NationStates Jolt Archive

The Allied States of Mulungushi have proposed an Endangered Species Act, and humbly request endorsements of the Act so that it may be voted on by the UN! The Act can be found in the proposals list under ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. If you agree with this proposal, please endorse it!

Could you post a copy here so we can see it? Thanks.

I agree with TilEnca, I'm very interested in finding out what this proposal is.

Another M.O.S.S. proposal.

As requested, here is the description. The Proposal can also be found under "ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT" if you do a search in the proposal listings.


Endangered Species Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Mulungushi

Description: ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

Fully aware of and deeply disturbed by widespread extinctions of animal and plantlife upon our planet, and recognizing the fragile state of our ecosystem, it is hereby proposed that an Endangered Species Act be ratified by the United Nations in order to stop this dangerous, downward trend.

The Endangered Species Act shall:

A) Authorize the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened.

B) Prohibit the unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species.

C) Authorize establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to NationStates that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and threatened wildlife and plantlife.

D) Authorize the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the Act or regulations.

E) Authorize the payment of rewards to any person, organization, or body of government furnishing information leading to arrest and conviction for any violation of the Act or regulations.

F) Authorize the formation of the United Nations Endangered Species Agency (UNESA) to insure the Act and/or regulations are followed legally, to enforce any penalties upon persons, organizations, or bodies of government violating the Act and/or regulations, and to work with NationStates adhering to the Act and all regulations in ways deemed necessary (such as, but not limited to, monetary funds, providing officials to help with the enforcement of the Act or any regulations, supplies and/or suggestions needed in order to form Habitat Reserves).

Will this Act also have the power to declare a species extinct? After all, there is no point commiting funds to protecting a species only listed as being endangered, if it is in fact extinct. (Hmm, four different two-letter words all beginning with 'i'. Anyone beat that?)

Of course, flora and fauna considered to be "extinct" would not be counted as either endangered or threatened, as they have already achieved the status that they are endangered or threatened of.

However, as scientific research advances, it could be possible to "reverse" the status of extinct, and although the people of Mulungushi would be willing to provide funding into such research, other NationStates, who perhaps do not agree with such radical actions (i.e. cloning), would not be required to do so.

Fully aware of and deeply disturbed by widespread extinctions of animal and plantlife upon our planet, and recognizing the fragile state of our ecosystem, it is hereby proposed that an Endangered Species Act be ratified by the United Nations in order to stop this dangerous, downward trend.

Which has been going on for about 3 billion years or so.

The Endangered Species Act shall:

A) Authorize the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened.

Are you also going to list the reasons as to why?

B) Prohibit the unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species.

Define "unauthorized."

C) Authorize establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to NationStates that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and threatened wildlife and plantlife.

"Adequate" is, in some cases, the same as "exterminating."

D) Authorize the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the Act or regulations.

Okay. Do we create our own penalties?

E) Authorize the payment of rewards to any person, organization, or body of government furnishing information leading to arrest and conviction for any violation of the Act or regulations.

How big of rewards? $5 isn't going to convince many to turn in violators.

F) Authorize the formation of the United Nations Endangered Species Agency (UNESA) to insure the Act and/or regulations are followed legally, to enforce any penalties upon persons, organizations, or bodies of government violating the Act and/or regulations, and to work with NationStates adhering to the Act and all regulations in ways deemed necessary (such as, but not limited to, monetary funds, providing officials to help with the enforcement of the Act or any regulations, supplies and/or suggestions needed in order to form Habitat Reserves).

So far, it seems more like an act where each nation chooses how it will affect them, and in some cases you will see animals going extinct.

There should maybe also be a clause that lists exceptional circumstances in which the law may not apply, for example, if the species in question poses a significant threat to the nation or state.

For example, in the south of our region, several states are currently attempting to combat a new species of mobile plant life which consumes everything in its path from crops and forests, to animals and humans. Clearly this type of creature is too much of a threat to allow to survive in the area, but the current proposal would prohibit any action against it.

It seems that DemonLordEnigma is only bent on deconstructing proposals not in their favor for the sheer pleasure of it. But the people of Mulungushi will gladly reply to such commentary and accusations made. It should also be noted that, in a far away world, this is the exact same Act adopted by many nations, save for article F, and to consider it weak would be, upon research, fallacy.

Why DemonLordEnigma demands such extensive clarifications, when other Acts that have been passed by the United Nations are severely lacking in even the information given in this proposal, is beyond the people of Mulungushi, but here we are, to appease:

Whether or not extinctions have been occuring for 3 billion years is not an issue here. The fact remains that humankind has accelerated extinctions (scientifically proven, time and again), and that humankind now also has the means to stop said extinctions. If our world were to suffer a mass extinction at this point in time, whether by our hand or by natural forces, we would not survive, and so the people of Mulungushi not only suggest this Act for plant and animal lives, but for ours as well. Of course, if a NationState is lacking in compassion, as DemonLordEnigma seems to be, then this will not move them into action.

Considering the paragraph preceeding Article A, one would have thought the reasons why a plant or animal would be deemed endangered or threatened was clear, but I shall elaborate. They will be deemed endangered or threatened if it is proven that they are close to extinction. Is that a good enough reason why?

What is authorized or unauthorized will be at the discretion of the United Nations and UNESA. Obviously, poaching would most likely be considered as "unauthorized," whereas the transportation of an animal in a sanctioned breeding program would, perhaps, not. Is this more clear?

How DemonLordEnigma considers "adequate" and "exterminating" to be one in the same is another one of those strange things, but they are, in fact, not. Extermination should never be considered for any endangered animal or plant.

Again, it will be at the discretion of the United Nations and UNESA to determine appropriate penalties and rewards. That is why the term "authorize" is used. To authorize this determination. Authorize is a word for DemonLordEnigma, yes?


(Of course, if anyone doubts this, they can simply refer themselves to the United States Endangered Species Act of 1973. Ta.)

The Horned Toad is going extinct. Why? It's food, the Red Ant, is being hunted and destroyed by another predator, the Fire Ant.

This is nature doing what it does, not the actions of mankind. What would you have us do about this happening?

We would appreciate:
(a) clarification as to whether we are supposed to attempt to stop natural extinctions (above) and/or those caused by mankind's predations (ie - draining the wetlands).
(b) clarification of what sort of extinctions are to be seen as significant to the act. Antibiotics and draconian measures have rendered Red Death all but extinct in Vastiva; it exists now only in a few test tubes, under controlled conditions. Are we now forced to "save" this virus?
(c) What of artificial ecosystems? Antarctica's is to a large part "man made" - we placed the soil bacteria which allowed the growth of the Antarctic Pine. If conditions diminish the plants we designed and put there, are we now forced to "save" it?
(d) clarification of who sets the penalties and rewards. Criteria can be determined inside the organization, but which one? Made of whom?
(e) who pays for this? By what means?

As for (e), I would suggest UN Zoos of Endangered Species be made, with the funds raised in excess of operating costs being used to fund the act, but that is our practicality, as it would preserve specimens and address the funding issue.

We await your response.

The Horned Toad is going extinct. Why? It's food, the Red Ant, is being hunted and destroyed by another predator, the Fire Ant.

This is nature doing what it does, not the actions of mankind. What would you have us do about this happening?

We would appreciate:
(a) clarification as to whether we are supposed to attempt to stop natural extinctions (above) and/or those caused by mankind's predations (ie - draining the wetlands).


While clarification is always good, I don't think you can make much of a case that "natural" extinction makes up a significant portion of species extinction. The examples you cite are ironically enough related. Fire ants were imported in the 1930s and are displacing Red ants and other native species such as the harvester ant, which is the primary food source for the horned (toad) lizard. While natural predation of the horned toad does contribute to the decreasing population, it has been human decimation of the food sources directly through the use of pesticides, and indirectly through importation of nonnative ant species that has had the greatest impact.

In short, I don't feel that the cause of decreasing populations should play any role in the listing of a species.

It seems that DemonLordEnigma is only bent on deconstructing proposals not in their favor for the sheer pleasure of it. But the people of Mulungushi will gladly reply to such commentary and accusations made. It should also be noted that, in a far away world, this is the exact same Act adopted by many nations, save for article F, and to consider it weak would be, upon research, fallacy.

Actually, my major objections to one too strong has to do with the fact DLE has animals that could eat army divisions for breakfast and then wonder what the main course is. A few of those I'm trying to actively drive towards extinction in order to make my people secure. Those animals are, upon examining their ecosystems, either not natural to the planet or not necessary for the ecosystem to maintain balance, with a few cases appearing to be from other regions of the planet and moving towards an area they are not normally in before DLE arrived.

Why DemonLordEnigma demands such extensive clarifications, when other Acts that have been passed by the United Nations are severely lacking in even the information given in this proposal, is beyond the people of Mulungushi, but here we are, to appease:

It depends on the act. Certain items I wish clarified in order to see if my interpretation is correct before I deal with it as a whole.

Whether or not extinctions have been occuring for 3 billion years is not an issue here. The fact remains that humankind has accelerated extinctions (scientifically proven, time and again), and that humankind now also has the means to stop said extinctions. If our world were to suffer a mass extinction at this point in time, whether by our hand or by natural forces, we would not survive, and so the people of Mulungushi not only suggest this Act for plant and animal lives, but for ours as well. Of course, if a NationState is lacking in compassion, as DemonLordEnigma seems to be, then this will not move them into action.

I can't exactly have compassion for a three kilometer worm that lives in saltwater and eats anything it comes across. To get an idea, imagine a giant tapeworm with tiny hairs all over its body that sometimes pops up out of the water and grabs whatever is nearby for a snack. Luckily, they don't reproduce like tapeworms.

The problem with Earth is the fact you actually assume you can do something to stop a mass extinction. If it's going to happen, humanity won't be able to do a damn thing to stop it. Humanity can try to limit the extinctions it is causing, but it cannot stop all of them. Nor is humanity the only source of extinctions.

Considering the paragraph preceeding Article A, one would have thought the reasons why a plant or animal would be deemed endangered or threatened was clear, but I shall elaborate. They will be deemed endangered or threatened if it is proven that they are close to extinction. Is that a good enough reason why?

That may be, but that is not a good enough reason to protect them in all cases. In a few cases, them reaching that level is a good thing. If you wish, I'll drop a few of the aforementioned worms off on Earth to demonstrate. Just don't come crying to me when they eat all of the whales and then start on aircraft carriers.

What is authorized or unauthorized will be at the discretion of the United Nations and UNESA. Obviously, poaching would most likely be considered as "unauthorized," whereas the transportation of an animal in a sanctioned breeding program would, perhaps, not. Is this more clear?

That I do not feel comfortable with. They may decide the sea worms of Terrator, which are the aforementioned worms, are to be preserved despite the massive destruction they cause every year.

How DemonLordEnigma considers "adequate" and "exterminating" to be one in the same is another one of those strange things, but they are, in fact, not. Extermination should never be considered for any endangered animal or plant.

Even if said animal is one that a single member of causes thousands of deaths every year? I would rather certain animals in DLE cease their existance.

Again, it will be at the discretion of the United Nations and UNESA to determine appropriate penalties and rewards. That is why the term "authorize" is used. To authorize this determination. Authorize is a word for DemonLordEnigma, yes?

This is a case where I will have to tell them to find their own way in and not bother to let my border guards know they are allowed to breach DLE borders. I am one of those members very concerned with the environment and with preserving animal life, but at the same time I consider my people more important than animals. And as it sounds, this is a case where the only way I can deal with this if that group is allowed to make decisions is to drop the animals off in their nations and laugh with glee as their people are slaughtered. Keep in mind this, as worded, doesn't just affect Earth and certain species on other planets serve more good extinct than still around.

I have only one problem with this proposal. It does not state that nations cannot kill an endangered animal. We just can't take them anywhere. It is obvious that we shouldn't kill endangered animals, but to nations who don't support this resolution this is a giant loop hole.

Please correct this problem, and I will gladly bring it up with my region for support.