NationStates Jolt Archive

Please support the following proposal... It seeks to protect the pets of the world without taxing UN members, creating a governing agency, or restricting national sovereignty

Description: In the interest of protecting the pets of each UN member nation without creating a Worldwide Humane Society that may infringe upon national sovereignty, member nations shall agree to abide by the following:

1) Establish basic pet regulations, including identification and vaccination guidelines.
2) Establish enforceable guidelines regarding what constitutes the humane treatment of pets.
3) Enforce the previously mentioned regulations, punishing violators as they see fit.

Although the UN does not dictate any of these measures, nor does it hold member nations to any set of standards, it does recommend that all pets who are susceptible to rabies be vaccinized. Furthermore, the UN recommends that acts of treating pets inhumanely be prosecuted as felony-equivalent crimes.

"We respect your proposal, however we must recommend that other nations reject it, simply because of current Esamopian policies. Those policies mandate that all pets must be registered with the government (these licenses are not given out to just anyone, specific reasons for having a pet are necessary,) and any unregistered pets are destroyed by Esamopian Animal Services. We would encourage other nations to follow our course instead."

-Ninth Undersecretary for United Nations Affairs,
Office of the Ambassador to the United Nations,
Esamopian Foreign Ministry.

How does our proposal violate your rules? If you believe it is humane to destroy unregistered animals, then that is your right. We make no attempt to dictate the regulations.

How does our proposal violate your rules? If you believe it is humane to destroy unregistered animals, then that is your right. We make no attempt to dictate the regulations.

"You make a good point, but we are the wrong people to speak to... you need DELEGATES! Oh and don't worry, my endorsement/criticism of your proposals will not sway anyone at all. Good luck!"

-Seventh Undersecretary, same as above.

How is this an international issue?
Surely local regulation is the best way to address this problem.

Why should people be allowed to own pets in the first place?

This is an international issue because of the global environment we live in. People move to different countries all the time, bringing their pets along with them. For reasons relating to both public health and the health of our animals, nations need regulations regarding pets. Recently, a child was killed in our region after wandering into a neighbor's yard and being attacked by several dogs that had not been fed in days. In an unrelated case, a man in South Carolina was arrested for keeping more than 20 pit bulls in deplorable conditions. These incidents happen worldwide. Furthermore, people are susceptible to many of the diseases and parasites that pets can carry, including rabies.

On the other hand, we believe that local governments should make their own laws regarding pets. This is why our proposal simply stipulates that all nations must have regulations without dictating any specific rules. In this manner, any citizen of a UN country can find out what he must do to keep his pet legally in his own country, as well as the regulations of other countries, if he intends to travel or move with his pet.

I'd vote for the resolution if it ever made it to a General Assembly vote.

I have a better idea--let's NOT tell people what they can and can't do with the non-human animals they own.

I just noticed this thread.

I was not sure about the categorization, but I finally endorsed it.

Good idea

It protects pets from the human abuse, and hoepfully it will improve their living conditions.

I have a better idea--let's NOT tell people what they can and can't do with the non-human animals they own.

Quit spamming and learn some new words.

Just because you are wrong does not mean you should take your frustration out on people who actually have a reasonable debate. :roll:

I'm not wrong--I realize that the owner of something has every right to do as he pleases with it so long as he does not cause physical harm to the person or property of another individual.

I love the idea of a pet protection act, being the leader of a land of guinea pigs our place is full of pets. :wink: :lol: :D :)

You see...

I'm not wrong--

Directly contradicts....

I realize that the owner of something has every right to do as he pleases with it so long as he does not cause physical harm to the person or property of another individual.

It's ok, you didn't know any better. I really feel for you, it must be horrible to be so consistantly wrong like that.

Catholic Europe supports any proposal that would ensure the rights of animals are protected.

You see...

I'm not wrong--

Directly contradicts....

I realize that the owner of something has every right to do as he pleases with it so long as he does not cause physical harm to the person or property of another individual.

It's ok, you didn't know any better. I really feel for you, it must be horrible to be so consistantly wrong like that.

No, actually, it is my ideas that are correct, because they are based on objective reason, reality, and morality.

No, actually, it is my ideas that are correct, because they are based on objective reason, reality, and morality.

Well, reason maybe...morality, probably not, and reality...not at all.

Logically speaking, a dog might as well be a chair. Morally, I think most people would find beating up your dog for fun to be vile. As for reality...go ask all those people who get locked up for mistreating their pets.

In any case...I would normally support this proposal, except for the fact that it is a little too vague (I suspect to avoid being seen as controversial).

I mean, establishlishing 'enforceable guidelines regarding what constitutes the humane treatment of pets' is noble and all, but what does it actually say????

Humanely treating a pet might be defined somewhere as not beating your animal, and in other places as simply mayking sure your animal is given a bath before being butchered for dinner. If there were more stringent guidelines as to what constitutes acceptable and not-acceptable treatment, I would be glad to support the proposal, as I am sure many more nations would be too.

-New Clarkhall

One mans abuse according to this poposal could be humane in another country.
Its a intererstig proposal
And to the land of guinea pigs: are hamster there too like Hamtaro?

The Consul of the Most Holy Republic of Eredron supports the Pet Protection Act and promises its support should the proposition ever come up for a vote.

My nation is siding with New Clarkhall on this issue, it really is to vague and the definition of humane is left up to the country to decide. I suggest that you resubmit a the proposal with some guidelines so that it isn't as vague if you wish to get this proposal passed.

the republic of Sal-Sana will not support this resoloution. it is a foul waste of UN resources and a pointless intrusion on the national sovreignty of all countries. all pet laws should be domestic in origin.

We are posting this on behalf of the Gearheads, who are visiting a friend who also has an NS UN nation and are therefore afraid to log in...

The reason this resolution is vague is that if it were specific, it wouldn't really have any chance of passing because of nat'l sovereignty issues. Look at how many complaints it's getting as is! Don't you people even read the proposals before you announce that they infringe on your national sovereignty?!

The reason that it's still significant is that, at the least, citizens who care about the well-being of animals will be able to find out which nations would meet their standards and which they should avoid at all costs. People have had pets almost as long as there have been people. Surely we care about animals more than simply thinking of them as mere possessions.

You see...

I'm not wrong--

Directly contradicts....

I realize that the owner of something has every right to do as he pleases with it so long as he does not cause physical harm to the person or property of another individual.

It's ok, you didn't know any better. I really feel for you, it must be horrible to be so consistantly wrong like that.

No, actually, it is my ideas that are correct, because they are based on objective reason, reality, and morality.

You see, there you are, wrong yet AGAIN. I really pity you, tell us all what it's like to be so wrong. Because in the history of time I'm pretty sure you have been wrong more than anyone else ever.

*points at you and laughs* :lol:

We are posting this on behalf of the Gearheads, who are visiting a friend who also has an NS UN nation and are therefore afraid to log in...

The reason this resolution is vague is that if it were specific, it wouldn't really have any chance of passing because of nat'l sovereignty issues. Look at how many complaints it's getting as is! Don't you people even read the proposals before you announce that they infringe on your national sovereignty?!

The reason that it's still significant is that, at the least, citizens who care about the well-being of animals will be able to find out which nations would meet their standards and which they should avoid at all costs. People have had pets almost as long as there have been people. Surely we care about animals more than simply thinking of them as mere possessions.

Bleah...better to have something firm that is controversial than something platable that does nothing. There is no point in passing resolutions that don't really do anything.

According to the resolution as is, New Clarkhall could pass laws allowing dogs to be beaten up for fun, and still be safe under the resolution.

I applaud someone for supporting pet's rights...but if you are going to propose something, you might as well have it actually DOING something.

Sorry to sound too harsh.