NATION

PASSWORD

[Passed] Repeal "Animal Protection Act"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

[Passed] Repeal "Animal Protection Act"

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:16 am

The World Assembly:

Praising the noble intent of the "Animal Protection Act"(GA#228),

Deploring however, that GA#228 is subject to many flaws and errors which make it more difficult to protect animals effectively,

Regretting that the resolution's limited definition of animals as only those species which are capable of experiencing "the unpleasant sensory experience associated with actual tissue damage" limits the capacity of that resolution to properly protect all domestic animals,

Further regretting that the restrictive definition of pain in the resolution does little or nothing to limit suffering nor does it completely prohibit non-painful abuse, including many forms of neglect,

Disagreeing that permanent responsibility for an animal should be so easily established without regards for the rights of temporary or transitory caregivers,

Understanding that GA#228's author surely meant to use the word "ancestor" rather than "descendant" in their definition of an owner, which would ensure the care of the children of a purchased animal,

Noting that the periods of time between PAWS Committee meetings are a detriment to the protection that committee is intended to provide,

Further noting that the need to hold meetings on a regular basis, or at the very least "as needed" is significant and would benefit any future resolution on this subject,

Believing that this resolution's many flaws make it a hindrance to the members of the World Assembly, rather than a boon,

Hereby repeals GA# 228, the "Animal Protection Act".


Alrighty then. This'd be the 3rd time this comes up for repeal, and the 2nd time I've tried it. I've expanded my arguments and included more details and shored up a few unclear clauses. I'd be grateful to anyone pointing out flaws, errors, or problems.
Last edited by The Dourian Embassy on Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:48 am, edited 15 times in total.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Dellin
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 410
Founded: Jul 01, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Dellin » Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:38 am

I've never been involved in any debate about repealing this before, so coming into this with fresh eyes, most of these arguments aren't very convincing to me.

Regretting that GA#228's limited definition of animals as only those species which are capable of experiencing "the unpleasant sensory experience associated with actual tissue damage" limits the capacity of this resolution to properly protect animals.

Further regretting that the restrictive definition of pain in GA#228 does little or nothing to limit suffering nor does it completely prohibit non-painful forms of abuse including but not limited to abandonment, neglect, cruelty, and deliberately withholding food and water.


I'm assuming these clauses are actually meant to go with each other, since by "limiting the capacity to properly protect animals," I am assuming you mean by not outlawing "abandonment, neglect..." etc. Though some conditions related to starvation/dehydration could cause tissue damage, I can kind of see where you are coming from there. The other words are mostly fluff. "Neglect" is the same as either abandonment or withholding food and water and "cruelty" is everything, but not really anything on its own.

So, here, I sort of agree, maybe a larger net should have been cast, but that can be a national issue. Also, if you want a wider net to be cast, I'd have to see a replacement before ever supporting a repeal.

Noting that the periods of time between PAWS Committee meetings are a detriment to the protection that committee is intended to provide,

Further noting that the need to hold meetings on a regular basis, or at the very least "as needed" is significant and would benefit any future resolution on this subject,


This makes no sense. All PAWS does is " 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."

Their first function doesn't need more than an annual meeting; arguably, the second function could need more meetings, but it's a little micromanagey to begin with, and local/national jurisdictions should be dealing with the cases anyways. Also, if you want more meetings, a replacement would be nice to see.

Believing that certain forms of entertainment involving the well regulated use of animals should be legal, and regretting that this act makes such regulations much more difficult due to numerous flaws,


How?

Disagreeing that ownership of and responsibility for an animal should be acquired with any animal that any person attempts to care for even temporarily,


Awkward sentence. And why. So, if you only own an animal for a day, you are free to beat and torture it? (Though, the definition of owner per the resolution is after31 days, which seems reasonable, albeit 31 days is arbitrary and not applicable to different experiences of time.)

Understanding that GA#228's author surely meant to use the word "ancestor" rather than "descendant" in its definition of an owner, thus ensuring the care of the children of a purchased animal, and not that animal's parents,


True, the word is wrong, but that's only a definition. It doesn't actually do anything. All that the mistake does is make it so that ownership of an animal is no longer defined by the fact that you owned that animals parents. It does absolutely nothing for the descendants.
Last edited by Dellin on Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Interim WA Ambassador: Sarith Judea, Protector of Dellin

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:54 am

Dellin wrote:I'm assuming these clauses are actually meant to go with each other, since by "limiting the capacity to properly protect animals," I am assuming you mean by not outlawing "abandonment, neglect..." etc. Though some conditions related to starvation/dehydration could cause tissue damage, I can kind of see where you are coming from there. The other words are mostly fluff. "Neglect" is the same as either abandonment or withholding food and water and "cruelty" is everything, but not really anything on its own.

So, here, I sort of agree, maybe a larger net should have been cast, but that can be a national issue. Also, if you want a wider net to be cast, I'd have to see a replacement before ever supporting a repeal.


I do not personally write new legislation. I wrote a couple of pieces in the early days of the WA(WA#4 and WA#7), but I leave any replacements to others(and these days only write repeals). That said, I was a bit worried about the "list" in that clause. I can and probably will pare it down.

This makes no sense. All PAWS does is " 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."

Their first function doesn't need more than an annual meeting; arguably, the second function could need more meetings, but it's a little micromanagey to begin with, and local/national jurisdictions should be dealing with the cases anyways. Also, if you want more meetings, a replacement would be nice to see.


You'd think so, but if a species is discovered the day after the annual meeting... nations would be under no obligation to protect it until the next meeting. Assuming it's a particularly troublesome species, a nation could eliminate it entirely in much less than a year.

And I'd like to say again that a replacement does not have to be presented in order for a repeal to make good sense. The majority of nations do not lack laws on a national level to deal with this issue. This resolution is incredibly flawed, and deserves a repeal. If it is replaced afterwards with a more reasonable piece that takes some of my arguments into account, I would not at all be annoyed. In fact, if you believe that a replacement should be ready before a repeal takes place, I urge you to write one.

Awkward sentence. And why. So, if you only own an animal for a day, you are free to beat and torture it? (Though, the definition of owner per the resolution is after31 days, which seems reasonable, albeit 31 days is arbitrary and not applicable to different experiences of time.)

True, the word is wrong, but that's only a definition. It doesn't actually do anything. All that the mistake does is make it so that ownership of an animal is no longer defined by the fact that you owned that animals parents. It does absolutely nothing for the descendants.


First of all, definitions do things. In this resolutions "owners" are responsible 1-5, and those owners are defined by the definition clause. The word 'acquired' needs to change in my own draft(that's the real root of the awkward wording you're talking about). However... there are some very serious problems with using "descendants" instead of "ancestors" in that clause. For example, if I purchase an animal, I am responsible for, and the owner of, it's ancestors, since the clause specifically says that the purchasers of the descendants of an animal are an animals owners.

Further more, the 31 day issue: "and/or has provided food or shelter or medical care to an animal on that person’s property for more than 31 days."

This results in the very real fact that no matter who owns an animal originally, it can be transferred without permission if you can keep the animal for more than 31 days. Or if you happen to go feed the ducks at the park. The only distinction it makes is between wild or domesticated animals, not already owned or unowned animals.

It also brings us to one of the worst flaws of the resolution: It does not allow for transference of responsibility. Now, we can wiggle around that by saying that the definition of "owner" only applies to the resolution in question(even if the resolution itself doesn't say that). That'll get us around some serious property rights issues.

But that means that when you purchase an animal, the definitions of who is responsible for preventing abuse are non-transferable. Anyone who purchases the animal or provides shelter, food, or medical care for longer than 31 days is responsible for any abuse committed by any future owners.

The key is in the "and/or" bit. The "and" specifically implies there can be two or more owners.

Lets take a look at the average life of an animal, and see where the owner clause would kick in due to the flaws in the definitions bit.

1) Dog is born. Is ownerless as per the resolutions definition.
2) 31 days pass and the current person providing food and shelter becomes the new "owner". They are responsible for stopping abuse. 1st owner.
3) Dog is purchased by a family. Dog's mother and father and any living relatives it is directly descended from are now the responsibilities of the new owner. Also the dog itself. 2nd owner.
4) Dog gets sick, goes to vet. Vet provides medical care, food, and shelter for two months as dog is nursed back to health. Vet is now new owner of dog. 3rd owner.
5) Dog returns home from vet. Sometime later family goes on vacation for 6 weeks. Leaves housesitter in charge of pets. On day 32: 4th owner.
6) Dog is stolen by neighbor. Kept inside for 5 months. Neighbor is now the 5th owner.
7) Dog is returned to 2nd owner. 2nd owner expires, dog is inherited by child. After 31 days 6th owner.

Now, we're up to 6 different "owners", but that is only the tip of the iceberg. There is nothing to say that these incidents involve just one person. The person providing care could easily be more than one person at once. The vet has assistants for example, for example. There could be 4 people on the hook there for the responsibilities.

And the resolution doesn't make a distinction as to whether the acts themselves could be avoided by the person who is to be punished, but rather if they could be avoided by the person who is perpetrating the abuse. If the final owner abuses that dog, every single previous owner is on the hook by law for not preventing it.

No, a flawed definition is by it's very nature something for which to remove a resolution.

This resolution is incredibly flawed, with particular focus on the definitions(which are in fact the most important part of any resolution). In order for the debate on how best to help prevent abuse to move forward, this piece has to go.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
The Two Jerseys
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12409
Founded: Jun 07, 2012
Father Knows Best State

Postby The Two Jerseys » Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:43 pm

Any effort to repeal this utterly abominable resolution has my complete support. Good luck.
"The Duke of Texas" is too formal for regular use. Just call me "Your Grace".
"If I would like to watch goodness, sanity, God and logic being fucked I would watch Japanese porn." -Nightkill the Emperor
"This thread makes me wish I was a moron so that I wouldn't have to comprehend how stupid the topic is." -The Empire of Pretantia
Head of State: HM King Louis
Head of Government: The Rt. Hon. James O'Dell MP, Prime Minister
Ambassador to the World Assembly: HE Sir John Ross "J.R." Ewing II, Bt.
Join Excalibur Squadron. We're Commandos who fly Spitfires. Chicks dig Commandos who fly Spitfires.

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:08 pm

I've tighted up the language, moved some stuff around, and softened some of the language a bit. Any more feedback? Errors?

People should know by now that I tend to move from draft to submission fairly quickly... so I'm itching for anything you guys can think of for improvements.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13738
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:32 pm

The Dourian Embassy wrote:People should know by now that I tend to move from draft to submission fairly quickly...

Don't make me quote the usual saying for this instance, you of all people. :P

Leave it here for a week or so at the very least to give people time to look it over (and wait for those that can only pay proper attention to NS on weekends) and give meaningful feedback. Which I intend to do once real life stops jumping up and down on my neck so much...
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Herzil
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 41
Founded: Dec 08, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Herzil » Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:31 am

While we do believe that GA#228 should be amended, mostly because Pain is a Term that might be interrupted differently by different nations and there should be a list of acts that would be consider by majority of nations as "inflicting of pain" action, otherwise the Committee itself - beside philosophical conversations - wont contribute anything worth while during those meetings.

We do however have some problems with some of your repeal statements:


Regretting that GA#228's limited definition of animals as only those species which are capable of experiencing "the unpleasant sensory experience associated with actual tissue damage" limits the capacity of that resolution to properly protect all animals,

Further regretting that the restrictive definition of pain in GA#228 does little or nothing to limit suffering nor does it completely prohibit non-painful abuse including some forms of neglect,

Disagreeing that permanent responsibility for an animal should be so easily established without regards for the rights of temporary or transitory caregivers,



We disagree with your statement that there was a limited definition on the writer(and act) behalf regarding the animals. The act did state specifically what type of animals that will be considered under this act as:
LIMITS restrictions on interactions between people and animals in this resolution to include only all forms of domesticity, including farming and animal testing industries. Wild animals are exempt from this resolution as they are not a legal responsibility of owners.


= only all forms of domesticity, including farming and animal testing industries, the act was never intended for all the animals in the world of nations, and if you wish to make a new proposals regarding other types of animals your more than welcome but your idea of limited definition as a reason to repeal doesnt apply here (its not like the author intended for the act to be applied to all the types of animals and then made an error writing mistake and limited the jurisdiction of the act)


Second your issue of temporary owners and caregivers is not very clear:
The animal act stated :
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.

which clarify specifically who should be accountable for the Misery of the animal.

So if you mean to say that Temporary Owners & Caregivers should be asked for their opinion on the matter - the act doesnt contradict it!!
It simply puts in nice prints that caregivers are just as much to blame for the pain of the animal as the real owners if in the time the animal was in the caregiver "protection" - it got hurt (pure and simple)

If that wasnt your intention your more than welcome to rebuttal.
Last edited by Herzil on Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Madam Phantom
Herzil Minister of Foreign Affairs

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:11 am

Two things,

First of all including the term "all animals" was unclear. I mean "all domestic animals". The repeal isn't about protecting all animals(to include non-domestic animals), but rather to point out the failures of the resolution to protect all domestic animals. So I included the word domestic in there.

Second of all, the point is that transitory and temporary owners are always responsible for preventing abuse to the animals even when they are no longer in possession of the animals.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Philimbesi
Minister
 
Posts: 2347
Founded: Jun 07, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Philimbesi » Tue Oct 01, 2013 12:12 pm

My esteemed colleague from The Dourian Embassy has the full support of the USP.

Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador to the General Assembly.
The Unified Districts Of Philimbesi
The Honorable Josiah Bartlet - President

Ideological Bulwark #236

User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:13 pm

UNITED FEDERATION OF CANADA

Image

IMPERIAL MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS


As much as it pains me to say this, I might have to SUPPORT this one. The term animal is badly defined within the resolution, as well as its other many flaws.

Don't read into this too much though. I usually oppose repeals, but this one is a stain that should be scrubbed out.

Warmest regards,

Image
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Tue Oct 01, 2013 3:08 pm

Araraukar wrote:Don't make me quote the usual saying for this instance, you of all people. :P


This process has worked out pretty well for me in the past. I'm not sure how long the drafting on say Repeal Metric System was, but it may've been the longest I'd ever spent on one. But that was 5 years ago, these days I tend to move pretty quickly. ;)

Anyway, does anyone have something to add or bones to pick?
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Belzia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1322
Founded: Sep 28, 2013
Ex-Nation

I support

Postby Belzia » Tue Oct 01, 2013 3:11 pm

The term animal in the original article is poorly defined, if this passes, A new, better law protecting animals, as well as defining what's a peaceful animal rights group vs. a terrorist group, should be passed
Last edited by Belzia on Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Poni Poni Poni
Generation 35 (The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.)
98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your signature.
Armed Forces data
Defcon: 5 4 3 2 1
Left: 5.16, Libertarian: 1.87
I am a Catholic

User avatar
Ambibia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 593
Founded: May 20, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Ambibia » Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:04 pm

Image
15 year-old male Democrat from South Carolina, USA. Presbyterian. Currently enrolled in boarding school in Virginia.
Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.38
"There was never a good war, or a bad peace" -Benjamin Franklin
"We seldom repent of having eaten too little"-Thomas Jefferson
"There are many ways of moving foward, but only one way of standing still"-Franklin D. Roosevelt

User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:06 pm

Ambibia wrote:


Picspam is a bad idea here. Just a friendly bit of advice.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:33 pm

Ambibia wrote:(Image)


It's strange but as soon as I saw that I got this idea in my head and could not get it out until I went and made the damn image.

Anyway, I appreciate all feedback, but that's not the most constructive thing I've seen in a while.
Last edited by The Dourian Embassy on Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Northern Sylvan States
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Sep 18, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Sylvan States » Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:52 pm

Wouldn't it be easier and better to revise rather than repeal this act?

User avatar
The Two Jerseys
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12409
Founded: Jun 07, 2012
Father Knows Best State

Postby The Two Jerseys » Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:56 pm

Northern Sylvan States wrote:Wouldn't it be easier and better to revise rather than repeal this act?

It don't work that way...
"The Duke of Texas" is too formal for regular use. Just call me "Your Grace".
"If I would like to watch goodness, sanity, God and logic being fucked I would watch Japanese porn." -Nightkill the Emperor
"This thread makes me wish I was a moron so that I wouldn't have to comprehend how stupid the topic is." -The Empire of Pretantia
Head of State: HM King Louis
Head of Government: The Rt. Hon. James O'Dell MP, Prime Minister
Ambassador to the World Assembly: HE Sir John Ross "J.R." Ewing II, Bt.
Join Excalibur Squadron. We're Commandos who fly Spitfires. Chicks dig Commandos who fly Spitfires.

User avatar
Northern Sylvan States
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Sep 18, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Sylvan States » Tue Oct 01, 2013 5:06 pm

Shame. So basically we have to repeal in order to revise?

User avatar
The Two Jerseys
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12409
Founded: Jun 07, 2012
Father Knows Best State

Postby The Two Jerseys » Tue Oct 01, 2013 5:10 pm

Northern Sylvan States wrote:Shame. So basically we have to repeal in order to revise?

Affirmative.
"The Duke of Texas" is too formal for regular use. Just call me "Your Grace".
"If I would like to watch goodness, sanity, God and logic being fucked I would watch Japanese porn." -Nightkill the Emperor
"This thread makes me wish I was a moron so that I wouldn't have to comprehend how stupid the topic is." -The Empire of Pretantia
Head of State: HM King Louis
Head of Government: The Rt. Hon. James O'Dell MP, Prime Minister
Ambassador to the World Assembly: HE Sir John Ross "J.R." Ewing II, Bt.
Join Excalibur Squadron. We're Commandos who fly Spitfires. Chicks dig Commandos who fly Spitfires.

User avatar
Northern Sylvan States
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Sep 18, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Sylvan States » Tue Oct 01, 2013 5:24 pm

Well then repealing "Animal Protection Act" to revise it has my full support.

User avatar
The Scientific States
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18643
Founded: Apr 29, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Scientific States » Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:56 pm

The original act has some flaws, but I'm not sure if I fully support a repeal.

If it does get repealed, I strongly hope there will be a replacement draft ready.
Centrist, Ordoliberal, Bisexual, Agnostic, Pro Social Market Economy, Pro Labour Union, Secular Humanist, Cautious Optimist, Pro LGBT, Pro Marijuana Legalization, Pro Humanitarian Intervention etc etc.
Compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.88
Social Liberal/Authoritarian: -6.62
Political Stuff I Wrote
Why Pinochet and Allende were both terrible
The UKIP: A Bad Choice for Britain
Why South Africa is in a sorry state, and how it can be fixed.
Massive List of My OOC Pros and Cons
Hey, Putin! Leave Ukraine Alone!

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8413
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:47 pm

The Scientific States wrote:The original act has some flaws, but I'm not sure if I fully support a repeal.

If it does get repealed, I strongly hope there will be a replacement draft ready.

I can't speak for Douria, but I would strongly encourage you to consider drafting one yourself if you feel there is a need for a replacement.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
The Scientific States
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18643
Founded: Apr 29, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Scientific States » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:53 am

Mousebumples wrote:
The Scientific States wrote:The original act has some flaws, but I'm not sure if I fully support a repeal.

If it does get repealed, I strongly hope there will be a replacement draft ready.

I can't speak for Douria, but I would strongly encourage you to consider drafting one yourself if you feel there is a need for a replacement.


If I had the time to do so I would. I'm simply saying I hope someone comes up with a replacement to the resolution, because we do need some sort of animal protection legislation.
Centrist, Ordoliberal, Bisexual, Agnostic, Pro Social Market Economy, Pro Labour Union, Secular Humanist, Cautious Optimist, Pro LGBT, Pro Marijuana Legalization, Pro Humanitarian Intervention etc etc.
Compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.88
Social Liberal/Authoritarian: -6.62
Political Stuff I Wrote
Why Pinochet and Allende were both terrible
The UKIP: A Bad Choice for Britain
Why South Africa is in a sorry state, and how it can be fixed.
Massive List of My OOC Pros and Cons
Hey, Putin! Leave Ukraine Alone!

User avatar
Freemopia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1207
Founded: Sep 27, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Freemopia » Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:22 pm

link to the animal protection act

-all methods of killing animals must be as painless and humane as possible
-animals must not be kept in areas where they are unable to run at full speed and jump at full height (except for transport, cleaning, and physical healthcare)
-transport by road, animals must be let out to run and jump at least 1hour out of every 24hours.
-transport cages must allow for the animals to fully stand up w/o head touching ceiling, fully stretch out while laying down, and turn around easily.
people are legally responsible for providing proper nutrients/food, water, shelter, heating/cooling, sanitation, physical healthcare, space, to all animals they have trapped currently, and animals they trapped or bought that aren’t able to care for them self in the wild. (ex buying an exotic animal than abandoning it outside in an environment where it cant survive is neglect)
-always have access to clean water. (cold water when its hot out)
-access to adequate food at least daily
-shelter from rain, heat, and cold (if you can, protect your animals from storms/lightning/tornados...)
-heating and cooling to keep animal comfortable
-sanitation (birds require baths or being sprayed w spray bottle, chinchilla’s require dust baths, animals who's teeth don’t continuously grow(cats/dogs) need their teeth brushed w special pet toothpaste at least weekly)...
sanitary and comfortable living conditions.
-comfortable sleeping area
-physical healthcare if needed
neglect is a form of abuse. killing a healthy friendly animal for other purposes than body parts, or abusing animals(excluding painlessly killing them for their body parts), is punishably by arrest(severe abuse=life in prison), fine, and being permanently banned from trapping or owning animals.
over-populated types of animals whom aren’t used for meat(ex cats, dogs) whom are within breeding range of a fertile animal of the opposite gender of the same species, should be required to be sterilized. animals whom don’t medically qualify for sterilization must be kept out of breeding range of fertile animals of the opposite gender and same species. failure to comply results in $40,000 fine(adv cost to care for a litter) (that will be spent on sterilizing and providing food, water, shelter, to poor animals)
animals should be with at least 1 other animal of their species.
animals should be treated to higher standards than the minimum requirements.
Last edited by Freemopia on Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:52 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:59 am

Freemopia wrote:*snip*


I uh... what?
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads