NationStates Jolt Archive

Animal Protection Act

Observed that all over the world cruel acts of murder and torture are perpetrated by humans on other animals.

Recognizing that many animals are intelligent and worthy of our concern.

We hereby establish the following:

1) Every member nation shall conform to the international welfare standards put into account by the Animal Protection Act.
2) If any member nation does not conform, an internation animal welfare investigation will be sent to that country.

The following shall be enforced:

1) Abolition of the fur industry
Recognizing that humans no longer live in the ice age and we have no need to kill innocent animals for their fur, we hereby declare the abolition of fur, the only legal fur will be faux fur.
2) Abolition of animal acts
Recognizing that animal acts performed for 'entertainment' pose an extreme and fatal risk to both humans and other animals, and observing that animals are often beaten, prodded, chained, and neglected we abolish the use of animals in circuses, rodeos, bullfighting, and any other use of animals for entertainment.
3) Protection of endangered species
All endangered species and respective habitats will be held with the highest protection possible, to ensure they do not become extinct.
4) Better welfare standards in the meat,dairy,and egg industries
Quicker, more humane killing of animals in current factory farms and slaughterhouses will be required as animals are often stabbed, slit, tortured while they are still alive. The use of antibiotics and chemicals to make animals grow unnaturally will be outlawed. Hen cages will be illegal. The consumption of veal (tortured baby calves) will be illegal. Dairy cows will be allowed to roam free in fields unlike their present situation.
5) Abolition of chaining
It is hereby illegal to chain your dog outside because it is cruel and terrible for them where they languish lonely and cold/hot in extreme weather.

Further standards of welfare may be imposed on sequels to this act.

I would have to say no,
I like Leather...
-Capo

1) Abolition of the fur industry
Recognizing that humans no longer live in the ice age and we have no need to kill innocent animals for their fur, we hereby declare the abolition of fur, the only legal fur will be faux fur.

What happens to the Inuit and Ivensk then?

And what would you call a "humane" method of killing?

I ask as a genuine question, because I can't think of too many that wouldn't cause at least some measure of pain to the animal, other than maybe some types of poison, (that, and by the very definition killing isn't humane).

Which methods of killing would you advise? Axe? Gun? Knife? (I mean for killing, for instance, livestock that the farmer/butcher intends to change from Betsy the Cow into Betsy the plate of chops fit for a king).

I understand the idea of more humane surroundings for animals, though. Battery Hen farms are just wrong. They should all be free-range.

I agree there is no humane way of killing an animal, but I meant requiring companies to impose standards that make the more terrible methods of killing an animal illegal. Do you get it?

as soon as you can convince a Tiger not to stalk other animals and Human themself then you can convince me to give Rights to test subjects and prey....

Though I am a conservative, compassionate Christian, I must say...
Can't you help your own species first?

Why don't we stop murdering babies, abandoning the poor, and polluting the world?
Simply say no against abortion.
Help the homeless though compassion, not government welfare.
Work to preserve the planet and your habitat.
Then we can help protect the snails and whales.

Peace and Love,
- Cefwyn, a humble servant of Adonai

There are a LOT of things that I agree with in there, but some of them strike out at me and have compelled me to say no to this proposal.

One: the abolition of animals as circus shows: does this mean we can't have lion tamers? Tigers? Yes, it does mean that and I believe that's totally unreasonable.

Two: the abolition of the FUR TRADE!? This would have to include leather as well, and leather is a widely used product in things like shoes, gloves, vests, hats, it's so versatile that it can't possibly be abolished.

Three: the abolition of chaining. I have to say, that while it is common to keep your dog outside, it is necessary if the dog misbehaves. Perhaps letting it roam freely in the backyard is more kindly, but animals need to learn where the line is between "yes" and "no."

Four: more humane killing of animals!? All I can say is: death by lethal injection? That would spread poison into our meat and dairy and eggs! Veal is a product that is legitimate and there is little proof that the calves are tortured.

Everything else is a good idea.

Three: the abolition of chaining. I have to say, that while it is common to keep your dog outside, it is necessary if the dog misbehaves. Perhaps letting it roam freely in the backyard is more kindly, but animals need to learn where the line is between "yes" and "no."


Not to mention the fact that if you don't have a fenced in yard then there would be nothing to keep your dog from roaming all over the neighborhood, pooping in the neighbors's yard, running out into the street and just being a general nusance.

Bob Flibble
UN Rep. Rogue Nation of Flibbleites
Regional Delegate of Final Fantasy

I own a fur coat and damn if it is not warm and fashionable. I hunted the animal myself (a black bear) I consumed all it had for meat and the organs were made into a gravy so nothing was wasted. I have no need for bone tools so yeah the bones were not used. This is foolish. I believe in protecting animals from asswipe poachers for I am not a trophy hunter. I hunt for meat and yes a damn nice coat or hat in the winter months. Many of these animals can be bread for fur in farms and for meat I would be willing to hunt those. I would never hunt an endangered species however.

Vistadin- The Holy Empire of Anti-Pharisaism deems you to be of some value.

Ignorance is your greatest strength, and you fit perfectly into our motto.
However, it is necessary that you be enlightened of issues pertaining to your argument. Especially since you act as though stupidity were a virtue.

1) Murder is a legal term defined as the unlawful killing of a human being. Ergo, no amount of animal death orchestrated by human hands or machinery constitutes murder.

2) Human activity is now a biological force. If a species is unable to adapt to this force, then it is unworthy of life (see Darwinism).

3) Animals are lower beings. If their suffering provides human pleasure, than it is warranted. The needs of a lower being matters not one iota.

4) With respect to food and fur animals. We give them life, their existence depends soley on human effort and mercy. If such animals were of no value, their existence would be futile and would be terminated.

Those animals that are so lucky as to live in captivity are provided with food and shelter. Their wild counterparts would gladly live such a life in order to become a food source for a higher being. Such is their fate regardless of where and how they live.

One ancient Greek philosopher once said "He who abstains from the flesh of animals....will most likely have concern for his own species"

If this proposal doesn't pass or even come to vote, I will send in a revised one because THIS WILL PASS either in this proposal or incarnated in another proposal.

It takes a coward to beat an animal, and an even more cowardly person to eat it. Compassion is a human virtue which is not as prevalent in the human species as it used to be because people are so damn stupid and ignorant of animals' and even other people's welfare. If only we lived in a more compassionate environment, like the principles of Marxist philosophy and freedom and quality for all then we would care for other creatures and humans. Racism is most prevalent in the United States which is the most racist country on the earth, you Americans suck.

If this proposal doesn't pass or even come to vote, I will send in a revised one because THIS WILL PASS either in this proposal or incarnated in another proposal.

It takes a coward to beat an animal, and an even more cowardly person to eat it. Compassion is a human virtue which is not as prevalent in the human species as it used to be because people are so damn stupid and ignorant of animals' and even other people's welfare. If only we lived in a more compassionate environment, like the principles of Marxist philosophy and freedom and quality for all then we would care for other creatures and humans. Racism is most prevalent in the United States which is the most racist country on the earth, you Americans suck.

Recognizing that many animals are intelligent and worthy of our concern.

There is no justification I'm aware of to suggest that animals other than humans are sentient.

1) Abolition of the fur industry
Recognizing that humans no longer live in the ice age and we have no need to kill innocent animals for their fur, we hereby declare the abolition of fur, the only legal fur will be faux fur.

Not the clearest of legislative clauses -- with a particular interpretation, you seem to be banning fur altogether. What, then, shall we do with those animals that live in colder areas and need this fur to live?

Never mind leather.

2) Abolition of animal acts
Recognizing that animal acts performed for 'entertainment' pose an extreme and fatal risk to both humans and other animals, and observing that animals are often beaten, prodded, chained, and neglected we abolish the use of animals in circuses, rodeos, bullfighting, and any other use of animals for entertainment.

It seems much more sensible to regulate than to ban outright. Why can't Joe Citizen be allowed to play fetch with his dog?

3) Protection of endangered species
All endangered species and respective habitats will be held with the highest protection possible, to ensure they do not become extinct.

The devil is in the details -- what constitutes an endangered species? What is the process to deteremine whether or not a species is endangered?

Hen cages will be illegal.

Again, more sensible to regulate than to ban; you probably mean to say that cages under a particular size in comparison to the hen would be illegal.

5) Abolition of chaining
It is hereby illegal to chain your dog outside because it is cruel and terrible for them where they languish lonely and cold/hot in extreme weather.

There are situations where that might be the preferred action. Unless you happen to like the idea of having dangerous, carnivorous animals roaming freely in residential areas.

It takes a coward to beat an animal, and an even more cowardly person to eat it.

Only cowards eat meat, you're entirely correct. Veganism is the only way to go.

If only we lived in a more compassionate environment, like the principles of Marxist philosophy and freedom and quality for all then we would care for other creatures and humans.

Ironic, isn't it, that some of the worst human rights violations of the last century have taken place in communist nations? Ironic, isn't it, that socialist nations like China, with systems ostensibly designed to protect workers' rights, have some of the worst working conditions in the world?

Racism is most prevalent in the United States which is the most racist country on the earth, you Americans suck.

That's just funny. There are undesirable philosophies and ideas in every country of the world; racism is far from unique to the United States.

One ancient Greek philosopher once said "He who abstains from the flesh of animals....will most likely have concern for his own species"

I think there's a reason that quote isn't passed around much. I'm also not sure how a nameless, ancient Greek has relevance -- something said long ago is not necessarily true.

It takes a coward to beat an animal, and an even more cowardly person to eat it. Compassion is a human virtue which is not as prevalent in the human species as it used to be because people are so damn stupid and ignorant of animals' and even other people's welfare. If only we lived in a more compassionate environment, like the principles of Marxist philosophy and freedom and quality for all then we would care for other creatures and humans. Racism is most prevalent in the United States which is the most racist country on the earth, you Americans suck.

I agree here. And, I have an extensive knowledge base against animal circuses, including the fact that elephants can't survive in them - no social life, not enough room, go circus-mad (animals do get that). It is a sick freak show. I have all the possible comebacks you can think of and ones you can't. In fact, email me instead: kaidonni@yahoo.co.uk

Go on. I can finish off exploitation. But, don't reply to me here...I have a fear of debating on message boards because first, the site messes up (it really does, trust me...slow, etc), and second, it turns into a flame war and everyone gets angry at one another. So, email me if you want to reply. Seriously.

It takes a coward to beat an animal, and an even more cowardly person to eat it. Compassion is a human virtue which is not as prevalent in the human species as it used to be because people are so damn stupid and ignorant of animals' and even other people's welfare. If only we lived in a more compassionate environment, like the principles of Marxist philosophy and freedom and quality for all then we would care for other creatures and humans. Racism is most prevalent in the United States which is the most racist country on the earth, you Americans suck.

I agree here. And, I have an extensive knowledge base against animal circuses, including the fact that elephants can't survive in them - no social life, not enough room, go circus-mad (animals do get that). It is a sick freak show. I have all the possible comebacks you can think of and ones you can't. In fact, email me instead: kaidonni@yahoo.co.uk

Go on. I can finish off exploitation. But, don't reply to me here...I have a fear of debating on message boards because first, the site messes up (it really does, trust me...slow, etc), and second, it turns into a flame war and everyone gets angry at one another. So, email me if you want to reply. Seriously.

I want to tag on a rider to my last post...SERIOUSLY email me if you want to reply. Already I thought my post hadn't posted because the site messed up. Perhaps that is something that I need to mention - at times the site has had 'proxy errors'. I might go mention it in the other forum where I'm meant to.

PS: Er, the Federation in Star Trek is communist, the USSR etc weren't proper communism. I.e. *Stalin sits down with the big bumper book of communism, rips out page 12, and burns the rest* or something like that...I don't know...this isn't a history lesson.

See the one double reply? The one that repeated with the quote? That's the site messing up...so email me to continue or debate with ME, or just don't bother, I don't want to come here again due to the fact it would take an eternity and more to even get a post posted right. I have gone to the technical forum with the problem though.

Here we have another perfect example of why communism is such a poor government. I was not surprised in the least when the author of this bill referenced Karl Marx, as the stamp of bad government is all over it.

Animal Protection Act

1) Every member nation shall conform to the international welfare standards put into account by the Animal Protection Act.
2) If any member nation does not conform, an internation animal welfare investigation will be sent to that country.

Rather pointless, given game mechanics. No member state is given the choice to disobey.


1) Abolition of the fur industry
Recognizing that humans no longer live in the ice age and we have no need to kill innocent animals for their fur, we hereby declare the abolition of fur, the only legal fur will be faux fur.

Inuits still live in the ice age, and do not have the manufacturing base or the trade economy to obtain faux fur. They also require the animals they kill for fur as a food source. If they have to kill the animals anyway, it would be a crime to force them to throw away the furs.

The Inuits are simply one example.


2) Abolition of animal acts
Recognizing that animal acts performed for 'entertainment' pose an extreme and fatal risk to both humans and other animals, and observing that animals are often beaten, prodded, chained, and neglected we abolish the use of animals in circuses, rodeos, bullfighting, and any other use of animals for entertainment.

It is well-known by trainers that dogs enjoy the exercise inherent in the stunts they perform, as well as the attention from their trainers and the rewards for success. Horses are another example, as riders are often in the position of restraining their horses to keep them getting too eager and running too hard. Those who are involved in horse racing often talk about the competitive spirit of their animals... see Seabiscuit for reference.


3) Protection of endangered species
All endangered species and respective habitats will be held with the highest protection possible, to ensure they do not become extinct.

A single breeding pair in a zoo is sufficient to ensure a species is not extinct.

4) Better welfare standards in the meat,dairy,and egg industries
Quicker, more humane killing of animals in current factory farms and slaughterhouses will be required as animals are often stabbed, slit, tortured while they are still alive. The use of antibiotics and chemicals to make animals grow unnaturally will be outlawed. Hen cages will be illegal. The consumption of veal (tortured baby calves) will be illegal. Dairy cows will be allowed to roam free in fields unlike their present situation.

There are so many places to go with this. How do you propose to transport hens? Why do you eliminate such a vital medical tool (antibiotics) and endanger the health of animals? What about the health effects to the human population for eating the meat of infected animals that could have been prevented by giving the animals antibiotics? How do you propose to gather milk from free-roaming cows, and what happens to the price of this staple, vital to the health of children (particularly poor ones) under a less efficient collection method?

5) Abolition of chaining
It is hereby illegal to chain your dog outside because it is cruel and terrible for them where they languish lonely and cold/hot in extreme weather.

This article makes no provision for temporary chaining versus permanent chaining. Examples of where this could cause severe problems are when an owner with a dog out for a walk (at the dog park, perhaps) has to stop inside to use the restroom, or when a dog has to be restrained for a couple days while a fence is being repaired.

Overall, this article is terribly myopic, applying broad "solutions" to rather specific problems. It hurts people and animals it does not intend to hurt in a clumsy attempt to help some others, and it does not help the ones it attempts to help in meaningful ways. The only tangible benefits from this are the protection of circus animals (who, having no further use, would have to be destroyed, imprisoned in zoos, or turned loose in preserves to overpopulate and endanger human settlements) and somewhat better conditions for food animals and some pets, and the negatives from this legislation far outweigh those benefits.

It takes a coward to beat an animal, and an even more cowardly person to eat it.
Bullshit. Vegetables don't even move on their own. Takes much less effort to eat them.

Racism is most prevalent in the United States which is the most racist country on the earth, you Americans suck.
Nah, it's jsut more publicized. I have buddies in other countries and they don't agree with you there. Racism is everywhere.

After we as a society have stopped the daily murder of thousands of unborn humans will Greenspoint even start to think about considering the "plight" of animals...

Overall, this article is terribly myopic, applying broad "solutions" to rather specific problems. It hurts people and animals it does not intend to hurt in a clumsy attempt to help some others, and it does not help the ones it attempts to help in meaningful ways. The only tangible benefits from this are the protection of circus animals (who, having no further use, would have to be destroyed, imprisoned in zoos, or turned loose in preserves to overpopulate and endanger human settlements) and somewhat better conditions for food animals and some pets, and the negatives from this legislation far outweigh those benefits.

I would like to dispute that with fact. The Animal Defenders have saved hundreds of circus animals and have a massive campaign, most noticeably defeating the biggest circus animal supplier in Europe as of recently. Non of the animals were destroyed, and neither do any need to be. Special reserves and rehabilitation centres are set up. Honestly. They never come in contact with Humans destroying settlement. They are special preserves where they live out. Retirement preserves. The only problem is, you've got one bit right - imprisoned in zoos has happened because, well, trust me when I say one or two circuses have been ahead of the game in just enough time, and trust me, those zoos have been bad. Valwo Zoo, Spain, and Dudley Zoo, UK (they made it 'better' since...and released the elephants to a special reserve in France...a lot better than their dilapidated living environment in Dudley...plus their lives had been a nightmare). Contrary to what people think, all animals saved from circuses DO get taken to the right places, special preserves - and some have even been from so-called extinct species, and so are put in special breeding programmes (the Barbary subspecies of lion for instance). No damage to Human settlements. These are special preserves, all over the world, even in California (well over 2,000 acres, etc etc...). To tell the truth, I'd rather just ask you to look up 'Animal Defenders' in a google search engine and use the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' option (hopefully you'll get the right site...EMAIL me if you are confused and want the right site if you think you don't have the right site). Then, ask for further information from them. And watch documentaries, etc.

PS: They don't overpopulate the preserves...don't worry. They are preserves in special areas specifically for the needs of the animals. I'm telling facts - don't go thinking for a second that the organisations turn animals lose like you may be thinking. You may think animal welfare/animal rights is stupid, but give us SOME credit.

And DO email me to reply to me - already tonight I've had trouble posting these messages. Oh, by the way, I'm also known as Eukaryote just so you know.

kaidonni@yahoo.co.uk

Animal sanctuaries in California... this must be the kind of thing you are referring to: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/04/24/crime.tiger.reut/

As for the rest:

1) Animal Defenders may (or may not, I'd have to see some supporting evidence) have found safe natural habitats for the animals they have freed. But their efforts at this point are very limited. I doubt they could find so much room when a global ban dramatically increases the number of animals requiring a new home... as would happen when this bill goes into effect.

Elephant herds protected by law and released in natural preserves in Africa and India are not staying on those preserves, and have been known to trample villages from time to time, injuring people and destroying crops. This measure can only make such instances more common.

2) The argument about Animal Defenders only addresses one very small part of a longer, more encompassing, and fundamentally flawed UN resolution.

3) I have no interest in pursuing this argument further in private when we're already engaged in a perfectly acceptable public forum. The connection problems are great, but not insurmountable.

Hey, my connection problems ARE insurmountable. You want to see the trouble I have at home, yet alone elsewhere. Anyway, I like email, it's better and faster. And, for the record, the Animal Defenders eat away at animal circuses slowly. The elephants go to special preserves, and they don't go back to Africa that way. Give us some credit, like I said. The elephant reserves you're thinking of are like safaris, not for ones saved from circuses. You're referring to the elephant reserves where people are trying to keep elephants and Humans apart, and the population is too high, and they have trouble with maintenance. The elephants saved from circuses can't go back to the wild. They don't do that. So, remember that what I'm on about ISN'T the African preserves - those ones are primarily for animals already wild, but in a 'game' park in a sense (where Humans and animals are kept separate for their safety). To tell the truth, no elephants saved from a circus would be taken to one. It just doesn't happen. Sorry, but you're referring to parks that attempt to keep Humans and wild elephants apart.

The ADs always take elephants to special preserves that do not damage the environment. Sanctuaries, etc. But, they don't go back to the wild. They can't. The elephant herds aren't released on to the preserves you're thinking of.

And besides, elephants can't survive in circuses. Living conditions, room, social life, everything, even demeaned and humiliated, life intruded upon, living within a cage all the time. You seriously don't want to know...

And, again, request info packs off the Animal Defenders, watch the news, watch Animal Planet, go out into the world and ask these things, please. That's the only way you're gonna find out, I'm afraid. Sitting in front of a computer all day won't get you all of it.

And, trust me, they could find enough room (there aren't millions upon millions of animals in circuses, and remember, some are horses, etc and dogs - people adopt them, and there are equine centers, etc). There are places all over the world, and it isn't just one organisation.

Do your research and homework. I doubt I can help you much with that area except telling you how to (news, going out, asking questions, etc...and, don't keep asking me questions, seriously...I mean other people too, I ain't all-knowing).

And, rescued circus animals ARE NOT FREED, they can not go back to the wild. They have to be taken to special sancutaries run by organisations, etc. Remember Dorset with Monkey World? That ain't any zoo there...that ain't any zoo...it's a special sancutary (hey, you gotta listen to this one: if you watch Amazing Animal Videos, you'll find that a chimpanzee rescued from illegal tradel, while in rehabilitation, wanted to learn karate...seriously started doing things, not forced or anything...and in rehabilitation...).

But, repeat after me: Rescued circus animals are not freed. They are released into special sanctuaries which are totally maintained and monitored, all over the world. Thailand, China, Australia, France, England, USA, South America, special chip preserves in forests in Africa (they have fences, etc...). But, most of all, these animals are not freed into the wild. They can not be - they are put into specially maintained sanctuaries. I don't know what world you're from, but on this planet, people do know what they are doing, and don't just do random things. Once again, visit that one site.

I'm New Jokira and Eukaryote: kaidonni@yahoo.co.uk

Visit the Animal Defenders site, do all the other exploration and research stuff, learn. You want a teacher? Well, I just gave you your homework if you do.

And, I'm never saying the UN resolution will work this day, or the next. Humanity has a lot of time to evolve technologically, socially, ethically, etc etc...changes don't happen overnight. Or if they do, they've been cooking for a long time coming. In fact, I prefer to get replies via email off anyone else - at home, I really have trouble with this site. You want a five minute reply or a millennia-long wait for one? Because that's how it seems to go at home sometimes...so email me. Plus, I can address individual concerns.

But, read up about the Animal Defenders, do your homework, the research I suggested, request info off them etc etc, compare sources for yourself - it is the only way you can come up with anything. I have their evidence, etc, but you need to research yourself. I can't do everything for you. Be more outgoing and explore. Seriously, do the research. Check the internet for tv programmes, etc. They have the evidence, you need to find it yourself (and for the record, I guessed the truth about animal circuses...DON'T EVEN ASK...just don't ask...I never even knew I had guessed correctly at first...*Twilight Zone music*...weird...[insert Homer Simpson style "cosmic" here]).

That's my two cents (or two pence...I live in the UK). I can get all the stuff and sources I have, but you need to research yourself. Please. Do the research when you have five or something (five minutes or something, I mean...or longer, whatever). But, all I can do is guide you to the evidence, etc etc. You need to look at it yourself. I ain't yer conscience, I ain't yer eyes. I can't decide for you. And, email me...I have a whole load more ease and resources there. Or, I have messageboards at my 'under construction' website: http://www.geocities.com/kaidonni/NewEraForAnimals.html

If you want, use my messageboards (hey, they need to start to be used...oh, and I've been busy lately, so don't expect much to be happening on the site yet until my main load of work for A2-Levels is outta the way...).

But, I can't keep using these boards...I'll get really angry the day my post doesn't post and messes up.

That's my five pence (I put in the extra two pence for the extra part, and one pence for an ice cream if you want one).

It takes a coward to beat an animal, and an even more cowardly person to eat it. Compassion is a human virtue which is not as prevalent in the human species as it used to be because people are so damn stupid and ignorant of animals' and even other people's welfare. If only we lived in a more compassionate environment, like the principles of Marxist philosophy and freedom and quality for all then we would care for other creatures and humans. Racism is most prevalent in the United States which is the most racist country on the earth, you Americans suck.
Marxism is a theoretical outline of an ideal society, an utopia. There are a lot of reasons why it can't and didn't work in reality, the human nature. Why would you work hard if you get just as much as your co-worker that only does half as much. So you just pretend to be busy and without any competition to reach a goal the basis of economy (to gain) has fall away and societies fundamentals are on its way back. Marxism and all its equivalents are only nice and workable in theory, even Marx himself said it once in Brussels (Belgium).

Interesting...but, communism was never properly used on Earth. It was likely page 12 out of the Big Bumper Book On Utopia. Star Trek sees real communism. Besides, people who have bigger jobs and work harder should get more money, but the tax rates and such...well...communism refers to the rights of people, and some people prefer to subject others to ruling them and telling them everything to do...

PS: Do that research and stuff and EMAIL me...please. I have more resources at hand on email, and more time. Plus my connection is MUCH MUCH better that way too...and I haven't got many emails recently except for spam. So, email away 8)!

PSS: Use my messageboard at http://www.geocities.com/kaidonni/NewEraForAnimals.html

PSSS: They need to be wore in, like a new pair of shoes :wink:.

I don't want a teacher, I want someone who can coherently defend the bill up for debate. All I've seen so far is a focus on one very small part (the performing animals part) of a far-reaching bill that does more harm than good. You can talk about how bad circus animals have it all you want, but it's beside the point. The point is, there are a lot of bad solutions in this bill, and needs a drastic reconstruction.

If circus animals are the real concern, then why not just write a bill that focuses on that?

AH! There you have me...I was defending only a small part of the bill. Besides, perhaps a much smaller bill only, eh? And in that case, anyone who writes it better know a lot about the Animal Defenders and what goes on and other organisations (except PETA...they aren't animal welfare, they are more extreme animal rights...I prefer the animal welfare that loves to simply push in legislation and use democracy...the Animal Defenders do that...legislation etc). So, to put it simply for many here who probably have the same thing to say: ONE BIT AT A TIME, so redo the bill after quite a bit of real world research AND links to help the bill (you never know, you might just have too much info to cram into a bill). So, the bill needs to be re-written. Perhaps I should do it sometime? (I have exams coming up, plus I need more endorsements...people can't simply just do such a big bill and expect everyone to cheer for them...I bet that a smaller bill would be much better...perhaps another time, let the air clear a little bit...then we come back to redo the bill in another way...). Best thing to do, reconstruct the bill. Telegram, email, everything needs to be used to do a good reconstruction.

I have never seen any animal welfare bill in real life where someone has all the areas in it...we need to be realistic - would the UN try to save the world this way or take it step by step? My argument is now for reconstruction of the bill, and I'd like people to use evidence in support of their bill when they do it (it really helps because some people don't know everything, such as truth or whatever, about certain situations...and it can be hard to cram such info into a short description for a bill and be persuasive...I doubt governments ever sent their MPs or whoever a small two-sided leaflet with legislation on...I bet they had a real big book for that kind of stuff).

So, as it stands, my argument is now for redoing the bill at a later date. Perhaps in the hands of less ambitious people...the bill seems extreme to have everything in it...one step at a time for any issue, whether Human or animal or economical or whatever...so, reconstruction. I'd be more than happy to help out big time.

PETA have been fucking insane for some time now.

I generally find in favour of this proposal, barring the statements against antibiotics and chemicals, which I should wish to have demonstrated to have harmful affects on an animal's value of life.

I support increased rights for animals, and a regulated standard of living for all animals. Indeed, I feel there should be severe punishments for those found to be abusing animals (it's also worth considering that there is a correlations between those found to be abusing animals and those found to be abusing children). All ownership of animals should be under licencing laws.

Tricantri
"I would have to say no,
I like Leather... "

Leather isn't a fur, it's a bi-product of the meat industry which is not currently at question. It is also questionable whether an individual's likes are a good basis for law.

I have an undoubtable moral intuition that my likes are not a good basis for morality, and I know my moral conviction leads me to believe that animals should be respected, but morality is also not a basis for law.

The issue here is the fundelmental question about the purpose of law. Is it here just to protect us from each other and allow us to live our lives freely, or does it also extend its protections to other feeling thinking beings less high on the ladder?

HRH King Wight
Constitutional Monarchy of Lambrinis

Hey, I stay away from PETA...(I find some animal rights totally insane anyway...they bite off way more than they can chew). Besides, sometimes morality should be part of law - otherwise, some decisions may be totally ridiculous (animal-related or not, morality should be part of law...well-rounded morals worked out amongst the populace, of course...not just an individual's ideas, but the sum and rounding of many). Plus, that's what we have democracy for...for the majority to decide what they want on topics...then it can be morality that may become part of law (but only based on why people voted). Sometimes, we do need morality in the law...there are seriously some bad laws around...and some not-so-good laws. Anyway, that's besides the point.

And the antibiotics and chemicals bit - people don't like pumping livestock full of medicine because it can have effects on Humans, harmful effects. It can pose health threats to Humans, so people don't like the idea. Look it up on the net. Whether it is a vegetarian site or a meat-eater site or whatever, it should be there because those chemicals don't exactly go down well when consumed (they don't belong in the food chain those chemicals).

Besides, I say the bill be reconstructed because it bites off more than it can chew. I'd be more than happy to do it myself. I just need one more endorsement (I think...I'll have to check to see if I got a second one), and guarantee that next Saturday (26th June) or a little later I may start making a better proposal. But, this one bites off more than it can chew. I'd still vote to save the animals, but that is besides the point - the proposal as it stands bites off more than it can chew, and that means the proposal might choke when a resolution. So, anyone prepared for a reform of the bill? I'll do it, of course, if you want. Heck, I'd probably do one sooner or later anyway...plus I refer to one of my previous posts as New Jokira or Eukaryote (I don't have both in the UN...you can check if you want...I just forgot that I was logged in as New Jokira, my non-UN nation, at one point...and posted...oopsie...contemplated deleting the post and logging in as my UN member so I could properly debate, etc etc...). Anyway, we should reconstruct the bill at a later date, really...bites off more than it can chew.

As it stands, any reconstruction by me will have to wait until June 26th or later. That isn't long. And, I can devote full time literally to it then (but I've gotta write a novel, so don't expect 100% full time all the time). Plus I've got proposals in mind too (related and non-related).

i am all for this !!!!!!!!!

meat is murder!!!
cut class not frongs!!!
got pus? milk does!
kfc we do chickens wrong!
eat veggies not our firends!!!


well thats all i got to say for now!!

Okay...that happened. Everyone, I am prepared to do a reconstruction of the bill on behalf of many, but not until AFTER 25th June because I'm loaded down with VERY IMPORTANT work.

I do NOT support this act. It is clauses #1 and #5 that cause me to not support this. Fur coats are definately useful in winter and in cold arctic nations. Also I see no problem with chaining your dog up so it doesn't get loose and attack someone.

if you tought your dog right and treated it right it wouldnt attack ppl..and fur is not the only thing good to use in cold countrys you can us anaimal free products that are made into a jacket that will keep you just as warm

if you tought your dog right and treated it right it wouldnt attack ppl..and fur is not the only thing good to use in cold countrys you can us anaimal free products that are made into a jacket that will keep you just as warm

Attacking humans is the least problem of unchained dogs. Even the best treated and disciplined dogs will attack and kill other animals (dogs, cats, chickens, sheep, etc), turn over trash cans, and pose a traffic hazard.

Eskimos don't have animal free fur products. They don't have the manufacturing base to make them, nor do they have much of value to trade for them. And since they'll be using the other parts of the animals for food and tools, it makes no sense for them to throw out the fur.

The East Coast Federation is very very nay for this act.
Protecting animals is OK but thats way way way to far.
I'll be dammed if that triple Bacon Classic From Wendy's is ever made of some meat subtitue

:evil: next time you think about eating at kfc go to this website http://www.kfccruelty.com/ i hope that changes your mind!

I agree with you in part Cabinia. I was raised on real meat - that is fresh elk, moose, deer and other cervids. We used to eat it raw, and it's good for you. We would get about 30kg for the winter months. I certainly will not eat that antibiotic, steroid infested crap!

I have no problems with native cultures needed to sustain themselves. And I certainly think endanged species should be protected for future generations. This should not be a political issue, it should be a human issue, period!

I live in the West Pacific...someone endorse me and perhaps consider a new, better reformed bill AFTER 25th June delivered (I'll have to think on it, though...). I already have one endorsement, I just need one more to make a proposal. If anyone wants a more realistic bill than this, just endorse me. I can do it, but you do have to be patient...I have exams, so I need to concentrate on them. Plus, there are many non-animal related bills people probably haven't addressed yet...so, go ahead, endorse me, and see a more realistic bill...or a better smaller bill at least...hopefully. But, please be patient with the length of time you may have to wait...I do have more serious work to get on with, and I can't spend long here (and don't make this debate too long...the server doesn't work well at all at home...).

if you tought your dog right and treated it right it wouldnt attack ppl..and fur is not the only thing good to use in cold countrys you can us anaimal free products that are made into a jacket that will keep you just as warm

An animal naturally can & will attack no matter how well treated and taught.

Spokeric, that is connected to body language (in some cases...they may feel threatened) but primarily to inbreeding...it causes all kinds of problems, and some breeds of dog justy 'lose it' and go psycho because their breed is so inbred. Those breeds in a sense aren't meant to be...in nature, animals naturally wouldn't in-breed like that. With Humans in control, there is nothing to stop it. In-breeding does truthfully cause all kinds of problems, and behaviour in dogs is one - they go and attack. Sometimes they're just naughty like children, but since as they are a pack animal, they will obey at other times if you can take the initiative and prove yourself as a worthy leader. You can't simply let them walk over you - you don't see their leaders doing that in the wild, do you? That's the rule with dogs - you have to be their leader, or they'll take it that you're not worthy and will consider themselves a better alpha. They're a pack animal. But, sometimes they're just plain naughty...sometimes they're like people, they feel threatened or just don't like someone. But, again, in-breeding does cause the behaviour where dogs can go psycho...they are so in-bred that their natural side is messed up in all kinds of ways. Medical conditions for separate breeds of dog arise in that sort of way too. In-breeding doesn't happen naturally, it is started by something or someone else...and you will now know why it doesn't simply just happen, and why it shouldn't happen (watch Animal Planet...Breed All About It...pay particular attention to all the different breeds of dog and the pros and cons...). But, if dogs are treated badly, such as beaten, etc, they won't really fight back much...someone else has proven massive power over them, they know they couldn't do much...fear is the beginning of wisdom, and it helps you too if you're the dog...someone like the RSPCA comes along, and you DON'T want attempted-ripping-abuser's-balls-off on any record...it doesn't look good at all...

Sporkeric, that is connected to body language (in some cases...they may feel threatened) but primarily to inbreeding...it causes all kinds of problems, and some breeds of dog justy 'lose it' and go psycho because their breed is so inbred. Those breeds in a sense aren't meant to be...in nature, animals naturally wouldn't in-breed like that. With Humans in control, there is nothing to stop it. In-breeding does truthfully cause all kinds of problems, and behaviour in dogs is one - they go and attack. Sometimes they're just naughty like children, but since as they are a pack animal, they will obey at other times if you can take the initiative and prove yourself as a worthy leader. You can't simply let them walk over you - you don't see their leaders doing that in the wild, do you? That's the rule with dogs - you have to be their leader, or they'll take it that you're not worthy and will consider themselves a better alpha. They're a pack animal. But, sometimes they're just plain naughty...sometimes they're like people, they feel threatened or just don't like someone. But, again, in-breeding does cause the behaviour where dogs can go psycho...they are so in-bred that their natural side is messed up in all kinds of ways. Medical conditions for separate breeds of dog arise in that sort of way too. In-breeding doesn't happen naturally, it is started by something or someone else...and you will now know why it doesn't simply just happen, and why it shouldn't happen (watch Animal Planet...Breed All About It...pay particular attention to all the different breeds of dog and the pros and cons...). But, if dogs are treated badly, such as beaten, etc, they won't really fight back much...someone else has proven massive power over them, they know they couldn't do much...fear is the beginning of wisdom, and it helps you too if you're the dog...someone like the RSPCA comes along, and you DON'T want attempted-ripping-abuser's-balls-off on any record...it doesn't look good at all...

But they won't simply just attack...there is usually a reason, whether good or bad.

Arrgghhh...thought I had editted the message, not posted a second one...oh well, now you know why I ask people to telegram me on this subject, and to email me (kaidonni@yahoo.co.uk). I do seriously ask for telegrams and emails, though...the site doesn't load well at home (and soon I will have 3 months off at home...so, that may warrant telegrams and emails on subjects such as this to me to make it easier, or you can simply use the message boards at my site http://www.geocities.com/kaidonni/NewEraForAnimals.html

See ya for now! 8)

The Empyrean Citadel of Lydania, having suggested to its citizens to observe this debate, finds them disagreeing with both sides; but the majority is greatly disgusted by certain ignorance.

The most ignorant statements that have been observed by our citizens are:

- any comment about the 'murder' of unborn children in a debate about animal cruelty. The majority doesn't even believe that this requires an explanation, or simply hasn't explained why on the feedback form.

- any comment about animals being 'lower' life forms. The majority in Lydania feels that if intelligence is a measure of how important a being is, then people with an IQ below 120 should be forced to work in labour camps and live in zoos, because they are lower life forms, as well.

- any comment about the Inuit 'living in the Ice Age'. The majority in Lydania are well educated, and they know that the Inuit may be living in an icy climate, but that does nothing to say that they are technologically inferior - the territory of Nunavut in Canada is far from technologically backwards and economically challenged.