NationStates

The World Assembly,

Noting the detrimental psychological effects on many captive animals,

Disgusted by the exploitation of suffering animals for entertainment,

Wishing to put an end to this immediately,

Hereby bans the holding of non-sapient, living animals capable of having emotions on public display in a manner far more damaging to their health compared to that of the same species in their natural habitats.

Drew Durrnil wrote:As the author of the now-abandoned "Zoo Regulations" proposal, I suggest you abandon this proposal immediately.

Jedinsto wrote:

Drew Durrnil wrote:As the author of the now-abandoned "Zoo Regulations" proposal, I suggest you abandon this proposal immediately.

I remember that draft well, and it somewhat served as an inspiration for this. Regulating zoos is a national issue sure, but banning them altogether.... that's just straight up civil rights imo. I still firmly believe civil rights is always an international issue.

Drew Durrnil wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:I remember that draft well, and it somewhat served as an inspiration for this. Regulating zoos is a national issue sure, but banning them altogether.... that's just straight up civil rights imo. I still firmly believe civil rights is always an international issue.

You have yet to have created a category and strength/area of effect. Also, this is a blanket ban on zoos, which is contradicted by your OOC.

Jedinsto wrote:

Drew Durrnil wrote:You have yet to have created a category and strength/area of effect. Also, this is a blanket ban on zoos, which is contradicted by your OOC.

I know, I like to determine all of that later into the drafting phase. This could be moral decency or civil rights, it's a decision I am yet to make.

Bananaistan wrote:"Zoos are indeed an international issue. Most zoos "host" species well away from their natural habitat and often so far away, they're in an entirely different contintent.

"Full support. This particular nasty Victorian practice has gone on far too long."

Ardiveds wrote:"We do not believe any zoo exists which is not detrimental to the health of animals. Even the most humane zoos have some detrimental effects on an animal's health, even the natural habitat of animals have some detrimental effects on their. health. So do you really want to ban each and every zoo?"

Jedinsto wrote:

Ardiveds wrote:"We do not believe any zoo exists which is not detrimental to the health of animals. Even the most humane zoos have some detrimental effects on an animal's health, even the natural habitat of animals have some detrimental effects on their. health. So do you really want to ban each and every zoo?"

"If what you're saying is true, then yes, that's exactly what I'm saying."

OOC: The definition will be reworded to more of what Honeydew suggested. I will still provide support with the preamble and everything.

Ardiveds wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:"If what you're saying is true, then yes, that's exactly what I'm saying."

OOC: The definition will be reworded to more of what Honeydew suggested. I will still provide support with the preamble and everything.

OOC: That still sets an impossible standard for any irl zoo to achieve. If you just want to make sure animals are treated humanely, you've chosen an absolutely terrible approach. The topic pf zoo regulation could defnitely use a resolution but not this lazy knee jerk.

Jedinsto wrote:

Ardiveds wrote:

OOC: That still sets an impossible standard for any irl zoo to achieve. If you just want to make sure animals are treated humanely, you've chosen an absolutely terrible approach. The topic pf zoo regulation could defnitely use a resolution but not this lazy knee jerk.

I understand this post did not account for the new draft but I will respond to it anyways. If animals are to be held captive, why should they be treated like absolute horse shit? There are IRL zoos that hold animals for the purposes of protecting the species, i.e. pandas on reserves, and their life spans have been nearly doubled in captivity. If animals are to be held captive for entertainment and money, they are not going to suffer.

Ardiveds wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:I understand this post did not account for the new draft but I will respond to it anyways. If animals are to be held captive, why should they be treated like absolute horse shit? There are IRL zoos that hold animals for the purposes of protecting the species, i.e. pandas on reserves, and their life spans have been nearly doubled in captivity. If animals are to be held captive for entertainment and money, they are not going to suffer.

OOC: Indeed I didn't see the new draft. It is far more reasonable.
And I do think they shouldn't be treated like horse shit which is why I said that proposals for regulation of zoos is necessary but you're approaching it from the wrong angle. Instead of this 'defining zoos as inhumane zoos' and then ban ""zoos"", you should do what Drew's proposal did and lay out clear regulations for all zoos to follow. That you have a much higher chance avoiding loopholes and unintended interpretations.

Jedinsto wrote:

Ardiveds wrote:

OOC: Indeed I didn't see the new draft. It is far more reasonable.
And I do think they shouldn't be treated like horse shit which is why I said that proposals for regulation of zoos is necessary but you're approaching it from the wrong angle. Instead of this 'defining zoos as inhumane zoos' and then ban ""zoos"", you should do what Drew's proposal did and lay out clear regulations for all zoos to follow. That you have a much higher chance avoiding loopholes and unintended interpretations.

Regulating zoos in and of itself is a national issue, which seems to be the main reason Drew's proposal failed. With a resolution like this, instead of making specific mandates to achieve what I want, I'm just directly attacking the inhumane treatment I wish to avoid, which stays away from micromanagement, keeps the resolution shorter, and in fact should have less loopholes. Will loopholes be found, I'm sure they will and I will be very glad to patch them where they appear.

Ardiveds wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:Regulating zoos in and of itself is a national issue, which seems to be the main reason Drew's proposal failed. With a resolution like this, instead of making specific mandates to achieve what I want, I'm just directly attacking the inhumane treatment I wish to avoid, which stays away from micromanagement, keeps the resolution shorter, and in fact should have less loopholes. Will loopholes be found, I'm sure they will and I will be very glad to patch them where they appear.

OOC: The very word humane is a subjective. Yes, it does have a dictionary definition but its exact meaning in the context of zoos doesn't. One can easily say that the very act of keeping an animal in a zoo, outside it's natural habitat, is inhumane. On what guidelines will the WA judge a particular zoo to be humane or inhumane? You gave the conditions shouldn't be worse than in their natural habitat. Animals often starve in their natural habitat so surely a starving animal is being treated humanely right?