up having to put their animals asleep.
And the wild animals you're not allowed to care for without a proper license, even if the darned thing's injured and has nowhere else to go. > - > Our first bird was actually a wild English sparrow too injured to return to the wild. We're lcky - they're considered a non-native nuisance breed, so we didn't run into any legal trouble. I read a news article several months back about a couple suing their local govt. because they were caring for an orphaned deer fawn, and the government said they can't. No wildlife license, so it would have to be put down. They volunteered to drive the fawn themselves to the nearest wildlife sanctuary that would take it, 500 miles away, and their local wildlife control still confiscated and euthanized the deer.
Beaurocracy. That's all I have to say. talk2hand So many regulations and hands for laws to pass through that common sense is often thrown out hte door. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:44 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
