Remove section 3.14 of City Council Tenancy agreement restricting pet ownership
The current wording of section 3.14 states that you can only keep one cat OR one dog (two with written permission) and that you must have direct access to a private garden.
The purpose of this petition is to demonstrate to the Council the strength of public feeling in relation to this particular element of the proposed tenancy agreement.
We the undersigned feel section 3.14 is discriminatory. Why should neighbours that own their houses be able to keep more cats and dogs than council tenants? We demand that tenants be treated as equals to homeowners and not as second class citizens.
The financial implications to the pet industry will be far reaching. For example; Manufacturers, vets, groomers, trainers etc will lose trade. Pet shops, supermarkets and market stalls will lose trade. This will affect local employment.
The benefits of keeping these types of pets are well documented. They help with reduction of blood pressure, comfort, companionship and overall well being.
Therefore we call for section 3.14 to be removed and consultation with local groups, the Kennel Club and other interested parties be sought.
The current wording of section 3.14 states that you can only keep one cat OR one dog (two with written permission) and that you must have direct access to a private garden.
The purpose of this petition is to demonstrate to the Council the strength of public feeling in relation to this particular element of the proposed tenancy agreement.
We the undersigned feel section 3.14 is discriminatory. Why should neighbours that own their houses be able to keep more cats and dogs than council tenants? We demand that tenants be treated as equals to homeowners and not as second class citizens.
The financial implications to the pet industry will be far reaching. For example; Manufacturers, vets, groomers, trainers etc will lose trade. Pet shops, supermarkets and market stalls will lose trade. This will affect local employment.
The benefits of keeping these types of pets are well documented. They help with reduction of blood pressure, comfort, companionship and overall well being.
Therefore we call for section 3.14 to be removed and consultation with local groups, the Kennel Club and other interested parties be sought.
|
Already a Care2 member? log in |
i believe as long as your can provide and give the animals what they need with alot of love.plus clean up after them then we should have as many as we like.
The one dog living next door makes far more noise than my 3!
What this, comunisum raising it head in this once fiar and great country. Its not the animals that are the problem its the mindless kids and stupid perents. What is the councils going to do about that? Sterilise the feckless workshy that are the the real problem? I think not. Thats not P.C
WTF! I think I will have as many animals as I want and noone should stop me!! What a stupid law and its ostrasication to people just coz they live in council property!!
Why should these people be able to tell us what animals or how many we should be allowed to keep. Instead of punishing good animal owners go after the ones who are cruel and exploit them. We were once an animal loving nation but not any more, the saddest thing I see is when a child backs away fearful from one of my dogs who are the most gentle with children.
|
1:35 am PDT, Sep 18,
Juliana Farah, Lebanon
|
