We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Ecology 2400
Details
Submitted by[?]: S.C.A.F.R.
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2401
Description[?]:
| - |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the ownership of domestic animals as pets.
Old value:: People must register domestic animals with the local government.
Current: People must register domestic animals with the local government.
Proposed: People must register domestic animals with the national government.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the keeping of endangered animals.
Old value:: Only zoos or zoological institutions are allowed to keep endangered animals; all other forms of keeping or trading in endangered animals are forbidden.
Current: Only zoos or zoological institutions are allowed to keep endangered animals; all other forms of keeping or trading in endangered animals are forbidden.
Proposed: Keeping endangered animals, or trading therein, is forbidden.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the keeping of exotic animals.
Old value:: Only zoos or zoological institutions are allowed to keep exotic animals.
Current: Only zoos or zoological institutions are allowed to keep exotic animals.
Proposed: Keeping exotic animals is forbidden.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Waste disposal responsibility.
Old value:: Waste disposal is left entirely to the private sector but is regulated.
Current: The government is responsible for waste disposal.
Proposed: Private companies are responsible for disposing of their own waste. The government disposes of residential waste.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:54:15, May 08, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the Ecology 2400 |
| Message | Alright, now these proposals are just idiotic? What is it that you have against zoos? Is the S.C.A.F.R. a party of hippies or something? |
| Date | 00:27:10, May 09, 2007 CET | From | S.C.A.F.R. | To | Debating the Ecology 2400 |
| Message | zoo are like prisons, we want to abolish that.Animals can't stay out of theyr natural world. |
| Date | 00:34:37, May 09, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the Ecology 2400 |
| Message | Then wouldn't it be smarter to try to get zoos to be bigger and nicer? Zoos often have mating programs which help endangered species continue. They also treat the animals fairly well. |
| Date | 05:33:57, May 09, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the Ecology 2400 |
| Message | Family First is rather impartial to Article 1 - we see this as a non-issue, and we feel that there is neither much potential benefit or detriment if it is passed or defeated. We will treat this Article as being irrelevant to our voting decision. Article 2 is something we also do not really see much potential in. We believe private enterprise is perfectly able to manage waste disposal nation-wide, and nationalizing waste disposal, even just for residential waste, seems like a big expensive waste of time and tax-payers money. We have much more important things in the budget to adress than this. As for Article's 3 and 4, Family First believes that zoos are a fantastic source of entertainment and education for people of all ages. Why shouldn't we be able to enjoy and learn about animals, some of which we would never have a chance to experience in the wild due to our location or the rarity of the species? Besides, animals are treated extremely well in zoos, and treated to generous habitats and enclosures, and zoos also provide a mating program for species who are endangered or threatened, and may otherwise be extinct. We see both of these articles as non-issues aswell, but if the S.C.A.F.R has such serious concerns with the enclosures of animals in zoos, we suggest they opt for a much more reasonable approach, such as transforming our zoos into mostly free-range zoos, in which animals are allowed to roam free over vast acres of their natural habitat, and visitors travel through in buses to view them. Free-range zoos are essentially the exact same as the animal's natural environment - the only difference is that there happens to be a fence somewhere on the horizon. We don't think this is animal cruelty at all. We feel that this legislation is, by and large, fairly redundant. We cannot support. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 99 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 421 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 130 |
| Random fact: When it comes to creating a Cultural Protocol in a Culturally Open nation, players are not necessarily required to provide a plausible backstory for how the nation's cultural background developed. However, the provision of a plausible backstory may be a factor in whether Moderation approves the Cultural Protocol if players in surrounding nations question its appropriateness for their region of the game map. |
| Random quote: "Once again, we will wage war against fascism, only this time a civil war of words and politics." - Vladimir Borisov, former Trigunian politician |