[PASSED] Sustainable Fishing Act

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Now we play the waiting game...

Now is when I expect someone totally uninvolved in the discussion will file a GHR complaining that it's illegal. Seems to be par for the course lately.

Shhh!! You're gonna put the idea in someone's head!

[Knootoss]

This proposal is utterly useless, hamstringing the economies of WA Member States by imposing sacrifice that 80% of all nations can gleefully ignore.

I note the auteur of this misguided idea has chosen not even to respond when I do raise objections in the thread. That gives everyone plenty of justification for skipping an author who doesn't listen and going straight to the mods.

[Sanctaria]

This proposal is utterly useless, hamstringing the economies of WA Member States by imposing sacrifice that 80% of all nations can gleefully ignore.

I note the auteur of this misguided idea has chosen not even to respond when I do raise objections in the thread. That gives everyone plenty of justification for skipping an author who doesn't listen and going straight to the mods.

Someone pretending valid criticism doesn't exist? Now why does that sound familiar...

Must be a bug going around.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

This proposal is utterly useless, hamstringing the economies of WA Member States by imposing sacrifice that 80% of all nations can gleefully ignore.

I note the auteur of this misguided idea has chosen not even to respond when I do raise objections in the thread. That gives everyone plenty of justification for skipping an author who doesn't listen and going straight to the mods.

I was ignoring you because you haven't really made a point worth responding to. Anyone can see from reading this proposal that it does not "hamstring" the economies of WA Member Nations - in fact, quite the contrary argument could be made: if Member Nations fished their waters clean, that would hamstring their economies. I was leaving it to member nations to read the proposal for themselves and evaluate its merits. You clearly aren't interested in reforming the proposal - you're just a detractor. Arguing with you about the merits of my proposal is foolish and a waste of time. I'm sure member nations can read your points and read my proposal and come to their own conclusions about whether this would be bad for their economy.

I remain convinced that ignoring your bald, ill-formed opinion is the appropriate response. However, I will point out that you clearly have no concept of history, or you would not say that protecting aquatic populations from over-exploitation is "utterly useless." Go tell that to the Caspian Sturgeon, the Pacific Salmon, the Letherback Sea Turtle, and countless other animals that have been saved by resolutions exactly like this one. Then talk to the caviar producers, the salmon fishers, etc. and ask them if such regulations didn't save their industries.

And we're all about "sacrifices" that other nations can "ignore." We're the World Assembly - everything we do is a mandate that 80% of nations can ignore. That isn't an argument for or against anything... it's just you blowing hot air.

I will also say that there is no reason for anyone to go to the Secretariat just because I ignored your blustering. You're providing what you think is a good argument for voting against this proposal, not a statement about it's legality. If folks agree with you, they should vote against the proposal, not trouble the Secretariat with inappropriate GHRs.

Someone pretending valid criticism doesn't exist? Now why does that sound familiar...

Must be a bug going around.

Satisfied?

[Knootoss]

As the Cowardly Pacifists seem keen to forget, the world contains 106,805 nations but the World Assembly only has 17,326 members. So kindly explain to me how stifling rules and committees that only affect 16 percent of nations will save the fishies? Non-member states can simply pick up the slack. And in the Western Atlantic region, Knootoss will in fact be the only significant naval power in a thousand mile radius that is bound by World Assembly diktats.

Your proposal would be very nice if it worked, but in this case, it plainly won't.

[Auralia]

Wiping out a food source, instead of keeping its exploitation within these limits, means that the next famine you get hit with will probably be even worse...

...all I can say is that such a scenario (where survival required the complete eradication of a species or resource)...

You have defined overfishing much more strictly in your proposal than in the quotation above. Even temporarily unsustainable fishing practices, which would not have a significant impact on fish populations, are banned under this proposal, even though they might be necessary for whatever reason.

[Knootoss]

I will also say that there is no reason for anyone to go to the Secretariat just because I ignored your blustering. You're providing what you think is a good argument for voting against this proposal, not a statement about it's legality. If folks agree with you, they should vote against the proposal, not trouble the Secretariat with inappropriate GHRs.

What sort of Queleshing is this? Your Excellency does not care about points being made against the merits of the proposal, so long as it is technically legal? This is "Because We Can, We Must" logic, at best. I have given you facts, not mere conjecture, and a good author is certainly not afraid of considering the impact of his proposal.

There are surely better ways to protect the fishies that don't involve masochistically self-maiming WA Economies for no conceivable benefit whatsoever.

Also, I was referring to the secretariat because Frisbeeteria seemed to assume you could be reasoned with. A very flawed assumption, it now seems.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Mallorea and Riva]

I find myself in agreement with Aram, as usual. I also would like to take the time to compliment him on his rather marvelous new hat.

[Knootoss]

I feel the hat enhances my gravitas.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Solanum-Blaatone]

The WA needs this. I have not voted on a resolution in a while, but I will vote on this one.

[Patricant]

The WA needs this. I have not voted on a resolution in a while, but I will vote on this one.

If I could approve it, I would.

[Sanctaria]

Someone pretending valid criticism doesn't exist? Now why does that sound familiar...

Must be a bug going around.

Satisfied?

Not for years, darling.

[Auralia]

Also, isn't killing off an invasive species of fish illegal under this proposal?

[Peoples Empire]

This seems to be a true international issue, and my nation and will support it fully when it gets to a final vote.

[Bears Armed]

Also, isn't killing off an invasive species of fish illegal under this proposal?

That point I will admit to having missed when providing my suggested draft...


EDIT: I have an idea about how to re-word it...

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Also, isn't killing off an invasive species of fish illegal under this proposal?

That point I will admit to having missed when providing my suggested draft...


EDIT: I have an idea about how to re-word it...

Upon deliberation and the advice of my co-author, the objections made to the current draft by the Ambassador from Auralia are well-taken. We set out to protect the environment and ensure the future availability of national and (to the extent possible) international stocks of aquatic species. I did not intend to craft a definition that might be read to prohibit temporary increases in harvesting to meet a tragedy. I still have my doubts that the definition really does this... but I'm willing to rework it to assuage the doubts of others. I certainly did not intent to hamper the ability of nations to deal with invasive species. Though I am convinced that relocating, managing, or even eradicating an aquatic pest or parasite really isn't the same as "harvesting" it for some sort of economic or pecuniary gain (and thus, would not be covered by this act), I'm willing to include relevant safeguards to ensure that this proposal does not prevent nations from dealing with invasive species responsibly.

I will presently submit to the Secretariat a request that the current draft of the proposal be removed from the Queue so that reasonable modifications may be made.

Accordingly, the "Drafting" session for this bill is official re-opened.

Best Regards.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

(OOC: Buckle up. This is a long post...)

Though the proposal is presently being reworked to address the criticisms of Auralia, I still feel obliged to dispel the arguments made by Knootoss. While Auralia has illuminated problems that may be fixed so that the proposal - if done - is done right, Knootoss's concerns are of the "this legislation is ineffective/unnecessary" variety. Accordingly, my responses are independent of the text of the resolution since it is really the concept of a ban on overfishing (not the mechanism) that Knootoss is attacking.

As the Cowardly Pacifists seem keen to forget, the world contains 106,805 nations but the World Assembly only has 17,326 members. So kindly explain to me how stifling rules and committees that only affect 16 percent of nations will save the fishies? Non-member states can simply pick up the slack. And in the Western Atlantic region, Knootoss will in fact be the only significant naval power in a thousand mile radius that is bound by World Assembly diktats.

Your proposal would be very nice if it worked, but in this case, it plainly won't.

The principle Knootoss seems to espouse is that there can be no meaningful change if "only" 17,326 member nations enact a particular policy. I have several arguments in response to this position:

(1) First, regardless of what non-members do, this proposal would protect fish populations living in the national and territorial waters of member nations. As you say, that's 17,326 nations all protecting their national fish stocks from over-exploitation (actually, we're up to 17,338 at the time of this writing, so that's twelve more nations that would be protecting their fishing stocks). Regardless of what the rest of the world does, the sustainable management of national fishing stocks in 16 percent of world nations would have a profound impact on the environment.

(2) Second, global economics functioning it does, this proposal would actually give the fishing industries in member nations a leg up in the long term. Of course, there is no doubt that in the short term nations that engage in unsustainable practices would have a market advantage (in fact, that's almost legally necessary: otherwise, this proposal would not benefit the environment "at the expense of industry"). But over the long term, member nations and their economies would be better off. Those nations that chose to engage in unsustainable practices would eventually run out of product, and member nations that protected their fishing stocks would have the economic advantage. So when viewed holistically the proposal would not cause serious economic hardship on member nations even in the short term, and any hardship would be well worth the environmental and economic value of preserving national fishing stocks for future use.

(3) It really cannot be denied that there would be some discernible positive environmental benefit to prohibiting overfishing even if done solely in member nations. This particular proposal has the added benefit of promoting the fishing industries of member nations over the long term (since the fish populations will be around for the long term). But even if there were no reason to think that the proposal would ever pay dividends to the fishing industry, we must not forget that this is an Environmental proposal. Protecting aquatic populations from being harvested out of existence in 17,338 nations (actually, 17,346 nations at last accounting) of world nations is certainly an environmental triumph. And the proposal does go further: affecting international waters to at least some extent.

(4) Finally, and obviously, this proposal cannot directly control the action of non-members. But that's a reality of everything we do, so it can't really be an argument for or against anything. Why ban slavery in member nations; non-members will still enslave folks? Why ensure equal protection in member nations; non-members will keep on discriminating. Instead of focusing on what non-members will and won't do, we should focus on the ways member nations can make a positive difference. Preventing overfishing in and by nearly one fifth of world nations would clearly have a discernible, positive impact on both the environment and (frankly) the long term viability of the fishing industries in those nations. We don't need to reach everybody with this proposal for it to be effective. And that's good, because just like every other proposal there's a significant number of nations that we just can't reach.

As an aside, I will pay some deference to Ambassador Koopman's dog-eat-dog position on international affairs: I'm sure he imagines that when member nations refuse to overfish international waters, non-member nations will just swoop in and do it all themselves. Ambassador Koopman argues that since we cannot affect non-members directly, we should allow members to "get there first" and harvest populations to extinction themselves - rationalizing that it's "going to happen anyway" so we might as well let member nations join in on the over-exploitation. I feel like I've already done all I can to address this problem by "strongly encouraging" members to work with their neighbors on sustainable management of shared resources. The WA cannot stop non-memebers from fishing the sea clean, but member nations can work with those nations diplomatically and refrain from that evil themselves (which would have an environmental impact, as 17,346 [make that 17,353] nations all refuse to be part of the problem).

I will also say that there is no reason for anyone to go to the Secretariat just because I ignored your blustering. You're providing what you think is a good argument for voting against this proposal, not a statement about it's legality. If folks agree with you, they should vote against the proposal, not trouble the Secretariat with inappropriate GHRs.

What sort of Queleshing is this? Your Excellency does not care about points being made against the merits of the proposal, so long as it is technically legal? This is "Because We Can, We Must" logic, at best. I have given you facts, not mere conjecture, and a good author is certainly not afraid of considering the impact of his proposal.

There are surely better ways to protect the fishies that don't involve masochistically self-maiming WA Economies for no conceivable benefit whatsoever.

Also, I was referring to the secretariat because Frisbeeteria seemed to assume you could be reasoned with. A very flawed assumption, it now seems.

As I hope was clear from my above response, I am trying to strike a different tone when dealing with Ambassador Koopman. I realize that his heart is in the right place and, like me, he strongly believes in the righteousness of his position. I also realize that coming at him like a rabid dog just makes me look less reasonable and defeats any chance that the two of us may one day compromise or agree on something.

But I must strongly object to this slander. Ambassador Koopman was clearly not "referring to the secretariat because Frisbeeteria seemed to assume you could be reasoned with." Fris and I were discussing illegality GHRs when you chimed in to say that my failure to respond to you was "plenty of justification for skipping an author who doesn't listen and going straight to the mods." That's clearly a recommendation that people should go file GHR requests with the Secretariat regarding the legality of my proposal. Your statement to the contrary is disingenuous, and I think you know that. It's all fun and games to play with arguments and in this forum to try to get to the better side of a particular issue. But you're flagrantly misrepresenting what you said and it's just plain distasteful.

As a nation that has existed since Antiquity, I should not have to tell Knootoss that the Secretariat does not exist to take a proposal down because of someone's "objections" to the Act. It is only appropriate to bring objections to the Secretariat if there is an illegality in the proposal. Failure to respond to criticism on the merits of the proposal is not an illegality, and I think you know that the Secretariat will not take action because you disagree with the merits of the proposal and you don't believe the author has adequately addressed your points. Suggesting that other nations go "straight to the mods" with their opinions because I did not address yours was completely inappropriate. I think you know that, which is why you are trying to re-characterize your statement as a harmless "reference" to the Secretariat alluding to my reasonableness. But your words speak plainly enough.

I should also point out that at the time Ambassador Koopman accused me of not caring "about points being made against the merits of the proposal," I had - in fact - responded at length to his arguments. In the very post he quotes, no less. He just happened to focus on my point about contacting the Secretariat, and chose not to repeat the part of my post where I responded to his claim that my proposal would "hamstring" the economies of member nations and would be "utterly useless" at protecting the environment.

It is my understanding that I am under no obligation to deal with a nation that will not at least debate in good faith. Saying something and then pretending you said something else because you realize that your comment was inappropriate is not good faith debate. Alleging that a nation will not respond to your criticisms while quoting the exact post in which they respond to your criticisms is not good faith debate. I will not continue to debate Ambassador Koopman if he persists in this duplicity. I will continue to debate with him so long as he agrees to cease this kind of behavior.

We have a saying in my country: "A person who intentionally misrepresents the facts is a Liar. A person who mistakenly misrepresents the facts is a Fool. But a person who is either a Liar or a Fool and tries to use their wrong facts in support of an argument is a Troll. And there's no use debating a Troll." I'm not sure why I bring this up, but I'm sure it's somehow relevant to this discussion.

Best Regards.



(OOC: I also want to express my admiration for Ambassador Koopman's new hat. The stovepipe just worked better for my caricature.)

[Sanctaria]

I find myself telling the Ambassador that brevity is the best part of valour.

Or something like that.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I find myself telling the Ambassador that brevity is the best part of valour.

Or something like that.

[OOC: Yes, I know... I also tend to skip long and rambling posts.

But in this case, I felt it was appropriate to spill my guts. Ambassador Koopman and I seem to have trouble communicating, so from here on out I want to be able to just point back and say "I already addressed that criticism with this argument."

The second part was me just being pissed-off by dishonesty. I tend to have a short fuse when it comes to that...]

[Sanctaria]

I feel the hat enhances my gravitas.

It appears that aside from being an Ambassador, I'm also an accomplished milliner.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

A new draft is up. Provisions 8 and 9 we shall lovingly refer to as the Auralian Amendments. Please comment.

Also, I'm considering an action regarding Knootoss's criticisms. While he is completely off-base when he claims that this proposal would not have any positive effect on the environment of the world, he does make a point when it comes to international stocks. I don't want to put Member Nations in a position where they must helplessly watch as non-members catch every last fish in the sea for themselves. At the same time, allowing member nations carte blanch to contribute to overfishing in international waters is also impermissible.

Accordingly, I am considering an amendment to provision 5 as follows:

PROHIBITS Overfishing in the national waters of Member Nations and in international waters over which Member Nations have an internationally recognized jurisdictional right.

REQUIRES Member Nations to prohibit Overfishing by their own people in all other waters if the other nations that harvest those waters agree to refrain from Overfishing as well.

I would likely follow this up with a provision "strongly encouraging" member nations to prohibit Overfishing in all other waters regardless of whether others agree to do so.

I see this amendment as partially selling out my ideal - which is a world in which member nations do not take any part in Overfishing. However, if folks think this amendment would make some additional strides toward protecting international aquatic species and would protect member nations from sitting idly by while non-members plunder the seas for themselves, I'm willing to compromise.

Obviously, veto power on this amendment goes to Bears Armed.

[Embolalia]

"Oh good lord," says Ambassador Hywel. "What tripe. What a fantastic and incredible overreach of power. I can't believe we're going though this again. This is an unacceptable economic burden. Fishing is an incredibly important part of the economy in the marginal... I mean in the coastal areas of our nation. We can not maim our economy with -"

"BOLLOCKS!" Lieutenant Ambassador LLwyd bursts through the door yelling. "I CALL BOLLOCKS!" He runs down the aisle, shoving his superior off the podium. He catches his breath briefly, and says, "This is incredibly important. It's an inherently international issue, and we must enact this. We need to ensure that the fishing industry sticks around, and doesn't get knocked off by overfishing. I know the marginal constituencies that my colleague is so fond of won't like it, but it will be better for them in the long run. Isn't that one of the jobs of government? Doing the things that need to be done, but that people wouldn't do on their own? And this is all about furthering international cooperation, which is the whole reason we're here. I, for one, support this proposal."

"WHAT!" Ambassador Hywel yells from the floor. "This is an overreach! It won't work! You may support it, Lieutenant Ambassador, but the United Commonwealth most certainly does not! It's a complete overreach!"
"Necessary!" the Lieutenant Ambassador yells. "Overreach!" yells the Ambassador. "Necessary!" "Overreach!" "Necessary!" "Overreach!" They continue, even after their mic is turned off, and discussion moves on.

[Knootoss]

"If the proposed amendment is included then Knootoss will be able to support this resolution and encourage other moderate World Assembly Member States to do so as well. I'll even go around with campaign stickers and everything. And I'm sure that our Prime Minister Vologdov will be positively eager to negotiate with neighbouring countries about fishing quotas, in addition to our already constructive Western Atlantic dialogue about whaling."


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Cowardly Pacifists]

"If the proposed amendment is included then Knootoss will be able to support this resolution and encourage other moderate World Assembly Member States to do so as well. I'll even go around with campaign stickers and everything. And I'm sure that our Prime Minister Vologdov will be positively eager to negotiate with neighbouring countries about fishing quotas, in addition to our already constructive Western Atlantic dialogue about whaling."

I am truly humbled by the Knootian show of magnanimity in accepting this offer of compromise. I will certainly include the proposed amendment in the submitted draft - pending (of course) the approval of the co-author.

Best Regards

[Auralia]

With the new amendments, we are happy to support this proposal. Also, we believe the proposed amendment to clause 5 is a good idea.