Jump to content

Rewrite the Entire Hunting & Animal Protection Act of 2021


Recommended Posts

Short description: The recently penned Hunting & Animal Protection Act of 2021 from our dear friends in the government needs to be rewritten to look even remotely realistic.

Detailed description: So this is gonna be a long one. Because I'm about to go through this nearly line by line and dissect what is actually wrong with everything that is in this bill. I'll put it in a giant spoiler so this post doesn't scream at you.

The bill can actually be found here - 

Spoiler

Section II C - Hunter Blacklist – A list kept by the enforcing agency that contains all the persona non grata.
Not a thing. You know what you get for violating hunting laws? A ticket. You know what you get if you're a habitual offender or a severe offender? A felony. You know who can't get a hunting license? A felon. At least not without state approval.

Section II D - Big game – Following species: Wild boar, Mountain Lion, Coyote, Deer, Panther.

Wild Boar. Congratulations, you designated female feral hogs as a non game species which means that they can be taken with any weapon at any time, anywhere without license. The word you were looking for as opposed to Wild Boar is Feral Pig or Feral Hog.

Deer - Given the number of deer species that could possibly be here, you should define what deer you mean. If you don't know, you should ask someone who might know.

Mountain Lion - PROTECTED SPECIES in the state of California. Should not be allowed to be hunted anyways.

Panther - Same thing as a mountain lion. No reason for it to be listed twice.

 

Section II E - Small game – Following species: Rabbit, Rat.

Define the rabbit species. There's a difference between a rabbit and a Jackrabbit, which probably what you'd see mostly.

In no state is a rat designated as a game animal. I don't even have the words to describe this one.

 

Section II F - Aerial Game - Following species: Crow, seagull.

Aerial Game. Not a thing. Flying game is divided into two separate classifications. Waterfowl, which is ducks, geese and swans, and Upland Game Birds, which is any game bird that is not a duck, goose, or a swan.
Seagull - Federally protected animal for over 100 years.

 

Section II G - Long gun – A long gun is a category of firearms with longer barrels than most other types. In small arms, a long gun is generally designed to be held by both hands and braced against the shoulder, in contrast to a handgun, which can be fired being held with a single hand.

The ATF defines what a long gun is. "longer barrels than most other types" is a terrible description. No senator would ever allow that to be passed with such a description. The definition of a long gun according to the ATF us that it must have a barrel longer than 16 inches and overall length of 26 inches with primary function to be fired from the shoulder. And if you want to get technical, according to the NFA, this is a rifle.
The term “Rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

 

Section III A (1) - Restricted – Species that are at-risk of extinction within the State, requiring the highest level of protection;

US Fish & Game are the people who designate species at risk for extinction. It's not done on a state level. State Wildlife Agencies are allowed to petition legislature to put species on a restricted hunting list. But designating animals at risk for extinction? It's gonna be federally protected at that point which will fall under the jurisdiction of US Fish & Game.

 

Section III C - The targeting of Category 1 species is unlawful and punishable under Section 13(c) of this Act.

So without having to refer to the bill, what it says is that animals designated restricted aren't to be hunted. They have 3 classifications. Restricted, Protected and Unprotected. There is only designation of protection for the "restricted" animals. So here's my question, if you can hunt an animal designated protected, is it really protected? The answer is no. Protected animals means they're protected by the state and not allowed to be hunted except with special permit issued by said state.

 

 Section IV A -  Hunting within the State serves two purposes. Removing bad and sick specimens from the population, and the prevention of harmful overpopulation. Therefore, it shall become lawful for individuals to hunt within the State, if the following requirements are met:

The purpose of hunting as far as any state is concerned does not define it as "removing bad and sick specimens from the population and the prevention of harmful overpopulation." Think about what you're asking for there. You're asking a hunter, to give the state money to get a license to be able to harvest an animal that he wouldn't be able to eat or consume, or whatever. Nobody is going to want to eat a sick animal. Considering how close some of the animal sicknesses are to Mad Cow and how the public at one point was in a great fear about Mad Cow Disease spreading to humans? Who would actually do that? Nobody would. The states by and large hire wildlife biologists to study and monitor herds and then if a herd or some in the herd needs to be culled, the Game Wardens of the state generally take care of that. That's not hunting though. That's game and herd management, which is also what the latter part of that is for overpopulation. However the way that it's usually handled is the issuance of a WMP (Wildlife Management Permit) which allows a number of permits defined by a study issued by a wildlife biologist that does not count towards the usage of a hunter's issued tags. Basically what it means is extra tags issued  for hunting on specific land at a specific time. I was not able to find in a state law anywhere a purpose of hunting in legislature. So this should probably be taken out.

 

 Section IV A (1) - The hunter is over the age of 21;

I know what you're trying to do. And keep things in line with firearm law. But saying someone has to be 21 years old to hunt is unrealistic. Every state offers youth hunting and fishing licenses for everyone under the age of 17, usually for free or for a small fee of 5-10 dollars. In fact, every state actually heavily promotes youth hunting programs and actually facilitates organized youth hunts as a tool for herd management in wildlife management areas and private ranches. It is possible to be able to allow hunting by a youth who is not of age to purchase a weapon.

 

Section V A(1) - There shall be no more than 1 hunter per 10 ft2.

So this is in the fishing section. Hunters are not fisherman. You don't hunt a fish. It's not the same thing. And I couldn't find any legislation on the number of square feet between fisherman. I'm gonna guess this is something arbitrary and has no business being in.

 

Section V B(1) - Hunter is to wear a life jacket (concerning fishing from a boat.)
People who fish are still fisherman. The state of California and in fact most if not all states do not require people above the age of the 13 to wear a life jacket. The boating laws in the majority of states with lakes and coastal waters state that there must be at least one Coast Guard approved life jacket present per occupant on the boat appropriate for the activity they are engaging in. But that doesn't mean they have to wear them. According to California Law, the only time you must be wearing a life jacket at all times is when you're operating a personal watercraft (jet ski), or are being towed behind a vessel (skiing, kneeboarding, wakeboarding, tubing). And honestly, there's no reason for life jacket laws to be included into a bill for hunting. That lends the notion that if you're not hunting or fishing, these laws don't apply to you. Also there's nothing noted about throwable Type IV floatation devices for people on board either which is required in California for vessels that are 16 feet or longer.

 

Section V B(3) - Hunter is to keep their lines away from fairways

I don't actually understand the purpose of this law. If you're trying to say you can't anchor in a thoroughfare, say that. But saying you can't have lines in one, that doesn't make a ton of sense. Fisherman, not hunters are going to keep their lines safe from being cut by passing boats anyhow. Plus, you need to actually define what you're classifying as fairways on the water. Because the basic definition of a fairway when concerning water is - "A navigable deep water channel in a river or harbor or along a coastline. b. The usual course taken by vessels through a harbor or coastal waters.". Now given that we're on an island, that must be defined. Because the way you're currently defining it is, you're not allowed to fish from a boat in any of the rivers or near the coast. Define it.

 

Also, concerning section V which is the fishing section, there is no mention of a fishing license. Every state with any sort of fishing requires a license to do so, and it makes no sense for people to have a hunting license but no fishing license. It's extra state revenue, and also what isn't defined

 

Section VI A - Hunters that are entering, traversing through or staying in a designated hunting area are to always wear the appropriate hunting attire, this includes an orange vest or piece of clothing covering their torso and orange headwear, in order to prevent hunter-on-hunter accidents.

California has no requirements to wear orange. If we're mirroring their laws, we shouldn't either.

 

Section VI D - Hunters shall exclusively use long guns to hunt

So the way this is worded, and it's because we didn't correctly define long guns leads the belief that you must use the hunting rifle. Shotgun hunting, muzzle loaders, and bow hunting is a huge business and the majority of states have exclusive archery and muzzle loader seasons. Muzzle loaders are not classified as long guns, or guns at all. Even if we don't have bows in game, there's no reason to outlaw them. Also, take a moment to consider that even though you're defining hunting of birds as legal, it is expected to maintain a legal hunting status that you shoot a bird with a rifle. Every state allows hunting with a shotgun, in fact some states and areas inside of states only allow shotgun hunting for deer. It's called buck shot for a reason.

 

Section VI E - The act of hunting is to be executed within one of the designated hunting areas described in Section IX

Never is defined.  The only thing that Section IX actually says is that there is established hunting grounds and serves as a guide to changing hunting areas. It doesn't actually say where you can and cannot hunt.

 

Section VI G - It shall be unlawful to execute the act of hunting while having direct line of sight of a structure or road.

What the law actually says for this is  - it is illegal to shoot within 150 yards of a dwelling or building without owner permission, from or across any graded or public road, or from any type of motor vehicle. On most public lands in California, you may not drive off existing roads and trails to hunt, even to retrieve downed game animals.

 

Section VII A - Hunter shall not engage in the act of fishing when there are swimmers within 200 feet from the position they're fishing from

There are no laws on the books anywhere in the state of California, or anywhere that I could find that marked a minimum distance that must be maintained between fisherman, still not hunters by the way, and swimmers. It also lends the notion that if someone is fishing, and someone decides they want to swim instead, the fisherman must stop fishing. That's not how that works.

 

Section VII B - Hunter shall not engage in the act of fishing on a dock when there is any vehicle positioned on said dock

So you shouldn't park your car on a dock anyways. Now if what is meant and I'm sure that's what is meant - a vehicle moored to a dock, I could find no laws on books in any state similar to this. Also it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If I'm on a dock 100 yards long, and someone is moored up 50 yards behind me, the way that law is written says I can't fish off the dock. Makes no sense and is impractical.

 

Entirety of Section VIII - Tagging

Pigs don't require tags in the majority of states. Just possession of a valid hunting license. That goes the same for coyotes, rabbits, waterfowl, and upland game birds. Waterfowl also require a federal duck stamp. Also there is no place for people to actively purchase tags in game. Also there is nothing stating how long the tag has to remain at the animal. Usually speaking the laws on that say it must remain with the complete animal until it's reached it's final destination, which is either your home where you will process it, or to a butcher, who will process the animal for you.

 

 

Section IX - Designated Hunting Areas

Already covered this above

 

Section X 1 - Hunting with an insufficient or over sufficient caliber rifle 

No such laws for over sufficient calibers of rifle exist that I could find. Insufficient calibers of rifle? Yes. Also the definition of an insufficient caliber needs to be defined.

 

Section XII A 4 - Is a legal resident of San Andreas

Out of state hunting licenses are massive moneymaker for states. People come from all over the world to hunt things only native to certain areas. Declaring the state is not open to out of state hunters makes no sense and is basically throwing money out the window.

 

Section XII A 5 - Completes an exam, as designed by the Office of the governor, to ensure that the regulations and rules henceforth disclosed in this bill are followed by the potential licensee

I don't know of any state that has anything like this. What states do however have is the requirement to take a Hunter's Education Program. But that is a glorified safety course that is federally funded. States give away books/pamphlets that have the hunting laws as well as seasons and bag limits in them versus making people take a test to understand the laws.

 

Section XIII C Poaching - The act of dispatching specimens that are classed under Category 1, or the act of dispatching a specimen they do not hold a tag for.

Still need tags, and animals/fish in Category 2 should be added to that list as well otherwise, they wouldn't be classified as "Protected" after all.

 

Section XIII F - Fishing Safety Violation - the act of breaking the safety rules set forth in Section VII

So given that you don't currently have to have a license to fish, which is unrealistic in it's own right, someone can't be punished for a fishing violation by the Fish and Wildlife Agency. And also given the fact that there are no laws that actually govern the act of fishing and which species are allowed to be kept and daily bag/possession limits, what's the purpose? To make sure that people stay far apart and don't fish near swimmers? I've already spoken about that.

 

 

Commands to add: None

Items to add: A realistic bill after some research

How would your suggestion improve the server? Well, the main thing is, it would be in line with what is realistic in terms of hunting law. I know we like realism here.

Additional information:

So it's obvious to me that this was hastily written and approved, without any or much thought to impact of the hunting/fishing by people who probably have never hunted or fished before, and I understand it. But I would implore LFM to take a look at this bill and have it rewritten on the grounds of it being highly unrealistic.

  • Upvote 11
  • Thanks 1
  • Applaud 2
Link to comment

Laws are an IC thing, proposed by actual existing characters. Deal with it IC. Contact your state senators with your complaints.

On the other hand, for your information when you do that, we aren't mirroring California or we would just use California legal statutes. Most federal law doesn't apply in San Andreas either.

 

Some of the complaints make sense, some are just unnecessarily nitpicky for no reason. What species of deer are there on the server? Who knows and who cares? It makes no sense to start distinguishing among species of deer in IC law when that distinction is meaningless in-game. It's just overcomplicating for the sake of overcomplicating.

Edited by hillievonb
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, mattmocz said:

What about the bill is unrealistic? This bill was approved by LFM.

Did you read anything I wrote? I literally gave a line by line break down of the unrealistic portions of the bill.

 

  

3 minutes ago, hillievonb said:

Laws are an IC thing, proposed by actual existing characters. Deal with it IC. Contact your state senators with your complaints.

On the other hand, for your information when you do that, we aren't mirroring California or we would just use California legal statutes. Most federal law doesn't apply in San Andreas either.

 

Some of the complaints make sense, some are just unnecessarily nitpicky for no reason. What species of deer are there on the server? Who knows and who cares? It makes no sense to start distinguishing among species of deer in IC law when that distinction is meaningless in-game. It's just overcomplicating for the sake of overcomplicating.

Considering you're writing the laws that govern these things? You, should be specific? I mean - I would think that you'd want to specify what it is that you're actually writing this bill to govern. Maybe no. If you're not, that's my mistake.

Edited by SaintBatemanofWallStreet
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, hillievonb said:

Laws are an IC thing, proposed by actual existing characters. Deal with it IC. Contact your state senators with your complaints.

On the other hand, for your information when you do that, we aren't mirroring California or we would just use California legal statutes. Most federal law doesn't apply in San Andreas either.

 

Some of the complaints make sense, some are just unnecessarily nitpicky for no reason. What species of deer are there on the server? Who knows and who cares? It makes no sense to start distinguishing among species of deer in IC law when that distinction is meaningless in-game. It's just overcomplicating for the sake of overcomplicating.

It's a matter of realism and portrayal of an actual functioning government body, rather than just being nitpicky for the sake of being nitpicky. Government bodies are nitpicky to avoid loopholes in their system. Your entire point is moot with the first bullet point of the continuity summary.

Link to comment

As the author of the bill, I think you've raised valid concerns. I have been unspecific with my wording, and that is something you've clearly caught me out on. Most of my research was based around hunting laws from several states, including California, and I have taken parts of each to make an all encompassing bill. As for the inconsistencies and missed flaws, we normally go through rigorous IC validations, which weren't there for this bill as we had been given the notice from LFM that we were to implement it as soon as possible (the closer to the release of the script, the better). Which is what it is, and clearly delivered an incomplete, rushed and flawed final product. I have already composed several amendments that i have noticed myself and I will take yours into consideration as well. This time the bill will get the proper attention it needs. 

Edited by Jimenez
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Jimenez said:

As the author of the bill, I think you've raised valid concerns. I have been unspecific with my wording, and that is something you've clearly caught me out on. Most of my research was based around hunting laws from several states, including California, and I have taken parts of each to make an all encompassing bill. As for the inconsistencies and missed flaws, we normally go through rigorous IC validations, which weren't there for this bill as we had been given the notice from LFM that we were to implement it as soon as possible (the closer to the release of the script, the better). Which is what it is, and clearly delivered an incomplete, rushed and flawed final product. I have already composed several amendments that i have noticed myself and I will take yours into consideration as well. This time the bill will get the proper attention it needs. 

That's all I'm asking to be done. If you need any help, I'll be more than willing to do so. Hunting and fishing is kinda my jam. And you gotta know the laws on it to do it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, hillievonb said:

Laws are an IC thing, proposed by actual existing characters. Deal with it IC. Contact your state senators with your complaints.

While I'd be inclined to agree with you, this bill was literally posted and passed within 24 hours to go along with the hunting update. Lets not act like there was much "IC" about it.

 

I'm a pretty inexperience hunter, I passed my states hunter safety course as a teen and go every few years to hunt with my father. Hunting is by no means a subject I'm well versed in but even I was raising my eyebrows at a few choices. It may seem minor but if your a hunter these are actually huge blunders. 

 

The hunting blacklist like OP mentioned just doesn't exist lol. I've heard of hunters having their firearms confiscated by the DNR for violations but like OP said it has nothing to do with a blacklist, it's because they committed a fucking felony lmao. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Applaud 1
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...