NationStates Jolt Archive

Sharks are one of our planets oldest inhabitants having been here some 400 million years, while mankind, nature's great destroyers, has only been here a mere two hundred thousand years.

Approximately 100 million sharks are killed each year, largely to satisfy the demand for shark fin soup and such huge numbers being caught mean that many shark species are facing extinction. Apart from the moral issue, the practical one is that we need healthy oceans, and oceans can only remain healthy if marine eco-systems stay in balance, as apex predators sharks are vital components in marine food chains.

A new law stopping the finning of sharks is vital for the survival of sharks.

A new law stopping the finning of sharks is vital for the survival of sharks.

Write one, then. So far, this is just an essay.

Being a nation inextricably tied to the ocean, Delphinidae Tursiops is prepared to fully support such a proposal.

RELIZEING the practice known as “Shark Finning” is still in existence

NOTING said practice’s cruel and wasteful ways of removing shark fins and then allowing them to drown slowly under the waves.

DEMANDS that this practice be stopped immediately and hereby:

1.) All fishermen are forbidden to harm by finning any and all types of Sharks, Rays, Skates, and Chimaeras caught in their nets.
2.) Knowing this might be difficult to do fishermen may only destroy a catch when in danger of life or limb.
3.) All Sharks, Rays, Skates, et al. are henceforth protected by this act from the practice known as finning.

yea write something like that but, highly edited.


http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w107/Cookesland/thBlueeye-1.jpg
The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Based on the points presented, the entire finning process appears both cruel and wasteful. The recent repeal of the whaling ban and the UN majority's acceptance of the UNCoESB as a panacea in preventing the overexploitation of endangered species suggest that such a proposal might be all for naught.

My government prefers to withhold judgment until the sides have presented more facts, but I suspect the Federation of Deyagan would vote in favor of such a ban.

One of the points that kept coming up in the Banning Whaling repeal was: Why do whales get special treatment?

What you've written so far says sharks aren't the only ones that suffer some sort of wasteful harvesting, On top of that, there's a lot of not-real-world species in NS. So maybe equally cruel things are done to creatures we don't know about, and if we leave them out, the proposal doesn't go far enough.

If you're trying to write laws for all the UN nations, I think it might be better to widen the scope a bit. Ban Wasteful Hunting Practices? Ban Cruel Harvesting?

(Somebody's sure to ask for a definition of "wasteful" or "cruel" and then say the way they hunt/harvest isn't, but you're allowed to say sensible nations would read it reasonably.)

The category for "Banning Whaling" was Environmental. I think it sounds about right for this one, too:

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

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: All Businesses

So you'd have to show a bit how it would improve the environment and hit industries.

You could use the sharks as an example of wasteful/cruel practices. Like, "such as, but not restricted to, shark finning, in which ... "(description of what goes on with shark finning).

Do you want to keep it to marine animals only? I think there are some animals that have their testicles cut off and others that have their scent glands taken out by hunters. And then there are elephants and ivory, too. Creatures that are hunted just for one thing, but not killed, and then left to die slowly.

You'd have to be careful of not duplicating UNCoESB (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9692854&postcount=120). It's about endangered species, and what you're on about is cruelty and waste, but you don't want to talk about "endangering" in your law, or it'd likely get killed before it made it to vote.

I supported the repeal, because the whaling ban was superfluous. Despite the former First Singer's apparent love for me, I didn't (and don't) feel they deserved special protections above and beyond what other animals received.

This, on the other hand, is a different matter. Whaling makes use of the whole animal; shark finning makes use of... well... rather obviously, just the fin. This leaves the rest of the creature to rot in the sea. If nothing else, it's a titanic waste of perfectly usable meat.

The question, of course, is if this is truly an international matter.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Proposal:


End Wasteful Hunting Practices
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Aurania-Shifre

Description: The United Nations,

NOTING that wasteful hunting and harvesting practices still exist, such as, but not restricted to, shark finning, in which the shark’s fins are removed and then the rest of the shark is thrown over board or the hunting of elephants, walruses and other animals for only their ivory and leaving the carcass to rot.

DEFINES “wasteful” as using only a small part of the animal while disposing of the rest in an unthrifty manner.

ENCOURAGES member nations work with peoples who still practice hunting methods that would be classified as wasteful, to find alternative ways to hunt with out ending their cultural heritage.

MANDATES the following:

a.) that member nations shall ban all practices considered wasteful (e.g. Shark Finning) and introduce appropriate penalties for breaches of the ban.
b.) Member nations prohibit trade in such items as are procured through wasteful hunting methods, to lower their need and markets through out the world.

OOC: I'm sorry to have to tell you this, Hack, but I'm afraid it's all about Mme Pejorative's stunning looks. Whales can be very shallow. Maybe if you used a less provocative pic?

IC: I agree that UN legislation should be international in content. That's why I'm suggesting extending it to cover other creatures, as well as sharks. A generalised resolution that dealt with wasteful forms of hunting coupled with the inhumane deaths of the creatures hunted -- without specifying the creatures, and so not restricted to sharks alone -- would have international application. The author could use shark-finning as an example of what he's trying to stop, but not make it the sole reason for the proposal.

(OOC again: I thought the whale one was necessary because of the international commercial application. WhaleCo is teh EBIL!)

OOC: I'm sorry to have to tell you this, Hack, but I'm afraid it's all about Mme Pejorative's stunning looks. Whales can be very shallow. Maybe if you used a less provocative pic?:D I'll have to dig through my copy of Dragonslayer, heh heh heh.

I'll have to dig through my copy of Dragonslayer, heh heh heh.

OOC: OMG Dragonpwn!!!?

IC: My apologies to the delegate from Cookesland. I'm afraid I was ...*sigh* *blush* ... I mean, I'm afraid I missed some of his remarks. However, if he would permit commentary now?

Clause 1: NOTING that cruel and wasteful hunting and harvesting practices still exist , such as, but not restricted to, shark finning, in which the shark’s fins are removed and then the [rest of the] injured shark is thrown overboard, allowing it to drown slowly [under the waves].

I'd leave out the bits in square brackets, the first one because there are many worlds in NS, the last one because if they're drowning, it must be in liquid, so "under the waves" is redundant. Overboard is one word. I'd leave out REALIZING because it makes it sound as if the UN's just woken up to the practice, whereas if you say NOTING it's more, "We know this has been going on, and now we're going to do something about it".

Clause 2: How about 'DEFINES “cruel” as any hunting or harvesting practice that willfully or knowingly causes excess pain or distress to any animal and “wasteful” as using only a small part of the animal while inflicting injuries that cause slow and painful death.'?

I think you have to emphasise the killing part, otherwise the proposal would even cover, say, shearing sheep, where only a (relatively) small part of the animal is used, and where they are sometimes injured and distressed, but not to death.

What do you think about the "slow and painful" bit? If it's left in, does it imply that injuries that cause "quick and painless" death are acceptable, no matter how small the part harvested? Or could we rely on "the law is what the law says"?

Clause 3: MANDATES that [I]member nations shall ban all practices considered cruel (e.g. Canned Hunting) or wasteful (e.g. Shark Finning) and introduce appropriate penalties for breaches of the ban.

I'd put in "member nations shall ban" because it's always better to make someone responsible for doing something, rather than just say "it shall be done".

What's "Canned Hunting"? If it's used as an example, it should be explained.

I'm not happy with my phrasing on the penalties bit. Just saying "ban it" leaves nations free to ban it without imposing any penalties. But "appropriate penalties" allows them to say that, in their opinion, a slap on the wrist is "appropriate".

Yet I don't think the UN needs to get down to the point of re-writing the details of every nation's civil or criminal law every time it makes a new ruling. It should be enough to say, "Go in that direction" and leave it up to them how they get there.

So how do you write it so that they have to hammer offenders hard, but the UN leaves it up to them to decide what with (like, some will fine, some will imprison, and Gruenberg's Wenaists will probably burn at the stake)?

As to the strength, I think that would depend on how heavily the penalties are written. I don't think it would ever be Strong, because it's not a really important policy area; but it's certainly broad, because it's affecting all species that are cruelly or wastefully harvested, everywhere. So, if we can get penalties wrapped up, I'd incline to Significant, but if that's left out, then Mild.

'Environmental' proposals don't actually have Strength ratings, the range of businesses affected substitutes for this factor and an "All Industries" classification is effectively somewhere around 'Strong'...

why would we vote for this if we just repealed banning whaling?
REDUNDANCY!

Perhaps because...
This, on the other hand, is a different matter. Whaling makes use of the whole animal; shark finning makes use of... well... rather obviously, just the fin. This leaves the rest of the creature to rot in the sea. If nothing else, it's a titanic waste of perfectly usable meat.

Proposal updated to include comments from Worldsong.

why would we vote for this if we just repealed banning whaling?
REDUNDANCY!

This isn't redundant at all, the argument over whales was over why they were prioritized over all other creatures. This proposal ends cruel and wasteful hunting practices.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

First just a grammarish suggestion...
NOTING the cruel and wasteful hunting and harvesting practices are still existent in the world,Either "NOTING that cruel" or "NOTING the cruel ... that still exist".

Secondly, in the definition of "wasteful" does it really matter that the death of the animal is slow and painful? The killing of an animal for a single part (rhino's horn, shark fin, whatever) is the significant aspect of wastefulness; the "slow and painful" is a variation of the cruelty.

Leaving aside for now the question of whether this is actually a trans-national enough matter to be any of the UN's proper business, which I find questionable, would it really have wide enough effects to justify a classification of 'Environmental/All Industries'? I'd say that tring to ban cruelty & wastefulness makes it a 'Moral Decency' proposal, probably of Significant strength, instead...

Proposal Updated

Leaving aside for now the question of whether this is actually a trans-national enough matter to be any of the UN's proper business, which I find questionable, would it really have wide enough effects to justify a classification of 'Environmental/All Industries'? I'd say that tring to ban cruelty & wastefulness makes it a 'Moral Decency' proposal, probably of Significant strength, instead...

I agree with the changing of the classification, but why don't you think this proposal is trans-national enough for the UN?

Would it not be better to do something a little more comprehensive? I agree that shark finning is wasteful, and cruel, but why only sharks? You have to make a case for them being special animals, or else, isn't animal cruelty, or ethical/responsible hunting, a better angle to pursue? The whole reason #70 was repealed was it was redundant: we had a comprehensive resolution to cover all species. We could maybe take a lesson from that and try to make this as broad as possible (without losing the original intent to vagueness, obviously).

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

Would it not be better to do something a little more comprehensive? I agree that shark finning is wasteful, and cruel, but why only sharks? You have to make a case for them being special animals, or else, isn't animal cruelty, or ethical/responsible hunting, a better angle to pursue? The whole reason #70 was repealed was it was redundant: we had a comprehensive resolution to cover all species. We could maybe take a lesson from that and try to make this as broad as possible (without losing the original intent to vagueness, obviously).

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)


Yes, originally this proposal was going to just be about sharks but we've since expanded it to "End (or Ban haven't decided which one) Cruel and Wasteful Hunting practices. This would include sharks, as well as other animals being hunted for only a small part of their bodies.


The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador

I assume this would then include ivory, like from elephants?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I assume this would then include ivory, like from elephants?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Exactly.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador

Now that I understand the difference with Environmental proposals -- thank you for the explanation, St Edmundan Antarctic -- I can see why it can't be "All Industries" .

Indeed, I'd wondered that about the Ban Whaling one; I couldn't see what whaling had to do with, say, software production, but I thought it was just one of those strange human quirks. Worldsong doesn't have much in the way of industries, so it seemed possible that, in some way I couldn't understand, all industries were related.

What I can't see is why, in Cookesland's version, it couldn't be international, and why, perhaps with more rewrites, it wouldn't be still environmental.

I'd suggest to Ms Benson that the international aspect of wasteful hunting or harvesting of fish or animals seems obvious: rhinos in one place, sharks in another, and so on. I'm not going all mystic cycle-of-life on you by suggesting that the death of a shark diminishes the life of a rhino or warps the soul of the killer or whatever. But if wasteful resource harvesting happens all over the place, the UN seems the ideal body to say Think about it, it's not a good idea.

I don't see it as something already covered by UNCoESB because it's not necessarily about endangered species; it's about all sorts of creatures, some of which may be currently in good supply. If I were going to debate this I'd have to find out what animals you have here that this sort of thing happens to, but it's plain it's more than sharks.

(Though it could be about the endangerment of you lot up the top of the food chain here; if you wastefully dissipate your food resources, then they'll dry up all the sooner.)

The suggestion that it's Moral Decency I can understand. If you're going to say this or that act is cruel, then you're entering into arguments about when cruelty is justified, whether it's cruel to do painful act X when it may bring about beneficial event Y, whether it's actually possible to be cruel to a being that isn't self-aware, and so on. That's certainly a moral question.

But I'm thinking this is about harvesting and hunting, which seem to me to be ways of managing a resource. If you take out the "cruel" aspect (and the "slow and painful" comments would certainly have to go), it would still be wasteful. To wait for an animal resource to mature, then to kill it just when it's at its most productive, simply isn't good husbandry. Equally dumb would be killing an animal before it's had a chance to ensure the existence of a replacement generation. So, because I now see it as being about managing an international resource -- food animals -- it seems to me as much environmental as the forestry proposal currently at vote, or the original Ban Whaling.

I'll admit, I'm a bit leery of throwing a good idea into the lion's den of Moral Decency because it seems to me you humans behave towards each other in ways that are neither moral nor decent, and then call it government. And of course we wouldn't want the UN telling people how to run their governments ... sorry, I couldn't resist stirring the possum a bit. Worldsong wouldn't have turned up at the UN if we didn't very sincerely want to tell people how, in certain ways, to run their governments.

I'm wondering, though, whether this discussion has a point. The original poster hasn't shown up since throwing the shark-finning idea into the pool. Is Cookesland drafting a proposal? Is anyone? Or are we having a theoretical debate?

I'm wondering, though, whether this discussion has a point. The original poster hasn't shown up since throwing the shark-finning idea into the pool. Is Cookesland drafting a proposal? Is anyone? Or are we having a theoretical debate?

occ: i plan on writing this proposal if no one objects, but its just in the drafting state right now. Im trying to use this as a suggestion thread since i doubt ARK2 is coming back...

I'd suggest to Ms Benson that the international aspect of wasteful hunting or harvesting of fish or animals seems obvious: rhinos in one place, sharks in another, and so on. I'm not going all mystic cycle-of-life on you by suggesting that the death of a shark diminishes the life of a rhino or warps the soul of the killer or whatever. But if wasteful resource harvesting happens all over the place, the UN seems the ideal body to say Think about it, it's not a good idea.

I don't see it as something already covered by UNCoESB because it's not necessarily about endangered species; it's about all sorts of creatures, some of which may be currently in good supply. If I were going to debate this I'd have to find out what animals you have here that this sort of thing happens to, but it's plain it's more than sharks.

(Though it could be about the endangerment of you lot up the top of the food chain here; if you wastefully dissipate your food resources, then they'll dry up all the sooner.)
Ah, I fear you misunderstood me, or I didn't express myself clearly enough. I wasn't questioning the international scope of this proposal at all; by 'comprehensive' I was referring to species. However, my comments were made before I'd realized the representative of Cookesland's draft contained language referring to all animals; I missed my morning coffee. Thus, I quite agree the UN is the body to be promoting the mystic cycle of life!

If you could maybe not mention that bit to Mr Madison when he gets back...

I also agree that UNCoESB doesn't cover this. My reference to it was intended as follows: The UN passed resolutions to protect whales, and then dolphins. This proved an ineffective mechanism, because there are far more species deserving of protection than we could pass resolutions on. Hence one, for all species, was conceived, and so came UNCoESB.

Similarly here, while shark finning is a specific practice, cruelty in hunting is not; canned hunting is a good example, as is ivory. Other examples might be cruel declawing, skinning alive, and other things I can't even bear to think about. Thus, while the original idea was to stop shark finning, I can't help thinking we should work up to the broadest level possible, without losing the original intent of the argument. (A corollary: the delegation of Witchcliff expanded a proposal about care for the elderly into one about all forms of healthcare, without losing effectiveness or becoming vague.)

A couple of other thoughts on the proposal: one thing would be to work with peoples that still practice traditional, but cruel, hunting methods to try to get them to give up these, while not sacrificing their cultural heritage; another might be to prohibit trade in such items as are procured through cruel hunting methods, so as to lower the need for such in any case.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

occ: i plan on writing this proposal if no one objects, but its just in the drafting state right now. Im trying to use this as a suggestion thread since i doubt ARK2 is coming back...

Goody. Thankyou. Having taken the rather difficult step of Googling on the UN's non-whale-adapted keyboards, I now know what Canned Hunting is -- drugged or otherwise disadvantaged animals being "hunted" for trophies by low-risk Hemingways. (Don't worry about adapting them, Building Management, as First Singer I get my own what-you-might-call "laptop".)

I think it would be a good idea to explain the term if you use it as an example in the proposal, but I think it would be more telling if you used it in your introductory speech and left yourself enough space in the actual body of the proposal to include Ms Benson's excellent suggestions.

occ: i plan on writing this proposal if no one objects, but its just in the drafting state right now. Im trying to use this as a suggestion thread since i doubt ARK2 is coming back...

ARK2 is reading through the posts to gage the overall understanding and consideration of UN members with regards to shark finning. There are, as noted throughout this thread, many related issues and factors to consider.

ARK2 is reading through the posts to gage the overall understanding and consideration of UN members with regards to shark finning. There are, as noted throughout this thread, many related issues and factors to consider.

Well this discussion you created has gone far beyond simply shark hunting, we've expanded the range.



Similarly here, while shark finning is a specific practice, cruelty in hunting is not; canned hunting is a good example, as is ivory. Other examples might be cruel declawing, skinning alive, and other things I can't even bear to think about. Thus, while the original idea was to stop shark finning, I can't help thinking we should work up to the broadest level possible, without losing the original intent of the argument. (A corollary: the delegation of Witchcliff expanded a proposal about care for the elderly into one about all forms of healthcare, without losing effectiveness or becoming vague.)

A couple of other thoughts on the proposal: one thing would be to work with peoples that still practice traditional, but cruel, hunting methods to try to get them to give up these, while not sacrificing their cultural heritage; another might be to prohibit trade in such items as are procured through cruel hunting methods, so as to lower the need for such in any case.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

Should we expand this proposal to be about ending cruelty to animals? that would expand it greatly. I also shall edit draft proposal to include the suggestions from Ms. Benson.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Should we expand this proposal to be about ending cruelty to animals? that would expand it greatly.I would think it would also increase the difficulty of drafting and passage.

For example, a wide range of people recognize instances of cruelty and wastefulness with relation to hunting (shark fin, elephant ivory, gorilla hand) and, at least potentially, recognize an international component. Cruelty to animals is a much fuzzier concept. Are rodeos or circuses cruel? Are zoos? Both answers, 'yes' and 'no', alienate a significant portion of potential supporters. It's also going to be harder to sell international regulation for a more general cruelty to animals proposal.

Just a suggestion, as it was ARK2's original idea, you might want to work with them on the cruelty in hunting version. You might find an excellent ally.*shrug*

IAre rodeos or circuses cruel? Are zoos?

Oh, for the love of the Great Cluich...

What about hunting methods of certain animals that are labeled as cruel but are necessary to hunt it? For example, the way in which squid are hunted/caught/harvested, use whichever you like, is often termed as being cruel to the animal, but it is also the most and oftentimes only effective method available to procure this aquatic delicacy? Would such instances be overlooked if they are cruel but necessary and not wasteful, or would they also be banned, thereby removing a previously legitimate food and trade source for a nation?

The idea here is to ban all eating of meat. Killing an animal is "cruel." Wah, wah, boohoo...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

One quotation, if you'll remit me, but would "distress" include only physiopherapy distress, or would in perclude psychoanalytical? What about, hypodermically speaking, if an animal was to be dranged occidentally

Mrs Malaprop

What I beleive Mrs Malaprop is asking is whether only pysical phain is include, or does dental mistress come under the desolutions refinition. And what about arming sharks haccidentally?

Rev Spooner

I'm fairly certain that accidental harm, being accidental, is not covered here. I could not exactly understand the other part of your statement, so I can't help you there.

The idea here is to ban all eating of meat. Killing an animal is "cruel." Wah, wah, boohoo...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UNReally? How in the world did you come up with that obvious misinterpretation?

Sounds to me like Nadnerb fell down a slippery slope.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Hope he didn't bump his head.

--L.T.

What about hunting methods of certain animals that are labeled as cruel but are necessary to hunt it? For example, the way in which squid are hunted/caught/harvested, use whichever you like, is often termed as being cruel to the animal, but it is also the most and oftentimes only effective method available to procure this aquatic delicacy? Would such instances be overlooked if they are cruel but necessary and not wasteful, or would they also be banned, thereby removing a previously legitimate food and trade source for a nation?

yes they would be banned, didn't you read the discussion earlier?

I'm fairly certain that accidental harm, being accidental, is not covered here. I could not exactly understand the other part of your statement, so I can't help you there.

It isn't covered here because accidental harm is accidental ergo unintended.

One quotation, if you'll remit me, but would "distress" include only physiopherapy distress, or would in perclude psychoanalytical? What about, hypodermically speaking, if an animal was to be dranged occidentally

Mrs Malaprop

What I beleive Mrs Malaprop is asking is whether only pysical phain is include, or does dental mistress come under the desolutions refinition. And what about arming sharks haccidentally?

Rev Spooner

well i think it would be pain in general.


Sounds to me like Nadnerb fell down a slippery slope.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

or forgot his coffee this morning...


The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
Cookesland

Sounds to me like Nadnerb fell down a slippery slope.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We should really outlaw those things. Today, slopes, tomorrow, stairs! When will we think of the children?

Rang Erman
Advisor

We should really outlaw those things. Today, slopes, tomorrow, stairs! When will we think of the children?

Rang Erman
Advisor

ooc: lol :p

ic: Proposal updated, i think this would probably be classified under an enviromental category because it's affecting businesses.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
Cookesland

yes they would be banned, didn't you read the discussion earlier?It's not absolutely clear given the discussion or the wording. The emphasis in the examples to this point has been on the wasteful side.
well i think it would be pain in general.You're going to have to be ready to prove animals feel pain.[/QUOTE]

We should really outlaw those things. Today, slopes, tomorrow, stairs! When will we think of the children?

Rang Erman
AdvisorWhy Rang, what a surprise! Welcome to the Nanny Party. ;)

Leetha Talone
Ambassador

You're going to have to be ready to prove animals feel pain.

I have a number of real-world scientific journals if it comes to that, but I doubt it will.

"While I appreciate that the debate has moved on to a general cruelty-against-animals level, I would like to point out that New Manthian scientific surveys do not support the position that shark finning accounts for the majority of shark catches, nor that shark finning is responsible for a decline in shark numbers, both of which were points made in the original argument. On the contrary, our scientists have found that bycatch - i.e., sharks caught by fishermen accidentally as they were fishing for some other sort of fish - accounts for the majority of shark catches.

With that out of the way, I would like to register New Manth's opinion that, firstly, the UN has no business nannying member states' businesses to ensure that they are milking every last bit of efficiency out of their products, and secondly, that the UN has no business trying to ensure a painless life for every animal in the world. Hell, being hunted is one of the least painful deaths most animals can look forward to. Have you ever seen a pack of lions take down a gazelle? I can assure you that it's brutal, messy and often slow death. But then I'm sure you'll be going after the lions next."

With respect,
Duke Halys Mattan III, Acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth

I'm with Ms Talone on the cruelty/wastefulness question. If you include cruelty, I'd think it would have to go in Moral Decency, and then you get all sorts of side issues muddying the waters -- like, when Ms Talone mentioned circuses and zoos she was just giving an example of the breadth of the question, but evidently it's already been misunderstood.

If you go for wastefulness alone, you've got a clearer goal (and, I think, a reason to call it Environmental, but I'd like to see more from the experts on that).

I'm not saying it's a bad idea to try to legislate against cruelty to animals. It could make a good proposal too. I'm just concerned that this one might try to do two separate things and end up doing neither satisfactorily.

-- First Singer.

Working with ARK2 on this proposal should have a submitable draft soon.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

"While I appreciate that the debate has moved on to a general cruelty-against-animals level, I would like to point out that New Manthian scientific surveys do not support the position that shark finning accounts for the majority of shark catches, nor that shark finning is responsible for a decline in shark numbers, both of which were points made in the original argument. On the contrary, our scientists have found that bycatch - i.e., sharks caught by fishermen accidentally as they were fishing for some other sort of fish - accounts for the majority of shark catches.

With that out of the way, I would like to register New Manth's opinion that, firstly, the UN has no business nannying member states' businesses to ensure that they are milking every last bit of efficiency out of their products, and secondly, that the UN has no business trying to ensure a painless life for every animal in the world. Hell, being hunted is one of the least painful deaths most animals can look forward to. Have you ever seen a pack of lions take down a gazelle? I can assure you that it's brutal, messy and often slow death. But then I'm sure you'll be going after the lions next."

With respect,
Duke Halys Mattan III, Acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth

Finning does cause damage to shark populations. It might not, be as big of an issue as by-catch but it is still something that needs to be dealt with.

And the lions and scavengeours eat the whole gazelle. The sharks are just dumped back into the water. Removing a top level predator and dumping thousands of bodies into the water has major negative impacts on the ecosystems.

"Nothing eats whole sharks, human or otherwise. That I'm aware of. I admit I've done no exhaustive study in the area. But the general point is, shark meat sucks, and nobody wants to eat it in the first place. So it's hardly wasteful."

Mattan sighs. He is sure that now someone will bring in some obscure Drunkenfoolistani Shark-Eating Whale from some unheard of part of the world to disprove that point, but it doesn't really matter.

With respect,
Duke Halys Mattan III, Acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth