NationStates Jolt Archive

--

Thank you everyone for your help so far!

Courtney

--


DESCRIPTION: To protect all animals from deliberate torture, undue harm, or malicious acts against them.

GIVEN the fact that as people we are protected against torture and undue harm, it should be extended towards animals,

REALIZING that some species of animals are used as food, and therefore humane ways of putting animals to death will be enforced,

1. Definitions

i) “Torture” is defined as purposefully causing physical pain, mental pain or death upon a pet, farm animal, or wild animal for entertainment
ii) “Undue Harm” is defined as causing mental or physical harm by keeping a pet or farm animal in unhealthy conditions, not providing the necessities of life or general health care, as well as causing bodily harm for punishment or training
iii) “Bodily Harm” is defined as broken bones, intentional cuts, burns, or bruising
a. With the exception of branding cattle or horses
iv) A “pet” is defined as any animal kept for the enjoyment and entertainment of a person
v) A “farm animal” is defined as any animal kept by a person to help said person, supply a food supply, or to generate income
vi) A “wild animal” is any animal not confined by, or maintained by, a person
vii) “Slaughter House” is defined as any place where animals are killed for food, and includes the butcher trade who then divides the animal into cuts
viii) “Humane Method” is the quickest and most painless method for an animal to die

2. Implementation

i) the Animal Welfare Task Force shall be set up as a part of the existing police forces in each nation
a. the AWTF will be responsible for the investigation of cases of animal cruelty, and should the case be supported by sufficient evidence will then prosecute the offenders
b. the AWTF will be responsible for routine inspections of slaughter houses, and will maintain a standard of a humane method of killing a farm animal for food
i. the AWTF will only have the right to inspect slaughter houses with or without notice
ii. the AWTF will not have the right to inspect any house, farm, or land privately owned unless the AWTF has obtained a warrant
1. sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant will be defined as photographs, videotaped evidence provided by a concerned citizen or at least three (3) eye witness accounts of animal cruelty
c. the AWTF will be responsible for a Slaughter House registration program
i. the nation in which the AWTF will decide whether a fee is implemented or not
ii. the registration program will provide the Slaughter House with information regarding the most up to date and humane method of killing each species of animal
iii. the registration will require an annual renewal
iv. the Slaughter House will be inspected at least once every six (6) months
ii) Hunters will only be allowed to kill wild animals using guns or crossbows. Traps are not permitted.
a. Hunters will be required to take their kill to a registered Slaughter House at their own cost
b. Hunters who do not take their kill to a registered slaughter house will face the same penalties as a person who commits animal cruelty
c. Hunting shall not be permitted unless the hunter intends to use the animal killed for food
i. taking a trophy from an animal will be acceptable as long as over 60 percent of the animal is used for food


iii) Animal Testing will only take place for medical research
a. Medical Research includes research for medicines or new forms of medical treatment and techniques
b. The animal being used must be provided with the necessities of life, and cared for in the most humane method possible

iv) Animal Sacrifice will be for religious practices only
a. an animal sacrifice must be done by the most humane method of slaughtering available
b. an animal sacrifice will not be used for food unless it is sent to a slaughter house to be prepared correctly at the cost of the people involved with the sacrifice
c. before it is sacrificed, an animal will be protected by the Animal Welfare Act

Great. So under this, I cannot kill dangerous species in my nation that are inedible and pose serious risks to lives and property if left unchecked. And worse, some of them the humane methods do not work on due to natural defenses. You'll have to excuse me for trapping dragons and releasing them among your populous with the promise your populous is food.

I must admit, I had a narrow minded view when not including mythological or magical creatures. Please elaborate on what problems your nation has with your nation's creatures, and what you recomend I do about it.

I am trying to find a way to protect every nation's creatures from abuse and neglect as well as maintain a civilization without infestations of dragons, or other such pests.

:)

oh, and P.S: each creature has it's own method of humane slaughtering. Obviously what works for a cow will not work for a dragon, so this will be researched by your AWFT. Your nation's AWFT will not have to do research into animals which are not located in your nation.

I must admit, I had a narrow minded view when not including mythological or magical creatures. Please elaborate on what problems your nation has with your nation's creatures, and what you recomend I do about it.

The dragons can be taken out with weapons, but with the exception of a missile to the head it isn't going to be humane. Add in the fact they are extremely intelligent. Part of the problem with them is the fact they cause property damage when annoyed and have yet to show signs that they are sentient, despite hints they are.

Then there are the really huge sea worms on Terrator. They tend to sometimes eat craft flying overhead or snack on civilians near water. We use torpedos on them, and that is not going to be humane no matter how you look at it.

That ignores many other animals "native" to Terran. The information on many of those can be found in a download on the official Shadowrun site.

I am trying to find a way to protect every nation's creatures from abuse and neglect as well as maintain a civilization without infestations of dragons, or other such pests.

:)

Throw in a clause about animals that are extremely dangerous being exempt. The nation in question has to prove they are. I think after seeing a dragon use your car as a toilet and them cast a lethal spell at you when you complain, you'll agree they are dangerous.

oh, and P.S: each creature has it's own method of humane slaughtering. Obviously what works for a cow will not work for a dragon, so this will be researched by your AWFT. Your nation's AWFT will not have to do research into animals which are not located in your nation.

The problem is that, in certain cases, the humane ways are too environmentall damaging to use. The sea worms I mentioned above are killed pretty close to instantly by radiation from nuclear bombs. But I'm not going to nuke my oceans just to stop it.

Dragons are even harder, as they tend to be extremely agile despite their immense bulk. And the fact their weapons are more potent than anything a modern tech fighter jet has is another bad thing.

Animals are not people.
When they can vote in NSUN, it will be appropriate to extend these protections to them.











No.

Throw in a clause about animals that are extremely dangerous being exempt. The nation in question has to prove they are. I think after seeing a dragon use your car as a toilet and them cast a lethal spell at you when you complain, you'll agree they are dangerous.

Thank you, I will do this. I appreciate your kind help.

Animals are not people.
When they can vote in NSUN, it will be appropriate to extend these protections to them.

At one point Native Americans were considered 'savages' or less than human. Not that this is comparable to animal abuse, I am merely pointing out that ideas and beliefs can change.

I must admit, I had a narrow minded view when not including mythological or magical creatures. Please elaborate on what problems your nation has with your nation's creatures, and what you recomend I do about it.

I am trying to find a way to protect every nation's creatures from abuse and neglect as well as maintain a civilization without infestations of dragons, or other such pests.

:)

Actually - from the way it is phrased, there is nothing to stop someone killing wild animals in self-defence. It only says you can not do it for "entertainment". And I think that if a dragon is swooping down on a party of travelling heroes (something I have a little experience of), getting entertainment out of killing it is the LAST thing no your mind. The first thing is not getting burned/eaten/torn to shreads :}

Even in the hunting section it does not say you can not kill it if your life is threatened. And (again from experience) if you shoot the dragon either between the eyes (which takes some skill!) or in the soft part of the underbelly they tend to die at once with little or no pain and suffering.

I am not a fan of hurting animals for fun - it is already frowned upon seriously in my nation - but with the various monsters roaming the country side, which include dragons and other so called mythological beasts, we do sometimes have to kill them to stop them eating us.

Actually - from the way it is phrased, there is nothing to stop someone killing wild animals in self-defence. It only says you can not do it for "entertainment". And I think that if a dragon is swooping down on a party of travelling heroes (something I have a little experience of), getting entertainment out of killing it is the LAST thing no your mind. The first thing is not getting burned/eaten/torn to shreads :}

Even in the hunting section it does not say you can not kill it if your life is threatened. And (again from experience) if you shoot the dragon either between the eyes (which takes some skill!) or in the soft part of the underbelly they tend to die at once with little or no pain and suffering.

Actually, there is. The part about killing them without intending to use them for food.

Also, the area between the eyes is heavily armored in the DLE variety. All you'll do is waste a bullet. You have to aim for the eye itself and pray you have the right angle to cripple the creature. In any case, you won't be having brain splatter.

Also, the soft part of the underbelly can typically take several 50 calibur bullets before the larger varieties are wounded enough to be forced to land, and on ground they don't give you the opportunity to shoot them in the stomach.

I've added this clause thanks to the suggestions of DemonLordEnigma, hopefully it covers the problems faced in his nation.

Courtney
--


v) Dangerous Animals will be defined as any animal which poses a significant threat to humans or property
a. a significant threat against a human will include life or death situations, or a health hazard
i. any force necessary will be allowed in a life or death situation1. the event must be reported to the AWTF as soon as possible
ii. a health hazard will be defined as any creature living in close proximity to a person which causes a detrimental effect on that person’s health
1. reasonable force will be allowed to remove or exterminate the creature

b. a significant threat to property will include damage to a building, damage to farm or home equipment (i.e. a tractor, lawnmower), damage to crops or livestock, or damage to a water source
i. a trap will be allowed if the property damage is reoccurring but the perpetrator cannot be caught in the act
1. the renter or owner of the property must document the damage to prove his or her right to use a trap[/INDENT]

Actually, there is. The part about killing them without intending to use them for food.


Eh - it's 2am. I am bound to miss something :}

(edit)

I remember why I thought that. I was talking about a bunch of people who don't go out hunting dragons, but get attacked while they are walking around in the fields for excersise or something. They are not hunters, so they are not covered by the hunting section!!


Also, the area between the eyes is heavily armored in the DLE variety. All you'll do is waste a bullet. You have to aim for the eye itself and pray you have the right angle to cripple the creature. In any case, you won't be having brain splatter.


Then I am glad I don't have to deal with them. Mostly they can be killed by guys with long bows (or wands)


Also, the soft part of the underbelly can typically take several 50 calibur bullets before the larger varieties are wounded enough to be forced to land, and on ground they don't give you the opportunity to shoot them in the stomach.

Agian - long bows and wands.

Just a thought while reading your post Tilenca - I said that animals could be hunted using guns or crossbows. Since these weapons are not used in every nation, I will be changing it to "weapon" instead. Wands, however, will not be included in the hunting clause, but will obviously be allowed with dangerous creatures.

Jeinga, I'm going to have to withdraw my support of this proposal. First of all, this whole "resistered slaughterhouse" thing is kind of ridiculous. What about in nations that choose to be extremely primative, hunter-gatherer style? Do you expect all butchering in a village to go through one person? Or for all the hunters in a village to get registered? What about religions that require you to eat sacrifices, and that the people who eat it have to prepare it? Plus, the whole ban on traps thing is ridiculous. Some game are simply impractical to kill any other way. Besides, traps allow hunters to increase their yields without a significant increase in man-hours. Plus, a lot of testing for commercial purposes is done on animals for the safety of humans. I think changing that part to make it so all testing done on animals must be done in the most humane method possible, without invalidating the results of the tests.

--

Thank you everyone for your help so far!

Courtney

--


DESCRIPTION: To protect all animals from deliberate torture, undue harm, or malicious acts against them.

GIVEN the fact that as people we are protected against torture and undue harm, it should be extended towards animals,

REALIZING that some species of animals are used as food, and therefore humane ways of putting animals to death will be enforced,

1. Definitions

i) “Torture” is defined as purposefully causing physical pain, mental pain or death upon a pet, farm animal, or wild animal for entertainment
ii) “Undue Harm” is defined as causing mental or physical harm by keeping a pet or farm animal in unhealthy conditions, not providing the necessities of life or general health care, as well as causing bodily harm for punishment or training
iii) “Bodily Harm” is defined as broken bones, intentional cuts, burns, or bruising
a. With the exception of branding cattle or horses

Uhm, we brand rhinos and other such animals. Might you remove "cattle and horses" from this?



iv) A “pet” is defined as any animal kept for the enjoyment and entertainment of a person
v) A “farm animal” is defined as any animal kept by a person to help said person, supply a food supply, or to generate income
vi) A “wild animal” is any animal not confined by, or maintained by, a person
vii) “Slaughter House” is defined as any place where animals are killed for food, and includes the butcher trade who then divides the animal into cuts
viii) “Humane Method” is the quickest and most painless method for an animal to die

2. Implementation

i) the Animal Welfare Task Force shall be set up as a part of the existing police forces in each nation
a. the AWTF will be responsible for the investigation of cases of animal cruelty, and should the case be supported by sufficient evidence will then prosecute the offenders
b. the AWTF will be responsible for routine inspections of slaughter houses, and will maintain a standard of a humane method of killing a farm animal for food
i. the AWTF will only have the right to inspect slaughter houses with or without notice
ii. the AWTF will not have the right to inspect any house, farm, or land privately owned unless the AWTF has obtained a warrant
1. sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant will be defined as photographs, videotaped evidence provided by a concerned citizen or at least three (3) eye witness accounts of animal cruelty
c. the AWTF will be responsible for a Slaughter House registration program
i. the nation in which the AWTF will decide whether a fee is implemented or not
ii. the registration program will provide the Slaughter House with information regarding the most up to date and humane method of killing each species of animal
iii. the registration will require an annual renewal
iv. the Slaughter House will be inspected at least once every six (6) months
ii) Hunters will only be allowed to kill wild animals using guns or crossbows. Traps are not permitted.

Considering the Godzillas we've had to contend with, traps reduce the danger to the hunter. Also, this removes bows, knives, and other such from use.

We request this be stricken, or rewritten to take into account the danger of hunting.



a. Hunters will be required to take their kill to a registered Slaughter House at their own cost

Remove "at their own cost". Some nations may choose to underwrite hunters for removing vermin or predatory animals (like, say, Vastiva does).


b. Hunters who do not take their kill to a registered slaughter house will face the same penalties as a person who commits animal cruelty

Addition of "Within a reasonable time" requested. Some hunts go six to eight months without seeing civilization.



c. Hunting shall not be permitted unless the hunter intends to use the animal killed for food
i. taking a trophy from an animal will be acceptable as long as over 60 percent of the animal is used for food


Move to strike. Several animals we send hunters after are not able to be converted into food (Komodo Dragons, for example).

This also would superceed the ability of a nation to send hunters out to remove harmful or dangerous species, which we find unacceptable.



iii) Animal Testing will only take place for medical research
a. Medical Research includes research for medicines or new forms of medical treatment and techniques
b. The animal being used must be provided with the necessities of life, and cared for in the most humane method possible

iv) Animal Sacrifice will be for religious practices only

Modify. We have cultural, non-religious practices which call for animal sacrifices.



a. an animal sacrifice must be done by the most humane method of slaughtering available

This does not respect religions that require animals die in proscribed ways (see also "Voodoo"). Move to strike.



b. an animal sacrifice will not be used for food unless it is sent to a slaughter house to be prepared correctly at the cost of the people involved with the sacrifice

Move to strike - contravenes religious practices.


c. before it is sacrificed, an animal will be protected by the Animal Welfare Act

Ok with this part.

At one point Native Americans were considered 'savages' or less than human. Not that this is comparable to animal abuse, I am merely pointing out that ideas and beliefs can change.

A specious argument. Next you'll be saying that muslims are really human too and christians shouldn't talk about them like that. Would you go so far as to say jews are human too and muslims shouldn't talk about them like that? Really, I don't think anyone here (DLE possibly exempted) is claiming that cruelty to human beings is acceptable. Although, I would have a hard time getting overly worked up about cruelty to one of DLE's vampires. No offense intended, DLE.

Cruelty to animals, as defined by you, is a good thing.

People couldn't afford to eat meat and chicken as regularly if the animals were treated as you seem to think would be humane.

And how would we test our cosmetics for safety? I assure you, I do not jest at all when I say that it's better a thousand rats die in agony than one woman should have her sight permanently impaired by an insufficiently tested eyeliner.

I think it's disgusting that you're talking about this like it's an important issue when there are people dying in the world from man's inhumanity toward man.

Let's try to clear that up a bit first, shall we? Then we can focus the might of the UN on little boys killing frogs.

Cosmetic testing is humane?

I believe nations will be able go without the newest lip gloss for a few more weeks while its tested for any possible harmful substance.

Cosmetic testing is humane?

I believe nations will be able go without the newest lip gloss for a few more weeks while its tested for any possible harmful substance.
Perhaps your nation doesn't depend as heavily on sex tourism as some in my region. Lip gloss is important stuff!

But wait. I looked up humane on thesaurus.com and guess what I found?

compassionate toward impoverished people; released the prisoner for humanitarian reasons; is merciful to the repentant.

What's the common thread here? It's... it's people, isn't it?

Behaving kindly or nastily toward animals has nothing to do with humanism or behaving humanely.

I would define slaughterhouse as "an establishment that kills livestock for commercial purposes". I really don't think that "If a farmer chooses to slaughter his own animals, than yes he will have to be registered and be regularly inspected" is a good idea. There are still a lot of people in the world who slaughter animals they raise themselves for their own consumption, or there might be no registered slaughterhouse within dozens of miles.


ii) Hunters will only be allowed to kill wild animals using guns or crossbows. Traps are not permitted.

a. Hunters will be required to take their kill to a registered Slaughter House at their own cost
b. Hunters who do not take their kill to a registered slaughter house will face the same penalties as a person who commits animal cruelty
c. Hunting shall not be permitted unless the hunter intends to use the animal killed for food

i. taking a trophy from an animal will be acceptable as long as over 60 percent of the animal is used for food
What about bowhunting? This would make anyone who hunts with a bow (and a very, very large number of people do) an instant criminal. I'd like to point out that this would make trapping or poisoning rats and mice illegal. I've lived in a mouse-infested house before, and it is not pleasant.

Second, why the hell should you have to take your kill to a registered slaughterhouse? The animal is already dead, you know. And it's a lot quicker and much cheaper to do it yourself. Most people who hunt clean and butcher their own game, and they do just as good a job as professional butchers.
And what the hell are they supposed to do when they're camping out in the woods and the nearest registered slaughterhouse is over 100 miles away? Are you going to track them down and jail them for eating an animal they killed legally?

Also, there are many animals who need to be killed for various reasons, that aren't going to be used for food. Mice and rats, for example. Coyotes are often killed by farmers when they go after livestock. You aren't going to force us to eat coyotes, are you? Also, prairie dogs are another good example. There are so many of them (mostly because their natural predators were killed off) that they need to be shot to keep the population under control. Prairie dog burrows are more than a nuisance; they can lame horses and other large animals.

The "over 60 percent" thing is bad, too. I'm sure there are times when even less than that can be used for food in the first place. You also don't say who has to eat it. I could bag a trophy deer, butcher it, eat a dinner's worth of meat, and leave the rest in a ditch for scavengers to take care of. It still gets eaten, sooner or later.

Something tells me you've never hunted before.


I'd definitely make sure that these rules don't apply in a survival situation.

And please don't tell me that fish are considered animals...

Perhaps your nation doesn't depend as heavily on sex tourism as some in my region. Lip gloss is important stuff!

But wait. I looked up humane on thesaurus.com and guess what I found?

What's the common thread here? It's... it's people, isn't it?

Behaving kindly or nastily toward animals has nothing to do with humanism or behaving humanely.

Hence the human- bit.

Just wanted to bring up a repeal I proposed that has to do with animal cruelty (because of the subject at hand.) It is to repeal "Definition of Marriage" because of its allowance of unregulated bestiality, which obviously is not good for the animals. This is due to animal mental and physical injury from such acts and the lack of logic an animal has to make such serious decisions (a la marriage, interspecies relations.) It is like the resolution regarding pedophilia because children are obviously not the agressors but the victims in all situations of pedophiliac acts.
Since, the other parts of resolution are all ready in other resolution, its sole doing (the repeal that is) is to stop the possiblity of abuse of animals.

I know this is taking away from the bill's discussion just wanted to mention it...it has a few errors in it to but hey the UN doesn't really seem to care about that kind of stuff...:)

A specious argument. Next you'll be saying that muslims are really human too and christians shouldn't talk about them like that. Would you go so far as to say jews are human too and muslims shouldn't talk about them like that? Really, I don't think anyone here (DLE possibly exempted) is claiming that cruelty to human beings is acceptable. Although, I would have a hard time getting overly worked up about cruelty to one of DLE's vampires. No offense intended, DLE.

Cruelty to animals, as defined by you, is a good thing.

People couldn't afford to eat meat and chicken as regularly if the animals were treated as you seem to think would be humane.

And how would we test our cosmetics for safety? I assure you, I do not jest at all when I say that it's better a thousand rats die in agony than one woman should have her sight permanently impaired by an insufficiently tested eyeliner.

I think it's disgusting that you're talking about this like it's an important issue when there are people dying in the world from man's inhumanity toward man.

Let's try to clear that up a bit first, shall we? Then we can focus the might of the UN on little boys killing frogs.

Wow, I am literaly stunned by this post.

Firstly, my intention was not compare the suffering of a people to the suffering of animals - as I mentioned in my first reply - but to point out that belief systems do change, as I also said in my previous post.

To speak up for Christians, I am fairly sure that they do not share your views that they believe muslims to be inhuman, and I'm sure muslims will also take offence to your generalized view of their "hate for jews". Stereotyping a people based on their religion, gender, or race is what we are trying to put a stop to, here at the UN (at least I am, anyway) - why not extend that to species?

It is probably inneffective to waste my time debating this with you. Although I do want to change your mind on this matter, I fear that you will only react with hostility and slanderous remarks against people who may not even be involved in this matter.

This resolution is about animal rights, if you agree to the idea than please help me specify and mold it into a working resolution, if you disagree than tell me why and what - if anything - I could do to change the resolution to accomidate your nation. If you have nothing productive to share, than please either say nothing at all or email me privately at courtneykelly1@yahoo.ca so that you do not offend anybody here and begin a counterproductive and pointless argument.

I appologize if I sound a bit terse, but I am deeply offended by this reply and it is hard to remove emotion from this reponse.

Just wanted to bring up a repeal I proposed that has to do with animal cruelty (because of the subject at hand.) It is to repeal "Definition of Marriage" because of its allowance of unregulated bestiality, which obviously is not good for the animals.


I will notify my region about this proposal, and see if my regional delegate will support you. I, for one, do support this repeal whole heartedly, and would have approved of this proposal if I was a delegate.

Do point out the "unregulated beastiality" - After you read the discussion thread of the original proposal and remove your foot from your mouth.

What about bowhunting? This would make anyone who hunts with a bow (and a very, very large number of people do) an instant criminal. I'd like to point out that this would make trapping or poisoning rats and mice illegal. I've lived in a mouse-infested house before, and it is not pleasant.


If you had read through the replies you would have noticed my intent to change 'guns and crossbows' to strickly 'weapons'.

I'd like to point out that this would make trapping or poisoning rats and mice illegal. I've lived in a mouse-infested house before, and it is not pleasant.
Also, there are many animals who need to be killed for various reasons, that aren't going to be used for food. Mice and rats, for example. Coyotes are often killed by farmers when they go after livestock. You aren't going to force us to eat coyotes, are you? Also, prairie dogs are another good example. There are so many of them (mostly because their natural predators were killed off) that they need to be shot to keep the population under control. Prairie dog burrows are more than a nuisance; they can lame horses and other large animals.

Read the clause about Dangerous Animals. If you had read through the replies you would have known that I have already dealt with this matter. Please read the replies before you post.

Something tells me you've never hunted before.

Actually, I have. This is probably why I didn't think I had to state the obvious about hunting.

As a hunter, I do not believe in traps because they can unintentionally catch an animal which you did not intend - such as a bear cub, or perhaps the neighbours dog.

And as a Cherokee hunter, I was also taught to use almost 100 percent of the prey I have killed so I think sixty pecent is more than leniant. This is sixty percent of the total body mass. I will specify that the food will not be thrown away so carelessly. I thought this was obvious, as well, considering that hunting only be allowed for food purposes. Hunting just to kill stuff is not allowed, sorry.

And Yes, fish are considered animals.

In reply to Vastiva - Please read all replies before posting. I would love to hear your point of view based on these replies, and with expanded responses if you have time.

Do point out the "unregulated beastiality" - After you read the discussion thread of the original proposal and remove your foot from your mouth.

I am not sure who this is directed to, but I will respond. I have read the resolution for the definition of marriage, and I do not agree with allowing the individual nation to decide whether beastiality is an allowed practice or not - whether regulated or unregulated.

Discussion and debate about a proposal is intended to shape a possible resolution into something agreeable, or to throw it out all together. After the resolution has passed, any past discussions about the resolution does not count.

If discussions did effect a proposal after it is voted to a resolution than it is pointless to pass anything as there will always be somebody who opposes all or part of a proposal, and that opposition would be available to lean on for the nation who does not wish to comply with the new resolution. Or, an infraction against Game Mechanics.

Err...if fish are protected under this, then you've just banned the use of a MASSIVE food source...Since virtually all fish are caught in traps, rather than killed with weapons...

Err...if fish are protected under this, then you've just banned the use of a MASSIVE food source...Since virtually all fish are caught in traps, rather than killed with weapons...

*sigh*

There are so many people which treat this resolution as if I have already implemented it - bypassing the entire UN - and everyone now has starving nations on their hands.

I am trying to write a resolution. My first, I might add. I will thank you for your note to include fishing. I am sorry, I probably shouldn't respond to this right now as I am tired.

This is a very large task to create an act to protect animals as well as maintain a standard of living and economy, and I greatly appreciate the help.

I think I shall go to bed now, and respond to everything tomorrow when I am less tired and more patient.

Please keep the suggestions coming, I would love for this proposal to work out. Everybody has been so helpful, and I have only been a member for four days.

I adore this game!


Thanks again,

This is a very large task to create an act to protect animals as well as maintain a standard of living and economy, and I greatly appreciate the help.

Definitely, and I personally think you've doing a great job thus far. Keep it up!

I don't have any specific problems or suggestions but there was a draft for an Animal-tailored proposal not too long ago called the Animal Protection Act by Hersfold. I thought it was really well written, and tried to telegram for it one of its times through. Unfortunately my efforts were limited due to other things going on in life, and Hersfold's proposal never made it to quorum.

It might help to take a gander at some of the ideas and discussions that came forward during its drafting. The link is right here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=373778)

Once the drafting is complete, the work of getting enough approvals starts--it's a whole different kettle of fish. I'd be happy to tell you what I know about it.

Good Luck!

I don't know about you, but my nation is dealing with a massive Headcrab infestation, these Headcrabs pose no threat to our nation's people due to heavy military patrols over populated areas and a guarded wall blocking off the infested area. However, they are starting to destroy the population of other animals outside the wall. If we do not stop them our entire ecosystem will be in ruins and we will never be able to recover. We do not have the time or the money to quell them using the "Humane Method". I would suggest that you allow the killing of predatory animals that threaten the existence of other species.

Facdomint, please read all replies before posting. The problem with dangerous animals has already been addressed.


PowerHungry Chipmunks, thank you for your kind words of encouragement and the link to the previous propsal for animal welfare. I will read it through, and respond later in the day.


Thanks again,