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: Nature Act, 2100
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Imperialist 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: February 2102
Description[?]:
| The LIP believes that certain sites of special egological interest must be preserved and saved from being cleared for cosntruction or farming. On the other hand, the LIP does not believe that in order to do this the Government needs to fund and maintain national parks with then artificially interfere with that which is contained within them. The Liberal Imperialist Party believes that merely banning construction on sites of ecological interest is enough, that nature can look after itself within these protected zones without human interferance, and that visiting these areas is much more enjoyable knowing that it is truely natural, and not artificially controlled and regulated. ADDENDUM Quotas for fishing and hunting are imposed to maintain game and fish stock. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of hunting.
Old value:: The matters of hunting and fishing are handled by local governments.
Current: The matters of hunting and fishing are handled by local governments.
Proposed: Hunting and fishing is not regulated.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy regarding a national park system.
Old value:: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Current: The government devolves park policy to local governments.
Proposed: The government designates ecological preservation zones but does not fund their oversight.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:34:06, August 24, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | Even natural areas need to be maintained in order to be preserved. This is to prevent overgrowth and such. Furthermore, funding is needed to keep nature parks accessible for guests, which only makes sense. Furthermore, we oppose relaxing hunting and fishing regulations and are not convinced by the idea of a quota system. |
| Date | 18:52:51, August 24, 2005 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | We concur with our honourable collegues of the Liberty Movement. |
| Date | 20:52:41, August 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | Nature doesnt need to be "made accessible". You just park your car and walk into it. This is exactly what we are opposing - the restriction and regulation of nature to make it "accessible" to humans. Let us abolish the beaurocracy surrounding nature! Or does that logic only apply to "Liberty" proposals... |
| Date | 21:01:59, August 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | Nature isnt designed to be "maintained and preserved" or "controlled to prevent overgrowth" (ok, I paraphrase). Nature does not need to be managed or regulated - it has shown that over the millions of years it has been in existance - what it needs is free reign to grow as it is intended away from the interferance of man. National parks are just a way of people who never see the natural world to feel good about themselves for "helping" when actually they do nothing to help a little to harm. They are also an unnecessary expense which our taxpayers should not be forced to bear. |
| Date | 21:26:36, August 24, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | I think the Rt. Hon. gentleman is expressing some ignorance with regards to the management of national parks. Especially if the Rt. Hon. gentleman also wishes to legalise poaching. |
| Date | 23:12:14, August 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | I point out that the Rt Hon member accusing me of making things legal is himself introducing legislation which allows 11 year olds to use cannabis, tabacco and alcohol without any recourse to the law to stop them. I would also point out that the Rt Hon member doesnt seem to understand nature - it isnt a tourist attraction that has to be "managed" and "maintained". |
| Date | 01:06:41, August 25, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | We support both of these sensible and deregulatory articles. |
| Date | 03:54:37, August 25, 2005 CET | From | Veritaserum | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | I can in no way support a bill that will see our wildlife reserves massacred in order for a select few to make money. |
| Date | 11:12:26, August 25, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | Would the Rt Hon member care to explain how these sites would be massacred? They will retain their protection under law from clearance and development, they just wont be "managed" - something that I have already pointed out is artificial, unnecessary and damaging. |
| Date | 14:04:46, August 25, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | Thanks to the effects of human interference on the environment, "managing" (as you call it) is necessary to maintain the biodiversity and the ecological balance. |
| Date | 16:32:54, August 25, 2005 CET | From | Civic Democratic Party | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | We fully support this measure and believe that the ending of regulations upon hunting and fishing would be beneficial to Rutania. |
| Date | 18:02:05, August 25, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | Au contraire, my honourable friend, these regulations are imposed upon hunting and fishing in the best interests of the hunting and fishing sectors. Those sectors would be worse off with no regulations and over-hunting or over-fishing, than with regulations and a stable stock of animals and fish. |
| Date | 19:51:30, August 25, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | "Thanks to the effects of human interference on the environment, "managing" (as you call it) is necessary to maintain the biodiversity and the ecological balance." I dont understand this point. There wont be any human interferance because these sites will be protected from such interferance. The Liberty Movement says we should prevent forrests becoming "overgrown". Well forrests are MEANT to be overgrown. Environmentalists generally live in cities and dont understand the environment which is why they propose things like national parks. "Au contraire, my honourable friend, these regulations are imposed upon hunting and fishing in the best interests of the hunting and fishing sectors. Those sectors would be worse off with no regulations and over-hunting or over-fishing, than with regulations and a stable stock of animals and fish." My proposal includes an addendum to prevent over hunting and over fishing... |
| Date | 07:33:39, August 26, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | There will ALWAYS be human interference, either by roads or a factory, but there will always be human interference. And what I said was that because of the effects of human interference in the past, it is now necessary to manage these parks. We need to "manage" these parks to protect fragile ecosystems. We do understand the environment (OOC: and I live in the country), and we also understand that it is necessary to have things like national parks to protect species, to protect forrests, or in short, to protect the environment, the biodiversity and the ecological balance. |
| Date | 07:34:30, August 26, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | "My proposal includes an addendum to prevent over hunting and over fishing..." We know, but that addendum is not sufficient in our opinion. |
| Date | 10:42:52, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | "There will ALWAYS be human interference, either by roads or a factory, but there will always be human interference." Under this proposal it wont be allowed... |
| Date | 11:09:51, August 26, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | You don't seem to get the point! Even if human interference would not be allowed in national park, external factors caused by human interference would still have a severe impact. |
| Date | 14:03:40, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | Factors such as... |
| Date | 16:17:59, August 26, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | Factories within 100 km of the park, for one. |
| Date | 15:11:27, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Nature Act, 2100 |
| Message | And they would do... what, precisely? Produce CO2? Which plants need to survive... Produce acid rain? Which human management of parks cant prevent... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 163 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 436 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real-life quotations may be used in Particracy, but the real-life speaker or author should always be referenced in an OOC (out-of-character) note alongside the quotation. |
| Random quote: "The more you observe politics, the more you've got to admit that each party is worse than the other." - Will Rogers |