What do you put on your sign? It’s funny that this question comes up whenever we’re asked this question. We probably don’t want to think about it all the time, but there’s no doubt that it would be helpful to do a better job addressing it.
Well, no animal, but we’re not talking about animals. We mean a sign that says, “No, I’m not allowed to pet/adopt/kill any animals. Don’t even talk to me. Ever.” What do you think is the best way to go about this? I’m open to ideas.
The first thing I would do is put a non-animals sign next to the picture of a dog. The first rule of pet parenting is that your children must be allowed to pet other people’s pets. Then a sign that says, “I am not allowed to petadoptkill any animals” would be much better.
The second idea, and this is a real one, is to put a sign at the entrance to the petadopt-kill area that says, “No animals allowed.” The idea is to prevent people from doing the stupid thing (or at least, the stupid things we don’t want them to do) like trying to pet an animal.
No animals allowed. This is not a joke, it is a real rule. I am not sure why an owner of a pet would want their pet to be around people, but I am sure it is one of those things. There are many reasons why pet owners would want their pets to be around people. We might want them to stay with us or to be part of our family.
The idea here is that there is a huge problem of animal cruelty in the world and we want to prevent people from doing the stupid thing. That way we can give people the right to do things like petting an animal, but the animals have the right to stay in the wild, to be left to their own devices. This is a very important concept for animals in society. That is not to say that we should throw away all rules of society just because they do not suit our fancy.
The “no animal allowed” sign was a campaign by animal rights activists to ban the sale of dogs and cats in England. It was a campaign to get the issue of animals being mistreated into the public consciousness, but it wasn’t actually a campaign. The campaign was about getting the public to see the problem of cruelty and why it’s important to keep animals in the wild.
The campaign was successful, but it wasnt a campaign about animals in general. The campaign was about a particular animal, and that animal is now getting a lot of media attention.
Its a cute campaign and a good example of how the media love to run with the “animal rights” storyline. However, there is a big problem with this campaign. It is a way to get media attention for something that isnt actually important. The campaign was about getting the public to see the problem of cruelty and why its important to keep animals in the wild. The campaign was successful, but what wasnt successful, was getting media attention for something that isnt actually important.
