[PASSED] Animal Protection Act

[Ilstoria]

Thank you neighbors for your consideration!

Okay! So here it is in a nutshell: if you are legally responsible for an animal that CAN feel pain you need to protect it from pain within reason. You can still kill it and you can still experiment on it you just have to make a reasonable attempt to provide a good quality of life for as long as you own it. The only thing really forbidden is hurting animals for entertainment, everything else is suggested or merely needs to be shown that the pain was necessary for the product and/or fiscally impossible.

It is true most industry and owners already do most of these things but they are here to cover "negligence" as well.

Please remember it doesn't protect WILD animals or animals like bugs who don't feel pain.

Finally, Ilstoria considers this an international issue because animal products and reserch are major industries which are imported and exported worldwide. This means that no matter how good a nations laws protect animals, if their own industry cannot support their population they may find they have no choice but to import from nations that unnecessarily torture their animals to increase profits.

-Queen Ilstoria III

[Ilstoria]

Animal Protection Act (Category: Moral Decency, Strength: Significant)

URGING the WA to recognize that animals kept as property by people must be provided with protections as a moral responsibility;

REALIZING the importance of animals as food, clothing and medical resources that are imported and exported internationally and would thus require an international effort to prevent cruelty;

UNDERSTANDING that populations of animals sometimes require the intervention of people to prevent population growth or harm that is detrimental to the animal, environment and people, and allowing for such actions if all reasonable actions are taken to prevent unnecessary pain and suffering.

LIMITS animals in this resolution to beings that possess the scientifically demonstrated ability to feel and experience pain. Animals unable to feel pain as a result of their physiology are exempt.

LIMITS restrictions on interactions between people and animals in this resolution to include only all forms of domesticity, including farming and animal testing industries.

DEFINES unnecessary as able to be reasonably avoided; While some industry, such as the meat industry, or fur industry, require that an animal be killed in order to create a product, which will necessitate brief pain, it is considered unavoidable. Similarly, prolonging the death of an animal because it is more cost effective is avoidable, so long as an alternative is economically feasible for that nation.

DEFINES pain and suffering as the unpleasant sensory experience associated with actual tissue damage and lasting unpleasant sensory experience as a result of prior tissue damage. Tissue damage inflicted under the supervision of a qualified veterinarian and with the use of anaesthetics to reduce or eliminate pain is reasonable.

PROVIDES animals with the right to safety, reasonable quality of life and freedom from torture through holding owners legally responsible by:

1. PROHIBITING the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on any animal by any person either directly or remotely.

2. ENCOURAGING that domestic animals kept outside of an individual’s living space be provided with an environment that as closely resembles its natural habitat as is possible; one example would be “free range.”

3. REQUIRING that individuals or a group that possess legal rights under its nation’s law to an animal provide reasonable protection from harm by other animals and persons.

4. FORBIDDING forms of entertainment that require or involve the infliction of pain or suffering on animals,

5. ESTABLISHES the World Domestic Animal Protection Convention (WDAPC) that will meet annually at the WAHQ or another suitably neutral site to create and edit a list of feeling species protected under this legislation and determines whether an action is necessary or reasonable if national governments are unable to reach a decision.

[Dagguerro]

Please remember it doesn't protect WILD animals or animals like bugs who don't feel pain.

Your opinion, not absolute fact. The question whether insects feel pain or not is a point of conjecture which this committee would have to tend towards the more cautious viewpoint that insects CAN feel pain. Therefore they ARE protected under your act.


Also please refrain from sending me harassment and insulting Telegrams in future. I am not three years old and absolutely do not appreciate being talked to in this way. Disgusting attitude. Thanks.

[Flibbleites]

Please remember it doesn't protect WILD animals or animals like bugs who don't feel pain.

Your opinion, not absolute fact. The question whether insects feel pain or not is a point of conjecture which this committee would have to tend towards the more cautious viewpoint that insects CAN feel pain. Therefore they ARE protected under your act.


Also please refrain from sending me harassment and insulting Telegrams in future. I am not three years old and absolutely do not appreciate being talked to in this way. Disgusting attitude. Thanks.

If it happens again, I suggest reporting it

[Ilstoria]

Your opinion, not absolute fact. The question whether insects feel pain or not is a point of conjecture which this committee would have to tend towards the more cautious viewpoint that insects CAN feel pain. Therefore they ARE protected under your act.


Also please refrain from sending me harassment and insulting Telegrams in future. I am not three years old and absolutely do not appreciate being talked to in this way. Disgusting attitude. Thanks.

If it happens again, I suggest reporting it

I thought we were having a discussion, and my responses were in the same tone as the responses I got. On that note: "the scientifically demonstrated" abilility to feel pain. I am yet again urging people to read the language. I may have missed something, but SENTIENCE was not it.

[Dagguerro]

If it happens again, I suggest reporting it

I thought we were having a discussion, and my responses were in the same tone as the responses I got. On that note: "the scientifically demonstrated" abilility to feel pain. I am yet again urging people to read the language. I may have missed something, but SENTIENCE was not it.

You sent me a telegram, unsolicited, to subtly gloat. Then have the audacity to sarcastically offer "advice" on writing repeals. Frankly if you weren't giving me so much damn attitude over this I wouldn't even be bothering to consider a repeal. I don't actually care about this subject at all, and a poorly written piece of legislation on it passing isn't going to change whether I care or not (although it may make me lose a bit more faith in the WA) and there are plenty of loopholes to play with. But since you insist on making this a personal battle then I'm hardly going to take insults lying down.

I'd say more but I think it'd get me a warning for flaming, so I won't. In short you're doing a great job of thoroughly pissing me off, which is coupled with the fact I absolutely do not have the time at the moment to properly fight this.


As for your point...you're implying sentience is not the case in insects. But as an even more obscure concept than "pain" there is a significant obscurity over whether insects are sentient. As above, the committee will have to err on the cautious side and protect all insects in the home or risk causing harm to those they're mandated to protect.

[Ilstoria]

I thought we were having a discussion, and my responses were in the same tone as the responses I got. On that note: "the scientifically demonstrated" abilility to feel pain. I am yet again urging people to read the language. I may have missed something, but SENTIENCE was not it.

You sent me a telegram, unsolicited, to subtly gloat. Then have the audacity to sarcastically offer "advice" on writing repeals. Frankly if you weren't giving me so much damn attitude over this I wouldn't even be bothering to consider a repeal. I don't actually care about this subject at all, and a poorly written piece of legislation on it isn't going to change whether I care or not (although it may make me lose a bit more faith in the WA) and there are plenty of loopholes to play with. But since you insist on making this a personal battle then I'm hardly going to take insults lying down.

As for your point...you're implying sentience is not the case in insects. But as an even more obscure concept than "pain" there is a significant obscurity over whether insects are sentient. As above, the committee will have to err on the cautious side and protect all insects in the home or risk causing harm to those they're mandated to protect.

You say "gloat" I say "discuss." I was honestly flattered you felt it would be such a sure thing and greatly offended that you would threaten to repeal it based on ideas that were already addressed in the legislation which you chose to ignore. And the committe is only called in if the nation, region, et al cannot come to its own concensus. I don't see this as being often. Similarly, fish have just recently been shown to feel pain (there was a really cool study over it) and unless the committee is going to conduct its own studies (which isn't required) it will be using the scientific community as its baseline, which is what most everyone does, not "err on the cautious side." You are reading way too far into this, if this were done for every Resolution then NONE would pass because there is a way to abuse any rule, regulation or restriction if you try hard enough.

I felt it important to address these, your erroneous concerns, as other people will be reading this discussion and believe your inaccurate "facts." I thought it would be better to let the discussion go on in a telegram rather than a long, drawn out, back and forth in the forum.

Yuu may feel like you are being treated like a three year old but I want to make it perfectly clear what is not only the intention of the Resolution, but also the LEGISLATION of the written word, and you are not the only one reading the forum.

[Dagguerro]

You say "gloat" I say "discuss."

Really?
"Good luck with your repeal! I'm so glad you feel such confidence that my Resolution will pass when it comes to a vote"
Sarcastic gloating. Nothing more. Don't give me that utter crap.

I was honestly flattered you felt it would be such a sure thing and greatly offended that you would threaten to repeal it based on ideas that were already addressed in the legislation which you chose to ignore.

You addressed nothing, instead sticking the the old standby of "this is what I meant so that's how it will be" rather than the more practical "this is what it actually says".

Pre-emptively preparing a repeal for poor legislation is not particularly uncommon and is never an indication of whether or not you think it will actually pass. It represents an emergency measure, nothing more.

And the committe is only called in if the nation, region, et al cannot come to its own concensus. I don't see this as being often.

So this resolution is basically completely toothless? Thanks for the information.

Similarly, fish have just recently been shown to feel pain (there was a really cool study over it) and unless the committee is going to conduct its own studies (which isn't required) it will be using the scientific community as its baseline, which is what most everyone does, not "err on the cautious side."

So am I. Scientific community has no definite consensus. What do you do? Just randomly let people put creatures in pain because they're not sure?

You are reading way too far into this, if this were done for every Resolution then NONE would pass because there is a way to abuse any rule, regulation or restriction if you try hard enough.

Ok, so we should let sloppy resolutions just pass, is that it? You're unbelievable...

I felt it important to address these, your erroneous concerns, as other people will be reading this discussion and believe your inaccurate "facts." I thought it would be better to let the discussion go on in a telegram rather than a long, drawn out, back and forth in the forum.

Ok, NOW I'm pissed off. I provide you with solid, legitimate concerns due to the holes in your resolution and you claim them to be erroneous and throw yet MORE sarcasm at me.

Go to hell. I'm done here.

Yuu may feel like you are being treated like a three year old but I want to make it perfectly clear what is not only the intention of the Resolution, but also the LEGISLATION of the written word, and you are not the only one reading the forum.

The letter of your resolution does not do what your intention is. But you're blind to see it; preferring apparently to throw around sarcasm rather than fixing this rubbish.


(Might get a warning for this. Don't care. I'm tired, I'm having a shit week and I really, really don't need you giving me attitude. Sod off with the sarcasm.)

[Isalenoria]

Could, someday, plants in fact be found to fit your definition of animal?

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... -eat-them/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html

[National States of America]

LIMITS THE DEFINITION of interaction between humans and animals in this resolution to include only all forms of domesticity as well as the hunting of animals for sport and/or sustenance.

I will only support bill if it prevents hunting for sport but allow domestic farming...Majority of us all eat meat, cow, pig, turkey, chicken, etc but they need not be cruelly treated upon for sustenance.

[Isalenoria]

There is a MAJOR issue with the act which everyone should know about before they vote for this act: (emphasis added by mwah)

DEFINES owners as any person who has purchased an animal or its descendants and/or has provided food or shelter or medical care to an animal on that person’s property for more than 31 days.

This means that if I purchase the descendant of an animal, I am the owner of its father and mother and grandfather and great great aunt. This makes no sense! I have never even MET the father of my pug, so how can I be his owner?

The writer of this proposal probably meant that you are the owner of the descendants of the animal you purchased. However, what they meant means nothing. The only thing that matters is what IS. And as the act currently stands, if you purchase an animal's descendant, you are legally responsible for the animal and all its older relatives!

Why, I imagine a lot of people would be falsely convicted of cruelty to animals they have never seen, never met, and never even knew existed!

[Alqania]

"The Queendom's earlier critique of this proposal has largely been ignored", Princess Christine complained. "We certainly do not have any qualms about registering our vote AGAINST this poorly written 'resolution'."

LIMITS THE DEFINITION of interaction between humans and animals in this resolution to include only all forms of domesticity as well as the hunting of animals for sport and/or sustenance.

I will only support bill if it prevents hunting for sport but allow domestic farming...Majority of us all eat meat, cow, pig, turkey, chicken, etc but they need not be cruelly treated upon for sustenance.

"As Her Majesty's Deputy Ambassador and as a landowner and hunter, I must most vehemently object to the implied baseless accusation that hunting for sport and/or sustenance constitutes unnecessary pain or otherwise cruelty to animals. Naturally, there are hunting practices that can be said to do so, but surely the reasonable response is to regulate hunting and ban such practices, not to ban all hunting."

[Cevalo Nacio]

Does this protect sapients species (Furries, Ponies)?

[Grantsburg]

As a vegan nation, I am actually opposed to this article. It still commodifies animals which will lead to inherent abuses in and of itself.

Our nation and its inhabitants do NOT recognize animals as anything except for the sentient beings they are.

[Yes Im Biop]

And when you have very few Human's in your Nation?

[The Happpening]

31 days? If I buy it, it's mine, I own it. Against.

[Allinlia]

Absolutely and unequivocally against, there are vital interpretative flaws that we simply cannot stomach and we feel the entire thing is too heavy handed in the first place

[Atmos]

Since animal rights are a major concern in my nation's legislation, I almost instinctively voted in favor. Until I read through more clearly, which led me to reading through the discussion so far, which led me to change my vote to one against this. Not because the spirit of it is wrong, in fact I'd say many resolutions mean well, but because of its implementation.

Others have raised some very valid points and concerns, which I would see properly addressed in future legislation of this sort, before voting for it. Until then, the Atmosi government will continue to do its part.

[The balkens]

FOR. to put it bluntly

[Jekrehnot]

STRONGLY SUPPORTED!

Our Führer,Adolf Hitler,was always protecting the animals.

[The Two Jerseys]

There is a MAJOR issue with the act which everyone should know about before they vote for this act: (emphasis added by mwah)

DEFINES owners as any person who has purchased an animal or its descendants and/or has provided food or shelter or medical care to an animal on that person’s property for more than 31 days.

This means that if I purchase the descendant of an animal, I am the owner of its father and mother and grandfather and great great aunt. This makes no sense! I have never even MET the father of my pug, so how can I be his owner?

The writer of this proposal probably meant that you are the owner of the descendants of the animal you purchased. However, what they meant means nothing. The only thing that matters is what IS. And as the act currently stands, if you purchase an animal's descendant, you are legally responsible for the animal and all its older relatives!

Why, I imagine a lot of people would be falsely convicted of cruelty to animals they have never seen, never met, and never even knew existed!

To comment further on the concerns of the esteemed representative of Isalenoria, am I to understand that simply feeding an animal on my property constitutes ownership? So if I place a birdfeeder in my yard, I therefore become owner of numerous birds and squirrels, which are by definition wild animals and therefore cannot be owned! Heaven forbid that bears should get into my trash, do I become owner of them as well? What else can I unwittingly become owner of? Mice? Termites? Stray cats living under the porch?

Furthermore, if livestock were to leave the property owned by one ranch without the knowledge or consent of the owner and remain on the property owned by another ranch for a period of time exceeding 31 days, under this Act the ownership of that animal(s) will revert to the owner of the second property, thereby depriving the original owner of his property without due process. The United Kingdom of the Two Jerseys STRONGLY OPPOSES this Act and calls upon other nations to reject this proposal as an attempt to violate due process and legalize cattle rustling.

[Zarconne]

Zarconne recognizes the mistakes of this resolution based on its description alone: animals are property.

Recognizing that animals belonging to people are property, no resolution could soundly command any individual to treat his or her animals in any way. Property of an individual is the responsibility of the individual and can be maintained in whatever way the individual sees fit. If animals are property, then animals may be treated by their "masters" in any way they see fit.

Additionally, the idea that "animals should only be treated with moral perspective if it is economically feasible for a nation" further weakens the resolution.

Under no circumstances is killing, maiming, injuring, or using for personal gain any animal beneficial to the animal. These acts are always for the benefit of people and industries and would not occur were they not. The idea that industries are not doing what is in their best interests already is astronomically riddled with fallacies.

Therefore, there is no way that Zarconne could support such a preposterous resolution.

[Multnomah]

Question on article 2. "ENCOURAGING that domestic animals kept outside of an individual’s living space be provided with an environment that as closely resembles its natural habitat as is possible; one example would be “free range.”"

Are you suggesting a pet, like a dog which may be kept primarily outside, be provided with a forested area to freely roam, instead of a kennel? I am as interested in preventing animal abuse as anyone, especially if it makes my meat more tender (something for all the vegans), but this clause seems a little open-ended.

[Xarxis]

This is going to pass because it's about protecting the cute, fuzzy animals from big, bad humans.

Nobody is reading the forum thread about it (it's only 4 pages long despite the resolution being at vote already).
Nobody will read the body of the resolution - they'll just scroll down and vote FOR just because the title says "Animal Protection."

[Castillano]

Reading the thread and the problems with this resolution has changed my mind from a "FOR" to an "AGAINST" vote. We in Castillano are very interested in animal rights but don't feel this resolution is the answer to protecting them.