Animal Protection Act [LAW'D]

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Tmthforu94

(this goes in slot two)

[bgwah]

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?

[tmthforu94]

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.

[bgwah]

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?

[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?

[bgwah]

"Religion" shouldn't be an excuse for inhumane practices.

The vast majority of animal abuse happens to animals raised for food. Perhaps a better name for this bill would be the "Cute Pets Protection Bill".

[tmthforu94]

I accept Badger's amendment as friendly.

[Bacon King]

I accept Badger's amendment as friendly.

So noted; Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'Wholesome' is a rather nebulous term that means different things to different people. Need to tighten that up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'Immediately' needs to be added before 'prior' or this bill would be a bit of a joke, frankly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which means that the production of veal will become illegal in Atlasia. Good.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...and be banned from keeping animals in the future...

[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.

[Bacon King]

Bgwah (or anyone else for that matter), would you care to offer any amendments? Otherwise, this can go to a final vote.

[bgwah]

I doubt anything I would like to add would have any chance of passing, so no, I have no amendments to offer.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

This bill is, well, interesting.

[Bacon King]

This bill is now at a final vote. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain. For your convenience, the entire text is quoted below.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[k-onmmunist]

Nay

[tmthforu94]

Aye

[Fritz]

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.

[tmthforu94]

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 contacted Bacon King, asking him to change that, but in order to do so, would he have to restart the vote as well?

[Hans-im-Glück]

NAY

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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 contacted Bacon King, asking him to change that, but in order to do so, would he have to restart the vote as well?

Yes he would.

[tmthforu94]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

Well sorry, I have been busy these last few days.

Also, it is hardly something you can amend.

[bgwah]

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.

[tmthforu94]

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.

Well sorry, I have been busy these last few days.

Also, it is hardly something you can amend.

You could at least give us an opportunity to defend ourselves before making a decision...
In the real world, I would never introduce this on a national level, and leave it to states. However, not all regions on Atlasia are active. You may say "leave it to the regions", but most regions won't do anything at all. So we have to intervene and create it for them.