Another Trumpism: let's allow animals to be killed while hibernating.
GullRaDriel

These laws are a failure, like the guys who proposed it, and the worst is the guy who rated them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-officially-made-it-legal-to-kill-hibernating-bears_us_58e93960e4b05413bfe36c1b

Man, where are we going with things like that ? I'm asking myself more and more now the election there are coming.

Seeing what's happening to USA isn't funny as France is silly enough to be a few years later the one to make the same mistakes, every time.

Well, well. Ahem.

...

Chris Katko

Uh... what does Congress have to do with Trump? Yeah, he signed it into law but that doesn't mean it's one of his platforms. Or are we gonna go over every law that Obama signed, that passed the senate and house?

That being said, I'll agree it's probably a stupid law. But with people blowing up children this week, I'm not to focused / worried about bears at the moment.

bamccaig

Also in fairness, it sounds like it was only banned by Obama and so they're essentially just undoing the law. I agree that it's stupid to allow slaughtering hibernating animals or to hunt them with a helicopter, but I think Trump is guilty of far worse things these days to be fretting over this.

raynebc

It's better for a state to manage its wildlife than the federal government taking it over. Of course, Democrats are going to always knee-jerk with this kind of reaction to the rollback of government overreach.

GullRaDriel
Chris said:

Uh... what does Congress have to do with Trump? Yeah, he signed it into law but that doesn't mean it's one of his platforms.

He signed it. It does not matter if he proposed it or not, he could also have refused to sign it. But wait, since when does a president read what he approves ?

Plus his sons would not have been able to have fun killing animals for free in the Alaska.

now take a DTrump tone

"That would have been a pity. Really. Enormous mistake. So I did whatever a dad in command of the United States should have done, because duty was calling me. God told me I must do that. I signed that law for the sake of pure American children"

8-)

>:(>:(>:(

Eric Johnson

This should be a state issue anyway. Hunting hibernating bears is risky business; I imagine only subsistence hunters would benefit from this.

Aaron Bolyard

"States rights" is often code for deregulation and discrimination, just like "choices" is code for privatization.

It sounds nice in theory, but it's terrible in practice.

Chris Katko

It sounds nice in theory, but it's terrible in practice.

You mean like communism? ;)

Substitute "state" with "District" or "region" and you have every other government on the planet. It must really suck to have a group of people nearby who represent your interests compared to the far off people living in Washington who don't give a crap about your state. Likewise with local (city) governments compared to state governments. What's wrong with having layers that represent and live near YOU, and HIGHER layers that override the lower layers when they make a corrupt decision? It's worked pretty damn well over the last couple of centuries compared to dozens (if not more) of countries that started a government only to collapse into a failed state.

Furthermore, states-rights is criticized by liberals, and yet they fail to realize that the law finding that says "state officers are not REQUIRED to aid federal officers" is the SOLE REASON we have sanctuary cities, and marijuana legalization (which is still illegal on a federal level... oops, forgot about that, eh?), and likely of other anti-federal stances that liberals love.

Liberals don't know what they want. ;D

Aaron Bolyard

I've only seen flavors of state-capitalists claiming to be communist, like the USSR, or Venezuela. In all of these countries, the state owned the means of production, not the workers, and there were still social classes based on wealth.

I can call myself a horse, and pretend I am, but it doesn't change the fact I'm not a horse. Sadly, anti-horse groups will also propagate* the lie I'm a horse to push their agenda...

(I just realized I've been been misspelling 'propagate' in my behavior tree library. Find across files returns 160 instances... Should I follow the Allegro PALLETE/PALETTE route? ;D)

Gideon Weems

... I thought I was the only one who thought of major upheavels in terms of PALLETE/PALETTE.

bamccaig

In my experience, the regional government representatives are equally self-serving as the federal level.

I actually seem to agree with Aaron on this. It sounds good in theory for the power to be regional, but I think that when their decisions have an impact on other regions it needs to move up the scale. I'm pretty sure all states and provinces aren't fenced off so the wildlife actually can move between them, and many species, bears and wolves included, have very large ranges. It's wrong to let a particular town, district, or state decide what happens to wildlife that is shared by all (let alone the reach of their ecological contributions). Instead, it should be a consensus by all those that share the wildlife to preserve them for the future (the worst case is obviously killing them all, or somehow altering their behavior).

Append:

That said, the way the Canadian parliament is supposed to work on paper is that all regions elect their own representative so even at the federal level you're supposed to have a regional representative looking out for you. The problem is that they quickly figured out how to game the system and formed "parties" to essentially ally together to get their own self-interests met. No longer do they serve the people, but instead serve the parties. If we could dismantle the parties we could return to a system where we are all better taken care of, but of course those in power would never agree to that. It just goes to show that government is broken by design.

Arthur Kalliokoski
bamccaig said:

No longer do they serve the people, but instead serve the parties. If we could dismantle the parties we could return to a system where we are all better taken care of, but of course those in power would never agree to that. It just goes to show that government is broken by design.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Maybe you understand that better if you compare it to "computer security is an ongoing process, not an end result".

Felix-The-Ghost

Barely read anything, but do you think maybe this has something to do with the whole "For every new bill we pass, we will remove two" ???

LennyLen

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

For freedom, we know, is a thing that we have to conquer afresh for ourselves, every day, like love; and we are always losing freedom, just as we are always losing love, because, after each victory we think we can now settle down and enjoy it without further struggle… The battle of freedom is never done, and the field never quiet.

- HENRY W. NEVINSON

Thread #616852. Printed from Allegro.cc