NationStates Jolt Archive

Members and Delegates of the UN forum and General Assembly, I have given much thought to this bill which will replace the need to have multiple resolutions for Conservation of single species. This is the First Draft and as such i would appreciate any comment or advice.


Category: environmental.
Business effected: all Business
Proposed By: The Hibernian Kingdom of Venerable Libertarians.

Members of the General Assembly of these United Nations. In these modern times of Population growth expanding into environmentally sensitive areas of the NS world, with natural habitats being encroached by these populations. With over fishing and hunting of game running unchecked a side effect is the ever greater numbers of animals inching closer to the brink of extinction on land, in our sky and in our oceans. It is with these concerns in mind we enact the United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill, (UNCoESB)
On Ratification By the General Assembly, The UN shall set up an executive Body to monitor NS World wildlife numbers. The Executive shall decide what numbers apply to each level of animal population and what Species recieve the title "Endangered" and the protections the title affords.

Article 1: Quotas.
International best practise should be adopted in forming quotas and heavy penalties should be applied if these quotas are broken. Imposition of quotas should ensure that total bans on fisheries or game hunting of a specific species should be a rare event.

Article 2: Education.
National governments are charged with educating local populations in the benefits of conservation of species that are heavily hunted within their national boundaries.

Article 3: Species of National Importance.
Where there are species regarded with a sense of national importance, National governments may apply conservation orders on that species within its own national boundaries and impose national restrictions to hunting of that species. These restrictions shall only apply within the National boundary and are not applicable to neighbouring Nations unless an agreement has been set by the neighbouring countries.
National Governments may set penalties for breaches of these national conservation orders.

Article 4: Monitoring
The UN in conjunction with National and Regional Governments, Non Governmental Organisations and Environmental agencies shall constantly monitor closely wildlife numbers in their area of concern. These numbers shall be tallied yearly so they may show increases or decreases in the numbers of wildlife. If considerable decrease or a recurring trend of decrease in population is noted local conservation attempts shall be instituted at a national level aided by local populations and national agencies.

Article 5: Capture and Breeding
If local populations decrease to a worrying level then local Zoological and Marine specialists shall step in to capture and breed, in an attempt to reverse the decrease in numbers. Also, if larger populations of the same animal exist in another part of the NS world steps should be taken to introduce new blood lines to the endangered species.
Local Bans shall be instituted on hunting of the endangered animal until such time as it is deemed safe to do so. Quotas shall then be applied to the hunting of the recovering species.

Article 6: Full escalation.
Where a Species of animal has come dangerously close to world extinction levels, The UN shall impose a Full escalation of Protection to the species. All hunting of the species shall be expressly forbidden. Full funding shall be granted for the escalation of steps to conserve the species and to rebuild its population to an acceptable level for the species to recover. Criminal charges shall be brought against any individual or group in contravention to this.


Thank you,
Esheram Byron.

Article 4 - Make it "considerable decrease or a recurring trend of decrease in population". Reason is if one nation's coyote population +/- goes:

1994 - +3
1995 - +2
1996 - -2
1997 - +1
1998 - +3
1999 - -4
2000 - +2

........

I'd say that 1996 and 1999 would be numbers not to worry about (though this act would make action needed for those years). If, say in 2001, you had a -15 or 1997 and 1998 had the negative equivelent change in population (meaning that between 1996 through 1999, you have a total net of -10 and 4 straight years of decreases), then I'd say there is a need for concern.

Oh - Article 6 - you might need to note how these laws will be applied to all UN nations - and put an encouragment for non-UN members to follow these global bans.

Another way to ensure that an animal doesn't teeter on the edge of Extinction, is to instate Hunting seasons. And it looks to me, that under this act, there are no Hunting Seasons.

When you say Quotas, does this incorporate/apply to Hunting Seasons, or is this just another way to ensure that no one animal is hunted continually?

Another way to ensure that an animal doesn't teeter on the edge of Extinction, is to instate Hunting seasons. And it looks to me, that under this act, there are no Hunting Seasons.

When you say Quotas, does this incorporate/apply to Hunting Seasons, or is this just another way to ensure that no one animal is hunted continually?

The thing about quotas is it works nicely in allowing nations some freedom in determining how they apply and regulate these quotas. It might be in the form of hunting seasons.

The thing about quotas is it works nicely in allowing nations some freedom in determining how they apply and regulate these quotas. It might be in the form of hunting seasons.

So the decision of how to apply the quotas, is left to the Government of each sovereign nation?

Oh - Article 6 - you might need to note how these laws will be applied to all UN nations - and put an encouragment for non-UN members to follow these global bans.


I agree that a need to address UN in this one is needed but how strong an encouragement does one make on non UN members and not violate rules that were some concern with the Dolphins proposal over international waters or something like that being areas where non members also hunt. As the UN can't enforce it's resolutions on non members,....

So would a too strong encouragement not be seen as imposing this on non members and not allowed.. Thus whould it not be better just to leave it out and deal with how the UN within is going to protect wildlife.. maybe with the hope that others will see it working and follow the UN's example in wildlife protect...

To me that would be a sticky issue when look outside UN borders to protect any animal..

So the decision of how to apply the quotas, is left to the Government of each sovereign nation?

I believe so. VL may want to make a comment or suggestion with hunting, but basically this resolution say what should be done (or in the cases of extinction being a concern, what will be mandated). It is up to nations to determine how to implement these things.

I believe so. VL may want to make a comment or suggestion with hunting, but basically this resolution say what should be done (or in the cases of extinction being a concern, what will be mandated). It is up to nations to determine how to implement these things.

Well then, it seems the only steps left are getting this to quorum for Vote, and repealing the Dolphin & Whaling Act since they are unneccessary.

Well then, it seems the only steps left are getting this to quorum for Vote, and repealing the Dolphin & Whaling Act since they are unneccessary.


Dolphins is a done deal all it needs is to go to floor for a full vote.. Have not looked at where Whaling is right now... Think Dolphins is behind a couple others so it may be a while to get to floor... So it will be some time before this one can get to floor if it passes quorum..

Dolphins is a done deal all it needs is to go to floor for a full vote.. Have not looked at where Whaling is right now... Think Dolphins is behind a couple others so it may be a while to get to floor... So it will be some time before this one can get to floor if it passes quorum..

Then I say, it's time to get moving on whaling.

Then I say, it's time to get moving on whaling.

You mean like this?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437299

You mean like this?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437299

No I mean, supporters need to post in the new thread, so it gets as much attention as the Dolphin Act did. The Thread sitting here won't help us.

No I mean, supporters need to post in the new thread, so it gets as much attention as the Dolphin Act did. The Thread sitting here won't help us.

If the thread gets debated, it only means there's an opposition. Most people (more importantly, delegates) don't read the threads. The work is in the TG campaigns.

If the thread gets debated, it only means there's an opposition. Most people (more importantly, delegates) don't read the threads. The work is in the TG campaigns.

Another thing I recommend, have your region establish an embassy with several of the larger regions. When you have a draft proposal, submit a copy to the regional forums and ask for their advice. By doing so, they may make suggestions ... and if they do, they are more likely to vote in favour of your proposal / resolution. :)

Article 4 - Make it "considerable decrease or a recurring trend of decrease in population".

That is a great idea.

Furthermore, I'd like to add that biologically speaking, it is the female population that is of particular interest. If you see decreases in the females of a species, the number of births always go down. This is of particular importance in sports gaming, where you can actually choose to hunt only the males.

Age is another criterion that can be considered.

You can roll both of these ideas into the resolution probably by just saying "considerable decrease or recurring trend of decrease in the fertile population". In other words, it really isn't hurting the environment as much if I go and eat roadkill, so we might not include the roadkill in our "take" limits. ;)

BTW, in water project operations, quotas are sometimes called "take limits", and depend not only on species, but flow conditions and time of year. The time of year business is to take into account fertility.

In any event, I am very pleased with what I see.

Article 4 - Make it "considerable decrease or a recurring trend of decrease in population". Reason is if one nation's coyote population +/- goes:

1994 - +3
1995 - +2
1996 - -2
1997 - +1
1998 - +3
1999 - -4
2000 - +2

........

I'd say that 1996 and 1999 would be numbers not to worry about (though this act would make action needed for those years). If, say in 2001, you had a -15 or 1997 and 1998 had the negative equivelent change in population (meaning that between 1996 through 1999, you have a total net of -10 and 4 straight years of decreases), then I'd say there is a need for concern.


True to a point but...


because all species propagation is incredibly complex, if those 4 that died in 1999 were cubs.


You could, in some cases, witness an entire generation wiped out.


Now granted, there needs to be limits on...limits.


But I believe the proposal gives enough leeway to allow human judgement to take precedent over statutory requirement (say that 10 times fast).

I take that back...


"considerable decrease or a recurring trend of decrease in population" is a very good add-on.


That can cover an instant were 4 can died of old age but not effect a population like, let's say, losing an entire liter.

Oh - Article 6 - you might need to note how these laws will be applied to all UN nations - and put an encouragment for non-UN members to follow these global bans.

I have adopted your recomendation for article 4 and have amended its text accordingly. As for article 6, we feel we cant mention NON UN Nations as this would make the resolution Illegal. We can no more police Non un Members wildlife than we can their militaries and Actions.
I have adopted a "trickle UP" system for the resolution whereby most of the conservation is kept locally and controlled locally. This is to maximise monitoring and response. It also ensures the most cost effective and efficient use of UN funding. The Articles 1 to 4 inclusive should cost the UN very insignificant amounts with articles 5 and 6 costing the most to enact.

I have also added the Executive, and given it the rights to decide what numbers would apply to the various population levels. The executive decides on funding and where it is best spent. Adding the Executive removes the nessesity to include figures in the actual resolution. This is important as in this example.......

Bolly birds of the Islands of templar have a single chick every 5 years, Gumby rats can have a litter of 12 young, 4 times annually! when you compare the two species, it would be obviously much tougher to attempt to recover from a near Bolly bird extinction so full escalation for the bolly bird may be set at if the population dips below 10,000 mating couples, whereas the Gumby rats population may be set at 500 mating couples.

As such i hve not put in any figures and the Executive can decide on that.

If the thread gets debated, it only means there's an opposition. Most people (more importantly, delegates) don't read the threads. The work is in the TG campaigns.


Or it can mean a total lack of interest! Take up on the whale issue has been slow. This has been worrying for us as both Myself and the Yeldan delegate engaged on a telegram campaign and I Posted this earlier than i expected as a lot of delegates had stated they would not support a repeal until the conservation bill was in place.

Another way to ensure that an animal doesn't teeter on the edge of Extinction, is to instate Hunting seasons. And it looks to me, that under this act, there are no Hunting Seasons.

When you say Quotas, does this incorporate/apply to Hunting Seasons, or is this just another way to ensure that no one animal is hunted continually?
Yes, Forgotten lands was correct to say that under the Quota system local governments can apply the resolution by enforcing Hunting seasons and fisheries maximum take numbers.
In fisheries Nets can be regulated to let smaller fish escape. ETC.

there are a multitude of things local governments can do to support the resolution that if i were to add them the proposal for the resolution would be way too long to submit. I am trying to Maximise effect with minimal content here.

Dolphins is a done deal all it needs is to go to floor for a full vote.. Have not looked at where Whaling is right now... Think Dolphins is behind a couple others so it may be a while to get to floor... So it will be some time before this one can get to floor if it passes quorum..
Nothing is a done deal untill the general assembly ratifies the repeal approved by the delegates.

I worry the general assembly may not look too kindly on the dolphin repeal due to the wording.
The Whale repeal with just less than a day and a half remaining still needs in excess of 100 votes.

No my friend, Nothing is ever a done deal, Untill the General assembly say so.

Oh - Article 6 - you might need to note how these laws will be applied to all UN nations - and put an encouragment for non-UN members to follow these global bans.
The Executive has been added to address this.

Nothing is a done deal untill the general assembly ratifies the repeal approved by the delegates.

I worry the general assembly may not look too kindly on the dolphin repeal due to the wording.
The Whale repeal with just less than a day and a half remaining still needs in excess of 100 votes.

No my friend, Nothing is ever a done deal, Untill the General assembly say so.


A lot of Deligates are back home meeting with their governments and are not in so may not have viewed the recent events.. Expect to see many back in next day, hopefully in time to vote one way or other on Whale repeal. As was looking over who supported Dolphins and who had already Whales. Saw a few know had endorsed Dolphins but had not Whales so gave them a call.. They will be moving to support it before it comes to final in quorum. Depending on when thay get back in area we should see a few more go up to support Repeal Whales. I will look over the Dolphin list again and see who I might know that has not already moved to Whales and try to reach them. Also have a few might be moved to add their support, just unable to reach them at this time due to them Working, out of area, and weather has delayed sending carrier pigeons.

I have also added the Executive, and given it the rights to decide what numbers would apply to the various population levels. The executive decides on funding and where it is best spent. Adding the Executive removes the nessesity to include figures in the actual resolution. This is important as in this example.......

Bolly birds of the Islands of templar have a single chick every 5 years, Gumby rats can have a litter of 12 young, 4 times annually! when you compare the two species, it would be obviously much tougher to attempt to recover from a near Bolly bird extinction so full escalation for the bolly bird may be set at if the population dips below 10,000 mating couples, whereas the Gumby rats population may be set at 500 mating couples.

As such i hve not put in any figures and the Executive can decide on that.

That's Perfecto, this most definently has my full support.

Or it can mean a total lack of interest! Take up on the whale issue has been slow. This has been worrying for us as both Myself and the Yeldan delegate engaged on a telegram campaign and I Posted this earlier than i expected as a lot of delegates had stated they would not support a repeal until the conservation bill was in place.
The repeal of Banning whaling might need to be submitted again. It still needs 93 more approvals and it expires tomorrow (actually later today). I will be able to carry out a more aggressive TG campaign next time.

This is better than most proposals that come down the pike, but still not sovereignty-friendly enough for me to support.

Nonetheless, good show and good luck, Lord Byron.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

This is better than most proposals that come down the pike, but still not sovereignty-friendly enough for me to support.

Nonetheless, good show and good luck, Lord Byron.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones
Thank you tex for the best wishes and the Kind words. On the National sovereignty issue, I dnt get your hesitation. As the the bill gives the bulk of the control of conservation to Nations and only lets the UN step in in the extreme event of a possible extinction threat, surely that should please the Nations who hold national sovereignty most dearly?
On a separate note, I have requested Mod advice on the legality of submitting this bill before the repeals of resolutions 70 and 106. If i get the go ahead i will submit this before repealing the others, thus ensuring continuity of protection for the Whale population. A great number of the Delegates have informed me that they would not consider a repeal until the new Bill is first in situe.

Well it appears i have a moderators Blessing to submit the New Bill to the delegates for approval.

The Blessing (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9437548#post9437548)

I will submit the Proposal With immediate effect and see what happens.
Watch this space!

On submitting the draft of the Bill i found even though i had given great attention to keeping it as simply defined as possible, it was 171 charachters too long :headbang:

After a wee bit of tweeking i have submitted the following FINAL DRAFT.

The Final Draft submitted 23:00 GMT 13th August 2005.

Proposal: UNCoESB.
Proposed By: The Hibernian Kingdom of Venerable Libertarians.
Category: Environmental.
Business Effected: All Business.

Description: In these times of Population growth expanding into environmentally sensitive areas of the NS world, with natural habitats being encroached. With over fishing and hunting of game running unchecked, a side effect is the ever greater numbers of animals on the brink of extinction. It is with these concerns we enact the United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill, UNCoESB
Article 1:The Executive
On ratification by the General Assembly, the UN shall set up an executive body to monitor NS World wildlife numbers. The Executive shall decide what numbers apply to each level of animal population and what Species receive the title "Endangered" and the protections the title affords. The Executive shall control funding and see it is used where it is most required.
Article 2:Quotas.
International best practise should be adopted in forming quotas and heavy penalties should be applied if these quotas are broken. Imposition of quotas should ensure that total bans on fisheries or game hunting of a specific species should be a rare event.
Article 3:Education.
National governments are charged with educating local populations in the benefits of conservation of species that are heavily hunted within their national boundaries.
Article 4:Species of National Importance.
Where there are species regarded with a sense of national importance, National governments may apply conservation orders on that species within its own national boundaries and impose national restrictions to hunting of that species. These restrictions shall only apply within the National boundary and are not applicable to neighbouring Nations unless an agreement has been set by the neighbouring countries.
National Governments may set penalties for breaches of these national conservation orders.
Article 5:Monitoring
The UN in conjunction with National and Regional Governments, Non Governmental Organisations and Environmental agencies shall constantly monitor closely wildlife numbers in their area of concern. These numbers shall be tallied yearly so they may show increases or decreases in the numbers of wildlife. If considerable decrease or a recurring trend of decrease in population is noted local conservation attempts shall be instituted at a national level aided by local populations and national agencies.
Article 6: Capture and Breeding
If local populations decrease to a worrying level then local Zoological and Marine specialists shall step in to capture and breed, in an attempt to reverse the decrease in numbers. Also, if larger populations of the same animal exist in another part of the NS world steps should be taken to introduce new blood lines to the endangered species.
Local Bans shall be instituted on hunting of the endangered animal until such time as it is deemed safe to do so. Quotas shall then be applied to the hunting of the recovering species.
Article 7:Full Escalation.
Where a Species of animal has come dangerously close to world extinction levels, The UN shall impose a Full escalation of Protection to the species. All hunting of the species shall be expressly forbidden. Full funding shall be granted for the escalation of steps to conserve the species and to rebuild its population to an acceptable level for the species to recover. Criminal charges shall be brought against any individual or group in contravention to this.
We hereby enact the UNCoESB.
The Author wishes to thank the Nation of “Yeldan UN Mission” whose assistance has been invaluable.

I appeal to all delegates to seek out this proposal nd give it your Approval.

Many thanks,
Esheram Byron.

The bill that was 171 characters too long....how many characters was it?

I don't think the protection of endangered species is a matter that the UN should have control of. The suggestions and mandates proposed in this bill would require a lot of funding from each participating nation; funding that many countries don't have. I think it is safe to say that most of that money would be coming from taxes out of the people's pockets. Most nations have enough problems trying to take care of their HUMANS with their current funding, let alone animals. And I think humans are a little more important than animals (though I don't justify the destruction of any species and certainly don't support harming any living creature for sport). However, such interference from a vast organization like the UN could possibly force laws that would harm the people and their economy in exchange for saving some species that might not even have a big impact on the biosphere (though it is usually foolish to let human interference go so far as to upset the natural balance of things, even if it hurts the smalles of organismns). I agree that steps need to be taken to preserve wildlife in the world, but I think that should be the responsibility of the individual nations who possess the land. In my oppinion, the UN is much too power-hungry and controlling, and should be focusing on more global problems concerning politics. Perhaps we can think of something less severe that could help preserve life around the world without being too imposing.
This Bill (at least in it's current form) does not have the support of the Republic of Barad-Du.

The bill that was 171 characters too long....how many characters was it?
I didnt count exactly but i had to shave it, thus the squashed up look on the proposals page!

I don't think the protection of endangered species is a matter that the UN should have control of. The suggestions and mandates proposed in this bill would require a lot of funding from each participating nation; funding that many countries don't have. I think it is safe to say that most of that money would be coming from taxes out of the people's pockets.
If your issue here is simply a funding one, Most nations will allready have an environmental agency keeping track of wild life numbers. So no extra funds required there. Also Non Governmental Agencies will also be in action and their funds come from their own coffers primarily. The only areas which will require extra funding are a Full escalation event and for the Executive and its staff and facilities, But the savings that will come from the repeals of the resolutions 70 and 106 and the fact that any further protections will be now illegal due to duplication will prove this bill is money well spent.
Most nations have enough problems trying to take care of their HUMANS with their current funding, let alone animals. And I think humans are a little more important than animals (though I don't justify the destruction of any species and certainly don't support harming any living creature for sport).
I recon you answered your own question here and the new proposal is a human friendly one as it does not ban hunting or fishing outright as long as he numbers of wildlife are conserved.

However, such interference from a vast organization like the UN could possibly force laws that would harm the people and their economy in exchange for saving some species that might not even have a big impact on the biosphere (though it is usually foolish to let human interference go so far as to upset the natural balance of things, even if it hurts the smalles of organismns). I agree that steps need to be taken to preserve wildlife in the world, but I think that should be the responsibility of the individual nations who possess the land.
with this bill it still is the responsibility of the individual nations! The UN will be just aiding this and ensuring conservation efforts are being put in place and adhered to.
In my oppinion, the UN is much too power-hungry and controlling, and should be focusing on more global problems concerning politics. Perhaps we can think of something less severe that could help preserve life around the world without being too imposing.
The Mandate of the Executive is clear and cant be steered by a power hungry and controling UN.

This Bill (at least in it's current form) does not have the support of the Republic of Barad-Du.
We are sorry you do not support the Bill and i hope my reply will go some way to changing your mind on this matter.

I don't think the protection of endangered species is a matter that the UN should have control of. The suggestions and mandates proposed in this bill would require a lot of funding from each participating nation; funding that many countries don't have. I think it is safe to say that most of that money would be coming from taxes out of the people's pockets. Most nations have enough problems trying to take care of their HUMANS with their current funding, let alone animals. And I think humans are a little more important than animals (though I don't justify the destruction of any species and certainly don't support harming any living creature for sport). However, such interference from a vast organization like the UN could possibly force laws that would harm the people and their economy in exchange for saving some species that might not even have a big impact on the biosphere (though it is usually foolish to let human interference go so far as to upset the natural balance of things, even if it hurts the smalles of organismns). I agree that steps need to be taken to preserve wildlife in the world, but I think that should be the responsibility of the individual nations who possess the land. In my oppinion, the UN is much too power-hungry and controlling, and should be focusing on more global problems concerning politics. Perhaps we can think of something less severe that could help preserve life around the world without being too imposing.
This Bill (at least in it's current form) does not have the support of the Republic of Barad-Du.

Exactly.

Exactly.
Thank you Galu for expressing your eloquent opinion. We are all enlightened by your WORD of wisdom and for that I thank you.

Well as VL and many others know, The Republic of Valori stands behind this resolution 100%. As the previous nation of Libertaville, and now as Valori, I plan on helping to see this one through.


People nowadays care more about their profit, then how it affects animals, and a bill like this should help to control all overkill. While most importantly, allowing all nations to still redeem their sovereign rights.

Venerable Libertarians,
You did indeed point out several resources I was previously unaware of. I'll gladly take this new information into consideration and rethink my position; though I'm still not sure the Bill itself clearly expressed the oppinions you shared with me. I'll re-read it and get back to you. Thanks again for the feedback.
_Prime Minister of Barad-Du

Venerable Libertarians,
You did indeed point out several resources I was previously unaware of. I'll gladly take this new information into consideration and rethink my position; though I'm still not sure the Bill itself clearly expressed the oppinions you shared with me. I'll re-read it and get back to you. Thanks again for the feedback.
_Prime Minister of Barad-Du
Unfortunately Prime Minister, The Proposals section of NS are restricted to a limited number of charachters, and as it was the original draft was 172 charachters too long. One has to assume that parts of the legislation are a given as if i were to add every last detail of the bill to the letter i would never be able to submit the bill due to the restrictions on proposal lenght.

That's why we have a little tactic called summerizing; and being straightforward and getting to the point without wasting words.
_Barad-Du

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel is proud to support the UNCoESB proposition, and as a UN delegate, had approved it.

we would have prefer to add 2 point, but we learn about them after the proposition was submitted, and anyway, we still support the resolution:

- maybe, it will be posible in a near future to produce meat from animal stem cells, we think it can be interesting to encourages such researchs,
more here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4148164.stm
we are here fully in the "yuck factor", but we don't even care

- we have read that that in the imaginary Omo National Park, in the imaginary country of Ethiopia, in the well known imaginary world we used to call sometimes "real world" by irony, local people have the right to hunt (but non-local and tourist have not), we think it's a very interesting national park concept

If your issue here is simply a funding one, Most nations will allready have an environmental agency keeping track of wild life numbers. So no extra funds required there. Also Non Governmental Agencies will also be in action and their funds come from their own coffers primarily. The only areas which will require extra funding are a Full escalation event and for the Executive and its staff and facilities, But the savings that will come from the repeals of the resolutions 70 and 106 and the fact that any further protections will be now illegal due to duplication will prove this bill is money well spent.

I must echo the point of saving here by establishing one Commission for all animals within the UN rather than many.. One must consider the Whale roams many waters and has even within it different species. The Blue Whale in one area is seen as a pest almost as bad as a Shark might be, while the White Whale is endanger in all areas and has little effect on fishing areas uses by people. With the Dolphins, Bottlenose numbers make them a pest, while Bajhi leave them endangered but due to the working of Resolutions 70 and 106 we must protect all Whales and Dolphins... as they leave little choice for us to select one to kill and another to save,, we must protect all.. So in a sense we already are protecting all animals. Having one place to consider and determine what is protected based on sound finding would serve us better than several blanket proposals to save say Elaphants as a whole, when the Dwarf is useless to most and a pest, then the Gray is endangered, and you all know about those Pink ones..

Now know some will say my examples are wrong and this is why we need one committee to consider each members concerns for each animal based on real facts rather than emotions. Recent events where Dolphin saves child make one feel all fuzzy over them, movies on them shown to our children make them feel all fuzzy over them. We may find that for every Dolphin that saves a child there are many more that hurt them and movies are always real true stories that one can believe.. never show false ideals or things we don't like or know is not true. Same can be said for Whales.... What are we going to do when Sharks start saving not eating us and movie makers.. show them as great pets.. put one in our swimming pools for our children to play with..

Hmm this proposal is already being voted on?

Well if it doesn't get through I'd like to point out that you should scrap the "using other bloodlines" to reinforce low populations part.

Say you have the imaginary Floridax panther and the Texax panther and the former is severely reduced in numbers, on the brink of extinction and has started inbreeding and started spiralling into an extinction vortex see here http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~simmons/CHAP5598/sld039.htm ,

THEN yes I agree with you, and many Texax panther's should be introduced to supplement the bloodline, however this is very much should be a last ditch attempt and always should be referred to as such lest people regard it as a panacea and secondly because what you're actually doing is wiping the last few million years of sub-speciation and local adaptation off the board, losing valuable genetic material and giving the animals a selective disadvantage.

Thus while the Floridax panther now has a healthy population, it's now just a quirky strain of Texax panther and a sub-species has been lost forever, not because of typical methods of extinction, but because of breeding paradoxically.

Local adaptations could include abilities to digest certain foods, innate food preferences, innate behaviour in crossing roads...i.e. all the stuff that's perfectly adapt you to living as a panther in Floridax, but are useless as a panther in Texax.

These LA's build up, and with geographical isolation the two sub-species become more and more distinct and eventually what would happen is speciation.

Thus while very few Floridax panther genes reside in the new strain, in general supplementing different bloodline has a negative impact on the sub-species and must only ever be used as a last resort.

Thermidore, The actual answer is in the part of article 5 you actually dont seem to have associated with the Blood Line quote.
Also, if larger populations of the same animal exist in another part of the NS world steps should be taken to introduce new blood lines to the endangered species.
As in it must be the same species and genus.
eg Panthericus floridaxus + Panthericus floridaxus = OK
Panthericus Texaxodious + Panthericus Texaxodious = OK
Panthericus floridaxus + Panthericus Texaxodious = NOT OK.

Actually VL what I was referring to was the value of the genetic uniqueness that would be lost if sub-species were bred, which can easily be seen as the same animal depending on the nationstate's classification, and could be classified as simply different bloodlines.

After all if they were different species they wouldn't be able to reproduce

So in your terms
Panthericus floridaxus + Panthericus texaxodious = NOT POSSIBLE

but as the imaginary cat's i've made up (which was actually a real life reference to the extinction of the florida panther Felis concolor coryi through just this means) are subspecies it'd be something like this:

Panthericus concolor floridaxus + Panthericus concolor texaxodious = Panthericus concolor floridaxus X texaxodious.

(the X is for the hybrid species)

theoretically this panther wouldn't do well in the habitat of either parent, and would probably die off before mating, a selective characteristic that promotes speciation.

However if you completely dilute a small population with another sub-species (read bloodline) it can be detrimental cause they lose all their local adaptations, that have taken millions of years to form, it's also detrimental to people because they've lost this a whole wealth of scientific knowledge and are left with a substitute that'll probably walk into trees cause its biologically adapted to open plains, etc.

OK let's put it in layman's terms - if tiger "sub-species A" is all yellow (cause it lives in the plains) and tiger "sub-species B" is striped cause (it lives in the swamps) then if "sub species B's" populations are declining, then one remedy could be to add in "sub-species A". So a few young male "sub-species A" tigers are added to the population and they breed the most cause they're more exotic and least likely to be a sibling of the "sub-species B", but then all the next generation are yellow.

Even if the disadvantage isn't too strong there's a huge effect on the gene make up of the new species, with 50 % of their special (or should that be sub-special?) genes being lost at least.

I.E. there'll never be another stripy tiger



This is encouraged under your act.

I accept your point thermidore, as i did with your first posting on this matter.
The Use of the word "Bloodlines" is regretable but seeing as this bill will be enforced by UN gnomes and the text of this thread is relevant as a reference document for such gnomes they, I presume will have absolutley no missunderstanding about "Same Animal", and its meaning in the proposal text.

OOC. I would have liked not to have submitted this until both repeals had gone through but my feedback from the Delegates was that no repeal would be popular or approved unless this was passed first. As such it was prepared as quickly as possible and submitted after the comments in this thread were deemed favourable. Indeed the only major changes i made were due to a 172 charachter overlenght problem.

OOC. I would have liked not to have submitted this until both repeals had gone through but my feedback from the Delegates was that no repeal would be popular or approved unless this was passed first.
OOC: This is most regrettable. It seems to be a trend with new players this year. They don't seem to understand the order the rules dictate things must be done in, and they don't seem patient or trusting enough to allow gaps in legislation. I fear this coming year will be chock full of demagoguery. :(

OOC: Sorry, VL, I've been short of time lately. I have a few problems with the current draft which I hope to outline shortly, but I can make no promises - sorry!

I accept your point thermidore, as i did with your first posting on this matter.
The Use of the word "Bloodlines" is regretable but seeing as this bill will be enforced by UN gnomes and the text of this thread is relevant as a reference document for such gnomes they, I presume will have absolutley no missunderstanding about "Same Animal", and its meaning in the proposal text.

OOC. I would have liked not to have submitted this until both repeals had gone through but my feedback from the Delegates was that no repeal would be popular or approved unless this was passed first. As such it was prepared as quickly as possible and submitted after the comments in this thread were deemed favourable. Indeed the only major changes i made were due to a 172 charachter overlenght problem.

OOC Coolio - I accept your point about interpretation, also you're right, while the dolphin thing should hopefully be thrown out - why does the writing of it remind me of someone who played too much with "my little ponies" as a kid? :D
the whale resolution will probably be hard to repeal - but isn't it ok to have this AND the whale resolution - cause doesn't the whale resolution pertain to UN member's behaviour outside their sovereign waters?

OOC Coolio - I accept your point about interpretation, also you're right, while the dolphin thing should hopefully be thrown out - why does the writing of it remind me of someone who played too much with "my little ponies" as a kid? :D
the whale resolution will probably be hard to repeal - but isn't it ok to have this AND the whale resolution - cause doesn't the whale resolution pertain to UN member's behaviour outside their sovereign waters?
To be honest, it dosent bother me if whales, dolphins, rabbits, monkfish, flibbergibbets, Antarctic bats, Hiernian fluffy birds or banana rats are hunted or fished. My concern is primarily the continuation of that species where human populations have driven their numbers so low as to be close to extinction. I love a good fluffy bird pie, and i want to have fluffy bird pie when im 155 years old. Impossible if the fluffy bird is extinct.

As for the repeals of resolutions 70 and 106, i see them as redundant if the new proposal is approved and ratified by the members of the general assembly. Resolutions 70 and 106 would then be in my opinion a waste of UN funds especially since the species have a garuntee of protection and conservation. The Whale resolution is proving harder to to have repealed but i am confident that the delegates will have the sense to see we only need a single resolution for all animals.

And now the Nail Biting! The Final Bell for approvals is closing in and is in sight! 5 more hours before the time runs out and 5 more approvals required.
I hate this bit! :D

Success.
The bill has been approved and is now queued for the General Assembly to ratify.

The UN team of venerable Libertarians would like to thank the following 134 Nations.

Approvals: 134 (Venerable libertarians, Gymnophobia, Yeldan UN Mission, Skyscraper Island, Republic of Freedonia, Cannabes, Waterana, New Hamilton, Aquarian Arcadia, Gaiah, Tbohner, Ballyboughal, Rolling Stone, Biophysics, Populus que Terra, Theorb, Croatianism, Democratic Paradise, EntParadise, DieGrunenland, Nova Verden, Armager, Sinsvyka, North Koster, Bazoombas, Neo-Pangaea, The Philosophes, Drunk Lazy Buggers, The Bruce, YaAllWantASingle, Simonist, Ecopoeia, Love and esterel, Ophainia, The Living Wires, BrcruEmpire, Tinis, Fatus Maximus, Nethan, Moborith, Philanchez, Sphinx the Great, Mikeswill, Dratogia, SouthFerns, Ryuuza, Harrissy, Richard2008, Proteani, Enn, Drunk wombats, Basilicata Potenza, The Zeph, Veskaland, Perjam55, Mythila, Nekkid Gaurds, Bellaben, OBSA, Saint Ellar, Darth Mall, The Unraveling, Newsclomerian Nations, Spaz Land, Weightshire, Blauhimmel, Nichiphoria, Sentynel, The Jedi Master Yoda, Rugbyitionism, Clintoned, Dsjtuj, Onehundertandeigty, Spikealation, Shiaze, Eve the First, Rioki, Windleheim, The American Maine, New Modern Egypt, True-wisdom, Prospect Island, RogueAlly, The Faery Goddess, Takuma, Lunaria Mirandia, The Viking Warlords, Uno Manapian, Wentai, Gunfreak, Tsel, Zero infinity, Fusselwurmien, Not So Bad, Mexicools, Poop Poops, Funkdunk, Demarthia, Lybo, Smiley Icons, Betelgeuse XII, Eyster, Miguel Amplimetti, Velenora, The Shadow-Kai, Xanthal, Mommy D, Nelvaan, Flowie, Elghinn, Caradune, Froggilicious, Ueberwald, Machiaevellia, Bettia, Freedmark, The Free Dragons, Kapellen, Peace love and spatula, Peachkissers, Quel Marth, Gerolsteiner, Omigodtheykilledkenny, Musicgirl, Libera Insubria, Free Radicals of Mu-Mu, Tempest Dalaniver, Lord-General Drache, Luna Amore, Kooluk, Elika, Putrid Ruffians, Naaaaaaaaaavanites, Copenhaghenkoffenlaugh)

And now the Nail Biting! The Final Bell for approvals is closing in and is in sight! 5 more hours before the time runs out and 5 more approvals required.
I hate this bit! :D
You call that nail biting, try having your proposal still needing approvals when the update starts, now that's a reason to bite your nails (heck, I'm still trying to grow mine back from that experience ;) ).

Oh, and congratulations on reaching quorum.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Congratulations, Lord Byron.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Whee, another Enviro:All Business resolution.

Why would this affect, say, a steel mill?

because there's not a single category that deals with animal protection exclusively in the Environmental Category. All Businesses is really "none of the above". Got a problem? Complain to Max

Oh, and congratulations on reaching quorum.



congrats for this very good work

OOC: This is most regrettable. It seems to be a trend with new players this year. They don't seem to understand the order the rules dictate things must be done in, and they don't seem patient or trusting enough to allow gaps in legislation. I fear this coming year will be chock full of demagoguery. :(


OOC: I think it's due to the amount of Repeals.

And the simple fact is that the majority of Repeals are based purely on Ideological differences, even though EVERYONE stumps "this needs to be repealed and replaced with a better Resolution"




So it's not the players as much as it's the politics.


If you get more people looking forward instead of looking behind.


Well we just might be able to get rid of that damn DVD Removal Resolution.




DVD region removal

The removal of regions in DVD's that prevent a user from one region watching the DVD's form another. One region is all wek need.

Congratulations, Lord Byron.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN
Thank you.
PRINCE Esheran Byron.

OOC: I think it's due to the amount of Repeals.

And the simple fact is that the majority of Repeals are based purely on Ideological differences, even though EVERYONE stumps "this needs to be repealed and replaced with a better Resolution"

So it's not the players as much as it's the politics.

Well, as a proposal authors who actually does try to repeal and replace resolutions, I think it's a shame. I mean, it seemed when I first joined, the focus in the UN was entirely on the previous resolutions, you had to recognize them in your resolutions, you had to make certain not to overlap orcontradict them, etc. Between the lack of interest in previous resolution replacement among delegates and the current resolution up to date (which, I feel, seriously overlaps with previous resolutions), it's like the UN membership just can't be bothered with previous resolutions anymore.


If you get more people looking forward instead of looking behind.


Well we just might be able to get rid of that damn DVD Removal Resolution.

Naw, I'm pretty sure the reason the DVD resolutions still stands is because none of the attempts to repeal it have been supported with a sufficient telegram campaign. When a well-written proposal collides with a several hundred-delegate telegram campaign, that's when a resolution is born.

Actually, you don't even have to have a well-written proposal...

Well, as a proposal authors who actually does try to repeal and replace resolutions, I think it's a shame. I mean, it seemed when I first joined, the focus in the UN was entirely on the previous resolutions, you had to recognize them in your resolutions, you had to make certain not to overlap orcontradict them, etc. Between the lack of interest in previous resolution replacement among delegates and the current resolution up to date (which, I feel, seriously overlaps with previous resolutions), it's like the UN membership just can't be bothered with previous resolutions anymore.
So how else would you counter the problem of referencing the old resolutions in new resolutions, Leading to when old ones are repealed, The New ones referencing the old ones becoming redundant due to the old one now being no longer there to reference? :confused: Does that make sense? :D
Naw, I'm pretty sure the reason the DVD resolutions still stands is because none of the attempts to repeal it have been supported with a sufficient telegram campaign. When a well-written proposal collides with a several hundred-delegate telegram campaign, that's when a resolution is born.

Actually, you don't even have to have a well-written proposal...
On that note, I havent yet seen a good reason NOT to have regions on DVDS.
And one last thing, STOP HYJACKING THIS THREAD! :D The topic is the New proposed Conservation Bill.

And one last thing, STOP HYJACKING THIS THREAD! :D The topic is the New proposed Conservation Bill.
Huzzah! When do you suppose it will go to vote? Next weekend(Aug 27 - 28)? Will this be the Official thread or do you plan to start a new one?

Huzzah! When do you suppose it will go to vote? Next weekend(Aug 27 - 28)? Will this be the Official thread or do you plan to start a new one?
I dont know for sure. I think the current time is 5 nights per vote so i recon 10 for the other two plus 2 for the intervening nights. And yes this shall be the official thread so members can read the posts writen when devoloping the proposal.

Don't count days for intervening nights - resolutions go something like 12 hour seperation, 108 hour voting time.

Don't count days for intervening nights - resolutions go something like 12 hour seperation, 108 hour voting time.
Right now its 4 am! Lets not go into the math of it :D

Right now its 4 am! Lets not go into the math of it :D

Alright, let me simplify it:

Today is August 18
The next resolution begins vote on August 19
There is one more resolution that needs to be voted on before yours
Your resolution goes to vote on Monday, August 29.

Enjoy.

Sorry Yelda.

Alright, let me simplify it:

Today is August 18
The next resolution begins vote on August 19
There is one more resolution that needs to be voted on before yours
Your resolution goes to vote on Monday, August 29.

Enjoy.

Sorry Yelda.
Well arent you the Bright sparks ? :D Im off to bed!

Bump.... Keeping this topic Current as its up for the vote Next week.

I have added a Poll to the thread to get a feel for members opinion.
I would Appreciate it if the Members could take a moment to select the opinion closest to your own.
Thank you,
VL Delegation Team.

Bump! the time approaches!

So how else would you counter the problem of referencing the old resolutions in new resolutions, Leading to when old ones are repealed, The New ones referencing the old ones becoming redundant due to the old one now being no longer there to reference? :confused: Does that make sense? :D

On that note, I havent yet seen a good reason NOT to have regions on DVDS.
And one last thing, STOP HYJACKING THIS THREAD! :D The topic is the New proposed Conservation Bill.


LOL now what was the point with the DVD Removal issues anyway.


I sadly have read it more than I like to admit, and I have no clue what the point is...


I mean...when I read it, I feel like I just took a crazy pill.

When I get around to my theoretical replacement of DVD region removal....(it's in the planning list.....it just isn't....ready), I'll explain why I think they need to go. That said, I'm in the entire opposite opinion - I've come to the conclusion that there's no reason TO have DVD regions (don't give me piracy control - that's BS).

When I get around to my theoretical replacement of DVD region removal....(it's in the planning list.....it just isn't....ready), I'll explain why I think they need to go. That said, I'm in the entire opposite opinion - I've come to the conclusion that there's no reason TO have DVD regions (don't give me piracy control - that's BS).


Regional codes!!!!!!!!!


I finally figured it out, The resolution is about DVD regional codes!!!


What a random issue. I guess I would say now is, why is the UN micro-managing removable media?



Could you imagine the 8 track regional Removal Resolution.


"Disco Stew needs his Disco music"



OOC: It use to prevent DVD privacy back in 99, before DVD burners became prevalent.

You see, the workaround of RC is just burning a copy. Recordable DVDs are not affect by RC.

So this is resolution is about 4 years obsolete. Not to mention that DVDs are old hat already, it's old technology, it's "jump the shark".

It's all about Blu-ray and HD DVD now. NOT THAT WE NEED A PROPOSAL THOUGH.

Excuse me chaps, But if you are entirely finished your conversation regarding DVD region removal i would remind you that this is the thread titled "Conservation of Wildlife Bill".

Can we try to stay ON topic here :D

Excuse me chaps, But if you are entirely finished your conversation regarding DVD region removal i would remind you that this is the thread titled "Conservation of Wildlife Bill".

Can we try to stay ON topic here :D


Oh yeah....that.

I like it, it has my full support.

Thank You :D

Why do terrorists get to have all the fun at hijacking :(

My only point with this legislation is what others have made about hunting and fishing seasons. Maybe by advising the UN or member nations to get adivce from hunting and fishing organizations.(like BASS or Ducks Unlimited,for example) A hunter or fisherman can be a better conservationist than those that do not participate in the hobby. After all they(hunters)want to keep their hobby going for as long as possible. Sorry if these points were already covered but today I am in a hurry and don't have time to read all the threads. I do say that this is a better proposal than I really expected. Good Job!

My only point with this legislation is what others have made about hunting and fishing seasons. Maybe by advising the UN or member nations to get adivce from hunting and fishing organizations.(like BASS or Ducks Unlimited,for example) A hunter or fisherman can be a better conservationist than those that do not participate in the hobby. After all they(hunters)want to keep their hobby going for as long as possible. Sorry if these points were already covered but today I am in a hurry and don't have time to read all the threads. I do say that this is a better proposal than I really expected. Good Job!Thank You and to answer your point, The Quota system is open for nations to tinker with. You may use hunting seasons or a kill total. Its entirely up to the nation involved. That is the beauty of this new |conservation Bill. It gives the power to the Nations to set the conservation as long as it is in meeting with the overall tally set by the executive.

Thank You and to answer your point, The Quota system is open for nations to tinker with. You may use hunting seasons or a kill total. Its entirely up to the nation involved. That is the beauty of this new |conservation Bill. It gives the power to the Nations to set the conservation as long as it is in meeting with the overall tally set by the executive.

Thanks a bunch! ;) You answered my concern.

No Worries! :D

Like Crazy Bob Bush whacker says..... No Worries :D

You have something of a push poll, there. We may have better reasons for voting against/for than the little opinions you attach to each yes or no answer.

You have something of a push poll, there. We may have better reasons for voting against/for than the little opinions you attach to each yes or no answer.
Perhaps it is a push poll, But i assure you it is the primary reason for the new Bill. I would be interested to know your stance on the UNCoESB, And if you have any questions regarding its points that have not already been answered in the postings of this thread, please feel free to pose them and i will endevour to give you answers.

Even though this has my FULL support, my Nation would like to qualify that the passage of this proposal will in no way change our position on the PoDA or the BW.


We believe it's not too much to ask for special arrangements for such special creatures, that only affects International waters.


We believe if you want blubber or Dolphin meat outside of your Nation, make a deal with a fellow Nation.

Even though this has my FULL support, my Nation would like to qualify that the passage of this proposal will in no way change our position on the PoDA or the BW.


We believe it's not too much to ask for special arrangements for such special creatures, that only affects International waters.


We believe if you want blubber or Dolphin meat outside of your Nation, make a deal with a fellow Nation.
We believe that once this Bill is instituted, PoDA and BW are no longer nessessary and are in fact prohibitive, Redundant, innefficient and unnessessary. I can tell you that once this bill becomes a resolution i will be focusing my sights on having the PoDA and BW repealed on the basis of the above.

PLEASE CLICK THE LINK BELOW TO BE REROUTED TO THE OFFICIAL DISCUSSION THREAD.

LINK TO THE OFFICIAL THREAD. CLICK ON THIS! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=440902)