NationStates

The Universal Pet Protection Act
By Cypriot Island And South St Maarten

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that there are thousands of cases of pet abuse worldwide,

Noting that pets are often subject to violent abuse,

Understanding that no pets should be subject to abuse and harm,

Acknowledging that pets are animals owned by families and are not farm animals,

Hereby,

1. Establishes the International Pet Protection Agency (IPPA), an organization that campaigns for pet rights while trying to bring pet abusers to justice.

2. Affirms that pet owners must:

A. provide the animal with food, care and housing appropriate to its species, its requirements and behaviour;

B. may not restrict the animal's possibility of species-specific freedom of movement to such an extent as to cause the animal pain or avoidable suffering or harm;

C. possess the knowledge and skills necessary for providing the animal with adequate food, care and housing in accordance with its behavioural requirements.

3. Prohibits the arbitrary unethical killing of pets, and any other unnatural violence against pets, which includes but is not limited to beating or abusing pets and chaining them to cages

4. Encourages member nations to promote non-WA nations to accept this resolution.

I like the proposal. Looks good to me.

Seems fine. I would be against it had it not shown the distinction between farm animals and pets. I want to protect farmer's rights.

I remember your other proposal which I was against because of the drafting. However, this seems like quite a good proposal. I would support it.

I suggest looking at repealed resolution Prevention of Animal Abuse to see why it was repealed. I'm also going to ask the simple question of, what is a pet?

Masurbia wrote:I'm also going to ask the simple question of, what is a pet?

OOC: Uh, it is already defined. It is literally right there in the draft:

South St Maarten wrote:Acknowledging that pets are animals owned by families and are not farm animals

The New California Republic wrote:

Masurbia wrote:I'm also going to ask the simple question of, what is a pet?

OOC: Uh, it is already defined. It is literally right there in the draft:

South St Maarten wrote:Acknowledging that pets are animals owned by families and are not farm animals

Yes I saw that but I see that as more of a preamble and not a definition. It's also so broad in terms that literally anything could be a "pet."

Masurbia wrote:

South St Maarten wrote:Acknowledging that pets are animals owned by families and are not farm animals

Yes I saw that but I see that as more of a preamble and not a definition.

OOC: It can be both surely?

Masurbia wrote:It's also so broad in terms that literally anything could be a "pet."

OOC: And? "An animal owned by a family that is not a farm animal" is broad enough without being too limiting. I mean, who are we to say that the likes of a Golden Eagle cannot be a pet, etc? Are you proposing that we start policing which animals can be pets and which cannot?

The New California Republic wrote:

Masurbia wrote:Yes I saw that but I see that as more of a preamble and not a definition.

OOC: It can be both surely?

Yes, and I completely understand what you're saying, but usually a definition goes after the Hereby.

Masurbia wrote:It's also so broad in terms that literally anything could be a "pet."

OOC: And? "An animal owned by a family that is not a farm animal" is broad enough without being too limiting. I mean, who are we to say that the likes of a Golden Eagle cannot be a pet, etc? Are you proposing that we start policing which animals can be pets and which cannot?

Many people see pigs or goats or other farm animals as pets, so are they not protected? And I am not endorsing this proposal. An agency solely designed to do something that regular law enforcement agencies already do gets my disapproval, nevermind the terrible structure and wording.

"I like it, but do we have to add another committee?"

"Category? Strength?"

I was going to dissect this, then I realized that I could just sum it up without doing that. There are no grounds on which pets should be protected over other farm animals. Dogs taste like meat. Cats taste like meat. Dogs and cats in different cultures are used as food and as breeding fodder for sports or science. You can not ban cultures just because you don't like them. There are no grounds on which animals should be treated differently just because your society has different standards.

I'll support. Housecats must be protected!

"I would replace the acknowledging clause with a defining one, though the definition is a bit vague and probably needs to be changed."

You should probably define what a farm animal is as well because, as Masurbia pointed out, pigs are traditionally seen as farm animals but some people also use them as pets.

I do support the proposal in its current state, however.

(OOC: I assume by who is on the forums, that Cypriot is the co-author and you are the author. I would clarify this somewhere in the opening post.)

OOC: So only animals owned by families can be pets? Not animals owned by single people?

"Cats deserve special protections."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Cats deserve special protections."

“No, no, no. You’ve got it all wrong! Dachshunds, or really dogs in general, deserve special protections.”

The First German Order wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Cats deserve special protections."

“No, no, no. You’ve got it all wrong! Dachshunds, or really dogs in general, deserve special protections.”

Bell throws the First German Ambassador out the nearest window. He does not do so gracefully, and he does not wait for the splash.

He sits back down.

"Cats. Deserve. Special. Protections."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

The First German Order wrote:“No, no, no. You’ve got it all wrong! Dachshunds, or really dogs in general, deserve special protections.”

Bell throws the First German Ambassador out the nearest window. He does not do so gracefully, and he does not wait for the splash.

He sits back down.

"Cats. Deserve. Special. Protections."

"Jesus, Bell, you don't have to-- ahhhh, I see what you did there."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

The First German Order wrote:“No, no, no. You’ve got it all wrong! Dachshunds, or really dogs in general, deserve special protections.”

Bell throws the First German Ambassador out the nearest window. He does not do so gracefully, and he does not wait for the splash.

He sits back down.

"Cats. Deserve. Special. Protections."

*Faintly*
“I’m...not... okay...”

Kenmoria wrote:"I would replace the acknowledging clause with a defining one, though the definition is a bit vague and probably needs to be changed."

"Definition of a pet should be clearly marked and labeled as such. I do think that the 'acknowledging' clause almost captures the concept perfectly as-is, but I would recommend not including other phrases; that just opens the door to unintended consequences. Maybe something along the lines of '...pets are animals, usually domesticated, owned by people primarily for the purpose of companionship or pleasure rather than for livestock, work, or research purposes.'

"We would still be FOR this Resolution as it is if the 'acknowledging' were merely changed to 'defining', however."

No Name Available wrote:if the 'acknowledging' were merely changed to 'defining', however."

OOC: Better yet, it should be made an active clause with "defines".

"Put a full stop after the end of clause 3. Also, I notice your delagation has not yet edited the draft - is it still being worked on?"