[Passed] Repeal "Animal Protection Act"

[The Dourian Embassy]

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.

[Dellin]

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.

[The Dourian Embassy]

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.

[The Two Jerseys]

Any effort to repeal this utterly abominable resolution has my complete support. Good luck.

[The Dourian Embassy]

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.

[Araraukar]

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.

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...

[Herzil]

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.

[The Dourian Embassy]

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.

[Philimbesi]

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

Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador to the General Assembly.

[Chester Pearson]

UNITED FEDERATION OF CANADA



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,

[The Dourian Embassy]

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

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?

[Belzia]

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

[Ambibia]

[Chester Pearson]

(Image)

Picspam is a bad idea here. Just a friendly bit of advice.

[The Dourian Embassy]

(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.

[Northern Sylvan States]

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

[The Two Jerseys]

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

It don't work that way...

[Northern Sylvan States]

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

[The Two Jerseys]

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

Affirmative.

[Northern Sylvan States]

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

[The Scientific States]

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.

[Mousebumples]

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.

[The Scientific States]

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.

[Freemopia]

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.

[The Dourian Embassy]

*snip*

I uh... what?