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: DSP.251.2626
Details
Submitted by[?]: 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō)
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 2630
Description[?]:
| The needless killing of animals is a terrible and immoral thing, however as it will take a great deal of time to truly get rid of it completely we wish to limit the killing of animals to only those recognized as primary food sources. Therefore we propose the following Article 1; The killing of animals be made illegal. Article 2; The following animals shall be excluded from this law until such a time that they are removed through an amendment to this law; -Cows -Chickens -Turkeys -Lesser fish (IE the stupid and smaller ones) Article 3; The killing of an animal in self-defence shall not be considered a crime but shall be investigated to make sure it was in self-defence. Article 4; For the sake of this law the term animal shall be defined as any creature in that is part of the Vertebrata sub-phylum. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The right to kill animals.
Old value:: Killing animals is legal but regulated.
Current: Killing animals is illegal.
Proposed: Killing animals is illegal.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of hunting.
Old value:: Hunting and fishing activities are restricted to designated areas and periods.
Current: Private hunting and fishing practices are banned.
Proposed: Private hunting and fishing practices are banned.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:14:47, August 23, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the DSP.251.2626 |
| Message | OOC: I'll leave this in debate for awhile since I'm not really sure what other animals if any (excluding pigs) should be added or how detailed I should eb with the lesser fish thing. |
| Date | 21:12:49, August 23, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the DSP.251.2626 |
| Message | Bugs? What about pests? Voles, rats, rabbits, etc? What about when a population is getting unhealthy because it has no natural predators and needs to be culled? |
| Date | 22:39:31, August 23, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the DSP.251.2626 |
| Message | Bugs are a good point, but can we realy consider them animals in the traditional sense? I eman the only time I can think it would be bad is if they wre forming a sentient hive-mind. As for voles, well I'm only vaguely familiar with what those are, but I'm not thinking they'd be a main part of any of our cultures. As to rats, well, who actually eats rats, apart fro people in poor countries? As to populations, well we could just introduce and regulate the number of natural preadators, I mean it worked for millions of years before we came along. |
| Date | 06:06:04, August 24, 2008 CET | From | Sekowan Independent Party | To | Debating the DSP.251.2626 |
| Message | OOC: So, I just want to read this properly... Your intent is to make all killing of all animals illegal, and then regulate which animals we can kill? Isn't this exactly the same as the law as it stands right now? Simply that killing of animals is regulated? So, a resolution (or RP Bill) would be more suited for this, I would think... |
| Date | 07:21:33, August 24, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the DSP.251.2626 |
| Message | Killing all animals not spelled out, yes. I could make it purely RP and drop the proposal, but someone (IE some party that does'nt exist now, but might in the future) might take advantage of just having it be regulated and try and create loopholes. |
| Date | 08:20:37, August 24, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the DSP.251.2626 |
| Message | Voles are pests that destroy gardens, lawns, etc. They are not eaten, but usually the only effective way to get rid of them is flooding (which kills them or, failing that, they'll come back), or poisoning. Rats (and other rodents, actually) are notorious carriers of the Bubonic Plagueit is critical that agencies have the right to protect our people, and that people have the right to protect themselves from dangerous animals (such as diseased or disease-carrying animals). Some creatures have no natural predators. [[Example: Wild Horses in Nevada.]] The population is now too large for the ecology, and there are no predators to cull them. So either there's going to be a crowded, diseased population, or culling needs to occur. Ask any ranger involved in wildlife management and you'll soon discover that culling is (at times) an essential part of keeping wildlife populations healthy. FYI: By definition, an "animal" is any creature in the kingdom Animalia (or Metazoa). This includes bugs, starfish, sea cucumbers, coral, and a variety of other things. |
| Date | 19:13:19, August 24, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the DSP.251.2626 |
| Message | Well, there tend to be natural, non-lethal ways to deal with pests, so I don't think that's a problem, and as for rats specifically, they tend to only live in unkempt environments when they're near Human populations, so so long as things were kept clean their would'nt be a problem. As for animals with no natural predators, well, there are ways to 'cull' the population without killing them, like sterilizing say 25% of them, or transporting them to another area they could live in. I know what an animal is scienitifcally, I mean though like how people generally perceive animals, that is most people, under this law would'nt think of a fly as an animal when they swat it. |
| Date | 23:48:59, August 24, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the DSP.251.2626 |
| Message | There are, frankly, not always natural non-lethal ways to deal with pests which are remotely effective, though they often are. Voles, for example, are REALLY hard to get rid of non-lethally. This is true of mice, and rats, as well. Squirrels and rabbits, on the other hand, are fairly easy to get rid of non-lethally. You should rename "animals" to "vertebrates", as you're not opposed to the killing of animals, but the killing of vertebrates. And the law can't afford to use common perceptions in defining things. It must be precise. Sterilization would also not reduce large population sizes, and in the populations of some types of animals with no or few natural predators, would have to be done every year (as culling must). Sterilization of a wild animal (particularly a large one) would also be very difficult and resource-costly, and many groups would call it cruel. It would require, in some cases, the capture and tranquilization of thousands of animals, and bringing in enough veterinarians to take care of them all, and require those veterinarians to work in a field environment, when they are used to a clinical environment. The costs and logistics would be a nightmare, and, ultimately, the population served would still be as unhealthy until the next generation, and the next generation would then have to be proportionally sterilized, ad nauseam. |
| Date | 00:53:58, August 25, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the DSP.251.2626 |
| Message | Well, perhaps then we should decide first if something really is a pest. For this law, if we're to include animals which are pests, we need to keep it precise as in what a pest is, IE if it does undo damage to major food crops or infrastructure it would be a pest, however if it just makes someones yard (I'm wondering how many people would have yards consiudering Sekowo proper is almost totally urban) look tacky it realy should'nt be considered one. And I did put the vertebrate thing under the to be added section, however I want to go with animals since it's likels a non-vertebrate will end up being included. As to the sterilization and population thing, well when it comes down to it most of our natural wilderness is essentially a set of giant nature preserves (since it's incircled by urban areas), so it would be easier, but anyways, the only things that really would'nt have natural predators are species non native to an area so all we'd need to do is regulate that and fix problems when something hets passed. |
| Date | 15:53:21, August 31, 2008 CET | From | Sekowan Independent Party | To | Debating the DSP.251.2626 |
| Message | We will not support a bill which imposes one set of beliefs or values upon others. There are citizens in Sekowo that do not believe that killing of "all animals" is wrong. Further, there are several sources of meat (mainly wild game) that this bill seeks to make illegal. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 177 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 329 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 94 |
| Random fact: Head to the "Language assistance" thread to receive and offer help with translations: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6368 |
| Random quote: "Socialists like to tout their confiscation and redistribution schemes as noble and caring, but we should ask if theft is ever noble or caring." - Robert Hawes |