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: Ecological Preservation Zones
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Liberal Alliance
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: November 2123
Description[?]:
| The government sshould not and cannot afford to fund large national parks and instead this should be left to and can be adequately done by the private sector and local communities. |
Proposals
Article 1
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 funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
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 | 17:44:16, October 07, 2005 CET | From | Rationalist Party | To | Debating the Ecological Preservation Zones |
| Message | So we shouldn't prevent illegal hunting on State land? Or logging in ecologically sensitive areas? Because with no funding, that's basically what you are saying. |
| Date | 19:16:10, October 07, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Ecological Preservation Zones |
| Message | Yes, i'm sorry but we both seem to have a very different conception of what national parks and things like them actually are. For example, in the UK, very little of the land which forms our national parks is owned by the state, most of it is private. They are managed by semi private agencies - national park authorities etc. and most of the income they gain comes from tourism and other activities within the parks rather than from state funding (although there is some in this case). I simply want to make them more like this and so devolve power to local communities in a sense.Oversight should be provided by these agencies and local communities, not by central government |
| Date | 21:51:48, October 07, 2005 CET | From | Rationalist Party | To | Debating the Ecological Preservation Zones |
| Message | I'm Canadian, all of our parkland is owned by some level of government (provincial or national). The idea of the current system is that such areas that are set aside are not to be touched, with the possible exception of access roads and trails. Most national and provincial parks pay for themselves, with the rest being paid for through taxes (ie. Polar Bear Nat'l is too out of the way to make a profit, but Banff easily covers iteself). I would have no problem with provinces being able to set aside land for their own uses, park land, recreational land, whatever. But if we are going to preserve the environment we have, we should be looking after it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 126 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 129 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Dorvik is a nation based on Germanic and old Prussian cultures, it is located on the far north of Artania, making it an almost arctic nation. |
| Random quote: "How can you govern a country which has 246 varieties of cheese?" Charles De Gaulle, "Les Mots du General |