[PASSED] Repeal "Invasive Species Response Act"

[The Akashic Records]

Ok. The bill passed, as expected.

Any more feedback for the next 12 hours? I will submit it this evening when I return from a day trip, and then conduct a mass-TG campaign and see what happens.

I will consider the Akashic Records' recommendations all day while I am away and remove the clause later if i feel the need too. My current leaning is no because invasive species that are considered beneficial are typically not considered invasive species (IRL). That's just my opinion, though.

Well, it all falls into interpretation, as it relies on the definition of "invasive species". As per the bill, these invasive species are those that pose "a serious risk of rapid, uncontrolled, and detrimental population growth upon being introduced to a new environment", but by regulating the effects, the benefits will outweigh the consequences, and will no longer be invasive. However, an unregulated introduction risks having these pests destroying the ecosystem, if not more.

OOC: I remember a case where the city council in one of the cities in my country thought that it was a good idea to introduce crows in order to control the mice population that was overrunning the city. These crows ended up being a pest, and the mice problem grew instead. This is where I see the word "regulation" is relevant. Though, that's just my overly simplistic opinion on the matter.

[New Israelia]

GA #254 is among the many pieces of legislation introduced in the World Assembly that worries me. I do not feel the WA should exert -- and force compliance thereupon -- on its member-states. All 22 members of the League of Christian Nations will most assuredly vote in support of the repeal of GA #254.

Regards,

[Damanucus]

GA #254 is among the many pieces of legislation introduced in the World Assembly that worries me. I do not feel the WA should exert -- and force compliance thereupon -- on its member-states. All 22 members of the League of Christian Nations will most assuredly vote in support of the repeal of GA #254.

Regards,

Just a little care there, Markus. Normally, such a comment would be met with the response, "Then leave," however this is me talking who picked this up, and I can take a guess about what you're speaking, and this resolution is one that is slightly problematic.

Ok. The bill passed, as expected.

Any more feedback for the next 12 hours? I will submit it this evening when I return from a day trip, and then conduct a mass-TG campaign and see what happens.

I will consider the Akashic Records' recommendations all day while I am away and remove the clause later if i feel the need too. My current leaning is no because invasive species that are considered beneficial are typically not considered invasive species (IRL). That's just my opinion, though.

At this point, I would probably wait until the current "repeals" of GAR#254 have been stripped from the queue, as yours will get lost in the mess, and hence overlooked. But when you do submit...

Just some clean-up.

Repeal GA #254, "Invasive Species Response Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | GA #254|Proposed by: Bergnovinaia

The General Assembly,

APPLAUDING the intent behind GA #254, "Invasive Species Response Act;"

YET CONCERNED with the resolution's heinous failure to adequately define invasive species to include all known species that can destroy non-native ecosystems upon introduction;

NOTING that the resolution's definition of invasive species as "any non-sapient plant or animal species posing a serious risk of rapid, uncontrolled, and detrimental population growth upon being introduced to a new environment" alarmingly disregards bacteria, archaea, protists and fungi as potential invasive species threats;

OBSERVING that the biological domains and kingdoms omitted from the definition all contain species that can be considered invasive and highly dangerous if introduced into a non-native habitat;

HIGHLIGHTING that the target resolution places an "international ban on the unregulated introduction of potential invasive species to nations", a ban that is completely impossible to enforce since the introduction is "unregulated' and therefore out of the control of WA member states to enforce;
--Perhaps reword as "REGRETTING that the resolution's "international ban on the unregulated introduction of potential invasive species to nations" is impossible to enforce, because in most cases the introduction of a potential invasive species is by definition "unregulated" anyway;"

SADDENED that the target resolution merely "ENCOURAGES cooperation between member-states and the World Assembly Science Program in identifying species with the potential to thrive in and dominate certain environments or cause extinctions of native species", making a great policy optional instead of mandating the policy - something that would help to control the spread of invasive species in all member-states;

IMPLORING the World Assembly to draft another version of this legislation that adequately deals with the numerous grave flaws identified above; This is a controversial clause that may not be necessary, depending on your analysis of voter positions on the issue.

Hereby REPEALS GA #254, thereby making it completely null and void.

...I would very much support the edits made by Discoveria above, especially regarding the clause insisting on a replacement.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[The Eternal Kawaii]

At this point, I would probably wait until the current "repeals" of GAR#254 have been stripped from the queue, as yours will get lost in the mess, and hence overlooked. But when you do submit...

We concur with Representative Orman here. We count no less than four submitted proposals to repeal GAR 254, none of which meet even the barest minimum standards of WA draftsmanship. A few days' rest to clear the representatives' heads would seem to be in order here.

[Bergnovinaia]

At this point, I would probably wait until the current "repeals" of GAR#254 have been stripped from the queue, as yours will get lost in the mess, and hence overlooked. But when you do submit...

We concur with Representative Orman here. We count no less than four submitted proposals to repeal GAR 254, none of which meet even the barest minimum standards of WA draftsmanship. A few days' rest to clear the representatives' heads would seem to be in order here.

Or until the mods clear the illegal sh*t taking up precious space.

Either way, I will be revising with Discoveria's standards, and giving Discoveria credit as an editor to the repeal.

[Icamera]

APPLAUDING the intent behind GA #254, "Invasive Species Act;"

Thanks!

YET CONCERNED with the resolution's heinous failure to adequately define invasive species to include all known species that can destroy non-native eco-systems upon introduction;

NOTING that the resolution's definition of invasive species as "any non-sapient plant or animal species posing a serious risk of rapid, uncontrolled, and detrimental population growth upon being introduced to a new environment" which, alarmingly, disregards bacteria, archaea, protists and fungi as potential invasive species threats;

Yes, yes, yes. That's the biggest argument for this repeal, and you did a fine job of explaining it.

I will, however, sheepishly defend myself by pointing out that potentially threatening fungi are still covered by the pre-introduction research mandate ("...nations or other groups desiring to introduce any potentially beneficial non-native species..."), the WASP cooperation clause ("species with the potential to thrive in and dominate certain environments or cause extinctions of native species"), and to some extent, the guaranteed registry access for businesses (because the registries could still cover fungi).

Again, I'm on board with the repeal; I just had to get that off my chest.

BELIEVING that all of the domains and kingdoms left out of the definition all contain species that can be considered invasive and highly dangerous if introduced into the correct non-native habitat;

Well, maybe not all; I've done a decent amount of research on invasive species, and I don't entirely know if exotics outside of Animalia, Plantae, or Fungi are altogether "invasive". Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Also, the language of this clause needs revision (the second "all" is a redundancy). Stylistically, I'd suggest dropping the "all of" at the start; scientifically, I'd suggest re-examining whether "all" omitted kingdoms can truly be considered "invasive and highly dangerous".

HIGHLIGHTING that the target resolution places a "international ban on the unregulated introduction of potential invasive species to nations," a ban that is completely impossible to enforce since the introduction is "unregulated' and therefore out of the control of WA member states to enforce;

A fine catch. It's clear that the use of the spirit, rather than the letter, of the word, "unregulated" rendered the entire clause -- in my opinion, the strongest of the resolution -- self-contradictory.

SADDENED that the target resolution merely "encourages cooperation between member-states and the World Assembly Science Program in identifying species with the potential to thrive in and dominate certain environments or cause extinctions of native species," making a great policy optional instead of mandating the policy--something that would help to control the spread of invasive species in all member states;

That was kept optional for the sake of the NatSov vote, but I fully agree with strengthening it in an improved invasive species resolution.

IMPLORING the World Assembly to draft another version of this legislation that adequately deals with the numerous grave flaws;

Numerous? Ouch.

In my humble (and, of course, biased) opinion, the only major flaw worth correcting was the egregious omission of fungi from the definition; besides that, the only major standout was the contradictory clause -- which wasn't altogether "grave", since it would not be possible to re-word in the improved version anyway.

Damn it, gotta defend my honor here! *shrug*

Ok. The bill passed, as expected.

Any more feedback for the next 12 hours? I will submit it this evening when I return from a day trip, and then conduct a mass-TG campaign and see what happens.

I will consider the Akashic Records' recommendations all day while I am away and remove the clause later if i feel the need too. My current leaning is no because invasive species that are considered beneficial are typically not considered invasive species (IRL). That's just my opinion, though.

IRL, that's not true; you don't know how many cases there have been in which new predators were introduced to manage another invasive species outbreak, only to become "invasive" themselves as their own lack of biological predators allows their population to skyrocket -- an easy example would be the cane toad.

Incidentally, noting in your template that both authors of the ISRA have given their blessing for its repeal would greatly assist the campaign.

Anyway, my overall assessment:

Insta-repeal is certainly an option, and you've got my support for any repeal. However, I think this repeal could use much more meat, particularly given the overwhelming majority of WA votes cast in favor of the resolution and the freshness of its passage. Having suffered the consequences of rushing through the WA process myself, I wouldn't want to see the same happen again.

Heck, I've already had four n00bs try to get it repealed; they sure as hell could have benefited from taking some more time to look everything over.

[United Federation of Canada]

We concur with Representative Orman here. We count no less than four submitted proposals to repeal GAR 254, none of which meet even the barest minimum standards of WA draftsmanship. A few days' rest to clear the representatives' heads would seem to be in order here.

Or until the mods clear the illegal sh*t taking up precious space.

Either way, I will be revising with Discoveria's standards, and giving Discoveria credit as an editor to the repeal.

I recommend holding off until Tuesday.

[Bergnovinaia]

Currently 0 proposals are in queue, so why not submit now? We have approval (highly so) from one co-author, and the support (albeit weak) of the other.

[Icamera]

Currently 0 proposals are in queue, so why not submit now? We have approval (highly so) from one co-author, and the support (albeit weak) of the other.

No, you've got my full support.

Not sure if I was clear everywhere, but most of my commentary was just venting-ish stuff. I'd still suggest adding more substance first, though... I can help with that tomorrow, although I won't stop you from submitting now if you want to.

[Bergnovinaia]

I'll submit sometime in the next 48 hours. I am exhausted from my day trip and would like your feedback. Please try to help within a 20 hour window, if possible. I work really early til about 6 pm local time tomorrow, so I'll be out of contact all day.

[Damanucus]

I'll submit sometime in the next 48 hours. I am exhausted from my day trip and would like your feedback. Please try to help within a 20 hour window, if possible. I work really early til about 6 pm local time tomorrow, so I'll be out of contact all day.

48 hours should be suitable, but keep an eye on the queue during that time; I think we can assure that there will be a few other attempts at repeal within that time, further derailing any attempt to repeal this.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Discoveria]

Either way, I will be revising with Discoveria's standards, and giving Discoveria credit as an editor to the repeal.

Thank you. I look forward to voting for this!

[Icamera]

I'll submit sometime in the next 48 hours. I am exhausted from my day trip and would like your feedback. Please try to help within a 20 hour window, if possible. I work really early til about 6 pm local time tomorrow, so I'll be out of contact all day.

48 hours should be suitable, but keep an eye on the queue during that time; I think we can assure that there will be a few other attempts at repeal within that time, further derailing any attempt to repeal this.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

viewtopic.php?p=15428650#p15428650 (Submitted 5 hours ago, according to my TG)

[Damanucus]

48 hours should be suitable, but keep an eye on the queue during that time; I think we can assure that there will be a few other attempts at repeal within that time, further derailing any attempt to repeal this.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

viewtopic.php?p=15428650#p15428650 (Submitted 5 hours ago, according to my TG)

And the repeal process becomes delayed again. Why, dear gods, why?

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Lord Neo]

I grant you the support of LORD NEO

[Bergnovinaia]

Ok. I am submitting this now for a test-run/hopefully gaining quorum run. (Basically, I don't have time for TG campaign right now, and won't for a week or so, but I want to find out who I do and do not need to telegram to ask for their persuasion... also, I don't have stamps, so I'd be doing the entire campaign by hand).

I'll write down the individuals who approve the proposal. Hopefully people see it and approve it anyways, without my nudging.

[Ceni]

It seems to have been removed from the queue for some reason- it's definitely not illegal. Maybe a mod saw repeal ISRA and saw red. In any event, it was recent enough that the mid that removed it is still on, and I'll submit a GHR asking why it was removed.

[Icamera]

Maybe a mod saw repeal ISRA and saw red.

Wouldn't be surprised. After 6 one-liners, NatSovs, and blogposals, it's probably reflexive by now.

Have you heard back yet?

[Ceni]

It appears to have been a minor formatting error. The author (the only relevant interested party) was TGed the specifics.

Yes... See quote above

[Bergnovinaia]

It was a formatting error on my part regarding Discoveria having a flag... yay petty formatting rules.

Anyways, re-submitting properly now--find it and approve it here!

[Alberrta]

Approved. We'll see what happens when it gets to vote.

[Bergnovinaia]

it's not looking like this will reach queue, so I will put the names of the delegates who approved the proposal here and retry the submission in a week or so.

Abacathea, Bergnovinaia, Damanucus, Flowersburg, The Jonathanian WA-DELEGATION, Lord Neo, Discoveria, The Black Hat Guy, The Republic of Kentucky, Wolfhawk, Skeckoa, Jimmy Hart, Slafstopia, Romanelia, MDRunie, Noctaurus, Alberrta, The Lorians, Kubrikistan, Iron Confederation, Ironcastle, Father motherland, The-_Sicarii, New Israelia, United Alab Emirates, Shadvale, General Hammond, Emad, SkyDip, Gaiah, Neoconstantius, The Eternal Kawaii, The North Polish Union, Everything Everywhere, Bears Armed Mission, Rockanisha, Slovak Tatran, Umbramoor, The SAPPHIROS Islands, 1-502nd Airborne Inf, South Oxfordshire, Lolloh, New-Zealand, Suidwes-Afrika, A Zapatista, Konstantinye, Canicaco, Trobotopia, Conoga, Luveria, Afalia, The Phoenix King Army, NickCage-ria

[Cocoborg]

Sorry I am new to WA, where is the approve button

[SkyDip]

Sorry I am new to WA, where is the approve button

You have to be a WA Delegate to do that.

[Ceni]

Updated list:

Abacathea, Bergnovinaia, Damanucus, Flowersburg, The Jonathanian WA-DELEGATION, Lord Neo, Discoveria, The Black Hat Guy, The Republic of Kentucky, Wolfhawk, Skeckoa, Jimmy Hart, Slafstopia, Romanelia, MDRunie, Noctaurus, Alberrta, The Lorians, Kubrikistan, Iron Confederation, Ironcastle, Father motherland, United Alab Emirates, Shadvale, General Hammond, Emad, SkyDip, Gaiah, Neoconstantius, The Eternal Kawaii, The North Polish Union, Everything Everywhere, Bears Armed Mission, Rockanisha, Slovak Tatran, Umbramoor, The SAPPHIROS Islands, 1-502nd Airborne Inf, South Oxfordshire, Lolloh, New-Zealand, Suidwes-Afrika, A Zapatista, Canicaco, Trobotopia, Conoga, Luveria, Afalia, The Phoenix King Army, NickCage-ria, Texoma, East Klent, MirrorGate)