[DISCARDED] Banning Pets a Minor Faux-Paw? (Former Premise)

[Jutsa]

So, here's one of not two, not five, but three drafts dedicated to the ban on pets.

They'll be spaced about... maybe four months apart each? Furthermore, this and the next one both take one option from Ransium's original pet draft.
I also took the title for this one(duh), but the actual focus of the draft was incorporated into the next one I have lined up. >:3

I hope you enjoy. Any feedback is welcome.

Title: Banning Pets a Minor Faux-Paw?
The Issue: Upon attempting to go outside, you tripped over a massive congregation of wild cats, dogs, mice, pigeons, and @@ANIMALPLURAL@@. With the animals whining for food and the citizens whining to take care of them, you've decided that now's a good time to prompt a discussion about the ban on pets.
Validity: (Option 2 and title taken from Ransium) Pets are banned but not being eliminated

Option 1: You walk up to what appears to be a disgruntled ex-cat lady, trying to feed some of the cats, which may be why they're all huddled around your office. "This is a disaster of the worst magnitude, @@LEADER@@. Every day I come out, wondering if my cats are safe, and I have to witness your tired, huddled masses competing with @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ for food. We need to relegalize pets so we can take care of them, and put an end to this tragedy."
[effect] residents are disgusted to see furry critters wizzing on their rugs again

Option 2: "No! Don't listen to her!" yells @@RANDOMNAME@@, a member of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Everything, pushing the lady out of the way. "We went through all of this, now we can't let animals be slaves again! Animals are free to be themselves, now! We have no more animal abuse, no more time-wasting cat videos, and… uh… plenty of other things! People need to move on and stop feeding these animals, so they in turn stop crowding around our towns and cities!"
[effect] citizens must refrain from sharing their lasagna with rogue orange tabbies

Validity: Nation has zoos
Option 3: "Look, we can't deny that some pets need to be taken care of," starts @@RANDOMNAME@@, who some neighbors suspect of animal mistreatment in the past, "but we don't need to keep onto independent creatures like cats. We should limit the amount of animals and what kinds of animals so that only the smallest, most dependable critters can be supported, and the more dangerous ones can be put into zoos. That'll decrease the amount of traffic in our cities!"
[effect] huskies and shepherds are forced to live in overcrowded zoos

Validity: Nation has no zoos
Option 4: "Look, we can't deny that some pets need to be taken care of," starts @@RANDOMNAME@@, who some neighbors suspect of animal mistreatment in the past, "but we don't need to keep onto independent creatures like cats. We should limit the amount of animals and what kinds of animals so that only the smallest, most dependable critters can be supported. Cats can fend for themselves, you know. That'll decrease the amount of traffic in our cities!"
[effect] forests are overcrowded with cats and snakes while apartments are overcrowded with goldfish and guinea-pigs

Option 5: "Just kill 'em like I said," says a mustachioed local-government employee. "Problem solved."
[effect] rats and their diseases are moving into cities due to the execution of cats

Title: Banning Pets a Minor Faux-Paw?
The Issue: Upon attempting to go outside, you tripped over a massive congragation of wild cats, dogs, mice, pidgeons, and @@ANIMALPLURAL@@. With the animals whining for food and the citizens whining to take care of them, you've decided that now's a good time to prompt a discussion about the ban on pets.
Validity: (Option 2 and title taken from Ransium) Pets are banned but not being eliminated

Option 1: You walk up to what appears to be a disgruntled ex-cat lady, trying to feed some of the cats, which may be why they're all huddled around your office. "This is a disaster of the worst magnitude, @@LEADER@@. Every day I come out, wondering if my cats are safe, and I have to witness your tired, huddled masses competing with @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ for food. We need to relegalize pets so we can take care of them, and put an end to this tragedy."
[effect] residents are disgusted to see furry critters wizzing on their rugs again

Option 2: "No! Don't listen to her!" yells @@RANDOMNAME@@, a member of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Everything, pushing the lady out of the way. "We went through all of this, now we can't let animals be slaves again! Animals are free to be themselves, now! We have no more animal abuse, no more time-wasting cat videos, and… uh… plenty of other things! People need to move on and stop feeding these animals, so they in turn stop crowding around our towns and cities!"
[effect] citizens must refrain from sharing their lasagna with rogue orange tabbies

Validity: Nation has zoos
Option 3: "Look, we can't deny that some pets need to be taken care of," starts @@RANDOMNAME@@, who some neighbors suspect of animal mistreatment in the past, "but we don't need to keep onto independent creatures like cats. We should limit the amount of animals and what kinds of animals so that only the smallest, most dependable critters can be supported, and the more dangerous ones can be put into zoos. That'll decrease the amount of traffic in our cities!"
[effect] huskies and shephards are forced to live in overcrowded zoos

Validity: Nation has no zoos
Option 4: "Look, we can't deny that some pets need to be taken care of," starts @@RANDOMNAME@@, who some neighbors suspect of animal mistreatment in the past, "but we don't need to keep onto independent creatures like cats. We should limit the amount of animals and what kinds of animals so that only the smallest, most dependable critters can be supported. Cats can fend for themselves, you know. That'll decrease the amount of traffic in our cities!"
[effect] forests are overcrowded with cats and snakes while appartments are overcrowded with bunnies and goldfish

Option 5: "Just kill 'em like I said," says a mustachioed local-government employee. "Problem solved."
[effect] rats and their diseases are moving into cities due to the execution of cats

(Heads up: One of the effect lines is a hint at what the third draft is about)

[Ransium]

Just so it’s clear, this was done with my approval.

[Trotterdam]

The Issue: Upon attempting to go outside, you tripped over a massive congragation of wild cats, dogs, mice, pidgeons, and @@ANIMALPLURAL@@. With the animals whining for food and the citizens whining to take care of them, you've decided that now's a good time to prompt a discussion about the ban on pets.

Spelling: "pigeons".

Beware that @@ANIMAL@@ could be a cat, dog, mouse, or pigeon, although to be fair, listing something twice to emphasize how much of it there is is a common comedian tactic, so it's not even necessarily a problem

However...

Description: While at town hall meeting to promote an important new government initiative on jaywalking prevention, you make the mistake of taking an unvetted question from an adorable little girl with pigtails, glasses, and a pink bow assuming it will be a softball. Little did you know...

I really liked Ransium's original premise. I admit to being biased in favor of adorable little girls with pigtails, glasses, and pink bows, but in addition to that, I was also amused by the caught-offguard-by-what-you-thought-would-be-a-softball thing. Plus, the crazy option I suggested only made sense with that premise

[effect] huskies and shephards are forced to live in overcrowded zoos

Spelling: "shepherds".

[effect] forests are overcrowded with cats and snakes while appartments are overcrowded with bunnies and goldfish

Spelling: "apartments".

But re: "independence", while cats are stereotypically disobedient to their humans, are they actually better at fending for themselves in the wild than bunnies? Rabbits are an invasive species in Australia (okay, everything is an invasive species in Australia) and quite successful in many other places. Even goldfish would probably do fine in nature, provided you release them into a lake rather than somewhere in the forest.

I don't think "independence" in the sense of being able to survive alone without human care and "independence" in the sense of being disobedient or domineering to your human caretakers necessarily correlate. Even many dogs can probably survive in the wild, at least the ones that aren't horribly inbred. Meanwhile a lot of strong-willed cats wouldn't know how to acquire food without pestering their humans into getting the can opener.

[Jutsa]

Spelling:
"pigeons"
"shepherds"
"apartments"

Thanks.

Beware that @@ANIMAL@@ could be a cat, dog, mouse, or pigeon, although to be fair, listing something twice to emphasize how much of it there is is a common comedian tactic, so it's not even necessarily a problem

Never even thought about that.

I really liked Ransium's original premise.

That's coming back in four months - a little differently, though. As much as I liked the character, it felt a little too one-sided in favor of reinstating pets, 'specially compared to the second speaker.

"independence", while cats are stereotypically disobedient to their humans, are they actually better at fending for themselves in the wild than bunnies?

Maybe not indoor cats, but cats are apparently very adept at surviving in the wild - and rabbits do so well partially because they breed like... well, rabbits.

Rabbits are an invasive species in Australia

Also true - again, because they breed like mad. This is made worse without cats around to "take care" of them.

Even goldfish would probably do fine in nature, provided you release them into a lake rather than somewhere in the forest.

Eh, maybe - I've never tried it.
I think I recall guinea pigs and goldfish being some of the worse ones to keep out in the world, but I really have no idea.
I'll still change "bunnies" to "guinea pigs" because I think that's more fitting and just as cute.

I don't think "independence" in the sense of being able to survive alone without human care and "independence" in the sense of being disobedient or domineering to your human caretakers necessarily correlate. Even many dogs can probably survive in the wild, at least the ones that aren't horribly inbred. Meanwhile a lot of strong-willed cats wouldn't know how to acquire food without pestering their humans into getting the can opener.

Fair enough - although outdoor cats can manage surprisingly well, if they can hunt. To be fair, though, they probably get handouts.

Edit: Updated. Also, fixed "congregation".

[Jutsa]

one doesn't often get the chance to correct Jutsa's spelling

Just found it amusing because it seems to me that it's not at all the case, if this draft's anything to go by.
(I was peaking around in there because I forgot to add Tasmania from All in the Family)

[Ransium]

You know that ‘minor’ in the title was a reference to the speaker you removed right?

Also I figured being a little biased wasn’t a bad thing, since it’s a reversal the nation is going to need new evidence to be proded in a different direction.

[Jutsa]

I did not know that.

Also, yeah, I guess that makes sense. I still changed the reversal option in my other draft (and moved it to option 4),
but you guys can tell me to put the girl back in if you don't like how it's currently set up.

[Australian rePublic]

What percentage are desexed?

[Jutsa]

I'm honestly not sure, Aussie.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I think what Aussie is saying is that any issue based on a premise on an excess of wild populations of household pets could probably be addressed by widespread neutering programs. In the US, most dogs are neutered and I understand that in some jurisdictions it's actually a crime to have your male dog in a shared public recreational space without neutering them. In Norway, on the other hand, there's a greater concern for the rights of the animal, and the Norwegian Animal Welfare Act says that surgery on animals should not be used to adapt them for the needs of humans.

It's an interesting ethical debate, and would probably make a good issue, or indeed, a better focus for this issue, which is a little directionless right now.

[Australian rePublic]

I think what Aussie is saying is that any issue based on a premise on an excess of wild populations of household pets could probably be addressed by widespread neutering programs. In the US, most dogs are neutered and I understand that in some jurisdictions it's actually a crime to have your male dog in a shared public recreational space without neutering them. In Norway, on the other hand, there's a greater concern for the rights of the animal, and the Norwegian Animal Welfare Act says that surgery on animals should not be used to adapt them for the needs of humans.

It's an interesting ethical debate, and would probably make a good issue, or indeed, a better focus for this issue, which is a little directionless right now.

Yep. Because if they were desexed when owned, they can't breed

[Jutsa]

... Huh

I never really thought about that.

Eh, in that case, I'll take this one off and start working on that idea.

That being said, I still want to work on a pet reversal issue, so I'm bringing out the second one next.

(also, hey, I can use this title for that one)