NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Sensible Limits on Hunting

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Bears Armed Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 831
Founded: Jul 26, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

[PASSED] Sensible Limits on Hunting

Postby Bears Armed Mission » Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:31 am

To answer one important question that hasn't already been asked here: Yes, although no longer a WA member itself, Bears Armed proper (including The Ursine Northlands), will be voluntarily in full compliance with this legislation.


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.


Sensible Limits on Hunting

Category:
Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

Description: The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the wide range of cultures and economic systems that exist across its member nations,

Aware that hunting wild animals for their meat (which is sometimes called '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 this hunting for their own survival,

Concerned that increases in national populations and easier access to hunting grounds may increase levels of hunting, and maybe also extension of hunting activity to non-traditional prey species, which could seriously threaten the survival of local stocks or even of entire species,

Noting that some meats and other products obtained by hunting are traded internationally, and that increasing population and/or wealth in importing nations may also cause 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 hunting. and international trade in the products of this, 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 hunting of non-endangered animal stocks, or to ban hunting of any animals, within their borders;

2. Requires all member nations to regulate hunting within their borders, on the basis of relevant expert advice, in order to keep the stocks of animals 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 organisms 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 which that hunting is economically and/.or culturally the most important;

4. Requires all member nations to prohibit the sale and use of meat or other products obtained by illegal hunting of animals;

5. Requires that meat, captive wild animals, and other goods obtained through the hunting of animals, may only be exported from or imported into a member nation if they are properly and accurately certified as having been
A. Obtained through legally allowed hunting;
B. Tested properly for risks to public health, and confirmed honestly as safe;
and
C. Obtained only from non-endangered stocks, unless they are either (i) live animals, embryos, or gametes, being shipped for use in scientifically-run breeding programmes; (ii) previous exports being repatriated; (iii) animals rescued from captivity, being sent for release in the proper environments; (iv) gained by methods that did not make those stocks more endangered, and being sent for academic use; or v) materials included in artworks or antiques, and originally taken (from animal 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 involve unnecessary cruelty, and the trade in meat or other goods obtained through such methods;

8. Urges member nations to ensure that any products obtained by legal hunting within their borders are properly tested for health risks before those goods are sold or consumed there.

Co-author: Hirota.


Changes from second draft: new operative clause ‘1’, confirming member nations’ general right to allow or ban hunting; all other operative clauses re-numbered accordingly; next clause now refers to “relevant expert advice” rather than just “appropriate scientific advice”; the clause about international trade involving endangered species now refers to “legally allowed hunting” rather than “legally permitted hunting”, to reduce the scope for misunderstanding; the sub-clause about imports/exports for breeding programmes now refers to “Live animals, embryos, or gametes” rather than to “Live animals, or genetic material”; the sub-clause about import/export of antiques now specifically mentions artworks too, and only requires that the animals weren’t “obviously endangered” — rather than that they were actually “un-endangered” — when those materials were originally acquired; and the wording has been fiddled-with a bit elsewhere, too, in order to keep the draft as a whole within the allowed limits despite those more significant changes.



[box]Sensible Limits on Hunting

Category:
Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

Description: The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the wide range of cultures and economic systems that exist across its member nations.

Aware that the hunting of wild animals for their meat (which is sometimes called either 'bushmeat' or 'game') and possibly for other reasons is an important activity within some of those cultures and economic systems, and that some people may actually rely on this hunting for their own subsistence,

Concerned that increases in national populations and easier access to hunting grounds may lead to increased levels of hunting, and perhaps also to the extension of hunting activity to non-traditional prey species, which could seriously threaten the survival of local stocks or even entire species of some animals,

Noting that some meat and other products obtained by hunting is traded internationally, and that increasing population and/or wealth in the importing nations may also lead to increased levels of hunting,

Concerned also that meat obtained by hunting may be more likely than meat from domestic livestock to carry parasites and diseases that could be transmitted to people,

Determined that levels of hunting and 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. Requires that all member nations restrict hunting within their borders, on the basis of appropriate scientific advice, in order to maintain the stocks of animals involved at sustainable and environmentally suitable levels;

2. Urges member nations that restrict the hunting of any species of animals to give adequate priority for hunting rights to those communities there for which that hunting is culturally and/or economically the most important;

3. Requires that all member nations prohibit the sale and use of meat or other products obtained by illegal hunting of animals;

4. Requires that meat, captive wild animals, and other goods obtained through the hunting of animals, may only be exported from any member nation, or imported into a member nation from any non-member nation, if they are properly and accurately certified as having been
A. Obtained through legally permitted hunting;
B. Tested properly for risks to public health, and confirmed honestly as safe;
and
C. Obtained only from non-endangered stocks, unless they are_
i) Live animals, or genetic material, being shipped for participation in scientifically-run breeding programmes;
ii) Previous exports now being repatriated;
iii) Live animals being sent from captivity for rehabilitation and release in appropriate environments;
iv) Obtained by methods that did not increase those stocks’ levels of endangerment, and being transferred for academic use;
or
v) Parts of antique items, into which they were incorporated (from then-unendangered stock) at least 99 years ago;

5. Strongly urges member nations to teach their people about the ecological problems that unregulated hunting can cause;

6. Strongly urges member nations to ban any hunting methods that involve unnecessary cruelty, and the importation of meat or other goods obtained through such methods;

7. Encourages member nations to set up systems for testing meat and other products obtained by legal hunting within their borders for health risks before those goods are sold or consumed there.

Co-author: Hirota.

(Changes made from the first draft: several typos fixed; insertion of the usual ‘boilerplate’ to cover potential clashes with earlier resolutions; some extra emphasis placed (in clause #4) on the need for product certification to be accurate & honest; rules about trading in members of & materials from endangered species sorted out, new clause #6 (about “cruel” hunting methods) inserted, former clause #6 renumbered as #7.)


Sensible Limits on Hunting

Category:
Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

Description: The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the wide range of cultures and economic systems that exist across its member nations.

Aware that the hunting of wild animals for their meat (which is sometimes called either 'bushmeat' or 'game') and possibly for other reasons is an important activity within some of those cultures and economic systems, and that some people may actually rely on this hunting for their own subsistence,

Concerned that increases in national populations and easier access to hunting grounds may lead to increased levels of hunting, and perhaps also to the extension of hunting activity to non-traditional prey species, which could seriously threaten the survival of local stocks or even entire species of some animals,

Noting that some meat and other products obtained by hunting is traded internationally, and that increasing population and/or wealth in the importing nations may also lead to increased levels of hunting,

Concerned also that meat obtained by hunting may be more likely than meat from domestic livestock to carry parasites and diseases that could be transmitted to people,

Determined that levels of hunting and international trade in the products of hunting should therefore be regulated to prevent over-hunting and to protect public health;

1. Requires that all member nations restrict hunting within their borders, on the basis of approriate scientific advice, in order to maintain the stocks of animals involved at sustainable and environmentally suitable levels;

2. Urges member nations that restrict the hunting of any species of animals to give adequate priority for hunting rights to those communities there for which that hunting is culturally and/or economically the most important;

3. Requires that all member nations prohibit the sale and consumption of meat or other products obtained by illegal hunting of animals;

4. Requires that meat, captive wild animals, and other goods obtained through the hunting of animals, may only be exported from any member nation, or imported into a member nation from any non-member nation, if they are properly certified as having been
A. Obtained only from non-endangered stocks, unless they are live animals being shipped for participation in scientifically-run breeding programmes; (EDIT: also need to add exemption for materials that were used in the production of certified antiques?)
B. Obtained through legally permitted hunting;
and
C. Tested for risks to public health, and certfied as safe;

5. Strongly urges member nations to teach their people about the ecological problems involved in unregulated hunting;

6. Encourages member nations to set up systems for testing meat and any other products obtained by legal hunting within their borders for health risks before those goods are sold or consumed there.

Co-author: Hirota.
Last edited by Frisbeeteria on Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:59 pm, edited 18 times in total.
This is the WA Mission of Bears Armed, but is technically defined as a separate nation in its own right for all legal purposes. Population = sixty-four seventy-two staff, plus some dependents.

GA Resolution Author

Ardchoille says: “Bears can be depended on for decent arguments even when there aren't any”.

User avatar
South Kilinsky
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 60
Founded: Jul 20, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby South Kilinsky » Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:11 am

B. Obtained through legally permitted hunting;
and
C. Tested for risks to public health, and certfied as safe;


For the most part I agree with this legislation. However, these two points concern me. The first concerns me due to international differences on legal hunting (some may define hunting as the searching for and slaughtering of a wild animal with a toothbrush [just an example] as legal hunting so Legally Permitted should be defined somewhere in this draft where it fits. The second concerns me when there are no solid definitions for the Standards of testing and the certification levels of safety. I would suggest opening up a council (if possible, that part of the rules is fuzzy to me) to oversee and regulate the testing and certification of product.


Other than that, this seems like a resolution the Federal Republic of South Kilinsky could get behind when things get sorted


Regards,

User avatar
Bears Armed Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 831
Founded: Jul 26, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed Mission » Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:59 am

(OOC: My apologies about my delay in replying here. RL has, alas, been awkward.)

South Kilinsky wrote:
B. Obtained through legally permitted hunting;
and
C. Tested for risks to public health, and certfied as safe;


For the most part I agree with this legislation. However, these two points concern me. The first concerns me due to international differences on legal hunting (some may define hunting as the searching for and slaughtering of a wild animal with a toothbrush [just an example] as legal hunting so Legally Permitted should be defined somewhere in this draft where it fits.

"By the term 'Legally permitted hunting' I meant simply "hunting carried out in compliance with this [proposed] resolution's other conditions". I'm not going even to try the sort of 'micro-management' that specifying precise details as to what forms of hunting are or aren't acceptable would entail, and I doubt whether many national governments would tell their ambassadors to support a proposed resolution that gave a WA committee the power of making decisions about that topic.
"Still, though, maybeso a clause requiring member nations to prohibit any hunting methods that involve unnecessary cruelty could be included: Would that satisfy you in this respect?"


The second concerns me when there are no solid definitions for the Standards of testing and the certification levels of safety. I would suggest opening up a council (if possible, that part of the rules is fuzzy to me) to oversee and regulate the testing and certification of product.

"There is a preexisting requirement for member nations to interpret resolutions "in good faith", so I hoped that the existing wording specifying that the products must be
"properly tested" would be enough, but I will think further about this detail."

Other than that, this seems like a resolution the Federal Republic of South Kilinsky could get behind when things get sorted

"Thank you."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.


(OOC: Two more weeks of work, and then I have two weeks off. I currently hope to get this draft ready for submission with enough time left during that latter fortnight for a TG campaign.)





Regards,[/quote]
This is the WA Mission of Bears Armed, but is technically defined as a separate nation in its own right for all legal purposes. Population = sixty-four seventy-two staff, plus some dependents.

GA Resolution Author

Ardchoille says: “Bears can be depended on for decent arguments even when there aren't any”.

User avatar
Three Weasels
Diplomat
 
Posts: 696
Founded: Jan 26, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Three Weasels » Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:39 am

We have no immediate concerns and will consider supporting this if it's submitted.
We're a splinter nation; we believe in Meadowism. We're sapient Mustela Itatsi, distant cousins of the Mustela Erminea and the Mustela Nivalis who shunned the ways of the Meadow for their belligerent beliefs.

We're cheese-powered. So, surrender your cheese. Or else. Yeah... or else. We'll... uh... we'll do something.

Oh and meadows are totally awesome. We love meadows.

User avatar
Bears Armed Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 831
Founded: Jul 26, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed Mission » Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:01 am

Three Weasels wrote:We have no immediate concerns and will consider supporting this if it's submitted.
Thank you.
Usual price?

I have now added a revised draft to this thread's opening post.
This is the WA Mission of Bears Armed, but is technically defined as a separate nation in its own right for all legal purposes. Population = sixty-four seventy-two staff, plus some dependents.

GA Resolution Author

Ardchoille says: “Bears can be depended on for decent arguments even when there aren't any”.

User avatar
Talkistan
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 156
Founded: Oct 10, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Talkistan » Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:09 am

Does "hunting" include fishing?

User avatar
Bears Armed Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 831
Founded: Jul 26, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed Mission » Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:22 am

Talkistan wrote:Does "hunting" include fishing?
Fish are animals, so technically "yes". However we already have a resolution (of which, as it happens, this nation is credited as co-author) that requires sustainability for fishing within member nations anyhows, and whilst that is in place the line here about "earlier resolutions that are still in force" means that its terms take priority over the contents of this proposal as far as fishing is concerned: Only if this proposal were to be passed and that other resolution then repealed would this become the main piece of WA legislation on that aspect of the matter.
Last edited by Bears Armed Mission on Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is the WA Mission of Bears Armed, but is technically defined as a separate nation in its own right for all legal purposes. Population = sixty-four seventy-two staff, plus some dependents.

GA Resolution Author

Ardchoille says: “Bears can be depended on for decent arguments even when there aren't any”.

User avatar
Wheeled States of Bifid
Diplomat
 
Posts: 568
Founded: Jun 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Wheeled States of Bifid » Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:40 am

I strongly support this.
Afforess wrote:This is how Democracy dies - with thunderous applause.
Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.18
J.E. Wheeler, Guardian, Wheeled States of Bifid, WA Delegate, Democratium

"Insanity is a gradual process, don't rush it."

"People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Generation 36 (The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.)

User avatar
Retired WerePenguins
Diplomat
 
Posts: 767
Founded: Apr 26, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Retired WerePenguins » Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:09 pm

The resolution is .... how can I put this ... rather ... large. You might loose the fluffies on this one.

Otherwise, I really like this resolution. It's good. It's nice. And it really does apply to NS.

You have my support.
Totally Naked
Tourist Eating
Ex WA
NationState_
"That's the one thing I like about the WA; it allows me to shove my moral compass up your legislative branch, assuming a majority agrees." James Blonde
"Even so, I see nothing in WA policy that requires that the resolution have a concrete basis in fact," Minister from Frenequesta
"There are some things worse than death. I believe being Canadian Prime Minister is one of them." Brother Maynard.

User avatar
Normlpeople
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1597
Founded: Apr 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Normlpeople » Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:53 am

We are actually surprised this topic has not been discussed, and a resolution put forth, on this topic already.

We look forward to supporting this.
Words and Opinion of Clover the Clever
Ambassador to the WA for the Armed Kingdom of Normlpeople

User avatar
Barbossa
Secretary
 
Posts: 37
Founded: Jul 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Barbossa » Sun Oct 13, 2013 4:38 am

1. Requires that all member nations restrict hunting within their borders, on the basis of appropriate scientific advice, in order to maintain the stocks of animals involved at sustainable and environmentally suitable levels;


We are generally in support of this idea but have concerns with the above. In extreme cases, animals can cause mass human deaths through the spreading of diseases including rabies, bubonic plague, monkeypox, West Nile encephalitis, Legionnaires' disease. A mass outbreak can cause millions of human deaths which may necessitate the mass extermination of a certain animal to save human life, plague outbreaks carried by rats for example. In this case concerns about maintaining a sustainable level of the animal in question are irrelevant. Furthermore in the time taken to undertake population studies etc more life could be lost. Also using the term animals can include insects (a class of Kingdom Animalia) which would then include malaria spread by mosquitoes and dozens of other insects.

As it reads the scientific advise seems to be referring to pop studies etc to maintain stocks not to deal with the above. A rewording or proviso to allow nations to act in the national interest when necessary could address this concern.

User avatar
Infectious Microorganisms
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 17
Founded: Oct 10, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Infectious Microorganisms » Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:31 am

Barbossa wrote:
1. Requires that all member nations restrict hunting within their borders, on the basis of appropriate scientific advice, in order to maintain the stocks of animals involved at sustainable and environmentally suitable levels;


We are generally in support of this idea but have concerns with the above. In extreme cases, animals can cause mass human deaths through the spreading of diseases including rabies, bubonic plague, monkeypox, West Nile encephalitis, Legionnaires' disease. A mass outbreak can cause millions of human deaths which may necessitate the mass extermination of a certain animal to save human life, plague outbreaks carried by rats for example. In this case concerns about maintaining a sustainable level of the animal in question are irrelevant. Furthermore in the time taken to undertake population studies etc more life could be lost. Also using the term animals can include insects (a class of Kingdom Animalia) which would then include malaria spread by mosquitoes and dozens of other insects.

As it reads the scientific advise seems to be referring to pop studies etc to maintain stocks not to deal with the above. A rewording or proviso to allow nations to act in the national interest when necessary could address this concern.


Hey now! Some of my best friends are encephalitis, thank you very much! Any my genetic strain-progenitor came from a rat, so you watch your tone!

From an environmental point of view, failure to maintain adequate stocks just because a population carries a dangerous disease is ridiculous. Reasonable alternatives to mass extermination are available to all but the most exotic of creatures. Even Brain Slugs only require a garlic-based shampoo for a few weeks, and they are plenty dangerous. Alternative measures to wha amounts to ecological genocide should be pursued at all costs.
Ambassador Yersinia pestis, of the Colony of Infectious Microorganisms, at your service!


A designated and certified Separatist Peoples Puppet!

User avatar
Bears Armed Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 831
Founded: Jul 26, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed Mission » Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:37 am

Retired WerePenguins wrote:The resolution is .... how can I put this ... rather ... large. You might loose the fluffies on this one.
"Loose" the fluffies?
"Cry havoc! And unleash the fluffies of war!"
(Presumably you meant "lose"?)
I'll take that chance, and hope that any of them who consider it too long to read vote on the basis of the title. We'll lose some of the fluffies anyhows, because this isn't a total ban on hunting, of course...

Retired WerePenguins wrote:Otherwise, I really like this resolution. It's good. It's nice. And it really does apply to NS.

You have my support.
Thank you.

Normlpeople wrote:We are actually surprised this topic has not been discussed, and a resolution put forth, on this topic already.

We look forward to supporting this.
Thank you.

Barbossa wrote:
1. Requires that all member nations restrict hunting within their borders, on the basis of appropriate scientific advice, in order to maintain the stocks of animals involved at sustainable and environmentally suitable levels;


We are generally in support of this idea but have concerns with the above. In extreme cases, animals can cause mass human deaths through the spreading of diseases including rabies, bubonic plague, monkeypox, West Nile encephalitis, Legionnaires' disease. A mass outbreak can cause millions of human deaths which may necessitate the mass extermination of a certain animal to save human life, plague outbreaks carried by rats for example. In this case concerns about maintaining a sustainable level of the animal in question are irrelevant. Furthermore in the time taken to undertake population studies etc more life could be lost. Also using the term animals can include insects (a class of Kingdom Animalia) which would then include malaria spread by mosquitoes and dozens of other insects.

As it reads the scientific advise seems to be referring to pop studies etc to maintain stocks not to deal with the above. A rewording or proviso to allow nations to act in the national interest when necessary could address this concern.

Point noted. I suppose one could try arguing that for a species posing a major health risk like that the "environmentally suitable" level would be "none", but maybeso the current wording doesn't actually support that interpretation... and there's the 'invasive species' situation, too. I'll modify this clause.
Last edited by Bears Armed Mission on Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is the WA Mission of Bears Armed, but is technically defined as a separate nation in its own right for all legal purposes. Population = sixty-four seventy-two staff, plus some dependents.

GA Resolution Author

Ardchoille says: “Bears can be depended on for decent arguments even when there aren't any”.

User avatar
Barbossa
Secretary
 
Posts: 37
Founded: Jul 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Barbossa » Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:50 am

Infectious Microorganisms wrote:Hey now! Some of my best friends are encephalitis, thank you very much! Any my genetic strain-progenitor came from a rat, so you watch your tone!

From an environmental point of view, failure to maintain adequate stocks just because a population carries a dangerous disease is ridiculous. Reasonable alternatives to mass extermination are available to all but the most exotic of creatures. Even Brain Slugs only require a garlic-based shampoo for a few weeks, and they are plenty dangerous. Alternative measures to wha amounts to ecological genocide should be pursued at all costs.


Completely disagree, the survival of the sentient life form must be the priority. While I fully support all environmental policies, I can not in good conscious support anything which would in an extreme situation endanger human or otherwise sentient life. I would love to see someone tell a village suffering from the plague that rats carried it here but we cant harm the rats as quite a few were already killed and we have to think of the poor rats, plague be damned. So man up and get over your deadly contagious disease. Not all nations have access to advanced medicines or technologies or even the science behind them and in the time taken to implement population studies and alternate cures, sentient life could be lost. Yes save the animals, save the world but burn the plague carrying rats, save the village.

Bears Armed Mission wrote:Point noted. I suppose one could try arguing that for a species posing a major health risk like that the "environmentally suitable" level would be "none", but maybeso the current wording doesn't actually support that interpretation... and there's the 'invasive species' situation, too. I'll modify this clause.


Thanks, will have a read through the rest later on but like the idea though

User avatar
Qeno
Minister
 
Posts: 3204
Founded: Sep 30, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Qeno » Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:55 am

Bears Armed Mission wrote:

Concerned that increases in national populations and easier access to hunting grounds may lead to increased levels of hunting, and perhaps also to the extension of hunting activity to non-traditional prey species, which could seriously threaten the survival of local stocks or even entire species of some animals,

Concerned also that meat obtained by hunting may be more likely than meat from domestic livestock to carry parasites and diseases that could be transmitted to people,

Determined that levels of hunting and 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. Requires that all member nations restrict hunting within their borders, on the basis of appropriate scientific advice, in order to maintain the stocks of animals involved at sustainable and environmentally suitable levels;

3. Requires that all member nations prohibit the sale and use of meat or other products obtained by illegal hunting of animals;

4. Requires that meat, captive wild animals, and other goods obtained through the hunting of animals, may only be exported from any member nation, or imported into a member nation from any non-member nation, if they are properly and accurately certified as having been
A. Obtained through legally permitted hunting;
B. Tested properly for risks to public health, and confirmed honestly as safe;
and
C. Obtained only from non-endangered stocks, unless they are_
i) Live animals, or genetic material, being shipped for participation in scientifically-run breeding programmes;
ii) Previous exports now being repatriated;
iii) Live animals being sent from captivity for rehabilitation and release in appropriate environments;
iv) Obtained by methods that did not increase those stocks’ levels of endangerment, and being transferred for academic use;
or
v) Parts of antique items, into which they were incorporated (from then-unendangered stock) at least 99 years ago;

5. Strongly urges member nations to teach their people about the ecological problems that unregulated hunting can cause;

6. Strongly urges member nations to ban any hunting methods that involve unnecessary cruelty, and the importation of meat or other goods obtained through such methods;


You know...I just can't approve this since

1. It's difficult to maintain stocks of wild animals that may or may not have migrated thought all of my nation's boarders
2. Hunters are very conservative and hunt only to put meat on the table or placing it in the market.
3. Most people in my nation prefer to shop at a supermarket for their food
4.I cannot force people to learn about the ecological problems that unregulated hunting can cause if they hold no interest in it

I half agree with #6 since unnecessary cruelty is morally wrong in my personal opinion but once that meat hits the marketplace the shoppers don't know of the history of the meat.
Desired Tech Level: Future Tech
My nation's pronounciation: Key-No
National government: A imperialist constitutional monarchy with a matriarch as a ruler and an assembly to advise her will
Anti-realist in RPs

User avatar
Bears Armed Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 831
Founded: Jul 26, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed Mission » Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:19 am

Qeno wrote:You know...I just can't approve this since

1. It's difficult to maintain stocks of wild animals that may or may not have migrated thought all of my nation's boarders
You can't do "difficult", even with scientific advice? you can't cooperate with your neighbours? I realise that migratory stocks may be be a bit more difficult to plan about than permanently-resident stocks, but setting sustainable quotas for hunting -- even if this means erring on the side of caution by what more detailed research might eventually prove to be a wider-than-absolutely-necessary margin -- should be possible.

Qeno wrote:2. Hunters are very conservative and hunt only to put meat on the table or placing it in the market.
If they're also "conservative" about how many hunters there are and how many animals they take, then no problem... but If the number of hunters and/or the average numbers of prey taken per hunter are likely to increase then wouldn't setting limits before they hunt those stocks to near-extinction -- and then have to stop hunting anyhows, simply due to lack of prey -- be a good idea?

Qeno wrote:3. Most people in my nation prefer to shop at a supermarket for their food
And?

Qeno wrote:4.I cannot force people to learn about the ecological problems that unregulated hunting can cause if they hold no interest in it
As the relevant clause only "strongly urges" you to do so it doesn't actually require that you "force" anybody to learn that.

Qeno wrote:I half agree with #6 since unnecessary cruelty is morally wrong in my personal opinion but once that meat hits the marketplace the shoppers don't know of the history of the meat.
They could be told...


_________________________________________________________________________________________


I've now expanded clause #1 in accordance with the point raised by Barbossa, and edited the text elsewhere in some places too in order to keep the overall length within the limit allowed (I hope...) despite that expansion.
This is the WA Mission of Bears Armed, but is technically defined as a separate nation in its own right for all legal purposes. Population = sixty-four seventy-two staff, plus some dependents.

GA Resolution Author

Ardchoille says: “Bears can be depended on for decent arguments even when there aren't any”.

User avatar
Qeno
Minister
 
Posts: 3204
Founded: Sep 30, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Qeno » Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:27 am

Yes they could be told but how many would care?

and finally I think most hunters hunt in places where vehicles cannot manuver
Desired Tech Level: Future Tech
My nation's pronounciation: Key-No
National government: A imperialist constitutional monarchy with a matriarch as a ruler and an assembly to advise her will
Anti-realist in RPs

User avatar
Infectious Microorganisms
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 17
Founded: Oct 10, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Infectious Microorganisms » Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:05 am

Barbossa wrote:
Infectious Microorganisms wrote:Hey now! Some of my best friends are encephalitis, thank you very much! Any my genetic strain-progenitor came from a rat, so you watch your tone!

From an environmental point of view, failure to maintain adequate stocks just because a population carries a dangerous disease is ridiculous. Reasonable alternatives to mass extermination are available to all but the most exotic of creatures. Even Brain Slugs only require a garlic-based shampoo for a few weeks, and they are plenty dangerous. Alternative measures to wha amounts to ecological genocide should be pursued at all costs.


Completely disagree, the survival of the sentient life form must be the priority. While I fully support all environmental policies, I can not in good conscious support anything which would in an extreme situation endanger human or otherwise sentient life. I would love to see someone tell a village suffering from the plague that rats carried it here but we cant harm the rats as quite a few were already killed and we have to think of the poor rats, plague be damned. So man up and get over your deadly contagious disease. Not all nations have access to advanced medicines or technologies or even the science behind them and in the time taken to implement population studies and alternate cures, sentient life could be lost. Yes save the animals, save the world but burn the plague carrying rats, save the village.

Bears Armed Mission wrote:Point noted. I suppose one could try arguing that for a species posing a major health risk like that the "environmentally suitable" level would be "none", but maybeso the current wording doesn't actually support that interpretation... and there's the 'invasive species' situation, too. I'll modify this clause.


Thanks, will have a read through the rest later on but like the idea though


So , your idea of saving a village from plague isn't treating the disease? Or teaching he villagers how to avoid contact with the infecting vectors? Or provide them with the tools to do so? I wasn't aware that saving a village necessitated a man-made ecological disaster, especially when the vector creature is a native creature. I suppose if your nation is so impoverished that you cannot provide alternatives, I'm sure there are resources available to you via other resolutions on the books that offer humanitarian aid.
Ambassador Yersinia pestis, of the Colony of Infectious Microorganisms, at your service!


A designated and certified Separatist Peoples Puppet!

User avatar
Barbossa
Secretary
 
Posts: 37
Founded: Jul 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Barbossa » Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:24 am

Infectious Microorganisms wrote:So , your idea of saving a village from plague isn't treating the disease? Or teaching he villagers how to avoid contact with the infecting vectors? Or provide them with the tools to do so? I wasn't aware that saving a village necessitated a man-made ecological disaster, especially when the vector creature is a native creature. I suppose if your nation is so impoverished that you cannot provide alternatives, I'm sure there are resources available to you via other resolutions on the books that offer humanitarian aid.


You are confusing short and long term goals. Long term education, short term eradication. And yep, as far as I am concerned any nation which fails to deal with a major life threatening situation immediately and instead focuses on long term education as people die has got its priorities all wrong. Furthermore many nations will have neither the resources or education to achieve what you are suggesting.

Anyhow, I am not going to argue on Bears Armed thread so I will leave it at that.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14061
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:34 am

Bears Armed Mission wrote:"Loose" the fluffies?
"Cry havoc! And unleash the fluffies of war!"

OOC: Thank you for making me choke on my cocoa... :lol2:


Barbossa wrote:Completely disagree, the survival of the sentient life form must be the priority.

Sapient or sentient? (OOC: A regular pet cat is sentient but not sapient. A human is both sentient and sapient. You can be sentient without being sapient, but not sapient without being sentient.)
Last edited by Araraukar on Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Barbossa
Secretary
 
Posts: 37
Founded: Jul 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Barbossa » Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:46 am

Araraukar wrote:
Barbossa wrote:Completely disagree, the survival of the sentient life form must be the priority.

Sapient or sentient? (OOC: A regular pet cat is sentient but not sapient. A human is both sentient and sapient. You can be sentient without being sapient, but not sapient without being sentient.)


Absolutely, point taken, word slip, sorry. Saying that if sapience is the ability to use proper wisdom, judgement, reason and logic to act rationally, then perhaps not every human falls into that category :p

User avatar
The Shaved Pussycat
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 53
Founded: Oct 13, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Shaved Pussycat » Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:12 pm

Barbossa wrote:Absolutely, point taken, word slip, sorry. Saying that if sapience is the ability to use proper wisdom, judgement, reason and logic to act rationally, then perhaps not every human falls into that category :p


The humans who shaved me were certainly not sapient.
This cat was born with 10 lives... in each paw.

Claws sharp, whiskers alert.

Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.9

/sig

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18851
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Bears Armed » Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:28 am

(OOC: I've posted in Moderation to request confirmation that my choice of [catgeory+strength] is okay.)
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ardchoille » Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:18 pm

And Moderation has tossed it back in your lap ... :p

Seriously, you don't need us to tell you that you've met the technical requirement of the category. It says, "a resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency". You've restricted civil freedoms by telling nations to tell their people they can't eat something -- ie, setting a limit on how they live their lives -- so the stats demand is met.

As for the "moral decency" angle, I think that here it's a question of writing style/GA politics and not a modly concern ATM. Strength? Provided you don't suddenly switch to "strong", which would be a bit much for a limited-effect proposal that's just regulating, I'm not gonna argue. Let's see if others do.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Bears Armed Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 831
Founded: Jul 26, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed Mission » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:47 am

Just checking, in case Modly interpretation of the relevant rule had changed. That's happened before (with how the "Proposals must do more than just create a committee' rule works, for example), after all.

Unless anybody comes up with a good point that that requires significant changes to the text I'm planning on submitting this for a trial run early next week.
This is the WA Mission of Bears Armed, but is technically defined as a separate nation in its own right for all legal purposes. Population = sixty-four seventy-two staff, plus some dependents.

GA Resolution Author

Ardchoille says: “Bears can be depended on for decent arguments even when there aren't any”.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads