FAQ
Now that this proposal has reached the floor, it seems advisable for me collect together the answers to a few questions that have been raised during its drafting:
1. But doesn't GA Resolution #66 already deal with this issue by granting the WA the power to restrict hunting to protect endangered species?
A: GA Resolution #66 mainly applies to species that have already become endangered, or that are on the verge of doing so: This proposal is aimed more at stopping their decline before they reach that stage... and, unlike #66, it would require protection of distinct stocks within each species (e.g. sub-species) rather than just of the species as a whole.
2. Why 'Moral Decency' rather than 'Environmental'?
A: If there was an 'Environmental (Mild)' option available then I'd have considered that, but there isn't.Environmental proposals have 'areas of effect' rather than strengths, and as this wouldn't fit any of the specific areas of effect allowed it would therefore have had to have been submitted as affecting "All Industries"... which would have had far greater effects on member nations' economies [in terms of OOC stats] than I think its actual contents would justify. And as clause 2 basically requires nations to regulate (i.e. restrict) people's rights to hunt if that's necessary for the to prevent over-hunting, clause #4 tells them to prohibit people selling the products of illegal hunting, and clause #5 tells them to restrict people's freedom to import/export products from hunting, that seems enough to justify 'Moral Decency (Mild)' to me.
3. Does this forbid member nations to develop areas within their territories?
A: No. Development of specific areas would still be allowed, even if that meant reducing wildlife populations in those areas, as long as the nation still had at least one "sustainable and environmentally suitable" population of each animal stock concerned somewhere within its territories.
4. Does this forbid culls of species carrying agents that could cause serious epidemics in domestic livestock?
No, it doesn't, although my government considers vaccination of the livestock -- or switching to alternative species of livestock that wouldn't be susceptible to those diseases on the first paw -- preferable. You wouldn't be allowed to reduce those animals stocks below "sustainable and environmentally suitable" levels, but hopefully that would still allow enough of a reduction in their numbers to reduce the disease risk considerably.
5. Why the '99 years' limit in the clause about artwork and antiques?
A: My government feels that there has to be some limit, in order to keep nations from hunting species to excess right up until this proposal (hopefully) passes and then continuing to trade in the products immediately afterwards. I decided that a figure not only greater than the average lifespan (for Humans, who after all probably comprise a large majority of the total population for all of the WA’s members, as well as for Bears, anyhows) but a slightly greater than the expected lifespans for most people would be a good level to use, so that people who might have been involved in over-hunting (whether directly, or by purchasing its products and therefore promoting its continuation) not long before -- and maybeso right up until -- this resolution [hopefully] passes are blocked from profiting further from that process.
___________________________________________________________________
A few months ago our region-mate Hirota started drafting a proposal against hunting for 'bushmeat', viewtopic.php?f=9&t=236712&hilit=bushmeat, but had to drop this due to (RL) time constraints. I'm now reviving my own draft on the subject (from that thread), with Hirota's approval, as the basis for a potential proposal _
Fourth ("final")draft
Sensible Limits on Hunting
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Description: Recognising the wide ranges of cultures and economic systems that exist across its member nations,
Aware that hunting wild animals for their meat (which is sometimes called either 'bushmeat' or 'game') and maybe for other reasons too is an important activity within some of those cultures and economic systems, and that some people actually rely on those hunts for their own survival,
Concerned that increases in national populations and easier access to hunting grounds may increase levels of hunting, and might also cause the extension of hunting to non-traditional prey species, which could seriously threaten the survival of local stocks or even entire species,
Noting that some meats and other goods obtained by hunting are traded internationally, and that increased populations and/or wealth in importing nations may also promote increases in hunting,
Concerned also that meat obtained by hunting may be likelier than meat from domestic stocks to carry parasites and diseases that could affect people,
Determined that levels of hunting and the international trade in the products of hunting should therefore be regulated, to prevent over-hunting and to protect public health;
Hereby, within any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force:
1. Recognises member nations’ rights to allow and regulate the hunting of non-endangered animal stocks, and to ban hunting of any animals, within their borders;
2. Requires all member nations to regulate hunting within their borders, according to relevant expert advice, so as to keep the animal stocks involved at sustainable and environmentally suitable levels (except that they need not protect ‘invasive’ species, species parasitic on people or domestic livestock, or species carrying agents likely to cause serious epidemics in people);
3. Urges member nations that set quotas for the hunting of any animals to give adequate priority for hunting rights to those communities there for whom those hunts are economically and/or culturally the most important;
4. Requires member nations to prohibit the sale and use of meat or other goods obtained by illegal hunting;
5. Requires that meat, captive wild animals, and other goods obtained through hunting, may only be exported from or imported into member nations if they are correctly certified as having been
A. Obtained through legal hunting;
B. Tested properly for risks to public health, and confirmed as safe;
and
C. Taken only from non-endangered stocks, unless they are (i) live animals, embryos, or gametes, being sent for use in scientifically-run breeding programmes; (ii) previous exports being repatriated; (ii) live animals taken from captivity, being sent for release in the proper environment; (iv) obtained in ways that did not increase their stock’s endangerment, and being sent for academic use; or (v) materials included in artworks or antiques, and originally taken (from stocks then not obviously endangered) at least 99 years ago;
6. Urges member nations to teach their people about the ecological problems that unregulated hunting can cause;
7. Urges member nations to ban any hunting methods that are unnecessarily cruel, and the trade in meat or other goods gained using those methods;
8. Urges member nations to ensure that any goods obtained by legal hunting within their borders are properly tested for health risks before being sold or consumed there.
Co-author: Hirota.
Changes from third draft: Wording fiddled with to fit it into the maximum length allowed, no actual changes to functions.