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: Pet spaying & safety bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
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: May 2105
Description[?]:
| Local humane societies will be empowered to neuter household pets at no charge to the pet's human provider. Where localities desire (as approved by referendum), they may require pets to be registered in order to monitor this programme. Neutering will never be compulsory, but localities may if they desire require dog or cat licences and even ban breeds deemed to pose a danger to the community, such as pit bulls. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the ownership of domestic animals as pets.
Old value:: There are no laws regarding domestic animal ownership.
Current: People must register domestic animals with the local government.
Proposed: People must register domestic animals with the local government.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:05:56, August 30, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Pet spaying & safety bill |
| Message | Why not just hold the owners responsible for problems caused by their pets? This makes more sense than allowing a city to ban pit bulls, etc. |
| Date | 03:08:46, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Royal Conservative Party | To | Debating the Pet spaying & safety bill |
| Message | The title seems to bear little in common with the actual proposal - you are not simply putting spaying into local government control but you are putting all aspects of pet control into the hands of local government. |
| Date | 03:58:52, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Pet spaying & safety bill |
| Message | Who is to pay for the neutering of the pets? It is not something that has no cost to perform. |
| Date | 17:47:41, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Pet spaying & safety bill |
| Message | Yes, it will add to the cost of operating local governments. The main purpose of the bill is spaying. It also allows public safety measures such as a ban on pit bulls if that is what locals decide is needed. I;ve changed the name to try to be more descriptive, but suggested titles are welcome. |
| Date | 04:42:26, September 02, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Pet spaying & safety bill |
| Message | Hearing none, moved to a vote. |
| Date | 05:13:00, September 02, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Pet spaying & safety bill |
| Message | Hmm, why there is no option leaving the entire proposal to local government beats me, we'll support this as the best alternative. |
| Date | 17:07:47, September 02, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Pet spaying & safety bill |
| Message | We look forward to hearing what the government parties intend to do instead of this. |
| Date | 21:11:49, September 02, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Pet spaying & safety bill |
| Message | Nothing sounds like a good plan. People are responsible for the actions of their animals, other than that, no government intervention is required or justified. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 143 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 157 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: All role-play must respect the established cultural background in Culturally Protected nations. |
| Random quote: "Unlike the world of free-markets, in political government when some individuals win, other individuals lose." - Robert Klassen |