NationStates Jolt Archive

The current "Banning Whaling" Proposal inspired me to come up with another idea for a proposal: an Endangered Species List.

The current draft is below:


THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS,

REALIZING that many species of animals and plants of the world are very few in number, and that some are at high threat of extinction;

NOTICING that many more species of animal or plant have already been rendered extinct, either directly or indirectly by the hand of mankind;

SEEING that for the betterment of the world we live on, these creatures must remain alive;

HEREBY RESOLVES to form an UN Conservation Committee, for the following reasons:

1. To list in a clear manner which species of plant or animal meet at least one of the following requirements:

a. High population drop in the past 10 years or three generations of the species' lifetime ('high' is measured according to whether the causes of this drop have been identified and reversed or not)

b. Very small habitat area, which is either fragmented, declining or undergoing extreme fluctuation.

c. Population size under 2500 mature individuals and any decline in population (more or less).

d. Population size under 250 mature individuals.

e. Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 20% within 20 years or five generations, whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of 100 years).

2. To prohibit commercial and recreational hunting of the listed species in the wild in all member nations, except by those who live a chosen primitive lifestyle and use primitive methods to hunt these species. Any person found doing so shall be charged with a criminal offense in the nation they are currently in, and the same shall occur to those permitted to hunt as stated above should they hunt in excess.

3. To encourage member nations to begin conservation programs towards the protection of these species, as well as programs dedicated to restoring the species’ presence in the wild.

The NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS hereby establishes this committee, as according to the guidelines above.


Please comment on this - Anything helps.

please no more "Animal Rights" protection crap!! were having enough problems with this whaling ban thing!!

This isn't about animal rights; this is about biodiversity preservation. Please note that both animals and plants are included in the document. (For this reason, 'hunting' should have 'gathering' attached to it). It's not about stinky hippies sobbing for the deaths of poor little fluffy bunny rabbits; it's about long-term ecological impact. Come up with some genuine arguments and we'll talk some more.

There can be little economic gain from the hunting of an endangered species. Why? Because it's endangered. As soon as it becomes extinct (which, if it's classified as endangered, it certainly will do if you hunt it) the relevant industry tanks. (In China, where the high price of ground tiger bone {a medicine that does nothing} has decimated the tiger population, people have resorted to stealing big-cat bones from museums - bones preserved, incidentally, in lethal chemicals). The difference between this and the whaling proposal is that once you've got your species population back up to a sustainable level, you can start hunting again - so long as you don't let the population drop down to unsafe levels again.

This is in fact very mild; for the majority of endangered species, the risk is not from hunting but from habitat destruction.

I am mostly in favor of this ban, except the nation of Heavenside will have to vote against until the UN stops trying to regulate what primative peoples of various nations do. Maybe you can help Heavenside change its vote, so as long as someone can come up with a good reason why the lives of people who either wholly or partially depend on whales should be regulated and listed by a bunch of people who it does not affect. And in relation to this proposal, why shouldn't individual nations make choices on their own animal populations and instead leave it to the rest of the world?

Because Biodiversity problems affects the ENTIRE PLANET.

The fiefdom of Poor Dental Hygeine does not support your proposal.


My species are unhindered by your idiotic plans of mass consumerism. I will vote against this proposal.

You have my support, I do have some suggestions to make:


Habitat protection should be increased as well as banning hunting
A preambulatory clause reminding the reader that messing up ecosystems can also harm humans - this isn't simply sentimentality towards the animals - could be good
In 2, saying "Any person found doing so" should become "Any person contravening this ban" simply for clarity, otherwise it can sound like you are referring to the primitive hunters
A possibility, if you can work out an appropriate system and fit it in, would be to copy real systems, which usually include more than one classification (e.g. a species could be threatened or endangered).

"SEEING that for the betterment of the world we live on, these creatures must remain alive": This language needs to be fine-tuned. As previously expressed, a clear and succinct statement of how human society is effected by loss of diverse species is needed to get the message through.

High population drop in the past 10 years needs to be better defined, possibly as an estimated percentage of total population. Likewise Very small habitat area, which is variable given the range and/or migratory habits of species.

except by those who live a chosen primitive lifestyle and use primitive methods to hunt these species seems to mollify Heavenside's objections, except that should they hunt in excess isn't particularly meaningful. What counts as excess? If an aboriginal population's hunting jeopardizes an endangered species, do we suffer extinction of the species or starvation of the tribe? Tough question.

please no more "Animal Rights" protection crap!! were having enough problems with this whaling ban thing!!

While I did say "every commment helps", I actually meant every meaningful comment. Neither of these, as was pointed out, are actually Animal Rights proposals. If you post again, please make it worthwhile.

This is in fact very mild; for the majority of endangered species, the risk is not from hunting but from habitat destruction.

Yes, and this was mentioned in other areas. This will be harder to do, however, because even if you set up some sort of protected area for the animals/plants, the animals could leave, the plants could have their seeds moved elsewhere, and it would still be a small habitat area. This bit will need some ironing out.

I am mostly in favor of this ban, except the nation of Heavenside will have to vote against until the UN stops trying to regulate what primative peoples of various nations do. Maybe you can help Heavenside change its vote, so as long as someone can come up with a good reason why the lives of people who either wholly or partially depend on whales should be regulated and listed by a bunch of people who it does not affect. And in relation to this proposal, why shouldn't individual nations make choices on their own animal populations and instead leave it to the rest of the world?

This is not regulating the lives of primitives, nor is the Whaling proposal. If they lead a primitive lifestyle, then the obvious assumption is that they are using primitive methods to hunt - not laser-scoped sniper rifles, or even a commercially made compound bow. This allows them to continue hunting using these methods, and therefore basically says that this proposal has no or extremely little effect on them.

And to your second comment, like was said afterward - Biodiversity problems affect the entire planet. If one species dies out, more will follow. This proposal does leave some work up to the individual nations anyway. They are encouraged, not required, to enact rehabilitation programs for the endangered. If they really don't give a damn about it, they do not have to do anything to help bring it back up - they are only required to keep it from dropping further.

My species are unhindered by your idiotic plans of mass consumerism. I will vote against this proposal.

Maybe yours aren't, but what about everyone else's? Stop being selfish, and if you post again, please explain yourself more.

I do have some suggestions to make...

Thank you very much. I have taken note of all of your suggestions and am trying to work them into the proposal.

"SEEING that for the betterment of the world we live on, these creatures must remain alive": This language needs to be fine-tuned. As previously expressed, a clear and succinct statement of how human society is effected by loss of diverse species is needed to get the message through.


Like you said, previously stated, I will work on it. Thank you.

High population drop in the past 10 years needs to be better defined, possibly as an estimated percentage of total population. Likewise Very small habitat area, which is variable given the range and/or migratory habits of species.

Alright... a drop in estimated population of 25% in the past ten years, or the loss of 20% of total estimated habitat?

except by those who live a chosen primitive lifestyle and use primitive methods to hunt these species seems to mollify Heavenside's objections, except that should they hunt in excess isn't particularly meaningful. What counts as excess? If an aboriginal population's hunting jeopardizes an endangered species, do we suffer extinction of the species or starvation of the tribe? Tough question.

If it does turn out that they are hunting what they need of a species, but that the species does not have enough to be hunted, then the UN could send out an envoy to ask them to try and avoid hunting the near-extinct species as much as possible, and offer alternatives. The tribe, for lack of a better word, would them be aware of the sudden lack of prey, and have the voluntary choice of whether or not to continue hunting them to extinction, or to switch to a different form of game. This way, the intrests of both parties are upheld, and the tribe remains unregulated. If they really wish to kill off an entire species, however, there is nothing I will or morally can do to stop them. If you have no objections to that, I would like to include it.

Thank you for your comments. I should have a second draft sometime tommorrw or Monday.

It's not about stinky hippies sobbing for the deaths of poor little fluffy bunny rabbits

I'm outraged at the obvious slander of my country!


This means war!... oh wait, were anti war arn't we?

Crap...

I'm outraged at the obvious slander of my country!


This means war!... oh wait, were anti war arn't we?

Crap...

you really ate crow on that one!! wait i forgot hippies only eat greens! :D

Can we please limit the conversation here to the proposal??

If you really want to declare war on someone else, go to the Gameplay forum, please.

This is not regulating the lives of primitives, nor is the Whaling proposal. If they lead a primitive lifestyle, then the obvious assumption is that they are using primitive methods to hunt - not laser-scoped sniper rifles, or even a commercially made compound bow. This allows them to continue hunting using these methods, and therefore basically says that this proposal has no or extremely little effect on them.


Thank you for this information. Heavenside's government will keep this in mind.

Glad I could be of some help.

Here is the new draft:


THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS,

REALIZING that many species of animals and plants of the world are very few in number, and that some are at high threat of extinction;

NOTICING that many more species of animal or plant have already been rendered extinct, either directly or indirectly by the hand of mankind;

SEEING that for the betterment of the world we live on, these creatures must remain alive;

SHOCKED that if a single species becomes extinct, an entire ecosystem may collapse, affecting even mankind;

HEREBY RESOLVES to form an UN Conservation Committee, for the following reasons:

1. To list in a clear manner which species of plant or animal meet at least one of the following requirements:

a. High population drop in the past 10 years or three generations of the species' lifetime ('high' is measured according to whether the causes of this drop have been identified and reversed or not, and shall be considered a 25% or higher drop in estimated population.)

b. Very small habitat area, which is either fragmented, declining at a steady rate, 20% smaller than the previous estimate, or undergoing extreme fluctuation.

c. Population size under 2500 mature individuals and any decline in population.

d. Population size under 250 mature individuals.

e. Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 20% within 20 years or five generations, whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of 100 years).

2. To prohibit commercial and recreational hunting/gathering of the listed species in the wild in all member nations, except by those who live a chosen primitive lifestyle and use primitive methods to hunt/gather these species. Any person found contravening this ban shall be charged with a criminal offense in the nation they are currently in. In the event a primitive tribe is overhunting an endangered species, a UN envoy shall be sent to the tribe to make them aware of the limited number of that plant or animal, and offer alternatives. The tribe may make the choice whether to continue hunting or gathering the endangered species, or take the alternatives.

3. To protect the remaining habitat of the species by allowing no further development of the area, and logging only if replacement trees native to the area are immediately planted.

4. To encourage member nations to begin conservation programs towards the protection of these species, as well as programs dedicated to restoring the species’ presence in the wild.

The NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS hereby establishes this committee, as according to the guidelines above.


I have tried to work in as many of your suggestions as possible. Unfortunately, if I were to add a "Threatened Species List" to this as well, it would be far too long. We will have to make do with this one.

Anything else?

Two things.

In 3, it should be the same species that was cut down, and there should be the ability to set an absolute limit on how much logging can be done if it is deemed necessary (e.g. if an animal needs mature trees, it won't be much help if its habitat is replaced with a lot of saplings, even if they're the approriate species).

There are certain cases, the first coming to mind is mosquitos, where a thorough analysis might determine that extinction in the wild would in fact be extremely beneficial, given that mosquitos transmit malaria, and could, given appropriate mutations in the virus, transmit HIV. If scientists could present a thorough analysis of the ecological impacts, and devised a method of causing mosquito extinction without directly harming other species (i.e. not another DDT-style catastrophe), might it not be good if this committee had the power to make exceptions and waive protection for the relevant mosquito species? At present, if mosquito populations were brought down to levels which matched the criteria in 1, the committee would be forced to list them as endangered and mandate their protection.

If scientists could present a thorough analysis of the ecological impacts, and devised a method of causing mosquito extinction without directly harming other species (i.e. not another DDT-style catastrophe), might it not be good if this committee had the power to make exceptions and waive protection for the relevant mosquito species? At present, if mosquito populations were brought down to levels which matched the criteria in 1, the committee would be forced to list them as endangered and mandate their protection.Good if the analysis took into account the fish and amphibian species that feed on mosquitoes (larvae, nymph and adult alike). Bad, or at least risky, if the species' interactions and interdependencies aren't thoroughly understood, which is more common than anyone would like. It's a dicey business, this playing-God stuff.

I agree that the evidence and knowledge should be clear before we would even consider such a move, but the option should still be there.

Let the endangered species die out. After all 95% of all species have become exictent in the history of the Earth. We should not be fighting nature and let them die out.

Except as some species die out, others will follow, and mankind will eventually feel the repercussions.

That is one of the problems with your mosquito idea, Myopia - even if they do take account of all the impacts, the loss of the mosquito will create a huge impact on bats, amphibians, birds, fish, other insects, etc. Not to mention that the insect repellant industry would go completely out of business :D .

As to the thing about the tree replacement, you do have a point. I hate to ban logging altogheter, because these areas could be quite large... Is there any other alternative?

If then humans should find other types of food to consume if not the whale or whatever, then who is to say that a specific species cannot do the same, in the case of the mosquito, if it dies out cant fish and such find another type of food, after all........................................................................ all life can and will find a way to continue, even if it has to break the rules.

Not all life is as easily adaptable to various circunmstances as we are. And some other food source may not be as readily available, edible, may not have neccessary nutrients, etc.

The current "Banning Whaling" Proposal inspired me to come up with another idea for a proposal: an Endangered Species List.

The current draft is below:

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS,

REALIZING that many species of animals and plants of the world are very few in number, and that some are at high threat of extinction;

NOTICING that many more species of animal or plant have already been rendered extinct, either directly or indirectly by the hand of mankind;

SEEING that for the betterment of the world we live on, these creatures must remain alive;

HEREBY RESOLVES to form an UN Conservation Committee, for the following reasons:

1. To list in a clear manner which species of plant or animal meet at least one of the following requirements:

a. High population drop in the past 10 years or three generations of the species' lifetime ('high' is measured according to whether the causes of this drop have been identified and reversed or not)

b. Very small habitat area, which is either fragmented, declining or undergoing extreme fluctuation.

c. Population size under 2500 mature individuals and any decline in population (more or less).

d. Population size under 250 mature individuals.

e. Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 20% within 20 years or five generations, whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of 100 years).

2. To prohibit commercial and recreational hunting of the listed species in the wild in all member nations, except by those who live a chosen primitive lifestyle and use primitive methods to hunt these species. Any person found doing so shall be charged with a criminal offense in the nation they are currently in, and the same shall occur to those permitted to hunt as stated above should they hunt in excess.

3. To encourage member nations to begin conservation programs towards the protection of these species, as well as programs dedicated to restoring the species’ presence in the wild.

The NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS hereby establishes this committee, as according to the guidelines above.

Please comment on this - Anything helps.

On my island, we have a family (tribe) called the Iake-iake.

They live in an inaccessable valley, where only they go.

They eat only the Iaaaa bird, as the gods (probably) have told them to do.

The Iaaaa population is rapidly declining, because as they migrate into the Iake-iake valley from other parts of the island they are quickly caught and eaten.

We have told the Iake-iake that if we notice any more drop in the Iaaaa population, we will destroy one village each month until we see more Iaaa birds, or until there is only one village (of very limited size) left.

There is now one Iake-iake village left.

We REALLY like to watch Iaaaa birds...!

Thus, we all win, as they continue to eat their traditional food, and the lovely Iaaaa bird is making a comeback.

(( Afterword: Most of the Iake-iake migrated to outside their valley and gave up eating Iaaaa bird as opposed to being killed by our Eco-enforcers. ))


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Regarding logging bans, I suggest that you give the committee power to limit logging (or for that matter, hunting/gathering other species on which the endangered species rely) to whatever extent they deem reasonable and sustainable (up to and including a ban), taking into account both the need for conservation and for the economic well-being of locals.

Regarding the mosquito, I see what you're saying, but if some way were found through future science to limit these effects, the option should be available, since resolutions can't be repealed. What if scientists in the future created something through genetic engineering which played the same roles as the mosquito in ecosystems but could not transmit malaria etc., but were prevented from replacing mosquitos with it because of this legislation? Wouldn't it be prudent to allow for the possibility?

Regarding logging bans, I suggest that you give the committee power to limit logging (or for that matter, hunting/gathering other species on which the endangered species rely) to whatever extent they deem reasonable and sustainable (up to and including a ban), taking into account both the need for conservation and for the economic well-being of locals.

Regarding the mosquito, I see what you're saying, but if some way were found through future science to limit these effects, the option should be available, since resolutions can't be repealed. What if scientists in the future created something through genetic engineering which played the same roles as the mosquito in ecosystems but could not transmit malaria etc., but were prevented from replacing mosquitos with it because of this legislation? Wouldn't it be prudent to allow for the possibility?

That mosquito would ravage the earth (due to it's evil genetic engineering) and render humankind not only blue, but incapable of creating new and improved legal concepts and applications, therefore killing the "lawyer class" and utterly obviating the UN itself.

Hmmmm,... get working on that recombinant mosquito, NOW...!


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Hmmmm,... get working on that recombinant mosquito, NOW...!


want us to help? :D

That mosquito would ravage the earth (due to it's evil genetic engineering) and render humankind not only blue, but incapable of creating new and improved legal concepts and applications, therefore killing the "lawyer class" and utterly obviating the UN itself.

Um....ok. Hope that's sarcasm.

My examle was a purely hypothetical example of how science might give us the answer to this problem in the future. My point was really that although
we might not be able to wipe out the mosquito at present without causing serious damage to the rest of the environment, we don't know for sure that it won't be made possible by future scientific advances, so we should allow for the possbility that in future, it might be do-able. Additionally, if HIV were to mutate so that mosquitos could transmit it, it might actually make sense to eradicate mosquitos regardless of the ecological impact.

That mosquito would ravage the earth (due to it's evil genetic engineering) and render humankind not only blue, but incapable of creating new and improved legal concepts and applications, therefore killing the "lawyer class" and utterly obviating the UN itself.

Hmmmm,... get working on that recombinant mosquito, NOW...!


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Iakeokeo, please keep your comments here directly related to the proposal at hand. I do not appreciate your sarcasm towards other's posts, and will report the next inappropriate one I see here to the moderators. Thank you.

Regarding logging bans, I suggest that you give the committee power to limit logging (or for that matter, hunting/gathering other species on which the endangered species rely) to whatever extent they deem reasonable and sustainable (up to and including a ban), taking into account both the need for conservation and for the economic well-being of locals.

Regarding the mosquito, I see what you're saying, but if some way were found through future science to limit these effects, the option should be available, since resolutions can't be repealed. What if scientists in the future created something through genetic engineering which played the same roles as the mosquito in ecosystems but could not transmit malaria etc., but were prevented from replacing mosquitos with it because of this legislation? Wouldn't it be prudent to allow for the possibility?

Regarding logging bans, I think that's the best way to do it. Not only does it work in the needs of the proposal, it also prevents most argument about that section :D. Thank you.

Hmmm... Alright. I will add in the thingie on the mosquitoes, as shown below:

In the event that a species becomes a severe threat to mankind, the committee shall allow for it's exctinction, or, if the threat is considered harsh enough by the committee, it's immmediate termination. Termination, however, may only occur if ecologists can safely prevent ecosystem decay that may be caused by the species' absence.

However, I still do not like this. In the event that this proposal is too long, I will try to trim other sections, but if a section has to be completely lost, this will be the first to go. Thank you again for the help.

Here is the third draft:

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS,

REALIZING that many species of animals and plants of the world are very few in number, and that some are at high threat of extinction;

NOTICING that many more species of animal or plant have already been rendered extinct, either directly or indirectly by the hand of mankind;

SEEING that for the betterment of the world we live on, these creatures must remain alive;

SHOCKED that if a single species becomes extinct, an entire ecosystem may collapse, affecting even mankind;

HEREBY RESOLVES to form an UN Conservation Committee, for the following reasons:

1. To list in a clear manner which species of plant or animal meet at least one of the following requirements:

a. High population drop in the past 10 years or three generations of the species' lifetime ('high' is measured according to whether the causes of this drop have been identified and reversed or not, and shall be considered a 25% or higher drop in estimated population.)

b. Very small habitat area, which is either fragmented, declining at a steady rate, 20% smaller than the previous estimate, or undergoing extreme fluctuation.

c. Population size under 2500 mature individuals and any decline in population.

d. Population size under 250 mature individuals.

e. Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 20% within 20 years or five generations, whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of 100 years).

2. To prohibit commercial and recreational hunting/gathering of the listed species in the wild in all member nations, except by those who live a chosen primitive lifestyle and use primitive methods to hunt/gather these species. Any person found contravening this ban shall be charged with a criminal offense in the nation they are currently in. In the event a primitive tribe is overhunting an endangered species, a UN envoy shall be sent to the tribe to make them aware of the limited number of that plant or animal, and offer alternatives. The tribe may make the choice whether to continue hunting or gathering the endangered species, or take the alternatives.

3. To protect the remaining habitat of the species by allowing no further development of the area, and logging in the area as permitted by the Conservation Committee.

4. To encourage member nations to begin conservation programs towards the protection of these species, as well as programs dedicated to restoring the species’ presence in the wild.

In the event that a species becomes a severe threat to mankind, the committee shall allow for it's exctinction, or, if the threat is considered harsh enough by the committee, it's immmediate termination. Termination, however, may only occur if ecologists can safely prevent ecosystem decay that may be caused by the species' absence.

The NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS hereby establishes this committee, as according to the guidelines above.

Is there anything else? If I hear no further suggestions by my next proposal submission, it will be submitted at that time. (You have the 3 or 4 days that a proposal is given in approval stage - the others are going in in a moment.)

Iakeokeo, please keep your comments here directly related to the proposal at hand. I do not appreciate your sarcasm towards other's posts, and will report the next inappropriate one I see here to the moderators. Thank you.



Go for it, oh gracious one. That is your right. :)

My comment was directly related to the discussion in that the general overuse of outrageous hypotheticals and spurious "data" makes the discussion meaningless.

Simply put your ideas in understandable form (which may well be impossible as they are inherently hyper-complex due to the nature of what you're trying to do) and put it up for a vote.

The data aquisition and "brainstorming" phase is lovely, but moderating the incoming information for "meaningfulness", and then actually arranging your aquired "proposition" for understandability would be a good thing.

(( I admire your attempt to make the world a lovely static perpetual paradise, and all, but passing legislation to "stop the natural course of nature" is, IMHO, a losing cause and doomed to failure due to the complexity of the "problem" and simple human nature [which for some mysterious reason is ALWAYS disregarded by any UN legislation]. ))

Anyway,.. have fun with that and report me at any and every opportunity! :)


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

The data aquisition and "brainstorming" phase is lovely, but moderating the incoming information for "meaningfulness", and then actually arranging your aquired "proposition" for understandability would be a good thing.

(( I admire your attempt to make the world a lovely static perpetual paradise, and all, but passing legislation to "stop the natural course of nature" is, IMHO, a losing cause and doomed to failure due to the complexity of the "problem" and simple human nature [which for some mysterious reason is ALWAYS disregarded by any UN legislation]. ))


As to your first paragraph, in case you haven't noticed, which is apparently the case, that is what we are trying to do. I would appreciate you either leaving us alone so that we may do so, or else contributing in a worthwhile manner.

As to your second, allow me to go out-of-character for a moment - If stopping the course of nature is impossible, then why do these lists exist in real life? Why is it a Federal offense in the United States to kill a praying mantis, or to even own a feather of a Bald Eagle without mounds of paperwork? And we are not disreagarding human nature in this, as we are making it a criminal offense in any member nation to harm any plant or animal on this list.

If you really have this negative an attitude toward UN procedures in NationStates, I would suggest that you stop viewing and posting in this forum beofre you end up pissing off a mod and getting yourself banned. Please do not post here again.

ANYWAY...

Does anyone have an actual comment for the current draft?

Instead of "can safely prevent ecosystem decay", could we have "can make ecosystem decay negligible"? Because it may well be impossible to have absolutely no impact. Sorry to keep bugging you over this, but I'd hate to see us unwittingly seal our fate with an unrepealable resolution.

Otherwise, it's great. As to Iakeokeo's comment that this is an attempt to stop the course of nature, I would point out this resolution does not mandate protection of species from each other, only from humans. So if species are being naturally out-competed an dnearing extinction, we can't hurt them, but if it is natural for Darwinian selection to make them extinct, then go extinct they may.

I'm sorry, but Tokarev cannot support this. The Banning of Whaling has already increased are trade deficit to 114 billion.

Instead of "can safely prevent ecosystem decay", could we have "can make ecosystem decay negligible"? Because it may well be impossible to have absolutely no impact. Sorry to keep bugging you over this, but I'd hate to see us unwittingly seal our fate with an unrepealable resolution.

Otherwise, it's great. As to Iakeokeo's comment that this is an attempt to stop the course of nature, I would point out this resolution does not mandate protection of species from each other, only from humans. So if species are being naturally out-competed an dnearing extinction, we can't hurt them, but if it is natural for Darwinian selection to make them extinct, then go extinct they may.

Hey, you can bug me about it all you want - I want to make this as good as it can be. That's not what annoys me...

So that clause will now read:

In the event that a species becomes a severe threat to mankind, the committee shall allow for it's exctinction, or, if the threat is considered harsh enough by the committee, it's immmediate termination. Termination, however, may only occur if ecologists can safely make the effects of the resulting ecosystem decay neglible, to prevent further exctinctions.


Anything else? I think we're starting to wrap this up...

That's great, thanks for the changes. I agree, this looks ready to submit.

Ok, then... Here is the "final" draft -


Endangered Species List

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Woodchipping (? - or should it be all? I am trying to limit the effects due to Turkmeny's post above...)

THE NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS,

REALIZING that many species of animals and plants of the world are very few in number, and that some are at high threat of extinction;

NOTICING that many more species of animal or plant have already been rendered extinct, either directly or indirectly by the hand of mankind;

SEEING that for the betterment of the world we live on, these creatures must remain alive;

SHOCKED that if a single species becomes extinct, an entire ecosystem may collapse, affecting even mankind;

HEREBY RESOLVES to form an UN Conservation Committee, for the following reasons:

1. To list in a clear manner which species of plant or animal meet at least one of the following requirements:

a. High population drop in the past 10 years or three generations of the species' lifetime ('high' is measured according to whether the causes of this drop have been identified and reversed or not, and shall be considered a 25% or higher drop in estimated population.)

b. Very small habitat area, which is either fragmented, declining at a steady rate, 20% smaller than the previous estimate, or undergoing extreme fluctuation.

c. Population size under 2500 mature individuals and any decline in population.

d. Population size under 250 mature individuals.

e. Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 20% within 20 years or five generations, whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of 100 years).

2. To prohibit commercial and recreational hunting/gathering of the listed species in the wild in all member nations, except by those who live a chosen primitive lifestyle and use primitive methods to hunt/gather these species. Any person found contravening this ban shall be charged with a criminal offense in the nation they are currently in. In the event a primitive tribe is overhunting an endangered species, a UN envoy shall be sent to the tribe to make them aware of the limited number of that plant or animal, and offer alternatives. The tribe may make the choice whether to continue hunting or gathering the endangered species, or take the alternatives.

3. To protect the remaining habitat of the species by allowing no further development of the area, and logging in the area as permitted by the Conservation Committee.

4. To encourage member nations to begin conservation programs towards the protection of these species, as well as programs dedicated to restoring the species’ presence in the wild.

In the event that a species becomes a severe threat to mankind, the committee shall allow for it's extinction, or, if the threat is considered harsh enough by the committee, it's immmediate termination. Termination, however, may only occur if ecologists can safely make the effects of the resulting ecosystem decay neglible, to prevent further exctinctions.

The NATIONSTATES UNITED NATIONS hereby establishes this committee, as according to the guidelines above.

If this proposal draft does not have any suggestions for change by the time my other three proposals next leave the UN, then it will be submitted along with them.

Thanks to all who helped write this!

My apologies for the lateness of this contribution.

1) Figures such as 250 and 2,500 are appropriate perhaps for mammals, but what of insects such as ants? If we find that there are only 250 of one particular species of ant left, are they not more heavily endangered than a mammal numbering just 250? I apologise, this is not an field I am expert in.

2) Article 4 has the incorrect spelling 'exctinction'.

Kind regards
Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

That's fine. Better late than never.

Suggestion 1 - That is a good point, as all someone would have to do at that point would be to go at the ants with a can of Raid, and 'poof', off they go. However, the chances of any kind of insect going exctinct, with the possible exception of the praying mantis (OOC, I know), are extremely slim, as bugs now outnumber humans almost 10 to 1, I think. (Back IC) So while that is a valid point, I do not think it is wholly neccessary.

Suggestion 2 - So it does. Thank you, I will fix that.

Anything else?

the chances of any kind of insect going exctinct, with the possible exception of the praying mantis (OOC, I know), are extremely slim, as bugs now outnumber humans almost 10 to 1, I think.
Sorry, but that's wrong. The changes of the entire insect population going extinct are immeasurably high, but individual species of insects go extinct every day. The most casual Google of 'insect extinction' reveals multiple sources that agree with this.

Insect Extinction (http://www.ento.csiro.au/conservation/area_of_research/actionplans/insect_extinction.html) ... for every plant that is pushed to extinction, on average 15 animal species which depend on that plant are likely to be affected. With 76 extinct and 301 endangered species of vascular plants in Australia, we could expect 1140 species of extinct animals (most of them invertebrates) and 4515 species of threatened animals (also mainly invertebrates). The study notes that these estimates do not include the loss of insects which depended on threatened or extinct vertebrates and so these estimates could be much greater.

Also, http://www.ran.org/info_center/factsheets/s06.htmlMany large mammals such as leopards and apes need miles and miles of territory to roam and have a tough time surviving in the smaller and fragmented habitats they are forced into by humans. Other species such as the golden toad, whose entire population lives on one mountain in Costa Rica, could become extinct within seconds from a bulldozer's crush.
I think you need to provide an algorithm for protected space rather than simple numbers. Either that, or eliminate condition C and D altogether. You've provided for generational management, so specific numbers aren't really necessary.

You've provided for generational management, so specific numbers aren't really necessary.

This is a very good point.

I think it is important to note that currently we aren't disputing the need for protecting endangered species, but rather we are all just trying to find a good method to measure what is endangered and what is not. The generational approach sounds good.

It might be important to remember, that different species might have different optimal numbers.

How about saying 2500/250 for mammals, and then, "numbers deemed equivalent by a large panel of expert scientists for other species"?

I actually wasn't aware of that. Thank you, Frisbeeteria.

And I see your and Mikitivity's points as well - I would actually lean more towards your suggestion than your half-and-half one, _Myopia_... It's a little less confusing.

However, I don't think the proposal actually needs to change. See below:

To list in a clear manner which species of plant or animal meet at least one of the following requirements:

Therefore, if a 25% population decrease is spotted within either 3 generations or 10 years, the species is endangered. (Req. 1)

Or, in the mammal's case, if there are less than 2500 and falling, they are endangered. (Req. 3)

The proposal already covers all of these circumstances... Right?

I suppose you're right, which means I have nothing further to suggest.