(SUBMITTED) Ban Animal Abandonment

[Traden]

Yet it is still legal.

Legal in the sense that it isn't breaking WA rules or procedures, not in the sense that it's considered an international issue.

So it is still legal. It may not do much, but considers the animals that will be saved from this.

[Separatist Peoples]

Legal in the sense that it isn't breaking WA rules or procedures, not in the sense that it's considered an international issue.

So it is still legal. It may not do much, but considers the animals that will be saved from this.

"Why are the lives of animals worth making a barely local offense an international crime?"

[Outer Sparta]

Again, not an international issue.

Yet it is still legal.

Yet your proposal does jack squat. Animal abandonment is a local issue best suited for local authorities, not an organization like the WA to deal with.

[Tinhampton]

Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: The requirement that those who do not dispose of animals in a prescribed manner be fined, or that animals be tested for diseases, should be clearly made the responsibility of member states in the proposal. I also note that the ambassador from Traden defines what an "abandoned animal" is without using that term anywhere else in their proposal - which, at this moment, appears to prohibit the transfer of animals between zoos as a result.

---

Everything below this line is OOC.

It is widely known that "a legal proposal is not necessarily a good proposal." Yet I do not think this a moral proposal either. This is "Animals street situation" (ASS) by Neurks Boodal:

1- Anyone who wants to abandon an animal for any reason would have two options:
A) Leave it with a family that is known to take care of them
B) Leave it in an animal adoption center
2-If for any reason neither A nor B of point 1 is met, leaving him in a street situation or animal abuse would imply a large fine...
3-The financial fine would vary depending on the seriousness of the matter.

This is "Ban Animal Abandonment" by Traden, which was published less than an hour after ASS and whose author has openly admitted that it is "a better version of" ASS:

Gives people who want to abandon animals the choice of either leaving it with a family or animal adoption center, while punishing people who fail to follow either choice with a fine depending on the severity of the issue.

I believe, and have suggested to Neurks Boodal, that he and Traden should co-operate on writing a resolution about animal abandonment. Unfortunately, the former has not only pillaged the latter's idea for their own benefit but openly appears to be willing to press ahead with this on the sole basis that - and I quote - "it is still legal."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Happily the definition is so weirdly worded that it won't apply to most pet abandonment.

Though OP should consider the very real situation where there's no humane option but to euthanize the animal. Either because the animal is too sick (chronic, infectious or even both) to be given forward or because making it live longer would be animal cruelty.

Also, people can have exotic pets that they are properly licensed and have appropriate containment for, but which cannot be randomly given to a family or are not accepted by animal shelters (think things like venomous snakes, or large carnivorous animals like tigers).

[Outer Sparta]

I see you have submitted this even though you haven't worked at all on it. It's a terrible draft and isn't an international issue.

[Bears Armed]

Believing that laws preventing animal abandonment will severely help animal welfare,

OOC: "significantly", rather than "seriously"?

[Ardiveds]

OOC: So regarding clause D, the WA is gonna check those animals? Not a committee of the WA or national governments specialising in such a task but the WA itself?

[Molopovia]

Ambassador Tarlishak: This is a resolution that I would support. However, it could use a few improvements with wording and content, so that you can gain the support of more WA members, and that will help your resolution get passed.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: So regarding clause D, the WA is gonna check those animals? Not a committee of the WA or national governments specialising in such a task but the WA itself?

OOC: I've been in TG conversation with the author (conversation initiated by them), and told them to withdraw the submitted version so that both 'B' & 'D' can be made into required actions for the member nations. Unfortunately, until I catch up on the previous year's passed resolutions & GenSec rulings, I can not rule on its actual legality.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: So regarding clause D, the WA is gonna check those animals? Not a committee of the WA or national governments specialising in such a task but the WA itself?

OOC: Sections C and D do nothing. Neither have a committee assigned to do the task nor are member states assigned the task.

B is a valid operative clause.

So it's legal IMO but as has been pointed out above, legal =/= good.

[Traden]

Cmon, support!

[Jedinsto]

Cmon, support!

I only support good things, sorry.

[Outer Sparta]

Cmon, support!

Support a crappy resolution? Definitely not.

[Traden]

Cmon, support!

Support a crappy resolution? Definitely not.

It's sad that I don't have telegram stamps in order to advertising a condemnation of you.

[Drew Durrnil]

this is not submittable
please withdraw

[Traden]

this is not submittable
please withdraw

Then how did I submit it? It definitely wasn't a Technical issue.

[Drew Durrnil]

this is not submittable
please withdraw

Then how did I submit it? It definitely wasn't a Technical issue.

I mean that this proposal is not well-written enough to get approvals in the approval phase (after submission).

[Traden]

Then how did I submit it? It definitely wasn't a Technical issue.

I mean that this proposal is not well-written enough to get approvals in the approval phase (after submission).

Okaiy, then could you please help me redraft it? You can be a co-author.

[Daarwyrth]

this is not submittable
please withdraw

Then how did I submit it? It definitely wasn't a Technical issue.

Just because you can submit something and it won't be marked as illegal, doesn’t mean it was ready for submission. The proposal is far from ready and was submitted far too soon to be considered a good proposal.

That is why Drew called it "not submittable".

[Bananaistan]

I mean that this proposal is not well-written enough to get approvals in the approval phase (after submission).

Okaiy, then could you please help me redraft it? You can be a co-author.

OOC: It would probably be best to move onto a different project. Even the best proposal ever written on the topic wouldn't pass. This is not an international issue

We often advise new players to read and post in debate threads for a while to get a feel for the GA before they attempt to draft their own proposals.

[Daarwyrth]

Okaiy, then could you please help me redraft it? You can be a co-author.

OOC: It would probably be best to move onto a different project. Even the best proposal ever written on the topic wouldn't pass. This is not an international issue

We often advise new players to read and post in debate threads for a while to get a feel for the GA before they attempt to draft their own proposals.

OOC: Agreed, this is a topic left best to local authorities, not be regulated from the WA. I tried a similar thing with a WA Pet Adoption plan not too long ago, yet as was pointed out, and rightfully so, it was not an issue for the WA. Neither is this one, I feel.

[Outer Sparta]

Support a crappy resolution? Definitely not.

It's sad that I don't have telegram stamps in order to advertising a condemnation of you.

Don't know why you want to attempt to do that to others who criticize your proposal. You don't seem to grasp that this is not an international issue.

[Barfleur]

"Aside from the fact that this issue does not approach international concern, the poor quality and vague definitions and operative clauses warrant a hard no. To show just one example, if I wish to abandon a domesticated animal, why should I be allowed to leave it to a family member, but not a friend or neighbor? What difference does that make for the welfare of the animal? And second, how does the proposal go about 'punishing' people who improperly abandon an animal? Would they be dragged through the courts of member nations, or punished on an international level? And finally--I know I promised to keep this brief, but this proposal is seriously making me worked up--the title is 'Ban Animal Abandonment' and yet the proposal explicitly allows the abandonment of animals if such animals are given to a family member or to a designated center. We oppose."

OOC: Traden, none of this is personal, but this proposal is just not the right quality. I would recommend reading passed resolutions, as well as being slightly more receptive to constructive criticism.

[Astrobolt]

"3 hours ago: Traden withdrew a proposal from the WA General Assembly titled "Banning Animal Abandonment"."

OOC: Glad to see the proposal was withdrawn. I would agree with others here that you should probably abandon this draft.