Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 19, 2017, 03:25:31 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2018 predictions for US Senate are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government
| | |-+  Regional Governments (Moderator: Gustaf)
| | | |-+  Pacific Council: Protect our forests act
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Pacific Council: Protect our forests act  (Read 2186 times)
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39216
Bangladesh


View Profile
« on: August 01, 2013, 08:15:23 pm »
Ignore

Section 1: Private land of less than
100 acres.

1. Landowners with rainforest on their land must preserve 80% of it.

2. Landowners with other kinds of forest on their land must preserve 50% of it.

3. Introduced and invasive species of trees are exempt from section 1 and 2, and the forest restoration act.

4. Logging of endangered species of trees is illegal.

5. Punishments for breaking section 1 will result in a fine of $1000.

Section 2: Private land of more than 100 acres.

1. The logging of rain forests is illegal.

2. The logging of endangered species of trees is illegal.

3. The logging of invasive and introduced species is encouraged.

4. Breaking section 2 will result in a fine of $10,000 per tree.

Sponsor: Politics Junkie

Discuss.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Spamage
spamage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2363
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2013, 09:03:40 pm »
Ignore

Not sure what my view on this legislation is. While it has very good intentions, it seems a little vague to me. What do you guys think?
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39216
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2013, 01:49:32 am »
Ignore

I agree that it could be a good piece of legislation with some work. This isn't my area of expertise, but I believe Fuzzybigfoot has something to say about it.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4804
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2013, 03:12:22 am »
Ignore

Not sure what my view on this legislation is. While it has very good intentions, it seems a little vague to me. What do you guys think?

It is a bit vague.  Plus, section one, clause 5 needs a bit of a vamp.  I think PJ meant to put $1000 per tree.  The way it's written now, someone could cut down their entire forest with only a $1000 fine.  

Also, it would be nice if the said fine was much larger and was accompanied with minimal jail time, as well as government seizure of the forests and their respective lands to avoid future violations.  In addition, I don't see why these penalties should be excluded from section 2, clause 4.  You should just combine the two.

And why is it completely illegal to chop down rain forests on lands of 100+ acres, but not on smaller property?  You should combine again. 

And what are the penalties for section 1, clause 4?  I see you put penalties on the logging of endangered species in section 2.  Are those supposed to be in section 1 as well?  You should have them there too.

No offense, but this bill is pretty vague as well as unorganized.  We need to start over.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 03:17:09 am by FBF »Logged
PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4664
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2013, 07:40:27 pm »
Ignore

I will be withdrawing as sponsor of this bill and starting from scratch. I apologize, as I am not yet experienced at writing bills.
Logged

Хahar 🤔
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39216
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2013, 08:19:04 pm »
Ignore

Unless anyone wishes to claim this bill in the next 24 hours, it will be withdrawn.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39216
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2013, 03:52:12 pm »
Ignore

As Politics Junkie has introduced a new bill, I will consolidate it with this one.

The New Protect Our Forests Act

Section 1: Deforestation restrictions

1. The logging of rainforest is illegal.

2. Landowners with other kinds of forest on their land must preserve 50% of it.

3. Introduced and invasive species of trees are exempt from this bill and the forest restoration act.

4. Logging of endangered species of trees is illegal.

5. The logging of invasive and introduced species of trees is encouraged.

6. Breaking section 1 will result in a fine of $10,000 per tree.

Section 2: Property distribution

1. Areas of forest that have been victim to violation of the New Protect Our Forests Act will become government property.

2. If less than 100 square acres, the land will be sold to a private individual or business for the current appraisal value and will be required to abide by this bill.

3. Corporations are not eligible to buy the aforementioned properties.

4. If more than 100 square acres, the land will be preserved, and remain property of the regional government. The land will not be developed upon.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4664
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2013, 09:44:12 pm »
Ignore

I am introducing this bill because while Atlasia does have strict environmental standards, not a lot has been done to stop deforestation. There are a few exceptions, such as the Forest Restoration act. But especially in the Pacific Region, protecting our forests is of paramount importance. Diverse habitats, such as temperate rainforests, are found in our region and can only be found in a few other places on Earth. These fragile ecosystems need to be protected for the good of the environment and the good of the Pacific. I yield the metaphorical floor.
Logged

President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2787


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2013, 04:46:40 am »
Ignore

I am rather confused.

Introduced species which are endangered would be exempted, yes? I think we need a definition of terms, here. What does the law consider an introduced species?

If a single tree is cut down, the government is entitled to seize the property? That seems outrageous to me. Perhaps the "fine" section should be separate from the definition of what is illegal, so we can save such a drastic measure for someone who attempts to log privately owned rainforest or whatnot.

Why are "businesses" allowed to buy the seized lands but not "corporations?" Is a corporation not a business?

By the way, I'm attacking this bill's wording only because it's an important issue and I want to see it passed with the least loopholes possible.
Logged

PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4664
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2013, 09:14:38 am »
Ignore

I am rather confused.

Introduced species which are endangered would be exempted, yes? I think we need a definition of terms, here. What does the law consider an introduced species?

If a single tree is cut down, the government is entitled to seize the property? That seems outrageous to me. Perhaps the "fine" section should be separate from the definition of what is illegal, so we can save such a drastic measure for someone who attempts to log privately owned rainforest or whatnot.

Why are "businesses" allowed to buy the seized lands but not "corporations?" Is a corporation not a business?

By the way, I'm attacking this bill's wording only because it's an important issue and I want to see it passed with the least loopholes possible.
I think it is self-evident that an introduced species is one that is not native to the area and has been brought here by humans. Even if that tree is endangered where it is native, it is still doing damage to the ecosystem here.

Temperate rainforests are very rare. Other than the Pacific Northwest, they only exist in the southern tip of South America, New Zealand, and Tasmania. It is because of this that I believe a private individual or business does not have the right to log temperate rainforests. And if they do violate this, they are not to be trusted with such a fragile ecosystem.

I am worried about the effects a corporation would have on the rainforests. A corporation operating on rainforest land would inevitably bring a lot of human activity.

Btw forgot to mention this earlier but I am open to amendments on this bill as long as it keeps the general purpose of preserving our forests. Maybe you could introduce an amendment limiting the punishment for only logging a small amount. I like the bill as is, but I would still vote aye with such an amendment.
Logged

President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2787


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2013, 07:26:00 pm »
Ignore

Proposed amendment:

The New Protect Our Forests Act

Whereas, we consider the "initial state" to be the current distribution of speciation and forestry at the time of passage of this bill.

Section 1: Deforestation restrictions

1. The logging of indigenous rainforest is illegal. Violators must pay a $10,000 fine, to be put in a special "Forester's Fund" [See Section 3]. The land is rightfully seized by the government of the Pacific Region if more than 10% of the rainforest is logged past the initial state.

2. Logging of endangered species of indigenous trees is illegal. For every endangered indigenous tree logged, a $10,000 fine is assessed toward the Forester's Fund. The land is rightfully seized by the government of the Pacific Region if more than 10% of the population of endangered indigenous species is logged past the initial state.

3. Landowners with other kinds of indigenous forest on their land must preserve 50% of the population at its initial state. For every tree logged past the 50% threshold, a $10,000 fine is assessed toward the Forester's Fund. The land is rightfully seized by the government of the Pacific Region if more than 55% of the population of indigenous forest is logged past the initial state.

4. The logging of invasive and introduced species of trees is permissible. If the introduced or invasive species trees are endangered, one indigenous species tree must be planted for every three invasive or introduced trees logged, up to the point at which the invasive or introduced population on that land is 50% its original initial state. At that point, the endangered invasive or introduced population may be logged without the requirement to plant indigenous trees, resulting in an indigenous tree population of no less than one-sixth the population of the original invasive or introduced population. If the required indigenous trees are not planted within one year, the land may become the property of the Pacific Region. However, if a "good faith" effort is made by the original property owner to meet that one-sixth threshold, the Pacific government may seize the property for only the period of time necessary to plant the trees necessary to meet that threshold, and then surrender the property ownership back to the original owner.


Section 2: Reclaimed Property

1. If less than 100 square acres, the land will be sold to a private individual or business for the current appraisal value and will be required to abide by this bill with the terms set by the initial state.

2. Corporations with environmental or logging offenses are not eligible to buy the aforementioned properties.

3. If more than 100 square acres, the land will be preserved, and remain property of the regional government. The land will not be developed upon.

Section 3: The Forester's Fund

1. The Forester's Fund will be maintained by the government of the Pacific region in order to maintain a record of the initial state of the land, to be publicized at the time of its resale and to be available as a matter of public record, a detailed in Section 2, part 1.

2. The secondary function of the Forester's Fund is for the administration of "Rainforest Rangers" to verify that property owners are not in violation of Section 1.



Logged

President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2787


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2013, 07:28:04 pm »
Ignore

Now, this is a massive amendment, so feel free to tear it apart. I still tried to maintain the original bill, but I moved a lot of stuff around.

Changes are in bold.

Apologies if I overstepped my bounds by proposing these amendments.
Logged

PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4664
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2013, 12:25:31 am »
Ignore

Proposed amendment:

The New Protect Our Forests Act

Whereas, we consider the "initial state" to be the current distribution of speciation and forestry at the time of passage of this bill.

Section 1: Deforestation restrictions

1. The logging of indigenous rainforest is illegal. Violators must pay a $10,000 fine, to be put in a special "Forester's Fund" [See Section 3]. The land is rightfully seized by the government of the Pacific Region if more than 10% of the rainforest is logged past the initial state.

2. Logging of endangered species of indigenous trees is illegal. For every endangered indigenous tree logged, a $10,000 fine is assessed toward the Forester's Fund. The land is rightfully seized by the government of the Pacific Region if more than 10% of the population of endangered indigenous species is logged past the initial state.

3. Landowners with other kinds of indigenous forest on their land must preserve 50% of the population at its initial state. For every tree logged past the 50% threshold, a $10,000 fine is assessed toward the Forester's Fund. The land is rightfully seized by the government of the Pacific Region if more than 55% of the population of indigenous forest is logged past the initial state.

4. The logging of invasive and introduced species of trees is permissible. If the introduced or invasive species trees are endangered, one indigenous species tree must be planted for every three invasive or introduced trees logged, up to the point at which the invasive or introduced population on that land is 50% its original initial state. At that point, the endangered invasive or introduced population may be logged without the requirement to plant indigenous trees, resulting in an indigenous tree population of no less than one-sixth the population of the original invasive or introduced population. If the required indigenous trees are not planted within one year, the land may become the property of the Pacific Region. However, if a "good faith" effort is made by the original property owner to meet that one-sixth threshold, the Pacific government may seize the property for only the period of time necessary to plant the trees necessary to meet that threshold, and then surrender the property ownership back to the original owner.


Section 2: Reclaimed Property

1. If less than 100 square acres, the land will be sold to a private individual or business for the current appraisal value and will be required to abide by this bill with the terms set by the initial state.

2. Corporations with environmental or logging offenses are not eligible to buy the aforementioned properties.

3. If more than 100 square acres, the land will be preserved, and remain property of the regional government. The land will not be developed upon.

Section 3: The Forester's Fund

1. The Forester's Fund will be maintained by the government of the Pacific region in order to maintain a record of the initial state of the land, to be publicized at the time of its resale and to be available as a matter of public record, a detailed in Section 2, part 1.

2. The secondary function of the Forester's Fund is for the administration of "Rainforest Rangers" to verify that property owners are not in violation of Section 1.




Undecided on Section 2, Clause 2, but I am satisfied with the rest of this bill. What if corporations with no violations on the book were qualified to buy forests, but not rainforests?
Logged

President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2787


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2013, 02:14:55 am »
Ignore

The New Protect Our Forests Act

Whereas, we consider the "initial state" to be the current distribution of speciation and forestry at the time of passage of this bill.

Section 1: Deforestation restrictions

1. The logging of indigenous rainforest is illegal. Violators must pay a $10,000 fine, to be put in a special "Forester's Fund" [See Section 3]. The land is rightfully seized by the government of the Pacific Region if more than 10% of the rainforest is logged past the initial state.

2. Logging of endangered species of indigenous trees is illegal. For every endangered indigenous tree logged, a $10,000 fine is assessed toward the Forester's Fund. The land is rightfully seized by the government of the Pacific Region if more than 10% of the population of endangered indigenous species is logged past the initial state.

3. Landowners with other kinds of indigenous forest on their land must preserve 50% of the population at its initial state. For every tree logged past the 50% threshold, a $10,000 fine is assessed toward the Forester's Fund. The land is rightfully seized by the government of the Pacific Region if more than 55% of the population of indigenous forest is logged past the initial state.

4. The logging of invasive and introduced species of trees is permissible. If the introduced or invasive species trees are endangered, one indigenous species tree must be planted for every three invasive or introduced trees logged, up to the point at which the invasive or introduced population on that land is 50% its original initial state. At that point, the endangered invasive or introduced population may be logged without the requirement to plant indigenous trees, resulting in an indigenous tree population of no less than one-sixth the population of the original invasive or introduced population. If the required indigenous trees are not planted within one year, the land may become the property of the Pacific Region. However, if a "good faith" effort is made by the original property owner to meet that one-sixth threshold, the Pacific government may seize the property for only the period of time necessary to plant the trees necessary to meet that threshold, and then surrender the property ownership back to the original owner.


Section 2: Reclaimed Property

1. If less than 100 square acres, the land will be sold to a private individual or unincorporated business for the current appraisal value and will be required to abide by this bill with the terms set relative to the initial state.

2. Corporations may not buy reclaimed rainforest, but may purchase other property with forestry if the corporation has not committed an environmental or logging offense in the past 10 years.

3. If more than 100 square acres, the land will be preserved, and remain property of the regional government. The land will not be developed upon.

Section 3: The Forester's Fund

1. The Forester's Fund will be maintained by the government of the Pacific region in order to maintain a record of the initial state of the land, to be publicized at the time of its resale and to be available as a matter of public record, as detailed in Section 2, part 1.

2. The secondary function of the Forester's Fund is for the administration of "Rainforest Rangers" to verify that property owners are not in violation of Section 1.
Logged

PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4664
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2013, 08:29:57 am »
Ignore

"I Love It!"
              - Icona Pop
Logged

NVGonzalez
antwnzrr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1690
Mexico


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2013, 05:27:24 pm »
Ignore

"I Love It!"
              - Icona Pop
Logged




Bernie would probably win Vermont if Obama were deemed to have more than 272 evs in the vag.
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2787


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 06, 2013, 04:29:45 am »
Ignore

Awesome!

Can we take it to a vote?
Logged

PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4664
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2013, 09:08:01 pm »
Ignore

Bumpity bump bump bump

It's time to vote on this
Logged

NVGonzalez
antwnzrr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1690
Mexico


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 09, 2013, 01:45:51 pm »
Ignore

Bumpity bump bump bump

It's time to vote on this
Logged




Bernie would probably win Vermont if Obama were deemed to have more than 272 evs in the vag.
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39216
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2013, 02:52:14 am »
Ignore

So I take it that the amendment is friendly?
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2787


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2013, 05:04:38 am »
Ignore

He said he loves it.

Official statement: I formally present my amendments as friendly, and I hope the original author accepts them as such.
Logged

PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4664
United States


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 10, 2013, 09:53:09 am »
Ignore

He said he loves it.

Official statement: I formally present my amendments as friendly, and I hope the original author accepts them as such.
I do accept it as friendly.
Logged

Хahar 🤔
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39216
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 11, 2013, 02:58:25 am »
Ignore

All right, then. If there's no other debate, I'll open up a final vote soon.

My apologies for the delay; Thursday was the first day of Eid al-Fitr and naturally I have been occupied since then.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
NVGonzalez
antwnzrr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1690
Mexico


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2013, 01:42:30 am »
Ignore

Bump

Let us vote on this (inks)
Logged




Bernie would probably win Vermont if Obama were deemed to have more than 272 evs in the vag.
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39216
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 14, 2013, 02:33:34 am »
Ignore

The legislation is now at a final vote.

Please vote Aye or No.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines