[IDEA] Animal Transport Act

[Aligned Planets]

Breeder animals would be covered by this proposal for transit, provided said animal was accompanying its owner as a pet only, and not for commercial breeding purposes. As in, the animal would in essence be a private pet on this journey, and would not be discriminated against because of a commercial aspect, just as a dog that performed in a circus could travel with its owner provided it was as a pet, and not to be "working". Obviously, any breach of this would be down to individual member states to enforce, or not, as they saw fit.

I am still failing to comprehend why the World Assembly would concern itself with house pets? I will admit the idea is creative, and I do like some creativity.....

Mainly to facilitate transit of passengers' pets. We citizens currently enjoy the benefits of the Standardised Passport Act, which allows us ease of movement between member states. However, for those wishing to travel with their beloved goldfish, or targ, or whatever it happens to be, there is no uniformity across nations, so whereas one may travel relatively freely through Aligned Planets provided you have the right paperwork, you may find your pet stopped in another nation for quarantine purposes, as there is no universal standard for what is acceptable.

OOC: Indeed, just trying to think outside the box!

[Separatist Peoples]

"So, no breeder cats and dogs allowed, then?"

Breeder animals would be covered by this proposal for transit, provided said animal was accompanying its owner as a pet only, and not for commercial breeding purposes. As in, the animal would in essence be a private pet on this journey, and would not be discriminated against because of a commercial aspect, just as a dog that performed in a circus could travel with its owner provided it was as a pet, and not to be "working". Obviously, any breach of this would be down to individual member states to enforce, or not, as they saw fit.

"Sound like a way to get around WA restrictions on the matter, to me."

[Aligned Planets]

OOC: It's been some time since I stopped by the GA and, in the absence of any other threads I particularly want to jump into at the moment, I thought I'd reliven this [IDEA] thread for some sort of international legislation governing transport of animals across transnational boundaries. I also note that the chief adversary to the concept, Chester Pearson, seems to be inactive - what happened there?

Any further thoughts, suggestions or criticisms of the concept and the above discussion thread would be welcomed before I start crafting the text of the proposal in the next few days, should the GA be in favour. I am aiming to go for a broadbrush IntFed approach, with as much implementation detail devolved through NatSov to member states as possible..

[Jarish Inyo]

Don't. There is no reason any nation should nations allow pets to be brought into their nations for vacations. My government rejects and will continue to reject any pets being brought into our nation.

Instead, I would suggest maybe focusing on passports for service animals.

[Aligned Planets]

Don't. There is no reason any nation should nations allow pets to be brought into their nations for vacations. My government rejects and will continue to reject any pets being brought into our nation.

But what of nations you share transnational boundaries with? For example, let's call Nation A an adjoining nation to your territory, and Nation B some far-flung destination. What would happen if, without international standardised guidance, a citizen from Nation B travels to Nation A with a pet animal, and doesn't go through quarantine. The animal in question is an asymptomatic carrier of an infectious disease, which is transmitted to the local animal population and spreads rapidly due to no prior exposure to the infectious agent. Some of these animals then migrate across the boundary from Nation A into your country.

My point here being that just because you don't allow pets into your nation, it does not mean that you are immune from the effects of animals being transported into nearby nations.

Instead, I would suggest maybe focusing on passports for service animals.

This is an angle I am still considering; I suspect the pro-business lobby would be too against this for it to fly with too many specifics.

[Separatist Peoples]

This is an angle I am still considering; I suspect the pro-business lobby would be too against this for it to fly with too many specifics.

"It is an awful lot easier from an exportation standpoint to have to meet standards that are randomly tested than it is to issue animal-specific documentation for every animal. Not unlike quality control testing at manufacturing plants. Passports might be too onerous.

"I think, upon reflection, standardizing exportation requirements is the best bet. That way, what leaves a nation gets no less than the minimum acceptable screening and treatment, while nations can decide their own importation standards, so they can have more strict health and safety requirements if they so desire. I may be missing something, but that seems like a fair compromise between Ambassador Nameless' concerns and the necessity to facilitate business and safety."

[The Arkam Asylum]

Very well done and no unforeseen consequences. Be sure to inform me when this is submitted and i will pledge my support

[Jarish Inyo]

Don't. There is no reason any nation should nations allow pets to be brought into their nations for vacations. My government rejects and will continue to reject any pets being brought into our nation.

But what of nations you share transnational boundaries with? For example, let's call Nation A an adjoining nation to your territory, and Nation B some far-flung destination. What would happen if, without international standardised guidance, a citizen from Nation B travels to Nation A with a pet animal, and doesn't go through quarantine. The animal in question is an asymptomatic carrier of an infectious disease, which is transmitted to the local animal population and spreads rapidly due to no prior exposure to the infectious agent. Some of these animals then migrate across the boundary from Nation A into your country.

My point here being that just because you don't allow pets into your nation, it does not mean that you are immune from the effects of animals being transported into nearby nations.

Instead, I would suggest maybe focusing on passports for service animals.

This is an angle I am still considering; I suspect the pro-business lobby would be too against this for it to fly with too many specifics.

We kill off the infected animals. Its that simple. Not that we have to worry about your scenario. We are an island nation. And nothing goes through our territory without being quarantined.

[Aligned Planets]

But what of nations you share transnational boundaries with? For example, let's call Nation A an adjoining nation to your territory, and Nation B some far-flung destination. What would happen if, without international standardised guidance, a citizen from Nation B travels to Nation A with a pet animal, and doesn't go through quarantine. The animal in question is an asymptomatic carrier of an infectious disease, which is transmitted to the local animal population and spreads rapidly due to no prior exposure to the infectious agent. Some of these animals then migrate across the boundary from Nation A into your country.

My point here being that just because you don't allow pets into your nation, it does not mean that you are immune from the effects of animals being transported into nearby nations.


This is an angle I am still considering; I suspect the pro-business lobby would be too against this for it to fly with too many specifics.

We kill off the infected animals. Its that simple. Not that we have to worry about your scenario. We are an island nation. And nothing goes through our territory without being quarantined.

Unless, of course, it was an avian-transmitted disease. And, given the (irl) UK's experience of successfully culling anything (or lack thereof), it is difficult to reach anything approaching 100% eradication of a large native population, even in segmented and quarantined areas. Just ask anyone how well the current badger cull is going..

That said, SP I like your suggestion (as usual), and will consider approaching from an export perspective.

[Jarish Inyo]

We have no no problems eradication any species within our nation. It's only a question of if we wish to keep a breeding stock and reintroduce the species.

[Bears Armed]

I also note that the chief adversary to the concept, Chester Pearson, seems to be inactive

OOC: player now = Jean Pierre Trudeau.

[Aligned Planets]

Okay, the First Draft is up in the first post. For convenience, reposted below:

Animal Transport Act
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

The General Assembly,

AWARE of the transportation of animals across transnational boundaries for commercial and non-commercial purposes;

CONCERNED about the spread and transmission across transnational boundaries of vector-borne diseases and other infectious agents hazardous to animal and sapient life;

DESIROUS of establishing standardised exportation requirements for the transit of animals across transnational boundaries to mitigate this risk of spread and transmission;

NOTING that the scope of this resolution does not extend to the natural migration of animals across transnational boundaries;

HEREBY

MANDATES that all Member States must enact standardised exportation requirements for the transit of animals across transnational boundaries;

TASKS the World Health Authority (WHA) and the Protection of Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) with establishing standardised exportation requirements for the transit of animals across transnational boundaries;

REAFFIRMS the rights of Member States to enact such importation requirements as required, and to enact more rigorous exportation requirements than mandated by this resolution.

Comments welcome

[Separatist Peoples]

"It is incredibly vague. There's no way of telling if nations will be unaffected, or if we'll be forced to encase every animal in carbonite to transport it across national borders. I appreciate that you're trying to leave it up to the committee to decide, but you really ought to elaborate more on what will be regulated and how. Perhaps not actual threshold numbers, but anything would be helpful at this point."

[The Arkam Asylum]

I like the idea but i would need to see some more specific regulations before i could approve this proposal.

[Losthaven]

I'm a fan of the idea, but putting restrictions on animal import/export is the opposite of "Free Trade." This does not belong in that category. Perhaps "social justice" as this mildly restricts economic freedoms and increases government spending (on people's welfare?). Or perhaps the new "Health" category? As a bioethics proposal?

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I understand delegating to the committee, but this is so vague as to be basically meaningless.

As a bioethics proposal?

I like this idea the most.

[Aligned Planets]

Thanks for the feedback so far everyone - I definitely recognise the need to flesh out the requirements some more, and provide more structure for the work of the Committee.. this will be explored in my next draft. Specific suggestions / ideas on this are most welcome.

Category: Free Trade..
I umm'd and ahhh'd over this myself. My thinking with 'free trade' was that, once a minimum export standard was established, this minimum standard would actually facilitate trade within and amongst Member States by virtue of the "level-playing field".. akin almost to the (RL) Fortress Europe concept. I looked at bioethics, and thought the line setting ethical international standards for healthcare and research could be relevant. Open to this angle of discussion.

[Bears Armed]

Category: Free Trade..
I umm'd and ahhh'd over this myself. My thinking with 'free trade' was that, once a minimum export standard was established, this minimum standard would actually facilitate trade within and amongst Member States by virtue of the "level-playing field".. akin almost to the (RL) Fortress Europe concept.

We've certainly had 'Free Trade' resolutions based on such reasoning passed already, but it would probably help if you actually add that argument into the proposal's preamble.

[Losthaven]

Category: Free Trade..
I umm'd and ahhh'd over this myself. My thinking with 'free trade' was that, once a minimum export standard was established, this minimum standard would actually facilitate trade within and amongst Member States by virtue of the "level-playing field".. akin almost to the (RL) Fortress Europe concept.

We've certainly had 'Free Trade' resolutions based on such reasoning passed already, but it would probably help if you actually add that argument into the proposal's preamble.

I don't want to get bogged down in the category, because I do think that the idea is good but needs substantive revision. However, I really don't see by what tortured logic a person could possibly say that a resolution that imposes new restrictions on trade somehow increases economic freedom. I suppose regulation may, eventually, break things down into a routine that results in more economic activity, but that's not the same thing as increasing people's economic "freedom," which is what the FT category is supposed to do.

We'd really like to see this as a heath proposal and we think it could fit under "bioethics" with very little struggle, seeing as a primary motive of the act in the preamble is to avoid "vector born disease" and the spread of agents "hazardous to animal and sapient life."