NationStates Jolt Archive

“Respect for Animals”

Description:
For some time Animals have suffered for “entertainment”, “scientific” and a numerous amount of other reasons. In a civilised age we should recognise the simple fact that animals feel the same emotions as humans including, pain, fear, anxiety and even depression. But because of the fact that animals are not as “intelligent” as humans are, they are mistreated (by some).

It is also recognised that in some extreme cases, that a cull of animals may be necessary i.e. in case of possible viral contamination that may threaten the species of said animal or human.

However the main point still stands that there is needless animal suffering going on. This act proposes that such said the UN classes needless suffering as illegal.


Proposing that:

Article 1:
ALL sports which intentionally result in animals either:
a) Suffering
b) Being injured either: Slightly, Moderately or Seriously
c) Ending with the death of an animal
d) Causing the animal any negative or mentally damaging emotions such as and including: Anxiety, Depression, Despair, Dismay, Distress, Fear, Pain, Panic, Terror and Suffering.

Will be banned.
Examples include: Fighting (which include animals fighting people i.e. Bull Fighting, Animals fighting each other i.e. cock/dog fighting and different species of animals fighting i.e. Bear Baiting) and Hunting (including Fox, Bird, Seal, Deer, Whale, Dolphin and Bear hunting).

Article 2:
ANIMALS may NOT be killed so their bones, organs or any other part of their body can be used for “traditional” medicines or any other type of medicine or treatment.


Article 3:
ANIMALS may not be killed for their skins, pelts, fur, ivory, blubber, ink, or any other reason that is for purely decorative or cosmetic reasons. Also animals may not be used to test cosmetic products, such as shampoo, lipstick, etc.


Article 4:
THE use of animals for “scientific” reason should be heavily regulated and controlled by an “Independent Scientific Body” (referred to as "ISB" from now on). The “ISB” would have to authorise EVERY scientific experiment that will involve any testing on animals regardless of whether the animal needs to be dead or alive.
The “ISB” will have to consider a number of factors before permission is granted for the scientific experiment to proceed. Including:
a) Will the experiment result in animal suffering for any period of time?
b) Is the experiment feasible?
c) Will the experiment give results that would greatly benefit the scientific community?
d) Will the experiment give results that could lead to a cure for a disease?
e) Could the experiment wield the same results if animals were not used?


Article 5:
ANY event that results in the death of any animal will be investigated and legal action will be taken if the investigation proves that the animal was killed purposely. An independent body may have to be assembled to head such investigations.


Article 6:
Animals may be killed:
a) In self-defence or to defend others in the veracity.
b) To prevent the spread of diseases or other contaminates to other animals of the same or of different spices including humans.

Article 7:
ANIMALS may be killed for food as long as:
a) they are killed quickly, cleaning and humanely resulting in the animal suffering as little as possible
b) the animal is not endangered

Also animals may be kept and farmed for other products (Milk, Eggs, Etc) as long as they not mistreated or harmed.

Let me know if you would vote “For” or “Against” on this proposal.

Would also appreciate any comments about it and any suggested changes.

“Respect for Animals”

Description:
For some time Animals have suffered for “entertainment”, “scientific” and a numerous amount of other reasons. In a civilised age we should recognise the simple fact that animals feel the same emotions as humans including, pain, fear, anxiety and even depression. But because of the fact that animals are not as “intelligent” as humans are, they are mistreated (by some).

No problem. As soon as we get a medical system in place, we will use the humans who are weakest for testing experimental medications on. If they die, so what? At least a few animals are saved.

It is also recognised that in some extreme cases, that a cull of animals may be necessary i.e. in case of possible viral contamination that may threaten the species of said animal or human.

Or, say, the animals are overpopulated.

However the main point still stands that there is needless animal suffering going on. This act proposes that such said the UN classes needless suffering as illegal.

Go back to what I said about medications.

Proposing that:

Article 1:
ALL sports which intentionally result in animals either:
a) Suffering
b) Being injured either: Slightly, Moderately or Seriously
c) Ending with the death of an animal
d) Causing the animal any negative or mentally damaging emotions such as and including: Anxiety, Depression, Despair, Dismay, Distress, Fear, Pain, Panic, Terror and Suffering.

Will be banned.
Examples include: Fighting (which include animals fighting people i.e. Bull Fighting, Animals fighting each other i.e. cock/dog fighting and different species of animals fighting i.e. Bear Baiting) and Hunting (including Fox, Bird, Seal, Deer, Whale, Dolphin and Bear hunting).

No problem. We'll just let them starve when they get overpopulated.

Article 2:
ANIMALS may NOT be killed so their bones, organs or any other part of their body can be used for “traditional” medicines or any other type of medicine or treatment.

Let's take a look at how this affects the Jones family:

Why, yes, Mrs. Jones, we do have to take Bobby, infect him with AIDS, and inject experimental and potentially deadly medicines into him. The UN won't let us do it to animals. What's that, Mrs. Jones? You don't like this? I'm sorry, but you'll have to complain to the UN about it. Bobby, come along, as it's time for you to die slowly while we are constantly injecting in very painful ways.

Article 3:
ANIMALS may not be killed for their skins, pelts, fur, ivory, blubber, ink, or any other reason that is for purely decorative or cosmetic reasons. Also animals may not be used to test cosmetic products, such as shampoo, lipstick, etc.

What's that, Mrs. Jones? Your pet died because foresyne is poisonous to their species? I'm sorry, but we're not allowed to test cosmetics on pets. Talk to the UN about it.

Article 4:
THE use of animals for “scientific” reason should be heavily regulated and controlled by an “Independent Scientific Body” (referred to as "ISB" from now on). The “ISB” would have to authorise EVERY scientific experiment that will involve any testing on animals regardless of whether the animal needs to be dead or alive.
The “ISB” will have to consider a number of factors before permission is granted for the scientific experiment to proceed. Including:
a) Will the experiment result in animal suffering for any period of time?
b) Is the experiment feasible?
c) Will the experiment give results that would greatly benefit the scientific community?
d) Will the experiment give results that could lead to a cure for a disease?
e) Could the experiment wield the same results if animals were not used?

So, you are not going to allow any experiments because all can get the same results if humans are used instead.

I'm sorry, Mrs. Jones, but we now need your daughter to test an experimental heart replacement on. We would use animals, but because we can get the same results using humans, we were not allowed to do it. Oh, don't worry, we've never done this before and have no idea whether or not your daughter will live. What's that? You don't like it? Well, talk to the UN.

Article 5:
ANY event that results in the death of any animal will be investigated and legal action will be taken if the investigation proves that the animal was killed purposely. An independent body may have to be assembled to head such investigations.

Article 6:
Animals may be killed:
a) In self-defence or to defend others in the veracity.
b) To prevent the spread of diseases or other contaminates to other animals of the same or of different spices including humans.

So, what about if the animal is suffering from, say, cancer? We must let them die a horrible death?

I'm sorry, Mrs. Jones, but your cat cannot be humanely put down. The UN won't allow it. So what if the cat was run over a car and will live a short and horrible existance? Wait, Mrs. Jones, I don't think shooting up the UN building is a good idea...

Article 7:
ANIMALS may be killed for food as long as:
a) they are killed quickly, cleaning and humanely resulting in the animal suffering as little as possible
b) the animal is not endangered

Also animals may be kept and farmed for other products (Milk, Eggs, Etc) as long as they not mistreated or harmed.

Okay, Article 7 I agree with. Make the "Also" 7c.

No. While I would agree with banning of sports based on animal suffering as they have no benefit, the benefits of animal testing are far too great, for human and animal alike. Youyr dog would not have his shots if there had been no animal experimentation.

The Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii teaches that animals are part of the harmonious Nature that manifests from the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp) and are therefore to be treated with respect. Because of this, Our nation has been given the jihi code, which places considerable restrictions on the possession, use, husbandry, slaughter and consumption of animals and their byproducts.

That said, We cannot support this resolution, for it is too broad and too vague in its otherwise well-meaning intent. It overreaches, with harmful if unintended consequences. For example, it would outlaw all hunting and fishing, depriving Our nation of a major source of food.

Listeneisse reserves the rights of traditional hunting to those who meet Royal Approval. It is to follow various rules developed over time for the safety of the hunters, their beasts (horses and hounds), as well as for the hunted animals themselves.

For instance, we tend to choose animals already near the end of their life, but hopefully before such infirmities of age might make the chase utterly agonizing for them. Such are left to pass naturally from the world, often succumbing to other wild creatures to feast on. Our Royal Foresters track the populations and pick individuals appropriate for hunting, and point those out to the licensed huntsmen.

While we permit 'shooting hunts' with small arms for certain beasts (birds mostly), the hunts for boar or deer tend to be with traditional weapons: spears and arrows.

We feel it's far less demeaning for a wild creature to have a chance to flee than to cage it so it cannot move but only eat from a feed bin until it is slaughtered. Sometimes they harm the rider or their mount, but we permit the wearing of protective gambesons, a hard riding cap to protect from falls, various guards for extremities and padded barding for the horses. It is not what we consider 'sporting' to go hunting in heavy armor, though.

Anyone dressed in too heavy armor is chided that they belong in the lists for a proper tourney. Which is another sport which we still practice, much like these various 'Renaissance Faires' held in various places. What for them is novel 'reenactment' is still our national sport. (I still don't understand why they don't call them properly 'medieval faires,' but that's besides the point.)

Any sport, by the very nature of its uncertainty can lead a creature (human or otherwise) to feel "negative or mentally damaging emotions such as and including: Anxiety, Depression, Despair, Dismay, Distress, Fear, Pain, Panic, Terror and Suffering."

All of these emotions are natural. And it is part of the intent of many competitive sports to inflict these emotions tactically to cause others to back down or perform suboptimally. The trick is: do you give in?

Even to 'break' a horse so it will permit a rider to mount it causes the horse dismay and fear, panic and terror. In time, it passes, and the horse accepts that we are trying to partner with it, not slay it. Yet should we therefore give up horseback riding?

Is this the nature of 'sport' itself that causes the emotion, or is it that some creatures might exhibit these feelings in any competetive situation?

Perhaps you should coach a young adult's soccer or field hockey team.

While we desire animals to be treated humanely, there is a word called 'coddling' which I believe you should look up.

FOR




Article 1:
ALL sports which intentionally result in animals either:
a) Suffering
b) Being injured either: Slightly, Moderately or Seriously
c) Ending with the death of an animal
d) Causing the animal any negative or mentally damaging emotions such as and including: Anxiety, Depression, Despair, Dismay, Distress, Fear, Pain, Panic, Terror and Suffering.



First "such as and including" in d) should be changed to "such as but not limited to.


THE use of animals for “scientific” reason should be heavily regulated and controlled by an “Independent Scientific Body” (referred to as "ISB" from now on). The “ISB” would have to authorize EVERY scientific experiment that will involve any testing on animals regardless of whether the animal needs to be dead or alive.
The “ISB” will have to consider a number of factors before permission is granted for the scientific experiment to proceed. Including:
a) Will the experiment result in animal suffering for any period of time?
b) Is the experiment feasible?
c) Will the experiment give results that would greatly benefit the scientific community?
d) Will the experiment give results that could lead to a cure for a disease?
e) Could the experiment wield the same results if animals were not used?

Rather than an "Independent Scientific Body" make a UN council for it, so that you can control who's on it.


Article 5:
ANY event that results in the death of any animal will be investigated and legal action will be taken if the investigation proves that the animal was killed purposely. An independent body may have to be assembled to head such investigations.

So if I hit a deer with my car, you’re going to investigate if I killed it on purpose? Come on, this Article needs to go.


Article 6:
Animals may be killed:
a) In self-defense or to defend others in the veracity.
b) To prevent the spread of diseases or other contaminates to other animals of the same or of different spices including humans.

So if a dog attacks me I can kill it later because I was afraid it would attack again. You could say that was in the defense of others. I know, I'm playing devils advocate here, but I really want this to pass.

I think LV pretty much summarized my sentiments for it. I agree that hunting for sport is debatable, but outside that, REJECTED.

No problem. As soon as we get a medical system in place, we will use the humans who are weakest for testing experimental medications on. If they die, so what? At least a few animals are saved.

I’m not asking for 100% ban on animal testing. I’m suggesting that and independent body is set up to closely monitor animal testing. Maybe you should read the whole proposal before posting?


Or, say, the animals are overpopulated.

I would like to hear a single case of animal “overpopulation”.


No problem. We'll just let them starve when they get overpopulated.

Again name one case of animal overpopulation. And if we are starving how can their numbers increase?


Let's take a look at how this affects the Jones family:

Why, yes, Mrs. Jones, we do have to take Bobby, infect him with AIDS, and inject experimental and potentially deadly medicines into him. The UN won't let us do it to animals. What's that, Mrs. Jones? You don't like this? I'm sorry, but you'll have to complain to the UN about it. Bobby, come along, as it's time for you to die slowly while we are constantly injecting in very painful ways.

This is stupid. I'm not suggesting that we abduct people and purposely infect them. Two points about this: 1) I think i'll mention again i'm not asking for a 100% ban on animal testing 2) People do actually volunteer for testing and i doubt we would have to infect somebody to test a vaccine on them as there are a lot of people already infected.



So, you are not going to allow any experiments because all can get the same results if humans are used instead.

I'm sorry, Mrs. Jones, but we now need your daughter to test an experimental heart replacement on. We would use animals, but because we can get the same results using humans, we were not allowed to do it. Oh, don't worry, we've never done this before and have no idea whether or not your daughter will live. What's that? You don't like it? Well, talk to the UN.

Again, actually READ the whole proposal before commenting!


I'm sorry, Mrs. Jones, but your cat cannot be humanely put down. The UN won't allow it. So what if the cat was run over a car and will live a short and horrible existance? Wait, Mrs. Jones, I don't think shooting up the UN building is a good idea...

Point taken.


Liliths Vengeance and anybody else who thinks i want a 100% band on animal testing should look at article 4.
I'm suggesting that an independent body be set up to control and monitor animal testing.

Changes to the resolution so far:

*Delted Article 5.
*Delted Article 4 a) and e)
*Wording on Article 1 changed. Instead of reading "such as and including" it now reads "such as but not limited to"
*Extra points added to Article 6, which now reads as:

Article 6:
Animals may be killed:
a) In self-defence or to defend others in the veracity.
b) To prevent the spread of diseases or other contaminates to other animals of the same or of different spices including humans.
c) If the animal is deemed dangerous to the general public.
d) If said animal is ill, fatally injured or is suffering. Then it can be put down.


I think i should mention again that i'm not asking for a 100% ban on animal testing, just that it be regulated and monitored.

I’m not asking for 100% ban on animal testing. I’m suggesting that and independent body is set up to closely monitor animal testing. Maybe you should read the whole proposal before posting?

I did. There is nothing in the proposal to suggest anything but a complete ban on animal testing would result. Even if not a literal ban, the questions you have set up leave a problem of the fact that two out of the five questions will invariably be answered with a yes, and you have no criteria for how many have to be answered with a yes before the experiment is disallowed. As such, even a single yes would likely result in a disallowment. The problem you face is that no medical experiment actually requires animals to know how it will affect humans, but most use them out of issues of humane treatment of people.

I would like to hear a single case of animal “overpopulation”.

Missouri Department of Conservation has complained about deer overpopulation in the state for about seven years now.

Again name one case of animal overpopulation. And if we are starving how can their numbers increase?

Easily. There is a point of population to starvation ratio that allows for a semi-stable population. Humans actually demonstrate this concept quite well in quite a few nations using their own people.

This is stupid. I'm not suggesting that we abduct people and purposely infect them. Two points about this: 1) I think i'll mention again i'm not asking for a 100% ban on animal testing 2) People do actually volunteer for testing and i doubt we would have to infect somebody to test a vaccine on them as there are a lot of people already infected.

1) Without a qualification on how many of the five criteria must be against the animals before an experiment is disallowed, you effectively are.

2) The problem is that you need a semi-controlled disease spread in order to study how the disease is interacting in the body. This means you need uninfected subjects and need to infect them. Part of the reason for that semi-controlled spread is so that you can have subjects at the same level of infection so that you can test how the drug interacts with that particular point of the infection. If you remove animals, this means people, and the people necessary are not the ones who are going to volunteer.

Again, actually READ the whole proposal before commenting!

See above.

Liliths Vengeance and anybody else who thinks i want a 100% band on animal testing should look at article 4.
I'm suggesting that an independent body be set up to control and monitor animal testing.

And I'm suggesting you need more rules for how they operate. Otherwise, you run into either my situation or a case where they approve everything.

I did. There is nothing in the proposal to suggest anything but a complete ban on animal testing would result. Even if not a literal ban, the questions you have set up leave a problem of the fact that two out of the five questions will invariably be answered with a yes, and you have no criteria for how many have to be answered with a yes before the experiment is disallowed. As such, even a single yes would likely result in a disallowment. The problem you face is that no medical experiment actually requires animals to know how it will affect humans, but most use them out of issues of humane treatment of people.

Obvioulsy you didn't. Were excatly does it say i want or am suggesting a 100% ban on animal testing?
Point taken on Article 4. Will remove points a) and e).



Missouri Department of Conservation has complained about deer overpopulation in the state for about seven years now.

So have the deer been raiding your local supermarkets?

Obvioulsy you didn't. Were excatly does it say i want or am suggesting a 100% ban on animal testing?
Point taken on Article 4. Will remove points a) and e).

Point out where, in my post, did you get the idea "will result" translates to "you said this will result" and please support it.

Without those two, that entire complaint evaporates.

So have the deer been raiding your local supermarkets?

They can't seem to get through the front doors. They have, however, raided lawns on some communities. So much that the local airport used military-trained snipers to keep deer off the runways one year. I ended up killing four does that year, all the while being paid to do it.

On the advice of the health bureau, the eithics comity, the trade bureau, the medical union, the, excuse me *rifles through papers* sorry, all government departments expt Transport and administrative affairs, I must state I would withdraw from the UN should this resolution ever become a reality.

As it stands, this is wellintended but will infrigne on human rights and cuase problems as scientists try to work out what is and is not allowed.

First thing is hunting, that issue could sway people against the bill even if other problems sorted out. I think on the sports front is it should be made humane rather then banned for the most part, Listeneisse is a good example on how hunting can be done.

As to testing, it does need to be made clear which rules are most important and how many of them broken results in it being banned. As it stands, it does look like a 100% ban as others have pointed out.

They have, however, raided lawns on some communities. So much that the local airport used military-trained snipers to keep deer off the runways one year. I ended up killing four does that year, all the while being paid to do it.


Well if you expand into territory occupied by them, then you will have them on your land. If I set up in your backyard then we'd run into each pretty often but that doesn't mean we'd have to shot each other.

If you want to control an animals population, how about the human population? There are more people than animals combined. We are heavily polluting the world and destroying the environment more than animals combined. We are consuming more food than animals combined. We kill more animals and people than animals combined. We are more of a threat to ourselves or any animal.

First thing is hunting, that issue could sway people against the bill even if other problems sorted out. I think on the sports front is it should be made humane rather then banned for the most part, Listeneisse is a good example on how hunting can be done.

Hunting should not be a leisure activity. We should only kill if we really need to; protection or food for example. I don't go out tracking down and shooting people then mount their heads on my wall or skin them and turn them into rugs!
On the sports front if most of the "sports" were made humane then there wouldn't be much point to them. I mean how do you make dog fighting, bear baiting or hare coursing humane? These sports are barbaric.

As to testing, it does need to be made clear which rules are most important and how many of them broken results in it being banned. As it stands, it does look like a 100% ban as others have pointed out.

Good point.
The points i made in article 4 were suggestions and i was hoping people would make constructive comments and hopefully i could write some more concrete, clear suggestions. I have already mentioned that a) and e) would be removed from article 4.

I was waiting until i had more changes to make before i edited or re-published the proposal but it looks like i'll have to do it now.

“Respect for Animals”

Description:
For some time Animals have suffered by the hands of man for “entertainment”, “scientific” and a numerous amount of other reasons. In a civilised age we should recognise the simple fact that animals feel the same emotions as humans including, pain, fear, anxiety and even depression. But because of the fact that animals are not as “intelligent” as humans are, they are treated (by some) as useless objects that purely exist to serve our purposes.

It is also recognised that in some extreme cases, that a cull of animals may be necessary i.e. in case of possible viral contamination that may threaten the species of said animal or human.

However the main point still stands that there is needless animal suffering going on. This act proposes that such said the UN classes needless suffering as illegal.


Proposing that:

Article 1:
ALL sports which intentionally result in animals either:
a) Suffering
b) Being injured either: Slightly, Moderately or Seriously
c) Ending with the death of an animal
d) Causing the animal any negative or mentally damaging emotions such as but not limited to: Anxiety, Depression, Despair, Dismay, Distress, Fear, Pain, Panic, Terror and Suffering.

Will be banned.
Examples include: Fighting (which include animals fighting people i.e. Bull Fighting, Animals fighting each other i.e. cock/dog fighting and different species of animals fighting i.e. Bear Baiting) and Hunting (including Fox, Bird, Seal, Deer, Whale, Dolphin and Bear hunting).


Article 2:
ANIMALS may NOT be killed so their bones, organs or any other part of their body can be used for “traditional” medicines or any other type of medicine or treatment.


Article 3:
ANIMALS may not be killed for their skins, pelts, fur, ivory, blubber, ink, or any other reason that is for purely decorative or cosmetic reasons.


Article 4:
THE use of animals for “scientific” reason should be heavily regulated and controlled by an “Independent Scientific Body” (referred to as ISB from now on). The “ISB” would have to authorise EVERY scientific experiment that will involve any testing on animals regardless of whether the animal needs to be dead or alive.
The “ISB” will have to consider a number of factors before permission is granted for the scientific experiment to proceed. Including:
a) Is the experiment feasible?
b) Will the experiment give results that would greatly benefit the scientific community?
c) Will the experiment give results that could lead to a cure for a disease?

Article 5:
Animals may be killed:
a) In self-defence or to defend others in the veracity.
b) To prevent the spread of diseases or other contaminates to other animals of the same or of different spices including humans.
c) If the animal is deemed dangerous to the general public.
d) If said animal is ill, fatally injured or is suffering. Then it can be put down.

Article 6:
ANIMALS may be killed for food as long as:
a) they are killed quickly, cleaning and humanely resulting in the animal suffering as little as possible
b) the animal is not endangered

Also animals may be kept and farmed for other products (Milk, Eggs, Etc) as long as they not mistreated or harmed.

Here is the amended version.

Again, please let me know if you are "For" or "Against" this and any comments or constructive criticism would be appreciated and taken into consideration.

Pleas read the whole proposal before commenting! :headbang:

Well if you expand into territory occupied by them, then you will have them on your land. If I set up in your backyard then we'd run into each pretty often but that doesn't mean we'd have to shot each other.

This would be true if we actually expanded that far into the wilderness. We haven't. The local deer have a pretty massive amount of space to have a more than healthy population in. They can actually overpopulate the area a small portion and never wander into human areas. The problem is that they have repeatedly gotten over that level and been forced to attempt to expand into human areas. Their population needs to be brought down to a level that is plentiful for the deer and allows them plenty of room to roam as long as humans don't expand farther into their space.

If you want to control an animals population, how about the human population? There are more people than animals combined. We are heavily polluting the world and destroying the environment more than animals combined. We are consuming more food than animals combined. We kill more animals and people than animals combined. We are more of a threat to ourselves or any animal.

Estimated numbers of individual animals are up into a number category we do not currently have a name for.

We could control human populations, but you run into a problem of people not willing to go along with it or trying to cheat the system. Besides, I'm more a fan of keeping both groups balanced.

Any other comments about the Proposal?

“Respect for Animals”

Description:
For some time Animals have suffered by the hands of man for “entertainment”, “scientific” and a numerous amount of other reasons. In a civilised age we should recognise the simple fact that animals feel the same emotions as humans including, pain, fear, anxiety and even depression. But because of the fact that animals are not as “intelligent” as humans are, they are treated (by some) as useless objects that purely exist to serve our purposes.

I would like to know which esteemed scientific publication you draw the conclusion from, that animals feel the same emotions as humans. I was under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that one of the leading differences between humans and the vast majority of other creatures, was their capacity for complex emotional association and logical thought. Sources please.

"It is also recognised that in some extreme cases, that a cull of animals may be necessary i.e. in case of possible viral contamination that may threaten the species of said animal or human.

However the main point still stands that there is needless animal suffering going on. This act proposes that such said the UN classes needless suffering as illegal.


Proposing that:

Article 1:
ALL sports which intentionally result in animals either:
a) Suffering
b) Being injured either: Slightly, Moderately or Seriously
c) Ending with the death of an animal
d) Causing the animal any negative or mentally damaging emotions such as but not limited to: Anxiety, Depression, Despair, Dismay, Distress, Fear, Pain, Panic, Terror and Suffering.

Will be banned.
Examples include: Fighting (which include animals fighting people i.e. Bull Fighting, Animals fighting each other i.e. cock/dog fighting and different species of animals fighting i.e. Bear Baiting) and Hunting (including Fox, Bird, Seal, Deer, Whale, Dolphin and Bear hunting).

The sentiment here is admirable, yet it could be over-interpreted with regards to the "causing the animal any negative or mentally damaging emotions" section. By this standard, one could argue horse-racing is a cruel sport. It is simply too open ended.

Article 2:
ANIMALS may NOT be killed so their bones, organs or any other part of their body can be used for “traditional” medicines or any other type of medicine or treatment.[/B]

It is true that many medicines are fabricated by quacks and have no medicinal value at all. Yet some are quite useful, particularly certain toxins derved from reptiles, i.e. Rattlesnake venom, which is used often as an anti-coagulant.

Article 3:
ANIMALS may not be killed for their skins, pelts, fur, ivory, blubber, ink, or any other reason that is for purely decorative or cosmetic reasons.

Daft and culturally damaging. The real target here should be cruel killings of animals for these reasons, i.e. seal pups murdered for their pelts.


[B]Article 4:
THE use of animals for “scientific” reason should be heavily regulated and controlled by an “Independent Scientific Body” (referred to as ISB from now on). The “ISB” would have to authorise EVERY scientific experiment that will involve any testing on animals regardless of whether the animal needs to be dead or alive.
The “ISB” will have to consider a number of factors before permission is granted for the scientific experiment to proceed. Including:
a) Is the experiment feasible?
b) Will the experiment give results that would greatly benefit the scientific community?
c) Will the experiment give results that could lead to a cure for a disease?
This is rather too restrictive of scientific research for my liking.

Article 5:
Animals may be killed:
a) In self-defence or to defend others in the veracity.
b) To prevent the spread of diseases or other contaminates to other animals of the same or of different spices including humans.
c) If the animal is deemed dangerous to the general public.
d) If said animal is ill, fatally injured or is suffering. Then it can be put down.

Article 6:
ANIMALS may be killed for food as long as:
a) they are killed quickly, cleaning and humanely resulting in the animal suffering as little as possible
b) the animal is not endangered

Also animals may be kept and farmed for other products (Milk, Eggs, Etc) as long as they not mistreated or harmed.

In short, the resolution has good intentions, yet has numerous flaws that compell us to vote against it.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.