Lower Austrian State laws for the protection of the mole In the crisis year 1920 was passed by the lower Austrian Parliament a separate State law for the protection of the Mole. This Mole protection law regulated the prohibition of capture and killing of the mole in lower Austria, Austria in the first Republic. Lower Austrian State laws for the protection of the mole should prevent an unhindered catch and kill. The capture and killing of the moles in the province of lower Austria by this mole protection law was 1920 allowed only under very specific conditions. This development will now be published in the series of LawLeaks. Milwaukee Brewers has plenty of information regarding this issue. The prohibition of capture and killing and its exceptions trap was basically killing the mole in lower Austria from 1920 prohibited There were exceptions to this prohibition in the 1920’s Mole Protection Act but for decorative and commercial gardens, vegetable crops and pastures. When meadows the mole protection law and its prohibitions but only from October 1 was up to the 28th of February, so in autumn and winter time. Even when dams There was a relevant exception for landlords, tenants and beneficiaries. clicking through. For scientific purposes, and on extraordinary occasions special permits for the capture and killing of the mole could be given in addition. The prohibition of buying, selling, bidding on or Bevorratigens about there was a ban of buying, selling, of offering and of the Bevorratigens of moles in the province of lower Austria by this mole Protection Act 1920. Also the other leave of moles in the dead or living condition was expressly prohibited. It found but no application for scientific purposes or stuffed moles. The post offices, the railways and steam navigation company were allowed to adopt only Mole skins to dispatch, if their origin was clarified. CVS often expresses his thoughts on the topic. Enforcement of the mole Protection Act 1920 the community boards, the gendarmerie and security police, the market police the country culture guards were obliged, breaches this Mole Protection Act to bring the district authorities to the display. Penalties were fines of 1,000 crowns, in case of recurrence of 2,000 crowns and imprisonment of up to 30 days. The seizure of the mole and the mole skins of fishing tools were also provided. Live animals were in the freedom to dismiss. The teacher had an obligation to educate schoolchildren about the harmfulness of the capture and killing of moles.
Philo sophos portrait: Fortune briefly and concisely all people seek happiness. No one will disagree. However, what is happiness? How should we live, so we’re happy? The modern, contemporary answer to this question is: everyone is his happiness Schmid. The manner in which the people seek to achieve the common goal of all is very different. Happiness is regarded as a purely private matter. Happiness lies in the meeting the needs, and because each person has different needs and in particular an other rank and value system of the needs, therefore each represents something of their own and other see luck. Happiness is a purely subjective and completely private sensation of pleasure. Actually even the topic could be ending. General requirements (E.g. all your wishes may come true \”\”) or non-binding advice (E.g. watch your health \”\”)-, more and another can be in the context of a radical privatization and individualization of Happiness, as it was formative in Western thought, apparently not present. Nobody is happy, who is not in favour of\”, or everyone is happy, who holds only.\” However: Philosophizing is a thing on their land. There, where the thing is visible in their last terms. Before we initiate at this point, two questions or taken for granted must be pronounced and set apart: 1) it is necessary so that happiness can be experienced only as private, subjective state? Or forms of happiness to imagine that are depending on to see the happiness of individual people not primarily its private purposes, but other, more objective values or goods? (2) even if happiness is seen necessary in private, subjective needs, so if any when searching for him on his own experiences thrown back looks-, is thus the way to this lucky already detected and mapped out? Now, the listener will notice it: the questions are rhetorical. It is not necessary to understand happiness only as a purely subjective state.