DRAFT: A Promotion of Whaling

[Glen-Rhodes]

We find it odd that some nations feel it necessary to protect some non-sentient, non-endangered species, but not others. Are they just cuter or more cuddly or something?

Whales were not always 'non-endangered.' In fact, before regional regulatory agreements, most of the whale species found in our waters were endangered. Return to full-scale commercial whaling would likely cause a return to endangerment for those species -- some would likely become extinct in our waters.

Should there ever be a situation like this with any other species, they would be protected as well. Your analysis is fundamentally flawed, in that you purposefully ignore that the protection is, in fact, the only reason why whales are now 'non-endangered.'

- Dr. B. Castro

[Glen-Rhodes]

We find it odd that some nations feel it necessary to protect some non-sentient, non-endangered species, but not others. Are they just cuter or more cuddly or something?

Whales were not always 'non-endangered.' In fact, before regional regulatory agreements, most of the whale species found in our waters were endangered. Return to full-scale commercial whaling would likely cause a return to endangerment for those species -- some would likely become extinct in our waters.

Should there ever be a situation like this with any other species, they would be protected as well. Your analysis is fundamentally flawed, in that you purposefully ignore that the protection is, in fact, the only reason why whales are now 'non-endangered.'

- Dr. B. Castro

[Ethel mermania]

A nameless drone, walks over to the bears armed delegation and asks quietly, "a couple of us have a few questions for you, but this would be an inappropriate forum to ask, mind if we buy you a mead later in the bar and you can settle some bets for us, ^h^h^h i mean answer some questions for us.

We rise to echo our agreement. How is hunting a non-sentient, non-endangered whale any different then hunting a non-sentient, non-endangered bear *At this Lord Andreas cast a nervous glance over to the Bears Armed delegation*, or non-sentient, non-endangered deer or catching non-sentient, non-endangered fish?

*(slides sandwich, containing slice of roasted goldilocks, out of sight under some papers)*

"We definitely regard it as preferable for you to hunt whales -- as long as you avoid any sapient ones who might be in those waters, of course -- rather than pre-sapient bears: After all, the latter might 'awaken' into a sapient condition at some point -- as our own ancestors did -- if they don't suffer untimely deaths..."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

[The Altani Confederacy]

Whales were not always 'non-endangered.' In fact, before regional regulatory agreements, most of the whale species found in our waters were endangered. Return to full-scale commercial whaling would likely cause a return to endangerment for those species -- some would likely become extinct in our waters.

Should there ever be a situation like this with any other species, they would be protected as well. Your analysis is fundamentally flawed, in that you purposefully ignore that the protection is, in fact, the only reason why whales are now 'non-endangered.'

- Dr. B. Castro

They may have been endangered in your waters, ambassador. They never were in ours, due to the responsible culling and sustainable fishing and whaling policies that are standard in Confederate and member state waters. Those are exactly the kind of practices we are encouraging, and what we feel this draft would likewise encourage through its emphasis on humane whaling practices, reporting of harvests and limiting its remit to non-endangered species. I think your analysis is fundamentally flawed, in that you believe that what happened in Glen-Rhodes' waters happens everywhere else as a matter of course.

- Sophie Fournier etc.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Those are exactly the kind of practices we are encouraging, and what we feel this draft would likewise encourage through its emphasis on humane whaling practices, reporting of harvests and limiting its remit to non-endangered species.

Except the resolution does absolutely nothing but saying, "Be humane, pretty please."

I think your analysis is fundamentally flawed, in that you believe that what happened in Glen-Rhodes' waters happens everywhere else as a matter of course.

Actually, no, I am not extrapolating Glen-Rhodes' experience to the entire world. You, however, are doing just that, as is this entire proposal. I would be happy if the World Assembly stays out of this issue. We already protect endangered species, and I don't see why we need to make whaling a right.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Krioval]

Actually, no, I am not extrapolating Glen-Rhodes' experience to the entire world. You, however, are doing just that, as is this entire proposal. I would be happy if the World Assembly stays out of this issue. We already protect endangered species, and I don't see why we need to make whaling a right.

- Dr. B. Castro

Whaling should be a right because there are some nations here that seem to feel that regulating just about every industry possible is somehow right and just, up to the point of permitting piracy and terrorism in international territory. We feel that ensuring access to a ready food supply merits protection by the only international community able to pass binding legislation on the subject.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Krioval]

[double post]

[Grand Europic States]

Actually, no, I am not extrapolating Glen-Rhodes' experience to the entire world. You, however, are doing just that, as is this entire proposal. I would be happy if the World Assembly stays out of this issue. We already protect endangered species, and I don't see why we need to make whaling a right.

- Dr. B. Castro

Whaling should be a right because there are some nations here that seem to feel that regulating just about every industry possible is somehow right and just, up to the point of permitting piracy and terrorism in international territory. We feel that ensuring access to a ready food supply merits protection by the only international community able to pass binding legislation on the subject.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

If your concern is ensuring access to whale meat because some would starve without it then make a resolution ensuring access to food. There's no need for the WA to legislate to legalise every single food source.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Whaling should be a right because there are some nations here that seem to feel that regulating just about every industry possible is somehow right and just, up to the point of permitting piracy and terrorism in international territory. We feel that ensuring access to a ready food supply merits protection by the only international community able to pass binding legislation on the subject.

I'm sure Krioval's intent is to ensure 'access to a ready food supply.' So, why not limit whaling to those cultures who would face significant dietary challenges without whaling -- in other worlds, to cultures who would actually starve without whale meat? Why not elaborate on what 'humane' is? Why not actually spend some time coming up with a legitimate and serious regulatory system that ensures whales would never be in threat of endangerment?

Because your intent was never, and likely will never be, to ensure the 'responsible harvest of whales.' This proposal has been a rallying call to the Antarctic Oasis, for some reason. It comes up when some delegation from AO is bored, then goes back to where it rightfully belongs -- in the trash. Whatever the reason, it's quite obvious that the intent of AO in bringing this proposal back from its grave has never been, and will never be, anything serious.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Knootoss]

"Whaling in Knootoss has been a centuries long tradition, beginning with the 17th century exploration of Arctic fishing grounds. The revolt against their Lavenrunzian overlords, and the subsequent menacing of the small rebel Knootian republic by virtually all great powers made them realise that their struggle for survival could only by won by the fierce protection of the freedom of Knootoss’ single natural resource. We learned to harness the sea; however, like a horse, the sea can never be conquered. Our national identity can be easily traced back to the whims of the water.... It is the Knootian masters of the 16th and 17th centuries who have indeed come close to conquering the sea by fixing its capriciousness on panel and canvas"

Aram Koopman brings in a painting.

The economic success of the Knootian Republic was inextricably linked with the sea as were the emerging national identity and international reputation of the young state. Many in Knootoss earned their fortune in Arctic whaling! It is a proud industry that should be promoted in this august body.

[The Altani Confederacy]

Except the resolution does absolutely nothing but saying, "Be humane, pretty please."

Would you care to suggest something that you would find more meaningful, then? Perhaps some requirements as to what constitutes humane whaling? Or do you prefer to shoot spitballs at us from the back of the class because of your disdain for where the authoring nation happens to reside?

Actually, no, I am not extrapolating Glen-Rhodes' experience to the entire world. You, however, are doing just that, as is this entire proposal. I would be happy if the World Assembly stays out of this issue. We already protect endangered species, and I don't see why we need to make whaling a right.

But you also have not offered a compelling reason why we shouldn't, or any real suggestions to improve the draft. So, your suggestions are nothing, and.....nothing. No real ideas, no concern whatsoever for the fact that anti-whaling efforts directly impinge upon the cultures of people and nations that do practice whaling as part of their indigenous heritage...you can see why I'm not particularly convinced by the thrust of your arguments so far, I hope.

- Sophie Fournier etc.

[Mousebumples]

Once again there was a change at the Palentine Delegation. A large portable aquarium was set up behind the good but unwholesome Senator Sulla's desk. At the bottom of the aquarium there appeared to be a portal, while 3 or 4 dolphins froliced in the water. Some of the new delegates smiled as they thought,
"Isn't that nice to have some dolphins here in the Festering Sankepit. after all everybody knows that dolphins are cute, cuddly, and beloved by children everywhere."

Delegates who have been here awhile knew better, for they recognized the Palentine Naval Insignia tatooed on the dolphins. Yes, the drunken reprobate once again had uleashed the foul mouthed scourges of the southern seas onti the gentle ears of the snakepit's ambassadors.

Ah, the infamous Palentine dolphins! Nikolas quickly arranges for an aide to deliver a bucket of very terrified looking fish to the Palentine Delegation. A note is enclosed.

Senator Sulla,
I've heard such incredible things about your nation's unique species of dolphins - and I'm quite thrilled, honestly, to be able to see them in person. I'm sure feeding them gets to be expensive, but hopefully this will help a bit.

While I'm sure we're in agreement over the fact that some ambassadors here could stand to have the Fear of Dolphins bitten into them, I fear things could get out of hand - quickly.

Best regards,
Nikolas Eberhart
Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples

On subject of this proposal, perhaps a clause fearing overpopulation of whales should humane and necessary (for food, etc.) whaling not be in place would be a good addition? I'm not sure how common whale overpopulation is, but one would think that such an issue may result in reduced ocean surface for boat travel, etc., due to the size of the damn things.

Additionally, one would think that such overpopulation may result in a decreased availability of particular kinds of seafood that are used by whales as sustenance. (More whales eat more fish, so less fish are left for us to eat, etc.) That may be referenced somewhere in the proposal, but I think it additional clarity/elaboration may be beneficial.

Further, would it be at all useful to encourage/require that whale meat be tested for mercury and other pollutants that may be harmful to the individual(s) that would ingest the whale meat? (Of course, reducing oceanic pollution is outside of the scope of this proposal, but I would think that whaling "contaminated" meat would more or less defeat the purpose.

Yours,
Ambassador Nikolas Eberhart
Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples

[Glen-Rhodes]

Would you care to suggest something that you would find more meaningful, then? Perhaps some requirements as to what constitutes humane whaling?

I don't want the World Assembly involved, so of course I would not have the desire to suggest improvements to this proposal. It would do the author good to define what humane whaling is, but Glen-Rhodes would vote against the resolution anyways.

... no concern whatsoever for the fact that anti-whaling efforts directly impinge upon the cultures of people and nations that do practice whaling as part of their indigenous heritage...you can see why I'm not particularly convinced by the thrust of your arguments so far, I hope.

If I had any reason to believe the author was trying to protect indigenous peoples, perhaps I would be more willing to be productive. In fact, I would not mind a whaling proposal aimed only at preserving indigenous ways of life, specifically for those peoples who rely on whaling for life (not livelihood, mind you), but the goal here is to make whaling legal everywhere, for everyone. In other words, the proposal is being written specifically to prevent a ban on, or even real regulation of, whaling.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Just Guy]

The whale, being Just Guy's national animal, is considered an important part of our culture. Further, whales have long been recognised as holding the attributes of personhood, and a whale has nearly the same legal status under the law as a human. Whaling is therefore obviously not allowed in waters over which we have jurisdiction, and your nation would do itself a great favour to ban whaling if it wishes to enjoy strong diplomatic relations with us.

While those so-called 'pirates' are not actively supported by the Just Guy government, nor their activities condoned, we do not interfere in their operations, and we will not start doing so. The government of Just Guy is in strong opposition to this proposal.

[Darenjo]

Further, unless Your Excellency is a strict vegan and you forswear any animal products - like leather - I don't understand why whale harvesting is considered inappropriate. Would it be more palatable if we included a stronger provision toward humane hunting?

We rise to echo our agreement. How is hunting a non-sentient, non-endangered whale any different then hunting a non-sentient, non-endangered bear *At this Lord Andreas cast a nervous glance over to the Bears Armed delegation*, or non-sentient, non-endangered deer or catching non-sentient, non-endangered fish?

The problem with that argument is that many people (both in RL and in NS) don't see it in such black and white terms (myself included). For myself, i don't really care if you hunt a non-endangered fish, because they really don't do much besides breed and eat. But if your killing something like dolphins, elephants, whales or chimpanzees - proven to be able to learn, have basic language, use tools, etc., which are quite close to humans in mental ability, then i care.

[Krioval]

I'm sure Krioval's intent is to ensure 'access to a ready food supply.' So, why not limit whaling to those cultures who would face significant dietary challenges without whaling -- in other worlds, to cultures who would actually starve without whale meat? Why not elaborate on what 'humane' is? Why not actually spend some time coming up with a legitimate and serious regulatory system that ensures whales would never be in threat of endangerment?

This is why this proposal is in the drafting stage, and has not been submitted. We are unsure of how best to proceed, and are willing to take our time to see if a viable proposal emerges.

Because your intent was never, and likely will never be, to ensure the 'responsible harvest of whales.' This proposal has been a rallying call to the Antarctic Oasis, for some reason. It comes up when some delegation from AO is bored, then goes back to where it rightfully belongs -- in the trash. Whatever the reason, it's quite obvious that the intent of AO in bringing this proposal back from its grave has never been, and will never be, anything serious.

- Dr. B. Castro

"Back from its grave"? I'm not sure that this has ever been proposed before this body. Further, I would prefer that you keep our region out of this. Krioval has proposed this, not Antarctic Oasis, and even if our objectives diverge from yours (how shocking that would be!), we haven't earned your scorn with this simply for putting it out there. If you have constructive criticism, please share. If you dislike the proposal no matter its form, your objections are duly noted.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Krioval]

The whale, being Just Guy's national animal, is considered an important part of our culture. Further, whales have long been recognised as holding the attributes of personhood, and a whale has nearly the same legal status under the law as a human. Whaling is therefore obviously not allowed in waters over which we have jurisdiction, and your nation would do itself a great favour to ban whaling if it wishes to enjoy strong diplomatic relations with us.

Are these whale demonstrably sapient? If so, then I agree that they should be protected. If not, then I don't see the problem - our cultures diverge on this issue if this is the case. Whaling has historically played a large part of our food supply, as an Islander culture. Today, whaling still supports a fair amount of food for the Imperial Chiefdom, and we have worked to make sure that *any* form of hunting is undertaken to cause the least amount of pain possible. We also set strict quotas to ensure that whale populations do not become threatened by our hunts.

While those so-called 'pirates' are not actively supported by the Just Guy government, nor their activities condoned, we do not interfere in their operations, and we will not start doing so. The government of Just Guy is in strong opposition to this proposal.

We respect your government's position. So long as Kriovaller ships are allowed to defend themselves in international waters when under attack, we have no argument with Your Excellency or with your government.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Glen-Rhodes]

"Back from its grave"? I'm not sure that this has ever been proposed before this body. Further, I would prefer that you keep our region out of this. Krioval has proposed this, not Antarctic Oasis, and even if our objectives diverge from yours (how shocking that would be!), we haven't earned your scorn with this simply for putting it out there.

This is not the first time I have seen this proposal brought up for debate. It is also no coincidence that each time it is brought up for debate, it's from a member of the Antarctic Oasis region. Forgive me if I believe that this proposal and that region are intrinsically linked. I believe so because it's true. But it's not the fact that it comes from AO that I dislike. It's that the proposal, in each of its incarnations, has always been about allowing full-scale, unregulated whaling. Which is also why I am extremely doubtful that any serious changes will be made.

If you have constructive criticism, please share. If you dislike the proposal no matter its form, your objections are duly noted.

I've suggested narrowing the proposal down to something that's acceptable: preserving indigenousness ways of life specifically for indigenous peoples. It should be noted that one of the arguments given for this proposal has been that there are people who depend upon whaling for survival. That is likely the only 'promotion of whaling' Glen-Rhodes would ever support.

However, there have been many suggestions already given, that don't require a narrow proposal. One of them is actually providing meaningful details, which I'm surprised you haven't already done. It's things like that, coupled with the history of this proposal, that make me skeptical.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Krioval]

We appreciate your suggestions. We do not feel that this proposal is of particular urgency, as many other delegates have confirmed. Since it is at the earliest stage of drafting, I do not include specific details because I have not thought so far ahead yet. I do not see submitting this proposal in the immediate future, and should I decide to submit it, more details will have to be included. I also hasten to mention that none of the other members of Antarctic Oasis were involved in our government's decision to open this discussion, and that several members of the region have indicated that they will not support this legislation without significant modifications.

It may turn out that the discussion may lead to our decision to hold this legislation indefinitely, and that we are fine with that. Krioval does not submit binding international legislation that it feels does not address an international issue in an appropriate manner.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[The Palentine]

The Dolphins profanely accepted the gift of fish from the ambassador of Mousebumples before another profane rant.

"Thanks for all the <censored><bleep> fish you <really gross explitive>! Now about the<dirty word><filthy word>whales! If you don't <bleeping><anotomically impossible act>want us on you coastlines due to <foul explitive>rising sea levels, then you<bleeping> need to <bleep>support whaling! The fat<censored><gross adjectives> wankers cause the sea to rise because of their<really unbelievably gross and foul explitive> fat bodies!"

[Quelesh]

We appreciate your suggestions. We do not feel that this proposal is of particular urgency, as many other delegates have confirmed. Since it is at the earliest stage of drafting, I do not include specific details because I have not thought so far ahead yet. I do not see submitting this proposal in the immediate future, and should I decide to submit it, more details will have to be included. I also hasten to mention that none of the other members of Antarctic Oasis were involved in our government's decision to open this discussion, and that several members of the region have indicated that they will not support this legislation without significant modifications.

It may turn out that the discussion may lead to our decision to hold this legislation indefinitely, and that we are fine with that. Krioval does not submit binding international legislation that it feels does not address an international issue in an appropriate manner.

I appreciate your willingness to take the drafting process slow and accept input from other delegations. I would like to reiterate my suggestion to, rather than focus specifically on whaling, draft the proposal such that it prevents member states from actively impeding activities in international waters that are legal under international law.

This would prevent any member state from sending ships to harass, threaten or attack your whaling ships. It would also allow nations like Just Guy to continue not interfering with the operations of anti-whaling organizations, while allowing Kriovaller ships to continue defending themselves against such organizations in international waters as needed. It would also leave the door open to any future action the WA decides is proper to take.