[PASSED] Repeal Endangered Species Protection

[Ransium]

OOC: Did someone say 'grammar nazi'?

I don't see any major issues, but I'll just note two things:

Praising the spirit of General Assembly Resolution #66 "Endangered Species Protection” and convinced that multitudes of species have been saved from extinction due to it,

I've only ever seen 'multitude' used in the singular form, ie 'a multitude of'. This doesn't seem to be inaccurate, though, so there's no problem here.

Finding other important terms in the resolution to be used ambiguously

I feel like the phrasing of this part could be tightened up a little? I believe it's grammatically correct, but while reading it I was thrown off towards the end. I'm not entirely sure why - 'Finding [something] to be [a certain way]' is an accepted phrase - but I think it could possibly be because there are too many words between 'finding' and 'to be' that I didn't immediately interpret this part as invoking the phrase, and instead read 'to be' as an indicator of future tense, or a standalone infinitive phrase. Something like 'finding other important terms have been used ambiguously' might be better, imo.

Aware that the resolution focuses on the prevention of further harm to endangered species, while only mentioning potential actions to actively increases species population numbers in the direst circumstances,

This is the only objective error I can find.

That's all!

Thank you for the careful read. I have made your two suggested changed. Any further thoughts or feedback?

[Ransium]

Bump.

[Ransium]

Alright, unless I hear otherwise I will submit this within a week.

[Ransium]

This proposal has been submitted.

[Marxist Germany]

"Good luck, ambassador."

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Good luck.)

“I shall wait to see how this plays out. On the one hand, there may be some potential in passing more of a compromise, or nothing at all, in which I shall support this. On the other hand, an even more anti-Business piece of legislation may have a high chance of passing, in which I won’t. Nevertheless, this is very well written.”

[Westond]

We must protec our planet and his habitants.
So representing the nation of Westond, i decleare our support for this motion.

[Santo Andreo]

I don't understand why we are tying to repeal a solution that was brought to attention to protect endangered animals now we just want throw those animals to the side and let them die off. What if a nations animal was a endangered species now this act will open hunting and make things worse. This Action was brought up years ago to protect.

[Kenmoria]

I don't understand why we are tying to repeal a solution that was brought to attention to protect endangered animals now we just want throw those animals to the side and let them die off. What if a nations animal was a endangered species now this act will open hunting and make things worse. This Action was brought up years ago to protect.

(OOC: The reasoning given in the repeal was that there are a few flaws in the target resolution which mean that endangered species aren’t being protected as well as they could be. A replacement draft is currently being drafted.)

[Santo Andreo]

I don't understand why we are tying to repeal a solution that was brought to attention to protect endangered animals now we just want throw those animals to the side and let them die off. What if a nations animal was a endangered species now this act will open hunting and make things worse. This Action was brought up years ago to protect.

(OOC: The reasoning given in the repeal was that there are a few flaws in the target resolution which mean that endangered species aren’t being protected as well as they could be. A replacement draft is currently being drafted.)

(OOC: I also voted against this because there are a few flaws that i don't agree is the best solution to protect these animals if we are trying to find a better permanent way of protecting these animals but i also understand what you're saying. Thank you for better explaining.

[Austronta]

This is a repeal and replace effort. Here is a link to the replacement, Prevention of the Extinction of Species: viewtopic.php?p=35444486#p35444486

The original text of Endangered Species Protection is posted below for your convenience.

Thanks to Uan aa Boa who provided feedback on Forest's forums.

The World Assembly,

Praising the spirit of General Assembly Resolution #66 "Endangered Species Protection” and convinced that multitudes of species have been saved from extinction due to it,

Striving, however, to consistently improve and reduce the ambiguity in existing World Assembly legislation,

Strongly questioning the fact that Endangered Species Protection seemingly only extends most protections to animals, as indicated by "animals", "animal species", and "hunting" being used repeatedly in the resolution, when all biological kingdoms have unique values that would be lost by extinction,

Regretting that the resolution also states that protections need not be extended to certain types of bacteria and viruses (neither of which are animals) creating ambiguity and uncertainty in enforcement as to what forms of life are covered by Endangered Species Protections,

Finding other important terms in the resolution to be used ambiguously, such as the resolution stating that species that WA Endangered Species Committee is responsible for conserving could be "exhibiting repeated numeric decline" a phrase the could pertain to both species experiencing natural population fluctuations and those approaching endangerment; and "pollution" which could be interpreted as narrowly as to mean chemical contaminants found in habitats or as broadly as to include any noise or light impacting the habitat,

While praising the resolution's prohibitions on some actions that are deleterious to endangered species, specifically further habitat loss, habitat pollution, and hunting of endangered species; also noting the resolution does not specifically prohibit other potentially harmful actions such as non-fatal harassment of endangered organisms, the introduction of harmful invasive organisms, and the intentional or accidental disruption of important species activities,

Aware that the resolution focuses on the prevention of further harm to endangered species, while only mentioning potential actions to actively increases species population numbers in the direst circumstances,

Concerned that without a clear active recovery plan, species population levels can remain low indefinitely, leaving a no-win situation of species being at continued risk for extinction and the economically deleterious impact of endangered species protections becoming long term,

Anxious that the binary regulation choice provided for in Endangered Species Protection of species either being endangered and therefore receiving full protection or being fully unprotected lacks flexibility and may create the perverse incentive to forcibly remove species from property before they are found to be endangered so as to avoid future stringent regulations,

Confident that replacement legislation which builds upon the positive legacy of Endangered Species Protection will be put in place rapidly;

Hereby repeals GAR 66: Endangered Species Protection.

I think it just needs to be amended, not repealed entirely.

[Ransium]

You can’t amend existing legislation: viewtopic.php?p=8133714#p8133714

[Bilsa]

91.7% For..........

[Kenmoria]

91.7% For..........

(OOC: The proposal’s fairly well-written, so it doesn’t shock me too much. I had expected it to get more against votes due to the feel-good title of the target resolution and its subject matter, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised by people presumably actually reading the text.)

[Hijlistan Arg]

91.7% For..........

"A good thing! We are happy to see support for environmental protection in this assembly and we agree that a repeal is necessary. AGREED."

[Barbariax]

“This looks good, and has my full support. I do query why ‘hunting’ is included in the ‘questioning’ clause as animal-based language, when it could conceivably apply to killing anything for sport, but that is it.”

(OOC: Are your clauses about being based only on animals supposed to make reference of the exclusion of fungi and plants, or about sentient creatures that aren’t in the Animalia phylum?)

Does Kenmoria intend to support the replacement proposal by Ransium given the objections raised by Kenmoria in the replacement thread (viewtopic.php?p=35444486), and if not, is the potential repeal without replacement favorable to the existing resolution?

[Battlion]

I don't understand why we are tying to repeal a solution that was brought to attention to protect endangered animals now we just want throw those animals to the side and let them die off. What if a nations animal was a endangered species now this act will open hunting and make things worse. This Action was brought up years ago to protect.

(OOC: The reasoning given in the repeal was that there are a few flaws in the target resolution which mean that endangered species aren’t being protected as well as they could be. A replacement draft is currently being drafted.)

Only reason I’m voting Against this repeal currently is that the replacement doesn’t seem to be fully ready, from last time I checked, and I want a lapse in protections to be as minimal as possible.

[Ransium]

(OOC: The reasoning given in the repeal was that there are a few flaws in the target resolution which mean that endangered species aren’t being protected as well as they could be. A replacement draft is currently being drafted.)

Only reason I’m voting Against this repeal currently is that the replacement doesn’t seem to be fully ready, from last time I checked, and I want a lapse in protections to be as minimal as possible.

I'm not sure why you'd say it's not fully ready. I plan on submitting it as soon as this repeal passes and I've addressed all raised issues which were valid in my opinion. if you have your own issues with it you probably should raise them rather than silently waiting for them to resolve themselves. Beyond that, if this had failed I would have almost certainly abandoned the whole effort.

[Inven]

This is a repeal and replace effort. Here is a link to the replacement, Prevention of the Extinction of Species: viewtopic.php?p=35444486#p35444486

The original text of Endangered Species Protection is posted below for your convenience.

Thanks to Uan aa Boa who provided feedback on Forest's forums.

The World Assembly,

Praising the spirit of General Assembly Resolution #66 "Endangered Species Protection” and convinced that multitudes of species have been saved from extinction due to it,

Striving, however, to consistently improve and reduce the ambiguity in existing World Assembly legislation,

Strongly questioning the fact that Endangered Species Protection seemingly only extends most protections to animals, as indicated by "animals", "animal species", and "hunting" being used repeatedly in the resolution, when all biological kingdoms have unique values that would be lost by extinction,

Regretting that the resolution also states that protections need not be extended to certain types of bacteria and viruses (neither of which are animals) creating ambiguity and uncertainty in enforcement as to what forms of life are covered by Endangered Species Protections,

Finding other important terms in the resolution to be used ambiguously, such as the resolution stating that species that WA Endangered Species Committee is responsible for conserving could be "exhibiting repeated numeric decline" a phrase the could pertain to both species experiencing natural population fluctuations and those approaching endangerment; and "pollution" which could be interpreted as narrowly as to mean chemical contaminants found in habitats or as broadly as to include any noise or light impacting the habitat,

While praising the resolution's prohibitions on some actions that are deleterious to endangered species, specifically further habitat loss, habitat pollution, and hunting of endangered species; also noting the resolution does not specifically prohibit other potentially harmful actions such as non-fatal harassment of endangered organisms, the introduction of harmful invasive organisms, and the intentional or accidental disruption of important species activities,

Aware that the resolution focuses on the prevention of further harm to endangered species, while only mentioning potential actions to actively increases species population numbers in the direst circumstances,

Concerned that without a clear active recovery plan, species population levels can remain low indefinitely, leaving a no-win situation of species being at continued risk for extinction and the economically deleterious impact of endangered species protections becoming long term,

Anxious that the binary regulation choice provided for in Endangered Species Protection of species either being endangered and therefore receiving full protection or being fully unprotected lacks flexibility and may create the perverse incentive to forcibly remove species from property before they are found to be endangered so as to avoid future stringent regulations,

Confident that replacement legislation which builds upon the positive legacy of Endangered Species Protection will be put in place rapidly;

Hereby repeals GAR 66: Endangered Species Protection.

I strongly approve.

[Kenmoria]

“This looks good, and has my full support. I do query why ‘hunting’ is included in the ‘questioning’ clause as animal-based language, when it could conceivably apply to killing anything for sport, but that is it.”

(OOC: Are your clauses about being based only on animals supposed to make reference of the exclusion of fungi and plants, or about sentient creatures that aren’t in the Animalia phylum?)

Does Kenmoria intend to support the replacement proposal by Ransium given the objections raised by Kenmoria in the replacement thread (viewtopic.php?p=35444486), and if not, is the potential repeal without replacement favorable to the existing resolution?

“Those were only minor objections, and I support the law overall. As the global ecosystem is so fragile, it would be silly to leave a potential gap in legislation where nothing on the topic is decided. Hopefully, the replacement can be passed swiftly after this repeal, to avoid a legislative void.”

[Barbariax]

Does Kenmoria intend to support the replacement proposal by Ransium given the objections raised by Kenmoria in the replacement thread (viewtopic.php?p=35444486), and if not, is the potential repeal without replacement favorable to the existing resolution?

“Those were only minor objections, and I support the law overall. As the global ecosystem is so fragile, it would be silly to leave a potential gap in legislation where nothing on the topic is decided. Hopefully, the replacement can be passed swiftly after this repeal, to avoid a legislative void.”

Barbariax disagrees, the proposed replacement is clearly flawed (as discussed in the relevant thread), it would be better to abandon the repeal than institute a flawed replacement over clearly functional and stable settled law.

[Herdaz Adreh]

this should be amended to have the current law remain in effect until something new is ratified, or we risk time without any protections in place at all, time in which species can be harmed permenantly.

[Uan aa Boa]

this should be amended to have the current law remain in effect until something new is ratified, or we risk time without any protections in place at all, time in which species can be harmed permenantly.

Sadly that's not possible. Firstly, resolutions cannot be amended, only repealed. Secondly a proposal is automatically illegal if it contradicts an existing unrepealed resolution, so the replacement cannot be submitted until the original has been repealed. Ransium intends to submit the replacement as soon as this repeal has passed, so the time when no legislation is in place is being kept to an absolute minimum. A small gap is unfortunately unavoidable.

[WARISWAR]

Reserved for previous drafts.

[Marxist Germany]

:rofl:

Reserved for previous drafts.

OOC:What is so funny about what you quoted?