[SUBMITTED] Here's Looking At Zoo, Kid

[Socio Polor]

The No Zoos Policy Reversal:

Title: Here's Looking At Zoo, Kid

Validity: No Zoos Policy

Description: Following the abolishment of zoos, the International Bureau of Land Management has recently released its annual census report. According to the report, between 1/100th to 1/10th of certain wildlife were observed to be non-responsive in their natural habitats. @@randomname@@, one of the bureau's more eminent ecologists, made a statement at a press conference: "By observing these animals, it revealed to us that due to being held captive at a young age, it has rendered them incapable of coping in the wild."

Option 1: “Why am I not surprised? Oh wait, cause I totally saw this coming,” asserts @@randomname@@, former director of the @@name@@ National Park Zoo, who you noticed was standing behind you wearing a giraffe suit. “It’s a sad scene, isn’t it? Those poor giraffes out alone in the wild with no way of defending themselves from predators, like lions. The answer is simple, reopen all the zoo exhibits to ensure the animals are out of danger, and I’ll get to massaging those long necks,” @@he@@ says, as you suddenly find yourself in a giraffe costume.
Effect: giraffes are worshipped for their necks while lions are loathed

Option 2: “If you knew this would happen, why haven’t you done anything you giraffe loving yo-yo?” questions your Secretary of Wildlife Conservation, @@randomname@@, who somehow snuck on your lap in a tiger costume. “Training and rehabilitation are what we need here. Some animals, such as lions, seeing as they are much better than giraffes, can be trained to reside back in the wild. Granted, it’ll take much effort and funding, but I know you wouldn’t refuse @@leader@@. After all, that lion suit looks grrreeaat on you!” @@he@@ exclaims, as you somehow find yourself in the new costume.
Effect: the new “Cats” movie has garnered a cult-like following

Option 3: “I think the real issue is the fact my fellow secretary can’t tell the difference between a tiger and a lion,” utters Secretary of Species Correction, @@randomname@@, who’s wearing a shirt that reads “Who’s coming up with these positions?” “Though I concur we shouldn’t keep animals away from their place in the wild, I think we should focus on highly endangered animals, such as the nimple sucker. Can you believe there’s only 20 of them left? We can’t risk having what remains of their already tiny population killed off by predators. I propose we set up reserves solely dedicated to holding animals facing extinction. We’ll feed them and feed them, at least until they get their numbers back up.”
Effect: endangered is reclassified as “animals at risk of becoming obese”

Option 4: Amid the discourse, a child leading a group of hyenas approaches your desk. “Wild? There’s nothin’ wild about these guys at all, though they do seem really hungry.” @@he@@ tosses a bone, and within seconds a hyena jumps to grab it and lands on your desk in one swoop. “I hate seeing animals not being able to roam free, but I don’t want to see some of them extinct either. Hey, why don’t you let us adopt some of these ‘wild’ creatures, dear @@leader@@? Not just as pets, but as great companions; think of how awesome that would be!”
Effect: the newest Geo Wild documentary series is "Geo Urban"

Title: The Grass Is Greener

Description: The International Bureau of Land Management has recently released its annual census report. According to the report, between 1/100th and 1/10th of certain wildlife is seen to be non-responsive in their natural habitats. @@randomname@@, one of the bureau's more eminent ecologists made a statement at a press conference, "By observing these animals, it revealed to us that some of them were held captive at a young age. This captivity has led them to be unable to cope in the wild..."

Validity: Zoos Are Outlawed

Option 1: "I warned you this would happen, I..told...you...all!" exclaims @@randomname@@, former director of the @@name@@ National Zoo with an angry expression. "You ban zoos, my livelihood, now look at the outcome; hundreds of poor animals with no way to fend for themselves out there alone, starving, scared and possibly getting eaten as we speak!" @@he@@ continues handing you a piece of paper, "sign that paper there and we can bring our animals back home in their ca-why there sweet new habitats I have in store for them."
Effect: grown tigers have become like domestic cats

Option 2: "No one, not a single soul gives a @@animal@@s butthole about those pests and you know it," asserts @@randommalename@@ with curious scratch marks on his face. "What's done is done. While you're at it you should forbid any mention of giraffes, elephants, dogs and...CAT!" he spots a stray outside your window and chases after it.
Effect: preschoolers are taught that humans are the only life on earth

Option 3: "You might not care about these creatures, but I do," affirms @@randomname@@, a veterinarian at @@capital@@ Animal Medical Center. "@@leader@@, if you don't want to reinstate zoos, that's understandable, but please hear me out." @@he@@ shows you the census report and flips to a page pointing at an underlined section, "See here, it says that a good amount of the animals they've looked at are endangered. You don't have to take them all in, but please, we must save the ones that face extinction."
Effect: non-endangered animals are hunted to the point of extinction

[Socio Polor]

I may need some assistance with coming up with some better effect lines (the ones I have are stupid). Aside from that, How do you guys like it?

[Socio Polor]

I may need some assistance with coming up with some better effect lines (the ones I have are stupid). Aside from that, How do you guys like it?

Still can't think of any better effect lines. However, I am thinking of changing the title to something like "My Zootopia" or "Welcome Back, Zootopia" In reference to Disney's film Zootopia which by the way is a great movie

[Australian rePublic]

Released animals only effect the current generation. It's not a problem for the next gen

[Socio Polor]

Released animals only effect the current generation. It's not a problem for the next gen

True, but it's the current gen that'll have to raise and take care of the newer gen. The current gen won't be able to do that if they can hardly take care of themselves

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

I think it would be good to mention right in the beginning of the description that this problem has emerged after the zoo animals were released into the wild. The final two sentences mention captivity, but it comes a tad too late, I think.

Also, this issue is quite susceptible to having a crazy option and I don't know why you haven't added one.

Some thoughts that come to my mind are:

1. Creating a "luxury resort/sanctuary" for wild animals where they roam free but are fed by designated "sanctuary officials."
2. Instituting a rigorous training program for wild animals (incl. teaching them how to hunt, etc.) before releasing them into the wild (this would obviously necessitate bringing back zoos for at least a temporary period).
3. Encouraging people to "adopt" these vulnerable animals.

and so on.

I like this, though. I think this issue idea has potential.

[Makdon]

Effect: non-endangered animals are hunted to the point of extinction

This one seems a bit much, especially if you consider that some nations might have hunting allowed, or no guns, or something like that. Even if that isn't actually something they can legislate, it seems like that might go against some peoples ideas for their nations. Not sure if that's really a valid critique though

[Socio Polor]

I think it would be good to mention right in the beginning of the description that this problem has emerged after the zoo animals were released into the wild. The final two sentences mention captivity, but it comes a tad too late, I think.

This is something I have considered when writing the issue. However, I didn't want to mention the abolishment of zoos in the description since not only would it be a bit stale and redundant, the report is international and isn't from @@name@@. However, the reference of animals that were once captive having difficulty in the wild will make @@demonymplural@@ reflect on their decision to ban zoos and make them feel they're partially responsible for those percentage of animals struggling.

Also, this issue is quite susceptible to having a crazy option and I don't know why you haven't added one.

Some thoughts that come to my mind are:

1. Creating a "luxury resort/sanctuary" for wild animals where they roam free but are fed by designated "sanctuary officials."
2. Instituting a rigorous training program for wild animals (incl. teaching them how to hunt, etc.) before releasing them into the wild (this would obviously necessitate bringing back zoos for at least a temporary period).
3. Encouraging people to "adopt" these vulnerable animals.

and so on.

Yes, I was considering this as well, though couldn't think of another option to choose. I'll definitely consider your suggestions.

I like this, though. I think this issue idea has potential.

Thanks FuF!

Effect: non-endangered animals are hunted to the point of extinction

This one seems a bit much, especially if you consider that some nations might have hunting allowed, or no guns, or something like that. Even if that isn't actually something they can legislate, it seems like that might go against some peoples ideas for their nations. Not sure if that's really a valid critique though

This will certainly be altered, thanks!

[Trotterdam]

2. Instituting a rigorous training program for wild animals (incl. teaching them how to hunt, etc.) before releasing them into the wild (this would obviously necessitate bringing back zoos for at least a temporary period).

I'm pretty sure real-life conservation scientists actually do this.

[Socio Polor]

2. Instituting a rigorous training program for wild animals (incl. teaching them how to hunt, etc.) before releasing them into the wild (this would obviously necessitate bringing back zoos for at least a temporary period).

I'm pretty sure real-life conservation scientists actually do this.

It's more related to wildlife conservation. Nonetheless, I'll be sure to look into this

[Lelscrep]

Option to pit all released animals from the zoo in an enclosed free for all to decide which ones get rehabilitated.

[Socio Polor]

Updated! I've decided to completely rewrite this draft and I plan to enter it in the contest.

[Socio Polor]

Bumpy bump

[Socio Polor]

With the power of a click, I make thee draft reappear

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

I think it would be better (stylistically) to use indirect/reported speech in the description instead of a direct quote.

Other than that, why are these people wearing animal costumes? It may have been intended as a joke, but it doesn't contribute much humor and is just loosely hanging there.

I have just been warned regarding an effect line where I attempted to create an NS version of Hello Kitty and called it Hello Pussy. I was reminded that Pussy is not PG-13 (apparently even when the intended meaning is a feline). The same must apply to your first effect line. (Also what does "lions are pussies" mean anyway?) And remember that Issues Editors do not prefer to have commas in an effect line. Conjoined clauses are usually avoided.

Option 3 seems fragmented, with the speaker dividing his/her attention between attacking the previous speaker vs. introducing a very different point. I would suggest focusing on the latter point here. Also nimple suckers are not as funny as you think.

The steak reference in Option 4 requires a validity check for compulsory vegetarianism, and I would rather change the steak than restrict the pool of nations to which this issue can be sent.

[Socio Polor]

Yay! Someone commented. Let's see here:

I think it would be better (stylistically) to use indirect/reported speech in the description instead of a direct quote.

I typically don't use direct quotes in my descriptions all too often, but in this scenario I find it appropriate as the ecologist made a speech. Though I'll consider altering that if I get more feedback.

why are these people wearing animal costumes? It may have been intended as a joke, but it doesn't contribute much humor and is just loosely hanging there.

Some of the characters are wearing animal costumes not only as a little joke, but give them a bit of personality by showing they have an obsession or fetish with certain animals. Also, it allowed me to sneak in a reference to something (I'll let y'all figure it out)

I have just been warned regarding an effect line where I attempted to create an NS version of Hello Kitty and called it Hello Pussy. I was reminded that Pussy is not PG-13 (apparently even when the intended meaning is a feline). The same must apply to your first effect line.

I thought the same thing too as I was typing this draft, however, I thought about it and came to the conclusion that "pussy" should be fine as long as it's not used in a sexual or overly vulgar manner. This is confirmed by the fact there's a few issues that use the term pussy. So it should be fine.

(Also what does "lions are pussies" mean anyway?)

It's a joke where it insults lions by calling them pussies, which happens to be a nickname for felines.

And remember that Issues Editors do not prefer to have commas in an effect line. Conjoined clauses are usually avoided.

Did not know this. I'll correct it, thanks!

Option 3 seems fragmented, with the speaker dividing his/her attention between attacking the previous speaker vs. introducing a very different point. I would suggest focusing on the latter point here.

Not really. With option 3, it starts off with the speaker attacking the previous speaker, but then shifts to making their point throughout the remainder of the option. This is pretty common in issues.

The steak reference in Option 4 requires a validity check for compulsory vegetarianism, and I would rather change the steak than restrict the pool of nations to which this issue can be sent.

I'll be sure to fix this, thanks a lot!
Edit: I missed this comment

Also nimple suckers are not as funny as you think.

Really!? I thought that would be hilarious. Well, I admit my writing humour need work. Still, I'll hold off to see what others think before potentially changing it

[Free Workers Confederacy]

For Option 4, maybe a more interesting effect could be something like, “Hyenas are a common sight in dog parks” or “The main cause of traffic jams is free-roaming animals”.
If you want to keep the Geo Wild reference, maybe it could be “The newest Geo Wild documentary series is ‘Geo Urban’.”

[Socio Polor]

For Option 4, maybe a more interesting effect could be something like, “Hyenas are a common sight in dog parks” or “The main cause of traffic jams is free-roaming animals”.
If you want to keep the Geo Wild reference, maybe it could be “The newest Geo Wild documentary series is ‘Geo Urban’.”

I like the Geo Urban one, thanks, I'll use that
Edit: Aaaand, draft updated

[Socio Polor]

This will probably be my last bump of this for awhile, so here it is

[Australian rePublic]

1/10 of 1/100 of animals of a species? Isn't that how many would die in an average year in the wild, due to predators, disease, etc. when they were never in zoos? These are negligible numbers when compared to how many animals would have died anyway. I'd focus more on endangered species. Or the ethics of animals living in the wild vs living in the zoo. Freedom vs protection, medicine, guaranteed feed, etc. If zoo animals were released in name, they pose a threat to name's ecosystem, and if they were released overseas good luck repatrotising them. This begs the question, in the wild, how does one identify released animals from those who were never in the wild to begin with? And how do you hunt down every last one of them? Wouldn't they just write off this generation?

[Socio Polor]

1/10 of 1/100 of animals of a species? Isn't that how many would die in an average year in the wild, due to predators, disease, etc. when they were never in zoos? These are negligible numbers when compared to how many animals would have died anyway. I'd focus more on endangered species. Or the ethics of animals living in the wild vs living in the zoo. Freedom vs protection, medicine, guaranteed feed, etc. If zoo animals were released in name, they pose a threat to name's ecosystem, and if they were released overseas good luck repatrotising them. This begs the question, in the wild, how does one identify released animals from those who were never in the wild to begin with? And how do you hunt down every last one of them? Wouldn't they just write off this generation?

The 1/10 to 1/100 statistic isn't exactly how many are dying, it's how many animals that don't know how to interact in their natural habitat as a result of being held captive all their lives and could potentially die. The biggest concern here is should @@name@@ intervene and help these creatures or do something else with them

[Socio Polor]

I think it's time to bump this again. I'm mostly looking for comments from other people on how humurous the issue itself is; is the draft funny? is it the most corniest thing you ever read? ( I know FuF provided their opinion) Do the references make sense? Should I clarify or remove some things? Is the narrative sensible? etc. Feedback like this will be helpful to me. Since I plan on submitting this towards the contest, I'm holding myself to higher standards here. I'm not really looking for comments on grammar or punctuation mistakes, I will try to find and fix them (if they're any) myself. I'm also not looking for comments on how long or short the issue is, e.g. an option being too long or too short, I will anaylse such things myself. Also I would like to get atleast one editors opinion on this draft before I submit it in.

[Socio Polor]

The hunt for feedback is almost up, time to give this, one last bump

[Australian rePublic]

1/10 of 1/100 of animals of a species? Isn't that how many would die in an average year in the wild, due to predators, disease, etc. when they were never in zoos? These are negligible numbers when compared to how many animals would have died anyway. I'd focus more on endangered species. Or the ethics of animals living in the wild vs living in the zoo. Freedom vs protection, medicine, guaranteed feed, etc. If zoo animals were released in name, they pose a threat to name's ecosystem, and if they were released overseas good luck repatrotising them. This begs the question, in the wild, how does one identify released animals from those who were never in the wild to begin with? And how do you hunt down every last one of them? Wouldn't they just write off this generation?

The 1/10 to 1/100 statistic isn't exactly how many are dying, it's how many animals that don't know how to interact in their natural habitat as a result of being held captive all their lives and could potentially die. The biggest concern here is should @@name@@ intervene and help these creatures or do something else with them

But that still doesn't address my other concerns

[Socio Polor]

The 1/10 to 1/100 statistic isn't exactly how many are dying, it's how many animals that don't know how to interact in their natural habitat as a result of being held captive all their lives and could potentially die. The biggest concern here is should @@name@@ intervene and help these creatures or do something else with them

But that still doesn't address my other concerns

Which are? The only other comment you gave was this one:

Released animals only effect the current generation. It's not a problem for the next gen

Which I already answered here:

Released animals only effect the current generation. It's not a problem for the next gen

True, but it's the current gen that'll have to raise and take care of the newer gen. The current gen won't be able to do that if they can hardly take care of themselves

If you're wondering how exactly this is a problem, think of how many endangered animals could potentially go extinct because of this