[ACCEPTED] Stray Bullets

[Jutsa]

Welp, I made a draft for nations that banned pets and killed strays.

Now it's time for a draft for nations that allow pets and kill strays.

I hope you enjoy!

Also, in addition to normal feedback, could you please let me know of the colors are helpful, distracting, or just pretty or ugly?

Title: Gone With The Strays?
The Issue: Following your decision to kill stray domestic animals, several of the animal control officers have accidentally killed household pets that were presumed to have gone astray, all while actual strays have gotten away unnoticed. The near impossibility to tell has called into question whether killing off strays was a good decision.
Validity: Nation has pets; strays are killed

Option 1: "An easy and effective solution would be to force every pet to wear a collar with a name tag saying who they belong to," suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@, an animal control officer who's killed more pets on afternoon strolls than strays. "They can then be taken in, have their owners notified, and then be picked up. If their owners are non-responsive, or they have no identification, then we can safely assume that they're feral."
[effect] radical environmentalists put collars with their names on them on every stray they find

Option 2: "Best solution? Do you know how expensive that'll be!" shouts your Minister of Finance. "Animal control is expensive enough already! Why should we be wasting more valuable resources on trying to kill some strays?" Your Environmental Minister then chimes in, saying, "Not to mention it's unethical! All of those poor animals, being killed for nothing. The solution is clear to me - we need to stop killing strays, once and for all."
[effect] feral and stray pets are wreaking havoc on towns and forests with their booming populations
[Flag change] Strays are no longer killed

Option 3: "Why don't you just ban pets?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, who was attacked by @@A@@ @@ANIMAL@@ on @@HIS@@ way over to your office. "Domestic animals are a burden on society, and banning them would mean you won't have to worry about accidentally killing one that isn't a stray or feral. What's that? They'd all be killed because they'd all be strays? Sounds like a good plan to me!"
[effect] domestic animals are required by law to be eradicated
[Flag change] Pets are illegal

Title: Gone With The Strays?
The Issue: Following your decision to kill stray domestic animals, several of the animal control officers have accidentally killed household pets that were presumed to have gone astray, all while actual strays have gotten away unnoticed. The near impossibility to tell has called into question whether killing off strays was a good decision.
Validity: Nation has pets; strays are killed

Option 1: "An easy and effective solution would be to force every pet to wear a collar with a name tag saying who they belong to," suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@, an animal control officer who's killed more pets on afternoon strolls than strays. "They can then be taken in, have their owners notified, and then be picked up. If their owners are non-responsive, or they have no identification, then we can safely assume that they're feral. Will it be costly? Yes. Will people like it? No, but it's the best solution all-around."
[effect] radical environmentalists put collars with their names on them on every stray they find

Option 2: "Best solution? Do you know how expensive that'll be!" shouts your Minister of Finance. "Animal control is expensive enough already! Why should we be wasting more valuable resources on trying to kill some strays?" Your Environmental Minister then chimes in, saying, "Not to mention it's unethical! All of those poor animals, being killed for nothing. The solution is clear to me - we need to stop killing strays, once and for all."
[effect] feral and stray pets are wreaking havoc on towns and forests with their booming populations
[Flag change] Strays are no longer killed

Option 3: "Why don't you just ban pets?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, who was attacked by @@A@@ @@ANIMAL@@ on @@HIS@@ way over to your office. "Domestic animals are a burden on society, and banning them would mean you won't have to worry about accidentally killing one that isn't a stray or feral. What's that? They'd all be killed because they'd all be strays? Sounds like a good plan to me!"
[effect] domestic animals are required by law to be eradicated
[Flag change] Pets are illegal

Title: Gone With The Strays?
The Issue: Following your decision to kill stray domestic animals, several of the executioners in charge have accidentally killed household pets that were presumed to be gone astray, all while actual strays have gone away unnoticed. The near impossibility to tell has called into question whether killing off strays was a good decision.
Validity: Nation has pets; strays are killed

Option 1: "I was just told that my third cat has been killed by these no-good executioners!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, who lives out in the middle of nowhere with a dozen cats. "How does that even happen? I beg of you to stop shooting animals at random! Have your policemen ask around so they can keep a list of all the animals that belong to everyone in the area. Maybe they could even return some missing ones if they're feeling generous enough."
[effect] every stray-executioner's list of animals not to shoot is heavier than their weapons

Option 2: "Do you know how expensive that is?" shouts your Minister of Finance. "It's expensive enough already! Why should we be wasting our valuable resources on trying to kill some strays?" Your Environmental Minister then chimes in, saying, "Not to mention it's unethical! All of those poor animals, being killed for nothing! We have to end this, once and for all!"
[effect] feral and stray pets are reaking havoc on towns and forests with their booming populations
[Flag change] Strays are no longer killed

Option 3: "Why don't you just ban pets?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, who was attacked by @@A@@ @@ANIMAL@@ on @@HIS@@ way over to your office. "Domestic animals are a burden on society, anyways, and banning them would mean you won't have to worry about accidentally killing them instead of the strays. What's that? They'd all be killed because they'd all be strays? Sounds like a good plan to me!"
[effect] domestic animals are required by law to be eradicated
[Flag change] Pets are illegal

[Trotterdam]

I assume the solution would be mandatory collars or ID chips for pets.

Also, it's spelled "wreaking".

The term "executioner" also sounds more like what you'd call someone in charge of killing humans. Animal rights advocates might use it to refer to the people putting down strays, but the government probably wouldn't. I'm not sure what a better term would be though.

[Jutsa]

I assume the solution would be mandatory collars or ID chips for pets.

Those are some interesting ideas! Lets see, though...
@collars: Strays would still have collars too (though feral-born animals* wouldn't).
ID chips are a possibility, though... might try incorporating that one.

Also, it's spelled "wreaking".

Teehee, thanks.

The term "executioner" also sounds more like what you'd call someone in charge of killing humans. Animal rights advocates might use it to refer to the people putting down strays, but the government probably wouldn't. I'm not sure what a better term would be though.

Think "animal control officer" would work?

[Trotterdam]

@collars: Strays would still have collars too (though feral-born animals* wouldn't).

The collar would probably have a tag with the owner's contact information. I mean, it's not supposed to just be a fashion statement. ID chips are just a higher-tech way of doing the same thing.

Standard procedure would be to take the animal into temporary custody while trying to find the owner using the address on the collar. If you can't manage to contact the owner or the owner refuses to take the animal back, you can conclude the collar is invalid and destroy the animal.

You could have some PETA types trying to cheat by collaring all the strays they can find to make the government's work harder, but that would be an entertaining "unexpected consequence" in the effect line or even a possibility for a followup issue if you plan on taking this unlikely chain of events that far.

Think "animal control officer" would work?

Sure.

[Jutsa]

Draft 2.0's up. Completely changed the first option and its speaker.

(also cleaned up the dialogue overall - I think)

Edit2: I really don't intend to take this down any further chains, myself.

Edit3: In fact, I only have one more issue that involves the ban on pets

[Jutsa]

Bump of the day~

[Australian rePublic]

When we got a shelter dog, she was so scared of us that she would manage to take her collar off and run away. When she got used to us, and we left her with a dog sitter, she physically broke the collar and ran back home. Thankfully, she was microchipped. They just simply checked the microchip and saw she was ours. Another thing you could do is capture, desex, release, which could have the funny consequences of "families who return from vacation often find their unmicrochiped pets have been desexed"

[Techolandia]

I just had an idea for an out-in-left-field option that you could put in:

"These strays are valuable resources for our economy," claims Minister of Labor @@RANDOMNAME@@, who typically gets to work on horseback. "Just round them up, give them harnesses, and then put them to work. Sure, animal rights groups will complain, but who cares about them? I'll even supervise the whole thing. After all, my title doesn't say Minister of Human Labor."
Fallout: Most of @@NAME@@'s crops are stray-plowed.

[Jutsa]

I like both of these ideas, but they really seem more appropriate for the issue about strays.

This draft's specifically about killing non-strays on accident.

[Techolandia]

I like both of these ideas, but they really seem more appropriate for the issue about strays.

This draft's specifically about killing non-strays on accident.

Well where are we supposed to put them? It's not like already-existing issues have new options added every day.

[Australian rePublic]

I like both of these ideas, but they really seem more appropriate for the issue about strays.

This draft's specifically about killing non-strays on accident.

Yep, I was just explaining HOW domesticated animals find themselves in that situation

Also option 2, or you can just desex them, the effect can be about people coming home from holidays to discover that their pets have been de-sexec

[Trotterdam]

I like both of these ideas, but they really seem more appropriate for the issue about strays.

Both of those are already on the original issue about strays, as options 2 and 4. (Option 4 isn't quite general-purpose work, but it's in the same spirit.)

Fallout: Most of @@NAME@@'s crops are stray-plowed.

Also, when you start taking strays and putting them to work, they stop being strays.

[Techolandia]

I like both of these ideas, but they really seem more appropriate for the issue about strays.

Both of those are already on the original issues about strays, as options 2 and 4. (Option 4 isn't quite general-purpose work, but it's in the same spirit.)

Fallout: Most of @@NAME@@'s crops are stray-plowed.

Also, when you start taking strays and putting them to work, they stop being strays.

Good catch. How about plowed by former strays?

[Jutsa]

We already have an option for desexing too — which is why I completely discarded my first pet reversal issue.
In fact, that's in the same issue that permits killing strays, bans pets, and puts them to work.

Pretty sure I don't want to add more options unless a really amazing case could be made for one.

[Jutsa]

Bump! Uh... any more suggestions?

[Trotterdam]

several of the animal control officers have accidentally killed household pets that were presumed to be gone astray, all while actual strays have gone away unnoticed

I'd do "have gone" for the former, and "have gotten" for the latter.

[Jutsa]

Updated. Thanks.

[Jutsa]

Well, unless there are any major changes suggested, final bump.

[Sacara]

I know I'm not too experienced in the whole writing issues thing, but I do have a question. In option one, the speaker says the adverse side effects to his own solution, while in option two you repeat that. Wouldn't a speaker like to boast his own solution, and just have the part where your finance minister says the side effects? Those are just my two cents, other the issue looks good.

[Jutsa]

Oh yeah you do have a point there. Cutting out that part of option 1.

[Jutsa]

It has been submitted! Thanks, everyone.

[Sacara]

Good luck, Jutsa!

[Fauxia]

Good luck, Jutsa

[Jutsa]

Thanks, guys.