Advertisement
by Ransium » Mon May 29, 2017 3:30 pm
by Ransium » Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:14 pm
by Ransium » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:10 pm
by Capercom » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:48 pm
Ransium wrote:Probably submitting this in ~5 days if I don't hear anything else. This may be the last warning.
From the Desk of:
Nuky Bristow
Capercom World Assembly
Ambassador
by Ransium » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:13 pm
by Capercom » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:56 am
From the Desk of:
Nuky Bristow
Capercom World Assembly
Ambassador
by Ransium » Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:53 am
Capercom wrote:All in all, I don't see anything that would prevent Capercom from voting in affirmation of this Proposal. I do a question though, that I'm not certain have been asked as I didn't go back through and read the entire thread (I'm sorry):
Does this Proposal take into account animals that solely exist in a particular region? If RandomNation is the only nation in the world who has AnimalB, and it has never and does not exist in any other nation, RandomNation would still have to protect the animal per the actions required in this Proposal. Yes?
That would be the only argument I could see being made to counter this Proposal, other than the belief that the environment/animals shouldn't be kept prosperous as they are impeding on human development...but nothing in this type of Proposal could win over that group of WA members favor.
When it is proposed, I would be more than happy to have this Proposal's backing while discussing WA matters within my region.
- Forms the WA Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) with the following and responsibilities:
1) The WAESC is responsible for determining reasonable numbers at which each species will be considered endangered.
2) The WAESC is responsible for accurately monitoring species’ numbers.
3) Should a species become endangered, or exhibit repeated numeric decline, the WAESC is responsible for creation of and direction of conservation efforts.
by Capercom » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:59 am
Ransium wrote:Capercom wrote:All in all, I don't see anything that would prevent Capercom from voting in affirmation of this Proposal. I do a question though, that I'm not certain have been asked as I didn't go back through and read the entire thread (I'm sorry):
Does this Proposal take into account animals that solely exist in a particular region? If RandomNation is the only nation in the world who has AnimalB, and it has never and does not exist in any other nation, RandomNation would still have to protect the animal per the actions required in this Proposal. Yes?
That would be the only argument I could see being made to counter this Proposal, other than the belief that the environment/animals shouldn't be kept prosperous as they are impeding on human development...but nothing in this type of Proposal could win over that group of WA members favor.
When it is proposed, I would be more than happy to have this Proposal's backing while discussing WA matters within my region.
What constitutes an endangered species is currently defined in GAR 66 "Endangered Species Protection" which says:- Forms the WA Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) with the following and responsibilities:
1) The WAESC is responsible for determining reasonable numbers at which each species will be considered endangered.
2) The WAESC is responsible for accurately monitoring species’ numbers.
3) Should a species become endangered, or exhibit repeated numeric decline, the WAESC is responsible for creation of and direction of conservation efforts.
If I understand your question you asking about locally endemic species. Whether those species would be protected would be determined by the WAESC based presumably on population number and trajectory.
From the Desk of:
Nuky Bristow
Capercom World Assembly
Ambassador
by Ransium » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:21 am
by Ransium » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:02 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:36 pm
Bears Armed Mission wrote:Believing that because extinction is irreversible, and letting a species that currently exists in only one nation become extinct therefore permanently renders all nations incapable of ever acquiring populations of that species, member nations have a moral obligation -- not only to their own peoples today, but also to future generations of those peoples and to the international community -- to take action against such illegal collection and smuggling;
by Ransium » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:02 pm
by Bears Armed » Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:23 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:"I support such language, but my Cabinet colleagues in Greyhall would like justification for why permanent inability of acquisition is a bad thing. To take a parasitical view of it, we would be happy if in the future, it became impossible for anyone in society to acquire polio or smallpox."
by Bakhton » Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:08 am
by Vandario » Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:04 am
by Iraines » Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:48 pm
by Burninati0n » Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:16 pm
by Araraukar » Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:21 pm
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Eriaroon World Assembly Experiment » Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:36 pm
by States of Glory WA Office » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:01 pm
Bakhton wrote:"We proudly stand in support of this legislation."
by Myopic » Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:14 pm
by Ransium » Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:25 pm
Myopic wrote:I am concerned that this would inhibit breeding programs of endangered species and make genetic inbreeding from small local populations a certainty - probably leading to greater species loss from genetic disease.
Without a clause that specifically deals with this issue in plain terms I'll be voting no.
They are specimens or goods that are being collected or being returned as part of a scientifically run species restoration program;
by Bears Armed Mission » Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:36 am
by Transtemporal Shifts » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:06 am
by Adreshashushi » Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:36 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Fachumonn
Advertisement