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: Ecology Act 2279
Details
Submitted by[?]: Fascist Greens AM
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 2280
Description[?]:
| The FG seek to enforce stricter regulations on Ecological acts. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The use of animals in cosmetics research.
Old value:: The use of animals to test cosmetic products is regulated.
Current: Animals may not be used for testing cosmetics products.
Proposed: Animals may not be used for testing cosmetics products.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the keeping of endangered animals.
Old value:: Everyone may keep endangered animals, but the trade in, and the ownership of, endangered animals is strictly regulated by the government to prevent their extinction in the wild.
Current: Only zoos or zoological institutions are allowed to keep endangered animals; all other forms of keeping or trading in endangered animals are forbidden.
Proposed: Only zoos or zoological institutions are allowed to keep endangered animals; all other forms of keeping or trading in endangered animals are forbidden.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the keeping of wild animals as pets.
Old value:: This matter is left up to the local governments.
Current: The ownership of wild animals as pets is banned.
Proposed: The government maintains a list of dangerous wild animals which may not be kept as pets; other wild animals may be kept as pets.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:44:42, September 05, 2006 CET | From | Patriotic National Front | To | Debating the Ecology Act 2279 |
| Message | Article 2 we support. The rest we don't. |
| Date | 20:06:21, September 05, 2006 CET | From | Fascist Greens AM | To | Debating the Ecology Act 2279 |
| Message | Reasoning SVP? |
| Date | 20:54:23, September 05, 2006 CET | From | Patriotic National Front | To | Debating the Ecology Act 2279 |
| Message | Article 1 would not be practical as it may be useful to have animals to test them on, otherwise they would be let on the market without any idea of weather they were safe. I don't think animals are the same as humans, by the way. We don't agree with Article 3, as we feel that the local governments are better equiped to deal with waste desposal in thier areas than the central government. We might agree with Article 4, though. |
| Date | 15:39:12, September 06, 2006 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Ecology Act 2279 |
| Message | We appreciate the goals of the FG party. Our natural resources need our protection. However we feel that these controls listed will not help our animal populations. The more people exposed to our fauna, and the more uses they have in our society the less likely the animals will have of becoming endangered or extinct. Through careful regulations we keep the trade and use from overrunning the population, yet through exposure we encourage breeding and exchange of knowledge and care. |
| Date | 22:24:01, September 06, 2006 CET | From | Patriotic National Front | To | Debating the Ecology Act 2279 |
| Message | We do not think that allowing people to trade in endangered animals is a good idea, because of the risks that might pose to the population of those animals. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 301 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: For more information on Particracy's former colonial nations, check out http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6640 |
| Random quote: "It is vain to talk of the interest of the community, without understanding what is the interest of the individual" - Jeremy Bentham |