[DEFEATED] Mitigating Animal Population Fragmentation

[Untecna]

Removed 2b, changed 2c to 2b, and added the clarity words.

I don't think 2b should be removed, just add a lot more detail on it and what the institution is required to do.

Fair, but it was essentially saying that the WAESC would do the job when later it says that member nations will.

[Countesia]

I don't know if this is overextending the hand of the W.A here, but maybe set up a grant to allow less wealthy nations to pursue options to lower the impact of habitat fragmentation, such as wildlife bridges, for example.

[The North Polish Union]

Ambassador Wyrzykowski enters the Den of Iniquity GA drafting chamber carrying a crumpled copy of 'Ending Animal Population Fragmentation' that smells suspiciously of cabbage. Addressing the delegations assembled, he states:

"The WA delegation of the North Polish Union will strongly oppose this legislation until some serious issues are addressed. As it is written now, this proposal would be a bureaucratic nightmare worse than the rest of the godforsaken resolutions of this Assembly.

4. All member nations must conduct independent research on the effects the specific species gains from fragmentation, and submit the results to the WAESC for evaluation and to increase the information database on fragmented populations; the WAESC is also being required to complete research to check the research of the nations and to retain data required by section 2b.

This, for example, mandates redundancy in research. While such redundancies can be very valuable in some fields, particularly pharmaceutical research, requiring such here makes little sense and is a waste of WAESC time and funds. Additionally, it gives member states the impression that the WA doesn't trust them to comply with its resolutions in good faith if they feel the need to have a WA board look over such research findings to 'check' them. The WA has always expected its members to act in good faith; for those that don't, well, there's always the SC, but writing an assumption of bad faith into WA law would set a terrible precedent.

5. All construction plans within any area of a member nation must be reviewed by an independent environmental body to ensure that the construction will not further fragmentation or will affect the environment in the area.

This is a ridiculous overreach. If farmer Mścisław wants to put up a new shed on his farm he should not have to go through the same processes that the construction of a dam must go through. Additionally, by mandating that new "construction will not further fragmentation or will affect the environment in the area" all construction is prohibited since all construction affects the environment. While the goal of promoting environmentally-conscious construction is laudable, there are times when the benefits of construction outweigh animal habitat fragmentation and environmental impact.

6. All member nations must conduct programs to find and implement ways to end fragmentation in areas where fragmentation is due to natural features while retaining said natural features.

Why is natural habitat fragmentation a WA issue? Such fragmentation would occur regardless of the strictest environmental regulations and would even be present if no sapient species were around to create artificial fragmentation. Further, it is not in the WA's interest to encourage members to build tiny bridges over rivers for foxes or tiny tunnels through mountains for deer.

For those reasons, we stand opposed."

[Untecna]

Ambassador Wyrzykowski enters the Den of Iniquity GA drafting chamber carrying a crumpled copy of 'Ending Animal Population Fragmentation' that smells suspiciously of cabbage. Addressing the delegations assembled, he states:

"The WA delegation of the North Polish Union will strongly oppose this legislation until some serious issues are addressed. As it is written now, this proposal would be a bureaucratic nightmare worse than the rest of the godforsaken resolutions of this Assembly.

4. All member nations must conduct independent research on the effects the specific species gains from fragmentation, and submit the results to the WAESC for evaluation and to increase the information database on fragmented populations; the WAESC is also being required to complete research to check the research of the nations and to retain data required by section 2b.

This, for example, mandates redundancy in research. While such redundancies can be very valuable in some fields, particularly pharmaceutical research, requiring such here makes little sense and is a waste of WAESC time and funds. Additionally, it gives member states the impression that the WA doesn't trust them to comply with its resolutions in good faith if they feel the need to have a WA board look over such research findings to 'check' them. The WA has always expected its members to act in good faith; for those that don't, well, there's always the SC, but writing an assumption of bad faith into WA law would set a terrible precedent.

5. All construction plans within any area of a member nation must be reviewed by an independent environmental body to ensure that the construction will not further fragmentation or will affect the environment in the area.

This is a ridiculous overreach. If farmer Mścisław wants to put up a new shed on his farm he should not have to go through the same processes that the construction of a dam must go through. Additionally, by mandating that new "construction will not further fragmentation or will affect the environment in the area" all construction is prohibited since all construction affects the environment. While the goal of promoting environmentally-conscious construction is laudable, there are times when the benefits of construction outweigh animal habitat fragmentation and environmental impact.

6. All member nations must conduct programs to find and implement ways to end fragmentation in areas where fragmentation is due to natural features while retaining said natural features.

Why is natural habitat fragmentation a WA issue? Such fragmentation would occur regardless of the strictest environmental regulations and would even be present if no sapient species were around to create artificial fragmentation. Further, it is not in the WA's interest to encourage members to build tiny bridges over rivers for foxes or tiny tunnels through mountains for deer.

For those reasons, we stand opposed."

OOC: All suggestions noted. Section 4 no longer contains the assumption of bad faith, Section 5 no longer has the environmental impact part near the end, and Section 6 is now an encouragement clause.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The proposal certainly believes that fragmentation is inherently bad, but fails, fundementally, to consider how fragmentation increases species diversity. It has a, frankly, sophomoric conception of the issue. As such, we oppose."

[Untecna]

"The proposal certainly believes that fragmentation is inherently bad, but fails, fundementally, to consider how fragmentation increases species diversity. It has a, frankly, sophomoric conception of the issue. As such, we oppose."

OOC: Addressed.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The proposal certainly believes that fragmentation is inherently bad, but fails, fundementally, to consider how fragmentation increases species diversity. It has a, frankly, sophomoric conception of the issue. As such, we oppose."

OOC: Addressed.

Ooc: there is no indication that you addressed the concern. Your most recent draft indicated exactly the opposite. Again, your grasp of the topic is extremely simplistic. Until you can demonstrate a working understanding of the topic, I'm not sure you can address my concerns.

[Untecna]

OOC: Addressed.

Ooc: there is no indication that you addressed the concern. Your most recent draft indicated exactly the opposite. Again, your grasp of the topic is extremely simplistic. Until you can demonstrate a working understanding of the topic, I'm not sure you can address my concerns.

Then you are not reading the proposal.

I added this section to the preamble: "Understanding that, by the nature of the detrimental effects listed above, fragmentation of animal populations reduces the diversity of species and the overall biodiversity of the land on which they reside and in the nation that is in,"

The section above the added one describes some of the negative effects of fragmentation, and this section that was added connects to it. Your concern was addressed.

If you are going to be "Oh, but there wasn't a strong amount of things that were negative about it!", then take a moment to think and realize that I can't deposit more than a few because of both space and the actual proposal.

[Tinhampton]

...your grasp of the topic is extremely simplistic. Until you can demonstrate a working understanding of the topic, I'm not sure you can address my concerns.

The fact that the World Assembly seems to like Clean Prostitute Act with all of its ambiguities and omissions so much appears to suggest that it probably deserves a resolution about fragmentation that shows an "extremely simplistic" "grasp of the topic" - never mind one which assigns tasks to a non-existent "WARSC."

Support.

[Untecna]

...your grasp of the topic is extremely simplistic. Until you can demonstrate a working understanding of the topic, I'm not sure you can address my concerns.

The fact that the World Assembly seems to like Clean Prostitute Act with all of its ambiguities and omissions so much appears to suggest that it probably deserves a resolution about fragmentation that shows an "extremely simplistic" "grasp of the topic" - never mind one which assigns tasks to a non-existent "WARSC."

Support.

I agree with Tinhampton. This topic doesn't need an intense, rigorous definition; it can be defined simply.

Also, thanks for pointing out the typo. Its been corrected.

[Separatist Peoples]

The fact that the World Assembly seems to like Clean Prostitute Act with all of its ambiguities and omissions so much appears to suggest that it probably deserves a resolution about fragmentation that shows an "extremely simplistic" "grasp of the topic" - never mind one which assigns tasks to a non-existent "WARSC."

Support.

I agree with Tinhampton. This topic doesn't need an intense, rigorous definition; it can be defined simply.

Also, thanks for pointing out the typo. Its been corrected.

"A poor decision, since that delegation is making a comparison between a deliberately vauge blocker on an ill-defined social matter and you are attempting to legislate a complicated ecogical topic not yet entirely understood by biologists."

Ooc: in my prior career, I had the good fortune to make the effects of pipelines on various ecological populations a point of detailed study. To the point where I was writing 2000 page reports to accompany federal permitting processes for such projects. You are touching on a macrobiological issue that is extremely complicated based on the irregular, interdependent movement patterns of populations. This proposal handles that topic about as well as McDonald's handles souffles.

[Untecna]

I agree with Tinhampton. This topic doesn't need an intense, rigorous definition; it can be defined simply.

Also, thanks for pointing out the typo. Its been corrected.

"A poor decision, since that delegation is making a comparison between a deliberately vauge blocker on an ill-defined social matter and you are attempting to legislate a complicated ecogical topic not yet entirely understood by biologists."

Ooc: in my prior career, I had the good fortune to make the effects of pipelines on various ecological populations a point of detailed study. To the point where I was writing 2000 page reports to accompany federal permitting processes for such projects. You are touching on a macrobiological issue that is extremely complicated based on the irregular, interdependent movement patterns of populations. This proposal handles that topic about as well as McDonald's handles souffles.

So your point is you want a 2000 page essay on why this is an issue, and then proceed to waste my time further by criticizing how I do it.

Look, I understand your point, I really do, but I'm going to be honest, the definition and effects that I placed in can tell you plenty, and I can't use more space for getting this point across without risking another large change to remove said 2000 page essay. If I could, I would, but I can't. I'm sure our great constituents of the WA could also just as easily look up further information if they do not believe this suffices for that, including yourself. That said, I am doing what I can to make this better.

[Separatist Peoples]

"A poor decision, since that delegation is making a comparison between a deliberately vauge blocker on an ill-defined social matter and you are attempting to legislate a complicated ecogical topic not yet entirely understood by biologists."

Ooc: in my prior career, I had the good fortune to make the effects of pipelines on various ecological populations a point of detailed study. To the point where I was writing 2000 page reports to accompany federal permitting processes for such projects. You are touching on a macrobiological issue that is extremely complicated based on the irregular, interdependent movement patterns of populations. This proposal handles that topic about as well as McDonald's handles souffles.

So your point is you want a 2000 page essay on why this is an issue, and then proceed to waste my time further by criticizing how I do it.

Look, I understand your point, I really do, but I'm going to be honest, the definition and effects that I placed in can tell you plenty, and I can't use more space for getting this point across without risking another large change to remove said 2000 page essay. If I could, I would, but I can't. I'm sure our great constituents of the WA could also just as easily look up further information if they do not believe this suffices for that, including yourself. That said, I am doing what I can to make this better.

Ooc: If you've no interest in good faith drafting I really don't think I can be bothered to provide feedback. I didn't ask for a 2000 page essay from you. I asked for evidence of a modicum of research on your part. If you aren't interested in quality drafting, I'm happy to pursue my opposition politically instead.

[Untecna]

So your point is you want a 2000 page essay on why this is an issue, and then proceed to waste my time further by criticizing how I do it.

Look, I understand your point, I really do, but I'm going to be honest, the definition and effects that I placed in can tell you plenty, and I can't use more space for getting this point across without risking another large change to remove said 2000 page essay. If I could, I would, but I can't. I'm sure our great constituents of the WA could also just as easily look up further information if they do not believe this suffices for that, including yourself. That said, I am doing what I can to make this better.

Ooc: If you've no interest in good faith drafting I really don't think I can be bothered to provide feedback. I didn't ask for a 2000 page essay from you. I asked for evidence of a modicum of research on your part. If you aren't interested in quality drafting, I'm happy to pursue my opposition politically instead.

First, let's note my sarcasm when I said "2000 page essay".

Second, this proposal isn't entirely ambiguous. It doesn't take much to see that, considering that, despite its simplified description/definition, it pushes great strides in what it actually does. Simplification wasn't just made out of laziness, it was made from a choice between a long description within the proposal, boring the reader and removing space to use for actual legislation, or a simplified version eliminating those two but leaving space. The latter was chosen for, frankly, obvious reasons.

You did bring up that animals move and live in awkward, changing patterns, and yes, that is true. But it also doesn't take much to see that that can not be accurately covered by a piece of legislation to address an issue in animal populations. We can't accurately account for the patterns and erratic lives of animals, at least not within the space given, and maybe even at all.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: If you've no interest in good faith drafting I really don't think I can be bothered to provide feedback. I didn't ask for a 2000 page essay from you. I asked for evidence of a modicum of research on your part. If you aren't interested in quality drafting, I'm happy to pursue my opposition politically instead.

First, let's note my sarcasm when I said "2000 page essay".

Second, this proposal isn't entirely ambiguous. It doesn't take much to see that, considering that, despite its simplified description/definition, it pushes great strides in what it actually does. Simplification wasn't just made out of laziness, it was made from a choice between a long description within the proposal, boring the reader and removing space to use for actual legislation, or a simplified version eliminating those two but leaving space. The latter was chosen for, frankly, obvious reasons.

You did bring up that animals move and live in awkward, changing patterns, and yes, that is true. But it also doesn't take much to see that that can not be accurately covered by a piece of legislation to address an issue in animal populations. We can't accurately account for the patterns and erratic lives of animals, at least not within the space given, and maybe even at all.

OOC: the proximate result of your simplification is a policy that doesn't square with basically any understanding of fragmentation, and handles it without the kind of nuance that is essential to policies balancing ecological and economic needs. That's why I suggested you do some research so you can handle the topic with finess instead of with the written equivalent of a ten pound hand sledge, because your current draft essentially prevents development, and it isn't clear to me that it doesn't violate more specific laws governing more specific biomes.

It's astonishing to me the resistance you have to self education on the same topic you're apparently interested in enough to write about. It suggests to me that you are more interested in passing something than passing something good, which goes beyond the mere enthusiasm to participate that I try to encourage.

[Untecna]

First, let's note my sarcasm when I said "2000 page essay".

Second, this proposal isn't entirely ambiguous. It doesn't take much to see that, considering that, despite its simplified description/definition, it pushes great strides in what it actually does. Simplification wasn't just made out of laziness, it was made from a choice between a long description within the proposal, boring the reader and removing space to use for actual legislation, or a simplified version eliminating those two but leaving space. The latter was chosen for, frankly, obvious reasons.

You did bring up that animals move and live in awkward, changing patterns, and yes, that is true. But it also doesn't take much to see that that can not be accurately covered by a piece of legislation to address an issue in animal populations. We can't accurately account for the patterns and erratic lives of animals, at least not within the space given, and maybe even at all.

OOC: the proximate result of your simplification is a policy that doesn't square with basically any understanding of fragmentation, and handles it without the kind of nuance that is essential to policies balancing ecological and economic needs. That's why I suggested you do some research so you can handle the topic with fitness instead of with the written equivalent of a ten pound hand sledge, because your current draft essentially prevents development, and it isn't clear to me that it doesn't violate more specific laws governing more specific biomes.

It's astonishing to me the resistance you have to self education on the same topic you're apparently interested in enough to write about. It suggests to me that you are more interested in passing something than passing something good, which goes beyond the mere enthusiasm to participate that I try to encourage.

Thank you for referring to me as a complete idiot, I'll be sure to write that in my resume for the future.

All sarcasm aside, again, I understand your point, but I also understand the topic. The fact you believe I don't, while warranted due to past proposals of my own, and I concede that, is a bit saddening nonetheless. My suggestion for you is that instead of complaining about my explanation because its too vague for you and, frankly*, you only, perhaps show what edits you wish to see, and then we can see something physical to argue about.

*=No one else has brought up this point, not even the other secretariat that posted here. If they saw the same issue there's a fair chance they would've said something already. Note that this is not entirely a given, but it's definitely possible.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: the proximate result of your simplification is a policy that doesn't square with basically any understanding of fragmentation, and handles it without the kind of nuance that is essential to policies balancing ecological and economic needs. That's why I suggested you do some research so you can handle the topic with fitness instead of with the written equivalent of a ten pound hand sledge, because your current draft essentially prevents development, and it isn't clear to me that it doesn't violate more specific laws governing more specific biomes.

It's astonishing to me the resistance you have to self education on the same topic you're apparently interested in enough to write about. It suggests to me that you are more interested in passing something than passing something good, which goes beyond the mere enthusiasm to participate that I try to encourage.

Thank you for referring to me as a complete idiot, I'll be sure to write that in my resume for the future.

All sarcasm aside, again, I understand your point, but I also understand the topic. The fact you believe I don't, while warranted due to past proposals of my own, and I concede that, is a bit saddening nonetheless. My suggestion for you is that instead of complaining about my explanation because its too vague for you and, frankly*, you only, perhaps show what edits you wish to see, and then we can see something physical to argue about.

*=No one else has brought up this point, not even the other secretariat that posted here. If they saw the same issue there's a fair chance they would've said something already. Note that this is not entirely a given, but it's definitely possible.

Point of order, my flippant tone was meant to convey a ruder version of what Sep has been telling you: that you either 1: do not understand this concept well enough to legislate on it, or 2: if you do, you are intentionally writing the most moronic proposal on the topic imaginable. Neither is a sound way to make policy.

I apologize if the level of sarcasm I employed obfuscated that fact.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Inasmuch as Separatist Peoples has a degree in ecology, I'm willing to respect his opinion on the proposal. He probably knows more about ecology than I do.

[Untecna]

Inasmuch as Separatist Peoples has a degree in ecology, I'm willing to respect his opinion on the proposal. He probably knows more about ecology than I do.

Oh, trust me, I do respect him here. My issue is that it seems more like a personal issue for him nd not one that will cause much issue with the actual resolution.

Basically, it feels very unnecessarily nitpicky.

[Separatist Peoples]

Inasmuch as Separatist Peoples has a degree in ecology, I'm willing to respect his opinion on the proposal. He probably knows more about ecology than I do.

Oh, trust me, I do respect him here. My issue is that it seems more like a personal issue for him nd not one that will cause much issue with the actual resolution.

Basically, it feels very unnecessarily nitpicky.

OOC: I've no personal animus against you. Just against poor drafting. That's why I kept my analysis to nonpersonal factors. Don't flatter yourself.

[Untecna]

Oh, trust me, I do respect him here. My issue is that it seems more like a personal issue for him nd not one that will cause much issue with the actual resolution.

Basically, it feels very unnecessarily nitpicky.

OOC: I've no personal animus against you. Just against poor drafting. That's why I kept my analysis to nonpersonal factors. Don't flatter yourself.

Please, I wasn't saying you had a personal bias against me. If I did, I'd be far from the truth. I meant what you said was more of a personal issue, and I meant that as me saying you were the only one pointing that out, and you gave it such a twist as to say it was important when no one else before, not even another Secretariat, had made that kind of point.

Essentially, I meant you were only nitpicking at that because you, specifically, wanted more definition. And there is nothing wrong with that, just that I have seen no one, despite two other posters making posts, actually agreeing with that, and seeing as that would probably have been covered by Hulldom or Apato already, seeing as they might find that an issue on their own, it just seems like a personal nitpick because you wanted it.

Edit: That is not to say I won't attempt to appease you. I will add a broader amount of effects to the list, for extra information, but only so much, as per my earlier points.

[Imperium Anglorum]

C Marcius Blythe. I have here a note from my predecessor, Elsie Mortimer Wellesley: "I am puzzled as to why there is this seeming belief that the fauna of the present is somehow so superior to that of the future that we must take decisive action to prevent those future animals from existing in the first place". Perhaps Ambassador Iliana can explain this to us.

[Untecna]

C Marcius Blythe. I have here a note from my predecessor, Elsie Mortimer Wellesley: "I am puzzled as to why there is this seeming belief that the fauna of the present is somehow so superior to that of the future that we must take decisive action to prevent those future animals from existing in the first place". Perhaps Ambassador Iliana can explain this to us.

"Ambassador Blythe, let me detail for you how not saving these species now will result in quite the opposite of your views", she would reply. "First, let me stress that evolution takes thousands, even millions of years at times, and natural selection, while shorter than evolution, still takes much time. In the immediate, simply waiting is not an option. If that were the case, most of our legislation here covering substantial issues in the immediate would not exist. I know for a fact your delegation would have to have authored some of them. I further will note that fragmented populations would die out before any significant change could be made to them. You must remember that with such a limited gene pool, most would be more or less inbred, and while mutations exist, they are erratic and unpredictable. Simply put, the kinds of situations fragmented populations are in do not always correlate to the ability for evolution to occur. If it were the question of sapient life being fragmented, Ambassador, you would take the same course of action we are: being proactive and not sitting on our butts."

[Imperium Anglorum]

C Marcius Blythe. I have here a note from my predecessor, Elsie Mortimer Wellesley: "I am puzzled as to why there is this seeming belief that the fauna of the present is somehow so superior to that of the future that we must take decisive action to prevent those future animals from existing in the first place". Perhaps Ambassador Iliana can explain this to us.

"Ambassador Blythe, let me detail for you how not saving these species now will result in quite the opposite of your views", she would reply. "First, let me stress that evolution takes thousands, even millions of years at times, and natural selection, while shorter than evolution, still takes much time. In the immediate, simply waiting is not an option. If that were the case, most of our legislation here covering substantial issues in the immediate would not exist. I know for a fact your delegation would have to have authored some of them. I further will note that fragmented populations would die out before any significant change could be made to them. You must remember that with such a limited gene pool, most would be more or less inbred, and while mutations exist, they are erratic and unpredictable. Simply put, the kinds of situations fragmented populations are in do not always correlate to the ability for evolution to occur. If it were the question of sapient life being fragmented, Ambassador, you would take the same course of action we are: being proactive and not sitting on our butts."

C Marcius Blythe. Your overwrought claims of extinction are untrue. Your proposal does not say "determine that some population is unsustainable due to its fragmentation and then, if so, bring it together". It says "where there is fragmentation, get rid of it". There are no contingencies on your strange claims of inbreeding or limited gene pools.

As to the matter of fragmented sapient populations. We in fact do have a consistent view on this topic. After significant thought, the United Commonwealth's does not make first contact with isolated peoples, especially if they might be susceptible to foreign contagion. Your proposals would bite the same harms.

[Untecna]

"Ambassador Blythe, let me detail for you how not saving these species now will result in quite the opposite of your views", she would reply. "First, let me stress that evolution takes thousands, even millions of years at times, and natural selection, while shorter than evolution, still takes much time. In the immediate, simply waiting is not an option. If that were the case, most of our legislation here covering substantial issues in the immediate would not exist. I know for a fact your delegation would have to have authored some of them. I further will note that fragmented populations would die out before any significant change could be made to them. You must remember that with such a limited gene pool, most would be more or less inbred, and while mutations exist, they are erratic and unpredictable. Simply put, the kinds of situations fragmented populations are in do not always correlate to the ability for evolution to occur. If it were the question of sapient life being fragmented, Ambassador, you would take the same course of action we are: being proactive and not sitting on our butts."

C Marcius Blythe. Your overwrought claims of extinction are untrue. Your proposal does not say "determine that some population is unsustainable due to its fragmentation and then, if so, bring it together". It says "where there is fragmentation, get rid of it". There are no contingencies on your strange claims of inbreeding or limited gene pools.

As to the matter of fragmented sapient populations. We in fact do have a consistent view on this topic. After significant thought, the United Commonwealth's does not make first contact with isolated peoples, especially if they might be susceptible to foreign contagion. Your proposals would bite the same harms.

"Strange claims of limited genetic pools? Good sir, I believe that is plenty normal to be seen as an effect of fragmentation, since the amount of individuals as adults is always limited. And to knock on your claim of falsehood for extinction, all populations of fragmented animals, unless some god-sent miracle happens, or in this case, a piece of international legislation passes, there is no hope for a truly sustainable fragmented population. With all the issues that arise due to fragmentation, that have, indeed, been mentioned on this floor, in the proposal, I'm surprised you haven already figured this out."