NationStates Jolt Archive

It's about 1890 words over the limit, but I am unsure where I could cut to make it fit yet keep the impact. Any help would be appreciated.

-Syreene


Endangered Species Trade Act

RECOGNIZING that wild fauna and flora in their many beautiful and varied forms are an irreplaceable part of our ecosystem which must be protected and preserved for this and the many generations to come;

CONSCIOUS of the ever-growing importance of wild fauna and flora from scientific, cultural, recreational, and economic points of view;

RECOGNIZING that the people and their perspective nations should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora;

RECOGNIZING, in addition, that international co-operation is essential for the protection of certain species of wild fauna and flora against over-exploitation through international trade;

CONVINCED of the urgency of taking appropriate measures to this end; Have agreed as follows:

(a) "Species" means any species, subspecies, or geographically separate population thereof;
(b) "Specimen" means: any animal or plant, whether alive or dead;
(c) "Trade" means export, re-export, import and introduction from the sea;
(d) "Re-export" means export of any specimen that has previously been imported;
(e) "Introduction from the sea" means transportation into a Nation of specimens of any species which were taken in the marine environment not under the jurisdiction of any Nation;
(f) "Scientific Authority" means a national scientific authority designated designated by the corresponding nation
(g) "Management Authority" means a national management authority designated by the corresponding nation
(h) "Party" means a Nation for which the present provisions have entered into force.

REGULATION OF TRADE IN SPECIMENS OF SPECIES

1. All trade in specimens of species shall be in accordance with the provisions set within.

2. The import, export or re-export of any specimen of a species shall require the prior grant and presentation of the proper permit. A permit shall only be granted when the following conditions have been met:

(a) a Scientific Authority of the Nation of export has advised that such activity will not be detrimental to the survival of that species;

(b) a Management Authority of the Nation of export is satisfied that the specimen was not obtained in violation of the laws of that Nation for the protection of fauna and flora;

(c) a Management Authority of the Nation of the export is satisfied that any living specimen will be so prepared and shipped as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment; and

(d) a Management Authority of the Nation of export is satisfied that the proper permit has been granted for the specimen.

3. Similar activity for any specimen of species from the sea shall require the prior grant of a certificate from a Management Authority of the Nation of introduction. A certificate shall only be granted when similar conditions have been met.

4. Whenever a Scientific Authority determines that the export of specimens of any such species should be limited in order to maintain that species throughout its range at a level consistent with its role in the ecosystems in which it occurs, the Scientific Authority shall advise the appropriate Management Authority of suitable measures to be taken to limit the grant of export permits for specimens of that species.

5. A permit may only be used for export within a period of six months from the date on which it was granted.

6. A separate permit or certificate shall be required for each individual consignment of specimens.

7. Nations shall take appropriate actions to enforce the provisions set herein. These will include the ability to penalize trade in or possession of specimens and provide for the confiscation or return of such to their nation of origin.

8. To facilitate passage of such specimens with a minimum of delay, Nations may designate specific ports of entry/exit for which said specimens must be presented for clearance. The Nations shall ensure that all living specimens during any period of transit, holding or shipment, are properly cared for to minimize risk of damage or cruel treatment.

9. Each Party shall maintain records of trade in specimens of species which shall cover the names and addresses of exporters and importers; and the number and type of permits and certificates granted; the Nations with which such trade occurred; the numbers or quantities and types of specimens, names of species and, where applicable, the size and sex of the specimens in question.

10. Each Party shall prepare periodic reports on its implementation of the provisions.

11. Where export or re-export is to, or import is from, a Nation not a Party to the present provisions, comparable documentation issued by the competent authorities in that Nation which conforms with the requirements of the present provisions for permits and certificates may be accepted in lieu thereof by any Party.

EXCEPTIONS

1)Personal or household pets, unless they were acquired by the owner outside their Nation of usual residence and are being imported into that Nation.

2)Exchange between scientific institutions registered by a Management Authority of their Nation.

3)Zoo, circus, plant exhibition or other traveling exhibition provided that full details are registered with the corresponding Management Authority and they are satisfied that proper care has been taken to minimize risk of injury or cruel treatment.

Exception 1 has a loophole the size of Cambodia in it. "Oh, I can't transport this elephant that's going to be skinned in Nation X? But, it's my pet!"

Exception 2 and 3 I feel are unnecessary. However, I'm open to explainations of what parts of this resolution would make these two unable to operate under the regulations (I might've missed it)

Exception 1 has a loophole the size of Cambodia in it. "Oh, I can't transport this elephant that's going to be skinned in Nation X? But, it's my pet!"

That's a good point: Is this proposal supposed to cover 'domesticated' animals, other than any of those that are covered by the listed exceptions, as well as [captive] 'wild' ones?

This reminds me, I have some rough notes about the treatment of animals during international journeys that I meant to turn into a proposal... although it's currently further down my list of priorities than the promised [to the GTT] proposal about saving the Ozone Layer...

Actually, the nation of usual residence part also has issues. My predecessor to my current R/L job has spent something like the last 5 years or so here in Canada. She still has a house in India where her pet dog lives. If we translated this proposal, she would be unable to get her dog up to Canada without a lot of paperwork.

We've looked very quickly at this, and haven't yet considered its substance. But to try to work on the technical problem first....

The allowable legth for a proposal is 3500 characters, including spaces. So we assume this is 1860 characters (not words) over that limit.

Our first suggestion is really a question. Why is it necessary to differentiate between export and re-export? It seems to us that re-export would simply be a sub-type of export, and there were no provisions of the proposal that apply uniquely to it. Consider deleting the definition of re-export and subsequent mentions. That will cut a few characters.

Also consider removing the bolded sub-heads.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Also consider removing the bolded sub-heads. Hm. Actually, if he used those tags when he tried to submit, that's 21 characters right there. It's not like the UN parses them anyway.

Suggest you also reread and edit it as have some typo that form extra words..


(f) "Scientific Authority" means a national scientific authority designated designated by the corresponding nationYou only need 'designated' once.. check to make sure you didn't do this elsewhere.. I ran over fast and this was only one saw..

Nations may designate specific ports of entry/exit Also if you simply say PORTS don't think you need to detail them as 'entry/exit' as most ports are suited for either and thus no need to explain that.

(b) "Specimen" means: any animal or plant, whether alive or dead; As I understand this it to preserve the living "Specimens" so why mention the dead ones. As one would want to move these dead "Specimens" out of the living population. Thus just define "Specimen" as a plant or animal and leave it's status open. One should be able to find that in other parts when you talking about them alive or dead there.. Here you only need to define a "Speciman" as 'any plant or animal'.. thus will cut a few words..


Just a suggestion look at say one Authority to do it all say a 'Wildlife Authority' this would cut having to define two such Management and Scientific... "Wildlife Authority": a national authority to survey, protect and maintain animal and plant life within a given nations borders. Then in setting up what the WA does: Issues permits for the import exort of plants and animals to and from a nation noting all persons involved in such actions and the numbers and qualities of specimens of each being imported exported. Inspects all person trading plant or animal specimens within the nation for proper permits and maintaining of those specimens they might deal in. Something like this as in trying to set up separate Authorites means you have to define them all. Thus more wording in text.. As you have named a Management Authority three times..

I have edited your first post down to what it should have been:

It's about 1890 words over the limit, but I am unsure where I could cut to make it fit yet keep the impact. Any help would be appreciated.

-Syreene


Notice no idiotic proposal.

Notice no idiotic proposal.
This is rich, coming from me, but...

...quit trolling people's proposals. If you don't like them, say why, instead of just calling them "idiotic" or "liberal fools" or whatever.

It's fluffie, but that doesn't mean it's not wanted.

Have you done a recount yet?
(f) "Scientific Authority" means a national scientific authority designated designated by the corresponding nation
(g) "Management Authority" means a national management authority designated by the corresponding nation
They seem a bit...self explanatory. Perhaps:
(f) "Scientific" and "Management Authorities" are national authorities, which are designated by the corresponding nation

9. Each Party shall maintain records of trade in specimens of species which shall cover the names and addresses of exporters and importers; and the number and type of permits and certificates granted...
and...and...and... try cutting it down into shorter sentences, or at least use commas.

3. Similar activity for any specimen of species from the sea shall require the prior grant of a certificate from a Management Authority of the Nation of introduction. A certificate shall only be granted when similar conditions have been met.

1)Personal or household pets, unless they were acquired by the owner outside their Nation of usual residence and are being imported into that Nation.
I'm not sure if you are aware, but tropical-marine fishkeeping usually doesn't use native bred fish, but imports them from the relevant area. You can tell the difference because native bred fish are much cheaper. Anyway, this means every time a shopkeeper wishes to import fish to sell, he too will have to go through this elaborate process.

This is rich, coming from me, but...

...quit trolling people's proposals. If you don't like them, say why, instead of just calling them "idiotic" or "liberal fools" or whatever.


Fair enough.

I do not like the proposal because:

1. Environmental regulations are a waste of time.
2. Environmental regulations hinder corporations and raise prices to the consumer.
3. What’s the point in wildlife if you can’t exploit it ?
4. Even if it were 1890 words shorter, myself and many other right wing nations wouldn’t have time to read it and just see environmental and vote ‘against’.
5. It would create more pointless bureaucracy.

1. Environmental regulations are a waste of time.
Not an argument in itself, until you explain why they're a waste of time. While you're thinking on that, I'll be dumping this truckload of mercury in your rivers, shall I?

2. Environmental regulations hinder corporations and raise prices to the consumer.
Ill-thought out ones do, yes. Well executed environmental regulations usually balance out: for example, change waste disposal methods, and you'll have new sectors opening up to the cater for the demand for their services. Furthermore, running out of $animal would rather jack up the price for one of its furs.

3. What’s the point in wildlife if you can’t exploit it ?
With the exception of goats, none. You seem to be saying wildlife is a resource: couldn't agree more. And you don't simply burn through a resource as quick as possible if your business depends on it - you preserve it.

4. Even if it were 1890 words shorter, myself and many other right wing nations wouldn’t have time to read it and just see environmental and vote ‘against’.
I'd wager Gruenberg is a damn sight more right-wing than you - we just managed to slip off our blinkers at some stage.

5. It would create more pointless bureaucracy.
It lays out its case why the administration would be necessary. To what end is something that serves its point "pointless"?

I'd also note that not once did you actually address anything in the proposal. Making vague generalisations about a proposal is not the same as offering criticism of its actual effects.

I'll be dumping this truckload of mercury in your rivers, shall I?

Fine as long as you pay for the privelege (you're not a Georgian citizen/corporation).


Ill-thought out ones do, yes. Well executed environmental regulations usually balance out: for example, change waste disposal methods, and you'll have new sectors opening up to the cater for the demand for their services. Furthermore, running out of $animal would rather jack up the price for one of its furs.

If environmental regulations make a corporation pay more for dumping waste, they are an unnecessary hindrance.


With the exception of goats, none. You seem to be saying wildlife is a resource: couldn't agree more. And you don't simply burn through a resource as quick as possible if your business depends on it - you preserve it.

As supplies run low, prices can be raised, therefore profits will be higher. Plus more money to research companies finding viable alternatives and a prime piece of entrepreneurial meat for a new market sector.


I'd wager Gruenberg is a damn sight more right-wing than you - we just managed to slip off our blinkers at some stage.

I'd like to see that: take the moral matrix test on: www.moral-politics.com/, tell me your results, I was a fundamentalist ultra-capitalist.


It lays out its case why the administration would be necessary. To what end is something that serves its point "pointless"?

The extra bureaucracy it creates altogether could be avoided if the resolution was scrapped like I first suggested.

I'd also note that not once did you actually address anything in the proposal. Making vague generalisations about a proposal is not the same as offering criticism of its actual effects.

I do not have the time to criticize each individual aspect, so I am doing it as a whole.

Hm. Very interesting.

Lines up about right, all things considered.

Fine as long as you pay for the privelege (you're not a Georgian citizen/corporation).
I don't understand. You're suggesting if I pay a fee, I can dump mercury in your river?

If environmental regulations make a corporation pay more for dumping waste, they are an unnecessary hindrance.
They are a hindrance. Given they are hindering people not dying, I think I'm confident calling them necessary.

As supplies run low, prices can be raised, therefore profits will be higher. Plus more money to research companies finding viable alternatives and a prime piece of entrepreneurial meat for a new market sector.
You just said the problem with environmental regulations was that they raised prices for the consumer. Now you're saying the good thing about the alternative is...it raises prices for the consumer?

Furthermore, you haven't said anything about preserving those supplies. Once you've outfished the sea, what do you sell?

I'd like to see that: take the moral matrix test on: www.moral-politics.com/, tell me your results, I was a fundamentalist ultra-capitalist.
You are aware I was talking about countries, right?

Unsurprisingly, we got the same test score: fundamentalist ultra-capitalist. But that's individuals. I was referring to our nations.

The extra bureaucracy it creates altogether could be avoided if the resolution was scrapped like I first suggested.
You have a remarkable capacity to miss the point. Obviously, if you scrap the proposal, the administration becomes unnecessary. But, within the bounds of the proposal, the administration serves a point, yes?

I do not have the time to criticize each individual aspect, so I am doing it as a whole.
Ok. So just go for one individual aspect. That'll be quicker, in fact, than a holistic response.

Hm. Very interesting.

Lines up about right, all things considered.
?????

?????My score on that compass-dealie. I don't usually post such results as I get enough complaints of bias without making it easier by saying where some test says I stand.

Don't mind me, carry on.

My score on that compass-dealie. I don't usually post such results as I get enough complaints of bias without making it easier by saying where some test says I stand.

Don't mind me, carry on.
Ah, gotcha.

I don't understand. You're suggesting if I pay a fee, I can dump mercury in your river?

Certainly.

They are a hindrance. Given they are hindering people not dying, I think I'm confident calling them necessary.

So people dump poison in my rivers; more money for bottled water industry, more profit for investors.


You just said the problem with environmental regulations was that they raised prices for the consumer. Now you're saying the good thing about the alternative is...it raises prices for the consumer?

Furthermore, you haven't said anything about preserving those supplies. Once you've outfished the sea, what do you sell?

Environmental regulations raise the price for the consumer without raising the profit of the corporations. Preservation isn't necessary, once fish are extinct, then perhaps people start eating squirrel, fox, etc.


You are aware I was talking about countries, right?

And are you aware that our individual decisions affect our nation's category?

Unsurprisingly, we got the same test score: fundamentalist ultra-capitalist.

UN Category: Compulsory Consumerist State; not bad, Georgia is a right wing utopia.

You have a remarkable capacity to miss the point. Obviously, if you scrap the proposal, the administration becomes unnecessary. But, within the bounds of the proposal, the administration serves a point, yes?

It is necessary WITHIN THE PROPOSAL, it could probably be thinned down a bit though...

My point was that the legislation is unnecessary.

Ok. So just go for one individual aspect. That'll be quicker, in fact, than a holistic response.

Criticizing point by point would take longer.

And the bickering you have to use to justify your position is any quicker?
Blanket criticsm helps nobody. Constructive critism might aid the drafter to create a proposal that might satisfy more nations with similar views to yours, while perhaps not totally agreeing.

Edit. ooc: I'm sure I've taken that test on the OhCupid website.
...Ah, computes the results differently, hahaha! System: Socialism
Variation: Moderate Socialism
Ideologies: Social Democratism
Of the 183895 people who took the test:
0.3% had the same score as you.I'm rare, and hated by the pair of ye.:D

OOC: There seems to be a slight crossing of wires here. For example, when TSoG says "And are you aware that our individual decisions affect our nation's category?" - no, Moltan Bausch's don't. He's a mouthpiece, nothing more. But I suspect you in fact meant "you, Gruenberg's player". Which is confusing.

Anyway, I'll pick up the gauntlet and throw it down again. The State of Georgia, please take one - only has to be one, not asking you to waste your time on this - one clause from this proposal, and demonstrate why you oppose. What category it's filed under just doesn't cut it for me, I'm afraid.

RECOGNIZING that wild fauna and flora in their many beautiful and varied forms are an irreplaceable part of our ecosystem which must be protected and preserved for this and the many generations to come;

(b) "Specimen" means: any animal or plant, whether alive or dead; .

Then explain how DEAD anything is going to serve any good other than to provide food or nutriants for living items.. Unless it's gotten to a poison state and thus will render the living dead.

We would prefer to save living things not dead ones. As once they die they become food or a health risk and must be dealt with accordingly.

Georgia: you have thus far shown no effort to actually look at any proposal and explain what's wrong with it, just state "this is bad". Such trolling is simply unwelcome here. Yes, some vets do it from time to time - we get berated in the background by other vets who get annoyed by that - but that's because we just ran out of time to deal with the proposal or aren't in to mood to. More often than not, we actually say WHY we disagree with the SPECIFICS of the proposal. I cringe at every moral decency proposal, but I will still take the time to look at the proposal and say what I disagree with about the actual proposal itself. I actually ignore Free Trade proposals (with a few notable exceptions - one of which I've got a co-author status on right now) because I can never actually explain my objections.

We are asking you to look at the actual proposal, at the actual text, and explain what is wrong with this topic. Screw environmental category - tell us what's wrong with regulating trade of animals. Tell us what clauses counter your beliefs.

Then explain how DEAD anything is going to serve any good other than to provide food or nutriants for living items.. Unless it's gotten to a poison state and thus will render the living dead.

We would prefer to save living things not dead ones. As once they die they become food or a health risk and must be dealt with accordingly.

Trading dead ones is a consideration - even if protection is not. Reason is elephant tusks are often grabbed for ivory and whale blubber is also a relatively popular material (to name a few). Both are taken from dead animals - and are dead by the time any officials consider the matter. As such, the trade of these animals past death should also be regulated to limit poaching.

Then explain how DEAD anything is going to serve any good other than to provide food or nutriants for living items.. Unless it's gotten to a poison state and thus will render the living dead.

We would prefer to save living things not dead ones. As once they die they become food or a health risk and must be dealt with accordingly.

Perhaps that detail restricting trade in dead animals is meant to reduce the economic incentives for killing members of endangered species?

OOC: Consider the RL ban on selling ivory...

Out of Context Theatre Presents:
thus will render the living dead.Rendering the Living Dead? Why won't anybody think of the (zombie) children?!

2. The import, export or re-export of any specimen of a species shall require the prior grant and presentation of the proper permit. A permit shall only be granted when the following conditions have been met:

(a) a Scientific Authority of the Nation of export has advised that such activity will not be detrimental to the survival of that species;

(b) a Management Authority of the Nation of export is satisfied that the specimen was not obtained in violation of the laws of that Nation for the protection of fauna and flora;

(c) a Management Authority of the Nation of the export is satisfied that any living specimen will be so prepared and shipped as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment; and

(d) a Management Authority of the Nation of export is satisfied that the proper permit has been granted for the specimen.

I don't think my nation has a scientific authority. Also my Customs and Border Protection has enough trouble keeping on top of criminals who are smuggling narcotics and humans and would rather concentrate on crime that actually harms people instead of trying to find a lesser spotted warbling woodpecker whose cage is too small.

As such, the trade of these animals past death should also be regulated to limit poaching.

Correct me if I'm wrong but is not poaching laws to keep these animals alive thus they are not dead. So why consider anything after they are dead except to deal with the remains in a manner so as to prevent the spread of any virus they may carry or draw that could cause harm to living specimens.

If there is a flaw in the laws to keep them alive then how do you propose to keep any laws around that concern them when they are dead. As the only ones we would be involved in is those that prevent spread of some virus from these dead specimens that could harm our citizens.

Zeldon 6229 Nodlez is right, there's no point protecting dead animals.

If you stop the dead animals getting through, the reasons to poach decrease.
Thus a ban on the transport of elephants and their constituent parts ie. ivory tusks, without government authorisation outside the country would restrict the ivory trade. It would also send it underground, but that's a matter for local policing and smuggling.

But I think considering the purpose of this thread was to EDIT, poaching etc. would be best legislated with a separate resolution.

Poaching would be, yes, but that's not what I'm saying about legalities.

-------------------

Let's break this down for you guys so you can actually follow this

Poaching goes like this:

1) Getting a gun that is of the right design to poach the animal. There are some guns that you can reasonably argue would work well for other purposes (for example, a gun useful for hunting deer might also be fairly good for taking down grizzlies and guns for shooting ducks might be nice for taking on eagles), but there are certain weapons that are pretty much only reasonable for purposes of poaching (Elephant guns, I suspect, is on that list). Obviously, the reasonability of limiting gun sales is something that can be debated extensively and I don't want to get into it, but it is a point where you can make laws to potentially limit poaching

2) The actual act of killing the animal. Interestingly enough, unless you have an eye witness, it is VERY hard to actually convict someone of poaching. Reason is you don't have proof he actually killed the animal. You have proof he has the gun, you might have proof that the gun was the one used to kill the animal, and you probably have proof he was hauling it's dead carcass around, but you don't have proof he actually shot it. It is the weakest point to criminalize

3) Transport. Normally the easiest place to deal with poaching as a dead elephant is pretty freaking obvious. If you make it illegal to move these animals, then any attempt to get it through harbors or airports becomes much more difficult, and getting it across an armed border is damn near impossible.

4) Trade. Remove the market, remove any possibility of profit, then there's no reason to poach other than for the fun of it.

EDIT: to be clear, a pratical approach would be to consider ways of addressing all 4 issues. Yes there are side issues involved (like beliefs about rights to guns which conflicts with 1), but fine. This resolution, by dealing with dead animals, deals with part 3.

Endangered Species Trade Act

RECOGNIZING that wild fauna and flora in their many beautiful and varied forms are an irreplaceable part of our ecosystem which must be protected and preserved for this and the many generations to come;

CONSCIOUS of the ever-growing importance of wild fauna and flora from scientific, cultural, recreational, and economic points of view;

RECOGNIZING that the people and their perspective nations should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora;

RECOGNIZING, in addition, that international co-operation is essential for the protection of certain species of wild fauna and flora against over-exploitation through international trade; .

Just by the title we would get that this is to protect living specimens not dead ones. Then in the following lines it's clear to me that these specimens are not dead but alive and we RECOGNIZE this fact.. thus can't understand why you move to do something about them dead as would show that your proposal will fail since they are not preserved alive and end up dead even if it is in place.. Thus you have to add a section to deal with it's failure.

As the terms fauna and flora have two differences..

Fauna
Noun
1. All the animal life in a particular region.
2. A living organism characterized by voluntary movement.
Flora
Noun
1. All the plant life in a particular region.
2. A living organism lacking the power of locomotion.

but are both LIVING organisms not dead ones.