Against Shark Finning [WITHDRAWN]

[Phing Phong]

Category: Environmental
Industry affected: All Businesses

DEFINES a shark as an animal belonging to the superorder Selachimorpha

DEFINES shark finning as the practice of catching a shark, removing any fin from the body, and discarding the remaining body, whether dead or alive.

NOTES that the practice of shark finning removes the shark's swimming ability, causing it to slowly die.

NOTES that the practice of shark finning severely affects shark stocks, which in turn damages the marine ecosystem.

CONDEMNS the practice of shark finning as wasteful and cruel.

EMPHASISES that wasteful and cruel practices cannot be defended as culturally based.

RECOGNISES that to prevent the practice of shark finning, controls over the fishing of sharks must be established.

HEREBY:

1)Criminalises the fishing of sharks by any vessel registered to a WA member nation.

2)Criminalises the fishing of sharks by any vessel within the territorial waters of a WA member nation.

3)Criminalises the possession of shark fins.

4)Criminalises trading in shark fins.

5)Establishes a WA organisation, the Shark Protection Bureau, to aid WA member states in enforcing this resolution.

6)Grants the Shark Protection Bureau the authority to advise WA member states on the appropriate penalties for violators of this resolution.

The World Assembly hereby enacts "Against Shark Finning"

Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms? Feedback?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

"Fishing/Fisheries" isn't a valid field for Industry under the Environmental category. Also, there is a much wider agreement on protecting endangered species here.

[Oceanic Vakiadia]

DEFINES shark finning as the practice of catching a shark, removing the dorsal fin from the body, and discarding the remaining body, whether dead or alive.

Erm, no. Shark finning also removes the pectoral fins and caudal fin. This would allow a loophole.

[Morlago]

Category: Environmental
Industry affected: Fishing/Fisheries

No such industry.

DEFINES a shark as an animal belonging to the superorder Selachimorpha

Excuse me. We do not use a Latin coding system for our animals.

DEFINES shark finning as the practice of catching a shark, removing the dorsal fin from the body, and discarding the remaining body, whether dead or alive.

Good definition. EDIT: After hearing what the previous post said, bad definition.

NOTES that the practice of shark finning removes the shark's swimming ability, causing it to slowly die.

Okay.

NOTES that the practice of shark finning severely affects shark stocks, which in turn damages the marine ecosystem.

All of our sharks are in the National Zoo.

CONDEMNS the practice of shark finning as wasteful and cruel.

Really? Some cultures may deem it normal, or like us, do not have sharks in our world at all.

EMPHASISES that wasteful and cruel practices cannot be defended as culturally based.

Cannibalism and gladiator fights are probably deemed cruel by today's standards, but to the Romans and indigenous tribes in South Asia they were perfectly normal and most likely encouraged even.

RECOGNISES that to prevent the practice of shark finning, controls over the fishing of sharks must be established.

OOC: Oh boy...

HEREBY:

1)Criminalises the fishing of sharks by any vessel registered to a WA member nation.

That could majorly affect a nation's economy.

2)Criminalises the fishing of sharks by any vessel within the territorial waters of a WA member nation.

Micromanagement.

3)Criminalises the possession of shark fins.

So even if the shark is dead, I cannot cut of its fin as a decoration for my house? Serious micromanagement.

4)Criminalises trading in shark fins.

Again, nations' economies.

5)Establishes a WA organisation, the Shark Protection Bureau, to aid WA member states in enforcing this resolution.

OOC: Oh great, another useless committee.

6)Grants the Shark Protection Bureau the authority to advise WA member states on the appropriate penalties for violators of this resolution.

We can decide on our own punishments, thank you very much. And what we deem to be cruel and inhumane as well, for that matter.

The World Assembly hereby enacts "Against Shark Finning"

No, we do not.

Overall, this is serious micromanagement and should be shredded, burnt and burnt again so that no one will have the misfortune of laying their eyes upon it again.

[Phing Phong]

"Fishing/Fisheries" isn't a valid field for Industry under the Environmental category. Also, there is a much wider agreement on protecting endangered species here.

Apologies for the first mistake, which field would be more suitable?
As for the endangered species act, while it provides for the protection of endangered shark species, it does not provide for the non-endangered shark species.

DEFINES shark finning as the practice of catching a shark, removing the dorsal fin from the body, and discarding the remaining body, whether dead or alive.

Erm, no. Shark finning also removes the pectoral fins and caudal fin. This would allow a loophole.

Amended in red.

[Diol]

"Fishing/Fisheries" isn't a valid field for Industry under the Environmental category. Also, there is a much wider agreement on protecting endangered species here.

Apologies for the first mistake, which field would be more suitable?
As for the endangered species act, while it provides for the protection of endangered shark species, it does not provide for the non-endangered shark species.

Erm, no. Shark finning also removes the pectoral fins and caudal fin. This would allow a loophole.

Amended in red.

I would say agricultural, but that's "beef based agriculture," for some reason.

[Morlago]

Apologies for the first mistake, which field would be more suitable?
As for the endangered species act, while it provides for the protection of endangered shark species, it does not provide for the non-endangered shark species.



Amended in red.

I would say agricultural, but that's "beef based agriculture," for some reason.

No such industry either. There is only Automobile Manufacturing, Woodchipping, Uranium Mining and All Businesses.

[Phing Phong]

Reply to Morlago. Their comments listed first, mine second.

No such industry.
Removed from the proposal

Excuse me. We do not use a Latin coding system for our animals.
I am not aware of a better coding system.

Good definition. EDIT: After hearing what the previous post said, bad definition.
Language amended to close a loophole.

Okay.
Clarification included for those who may not be aware.

All of our sharks are in the National Zoo.
Then the proposal will not affect your nation.

Really? Some cultures may deem it normal, or like us, do not have sharks in our world at all.
Recognising the practice as cruel is necessary to the resolution. If they do not have sharks, then it does not affect them.


HEREBY:

That could majorly affect a nation's economy.
That is irrelevant.

Micromanagement.
How so?

So even if the shark is dead, I cannot cut of its fin as a decoration for my house? Serious micromanagement.
Again, how so?

Again, nations' economies.
That is irrelevant.

OOC: Oh great, another useless committee.
Opinion.

We can decide on our own punishments, thank you very much. And what we deem to be cruel and inhumane as well, for that matter.
Note "advise".

Overall, this is serious micromanagement and should be shredded, burnt and burnt again so that no one will have the misfortune of laying their eyes upon it again.
Allegations of micromanagement do not mean a proposal is invalid, see the example of resolution #141 - http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... /start=140

[Phing Phong]

I would say agricultural, but that's "beef based agriculture," for some reason.

No such industry either. There is only Automobile Manufacturing, Woodchipping, Uranium Mining and All Businesses.

In that case it would fall under All Businesses.

[Morlago]

My responses in red.

Reply to Morlago. Their comments listed first, mine second.

No such industry.
Removed from the proposal

Excuse me. We do not use a Latin coding system for our animals.
I am not aware of a better coding system.
I am simply pointing out the difference between RL and NS. Some nations may not use the Latin coding system.

Good definition. EDIT: After hearing what the previous post said, bad definition.
Language amended to close a loophole.
Good.

Okay.
Clarification included for those who may not be aware.

All of our sharks are in the National Zoo.
Then the proposal will not affect your nation.

Really? Some cultures may deem it normal, or like us, do not have sharks in our world at all.
Recognising the practice as cruel is necessary to the resolution. If they do not have sharks, then it does not affect them.
If the cultures find them normal, then it would be insulting to deem it cruel.


HEREBY:

That could majorly affect a nation's economy.
That is irrelevant.
How is it irrelevant? Simply your nations does not depend on this industry does not mean that you can ignore those that do and just use an almighty hand to literally swipe them out of existence due to a nonexistent economy.

Micromanagement.
How so?
Because this clearly is not an issue of the WA.

So even if the shark is dead, I cannot cut of its fin as a decoration for my house? Serious micromanagement.
Again, how so?
OOC: Well, probably because you have already banned the fishing and killing of sharks and the trading of shark fins...

Again, nations' economies.
That is irrelevant.
Again, it is.

OOC: Oh great, another useless committee.
Opinion.
OOC: Oh yes, and it would not be just mine.

We can decide on our own punishments, thank you very much. And what we deem to be cruel and inhumane as well, for that matter.
Note "advise".
We do not need gnomes pestering us on what we can decide for ourselves.

Overall, this is serious micromanagement and should be shredded, burnt and burnt again so that no one will have the misfortune of laying their eyes upon it again.
Allegations of micromanagement do not mean a proposal is invalid, see the example of resolution #141 - http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... /start=140
Nobody said it was invalid, and while that resolution was rather micromanaging, having that pass is much less damaging to nations and some could even say it is a right for males.

[Glen-Rhodes]

DEFINES a shark as an animal belonging to the superorder Selachimorpha

Excuse me. We do not use a Latin coding system for our animals.

This doesn't really matter, since your nation is perfectly capable of figuring out what the superorder of Selachimorpha is.

Overall, this is serious micromanagement and should be shredded, burnt and burnt again so that no one will have the misfortune of laying their eyes upon it again.

Fisheries regulation isn't micromanagement. Overfishing has serious global impacts on marine ecosystems.

[Phing Phong]

My responses in red.

Replies in Blue.

Excuse me. We do not use a Latin coding system for our animals.
I am not aware of a better coding system.
I am simply pointing out the difference between RL and NS. Some nations may not use the Latin coding system.
To quote Glen-Rhodes: This doesn't really matter, since your nation is perfectly capable of figuring out what the superorder of Selachimorpha is.

Really? Some cultures may deem it normal, or like us, do not have sharks in our world at all.
Recognising the practice as cruel is necessary to the resolution. If they do not have sharks, then it does not affect them.
If the cultures find them normal, then it would be insulting to deem it cruel.
We believe that this difference of opinion cannot be amended in to the resolution.


HEREBY:

That could majorly affect a nation's economy.
That is irrelevant.
How is it irrelevant? Simply your nations does not depend on this industry does not mean that you can ignore those that do and just use an almighty hand to literally swipe them out of existence due to a nonexistent economy.
Resolutions on the environment have some business impact. This can be justified if the loss in economic terms is countered by benefits in other areas. Furthermore, trading in drugs may be the backbone of a nation's economy, but it could be argued that the overall harm of drugs negates the economic benefit.

Micromanagement.
How so?
Because this clearly is not an issue of the WA.
Why not?

So even if the shark is dead, I cannot cut of its fin as a decoration for my house? Serious micromanagement.
Again, how so?
This closes a loophole where fins are imported from non-WA into WA nations. And yes, you cannot decorate your house with fins, that is essentially part of the resolution.

Again, nations' economies.
That is irrelevant.
Again, it is.
See above

OOC: Oh great, another useless committee.
Opinion.
OOC: Oh yes, and it would not be just mine.
OOC: The function of committees is to enforce the resolution IC. Not useless.

We can decide on our own punishments, thank you very much. And what we deem to be cruel and inhumane as well, for that matter.
Note "advise".
We do not need gnomes pestering us on what we can decide for ourselves.
By that logic, you do not need the WA at all.

Overall, this is serious micromanagement and should be shredded, burnt and burnt again so that no one will have the misfortune of laying their eyes upon it again.
Allegations of micromanagement do not mean a proposal is invalid, see the example of resolution #141 - http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... /start=140
Nobody said it was invalid, and while that resolution was rather micromanaging, having that pass is much less damaging to nations and some could even say it is a right for males.
Finning is both damaging to sharks and some could say that sharks have the right to respect and protection. Again, to quote Glen-Rhodes: Fisheries regulation isn't micromanagement. Overfishing has serious global impacts on marine ecosystems.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: The way you two are responding to each other is going to get confusing really fast... :\

[Separatist Peoples]

Opposed, this is not of international concern, and Morlago has effectively covered our concerns.

[Flibbleites]

I really not seeing a need for this to be honest. If this practice is causing the shark population to dwindle to the point where sharks are becoming an endangered species then the Endangered Species Protection resolution kicks in.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

OOC: Why do I get the feeling someone's been watching the Discovery Channel's Shark Week?

[Phing Phong]

I really not seeing a need for this to be honest. If this practice is causing the shark population to dwindle to the point where sharks are becoming an endangered species then the Endangered Species Protection resolution kicks in.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

OOC: Why do I get the feeling someone's been watching the Discovery Channel's Shark Week?

It seems there are too many objections and a low level of support; as such, I am withdrawing the resolution.

OOC: I do not have the discovery channel, only BBC1-3, ITV, Channel 4 and about 100 religious ones.