[PASSED] Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands

[Wallenburg]

"No, I rather think Wallenburg will not end all expansion of cities in grassland areas, nor will it require millions of its citizens to starve by limiting agricultural development."

"It is important for Wallenburg to remember that tall grass prairies are highly beneficial to agriculture, as they support a high number of pollinators. Additionally, there is no regulation preventing the development of shortgrass prairies, which are fare more abundant and far less ecologically significant than tallgrass prairies. Tallgrass prairies have been reduced to less than 1% of their historic range, so the advantages of further developing these significant ecosystems are rather small."

"I don't know where you are getting your figures from, but I would bet that the Wallenburgian Ecological Census would disagree with you on them. I also do not see how anyone is meant to benefit from the agricultural utility of an environment if they are prohibited from cultivating that environment."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Okay, I know this was submitted and likely reaches quorum, but that doesn't mean there weren't many things wrong with it. If anyone caught sight of what I originally had here, it needed lots of changing once I did some research.

Perceiving that tall grass prairies play an important ecological function by filtering pesticides, nutrients, and bacteria from agricultural runoff, as well as preventing soil erosion by establishing deep root systems;

IC: "Exactly how are they meant to be doing any of those, if there's no agriculture anywhere near them? The soil erosion I'll grant you, but then lawn grass does that too. This falsehood list makes this sound dubious right off the bat."

Noticing that tall grass prairies support a wide range of biodiversity, often including plant, insect, large mammal, and prominent keystone species that may not be present in other ecosystems;

IC: "It may come as a shock to you, but generally speaking very specialized habitats tend to have very specialized species living in them. No matter what the habitat is. Grasslands are not special that way, and I'd bet they support fewer species than, say, tropical rainforests."

Noting that tall grass prairies are often desirable for conversion to agricultural purposes, due to high nutrient levels in the soil, moderate levels of rainfall, and a lack of trees;

IC: "I don't think we're talking of the same thing here. Haven't you heard what can happen when you try to turn grasslands into a farmland?"

Lamenting that only a tiny fraction of tall grass prairies remain today;

OOC: This focus on tallgrass prairies is insane, considering the title of the proposal. Were you aware that in RL tallgrass prairies exist only in central USA? Nowhere else. Other types of prairies (temperate area grasslands) and grasslands (tropical, usually, though one might include some arctic and antarctic areas as well) cover way more ground and are really no less threatened by people converting them to farmland and whatever.

Observing that, in many WA member nations, the conversion of land for agriculture has severely decreased the abundance of tall grass prairies, leading to a reduction in biodiversity among pollinators;

IC: "...I see you've failed biology class. The grasses which are the dominant plantform on grasslands, are wind-pollinated. For pollinators it would be better if the grasslands were converted into fields of flowers, farmed or not."

OOC: Also, again, MOST WA NATIONS DON'T HAVE THESE TYPES OF GRASSLANDS if going by RL numbers, where roughly speaking 0.5% of nations have them (1 out of 200).

Troubled that a lack of biodiversity among pollinators may be detrimental to agriculture by creating, in many cases, an unstable 1 to 1 relationship between crop yield and a single pollinator species, potentially collapsing the agricultural industry of some nations, should the pollinator become extinct; and

IC: "And since grasslands are not by definition cultivated areas and grasses are wind-pollinated, this has relevance exactly how?"

Concerned that failing to protect native prairies will lead to the extinction of several currently endangered species, many of which rely heavily on tall grass prairies;

IC: "There already are resolutions dealing with endangered species. And if the needs of two endangered species - a forest one and a grasslands one - collide, which should we save? Forests tend to have greater biodiversity. At least where I'm from."

‘tall grass prairie’ as a biome featuring the dominance of tall grass species, averaging greater than 1.5 meters in height, moderate levels of annual rainfall, and the presence of periodic wildfires, with period between combustion exceeding 1 year, but not more than 20 years, to prevent the encroachment of saplings and invasive plant species;

OOC: Why oh why oh why oh why did you make the definition so narrow that it wouldn't protect, in RL, the African savannahs, or the pampa, or the steppe? What's with the hard-on for tallgrass praeries when you still mention grasslands in the title?

‘pollinators’ as species that frequently spread pollen between the male and female components of a plant species, allowing said plants to fertilize the female ovules for reproduction; and

OOC: Dictionary definitions do not need to be defined.

‘land development’ as any sapient activity which alters a landscape from its naturally occurring form and does not allow the landscape to recover to its naturally occurring form within a period of 5 years (e.g. does not include controlled burns);

OOC: So the entire ecosystem can be razed to the ground every 5 years and farmed aggressively for a year, since tallgrass prairie grass species grow into dominance in 3-4 years. Since the definition depends on grass height, rainfall and fire cycle, no thought needs to be spared on the animal species.

Tasks the World Assembly Science Program (WASP) with the following:

OOC: Almost all these tasks should have been given to the member nations themselves, and invisible guidelines are a bad thing as people can RP that their "replacing it all with concrete" is totally fine with the committee.

Mandates that all member nations:

OOC: Much overlap with the committee, not a good thing.

preventing land development for any purpose in tall grass prairies;

IC: "Even to restore the forest that grew there before the trees were cut down and the grass took over?"

OOC: Restoring one kind of ecotype usually means destroying another. Depending on how far into the past you look, the grassland hasn't always been there. It might have been brushland before sheep and goats domestic herbivores got to it, and the grassland is the unnatural ecosystem. Or people might have - as has happened in RL - "restored" tallgrass prairie in places that were forest or wetlands before people took them up as farmland. This is RL fact, look it up.

preventing human activities that have been found to be detrimental to the ecosystem, according to clause 3b, in the areas surrounding tall grass prairies; and

OOC: ...what? Like, if in your preamble you say grasslands are cool because they filter pesticides and whatever from agriculture, now that's suddenly not ok to have around the grasslands?

record all native multicellular species found to exist within a tall grass prairie, and collect seed samples from all native prairie plants; and

IC: "With what money? Do you have any idea how insane that requirement is for any ecosystem? You'd basically require the destruction of the grassland in its entirety to shift through every grain of soil to find all the multicellular species living in the soil. And yes the soil is a big part of any ecosystem. Congratulations, you've just mandated the destruction of the habitat you wanted to protect!"

OOC: These are multicellular and they're hardly the only microscopic species in the soil!

work to restore and maintain tall grass prairies in all ecologically feasible areas, as determined by the findings of the WASP;

OOC: This needs seeeeerious re-doing. You're blind to anything else but RL North American grasslands here. Also, what is "ecologically feasible"? See above for issues.

create economic incentives for private entities to restore and maintain tall grass prairies when direct government action is infeasible; and

OOC: ...but you already mandated the nations to do so? What's the point of this?

research methods of reducing land use and pollution associated with agriculture.

IC: "You banned agriculture in and around grasslands, what more do you want???"

[Big Boyz]

OOC: Okay, I know this was submitted and likely reaches quorum, but that doesn't mean there weren't many things wrong with it. If anyone caught sight of what I originally had here, it needed lots of changing once I did some research.

Perceiving that tall grass prairies play an important ecological function by filtering pesticides, nutrients, and bacteria from agricultural runoff, as well as preventing soil erosion by establishing deep root systems;

IC: "Exactly how are they meant to be doing any of those, if there's no agriculture anywhere near them? The soil erosion I'll grant you, but then lawn grass does that too. This falsehood list makes this sound dubious right off the bat."

Noticing that tall grass prairies support a wide range of biodiversity, often including plant, insect, large mammal, and prominent keystone species that may not be present in other ecosystems;

IC: "It may come as a shock to you, but generally speaking very specialized habitats tend to have very specialized species living in them. No matter what the habitat is. Grasslands are not special that way, and I'd bet they support fewer species than, say, tropical rainforests."

Noting that tall grass prairies are often desirable for conversion to agricultural purposes, due to high nutrient levels in the soil, moderate levels of rainfall, and a lack of trees;

IC: "I don't think we're talking of the same thing here. Haven't you heard what can happen when you try to turn grasslands into a farmland?"

Lamenting that only a tiny fraction of tall grass prairies remain today;

OOC: This focus on tallgrass prairies is insane, considering the title of the proposal. Were you aware that in RL tallgrass prairies exist only in central USA? Nowhere else. Other types of prairies (temperate area grasslands) and grasslands (tropical, usually, though one might include some arctic and antarctic areas as well) cover way more ground and are really no less threatened by people converting them to farmland and whatever.

Observing that, in many WA member nations, the conversion of land for agriculture has severely decreased the abundance of tall grass prairies, leading to a reduction in biodiversity among pollinators;

IC: "...I see you've failed biology class. The grasses which are the dominant plantform on grasslands, are wind-pollinated. For pollinators it would be better if the grasslands were converted into fields of flowers, farmed or not."

OOC: Also, again, MOST WA NATIONS DON'T HAVE THESE TYPES OF GRASSLANDS if going by RL numbers, where roughly speaking 0.5% of nations have them (1 out of 200).

Troubled that a lack of biodiversity among pollinators may be detrimental to agriculture by creating, in many cases, an unstable 1 to 1 relationship between crop yield and a single pollinator species, potentially collapsing the agricultural industry of some nations, should the pollinator become extinct; and

IC: "And since grasslands are not by definition cultivated areas and grasses are wind-pollinated, this has relevance exactly how?"

Concerned that failing to protect native prairies will lead to the extinction of several currently endangered species, many of which rely heavily on tall grass prairies;

IC: "There already are resolutions dealing with endangered species. And if the needs of two endangered species - a forest one and a grasslands one - collide, which should we save? Forests tend to have greater biodiversity. At least where I'm from."

‘tall grass prairie’ as a biome featuring the dominance of tall grass species, averaging greater than 1.5 meters in height, moderate levels of annual rainfall, and the presence of periodic wildfires, with period between combustion exceeding 1 year, but not more than 20 years, to prevent the encroachment of saplings and invasive plant species;

OOC: Why oh why oh why oh why did you make the definition so narrow that it wouldn't protect, in RL, the African savannahs, or the pampa, or the steppe? What's with the hard-on for tallgrass praeries when you still mention grasslands in the title?

‘pollinators’ as species that frequently spread pollen between the male and female components of a plant species, allowing said plants to fertilize the female ovules for reproduction; and

OOC: Dictionary definitions do not need to be defined.

‘land development’ as any sapient activity which alters a landscape from its naturally occurring form and does not allow the landscape to recover to its naturally occurring form within a period of 5 years (e.g. does not include controlled burns);

OOC: So the entire ecosystem can be razed to the ground every 5 years and farmed aggressively for a year, since tallgrass prairie grass species grow into dominance in 3-4 years. Since the definition depends on grass height, rainfall and fire cycle, no thought needs to be spared on the animal species.

Tasks the World Assembly Science Program (WASP) with the following:

OOC: Almost all these tasks should have been given to the member nations themselves, and invisible guidelines are a bad thing as people can RP that their "replacing it all with concrete" is totally fine with the committee.

Mandates that all member nations:

OOC: Much overlap with the committee, not a good thing.

preventing land development for any purpose in tall grass prairies;

IC: "Even to restore the forest that grew there before the trees were cut down and the grass took over?"

OOC: Restoring one kind of ecotype usually means destroying another. Depending on how far into the past you look, the grassland hasn't always been there. It might have been brushland before sheep and goats domestic herbivores got to it, and the grassland is the unnatural ecosystem. Or people might have - as has happened in RL - "restored" tallgrass prairie in places that were forest or wetlands before people took them up as farmland. This is RL fact, look it up.

preventing human activities that have been found to be detrimental to the ecosystem, according to clause 3b, in the areas surrounding tall grass prairies; and

OOC: ...what? Like, if in your preamble you say grasslands are cool because they filter pesticides and whatever from agriculture, now that's suddenly not ok to have around the grasslands?

record all native multicellular species found to exist within a tall grass prairie, and collect seed samples from all native prairie plants; and

IC: "With what money? Do you have any idea how insane that requirement is for any ecosystem? You'd basically require the destruction of the grassland in its entirety to shift through every grain of soil to find all the multicellular species living in the soil. And yes the soil is a big part of any ecosystem. Congratulations, you've just mandated the destruction of the habitat you wanted to protect!"

OOC: These are multicellular and they're hardly the only microscopic species in the soil!

work to restore and maintain tall grass prairies in all ecologically feasible areas, as determined by the findings of the WASP;

OOC: This needs seeeeerious re-doing. You're blind to anything else but RL North American grasslands here. Also, what is "ecologically feasible"? See above for issues.

create economic incentives for private entities to restore and maintain tall grass prairies when direct government action is infeasible; and

OOC: ...but you already mandated the nations to do so? What's the point of this?

research methods of reducing land use and pollution associated with agriculture.

IC: "You banned agriculture in and around grasslands, what more do you want???"

These claims are misleading and poorly written. Stop trying to interfere with this proposal.

[Araraukar]

These claims are misleading

OOC: I TG'd the info to you, it has all the links, peruse them.

and poorly written.

Which parts exactly? English isn't my first language so I'm always keen to hone my skills with it, if my mistakes are pointed out.

Stop trying to interfere with this proposal.

Fix the issues it has and no interference is necessary.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Okay, I know this was submitted and likely reaches quorum, but that doesn't mean there weren't many things wrong with it. If anyone caught sight of what I originally had here, it needed lots of changing once I did some research.


IC: "Exactly how are they meant to be doing any of those, if there's no agriculture anywhere near them? The soil erosion I'll grant you, but then lawn grass does that too. This falsehood list makes this sound dubious right off the bat."


IC: "It may come as a shock to you, but generally speaking very specialized habitats tend to have very specialized species living in them. No matter what the habitat is. Grasslands are not special that way, and I'd bet they support fewer species than, say, tropical rainforests."


IC: "I don't think we're talking of the same thing here. Haven't you heard what can happen when you try to turn grasslands into a farmland?"


OOC: This focus on tallgrass prairies is insane, considering the title of the proposal. Were you aware that in RL tallgrass prairies exist only in central USA? Nowhere else. Other types of prairies (temperate area grasslands) and grasslands (tropical, usually, though one might include some arctic and antarctic areas as well) cover way more ground and are really no less threatened by people converting them to farmland and whatever.


IC: "...I see you've failed biology class. The grasses which are the dominant plantform on grasslands, are wind-pollinated. For pollinators it would be better if the grasslands were converted into fields of flowers, farmed or not."

OOC: Also, again, MOST WA NATIONS DON'T HAVE THESE TYPES OF GRASSLANDS if going by RL numbers, where roughly speaking 0.5% of nations have them (1 out of 200).


IC: "And since grasslands are not by definition cultivated areas and grasses are wind-pollinated, this has relevance exactly how?"


IC: "There already are resolutions dealing with endangered species. And if the needs of two endangered species - a forest one and a grasslands one - collide, which should we save? Forests tend to have greater biodiversity. At least where I'm from."


OOC: Why oh why oh why oh why did you make the definition so narrow that it wouldn't protect, in RL, the African savannahs, or the pampa, or the steppe? What's with the hard-on for tallgrass praeries when you still mention grasslands in the title?


OOC: Dictionary definitions do not need to be defined.


OOC: So the entire ecosystem can be razed to the ground every 5 years and farmed aggressively for a year, since tallgrass prairie grass species grow into dominance in 3-4 years. Since the definition depends on grass height, rainfall and fire cycle, no thought needs to be spared on the animal species.


OOC: Almost all these tasks should have been given to the member nations themselves, and invisible guidelines are a bad thing as people can RP that their "replacing it all with concrete" is totally fine with the committee.


OOC: Much overlap with the committee, not a good thing.


IC: "Even to restore the forest that grew there before the trees were cut down and the grass took over?"

OOC: Restoring one kind of ecotype usually means destroying another. Depending on how far into the past you look, the grassland hasn't always been there. It might have been brushland before sheep and goats domestic herbivores got to it, and the grassland is the unnatural ecosystem. Or people might have - as has happened in RL - "restored" tallgrass prairie in places that were forest or wetlands before people took them up as farmland. This is RL fact, look it up.


OOC: ...what? Like, if in your preamble you say grasslands are cool because they filter pesticides and whatever from agriculture, now that's suddenly not ok to have around the grasslands?


IC: "With what money? Do you have any idea how insane that requirement is for any ecosystem? You'd basically require the destruction of the grassland in its entirety to shift through every grain of soil to find all the multicellular species living in the soil. And yes the soil is a big part of any ecosystem. Congratulations, you've just mandated the destruction of the habitat you wanted to protect!"

OOC: These are multicellular and they're hardly the only microscopic species in the soil!


OOC: This needs seeeeerious re-doing. You're blind to anything else but RL North American grasslands here. Also, what is "ecologically feasible"? See above for issues.


OOC: ...but you already mandated the nations to do so? What's the point of this?


IC: "You banned agriculture in and around grasslands, what more do you want???"

These claims are misleading and poorly written. Stop trying to interfere with this proposal.

No, you just refuse to acknowledge this proposal's serious shortcomings.

[Big Boyz]

Perceiving that tall grass prairies play an important ecological function by filtering pesticides, nutrients, and bacteria from agricultural runoff, as well as preventing soil erosion by establishing deep root systems;

IC: "Exactly how are they meant to be doing any of those, if there's no agriculture anywhere near them? The soil erosion I'll grant you, but then lawn grass does that too. This falsehood list makes this sound dubious right off the bat."

Why do you think there's no agriculture near them? Only activities found to be detrimental to the ecosystem are prohibited in the surrounding areas. If agriculture is done sustainably, with little environmental impact, then there is no reason why they would be banned.

Noticing that tall grass prairies support a wide range of biodiversity, often including plant, insect, large mammal, and prominent keystone species that may not be present in other ecosystems;

IC: "It may come as a shock to you, but generally speaking very specialized habitats tend to have very specialized species living in them. No matter what the habitat is. Grasslands are not special that way, and I'd bet they support fewer species than, say, tropical rainforests."

....And? So what if grasslands have lower biodiversity than tropical rainforests? That doesn't say anything about their importance.

Noting that tall grass prairies are often desirable for conversion to agricultural purposes, due to high nutrient levels in the soil, moderate levels of rainfall, and a lack of trees;

IC: "I don't think we're talking of the same thing here. Haven't you heard what can happen when you try to turn grasslands into a farmland?"

The dust bowl occurred because farmers failed to take measures to prevent soil erosion, which is very easy to do in the modern era. Additionally, the land that was converted for agriculture was shortgrass prairie, which does not receive as much rainfall as tallgrass prairies.

Lamenting that only a tiny fraction of tall grass prairies remain today;

OOC: This focus on tallgrass prairies is insane, considering the title of the proposal. Were you aware that in RL tallgrass prairies exist only in central USA? Nowhere else. Other types of prairies (temperate area grasslands) and grasslands (tropical, usually, though one might include some arctic and antarctic areas as well) cover way more ground and are really no less threatened by people converting them to farmland and whatever.

NationStates is not real life. More than 1 nation can have tallgrass prairies. But, since you seem fixated on the real world, I would point out that tallgrass prairies are the most devastated ecosystem on the planet, covering only 1% of their native range. Yes, other habitats are important, but the protection of this fast-disappearing ecosystem is especially critical.

Observing that, in many WA member nations, the conversion of land for agriculture has severely decreased the abundance of tall grass prairies, leading to a reduction in biodiversity among pollinators;

IC: "...I see you've failed biology class. The grasses which are the dominant plantform on grasslands, are wind-pollinated. For pollinators it would be better if the grasslands were converted into fields of flowers, farmed or not."

OOC: Also, again, MOST WA NATIONS DON'T HAVE THESE TYPES OF GRASSLANDS if going by RL numbers, where roughly speaking 0.5% of nations have them (1 out of 200).

I aced biology, and because of that I know, while some tallgrass prairie plants are wind-pollinated, most pollination is due to pollinator species, which are also very important to agriculture. You say that roughly 0.5% of nations have tall grass prairies. Where are you getting your numbers? I'm sure the Big Boyzian global ecological survey would disagree.

Troubled that a lack of biodiversity among pollinators may be detrimental to agriculture by creating, in many cases, an unstable 1 to 1 relationship between crop yield and a single pollinator species, potentially collapsing the agricultural industry of some nations, should the pollinator become extinct; and

IC: "And since grasslands are not by definition cultivated areas and grasses are wind-pollinated, this has relevance exactly how?"

Most tallgrass prairie species are not wind-pollinated. Some grass species are wind pollinated, but a majority of the species occurring in tallgrass prairies have flowers and are pollinated. It is a well-known fact that tallgrass prairies support a wide range of pollinators.

Concerned that failing to protect native prairies will lead to the extinction of several currently endangered species, many of which rely heavily on tall grass prairies;

IC: "There already are resolutions dealing with endangered species. And if the needs of two endangered species - a forest one and a grasslands one - collide, which should we save? Forests tend to have greater biodiversity. At least where I'm from."

Tallgrass prairies have higher biodiversity than shortgrass prairies, typically around the same level as a deciduous forest. It is doubtful that the needs of 2 species would collide as you have described, due to the relatively low abundance of tallgrass prairies.

‘tall grass prairie’ as a biome featuring the dominance of tall grass species, averaging greater than 1.5 meters in height, moderate levels of annual rainfall, and the presence of periodic wildfires, with period between combustion exceeding 1 year, but not more than 20 years, to prevent the encroachment of saplings and invasive plant species;

OOC: Why oh why oh why oh why did you make the definition so narrow that it wouldn't protect, in RL, the African savannahs, or the pampa, or the steppe? What's with the hard-on for tallgrass praeries when you still mention grasslands in the title?

Tallgrass prairies are some of the most devastated ecosystems on the planet and they perform vital ecological functions. If you want to draft legislation to protect African savannahs, the pampa, or the steppe, that is up to you.

‘land development’ as any sapient activity which alters a landscape from its naturally occurring form and does not allow the landscape to recover to its naturally occurring form within a period of 5 years (e.g. does not include controlled burns);

OOC: So the entire ecosystem can be razed to the ground every 5 years and farmed aggressively for a year, since tallgrass prairie grass species grow into dominance in 3-4 years. Since the definition depends on grass height, rainfall and fire cycle, no thought needs to be spared on the animal species.

It seems like this type of agriculture would not be very profitable, since you could only extract resources once out of every 5 years. 5 year period is necessary to allow for controlled burns.

Tasks the World Assembly Science Program (WASP) with the following:

OOC: Almost all these tasks should have been given to the member nations themselves, and invisible guidelines are a bad thing as people can RP that their "replacing it all with concrete" is totally fine with the committee.

You can't RP an international committee like that, since it is overseen by the WA. Additionally, this is an international issue. Pollinators do not know human boundaries, so the effect of one nation failing to protect prairies can devastate the ecology and agricultural sector of another.

Mandates that all member nations:

OOC: Much overlap with the committee, not a good thing.

How? These are directives targeted at individual nations.

preventing land development for any purpose in tall grass prairies;

IC: "Even to restore the forest that grew there before the trees were cut down and the grass took over?"

OOC: Restoring one kind of ecotype usually means destroying another. Depending on how far into the past you look, the grassland hasn't always been there. It might have been brushland before sheep and goats domestic herbivores got to it, and the grassland is the unnatural ecosystem. Or people might have - as has happened in RL - "restored" tallgrass prairie in places that were forest or wetlands before people took them up as farmland. This is RL fact, look it up.

And? That doesn't mitigate the fact that these prairies still play vital ecological roles, and that the ecosystems they replaced are still likely far more abundant than tallgrass prairies.

Also, the definition of land development only pertains to the alteration of its landscape from its naturally occurring form. If, in fact, restoration efforts are to be taken to restore a landscape to its naturally occurring form prior to the encroachment of prairies, then this would not meet the definition of 'land development', and hence not be prohibited.

preventing human activities that have been found to be detrimental to the ecosystem, according to clause 3b, in the areas surrounding tall grass prairies; and

OOC: ...what? Like, if in your preamble you say grasslands are cool because they filter pesticides and whatever from agriculture, now that's suddenly not ok to have around the grasslands?

Not necessarily. Agricultural development is only banned if it is detrimental to the ecosystem. Not all forms of runoff are disastrous to tallgrass prairies, but may be detrimental to other types of ecosystems if unfiltered.

record all native multicellular species found to exist within a tall grass prairie, and collect seed samples from all native prairie plants; and

IC: "With what money? Do you have any idea how insane that requirement is for any ecosystem? You'd basically require the destruction of the grassland in its entirety to shift through every grain of soil to find all the multicellular species living in the soil. And yes the soil is a big part of any ecosystem. Congratulations, you've just mandated the destruction of the habitat you wanted to protect!"

This type of research and records keeping is not expensive. You do not have to sift through every grain of dirt to find every possible microbe, only those known to exist within the prairie, which can be easily accomplished by taking representative soil samples. This is not a mandate to go out and discover every new species within the ecosystem, just to keep adequate records of those that have been discovered.

work to restore and maintain tall grass prairies in all ecologically feasible areas, as determined by the findings of the WASP;

OOC: This needs seeeeerious re-doing. You're blind to anything else but RL North American grasslands here. Also, what is "ecologically feasible"? See above for issues.

Again, NationStates is not real life. Also, ecological feasibility is determined by the findings of the WASP.

create economic incentives for private entities to restore and maintain tall grass prairies when direct government action is infeasible; and

OOC: ...but you already mandated the nations to do so? What's the point of this?

The mandate is to protect existing tallgrass prairies, not to restore new ones. This clause incentivizes private reconstruction and maintenance of new tallgrass prairies in areas where government action is infeasible (such as chunks of private land that might be desirable for restoration).

research methods of reducing land use and pollution associated with agriculture.

IC: "You banned agriculture in and around grasslands, what more do you want???"

I did no such thing. Reread the proposal.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Do you know the difference between IC and OOC?

[Ardiveds]

OOC: From reading your replies to Ara, there seems to be a disconnect between your ooc and ic ideas of these tallgrass prairies. OOC, these habitats only exist in US according to Ara which you seem to agree with, and according to you they have been reduced to less than 1% of their historic range.
IC, they could be present in a large amount of WA states, also according to you, but they could also be so abundant that they don't neee such extensive protection.
So is it a endangered habitat that deserves pretection but is also present in a just one corner of the world, or is it a widespread habitat found across multiple planets of rhe WA that might or might not be endangered, and that might warrant less drastic measures?

[Daarwyrth]

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "Ambassador, please answer this for me: what if some of your prairie tallgrass species would turn out to be damaging to the natural Daarwyrthian ecosystem? In the sense that they could be considered an invasive species? Your resolution would effectively prevent us from destroying the invasive tallgrass species.

For some inexplicable reason you assume that the tallgrass species that you seek to protect naturally occur across all the member states of the World Assembly. Ambassador, they don't. The species of prairie tallgrass that you apparently wish to protect don't occur in Daarwyrth naturally, yet you seem to be completely oblivious to that fact, and even willingly so. Also, you fail to notice the very flaw in your thinking, namely, if you assume that these tallgrass species are so prevalent across the multiverse, then they aren't really endangered or danger of becoming such, no?

This resolution proposal will receive a firm 'against' from our delegation once it comes to a vote. We will not allow a potential invasive species to threaten our nation's ecosystem because some unknown ambassador got it in their head that the entire fabric of existence is exactly like their nation, and only like their nation."

[Outer Sparta]

OOC: From reading your replies to Ara, there seems to be a disconnect between your ooc and ic ideas of these tallgrass prairies. OOC, these habitats only exist in US according to Ara which you seem to agree with, and according to you they have been reduced to less than 1% of their historic range.
IC, they could be present in a large amount of WA states, also according to you, but they could also be so abundant that they don't neee such extensive protection.
So is it a endangered habitat that deserves pretection but is also present in a just one corner of the world, or is it a widespread habitat found across multiple planets of rhe WA that might or might not be endangered, and that might warrant less drastic measures?

In addition, there are certain biomes like tallgrass prairies that only exist in temperate areas (assuming the planet is similar to Earth) that have a moderate amount of rainfall, often called temperate savannas, so obviously not every country will have them because of geography.

To the OP: speaking of savannas, does your proposal even mention them or are they not considered part of your definition of grasslands?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Not having a good health day, so just throwing these out there:

Proof of it being in RL a North American thing only, currently only anymore in USA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallgrass_prairie

Proof of there being about 200 sovereign states in RL world: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ign_states

To get the percentage of how many nations in RL have the habitat currently: 1 divided by 200 times 100 equals 0.5%

Proof that non-historically-tallgrass prairie habitats sometimes get converted into tallgrass prairie by "restoration enthusiasts": https://e360.yale.edu/features/in_us_mi ... ms_kessler - search for "wetlands". Also from that link that it takes 3-4 years for the grasses to grow into mature habitat.

The definition of a tallgrass prairie in proposal only talks of the grasses, rainfall and fire cycle. No animal species or any other plant species are required to exist. Hence growing those grasses on a field for a few years, then cutting them down and using the land for agriculture, before planting the grasses again, suffices for the proposal. Doing so in, say, hectare-sized patches in alternating growth cycles would allow land use for agriculture in a reasonable manner without doing anything for the often-mentioned biodiversity. Grassland type ecosystems need vast continuous areas to be functional.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare

And 3.e. DOES require nations to "record all native multicellular species found to exist within a tall grass prairie". Not KNOWN species. FOUND TO EXIST. Which means you need to find them to make sure they exist there.

Proposal does nothing concrete to protect the ecosystem it wants to protect, and should in any case be expanded into a more general grasslands protection effort. The wetlands protection resolution did not single out only the Everglades to base its mandates on. This shouldn't do such thing either.

To the OP: speaking of savannas, does your proposal even mention them or are they not considered part of your definition of grasslands?

Their definition does not even cover shortgrass prairies, not to mention any other type of grassland.

Apologies for typos if they got past me. Migraine-grade headache means I'm going back to bed now. Have a good day.

[Big Boyz]

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "Ambassador, please answer this for me: what if some of your prairie tallgrass species would turn out to be damaging to the natural Daarwyrthian ecosystem? In the sense that they could be considered an invasive species? Your resolution would effectively prevent us from destroying the invasive tallgrass species.

Ambassador, I would point out that the definition of land development only pertains to the alteration of its landscape from its naturally occurring form. If, in fact, restoration efforts are to be taken to restore a landscape to its naturally occurring form prior to the encroachment of prairies, then this would not meet the definition of 'land development', and hence not be prohibited.

For some inexplicable reason you assume that the tallgrass species that you seek to protect naturally occur across all the member states of the World Assembly. Ambassador, they don't. The species of prairie tallgrass that you apparently wish to protect don't occur in Daarwyrth naturally, yet you seem to be completely oblivious to that fact, and even willingly so. Also, you fail to notice the very flaw in your thinking, namely, if you assume that these tallgrass species are so prevalent across the multiverse, then they aren't really endangered or danger of becoming such, no?

Of course tall grass prairies do not occur in every member state, that is not what I said. I made generic assertions that these tallgrass prairies exist in more than just one nation, and I also made generic references to the fact that tallgrass prairies are greatly diminished on an international scale and worthy of protection. Nothing was specifically stated about any one nation.

[Big Boyz]

OOC: From reading your replies to Ara, there seems to be a disconnect between your ooc and ic ideas of these tallgrass prairies. OOC, these habitats only exist in US according to Ara which you seem to agree with, and according to you they have been reduced to less than 1% of their historic range.
IC, they could be present in a large amount of WA states, also according to you, but they could also be so abundant that they don't neee such extensive protection.
So is it a endangered habitat that deserves pretection but is also present in a just one corner of the world, or is it a widespread habitat found across multiple planets of rhe WA that might or might not be endangered, and that might warrant less drastic measures?

In addition, there are certain biomes like tallgrass prairies that only exist in temperate areas (assuming the planet is similar to Earth) that have a moderate amount of rainfall, often called temperate savannas, so obviously not every country will have them because of geography.

To the OP: speaking of savannas, does your proposal even mention them or are they not considered part of your definition of grasslands?

Savannas are, to my understanding, something of an intermediary biome between prairies and forests. Some temperate savannas have a relative lack of trees and still experience periodic wildfires, and would thus still be protected under the definition of tallgrass prairies. Other savannas, those with a relative abundance of trees, do not, and are really more akin to a forest than a prairie. Those types of savanna would not be protected under this proposal.

[Big Boyz]

Proof of it being in RL a North American thing only, currently only anymore in USA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallgrass_prairie

Not true. Your own source states that tallgrass prairies are also present in Canada.

Proof of there being about 200 sovereign states in RL world: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ign_states

To get the percentage of how many nations in RL have the habitat currently: 1 divided by 200 times 100 equals 0.5%

Irrelevant

Proof that non-historically-tallgrass prairie habitats sometimes get converted into tallgrass prairie by "restoration enthusiasts": https://e360.yale.edu/features/in_us_mi ... ms_kessler - search for "wetlands". Also from that link that it takes 3-4 years for the grasses to grow into mature habitat.

Interesting, but I think wetlands, and most other critical habitat types (aside from tallgrass prairies), are already protected under WA law. 3-4 years is an estimate, it is important to leave some room for error.

The definition of a tallgrass prairie in proposal only talks of the grasses, rainfall and fire cycle. No animal species or any other plant species are required to exist. Hence growing those grasses on a field for a few years, then cutting them down and using the land for agriculture, before planting the grasses again, suffices for the proposal. Doing so in, say, hectare-sized patches in alternating growth cycles would allow land use for agriculture in a reasonable manner without doing anything for the often-mentioned biodiversity. Grassland type ecosystems need vast continuous areas to be functional.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare

This still seems a lot less profitable than just converting a large chunk of shortgrass prairie for continuous use. Yes it is important to protect large chunks of vast continuous land, but a maintaining hectacre-sized plots is still highly beneficial for biodiversity. 1 Hectacre is typically the scale of most restoration projects. Ultimately, I think very few nations would partake in such action, unless they are in a state of total desperation, and if they did, I doubt it would be as ecologically damaging as you have so claimed since prairies are adapted to periodic disturbances.

And 3.e. DOES require nations to "record all native multicellular species found to exist within a tall grass prairie". Not KNOWN species. FOUND TO EXIST. Which means you need to find them to make sure they exist there.

No, found, past tense, implies that they have already been discovered.

Proposal does nothing concrete to protect the ecosystem it wants to protect, and should in any case be expanded into a more general grasslands protection effort. The wetlands protection resolution did not single out only the Everglades to base its mandates on. This shouldn't do such thing either.

I think the prohibition of land development and ecologically damaging activities is pretty adequate protection. Please point to the clause where I targeted a specific, currently existing prairie.

To the OP: speaking of savannas, does your proposal even mention them or are they not considered part of your definition of grasslands?

Their definition does not even cover shortgrass prairies, not to mention any other type of grassland.

Shortgrass prairies are not internationally threatened like tallgrass prairies are.

Apologies for typos if they got past me. Migraine-grade headache means I'm going back to bed now. Have a good day.

No worries, have good day.

[Daarwyrth]

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "Ambassador, please answer this for me: what if some of your prairie tallgrass species would turn out to be damaging to the natural Daarwyrthian ecosystem? In the sense that they could be considered an invasive species? Your resolution would effectively prevent us from destroying the invasive tallgrass species.

Ambassador, I would point out that the definition of land development only pertains to the alteration of its landscape from its naturally occurring form. If, in fact, restoration efforts are to be taken to restore a landscape to its naturally occurring form prior to the encroachment of prairies, then this would not meet the definition of 'land development', and hence not be prohibited.

For some inexplicable reason you assume that the tallgrass species that you seek to protect naturally occur across all the member states of the World Assembly. Ambassador, they don't. The species of prairie tallgrass that you apparently wish to protect don't occur in Daarwyrth naturally, yet you seem to be completely oblivious to that fact, and even willingly so. Also, you fail to notice the very flaw in your thinking, namely, if you assume that these tallgrass species are so prevalent across the multiverse, then they aren't really endangered or danger of becoming such, no?

Of course tall grass prairies do not occur in every member state, that is not what I said. I made generic assertions that these tallgrass prairies exist in more than just one nation, and I also made generic references to the fact that tallgrass prairies are greatly diminished on an international scale and worthy of protection. Nothing was specifically stated about any one nation.

"Then leave it to the individual nations themselves that do have these biomes to deal with their maintenance and preservation. It is useless to enforce this onto nations that do not have this biome. This is a highly local issue, not one for the entirety of the World Assembly.

Our delegation remains opposed to this legislation, as your arguments fail to convince us."

[Wallenburg]

Interesting, but I think wetlands, and most other critical habitat types (aside from tallgrass prairies), are already protected under WA law. 3-4 years is an estimate, it is important to leave some room for error.

That depends entirely on what you call "critical habitat types".

This still seems a lot less profitable than just converting a large chunk of shortgrass prairie for continuous use. Yes it is important to protect large chunks of vast continuous land, but a maintaining hectacre-sized plots is still highly beneficial for biodiversity. 1 Hectacre is typically the scale of most restoration projects. Ultimately, I think very few nations would partake in such action, unless they are in a state of total desperation, and if they did, I doubt it would be as ecologically damaging as you have so claimed since prairies are adapted to periodic disturbances.

Hold up, your idea of ecological conservation is to destroy shortgrass prairie to create more tallgrass prairie? How is that "recognizing the importance of high-quality habitats in the protection of ecosystems"?

Shortgrass prairies are not internationally threatened like tallgrass prairies are.

You have absolutely no proof, evidence, or even hypothetical argument to that effect.

[Big Boyz]

Ambassador, I would point out that the definition of land development only pertains to the alteration of its landscape from its naturally occurring form. If, in fact, restoration efforts are to be taken to restore a landscape to its naturally occurring form prior to the encroachment of prairies, then this would not meet the definition of 'land development', and hence not be prohibited.



Of course tall grass prairies do not occur in every member state, that is not what I said. I made generic assertions that these tallgrass prairies exist in more than just one nation, and I also made generic references to the fact that tallgrass prairies are greatly diminished on an international scale and worthy of protection. Nothing was specifically stated about any one nation.

"Then leave it to the individual nations themselves that do have these biomes to deal with their maintenance and preservation. It is useless to enforce this onto nations that do not have this biome. This is a highly local issue, not one for the entirety of the World Assembly.

Our delegation remains opposed to this legislation, as your arguments fail to convince us."

I respectfully disagree. This is an international issue. Neither pollinators nor migratory species know human boundaries, so the effect of one nation failing to protect prairies can devastate the ecology and agricultural sector of another.

Nothing is being forced upon nations that do not have this biome, save for some simple research studies conducted primarily by the WASP. Restoration efforts are encouraged, but voluntary, so a nation that does not currently have this ecosystem will not be affected by the mandates of clause 3.

If you remain unconvinced, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

[Minskiev]

These claims are misleading and poorly written. Stop trying to interfere with this proposal.

lol

[Araraukar]

Proof of it being in RL a North American thing only, currently only anymore in USA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallgrass_prairie

Not true. Your own source states that tallgrass prairies are also present in Canada.

OOC: I saw just the "was" and "extended", in migraine thinking is not so good. Also, [sarcasm]so sorry[/sarcasm] for not being so up to geography on the other side of the world to immediately get which nation Manitoba is in. I'm sure you wouldn't know what nation or nations Karjala is in without googling.

But 2 out of 200 is still only 1%.

Proof that non-historically-tallgrass prairie habitats sometimes get converted into tallgrass prairie by "restoration enthusiasts": https://e360.yale.edu/features/in_us_mi ... ms_kessler - search for "wetlands". Also from that link that it takes 3-4 years for the grasses to grow into mature habitat.

Interesting, but I think wetlands, and most other critical habitat types (aside from tallgrass prairies), are already protected under WA law. 3-4 years is an estimate, it is important to leave some room for error.

Did you miss the bit about forests being turned into farmland and then prairie? Also, 3-4 years is an estimate, yes, but your definition says "‘land development’ as any sapient activity which alters a landscape from its naturally occurring form and does not allow the landscape to recover to its naturally occurring form within a period of 5 years". Which, actually, with a closer reading, seems to say that as long as it's possible to restore the tall grasses within 5 years (which we know IS possible, even if it took a year to remove whatever had been built on the land), the land development can happen, for however long people want.

This still seems a lot less profitable than just converting a large chunk of shortgrass prairie for continuous use.

See the new interpretation of the definition.

Yes it is important to protect large chunks of vast continuous land, but a maintaining hectacre-sized plots is still highly beneficial for biodiversity.

How? If no other plants but the grasses are allowed to establish themselves? Also, see above.

I doubt it would be as ecologically damaging as you have so claimed since prairies are adapted to periodic disturbances.

And I doubt the naturally existing periodic disturbances involve destroying the root systems of the grasses (as needs to be done to farm anything there - that's the whole point of agriculture destroying the prairies). Also, see all of the above, once again.

No, found, past tense, implies that they have already been discovered.

No, you use "found to exist", not "have been found to exist". The latter would imply they've been found beforehand. I know English can be weird with verb tenses, but "species found to exist in a specific area" means anything that one can find there, now, in the past or in the future. Or at least that is as valid interpretation as yours.

I think the prohibition of land development and ecologically damaging activities is pretty adequate protection.

Except it doesn't actually prohibit land development as I've already explained. If you wanted to include controlled burns in stuff one can do to them, if those are needed to maintain the area, then you could've just excluded measures needed to keep it going?

Please point to the clause where I targeted a specific, currently existing prairie.

Definition of a tallgrass prairie. Which does not exist outside of North American continent (1 or 2 nations). Thus, a specific, currently existing prairie.

Shortgrass prairies are not internationally threatened like tallgrass prairies are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortgrass_prairie
"The shortgrass prairie is an ecosystem located in the Great Plains of North America." Even if some of it extends into Canada (it doesn't say), the ecosystem is just as rare globally, what with existing only in 1-2 nations.

So aside from any of that, why the false title? If you never intended to protect anything but one type of prairie, why "prairies and grasslands"? You could've named it "protecting tallgrass prairies" and it'd be more accurate in what it actually does.

[Big Boyz]

I'm sorry about the migraines. That's never fun.

Not true. Your own source states that tallgrass prairies are also present in Canada.

OOC: I saw just the "was" and "extended", in migraine thinking is not so good. Also, [sarcasm]so sorry[/sarcasm] for not being so up to geography on the other side of the world to immediately get which nation Manitoba is in. I'm sure you wouldn't know what nation or nations Karjala is in without googling.

I didn't make a claim about the ecological makeup of Karjala, and if I did, I would have taken the 10 seconds required to find out where it is.

But 2 out of 200 is still only 1%.

Still irrelevant, but just for fun, 1% of 241046 is 2410, and that's assuming that most nations are approximately the size of the United States and that continuous ranges are mostly confined within 1 or 2 nations.

Interesting, but I think wetlands, and most other critical habitat types (aside from tallgrass prairies), are already protected under WA law. 3-4 years is an estimate, it is important to leave some room for error.

Did you miss the bit about forests being turned into farmland and then prairie? Also, 3-4 years is an estimate, yes, but your definition says "‘land development’ as any sapient activity which alters a landscape from its naturally occurring form and does not allow the landscape to recover to its naturally occurring form within a period of 5 years". Which, actually, with a closer reading, seems to say that as long as it's possible to restore the tall grasses within 5 years (which we know IS possible, even if it took a year to remove whatever had been built on the land), the land development can happen, for however long people want.

I found a source that gave the time frame for restoration from a crop field to be 5-7 years with some variance. 3-5 years are required for "aftercare" (early maintenance) alone, starting after the year it's seeded. Additionally, this is from an agricultural field, which already has fertile soil ready for planting. Any activity that disturbs the soil (ie, most development activities) would definitely put the time for restoration outside the maximum of 5 years. Additionally, it seems like the cost of having to restore a prairie after every use would make the entire operation very unprofitable, especially since you could only extract resources once in that 5-year cycle. You probably couldn't generate enough money to offset the costs of restoration and still make a profit. RL costs of restoration are estimated at $1506 per acre (American Dollars).

Yes it is important to protect large chunks of vast continuous land, but a maintaining hectacre-sized plots is still highly beneficial for biodiversity.

How? If no other plants but the grasses are allowed to establish themselves? Also, see above.

Flowering plants and other diverse species beyond just grasses must be allowed to establish themselves, or else this would not be a return to the "naturally occurring form" of the land.

Also, a quote from your own source:

even small patches count as pocket refuges for native wildlife that may have few alternatives.

Additionally, many pollinator species are insects, which do not require such large chunks of land

I doubt it would be as ecologically damaging as you have so claimed since prairies are adapted to periodic disturbances.

And I doubt the naturally existing periodic disturbances involve destroying the root systems of the grasses (as needs to be done to farm anything there - that's the whole point of agriculture destroying the prairies). Also, see all of the above, once again.

True, but again, this type of agriculture would not be profitable. See above.

No, found, past tense, implies that they have already been discovered.

No, you use "found to exist", not "have been found to exist". The latter would imply they've been found beforehand. I know English can be weird with verb tenses, but "species found to exist in a specific area" means anything that one can find there, now, in the past or in the future. Or at least that is as valid interpretation as yours.

"that have been found" is just an alternative phrasing for "found", as it is used in the context of the proposal. The former is in "present perfect" tense followed by a past participle, which is used as an alternative to "past tense". Information about this can be found here. This is something that is notoriously confusing for a non-native speaker, especially since it is used in an adjective phrase in this sentence.

Ex.1 3 found eggs, vs 3 eggs that were found, vs 3 eggs that have been found. All 3 of these phrases are equivalent.
Ex.2 3 eggs found here, vs 3 eggs that were found here, vs 3 eggs that have been found here. All 3 of these are also equivalent.
Ex.3 3 eggs found to exist here, vs 3 eggs that were found to exist here, vs 3 eggs that have been found to exist here. All 3 of these are equivalent.

I think the prohibition of land development and ecologically damaging activities is pretty adequate protection.

Except it doesn't actually prohibit land development as I've already explained. If you wanted to include controlled burns in stuff one can do to them, if those are needed to maintain the area, then you could've just excluded measures needed to keep it going?

Some guidelines for maintenance will be set by the WASP when combustion is not an option. These are not known, and thus cannot be included.

Please point to the clause where I targeted a specific, currently existing prairie.

Definition of a tallgrass prairie. Which does not exist outside of North American continent (1 or 2 nations). Thus, a specific, currently existing prairie.

This is a prairie type, not a specific, currently existing prairie (like Curtis Prairie, for example). You likened my focus on tallgrass prairies to a proposal targeting wetlands that only concerned itself with the everglades. This is not what I did.

Shortgrass prairies are not internationally threatened like tallgrass prairies are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortgrass_prairie
"The shortgrass prairie is an ecosystem located in the Great Plains of North America." Even if some of it extends into Canada (it doesn't say), the ecosystem is just as rare globally, what with existing only in 1-2 nations.

First off, obviously it extends into Canada. Second, even if it only exists within 2 nations IRL (it doesn't), shortgrass prairies have not been so ecologically devastated as tallgrass prairies.

Using a quote from one of your own sources:

"tall-grass prairie, a habitat dominated by grasses that can grow eight feet high, now occupies less than 1 percent of its former range, putting it among the world’s most endangered ecosystems, according to the U.S. National Park Service. In the central prairie zone, so called “mixed-grass” ecosystems have suffered similar losses, while in the drier, less populous West, short-grass prairies have fared better."

I'm not saying that shortgrass prairies aren't important, just that they're not nearly as threatened as tallgrass prairies are, and hence not as desperate for protection.

So aside from any of that, why the false title? If you never intended to protect anything but one type of prairie, why "prairies and grasslands"? You could've named it "protecting tallgrass prairies" and it'd be more accurate in what it actually does.

This is a trivial distinction. The title is not false, as the proposal does, in fact, protect prairies and grasslands. I just chose to focus on the most ecologically devastated habitat for protection.

Perhaps "protecting tallgrass prairies" would be more accurate, but the current title is not inaccurate.

[Araraukar]

I'm sorry about the migraines. That's never fun.

OOC: I get them in the spring, unfortunately - our winters are like 90% overcast and days are short, so right now when days are largely sunny (lakes being still largely frozen means not a lot moisture in the air to make clouds, and nights are below freezing) and long (official length of day today is over 16 hours), the excess light creates issues. A month from now I won't even notice it.

Just thought I'd let you know.

As for the actual proposal contents, we're never going to agree so I won't even try to argue it further with you. I have a fairly good repeal text for it now anyway, and if that ends up happening, I'm more than happy to help you write a more comprehensive grasslands protection one (and let you get the credit for that) later. (Heck, I'd be happy to coauthor the repeal with you as well. I don't care about the gameside author badges.)

[Big Boyz]

I'm sorry about the migraines. That's never fun.

OOC: I get them in the spring, unfortunately - our winters are like 90% overcast and days are short, so right now when days are largely sunny (lakes being still largely frozen means not a lot moisture in the air to make clouds, and nights are below freezing) and long (official length of day today is over 16 hours), the excess light creates issues. A month from now I won't even notice it.

Just thought I'd let you know.

Damn, that sucks. Just out of curiosity, what country are you from? From your descriptions, it sounds like somewhere near the arctic circle (a Scandinavian country, maybe?). I'm from the United States (you've probably guessed that), Wisconsin specifically, so I can somewhat sympathize with the experience of living through a cold, dark winter (although, maybe not as dark, depending on where you are from, just because Wisconsin is around the 45th parallel).

As for the actual proposal contents, we're never going to agree so I won't even try to argue it further with you.

Deal, agree to disagree.

I have a fairly good repeal text for it now anyway, and if that ends up happening, I'm more than happy to help you write a more comprehensive grasslands protection one (and let you get the credit for that) later. (Heck, I'd be happy to coauthor the repeal with you as well. I don't care about the gameside author badges.)

Sure, if you get a repeal to pass (assuming the current proposal passes), I would be happy to write a new draft with you.

[Outer Sparta]

OOC: I get them in the spring, unfortunately - our winters are like 90% overcast and days are short, so right now when days are largely sunny (lakes being still largely frozen means not a lot moisture in the air to make clouds, and nights are below freezing) and long (official length of day today is over 16 hours), the excess light creates issues. A month from now I won't even notice it.

Just thought I'd let you know.

Damn, that sucks. Just out of curiosity, what country are you from? From your descriptions, it sounds like somewhere near the arctic circle (a Scandinavian country, maybe?). I'm from the United States (you've probably guessed that), Wisconsin specifically, so I can somewhat sympathize with the experience of living through a cold, dark winter (although, maybe not as dark, depending on where you are from, just because Wisconsin is around the 45th parallel).

As for the actual proposal contents, we're never going to agree so I won't even try to argue it further with you.

Deal, agree to disagree.

I have a fairly good repeal text for it now anyway, and if that ends up happening, I'm more than happy to help you write a more comprehensive grasslands protection one (and let you get the credit for that) later. (Heck, I'd be happy to coauthor the repeal with you as well. I don't care about the gameside author badges.)

Sure, if you get a repeal to pass (assuming the current proposal passes), I would be happy to write a new draft with you.

If this current iteration doesn't pass, then you can always work with Ara on improvements that address why it didn't pass in the first place.

[Uan aa Boa]

Like my fellow Forestian Daarwyrth I'll be opposing this one. We already have GA#465 Preventing Species Extinction which charges member nations with implementing conservation plans for threatened species. It's difficult to see how this proposal meaningfully extends beyond that.

The great virtue of GA#465 is its flexibility. It calls for plans to be drawn up for endangered species that take account of their particular circumstances, without asserting that certain local circumstances must be repeated across the world. It doesn't overstate the risk to a particular type of habitat if it is, in fact, widespread but it does already mandate action to protect a unique habitat that only exists in 1 or 2 neighbouring nations.

You wouldn't address the threat to native Madagascan forest by defining that habitat in a way that removes the real world reference and then writing an international law asserting that it is in fact present in many nations, but that's precisely what this proposal does.

[Araraukar]

Just out of curiosity, what country are you from?

OOC: Finland, so Scandinavia is close enough (technically Finland isn't one of those but Fennoscandia instead - Nordic nation anyway, and I know over there "Scandinavia" is often used as synonym of "Nordic", though it isn't quite the same).

Wisconsin is around the 45th parallel

.
I live north of the 62nd. Polar circle is at about 66.33, for reference.