NationStates

Hi. I have been lurking in these forums for a while and thought that it was high time we got a whaling ban. I've never made a proposal, so I'm going to need people's input on this one. This is my first time, and I did read the rules; if I made a stupid error please tell me. I'd appreciate any kind of feedback, even if it's that you'd never vote for such a draconian measure.

WA Whaling Restriction:
Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: All Business

DEFINES:
'Scientific purposes' as purposes which are solely for the advancement of scientific knowledge and understanding, such as examining the contents of the stomach, for more information as what the whale's preferred diet is, or for the display of the whale's skeleton as in a museum.

RECOGNIZING:
1) Whales and dolphins are among the most intelligent species on many planets, are self-aware, and are capable of activity above and beyond simple survival.
2) In many cases, populations of almost every known species of whales and dolphins are on the decline.
3) Dolphin meat usually contains hundreds of times more mercury than is safe to eat.

APPALLED:
1) Irresponsible fishing practices across the oceans are largely responsible for this decline.
2) Many whales and dolphins are inadvertently killed by fisherman who intended to catch other fish.
3) Current methods of whaling, namely harpooning, are brutal, slow, and inhumane.
4) Many nations will not, on their own, drop the numbers of whales and dolphins currently being slaughtered, or change their current method of killing.

HEREBY:
- Restricts the number of whales that can be hunted annually by each WA nation based on its population. For every 500,000 residents in a nation, that nation may hunt 1 whale.
- Each nation may set its own annual limit of whales and dolphins to be captured for scientific purposes, which are not included in its total that it is allowed to hunt, as long as the total amount does not exceed 25 individual animals. At least half the whales and dolphins captured for scientific purposes must be released within a period of one month in physical and mental condition comparable to the time they were captured.
..........~Non industrial, indigenous, tribal, and/or aboriginal tribes living within WA nations who kill relatively small numbers of whales for survival purposes are exempt ..........from this restriction, and their hunting is not included in the nation's total, though the WA nation itself is subject to the restriction.
- Urges WA member nations to strengthen their own laws concerning the accidental killing of whales and dolphins while fishing.
- Also urges nations to pass other regulations protecting the welfare of marine mammals at sea.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Due to people telling me to write something more blanket:

WA Endangered Species Protection Act:
Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: All Business

RECOGNIZING:
1) That in the ever-expanding industrial world, it is virtually impossible to avoid endangering the welfare of certain entire animal species.
2) That in the past, industry has callously driven hundreds of animal species to extinction.
3) The welfare of human populations on many planets is directly dependent on the health of their planets' ecosystem.
4) Without legislation, many more species will be driven to extinction.

APPALLED:
1) That certain nations and businesses knowingly destroy entire ecosystems and endanger species, even driving some to extinction.
2) In many cases, conservation efforts are non-existent, extremely badly organized, or otherwise ineffective.

HEREBY:
- Requires nations to restrict encroachments onto habitats of endangered animals, pollution levels in and around the habitats of endangered species, and hunting of endangered animals based on WA Endangered Species Committee determinations (Described later).

- Forms the WA Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) with the following and responsibilities:
1) The WAESC is responsible for determining reasonable numbers at which each species will be considered endangered.
2) The WAESC is responsible for accurately monitoring species’ numbers.
3) Should a species become endangered, or exhibit repeated numeric decline, the WAESC is responsible for creation of and direction of conservation efforts.
4) Should a species become endangered, the WAESC is responsible for protecting the species' remaining habitat through halting business or residential encroachment into the species' habitat, and by reducing the amount of pollution in the species' habitat. The WAESC may also severely restrict the hunting of endangered species.
5) Should a species come so near extinction that saving them in the wild is not feasible, the WAESC is responsible for capturing remaining members of the species, and attempting to repopulate the species enough to be released back into the wild.

- Should the WAESC restrict hunting of an endangered animal that a non-industrial tribe, or non-industrial aboriginal group relies upon for survival, the WAESC must ensure that the group is not destroyed or threatened by the restrictions it imposes.

- The WAESC may determine not to protect a species that is becoming endangered if that species is determined to be a threat to public health due to its parasitism or infectiousness (such as a bacteria, virus, or other parasite).

- If the WAESC restricts the usage of privately owned land, and this causes the property to lose value, then the WAESC must justly compensate for the landowner's loss, as well as any other reasonable losses incurred by its land use restriction.

- Urges nations to pass other pieces of legislation for protection of certain species within their own borders.

Ah, someone wtached Animal planet's show on those attention whoring pirates.

but they're so tasty and chewy.
where else will we get our vitamins and minerals for medical research and drugs?

Brogavia wrote:Ah, someone wtached Animal planet's show on those attention whoring pirates.

Actually, it was more inspired by this.

Mad hatters in jeans wrote:but they're so tasty and chewy.
where else will we get our vitamins and minerals for medical research and drugs?

I'm going to assume that was serious.

The majority of our proteins comes from fish. Then other land animals. Banning whaling would kill only a small part of our vitamins/minerals. There is a clause in there allowing for research.

I could make a clause allowing a number to be hunted, though that would severely weaken the proposal. Do you think I should?

BURNINATI0N wrote:I'm going to assume that was serious.

The majority of our proteins comes from fish. Then other land animals. Banning whaling would kill only a small part of our vitamins/minerals. There is a clause in there allowing for research.

I could make a clause allowing a number to be hunted, though that would severely weaken the proposal. Do you think I should?

sure go for it.

BURNINATI0N wrote:

Brogavia wrote:Ah, someone wtached Animal planet's show on those attention whoring pirates.

Actually, it was more inspired by this.

Mad hatters in jeans wrote:but they're so tasty and chewy.
where else will we get our vitamins and minerals for medical research and drugs?

I'm going to assume that was serious.

The majority of our proteins comes from fish. Then other land animals. Banning whaling would kill only a small part of our vitamins/minerals. There is a clause in there allowing for research.

I could make a clause allowing a number to be hunted, though that would severely weaken the proposal. Do you think I should?

I think you should give up now. Whales are pretty much just giant swimming cows. If we could domesticate them, and harvest them like cattle, it would be very benefitial.

Nogolieaha votes for Baning on whaling. Nogolieaha sponser any nation who likes to take care of the enviroment.

also its a show called Whale Wars on channel 51, tht might answer some question of urs Burnination!

Mad hatters in jeans wrote:

BURNINATI0N wrote:I'm going to assume that was serious.

The majority of our proteins comes from fish. Then other land animals. Banning whaling would kill only a small part of our vitamins/minerals. There is a clause in there allowing for research.

I could make a clause allowing a number to be hunted, though that would severely weaken the proposal. Do you think I should?

sure go for it.

BURNINATI0N wrote:...
HEREBY:
- Bans all whaling and dolphin fishing in all WA countries except for scientific purposes. Each nation may set its own annual limit of whales and dolphins to be captured for scientific purposes, as long as the total amount does not exceed 20. Whales and Dolphins captured must be released within a period of one month in physical and mental condition comparable to the time they were captured.
-Allows each nation to set a limit of whales and dolphins (no greater than a total of 50) to be hunted for any purpose annually.
..........~Non industrial, indigenous, tribal, and/or aboriginal tribes living within WA nations who kill relatively small numbers of whales for survival purposes are exempt ..........from this ban, though the WA nation itself is subject to the ban.
- Urges WA member nations to strengthen their own laws concerning the accidental killing of whales and dolphins while fishing.
- Also urges nations to pass other regulations protecting the welfare of marine mammals at sea.

That effectively reduces the proposal's strength to significant.

Brogavia wrote:I think you should give up now. Whales are pretty much just giant swimming cows. If we could domesticate them, and harvest them like cattle, it would be very benefitial.

, that's fine, you can just vote against it.

Nogolieaha wrote:Nogolieaha votes for Baning on whaling. Nogolieaha sponser any nation who likes to take care of the enviroment.

also its a show called Whale Wars on channel 51, tht might answer some question of urs Burnination!

They're a bit extremist...

BURNINATI0N wrote:Hi. I have been lurking in these forums for a while and thought that it was high time we got a whaling ban. I've never made a proposal, so I'm going to need people's input on this one. This is my first time, and I did read the rules; if I made a stupid error please tell me. I'd appreciate any kind of feedback, even if it's that you'd never vote for such a draconian measure.

WA Ban on Whaling:
Category: Environmental
Strength: Strong (or maybe significant. I'm not sure which it should really belong in.)

DEFINES:
'Scientific purposes' as purposes which are solely for the advancement of scientific knowledge and understanding, such as examining the contents of the stomach, for more information as what the whale's preferred diet is, or for the display of the whale's skeleton as in a museum.

RECOGNIZING:
1) Whales and dolphins are the second most intelligent species on many planets, are self-aware, and are capable of activity above and beyond simple survival.
2) In many cases, populations of almost every known species of whales and dolphins are on the decline.
3) Dolphin meat contains hundreds of times more mercury than is safe to eat.

APPALLED:
1) Irresponsible fishing practices across the oceans are largely responsible for this decline.
2) Many whales and dolphins are inadvertently killed by fisherman who intended to catch other fish.
3) Current methods of whaling, namely harpooning, are brutal, slow, and inhumane.
4) Many nations will not, on their own, drop the numbers of whales and dolphins currently being slaughtered.

HEREBY:
- Bans all whaling and dolphin fishing in all WA countries except for scientific purposes. Each nation may set its own annual limit of whales and dolphins to be captured for scientific purposes, as long as the total amount does not exceed 20. Whales and Dolphins captured must be released within a period of one month in physical and mental condition comparable to the time they were captured.
..........~Non industrial, indigenous, tribal, and/or aboriginal tribes living within WA nations who kill relatively small numbers of whales for survival purposes are exempt ..........from this ban, though the WA nation itself is subject to the ban.
- Urges WA member nations to strengthen their own laws concerning the accidental killing of whales and dolphins while fishing.
- Also urges nations to pass other regulations protecting the welfare of marine mammals at sea.

How can they study their stomach of they can't be killed?

Nogolieaha wrote:Nogolieaha votes for Baning on whaling. Nogolieaha sponser any nation who likes to take care of the enviroment.

also its a show called Whale Wars on channel 51, tht might answer some question of urs Burnination!

That show is a sham. Everything is set up to show those pirates in a good light.

Lizardiar wrote:How can they study their stomach of they can't be killed?

This is one thing that the bolded clause in one of my previous posts (which allows a small, set number of whales that can be caught for any reason annually) would have to address. If more people speak the need for that clause, I will put it.

Though I fail to see the need to study the contents of their stomachs; we know their diets.

Nogolieaha wrote:Nogolieaha votes for Baning on whaling. Nogolieaha sponser any nation who likes to take care of the enviroment.

also its a show called Whale Wars on channel 51, tht might answer some question of urs Burnination!

Yeah, that channel is called Discovery.
I'd much rather watch Mythbusters.

Anyway, about the proposal, I'd say go for it. I wouldn't personally endorse this proposal, but I did not write it, and I am not in the World Assembly.

As for weakening your proposal by introducing a consumption quota; you already have a clause that allows indigenous peoples to hunt and a clause that allows whaling for scientific purposes. It's not that much of a stretch to add a quota.

BURNINATI0N wrote:DEFINES:
'Scientific purposes' as purposes which are solely for the advancement of scientific knowledge and understanding, such as examining the contents of the stomach, for more information as what the whale's preferred diet is, or for the display of the whale's skeleton as in a museum.

HEREBY:
- Bans all whaling and dolphin fishing in all WA countries except for scientific purposes.

We are conducting a scientific experiment which involves the harvesting and processing of millions of whales. The purpose of the experiment is to determine the health benefits of eating whale meat on several million consum....er...test subjects. The experiment is ongoing and we expect it to continue for several more decades.

It is good to see that like WhaleCo Global LLC, the Motherland of BURNINATI0N wishes to see the advancement of scientific knowledge. Thank you for your support as we continue our studies.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

I am agianst this not me or anybody in my nation will accept this ban. All nations should have the right to whaling. Besides History Land would lose revnue on this since whales are a very popular meal in History Land.

BURNINATI0N wrote:

Lizardiar wrote:How can they study their stomach of they can't be killed?

This is one thing that the bolded clause in one of my previous posts (which allows a small, set number of whales that can be caught for any reason annually) would have to address. If more people speak the need for that clause, I will put it.

Though I fail to see the need to study the contents of their stomachs; we know their diets.

Don't assume that, some nations are completely, for lack of better term, ignorant of significant scientific discoveries for some reason or another.

I would assume however, that these nations would not be in the WA, so that is a bit of a moot point.

Niicha wrote:Anyway, about the proposal, I'd say go for it. I wouldn't personally endorse this proposal, but I did not write it, and I am not in the World Assembly.

As for weakening your proposal by introducing a consumption quota; you already have a clause that allows indigenous peoples to hunt and a clause that allows whaling for scientific purposes. It's not that much of a stretch to add a quota.

The clause about indigenous peoples is pretty necessary, as many cultures doubtless exist that require whale meat or other body parts for survival. See: The Inuit.

As for the scientific clause, it specifically disallows actually killing the whales. Though, at this point it looks like I will add that clause.

WhaleCo Global LLC wrote:We are conducting a scientific experiment which involves the harvesting and processing of millions of whales. The purpose of the experiment is to determine the health benefits of eating whale meat on several million consum....er...test subjects. The experiment is ongoing and we expect it to continue for several more decades.

It is good to see that like WhaleCo Global LLC, the Motherland of BURNINATI0N wishes to see the advancement of scientific knowledge. Thank you for your support as we continue our studies.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

BURNINATI0N wrote:DEFINES:
'Scientific purposes' as purposes which are solely for the advancement of scientific knowledge and understanding, such as examining the contents of the stomach, for more information as what the whale's preferred diet is, or for the display of the whale's skeleton as in a museum.

HEREBY:
- Bans all whaling and dolphin fishing in all WA countries except for scientific purposes. Each nation may set its own annual limit of whales and dolphins to be captured for scientific purposes, as long as the total amount does not exceed 20. Whales and Dolphins captured must be released within a period of one month in physical and mental condition comparable to the time they were captured.

The top paragraph and first sentence under "hereby" are what you quoted. The following sentence, you seem to have ignored.

BURNINATI0N wrote:

Niicha wrote:Anyway, about the proposal, I'd say go for it. I wouldn't personally endorse this proposal, but I did not write it, and I am not in the World Assembly.

As for weakening your proposal by introducing a consumption quota; you already have a clause that allows indigenous peoples to hunt and a clause that allows whaling for scientific purposes. It's not that much of a stretch to add a quota.

The clause about indigenous peoples is pretty necessary, as many cultures doubtless exist that require whale meat or other body parts for survival. See: The Inuit.

As for the scientific clause, it specifically disallows actually killing the whales. Though, at this point it looks like I will add that clause.

Well, you'll have a very hard time displaying their skeletal systems in museums if they're not dead...

Niicha wrote:

BURNINATI0N wrote:Well, you'll have a very hard time displaying their skeletal systems in museums if they're not dead...

Hmm...good point. Looks like I'll be adding that clause.

Niicha wrote:Don't assume that, some nations are completely, for lack of better term, ignorant of significant scientific discoveries for some reason or another.

You know, you can view stomach contents, and do other scientific experiments without harming the subject. It's just more difficult.

I think we shouldn't have a ban on Whaling. Instead, we could have restrictions. A reasonable compromise?

Spartan Philidelphia wrote:I think we shouldn't have a ban on Whaling. Instead, we could have restrictions. A reasonable compromise?

Keep in mind, the whaling ban I read that inspired me to write this one was more harsh than the one I wrote, and passed by a huge margin. It was only repealed later because it was replaced by a larger, more blanketing restriction.

I have to go to sleep now, but never fear, I shall return! (Though I know at least one person who has been anxiously awaiting my departure )

Spartan Philidelphia wrote:I think we shouldn't have a ban on Whaling. Instead, we could have restrictions. A reasonable compromise?

I agree with this.
The government of Niicha cares for the environment and is against animal suffering, but a complete ban on all consumer grade whaling products is, in our opinion, restrictive and unfair. Perhaps the bill could still focus on lessening the suffering of whales.

In this compromise, everyone is moderately unhappy and resentful.
Whale hunters for signifcantly reducing their business and business methods.
Whale rights advocates because whaling is still practiced.
Lose-Lose.
But in it's own right, it's a fine, fair, and more importantly, more passable, bill.

Boil the frog by increasing the temperature 1 degree at time, not by rising the temperature all at once, the frog will simply jump out.

No Restrictions or Banning or Whaling. It`s unacceptable Whaling must be completly allowed.

History land wrote:No Restrictions or Banning or Whaling. It`s unacceptable Whaling must be completly allowed.

you wouldn't say that if you were a whale.

We utterly oppose this absurd nonsense, whaling is a perfectly legitimate occupation, and when undertaken with proper regard to the health of population numbers of whales has no ill effects on their numbers. We are shocked and dismayed at the lack of logic, discernment and foresight of the authors of this statute.


Yours,