[GA, not in queue] - Repeal: “Sensible Limits On Hunting”

Status
Not open for further replies.

Simone

Milky white thingy
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
It
TNP Nation
Simone_Republic
ga.jpg

Repeal: “Sensible Limits On Hunting”
Category: Repeal | GA #267
Proposed by: The Ice States | Onsite Topic
Replacement: < Hunting Limits >​

Recognising the praiseworthy aims of "Sensible Limits on Hunting" to prevent unsustainable hunting practices, as well as to restrict trade of endangered animal meats;

Noting, however, that the resolution's failure to qualify "hunting" means that it includes the inhumane, cruel practice of sport hunting, where animal carcasses are simply kept as trophies without any actual use such as consumption as food;

Further noting that Section 1 of the target grants member nations the right to "allow...the hunting of non-endangered animal stocks", thus implying that the World Assembly is unable to itself restrict such hunting in any form;

Concerned that the World Assembly is therefore unable to prohibit or even restrict sport hunting of non-endangered animals, and especially unconvinced by arguments that it should be permitted, as it necessarily includes the death of wild animals without any benefit beyond the recreation of those who perform the activity;

Cognisant of other flaws in the wording of the target, including that:

Section 5c qualifying the exceptions for antiques, academic use and artwork with regards to the status of the species at the time means that specimens or artwork of historical significance cannot be traded internationally based on a factor largely irrelevant for current use; and

Section 2's exception for "species carrying agents likely to cause serious epidemics in people" is overly broad, as these may also be endangered, and allowing unregulated hunting is in general a rather inappropriate means of addressing these health risks, especially as the said agents may be transferred to a human by the consumption of wild animals, rendering the exception counterproductive;

Concluding, therefore, that these flaws necessitate repeal and replacement with improved legislation to protect the environment and animal rights;

The World Assembly repeals "Sensible Limits on Hunting".
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

For Against Abstain Present
0000
 
Hard against. It's tiresome that we are going round and round in circles on this topic.

The bottom line is this. All of these resolutions on hunting, forced blood sports, and what not is basically recycling the same theme: we don't want much hunting, but we can't ban hunting outright because:
(i) there are invasive species (shitloads of that in New Zealand, the Australian outback, much of the United States and Canada, to name some countries where NS has a lot of players); and
(ii) we can't ban hunting for food. Whether hunting for food is a genuine necessity in much of the developed world is an open question, but third world, yeah, probably necessary anyway. So we are stuck.

Oh this is before we get to gun rights.

Then we are basically left with some variations of trying to strike a delicate balance between hunting for food, and trying not to inflict too much cruelty to animals. The replacement is woefully inadequate as a draft (as IA points out) at the moment and nowhere near ready.

To quote GA690 (which was the first replacement of blood sports thing which itself got repealed) - the complaint remains valid.
"Registering complaints for the record as to the largely unnecessary, duplicative, and dubious character of and surrounding recent legislation on this topic(.)"
 
Last edited:
Against. These are matters, save for the exception of endangered animals, which ought to be left to member states to determine, as the target resolution properly does. The criticism of clause 5.C(v) of the target resolution seems to me to be apt, as I would think the 99 year limit sufficient of itself to the aim of that clause but this is not a sufficient reason for repeal. Section 2 of the target resolution does not require that hunting of animals posing health risks be allowed by member states, it permits member states the choice to allow hunting and member states can then determine whether hunting would be appropriate to their circumstances or not (and so to allow or prohibit it accordingly).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top