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: Hunting Regulations
Details
Submitted by[?]: Protectorate Party
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: August 2039
Description[?]:
| Understanding that local environments have different pressures. We propose local governments handle their hunting laws. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of hunting.
Old value:: Hunting and fishing activities are restricted to designated areas and periods.
Current: Hunting and fishing activities are restricted to designated areas and periods.
Proposed: The matters of hunting and fishing are handled by local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | not recorded | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the Hunting Regulations |
| Message | Agree. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Hunting Regulations |
| Message | Our ecosystems are too large to be properly administer by local governments. Ecologies ignore borders, and so the lack of regulation in one area could have negative consequences on its neighbors. Local control is important, but local control does not give a community the right to force its probems onto its neighbors. |
| Date | not recorded | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Hunting Regulations |
| Message | Local governments are those who are most aware of the changing needs of the environment. To think that a national government can respond to protected predators attacking locals, wildlife destroying farmlands or overgrazing resulting in weak and diseased herds, is irresponsible. Local hunters have nothing to gain by stamping out populations of wildlife and are often the most zealous in protecting a species or habitat. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Hunting Regulations |
| Message | How many protected forests were established by local governmets? How many hunting restrictions has been left up to the communities that profit from hunting and fishing season? History has established the need for national programs to protect fish and wildlife from over-use; the issue here is not whether it will be allowed, this is merely a dogmatic adherance to an outmoded principle of local control. |
| Date | not recorded | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Hunting Regulations |
| Message | Actually, local control works very well for this sort of thing. I've read about a perfect example involving lobster fishing on the New England coast, but I'm buggered if I can remember where. I'll try and dig it up... |
| Date | not recorded | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Hunting Regulations |
| Message | Ok, lets talk United States: State Parks: 5,567 growth rate: 9.5% over 5 yrs. NY state protects both Nigara Falls and The Adirondacks which is an area of 6 million acres regulated locally for the preservation of the environment. |
| Date | not recorded | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Hunting Regulations |
| Message | Here's some info about Maine lobstermen: http://www.workingwaterfront.com/column.asp?storyID=20040448 http://www.workingwaterfront.com/column.asp?storyID=20040448 As long as you have communal ownership of the resource, self-regulation works. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Hunting Regulations |
| Message | Furthermore a national government can set up preserves of one type or another but without local support these systems will not stop poaching. Look at many nations in Africa and India's tigers. Preserves have been set up, but due to economic pressures they cannot be protected and thus fail to preserve the species. Gaining the suport of locals is a more effective method to protect an area or species. |
| Date | not recorded | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Hunting Regulations |
| Message | Indeed. If the local community has a sense of ownership of the resource, rather than it being in the hands of the national government or private individuals, they're much more likely to act to protect that resource. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Radical Centrists | To | Debating the Hunting Regulations |
| Message | Both bills proposed are an improvement on the status quo, but we're not yet sure which is the better option. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Hunting Regulations |
| Message | If local communities were more likely to act to protect the resource we wouldn't see logging communities supporting opening up national forests for logging (which they do, think the third world), or over-fishing (which we see the world over). |
| Date | not recorded | From | Radical Centrists | To | Debating the Hunting Regulations |
| Message | After much internal discussion, the RCP votes against this bill on the grounds that it is incompatible with the superior bill Fishing and Wildlife Bill. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 11 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 60 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 18 |
| Random fact: Real-life organisations should not be referenced in Particracy, unless they are simple and generic (eg. "National Organisation for Women" is allowed). |
| Random quote: "If the Third World War is fought with nuclear weapons, the fourth will be fought with bows and arrows." - Louis Mountbatten |