After pointing out that the change in numbers signing the petition
applies to new petitions rather than pre-existing ones, Matt wrote:
>Re Sukie's comments that the petition is futile because of Obama'a
>lack of jurisidection. Let me say that yes, he has no legal role in
>this battle however, at this point I think we need to try ANY and all
>means to bring attention to the problem.
Yes, well, that WAS exactly what I was asking: whether the point was
the publicity itself.
One of the reasons I know the limitations of the federal government on
that score was because years ago it became needed to make sure that a
Bill proposal in the House never made it out of committee -- and the
many people who worked on that effort through other committee members
succeeded. For the most part the federal government stays out of which
animals should be considered dangerous and banned, leaving that up to
the states but there was an effort to have a more extensive list which
actually included ferrets and some other pet species. It failed to get
past the committee.
More recently there has been the problem of the extreme narrowing of
what to officially consider an assistance animal and I think that
everyone here knows that a long, successful, documented history was
largely ignored of capuchins for the upper limb limited, ferrets as
detectors for when seizures are close to coming on, mini horses as
guide animals for people allergic to dogs, etc.
BTW, nationally when other things calm down in a few years the next
thing that needs doing is to try to get ferrets written into the Animal
Welfare Act. Them not being specifically mentioned in the Act is why
the older and safer age for pet store sales wound up not working. All
the huddles were bested -- to a good extent due to the help of FML
members' letters -- and it was going to happen when the lawyers said,
"Oh, but with the way the Animal Welfare Act is written ferrets would
have to be listed specifically in there to have the change." Dang.
***** My worry on the issue of who can not do what: it was not that the
President can not change the situation of ferret legality in California
due to how the powers are divided between the federal government and
the states. That is just a fact. My worry is that *people here will get
their hopes up too much* that something can not be done which can be
done. I have seen that before. When people have treated hypotheses
like facts and then had ferrets get sick they often seemed far more
shattered than those who realized the thing tried might work but might
not. That strong emotional blow has also happened when people have not
understood what reducing the rate of a problem means. So, I want people
spared a pain that could have been avoided by having their expectations
be logical ones.*****
Having the reasoning behind the petition as well as the effort's
limitations and hopes stated more clearly on ferret lists may also help
with participation. There is no good reason to not participate. Just
warn people who do not know how government works to not expect that
what can not be done.
Here it is and please note that over 23,000 more signatures are needed
so that is a very good reason to sign especially since only INITIALS
and location are given, not name. For example, the originator is down
as JF in La Mesa.
Here is how it works: you join the petition site by giving only a few
details about yourself including your email address and your zip code.
Then it sends you a verification email. You click on the address given
in the verification email and then you just click the "sign this
petition" box and you are done.
<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ask-governor-jerry-brown-give-california-ferret-owners-fair-hearing/5rD1td6F>
Sometimes changes can be achieved over time by gradual shifts. Can the
Governor of California, as the head executive, instruct members of his
branch to take action against ferrets and ferret people ONLY when the
same sorts of things happen that would cause actions against dogs and
cats and their people? Is that among the legal options in California?
If that could be achieved then it also would become far more possible
for people in California who have ferrets to come of the carrier cage
and join efforts to legalize ferrets rather than finding the risk
intimidating, as some may.
Does the petition keep the identities private enough? If so, that might
be another way to get more in California to participate in their own
future by signing.
Years ago Steve turned down an extremely attractive job offer in
California because our ferrets are part of our family.
AGAIN:
Here it is and please note that over 23,000 more signatures are needed
so that is a very good reason to sign especially since only INITIALS
and location are given, not name. For example, the originator is down
as JF in La Mesa.
Here is how it works: you join the petition site by giving only a few
details about yourself including your email address and your zip code.
Then it sends you a verification email. You click on the address given
in the verification email and then you just click the "sign this
petition" box and you are done.
<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ask-governor-jerry-brown-give-california-ferret-owners-fair-hearing/5rD1td6F>
Please, it might help get participation if all requests for signatures
also contain the information above on how it is done and the privacy
afforded.
Sukie (not a vet) Ferrets make the world a game.
Recommended ferret health links:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/ferrethealth/
http://ferrethealth.org/archive/
http://www.miamiferret.org/
http://www.ferrethealth.msu.edu/
http://www.ferretcongress.org/
http://www.trifl.org/index.shtml
http://homepage.mac.com/sukie/sukiesferretlinks.html
all ferret topics:
http://listserv.ferretmailinglist.org/archives/ferret-search.html
"All hail the procrastinators for they shall rule the world tomorrow."
(2010, Steve Crandall)
A nation is as free as the least within it.
[Posted in FML 7676]
|
