NationStates Jolt Archive

Animal Protection Act
A resolution to restrict Political Freedoms in the interest of Moral Decency


Category: Moral Decency Strength: Significant Proposed by: Hersfold (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=Hersfold)


Description: THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS, IN ASSEMBLY:

REALIZING, with great shock, that many domestic animals worldwide are cruelly mistreated every day;

NOTICING, that in some cases, this abuse is not intentional, but simply neglect and failure to care for the animal in question.

HORRIFIED, that at times this abuse is intended, leaving the innocent animals wounded and disfigured;

HEREBY DEFINES the following terms as crimes in all member nations:

1) Neglect – To fail to provide proper basic care for a domestic animal, such as food, water, shelter, and necessary veterinary care, when the accused is fully capable of doing so.

2) Intentional Abuse – To deliberately cause unnecessary harm to a domestic animal not declared for use as food for any cause other than proven self-defense.

AND HEREBY RESOLVES UPON THE FOLLOWING:

3) That all persons accused of the above crimes shall be given a fair trial in which they may present evidence in their defense, in accordance with UN Resolution #47, "Definition of Fair Trial".

4) That the crime of neglect of a domestic animal shall be considered a misdemeanor in all UN Member nations, and punishable with a minimum sentence of a light fine if found guilty, OR six months in prison if found guilty.

5) That the crime of intentional abuse of a domestic animal shall be considered a felony in all UN Member nations, and shall be punished with a fine and prison term if found guilty, which the UN recommends to be a minimum sentence of a moderate fine and 5 years in prison.

6) That all movie production studios shall be encouraged to use computer animated figures in place of animals when an animal is required to do any sort of stunt act.

7) That an Animal Protection Agency shall be henceforth established, to raise awareness of these crimes and to aid member nations in seeking out occurrences of these horrible deeds.

RESOLVED, IN ASSEMBLY, BY THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS.

The above is a draft proposal. Please comment on it as you will.

I intend for this proposal to bring about safer lives for animals. Every day, many of them are harmed ruthlessly, or ignored to the point of starvation.

On the forum where I first drafted this proposal, I had posted a few images to example what this proposal will combat. I will not post them here, as they are a bit graphic, but they can be seen on the ASPCA website, which is also where I got my information for this proposal.

www.aspca.org

Please comment. I hope to submit this sometime this week, but will suspend that if I am getting heavy debate or editing comments.

The DRA wholeheartedly supports this resolution and will endorse it once it is put on the proposal list. Well written Hersfold!

*bows* Thank you. :)

I add my support to it and shall telk to my delegate and try to get them to support it.

3) That the crime of neglect of a domestic animal shall be considered a misdemeanor in all UN Member nations, and punishable with a minimum sentence of a substantial fine or one year in prison.
So I fall in the kitchen and break my hip. Me and the pooch are stuck there all weekend until the neighbors notice I didn't go to work. Pup didn't get fed, watered or let out, and neither did I. Yet once I get out of the hospital, I go to a jail for a year, regardless of circumstances, because my dog got treated as badly as I did, through no fault of mine?

Just say "no" to mandatory minimum sentences. We won't support any "dogmatic" sentencing guidelines in international law..

Define "domesticated animal"...

The general consensus of the term reffers to farm animals (cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, etc.) and as such, would mean that under the definition imposed as #2, and within the scope of #4, ranch based industries would be outlawed.

As such, in the scope of present definitions, we cannot support this resolution, as it would outlaw meat.

So I fall in the kitchen and break my hip. Me and the pooch are stuck there all weekend until the neighbors notice I didn't go to work. Pup didn't get fed, watered or let out, and neither did I. Yet once I get out of the hospital, I go to a jail for a year, regardless of circumstances, because my dog got treated as badly as I did, through no fault of mine?

Just say "no" to mandatory minimum sentences. We won't support any "dogmatic" sentencing guidelines in international law..

Doesn't a crime have to have intent? This would be accidental and, one would hope, not punishable.

Define "domesticated animal"...

The general consensus of the term reffers to farm animals (cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, etc.) and as such, would mean that under the definition imposed as #2, and within the scope of #4, ranch based industries would be outlawed.

As such, in the scope of present definitions, we cannot support this resolution, as it would outlaw meat.

Honestly - I don't think this would be applied to killing animals for food. Because then it would be a whole other proposal about changing people's diets.

I realise intentional abuse could potentially cover killing an animal for food, but I would read it as causing physical harm for the fun of it, and killing an animal inhumanely (like beating it round the head until it died).

At least this is what I would read it as. If I am wrong then I would have to oppose it, but other than that I can see no reason not to support it.

That all movie production studios shall be highly encouraged to use computer animated figures in place of animals when an animal is required to do any sort of stunt act.

ANY sort of stunt act? How about just especially dangerous ones? Of course, it does say encourage, not require...


The general consensus of the term reffers to farm animals (cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, etc.) and as such, would mean that under the definition imposed as #2, and within the scope of #4, ranch based industries would be outlawed.

As such, in the scope of present definitions, we cannot support this resolution, as it would outlaw meat.

I agree. As written, the resolution would outlaw killing or hurting animals. It might also outlaw neutering and spaying.


Just say "no" to mandatory minimum sentences. We won't support any "dogmatic" sentencing guidelines in international law..

I am against mandatory minimum sentences as well. It is up to the judges and juries that know the specifics of the case and all the circumstances involved.



Doesn't a crime have to have intent? This would be accidental and, one would hope, not punishable.

Usually the punishment for unintentional crimes is less. Of course, I'd like to meet the prosecutor that would file charges against that woman.

So I fall in the kitchen and break my hip. Me and the pooch are stuck there all weekend until the neighbors notice I didn't go to work. Pup didn't get fed, watered or let out, and neither did I. Yet once I get out of the hospital, I go to a jail for a year, regardless of circumstances, because my dog got treated as badly as I did, through no fault of mine?


Obviously, as TilEnca pointed out, that would be a mitigating circumstance in a trial. Neglect would mean that you have the capability of caring for the animal, but are not. I will add that in, as well as a reference to "Definition of Fair Trial". Thank you.

Define "domesticated animal"...

The general consensus of the term reffers to farm animals (cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, etc.) and as such, would mean that under the definition imposed as #2, and within the scope of #4, ranch based industries would be outlawed.

As such, in the scope of present definitions, we cannot support this resolution, as it would outlaw meat.

I was actually wondering about that myself, and was waiting to see if I was correct. Howzabout instead, we define "Intentional Abuse" as:

"The deliberate infliction of harm against any domestic animal not already declared for use as food, for any reason other than self-defense."

This would allow the nations who actually eat cats and dogs (eww) to continue doing so legally, yet prevent harm from coming to dogs and cats who are kept as pets in other countries. (RL examples: Supposedly they eat cat and/or dog in the Koreas, whereas that would horrify most people in the USA. In the US, attacking a dog would be a crime, but in the Koreas, attacking a dog declared for use as food would not be. If it was someone's pet, however, it would be illegal.)

I was actually wondering about that myself, and was waiting to see if I was correct. Howzabout instead, we define "Intentional Abuse" as:

"The deliberate infliction of harm against any domestic animal not already declared for use as food, for any reason other than self-defense."



So you would approve of people inflicting harm on cows and sheep for fun?

Sorry, Adam, you posted at the same time I did.

ANY sort of stunt act? How about just especially dangerous ones? Of course, it does say encourage, not require...

Exactly. Obviusly, basic stunts which can be easily trained to an animal such as barking on cue, etc., without harming it during training, would be perfectly fine. It's the ones where harm could come to it, such as Lassie running out of a burning building. Or whatever.

I agree. As written, the resolution would outlaw killing or hurting animals. It might also outlaw neutering and spaying.

Neutering and Spaying would be conducted under the care of a trained veterinarian, and as such, would be done in a manner so as to not harm the animal.

I am against mandatory minimum sentences as well. It is up to the judges and juries that know the specifics of the case and all the circumstances involved.

And as such, these are minimums. I might, and probably will, eventually lower the sentences for both crimes by up to half, but the UN needs to ensure that these crimes are being prosectuted well enough. If a person
badly mistreats an animal, he should not be able to get away with a $10 fine (I KNOW, dollars don't exist here. I don't much care, as that was an example)

Usually the punishment for unintentional crimes is less. Of course, I'd like to meet the prosecutor that would file charges against that woman.

I would too. But I have edited that.

"The deliberate infliction of harm against any domestic animal not already declared for use as food, for any reason other than self-defense."

This would allow the nations who actually eat cats and dogs (eww) to continue doing so legally, yet prevent harm from coming to dogs and cats who are kept as pets in other countries. (RL examples: Supposedly they eat cat and/or dog in the Koreas, whereas that would horrify most people in the USA. In the US, attacking a dog would be a crime, but in the Koreas, attacking a dog declared for use as food would not be. If it was someone's pet, however, it would be illegal.)

Hmmmm..... but what if an animal isn't now considered food but a future cultural shift could make it so? Thats what happened in Adam Island with our national animal, the llama.

So you would approve of people inflicting harm on cows and sheep for fun?
Ah, NO. But I see your point. So, I edit:

"The deliberate infliction of unnecessary harm against any domestic animal not already declared for use as food, for any reason other than self-defense."

Happy?

Obviously, as TilEnca pointed out, that would be a mitigating circumstance in a trial. Neglect would mean that you have the capability of caring for the animal, but are not. I will add that in, as well as a reference to "Definition of Fair Trial". Thank you.



I was actually wondering about that myself, and was waiting to see if I was correct. Howzabout instead, we define "Intentional Abuse" as:

"The deliberate infliction of harm against any domestic animal not already declared for use as food, for any reason other than self-defense."

This would allow the nations who actually eat cats and dogs (eww) to continue doing so legally, yet prevent harm from coming to dogs and cats who are kept as pets in other countries. (RL examples: Supposedly they eat cat and/or dog in the Koreas, whereas that would horrify most people in the USA. In the US, attacking a dog would be a crime, but in the Koreas, attacking a dog declared for use as food would not be. If it was someone's pet, however, it would be illegal.)

That would be acceptable.

Hmmmm..... but what if an animal isn't now considered food but a future cultural shift could make it so? Thats what happened in Adam Island with our national animal, the llama.
Laws change with the times. Should a culture change occur, then obviously it would be allowed to use llamas for food. As long as you are not unnecessarily torturing them, in accordance with my last edit.

Ah, NO. But I see your point. So, I edit:

"The deliberate infliction of unnecessary harm against any domestic animal not already declared for use as food, for any reason other than self-defense."

Happy?

Perfectly :}

Yay. *phew*

Doesn't a crime have to have intent? This would be accidental and, one would hope, not punishable. Usually the punishment for unintentional crimes is less. Of course, I'd like to meet the prosecutor that would file charges against that woman.
The proposal as written did not allow for latitude towards accidental or unintentional acts. There were mandatory minimums which the Compliance Ministry would see enforced. That was the entire point of my example, and doubtless there are others that could be raised that are equally valid.

Once again, the intent of this is good, but the execution is lacking. When making law, one must be exact to avoid unintended consequences. This can be done by fine-tuning the language to a point where it cannot be misinterpreted, or (preferably) by leaving the ultimate decision to the judge on the spot. Mandatory anything removes human interpretation from the loop, and is a Bad Thing in our opinion.

This issue involves far too many grey areas to have such specific guidelines. We'll watch and offer suggestions as we can, but cannot support it if it maintains such stringent punishments as originally suggested. We'll also note that the punishment for abandoning an animal far outweighs any international law yet proposed for similar abandonment of human children. Wanna 'splain that one to the kids?

If we get rid or soften or somehow allow lots of latitude in the judicial part of this resolution, Adam Island will support it.

We'll also note that the punishment for abandoning an animal far outweighs any international law yet proposed for similar abandonment of human children. Wanna 'splain that one to the kids?

Well, I can't help it if nobody has gotten a proposal to that effect passed. The key phrase in your comment would be "Yet Proposed." Have fun with that.

I will lower the minimum sentences by half. Hence, neglect will recieve a minimum of a light fine OR 6 months in prison, and intentional abuse shall recieve a moderate fine AND 5 years in prison.

If the UN is to ensure that their laws are being carried out, then they should have some say in what must be done to those who violate the laws. As I said above, a $10 fine is not sufficent to punish these offenses, which may very well be what is given to animal abusers in some nations. I am sorry that these are not necessarily your views, but I believe that they are necessary to make an effective legislation. I do appreciate your comments, and hope that you will in time support this act.

I don't know, I still need more latitude in punishing. I can't throw someone in prison for 5 years because they kicked their dog one time.

I don't know, I still need more latitude in punishing. I can't throw someone in prison for 5 years because they kicked their dog one time.
Again, I would like to meet the prosecutor who would bring charges for that, but point noted.

So, I therefore change the proposal once more - the punishments for Intentional Abuse only is now a highly recommended minimum. This is against what I support, however, this proposal apparently requires more latitude, which I should hope that provides.

Again, I would like to meet the prosecutor who would bring charges for that, but point noted.

So, I therefore change the proposal once more - the punishments for Intentional Abuse only is now a highly recommended minimum. This is against what I support, however, this proposal apparently requires more latitude, which I should hope that provides.

Having read it Clause 5 (or article 5 - I have no idea!) is acceptable. But, if it is not too forward of me, could you modify clause 4 to read the same? So that the nation gets to decide the punishment for neglect as well as mistreatment?

And on a slightly more serious note I am not sure this is what you meant -
"4) That the crime of neglect of a domestic animal shall be considered a misdemeanor in all UN Member nations, and punishable with a minimum sentence of a light fine OR six months in prison if found guilty"

I know you will think I am kidding, but if you read that as it is written, you can actually give someone a light fine for neglect whether they are found guilty or not. The "if found guilty" part can be read as ONLY applying to the "six months in prison" part.

I know it takes a twisted process of logic to read it like that, but I thought I would mention it, because I would hate for this to be implemented and then have people being fined all over the place for no apparent reason.

That would be a very large strech. However, I will edit that, as loopholes are not a very good thing to have, as I noticed with my first resolution.

Also, I have left clause/article/whateverwhocares 4 the same, because it is only a misdemeanor, and has a fairly light sentence. If the nation wishes to, they can give that now infamous $10 to the accused, instead of something more punishing.

Edit: If there are no more editing comments over the next 12 hours, I will probably submit this.

The sooner this Act comes in the better. What about non-domesticated animals too? Virginia Rocket.

That would outlaw hunting as well. While I don't agree with that, I don't think it would go over too well. Also, one can assume that a wild animal would have the sense to get out of the way of someone trying to attack them.

That would outlaw hunting as well. While I don't agree with that, I don't think it would go over too well. Also, one can assume that a wild animal would have the sense to get out of the way of someone trying to attack them.

Cause wild animals can detect hunters with sniper scopes able to shoot them from a thousand yards away :}

(I disagree with hunting as well, but I understand this is not the proposal to deal with it!)

Just write a proposal, "The Right to Arm Bears"

Just write a proposal, "The Right to Arm Bears"
Heh heh... no. It would be deleted on sight by the mods. I know, you were joking. But with all of the (being blunt) idiotic proposals we have, we don't need posts like that.

Cause wild animals can detect hunters with sniper scopes able to shoot them from a thousand yards away :}

Oh, shush. :p ;)

Heh heh... no. It would be deleted on sight by the mods. I know, you were joking. But with all of the (being blunt) idiotic proposals we have, we don't need posts like that.


Oh, shush. :p ;)


Opps, forgot my [sarcasm] tags :D

Cause wild animals can detect hunters with sniper scopes able to shoot them from a thousand yards away :}

(I disagree with hunting as well, but I understand this is not the proposal to deal with it!)

Some wild animals can. But, that does depend on where you are, how big the animal is, and what version of the laws of physics applies.

Still doesn't matter. We are not talking about hunting, or the merits (or lack thereof) of it, but about the draft proposal. Please, no more posts that stray from the topic.

Hers,

A far out stretch for you and Til.

An obnoxious relative in law leaves his/her papered dog (Breed of pure blood) with his/her parent in law. Given the value and love of the animal, it is left with a written and signed understanding that the dog would be provided with adequate care, with the owner agreeing to cover any and all costs incurred for its maintenance over the time period irregardless of whether the parents are to keep it in their sole custody, or necessity requires it being put in a proffessional kennel (Supervised), with the number of a respected kennel operator who is to be contacted in cases of emergency. An emergency occurs, not directly impairing the parents, another child is in the hospital, a friend, or whoever, for whatever reason. While attending to the emergency, the parents quickly leave the house and the dog is left unattended for an extended period of time, during which it consumes some chemical in the house left in the hallway, or an accesible cabinet, and dies.

A breach of contract, the point of which provided for costs so as to prevent the animal being unattended for any reason was signed. The parents intentionally breached the contract, which provided for such emergencies, and negligently left the dog unattended given the circumstances.

If you are a judge, faced with a contract such as this, and such a statute, what do you do? You are not in a court of equity for such a breach, the breach is intentional, conduct toward the animal was negligent given the circumstances. What is a judge, who is to instruct a jury as to the rule of law, and how to apply, to do? The appellate revieweers are bound to the same rules. (You will not like the outcome)

A casebook is full of any and all things you would think only exist in fiction.

No need to modify the bill further with respect to such events, crazy things just happen.

Hers,

A far out stretch for you and Til.

An obnoxious relative in law leaves his/her papered dog (Breed of pure blood) with his/her parent in law. Given the value and love of the animal, it is left with a written and signed understanding that the dog would be provided with adequate care, with the owner agreeing to cover any and all costs incurred for its maintenance over the time period irregardless of whether the parents are to keep it in their sole custody, or necessity requires it being put in a proffessional kennel (Supervised), with the number of a respected kennel operator who is to be contacted in cases of emergency. An emergency occurs, not directly impairing the parents, another child is in the hospital, a friend, or whoever, for whatever reason. While attending to the emergency, the parents quickly leave the house and the dog is left unattended for an extended period of time, during which it consumes some chemical in the house left in the hallway, or an accesible cabinet, and dies.

A breach of contract, the point of which provided for costs so as to prevent the animal being unattended for any reason was signed. The parents intentionally breached the contract, which provided for such emergencies, and negligently left the dog unattended given the circumstances.

If you are a judge, faced with a contract such as this, and such a statute, what do you do? You are not in a court of equity for such a breach, the breach is intentional, conduct toward the animal was negligent given the circumstances. What is a judge, who is to instruct a jury as to the rule of law, and how to apply, to do? The appellate revieweers are bound to the same rules. (You will not like the outcome)

A casebook is full of any and all things you would think only exist in fiction.

No need to modify the bill further with respect to such events, crazy things just happen.


If I were the judge, I would, most likely say, "eh - things happen". (Though probably not those exact words)

It wasn't intentional - the dog just got overlooked because something else happened. And I am pretty sure they did not mean to poison the dog - it was just an accident.

(Note - this could be why I am not a judge of course!)

That's quite a situation, AP. Did you ever consider becoming a writer for one of those sitcoms?

Like you said, I don't think there is any way we can modify the draft to protect against this, or things like it. Also, one would hope that the judge and jury would share TilEnca's benelovence.


With no further editing comments for the draft, the proposal will now be submitted as is.

The final draft of the proposal:

Animal Protection Act
A resolution to restrict Political Freedoms in the interest of Moral Decency


Category: Moral Decency Strength: Significant Proposed by: Hersfold (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hersfold)


Description: THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS, IN ASSEMBLY:

REALIZING, with great shock, that many domestic animals worldwide are cruelly mistreated every day;

NOTICING, that in some cases, this abuse is not intentional, but simply neglect and failure to care for the animal in question.

HORRIFIED, that at times this abuse is intended, leaving the innocent animals wounded and disfigured;

HEREBY DEFINES the following terms as crimes in all member nations:

1) Neglect – To fail to provide proper basic care for a domestic animal, such as food, water, shelter, and necessary veterinary care, when the accused is fully capable of doing so.

2) Intentional Abuse – To deliberately cause unnecessary harm to a domestic animal not declared for use as food for any cause other than proven self-defense.

AND HEREBY RESOLVES UPON THE FOLLOWING:

3) That all persons accused of the above crimes shall be given a fair trial in which they may present evidence in their defense, in accordance with UN Resolution #47, "Definition of Fair Trial".

4) That the crime of neglect of a domestic animal shall be considered a misdemeanor in all UN Member nations, and punishable with a minimum sentence equal to one-half of the basic sentence for child neglect, as defined by national law.

5) That the crime of intentional abuse of a domestic animal shall be considered a felony in all UN Member nations, and shall be punished with a minimum sentence equal to one-half of the basic sentence for child abuse, as defined by national law.

6) That all movie production studios shall be encouraged to use computer animated figures in place of animals when an animal is required to do any sort of stunt act.

7) That an Animal Protection Agency shall be henceforth established, to raise awareness of these crimes and to aid member nations in seeking out occurrences of these horrible deeds.

RESOLVED, IN ASSEMBLY, BY THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS.

This draft is still open to editing - however, the edits will not be included until the next submission. Thanks to all that helped me draft this, and I ask you all to help me get this to quorum!

:mad: Ok, it may take a little longer than expected. As I only have one endorsement, I cannot submit the proposal as of yet. It seems a little lame for me to ask this, but if anyone is willing, please move to Part123 and endorse me. I'm the Regional Delegate, and the FOunder, so I shouldn't be hard to find. :D

Seeing as it may be a while until I can submit this, I have drafted a few more articles to the proposal:

7) Allows for the use of animals in medical testing, under strict control, and with proper care for the test subjects prior to, during, and after the test’s completion.

8) Condemns, yet does not prohibit, the use of animals in cosmetic testing.

9) That an Animal Protection Agency shall be henceforth established, to raise awareness of these crimes and to aid member nations in seeking out occurrences of these horrible deeds. (Current Article 7)

10) That all zoos in member nations shall be required to provide an adequate habitat for the animals on display, which should mimic as close as possible their natural habitat. Should a zoo not meet these requirements, as deemed by the APA, the zoo will be subject to inspection, and animals whose habitats are inadequate may be relocated to another zoo.

This would make it clear that the UN is not prohibiting animal testing in anyway, but is saying that testing for cosmetics is really not a good idea. Article 10 is protecting animals in zoos, which may not provide a proper habitat at all times. For example, a tiger should not be kept in a steel bar cage measuring 10 feetx10 feetx10 feet, with concrete floors, no plants, and only very small pond. This is obviously inadequate for such a large animal, and does not in any way mimic his habitat. The tiger may be relocated to a zoo with a large, forested enclosure in which the tiger can excercise, remain cool in hot weather, and find some sort of privacy.

Comments on these articles?

Reducing minimum sentences didn't address my original objections, Hersfold. If you had to have minimum sentences, the first ones were adequate. A "light fine" is in no way equivalent to "six months in prison". I could pay a heavy fine easily, but more than a couple weeks of prison would completely disrupt my life, family, and career. Totally disproportionate response to the crime, in my opinion. (And yes, I have and love my pets).

My objection was with the concept of mandatory sentences expressed as time or money. Had you wished to proportionately express punishment times, you could create an equivalence: The punishment for "Neglect of an animal" shall be equivalent to, at minimum, one-half of the fine and/or time served for "neglect of an infant", as defined by national law.
The punishment for "Intentional Abuse of an animal" shall be equivalent to, at minimum, one-half of the fine and/or time served for "Assault", as defined by national law.
Creating sentences set in stone doesn't give a proportionate response in different nations. Your six months in jail for neglecting an animal may be one-tenth of what a litterbug receives, or it may be thrice the sentence of a murderer. You have to allow latitude for local prejudices if you want this to pass.

Reducing minimum sentences didn't address my original objections, Hersfold. If you had to have minimum sentences, the first ones were adequate. A "light fine" is in no way equivalent to "six months in prison". I could pay a heavy fine easily, but more than a couple weeks of prison would completely disrupt my life, family, and career. Totally disproportionate response to the crime, in my opinion. (And yes, I have and love my pets).

My objection was with the concept of mandatory sentences expressed as time or money. Had you wished to proportionately express punishment times, you could create an equivalence: The punishment for "Neglect of an animal" shall be equivalent to, at minimum, one-half of the fine and/or time served for "neglect of an infant", as defined by national law.
The punishment for "Intentional Abuse of an animal" shall be equivalent to, at minimum, one-half of the fine and/or time served for "Assault", as defined by national law.
Creating sentences set in stone doesn't give a proportionate response in different nations. Your six months in jail for neglecting an animal may be one-tenth of what a litterbug receives, or it may be thrice the sentence of a murderer. You have to allow latitude for local prejudices if you want this to pass.

Ok, now I see what you mean. Thanks for your pointers. I will change that now.

I see you've worked hard and taken all our critiques into account. In its current form, I would be proud to approve of this proposal.

Thank you.

Good job Hersfold.

Til-Why it would suck to be a judge on this case:

Intent is considered a desire for an outcome to occur, or knowledge with substantial certainty that it will occur. They intentionally breached the contract, a contract which created circumstances of negligent conduct with respect to their duty of care towards the animal outlined in this statute.

Accident would be considered circumstances beyond the individual's control.

Know, get out there and have some fun accusing people of committing acts intentionally, even when they think they are not!;)

Good job Hersfold.

Til-Why it would suck to be a judge on this case:

Intent is considered a desire for an outcome to occur, or knowledge with substantial certainty that it will occur. They intentionally breached the contract, a contract which created circumstances of negligent conduct with respect to their duty of care towards the animal outlined in this statute.

Accident would be considered circumstances beyond the individual's control.

Know, get out there and have some fun accusing people of committing acts intentionally, even when they think they are not!;)

(OOC) Are you sure you don't work with me? I have been having debates about what "accidents" are for some time at work!!

(IC)

See the thing is I think an accident is something that was not done on purpose, not something that is beyond the control of the person. For example if you are driving an ox-cart drunk, you might not be intending to run over Mrs Wilberforce's cat, but because you are drunk you do. Now clearly it is your fault - you should not be driving an ox-cart after having one too many meads, but it wasn't purpose, so it was an accident.

I would only consider intent to be what you wanted to happen. If you thought it might happen, but didn't want it to, I would not consider that intent. I would argue that when they found out that either another child, or a friend, was in the hospital, then the dog (I have forgotten the original case now, but I think it was a dog!) would probably not be on the top of their list of things to be worried about. But not because they want to cause pain and suffering to the dog, but just because sometimes things get forced out of your brain when other things happen.

But, like I said, I am not actually a lawyer in TilEnca, and it's probably a good thing too :}

:rolleyes:

Will probably be submitted soon - if anyone has any last-minute comments, please make them.

By the way, here is the "final" draft of the proposal. I have contacted several delegates and asked them to look this over and make any last-minute comments that may be needed.

Animal Protection Act
A resolution to restrict Political Freedoms in the interest of Moral Decency


Category: Moral Decency Strength: Significant Proposed by: Hersfold


Description: THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS, IN ASSEMBLY:

REALIZING, with great shock, that many domestic animals worldwide are cruelly mistreated every day;

NOTICING, that in some cases, this abuse is not intentional, but simply neglect and failure to care for the animal in question.

HORRIFIED, that at times this abuse is intended, leaving the innocent animals wounded and disfigured;

HEREBY DEFINES the following terms as crimes in all member nations:

1) Neglect – To fail to provide proper basic care for a domestic animal, such as food, water, shelter, and necessary veterinary care, when the accused is fully capable of doing so.

2) Intentional Abuse – To deliberately cause unnecessary harm to a domestic animal not declared for use as food for any cause other than proven self-defense.

AND HEREBY RESOLVES UPON THE FOLLOWING:

3) That all persons accused of the above crimes shall be given a fair trial in which they may present evidence in their defense, in accordance with UN Resolution #47, "Definition of Fair Trial".

4) That the crime of neglect of a domestic animal shall be considered a misdemeanor in all UN Member nations, and punishable with a minimum sentence equal to one-half of the basic sentence for child neglect, as defined by national law.

5) That the crime of intentional abuse of a domestic animal shall be considered a felony in all UN Member nations, and shall be punished with a minimum sentence equal to one-half of the basic sentence for child abuse, as defined by national law.

6) That all movie production studios shall be encouraged to use computer animated figures in place of animals when an animal is required to do any sort of stunt act.

7) Allows for the use of animals in medical testing, under strict control, and with proper care for the test subjects prior to, during, and after the test’s completion.

8) Condemns, yet does not prohibit, the use of animals in cosmetic testing.

9) That an Animal Protection Agency shall be henceforth established, to raise awareness of these crimes and to aid member nations in seeking out occurrences of these horrible deeds.

10) That all zoos in member nations shall be required to provide an adequate habitat for the animals on display, which should mimic as close as possible their natural habitat. Should a zoo not meet these requirements, as deemed by the APA, the zoo will be subject to inspection, and animals whose habitats are inadequate may be relocated to another zoo.

RESOLVED, IN ASSEMBLY, BY THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS.

Bumping this again - it was about to go off the page...

Sure I kind of skimmed it since i have limited time but I mean sure ok. I would aprove.

I have just made the final change to the proposal, as was recommended to me on The North Pacific Forums. Clause 3 now defines Domestic Animal.

Animal Protection Act
A resolution to restrict Political Freedoms in the interest of Moral Decency


Category: Moral Decency Strength: Significant Proposed by: Hersfold


Description: THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS, IN ASSEMBLY:

REALIZING, with great shock, that many domestic animals worldwide are cruelly mistreated every day;

NOTICING, that in some cases, this abuse is not intentional, but simply neglect and failure to care for the animal in question.

HORRIFIED, that at times this abuse is intended, leaving the innocent animals wounded and disfigured;

HEREBY DEFINES the following terms:

1) Neglect – To fail to provide proper basic care for a domestic animal, such as food, water, shelter, and necessary veterinary care, when the accused is fully capable of doing so.

2) Intentional Abuse – To deliberately cause unnecessary harm to a domestic animal not declared for use as food for any cause other than proven self-defense.

3) Domestic Animal – Any animal kept in the possession of humans for companionship, lively-hood, monetary gain, or entertainment purposes.

AND HEREBY RESOLVES UPON THE FOLLOWING:

4) That all persons accused of the above crimes shall be given a fair trial in which they may present evidence in their defense, in accordance with UN Resolution #47, "Definition of Fair Trial".

5) That the crime of neglect of a domestic animal shall be considered a misdemeanor in all UN Member nations, and punishable with a minimum sentence of a light fine if found guilty, OR six months in prison if found guilty.

6) That the crime of intentional abuse of a domestic animal shall be considered a felony in all UN Member nations, and shall be punished with a fine and prison term if found guilty, which the UN recommends to be a minimum sentence of a moderate fine and 5 years in prison.

7) That all movie production studios shall be encouraged to use computer animated figures in place of animals when an animal is required to do any sort of stunt act.

8) Allows for the use of animals in medical testing, under strict control, and with proper care for the test subjects prior to, during, and after the test’s completion.

9) Condemns, yet does not prohibit, the use of animals in cosmetic testing.

10) That an Animal Protection Agency shall be henceforth established, to raise awareness of these crimes and to aid member nations in seeking out occurrences of these horrible deeds.

11) That all zoos in member nations shall be required to provide an adequate habitat for the animals on display, which should mimic as close as possible their natural habitat. Should a zoo not meet these requirements, as deemed by the APA, the zoo will be subject to inspection, and animals whose habitats are inadequate may be relocated to another zoo.

RESOLVED, IN ASSEMBLY, BY THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS.


THIS PROPOSAL IS NOW BEING SUBMITTED.

If anyone has any further comments on this proposal, please post them here, or send me a telegram directly. Please note that any hostile telegrams will not be responded to, except by the moderators. Thanks to all who have helped me perfect this, and I ask for your continued support as this gets voted on. Live Long and Prosper to you all.

First submission now has 13 approvals - ends monday

The people of Haravikkslair would like to express their belief that this bill should extend beyond simply domestic (which was taken to mean 'pet') animals and to all animals owned by a person. There are many instances of sexual and physical abuse of animals such as cattle, sheep, pigs etc which is often on a horrifying level. If these animals are to be killed for food then they should at least be allowed to live painless lives.

The people of Haravikkslair would like to express their belief that this bill should extend beyond simply domestic (which was taken to mean 'pet') animals and to all animals owned by a person. There are many instances of sexual and physical abuse of animals such as cattle, sheep, pigs etc which is often on a horrifying level. If these animals are to be killed for food then they should at least be allowed to live painless lives.

My nation does not consider those animals to actually be a separate category from plants raised for the same purpose. As such, they fall under regulations for the treatment of organisms raised for consumption, not under the regulations for animal treatment. Plus, this proposal would need several key sections to be cut in order to apply to them without it gaining a major opposition movement to scuttle it.

Sorry I took so long getting back to you two.

I have submitted the second draft. The first recieved less than 30 approvals without telegram campaigning.

Now, to address your problem. Obviously, the animals must come to some harm, if they are to be killed for meat. However, this proposal does prevent unneccessary harm from coming to them, as decided by local officials. Therefore, it would be illegal to torture a cow prior to it's slaughter. That issue has already been dealt with.

I just can't believe that this is placed at top priority with you people. While issues of defense, education and social security at prevalent, you complain about the abuse done to animals, which, may I remind you, are not sentient and cannot feel oppressed by people.

1. Computer-animating an animal in a movie is fake-looking, costly and time-consuming if it comes to an issue when all you really need is a simple trick performed. I agree that it is for the good of the movie to have more intricate and complex animals, but if the animal is not an integral character, it really is pointless.

2. A fine and a 5-year sentence? Surely you are joking...a fine might be suitable, but a sentence in JAIL is simply absurd. How can you treat abuse towards an animal (whether it be a dog, goldfish or hampster) the same as an abuse towards a human? By your proposal, if Iam caught depriving my goldfish of the proper water salinity, I will have to pay a hefty fine and rot in jail for 5 years...great...I mean brilliant...Oh wait I am sorry...5 years minimum...so if I do something like hit my dog, then a BS lawyer with a PhD in who knows what profession will file a suit against me to throw me in jail and reposess all my assets because animals are now on equal ground with human...

3. It's a very simple thing--you have millions of lab mice that are just sitting around doing nothing, BUT...since the mice have feelings you are going to set them free in the city and use BIO-ENGINEERED MATERIALS for testing cosmetic products.

Simple math here, folks:

Total cost for a MOUSE out of a batch of about 15 that replenishes itself every few months (may I remind you that a pair of rats can have up to 10,000 offspring in a single year)- $0

Bio-engineered skin=MUCH more than $0

But hey...not hurting any feelings, are we?

I don't know if what version this is, or how it matches up with all he others but here's (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/64867/page=UN_proposal/start=13) the current one:

Animal Protection Act
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Hersfold

Description: THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS, IN ASSEMBLY:

REALIZING, with great shock, that many domestic animals worldwide are cruelly mistreated every day;

NOTICING, that in some cases, this abuse is not intentional, but simply neglect and failure to care for the animal in question.

HORRIFIED, that at times this abuse is intended, leaving the innocent animals wounded and disfigured;

HEREBY DEFINES the following terms:

1) Neglect – To fail to provide proper basic care for a domestic animal, such as food, water, shelter, and necessary veterinary care, when the accused is fully capable of doing so.

2) Intentional Abuse – To deliberately cause unnecessary harm to a domestic animal not declared for use as food for any cause other than proven self-defense.

3) Domestic Animal – Any animal kept in the possession of humans for companionship, lively-hood, monetary gain, or entertainment purposes.

AND HEREBY RESOLVES UPON THE FOLLOWING:

4) That all persons accused of the above crimes shall be given a fair trial in which they may present evidence in their defense, in accordance with UN Resolution #47, "Definition of Fair Trial".

5) That the crime of neglect of a domestic animal shall be considered a misdemeanor in all UN Member nations, and punishable with a minimum sentence of a light fine if found guilty, OR six months in prison if found guilty.

6) That the crime of intentional abuse of a domestic animal shall be considered a felony in all UN Member nations, and shall be punished with a fine and prison term if found guilty, which the UN recommends to be a minimum sentence of a moderate fine and 5 years in prison.

7) That all movie production studios shall be encouraged to use computer animated figures in place of animals when an animal is required to do any sort of stunt act.

8) Allows for the use of animals in medical testing, under strict control, and with proper care for the test subjects prior to, during, and after the test’s completion.

9) Condemns, yet does not prohibit, the use of animals in cosmetic testing.

10) That an Animal Protection Agency shall be henceforth established, to raise awareness of these crimes and to aid member nations in seeking out occurrences of these horrible deeds.

11) That all zoos in member nations shall be required to provide an adequate habitat for the animals on display, which should mimic as close as possible their natural habitat. Should a zoo not meet these requirements, as deemed by the APA, the zoo will be subject to inspection, and animals whose habitats are inadequate may be relocated to another zoo.

RESOLVED, IN ASSEMBLY, BY THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS.

Approvals: 23 (Hersfold, JS Nijmegen, Metal Poets, Bloodsbane, WZ Forums, Seventeen Island, Tiammas, Bonnie Doon, Coolet, Shrimpy-UB, FoxTopia, Reveloutionaires, Orioni, Kakuta, Colliric, Yangzhou, Tinis, Extreme Darwinists, Musselkanalia, Wolfenlands, Groot Gouda, Omnimobilis, Powerhungry Chipmunks)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 118 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Dec 9 2004



I have submitted the second draft. The first recieved less than 30 approvals without telegram campaigning.


Is the current version minus a telegramming campaign as well? If so, then this proposal stands a really good chance of passing. Keep submitting it. Im out for a week, but when I get back I'd be happy to support it with more than just my approval. With no proposal of my own to plug (until January, that is), I'll have a large amount of time acreage to invest in support.

Oh, and the link at the top of the post might not be valid, as the update might've moved it. [/minor note to readers]

The link on top is now invalid, yes. I have done no campaigning at all due to the election campaigns in The North Pacific. However, the current version, posted above, has recieved 90 approvals - 10 of which came in in the past hour. Thanks, PC!

To Dresophila Prime: You may notice in those same clauses you are quoting from that there is some leeway to prevent obscene sentences. Observe below.

1. Computer-animating an animal in a movie is fake-looking, costly and time-consuming if it comes to an issue when all you really need is a simple trick performed. I agree that it is for the good of the movie to have more intricate and complex animals, but if the animal is not an integral character, it really is pointless.

7) That all movie production studios shall be encouraged to use computer animated figures in place of animals when an animal is required to do any sort of stunt act.

In bold is the section which clears argument #1. Obviously, if all they need to do is have Lassie run across the scene, they're not going to animate the dog. If Lassie actually speaks (like English, not woof woof), they can use computer animation to get him/her to do so. If they need Lassie to run out of a building that is in the process of blowing up, they may want to consider using animation if any harm could possibly come to Lassie due to the pyrotechnics. This does not force anything upon movie producers - it just makes them aware that if any harm comes to an animal because of a stunt that they tried to make it do, then they will be held liable.

2. A fine and a 5-year sentence? Surely you are joking...a fine might be suitable, but a sentence in JAIL is simply absurd. How can you treat abuse towards an animal (whether it be a dog, goldfish or hampster) the same as an abuse towards a human? By your proposal, if Iam caught depriving my goldfish of the proper water salinity, I will have to pay a hefty fine and rot in jail for 5 years...great...I mean brilliant...Oh wait I am sorry...5 years minimum...so if I do something like hit my dog, then a BS lawyer with a PhD in who knows what profession will file a suit against me to throw me in jail and reposess all my assets because animals are now on equal ground with human...


Might I suggest that you are taking this a bit far? Also, read Article 6 again:

6) That the crime of intentional abuse of a domestic animal shall be considered a felony in all UN Member nations, and shall be punished with a fine and prison term if found guilty, which the UN recommends to be a minimum sentence of a moderate fine and 5 years in prison.


Recommends, meaning not required, but suggested. A nation could, if it wanted to, give you a five-dollar fine (or whatever - I know "dollars" don't really exist), and kick you out of the courthouse. Sayanora, don't do it again.

Also, I doubt anyone would give a hoot about a goldfish. ;)

3. It's a very simple thing--you have millions of lab mice that are just sitting around doing nothing, BUT...since the mice have feelings you are going to set them free in the city and use BIO-ENGINEERED MATERIALS for testing cosmetic products.

Simple math here, folks:

Total cost for a MOUSE out of a batch of about 15 that replenishes itself every few months (may I remind you that a pair of rats can have up to 10,000 offspring in a single year)- $0

Bio-engineered skin=MUCH more than $0

Ok, besides sounding like a Mastercard commercial, you have again neglected to read the proposal in full.

8) Allows for the use of animals in medical testing, under strict control, and with proper care for the test subjects prior to, during, and after the test’s completion.

9) Condemns, yet does not prohibit, the use of animals in cosmetic testing.

Do I say anywhere in here that animal testing is outlawed? No. In fact, I specifically say that cosmetic testing is not banned.

If you have any further arguments, please let me hear them, but please re-read the proposal in full first.

The United Federation of Hersfold
UN Regional Delegate, Part123
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Part123
Minister of Culture and Education, The North Pacific

Neutering and Spaying would be conducted under the care of a trained veterinarian, and as such, would be done in a manner so as to not harm the animal.

True... however there are other medical procedures routinely done on animals that many people charge as abuse. Three come to mind immediately - declawing, descenting, and removal of canines. While many people find no evil in these surgical modifications, others condemn them as a form of animal abuse. In order to make this proposal enforceable, these matters must either be settled or the language modified so as not to invoke this problem.

That all zoos in member nations shall be required to provide an adequate habitat for the animals on display, which should mimic as close as possible their natural habitat. Should a zoo not meet these requirements, as deemed by the APA, the zoo will be subject to inspection, and animals whose habitats are inadequate may be relocated to another zoo.

OOC: Since I'm a zookeeper, I had to comment on this one. Most species which are kept in captivity do not have the same sort of 'minimum requirements' that we would associate with partner animals. This makes defining an 'adequate habitat' a difficult task at best.

As for attempts to mimic the natural habitat of any animal on display, this is equally difficult. Most RL zoos focus on providing an enclosure that will provide food, shelter, and water while encouraging animals to explore natural behaviors and normal social relations. How this is done can be radically different in two different zoos, yet each zoo may achieve the goals it set out to in designing the habitat. Most RL zoos also supplement their enclosures with a wide variety of enrichment activities, items, and experiences. This is a process which actively prevents the animals from becoming overly content in their habitat and mentally decomposing.

The proposal does not provide protection for animals not on display, or any guidelines regarding acquisition and medical care provided for zoo animals.

IC: As the proposal seems aimed primarily at preventing abuse and neglect in partner animals, I would prefer that it ONLY dealt with the care of these animals. The complexity of zoological centers makes them unfit for inclusion in the jurisdiction of this proposal.

Thgin,

I believe that clause is included as there are some NS who believe that zoos are in and of themselves, an abuse to animals. So, in order to not allow such an extension of the bill, the clause was added.

The Empire disagrees with the concept that a zoo is a form of abuse, as they do strive to mimic a suitable environment; and it is unlikely people would be so inclined to protect such animals if the closest they came to them was a television set.

I would like to propose that these issues be included in the final resolution.

Domestic Animals does not go far enough. Pets such as some housecats, parrots, squirrels, and others are not listed as Domestic Animals, but as "Exotic Animals." I would like to see Pet-Related Exotic Animals added to the resolution.

We would like to see Farm Animals added to this resolution also. Animals like horses, etc. We are not asking to include animals used for human consumption, except that they die as painlessly as possible, and are treated well before slaughter.

MANDATORY Spay/Neuter for ANY pet animal, unless you recieve a special liscense, from the government, either State of Federal, to Breed such animals.

A Provision for the Government to financially help Shelters and Rescues.

If these items are listed, The Free lands of Ysabol will approve this Resolution.

With the exception of squirrels, which rabies legally prevents the animal from being kept as a pet, (perhaps you are thinking of a ferret?) they would be classified as exotic pet animals, and under the umbrella of pets. See the definition of Domestic Animals. Horses would qualify as such also, even if you are omish and still use them as farm labor.

I had understood the terms "Domestic Pet" and "Exotic Animal" to be two different terms.
I thought "Domestic Pets" extended to such animals as Dogs, Housecats, Hamsters, and other pets Domesticated by Humans.
I thought "Exotic Animals" to be pets NOT Domesticated by Humans, such as Parrots, Birds, Sugar Gliders, Flying Squirrels, Ferrets, Prarie Dogs; Exotic/Wildcats such as the Bengal Housecat, the Ocicat Housecat, The Bagral Housecat, and Chaussie Housecat and other cats with part of their blood being Wild, and pets of that nature. We were concered this resolution would not fully cover this.

Thgin,

I believe that clause is included as there are some NS who believe that zoos are in and of themselves, an abuse to animals. So, in order to not allow such an extension of the bill, the clause was added.

The Empire disagrees with the concept that a zoo is a form of abuse, as they do strive to mimic a suitable environment; and it is unlikely people would be so inclined to protect such animals if the closest they came to them was a television set.

Them perhaps a more appropriate method of addressing this is to clearly define zoos as not being applicable to this act rather than making a well meant but ultimately unsatisfactory attempt to govern them with it. This would prevent some NS from declaring them a form of animal abuse, but would also prevent naieve regulations.

With the exception of squirrels, which rabies legally prevents the animal from being kept as a pet
A squirrel with rabies? this I've got to see :)

Sir this is an excellent proposal draft, I think this would be great just to send as it is, my favorite part is it is clear and well defined. You've got my regions full support on this one. :) And I think its a great idea, I have not seen this issue addressed before, and its about time someone said something.

A squirrel with rabies? this I've got to see :)

I believe I have seen this once in Davis, CA. It was quite amusing, but dangerous. If not rabies, then some other affliction that causes ussually timid squirrels to foam and chase after people instead of running away. In either event, a shovel was the only cure in my unprofessional opinion, and medication was administered.

If it does not reach quorum, and this concern is not addressed by the author in this thread, I will ask Hersfold to drop the zoo aspect for one that states it does not apply to zoos.

But yeah, there are law prohibiting the rodent from being kept as a pet for concerns over rabies. (I beleive a squirrel is considered only to be a carrier, so what I saw was an anomally, if it was rabies.)

Holy cow. Hold on a moment, I will try to address everyone's post.


Neutering and Spaying would be conducted under the care of a trained veterinarian, and as such, would be done in a manner so as to not harm the animal.
True... however there are other medical procedures routinely done on animals that many people charge as abuse. Three come to mind immediately - declawing, descenting, and removal of canines. While many people find no evil in these surgical modifications, others condemn them as a form of animal abuse. In order to make this proposal enforceable, these matters must either be settled or the language modified so as not to invoke this problem.
I see your point here, Thgin, but I believe it all falls under the same category. While I do not agree with the causes for all of the above listed surgeries, declawing especially, the pet/animal is still being declawed or whatever by a qualified vetrinarian, who can carry out the operation without causing any harm to the animal. If a pet owner considers these operations to be abusive, the proposal does not force them to have them done. I'm sorry, but I am afraid I must stand my ground on this one.

For your zoo comment, which AP partially answered:

By "adequate habitat", I meant something in which the animals could live comfortably, in which they would not be harmed by doing their normal activities. An example of such a habitat would have a dirt or grass floor, a clean pond large enough for the animal to swim in if they so wished, and a few plants for atmosphere and privacy. Food could be brought in as needed by the zookeepers.

An inadequate habitat would be something like the following. I did see firsthand the exhibit I am about to describe. Sun Bears live in southeast Asia, and have very long claws, which are thought to be used for tree climbing. They can grow up to about 5 feet long (1.5 meters). The zoo where I first saw these animals had two of them in a cage about eight feet cube, with two walls and the ceiling made of iron bars. The other two walls and the floor were solid concrete. Their food and water were kept in two large bowls set by the access door. Every time the bears moved, you could plainly hear their claws scraping the concrete. I am not making this up - I did see such an exhibit a few years ago. That would be the kind of habitat the APA would shut down.

I understand the world of zoo may be much more complex than I thought, but this is the main thing I was trying to prevent in that clause - the placing of animals in harmful habitats. Medical treatment for captured animals is already covered by the definition of neglect. As for acquizition, one can assume that if a zoo would wish to display an animal, they would strive not to harm it. I realize that such an explanation is most likely inadequate, but I hope it does alleviate some of your concerns. If not, I may consider removing that clause.

I would like to propose that these issues be included in the final resolution.

Domestic Animals does not go far enough. Pets such as some housecats, parrots, squirrels, and others are not listed as Domestic Animals, but as "Exotic Animals." I would like to see Pet-Related Exotic Animals added to the resolution.

We would like to see Farm Animals added to this resolution also. Animals like horses, etc. We are not asking to include animals used for human consumption, except that they die as painlessly as possible, and are treated well before slaughter.

As AP said, all of this is already covered. As for animal slaughter, Intentional Abuse is unneccessary harm to an animal. Obviously, if you are going to use the animal for food, it's going to have to be killed eventually. But the unneccesary bit prevents poor treatment of the animal beforehand, and the neglect definition means that it must be cared for prior to slaughter.

MANDATORY Spay/Neuter for ANY pet animal, unless you recieve a special liscense, from the government, either State of Federal, to Breed such animals.
No. I will not require any sort of surgery to an animal, for the reasons that Thgin gave above. Some people consider that to be abuse, and if this proposal is aiming to prevent that, I cannot force anything to be done to the animals, whether I think it is abuse or not.

A Provision for the Government to financially help Shelters and Rescues.I frown on forcing governments to use their tax money to support other organizations. Again, I must say no. The APA is already working on rasing awareness of these crimes, so one can hope that individuals will make their own donations.

And thank you for your support, to both AP and Socially Inert People.

"No. I will not require any sort of surgery to an animal, for the reasons that Thgin gave above. Some people consider that to be abuse, and if this proposal is aiming to prevent that, I cannot force anything to be done to the animals, whether I think it is abuse or not."

In this case, The Free Land of Ysabol will not be able to support this act. Every day, millions of unwanted animals are born because of un-checked breeding. These animals either go stray, feral (wild), have to be taken care of by Humane Societies or Animal Rescues, and are often times put to death when homes cannot be found. There is no excuse for this when a law could be passed requiring mandatory spay/neuter. If some sort of clause was included that EVERY unwanted animal would be taken care of, we would support the act.

Also, on the subject of de-clawing. When an animal is de-clawed, such as a cat, the entire first digit of the paw is taken off. In most views, this is abuse. There is a product manafactured called Soft Paws that can be placed over the claws, making the animal unable to claw, but not needing surgery. We support this method.

:sniper: good plan...i like...it...i like it alote...u have my support...

Also, on the subject of de-clawing. When an animal is de-clawed, such as a cat, the entire first digit of the paw is taken off. In most views, this is abuse. There is a product manafactured called Soft Paws that can be placed over the claws, making the animal unable to claw, but not needing surgery. We support this method.

No, if any vet you know of does this, he or she is not up to paw on accepted de-clawing methods. A digit is no longer removed using the modern procedure.

If some sort of clause was included that EVERY unwanted animal would be taken care of, we would support the act.

I don't want to care for gophers or sloths, nor any rabbies carrying animal species. If everyone feels that way, then they are unwanted animals. There is no way we are all going to pay for every unwanted animal species to survie, nor can we. That is unreaonable.

Also, feral animals are just that, feral. That they reproduce does not justify requiring all pets be spayed or neutered. Instead, anti-neglect rules such as this one should be invoked.

If you do not wish to support this, Ysabol, I cannot force you to do so. I am sorry that you do not agree with me on this, but I will not be altering the proposal for those reasons.

Like AP said, I strongly doubt that the vet would amputate an entire toe to get rid of the claws anyway.

Thank you for the support, Carfagno, and thank you very much for answering things while I am away, AP. Has Enn contacted you yet?

{{OOC}} I am sorry if I have stepped on any toes here. I have only been playing for 5 days, and am trying to get used to how this all runs. I'm in animal rescue in real life, so i was treating it as if it were real life. In real life, most vets DO amputate the first digit on the toes of cats to remove the claws, which is why I have started using soft paws products. I also support spay/neuter of cats and dogs, as I cannot stand to see innocent cats and dogs killed every 3 days at Kill Shelters because of irresponsible breeding. If you have any hints for me on how to play this game, please let me know :)

Hirumaakuma of The Mars Project region supports you and this wonderful petition.

If you do not wish to support this, Ysabol, I cannot force you to do so. I am sorry that you do not agree with me on this, but I will not be altering the proposal for those reasons.

Like AP said, I strongly doubt that the vet would amputate an entire toe to get rid of the claws anyway.

Thank you for the support, Carfagno, and thank you very much for answering things while I am away, AP. Has Enn contacted you yet?

Your welcome, and let me know if I am ever wrong, or need to be quiet. I have not been contacted by Enn yet.

Hmmm. Odd. Ok, and so far, you're doing just fine, AP.

Thank you, Himuraakuma.

And Ysabol - Quite frankly, I had no idea you were that young (in NS terms) based on your posts. You're doing just fine. The idea is to treat this like real life when you're dealing with RP stuff like this. I now see your points better, since you are in animal rescue - I share some of those concerns, as both of my cats came from my local Humane Society.

So, a deal - I still do not agree with Mandatory spaying, but I will wirte into the next draft that it would be "highly recommended for all citizens of UN nations to spay/neuter their pets in order to prevent unwanted animals from being born and then uncared for." Is that acceptable?

Yes, I think this will be my 6th day of playing now. I still have no idea what i am doing, as the region I belong to is also brand new too :)

Thanks for trying to help; coming to an agreement - I'll definitly support this issue.

{{OOC}} I am sorry if I have stepped on any toes here. I have only been playing for 5 days, and am trying to get used to how this all runs. I'm in animal rescue in real life, so i was treating it as if it were real life. In real life, most vets DO amputate the first digit on the toes of cats to remove the claws, which is why I have started using soft paws products. I also support spay/neuter of cats and dogs, as I cannot stand to see innocent cats and dogs killed every 3 days at Kill Shelters because of irresponsible breeding. If you have any hints for me on how to play this game, please let me know :)

I'm a zookeeper, and an employee with an evil corporate petstore for extra $$$... I've yet to find a vet who still uses that method of declawing, though I'm sure some still do... *shiver*. As for spay/neuter acts, I'd favor them provided they include a clause allowing for animals intended to breed to be selectively certified as exempt.

As for how to play the game, play it like it's real life, but be willing to acknowledge that there are aspects that are very not real life. Read the FAQs, know the FAQS, love the FAQs.

I see your point here, Thgin, but I believe it all falls under the same category. While I do not agree with the causes for all of the above listed surgeries, declawing especially, the pet/animal is still being declawed or whatever by a qualified vetrinarian, who can carry out the operation without causing any harm to the animal. If a pet owner considers these operations to be abusive, the proposal does not force them to have them done. I'm sorry, but I am afraid I must stand my ground on this one.

The issue isn't so much owners considering this abuse, but nations considering this abuse. Clarification is important in a case like this.

By "adequate habitat", I meant something in which the animals could live comfortably, in which they would not be harmed by doing their normal activities. An example of such a habitat would have a dirt or grass floor, a clean pond large enough for the animal to swim in if they so wished, and a few plants for atmosphere and privacy. Food could be brought in as needed by the zookeepers.

An inadequate habitat would be something like the following. I did see firsthand the exhibit I am about to describe. Sun Bears live in southeast Asia, and have very long claws, which are thought to be used for tree climbing. They can grow up to about 5 feet long (1.5 meters). The zoo where I first saw these animals had two of them in a cage about eight feet cube, with two walls and the ceiling made of iron bars. The other two walls and the floor were solid concrete. Their food and water were kept in two large bowls set by the access door. Every time the bears moved, you could plainly hear their claws scraping the concrete. I am not making this up - I did see such an exhibit a few years ago. That would be the kind of habitat the APA would shut down.

Ok, here's a compromise position. Through the act form a secondary organization to specifically regulate zoos. This will allow for the more complex nature of zoos without neglecting them in the overall act.

As far as the Sun Bear exhibit you encountered, I've got a few comments. Technically speaking, such an exhibit is not animal cruelty. The animal's basic needs are provided for in the exhibit, and the animals would not biologically suffer from the exhibit, provided there was a sufficient nighttime area where the animals were transferred to after visiting hours. That said, it would be necessary by my personal standards (and RL AZA standards) to use enrichment in the form of environmental and behavioral factors. In short, I would not approve of the habitat myself, even though it's not technically abuse. It's just VERY far from ideal. RE the scraping of the claws - that was probably intentional, simply to allow for the control of the bear's claws.

Medical treatment for captured animals is already covered by the definition of neglect. [/QUOTE[

Yes, but since there isn't standardized medical care for exotic animals, what one zoo considers standard another would call an abomination. This is the sort of thing that could be managed by an independent regulatory council appointed through this act.

[QUOTE] As for acquizition, one can assume that if a zoo would wish to display an animal, they would strive not to harm it.

Unfortunatley, many small private zoos are more interested in having an animal of species X than whether removing it will damage the environment. This is why acquisition standards are such a big part of the RL AZA regulations.

I realize that such an explanation is most likely inadequate, but I hope it does alleviate some of your concerns. If not, I may consider removing that clause.

I'm glad that you're actively pursuing it rather than simply dismissing the issue altogether. Let's work on finding a way to responsibly regulate this within the act. Perhaps we could legislate divisions within the APA inside this bill. This would allow resolution of a number of issues....

If we were to legislate the APA to have branches, we could specify branches to veterinary medicine, zoological regulation, and other complex, diverse, and debateable issues in animal care. Give the bill this sort of clear organization for the APA, and you will have the full support of Thgin.

sorry that I didn't have the patience to read through 6 pages of discussion. But here is my point: under no circumstances will I support any resolution on any matter which attempts to prescribe for souvereign nations how they have to punish their criminals! (ooc: That in itself should make this proposal illegal, but I am not hundred percent sure of the rules here)

Tarnak-talaan, next time, please do read through four pages of discussion. Had you done so, you would have known that that particular issue had already been dealt with and corrected.

Ysabol, thank you for your comments. I will add that in shortly. And good luck playing NS.

Thgin, I will take your post in steps here...


I see your point here, Thgin, but I believe it all falls under the same category. While I do not agree with the causes for all of the above listed surgeries, declawing especially, the pet/animal is still being declawed or whatever by a qualified vetrinarian, who can carry out the operation without causing any harm to the animal. If a pet owner considers these operations to be abusive, the proposal does not force them to have them done. I'm sorry, but I am afraid I must stand my ground on this one.

The issue isn't so much owners considering this abuse, but nations considering this abuse. Clarification is important in a case like this.

So you are saying that nations may outlaw declawing as an interpretation of the proposal? (I think I get what you're saying, I just want to clarify)

Regarding the next paragraph which I don't feel like quoting:

I am willing to compromise. What you are suggesting will annoy some people due to the "extra red tape", but there may be a way to just make it another duty of the APA without the need for another committee.

For example:
10) That an Animal Protection Agency shall be henceforth established, to raise awareness of these crimes, aid member nations in seeking out occurrences of these horrible deeds, and to provide reasonable guidelines for zoo habitats to ensure that acquizition of zoo animals is done in a safe and humane manner, and that animals kept in zoo programs remain healthy, both physically and mentally.

(remove Article 11)

Would that do? This also includes you comment about species X below that.

As for your suggestion about APA organization, I do not mind adding in extra red tape, as quite often, it is the more organized path, but many people do not agree with me on that issue. If you could provide a more detailed suggestion of what to do about that that wouldn't add too much extra tape, please do so.

Since some changes have been made, and since I just noticed that I was accidentally leaving out one of my corrections (oops), here is the current draft, which I am submitting now:

-snipping all of the crap that gets stuck on top-

Description: THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS, IN ASSEMBLY:

REALIZING, with great shock, that many domestic animals worldwide are cruelly mistreated every day;

NOTICING, that in some cases, this abuse is not intentional, but simply neglect and failure to care for the animal in question.

HORRIFIED, that at times this abuse is intended, leaving the innocent animals wounded and disfigured;

HEREBY DEFINES the following terms:

1) Neglect – To fail to provide proper basic care for a domestic animal, such as food, water, shelter, and necessary veterinary care, when the accused is fully capable of doing so.

2) Intentional Abuse – To deliberately cause unnecessary harm to a domestic animal not declared for use as food for any cause other than proven self-defense.

3) Domestic Animal – Any animal kept in the possession of humans for companionship, lively-hood, monetary gain, or entertainment purposes.

AND HEREBY RESOLVES UPON THE FOLLOWING:

4) That all persons accused of the above crimes shall be given a fair trial in which they may present evidence in their defense, in accordance with UN Resolution #47, "Definition of Fair Trial".

5) That the crime of neglect of a domestic animal shall be considered a misdemeanor in all UN Member nations, and punishable with a minimum sentence equal to one-half of the basic sentence for child neglect, as defined by national law.

6) That the crime of intentional abuse of a domestic animal shall be considered a felony in all UN Member nations, and shall be punished with a minimum sentence equal to one-half of the basic sentence for child abuse, as defined by national law.

7) That all movie production studios shall be encouraged to use computer animated figures in place of animals when an animal is required to do any sort of stunt act.

8) Allows for the use of animals in medical testing, under strict control, and with proper care for the test subjects prior to, during, and after the test’s completion.

9) Condemns, yet does not prohibit, the use of animals in cosmetic testing.

10) That an Animal Protection Agency shall be henceforth established, to raise awareness of these crimes and to aid member nations in seeking out occurrences of these horrible deeds.

11) Highly recommends for all citizens of UN nations to spay/neuter their pets in order to prevent unwanted animals from being born and then uncared for.

12) That all zoos in member nations shall be required to provide an adequate habitat for the animals on display, which should mimic as close as possible their natural habitat. Should a zoo not meet these requirements, as deemed by the APA, the zoo will be subject to inspection, and animals whose habitats are inadequate may be relocated to another zoo.

RESOLVED, IN ASSEMBLY, BY THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS.


Ysabol, your doohickey is the new Article 11. The old Article 11 is now Article 12 (That's the one I suggested we remove above, Thgin). The correction I kept leaving out is in Articles 5 and 6, which I believe is what you were complaining about, Tarnak-talaan. Sorry about that.

This draft has now been submitted.

As I said, I didn't take the time to read through 6 pages (not four) of discussion, for which I probably should apologize. In the end, the proposal submitted is a fine one by and large, although I still feel uneasy about prescribing to what extend the defined crimes should be punished. I know the resolution now doesn't do that explicitely in absolute terms, rather in comparison to other crimes, but still...

Ok, in this version that uneasiness would not prevent me to vote FOR this resolution, should it reach quorum (which I have not the power to influence directly, not being a delegate)

6 pages (not four) of discussion
Just a general reminder - this is all still on page 3 for me. Don't get into a fight over it, as everyone can select for themselves the number of posts to a page. It's better to refer to post counts than page number anyway.

(post #84 is page 3, #4 @ 40 posts/page)

Hmmm. Odd. Ok, and so far, you're doing just fine, AP.



Odd, perhaps, however, do not want to inadvertantly endanger the success of a proposal from TNP breathren that I agree with in principle and content.

I am all for your idea and would vote for it right away. I saw two problems, one you have to different punishments for being guilty. The other is the fact that this rather broad and should be altered so that the killing of animals for food is legal, for this is not torture. If these suggestions can be meet or I can be talked other wise, I will endorse you forum with the region of Trav Khar and other nations for which I am allied with or friends of. I really think if you get this out there it will be brought to vote very soon. Don't think people have forgotten of this forum. Please telogram me back, I am interested in creating an alliance with your country

As I said, I didn't take the time to read through 6 pages (not four) of discussion, for which I probably should apologize. In the end, the proposal submitted is a fine one by and large, although I still feel uneasy about prescribing to what extend the defined crimes should be punished. I know the resolution now doesn't do that explicitely in absolute terms, rather in comparison to other crimes, but still...

Ok, in this version that uneasiness would not prevent me to vote FOR this resolution, should it reach quorum (which I have not the power to influence directly, not being a delegate)
As Fris pointed out, there's no point in correcting anyone on the number of pages. Doesn't matter anyway.

Thank you for your understanding, however.

AP, I just meant it was odd that you hadn't been contacted by Enn yet. I appreciate your help, and me being affiliated with The North Pacific should not influence anyone's vote.

Trowk, I must also ask you to please read through the topic. There are two pnishments for two separate crimes, Animal Neglect, a misdemeanor, and Intentional Abuse of an Animal, a felony. Also, Clause 3 defines Intentional Abuse as delivering unneccessary harm to an animal. Obviously, as I have said at least twice now, if you are raising the animal for food, it's going to have to die eventually. However, this prevents the torture of animals prior to slaughter. Thank you for your support.

Did not say your being in TNP influences my vote. If I disagree with a TNP resolution I try to bring it up in our regional thread. Not this one. ;)

Take care,

-AP

Ah. Ok, whatever. :)

And glad to see that Enn has finally gotten around to contacting you.

You take care as well,

Hersfold