Please sign.

[Catlady711]

As a general rule I don't sign internet petitions.

I will NEVER sign one posted on that particular website since anyone can make up anything to put on there. See the following links for a few examples.
http://www.petitiononline.com/racpadp/petition.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/SCU/petition.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/irockyou/petition.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/jedi_wii/petition.html

Regardless of how worthy the cause, if my signature doesn't mean squat, then why sign?


http://www.breakthechain.org/armchair.html

Seven Tests of Armchair Activism for Petitions:

Expiration. Does the letter give a timeline for the collection of signatures or a target number of signatures? E-petitions can linger online for months, even years. My experience shows this to be the case, even if the originator put a target date on it to begin with. Petitions that are allowed to circulate indefinitely are seldom compelling and very often continue to circulate long after any usefulness they may have once had has passed. (For example, the Jamie Bulger petition.)

Focus. Does the message have a well-defined target and mission statement? Does it clearly spell out what steps or results are desired? Does it solicit and allow signatures only from constituents of the party it's meant to influence? Most e-petitions get you worked up, but make no real statement or demand (For example, the Bonsai Kitten petition), or target an individual who has no authority to make the desired change (for example, the petition to President Bush to reinstate prayer in schools).

Integrity. Is someone coordinating the petition to make sure it gets to the proper party in the proper format? Most ask you to send them directly to the party whose actions you are trying to influence. This amounts to an "e-mail attack," costs the recipient time and money and does more to hurt the cause than promote it. (For example, the appeal to the United Nations to stop a war against Iraq.)

Privacy. Is there an alternative method for signing, such as a Web site, phone number or snail-mail address? Does the message explain clearly what will be done with the information it collects and by whom? If you are directed to a Web site to sign, does the site include a privacy statement? Remember that there are absolutely no privacy protections for information sent via e-mail.

Reliability. Does the message explain clearly who will collect and compile the signatures - and can you trust them? While some petitions actually give you an address to send copies to, most of the creators fail to check with their e-mail provider first and, as a result, their account is usually shut down within a few days. Most e-mail providers prohibit chain letters and petitions in their terms of service. (For example, the petition to stop the Taliban's War Against Women.)

Sponsorship. Does the petition's author/originator clearly identify himself or herself and give some way to contact him or her. A well-planned political or social cause will usually have a web site or phone number you can contact for more information on the issue and to volunteer to help. Unfortunately, most e-petition creators prefer to hide behind the anonymity of e-mail. (For example, this campaign to stop a non-existent film about Jesus.)

Validity. Does the petition contain facts and statistics with a cited source? In other words, can the claims be easily backed up or do you have to take them at face value? In many cases, the thing you're trying to stop no longer exists or never existed to begin with. (For example, any of the collection of petitions to keep Instant Messengers free.)

If a petition fails two or more of the above, dismiss it as Armchair Activism.

[ChrisH]

Catlady, I understand your concerns but I so wish you hadn't chosen to express them here and perhaps put people off from signing this particular petition.

Following the links in my first post should reassure anyone who has doubts that this is a genuine issue. For example Dogs Trust, who made me aware of the issue, is an old and well respected charity who does exceptional work here in the UK and in whom I have complete confidence.

As for the petition site hosts, the following, cut and pasted from said site, makes their stance clear.

The Citizens against Dog ban Petition to Dublin City Council was created by ANVIL Ireland and written by Miriam Anderson ([email protected]). The petition is hosted here at PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form.

PetitionOnline.com has disabled the display of email addresses for signatories who chose to make their address public. We have done this to reduce the spread of harmful Windows viruses which harvest email addresses from the web cache of infected computers. This also prevents spammers from harvesting email addresses from this site.

[ChrisH]

Many thanks to all who signed.

[Catlady711]

I'm sure it is a genuine issue. However if they are going to use a site like that to host their petitions they still should have included information as to the date signatures are needed by, contact info for the person organizing the petition, age requirement if needed for minor children, who specifically will be recieving the petition, and an alternative method for signing it (ie: snail mail).

Those are petition basics whether online or done door to door in person. I posted that info here so people would be well informed petition signers. I'm not saying it's not a worthy cause, I've just seen too many worthless petitions that I tend to be very cautious about them.