[SUBMITTED] Humane Livestock Marking Act

[Lemonacia]

An Act To Improve The Wellbeing and Treatment Of Livestock
Strength - Significant
Category - Moral Decency

The General Assembly

APPALLED by the long-held agricultural tradition of branding livestock as a method to mark them as a defence against loss and theft

NOTING that the pain inflicted upon livestock in the process of branding is extreme and completely unnecessary with available marking procedures

FEELING that the branding process is barbaric and cruel

DEFINING the process of branding as the marking of the hide, skin or pelt of livestock using a heated or cooled (in the case of freeze branding) implement to burn an insignia or mark of ownership into the hide of the animal for any purpose

HEREBY MANDATES that all livestock be humanely marked using methods that do not inflict pain, and minimize suffering, distress and physical damage to the animal, such as paints, dyes and pigments

HEREBY MANDATES that any paints, dyes or pigments used be non-toxic and utilise no chemicals that are directly or perceivably harmful to the health and wellbeing of the animal.

[Individuality-ness]

Category and strength?

Allie Youngblood

Addendum: "Animal Welfare" is not an available category for proposals, ambassador.

[Lemonacia]

His Most Citrusy would like to extend his apologies to the General Assembly for any errors within this act.
His Most Citrusy has never submitted anything to the floor before and requests a level of tolerance to his mistakes, and guiding advice while he corrects them.

[Moronist Decisions]

HEREBY MANDATES that all cattle be humanely marked using methods that do not inflict pain, suffering or physical damage to the cattle, such as paints, dyes and pigments.

Since any form of marking will cause physical damage, this forbids all forms of marking.

Also, why just cattle?

[Andrewsburgville]

I say it s decent, but as stated above, makes it really difficult to mark cattle humanely. Good one for the first time though!

[Individuality-ness]

Don't worry ambassador. Not all of the nations whose representatives roam these halls are vicious.

I would recommend heading over to the WA Library and reading up on the types of categories available for proposal submission.

Allie Youngblood

[Lemonacia]

HEREBY MANDATES that all cattle be humanely marked using methods that do not inflict pain, suffering or physical damage to the cattle, such as paints, dyes and pigments.

Since any form of marking will cause physical damage, this forbids all forms of marking.

Also, why just cattle?

How does a paint or dye cause damage? His Most Citrusy feels that if one is willing to go to such a length as to burn animals as proof of ownership, repainting the animal occasionally is surely something one is willing to do in the pursuit of proof.

EDIT: I would also imagine there are methods of permanantly dying the hide.

I have considered the cattle points, and have modified the act to cover all livestock.

[Ossitania]

All marking causes physical damage? What? Why can't they be marked with paint like sheep are?

[Individuality-ness]

All marking causes physical damage? What? Why can't they be marked with paint like sheep are?

I believe this is what this proposal is attempting to do, ambassador.

Allie Youngblood

[Lemonacia]

All marking causes physical damage? What? Why can't they be marked with paint like sheep are?

I believe this is what this proposal is attempting to do, ambassador.

Allie Youngblood

Exactly.

[Ossitania]

All marking causes physical damage? What? Why can't they be marked with paint like sheep are?

I believe this is what this proposal is attempting to do, ambassador.

Allie Youngblood

Yes, but the ambassador from Moronist Decisions has argued that all marking causes physical damage. I am querying him as to why.

[Individuality-ness]

I believe this is what this proposal is attempting to do, ambassador.

Allie Youngblood

Yes, but the ambassador from Moronist Decisions has argued that all marking causes physical damage. I am querying him as to why.

I believe that his argument would be that paint would leave markings on the hide, which, if you stretch the definition of physical damage enough, is technically damage, as the chemicals in the dyes can sink into the skin and harm the livestock.

But I would like to see his argument as well.

Allie Youngblood

[Lemonacia]

I would like to just mention that the act has now been officially updated to cover all livestock now, not just cattle.
I feel that the rights of livestock in general are very much overlooked, and I will likely be proposing further legislation in regards to livestock welfare.

[Lemonacia]

Yes, but the ambassador from Moronist Decisions has argued that all marking causes physical damage. I am querying him as to why.

I believe that his argument would be that paint would leave markings on the hide, which, if you stretch the definition of physical damage enough, is technically damage, as the chemicals in the dyes can sink into the skin and harm the livestock.

But I would like to see his argument as well.

Allie Youngblood

The Proposal already says that the method must cause no physical harm; I feel that this automatically covers toxins in the dye, mandating the use of non-toxic dyes.

[Moronist Decisions]

Yes, but the ambassador from Moronist Decisions has argued that all marking causes physical damage. I am querying him as to why.

The point is that any form of permanent marking can be considered damage (even modern tattooing). Also, I'm sure the animal doesn't enjoy the procedure.

I'd recommend writing

HEREBY MANDATES that all livestock be humanely marked using methods that minimizes pain, suffering or physical damage to the animal, such as paints, dyes and pigments.

Not sure we support this particular proposal though.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

HEREBY MANDATES that all livestock be humanely marked using methods that do not inflict pain, suffering or physical damage to the animal, such as paints, dyes and pigments.

[Lemonacia]

Yes, but the ambassador from Moronist Decisions has argued that all marking causes physical damage. I am querying him as to why.

The point is that any form of permanent marking can be considered damage (even modern tattooing). Also, I'm sure the animal doesn't enjoy the procedure.

I'd recommend writing

HEREBY MANDATES that all livestock be humanely marked using methods that minimizes pain, suffering or physical damage to the animal, such as paints, dyes and pigments.

Not sure we support this particular proposal though.

I have taken on board your suggestion and will be updating the proposal.

[Lemonacia]

The proposal has been updated.
I have also increased the strength to Medium, in accordance with the broadening of this proposal to all livestock.

His Most Citrusy would like to query members of the WA as to whether they feel a clause such as

"HEREBY OUTLAWS the process of livestock branding"

would be a worthwhile addition to the proposal, or if it is unneeded?

HEREBY MANDATES that all livestock be humanely marked using methods that do not inflict pain, suffering or physical damage to the animal, such as paints, dyes and pigments.

His Most Citrusy would also like to express his amusement at the picture submitted by the Cowardly Pacifists.
His Most Citrusy raises the point that he does not wish to be proposing the animal version of the Indigo Mandate.

[Individuality-ness]

The proposal has been updated.
I have also increased the strength to Medium, in accordance with the broadening of this proposal to all livestock.

His Most Citrusy would like to query members of the WA as to whether they feel a clause such as

"HEREBY OUTLAWS the process of livestock branding"

would be a worthwhile addition to the proposal, or if it is unneeded?

Not needed. That can be interpreted as a contradiction to said proposal.

Allie Youngblood

[Lemonacia]

The proposal has been updated.
I have also increased the strength to Medium, in accordance with the broadening of this proposal to all livestock.

His Most Citrusy would like to query members of the WA as to whether they feel a clause such as

"HEREBY OUTLAWS the process of livestock branding"

would be a worthwhile addition to the proposal, or if it is unneeded?

Not needed. That can be interpreted as a contradiction to said proposal.

Allie Youngblood

Thank you for the feedback.
Could you please explain how it could be interpreted that way? I don't intend to add it now, but it would if I knew so I could learn from my mistake.

[Moronist Decisions]

I have also increased the strength to Medium, in accordance with the broadening of this proposal to all livestock.

Medium is not an available strength. "Significant" might be better.

[Lemonacia]

I have also increased the strength to Medium, in accordance with the broadening of this proposal to all livestock.

Medium is not an available strength. "Significant" might be better.

Thank you for correcting me. My mistake.

[Individuality-ness]

Not needed. That can be interpreted as a contradiction to said proposal.

Allie Youngblood

Thank you for the feedback.
Could you please explain how it could be interpreted that way? I don't intend to add it now, but it would if I knew so I could learn from my mistake.

Basically, branding can mean either literal branding, as in burning hot cattle prods, or branding as in tattoos or dyes. You want the livestock to be branded in more humane ways.

Allie Youngblood

[Lemonacia]

Thank you for the feedback.
Could you please explain how it could be interpreted that way? I don't intend to add it now, but it would if I knew so I could learn from my mistake.

Basically, branding can mean either literal branding, as in burning hot cattle prods, or branding as in tattoos or dyes. You want the livestock to be branded in more humane ways.

Allie Youngblood

I defined branding within the proposal. But, I see what you mean.
Well, it's time for His Most Citrus's snoozy time. I will return to the floor upon waking.

[Goddess Relief Office]

I fully support this resolution. Thanks for writing something like this.

NOTING that the pain inflicted upon livestock in the process of branding is extreme and completely unnecassary with available marking procedures

The word 'unnecessary' has a spelling error.

DEFINING the process of branding as the marking of the hide of livestock using a heated or cooled (in the case of freeze branding) implement to burn an insignia or mark of ownership into the hide of the animal for any purpose

I noted you have since changed the proposal to include "all livestock", however, it seems that the definition is still largely meant for cattle. Perhaps change the word "hide" to something else? I rarely see the word apply to anything other than cattle.