Animal Protection Act [LAW'D]

[Badger]

I assume Section 2 is supposed to read Atlasia and not the Mideast?

I would like clarification regarding Sections 2 and 3. Do the abuses listed in Section 3 apply to animals slaughtered for food or are those animals exempt from them?

Yes, you are correct. Badger and I did this together, and we ended up taking part of the Mideast act on it and changing it to nationally.

Section 2 states specifically that "Killing Animals for food" is perfectly legal, and from section 3, that is okay as long as you do not torture the animal in any way while raising it. So slaughtering animals for food would be considered legal.

So the bill allows an animal to be humanely slaughtered for food, but still bans the listed abuses up until that point, correct?

In this case I have several further questions regarding animals raised for food. If depriving an animal of necessary sustenance is banned, what will such animals they fed? Currently, many (if not most) are fed unnatural diets including soy and corn that results in them being sick. To me, this would be a clear case of being denied necessary sustenance. But is it so under this bill?

I also consider kosher and halal slaughter practices to be an inhumane and unnecessary form of mutilation. Would these forms of slaughter still be legal if this bill were passed?

Decent questions, Bgwah. I'll speak for Tmthforu and myself in briefly answering them as "no".

A soy and corn diet making cows "sick" is somewhat debatable. While grass-fed beef may be somewhat healthier (though usually tougher), feeding cattle and other livestock such a diet would not constitute animal cruelty as defined by this act. Starving animals would.

Likewise, the law would not define kosher or halal slaughter practices as "inhumane" or (key word) "unnecessary". First from my brief research it appears there is no firm consensus kosher slaughter practices are notably less humane than industry standard slaughter methods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher#Animal_welfare (Note the Cornell Veterinary School study. FWIW, Cornell is to Vets what Harvard Medical is to doctors---the best school in the country, if not the world.)

Secondly I would submit such practices are "necessary" as it constitutes part of reasonable widespread religious practices under governing law (using RL as a model in the absence of firm Atlasian precedent).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_ritual_slaughter#United_States

So I don't think the first issue re: non-grass animal diets would apply here. That may be a subject for later legislation. I believe the statements here establish sufficient legislative intent which, combined with the clear language of the proposal, would not permit this portion of the act to be misinterpreted to prohibit acts beyond starving animals.

On the second issue you raise a good point. The overwhelming importance of free religious expression makes it better to accept these practices some might find distasteful than to restrict such fundamental religious practice for millions in this country. Therefore, I offer the following amendment to avoid such misapplication of this law.

"10. No method of slaughtering or handling in connection with slaughtering shall be deemed to violate this act unless it is inhumane. Slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of any religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering is not inhumane for purposes of this act."

Accepted as friendly, Isaac?

[Badger]

1. Atlasia recognizes animal cruelty as the following: a. Neglect b. Malicious killing c. Beatings d. Animal Fighting ie Dog fight, cock fight.

2. The Mideast doesn't recognizes the following as animal cruelty: a. Hunting for food or sport b. Killing Animals for food.

I fail to see why hunting for sport should be acceptable and cock fighting unacceptable.

Several reasons:

> Hunting is an act of achieving sustenance followed for thousands of years (yes, today we have the Piggly Wiggly, but some families supplement their diet with hunting, and just try finding venison in a grocery). Cockfighting and the like appeals to pure sadism with no redeeming societal benefits whatsoever, rather only providing a revenue source to criminal gangs.

> Hunting generally does not involve a prolonged suffering and death by the animal. Yes, there is the occasional less-than-clean kill, but that is accidental on the part of the hunter who wants a clean, quick kill. Dog fighting and cock fighting by definition involve intensely prolonged pain, suffering and agony for the animals involved, even the surviving "winners".

>  Hunting today provides a crucial ecological balance. Human activities have largely decimated game predators such as wolves in the last two centuries. For example, biologists estimate there is currently a larger deer population in Pennsylvania today than prior to European colonization. Without controlled hunting seasons the population of deer and other game would soon undergo massive overpopulation followed by mass starvation, and play absolute hell with the ecosystem in the meantime. (Note, this is not to justify occasions were hunting laws have been driven by political concerns rather than wildlife management and biological diversity, such as wolf hunting in some western states. These sad incidents shouldn't be lumped in with hunting as a responsible tool of wildlife management.) Dogfighting and cockfighting obviously offer no such benefit whatsoever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I admit much of the language from this section was lifted directly from the Ohio Revised Code, and I'm not aware of any RL problems arising from the use of this term being too vague. Still, I'm sure Isaac and I would be open to any suggestions here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although again I'm not aware of any difficulties arising in RL from this language, you make a good point here. I have no doubt you're smarter than most our state's legislature, Al. As long as Isaac agrees, I have no problem with adding "immediately" as you suggested.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A court could (and probably often would) include this condition as part of any sentence, which would be in effect as long as the subject was under court jurisdiction through probation/parole/post-release control. This status can last for years after sentencing and/or release from incarceration. IMHO, this case by case application by the courts is preferable as I'm leery about most sentencing provisions that are both mandatory and lifetime.

[Badger]

I'm sorry Bacon King, but this bill does require an amendment.  Section 2 identifies "the Mideast", where it appears "Atlasia" was the intended text.  I believe this was brought up previously in discussion, but the change was never made.  I request a halt to the vote so this change can be written into the bill.

I thought amendment of that typo had been accepted as friendly?

[Badger]

Once again we find that instead of lobbying Regional gov'ts to make reform we see an attempt to take a bill from one region and enforce it at the national level. I don't see a purpurse in getting the federal gov't involved in this so:

NAY

Nice of you to join us, after the final vote started...

It kind of bugs me that you won't express your concerns before the vote, to give supporters of this bill a chance to answer your concerns. Badger and I, as co-author's, don't know your problems with it if you just stay mum until the vote.

I agree, and this same complaint could be made regarding several votes here. Seriously, Bgwah may've been the only senator to express concerns on the bill and now it's in danger of failing? C'mon, people. Isn't it appropriate to express some concern about a bill on the Senate floor before it comes to a vote?

AYE.

[Badger]

As much as I support the idea of protecting animals, I don't really feel like this bill does anything. Furthermore, I highly doubt it is an improvement over existing laws. Therefore I'm going to have to have to abstain on this bill.

Could you elaborate, Bgwah? IMHO the bill actually seems quite comprehensive in outlawing animal cruelty.

[Badger]

Well I always thought the Schools were purposely indoctrinating the kiddies to love furry creatures a little more then they otherwise would or should (to further the enviro-facist adjenda). I must say, I find it this whole thing lolish for that reason, forgive me while I ROTFLOL.

What is an enviro-fascist?

Extreme Environmentalism to the point of wanting to destroy and as Obama's technology Tsar said "de-industrialize" America, which in my opinion is just a stalking horse for socialism. Carbon taxes, Cap-n-trade, and draconing restrictions that make certain economic activities impossible even if they could benefit the local environment or the environment in general. Such has holding up the building of a Hydro-plant for a fish or relatively safe offshore drilling of Natural Gas and oil but especially the Natural Gas from which the revenues and taxes can be put into conservation efforts. Forcing people to buy or preventing them from buying certain things to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by like .0001%.

This is not to be confused with reasonable efforst to conserve resources, protect wildlife (that are trully in danger), and moves towards greater efficiency. Its up to the individual to judge the differences. The best way to improve efficiency and reduce emissions and waste is technological advancement not policies that sacrifice much for little gain.

With respect, Yank, I don't begin to see how this particular bill can be remotely compared to "enviro-facism" as you define it.

[Badger]

It appears that the primary concern against this bill is a sense that this is somehow an issue that regional governments should address rather than the federal government preempting law entirely. Regardless of any federal vs. regional debate, I'm willing to concede the issue for this bill and offer the following amendment to make this a bill that will spur and encourage legislative activity at the regional level rather than inhibit it.

I realize a vote on the final bill has already started, but considering no senator but Bgwah even bothered to express their concerns about the bill before voting started, I sincerely hope that if this amendment is acceptable to the Senate then we can waive objections and merely vote on the amendment and final bill on a simple up or down vote. Considering the pre-vote silence from those with concerns over the bill which, if timely raised, could have led to a pre-vote amendment addressing those concerns, waiving such procedural objections is hardly much to ask.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Accepted as friendly, Isaac?

[Badger]

It appears that the primary concern against this bill is a sense that this is somehow an issue that regional governments should address rather than the federal government preempting law entirely. Regardless of any federal vs. regional debate, I'm willing to concede the issue for this bill and offer the following amendment to make this a bill that will spur and encourage legislative activity at the regional level rather than inhibit it.

I realize a vote on the final bill has already started, but considering no senator but Bgwah even bothered to express their concerns about the bill before voting started, I sincerely hope that if this amendment is acceptable to the Senate then we can waive objections and merely vote on the amendment and final bill on a simple up or down vote. Considering the pre-vote silence from those with concerns over the bill which, if timely raised, could have led to a pre-vote amendment addressing those concerns, waiving such procedural objections is hardly much to ask.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Accepted as friendly, Isaac?

Accepted as friendly. I just sincerely hope the regions can act quickly on this, if it passes. Although, it'd be nice to push up the deadline on this from September. How about July? That would give them an entire 2 months, at least. It shouldn't take any region 4 months to pass a bill.

2 or 4 months is fine with me either way. Maybe split the difference at 3 just in case? I'm fine anyway as long as at least 6 senators agree on it.

Feel free to amend the amendment I proposed. As you're the official sponser, any amendment you make is automatically incorportated as friendly.

[Badger]

Whoah now, hold on here. There's absolutely no way we can go back to debate guys. I'm sorry. If you like that bill enough the only procedural way we can amend this now is by passing the current bill, having afleitch veto-amend the bill to be like so, and for us to then accept his alterations.

Can we do that?
I expect this to easily pass now, as several voters claimed this was all about "regional rights", and this amendment would take wipe out the arguement. I'm asking that several Senators flip their votes if they support this amendment, so we can get it passed, then vetoed, then repassed under the proposed amendment.

Yeah, I'm game for this as long as a majority of senators and the president are on board.

[Badger]

AYE.

ftr, Mr. President, it was my and Senator Tmthforu's intent that soaps/shampoos for such conditions as eczema and psoriasis be categorized as "medicinal" under the original bill's language, but your proposed changes are acceptable nonetheless.

[Badger]

x Afleitch

Thank you, Mr. President.

[Badger]

Section 3B, it seems kinda eco-nutty and liberal to me. Sorry, but the government doesn't have the right to tell someone they can't have a pet because they can't afford it. REPEAL.

Uh yeah it does. Owning a pet doesn't give one the right to starve it or deprive it of basic shelter or water. That's called "neglect".

As far as "eco-nutty" or "liberal", 3B is taken almost verbatim (other than the addition of "immediately") from Ohio state law. My state is decidedly neither when it comes to restricting farmers' operations.