Jump to content

Talk:Animal shelter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gnelson28.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

I apoligize to anyone who may be upset by my substituting "killed" for "euthanized." Sadly, many shelters do not practice euthanasia, which is "pleasant", ususally described as "mercy," killing.

Public pressure caused our local shelter to abandon its previous method of animal killing and extra money was allocated to have local vets truly euthanize animals that have to go, as well as give pets for adoption essential medical exams and required shots. Both the public health and safety are thus improved and a lot of human consciences eased. Much better. Cecropia 14:21, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I volunteer at our local shelter. I and a few others take what dogs and cats that we can until the can be adopted. When we can, we go the expense of vaccination, spay and neutering which does seem to up our adoption rate. I would take them all if I could.--Dakota (Talk)

This article really needs help with NPOV. The language is quite charged and one-sided. I hope we can agree to conform it to the NPOV policy. Bellemichelle 17:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty to edit and add more neutral language. Some of it still needs to be edited. I've replaced the word "kill" with "destroy" and clarified that MOST shelters euthanize. -- alienlovesong 19:43, 26 September 2006 ]]

"Destroy" is less accurate than "kill". "Kill" refers to living things. "Destroy" in general refers to non-living things, and is a euphamism when referring to living things. Euphamism and NPOV are not the same thing. Some facts are unpleasant. Accurately stating them is not a policy violation, it's policy. 122.105.134.22 (talk)

"The Ideal goal...."

[edit]

¿¿Who said that???? what is the reference? Also NOTE that such i"deal" don´t make any reference to the importance of shelter to public health... my understanding is that strays dogs and animals transmit a number of diseases... and this is the reason behind the laws that remove animals from the streets....

Milton (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The link to dogkennelscenter added no value. In fact, there is no information on the dogkennelscenter site related to the support of animal shelters. Obviously this was added for the sole purpose of driving traffic to the third party site. --DanKilo (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Pound

[edit]

I added a note about the term "dog pound", since "dog pound" automatically redirects here, and some readers may be interested in the origins of the term.


more NPOV

[edit]

I removed the section that described where animals in shelters come from. This section was mainly a 'bash the backyard breeder' section, and wasn't really that accruate. Animals come to animal shelters through many many means. Having volunteered at one shelter for a while, the majority of dogs that I have seen had behavioral problems that are directly attributable to lack of training on the part of the owner (dog chewed up some valued object, dog wouldn't be housetrained quickly enough, etc..), or new owners not realizing the amount of work an animal is, or turnins for animals that are simply lost. I don't have sources, so this section should be removed. I also removed the section how to start up a tax-free shelter, as wikipedia is not a howto guide. - Trysha (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more NPOV and reorg, i removed some of the soapbox-feeling language, expanding on the difference between rescue groups and animal shelters and reorganized it into a different types of shelters section. - Trysha (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rejigged the layout, amended the text a little and removed the POV tag as the POV seems to all have been removed. Please edit or re-tag if necessary.
perfectblue 13:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even More NPOV

[edit]

Let's please refrain from using language that describes living beings as meta or "thing". When an animal is killed, s/he is killed -not destroyed. Towsonu2003 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - destroyed, put down, etc. are euphemisms.

The incorrect redirection of 'Dog pound' to this article

[edit]

Let us be honest here... the title of this article is, in itself, a euphemism from modern culture.

Let's be specific here. I'm no animal freak, in fact I don't like dogs very much, but I believe in mercy for all living things. However, even though I despise PETA and I dislike most dogs, the term 'animal shelter' is all to commonly used these days to refer to two VERY different types of facilities.

Any facility that kills animals is not a 'shelter'. By virtue of the fact that they are temporarily housing an animal with the intent to kill it at a certain duration (usually 5-7 days of not being claimed by an owner), that means it is not a shelter at all. This distinction should be made more clearly in the introductory paragraph, and less long-winded.

An animal shelter, in reality, is a facility which houses animals and DOES NOT kill them unless the animal has been thoroughly proven to be unadoptable by humans. An animal shelter helps place animals in good homes, and by no means will kill an animal unless it absolutely has to.

Somehow, this distinction must be made more clearly, more concisely, and sooner in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.89.134 (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think I have mostly resolved this. 122.105.134.22 (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish people would adopt more dogs instead of bloody buying them.

[edit]

There's so many brilliant dogs out there that need a home and yet breeders still keep making lots more puppies which suckers buy at £500 a pop. It's just ridiculous.

This is going to sound rude..

[edit]

But this article sounds like it was written by someone in middle school. It needs to be completely redone.

I absolutely agree. Kudos to whoever started it, but it needs some serious scholarly revision. Some of the discussion here makes it evident that significant bias has gone into the editing. I'll be working on a revision in the coming weeks. If anybody else is doing so, please contact me here on WP so we can collaborate. Agreenwich (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Release Back

[edit]

For example in Turkey some animal shelters re-release strays into the city after spaying/neutering them (unless they are aggresive or are very sick). Shouldn't this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanalp (talk • contribs) 13:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 'catch-and-release' is a practice that is being implemented by animal rescue groups, shelters, and humane societies across the U.S. and around the world. In some countries I've traveled to, 'catch-and-release' is the only way that stray domestic animals are dealt with, as neither financial means nor public interest makes housing facilities plausible. The feasibility of such practices is sometimes limited by local ordinance which might prohibit it (i.e. any domestic animal 'running at large' might be in violation of ordinance). The practice is usually limited to cats, as they are perceived at being better able, than dogs, to survive without the supervision or assistance of humans. At any-rate, 'catch-and-release' is a valid means of animal disposition that is in practice today. I'll include it in my revision of the article. Agreenwich (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a wikipedia articles on 'catch-and-release', termed TNR (trap-neuter-release), but it should be referenced in this article. The No-kill_shelter article does reference it, but TNR is not just a means used by no-kill organizations. It's used by animal shelters and humane societies as well. Agreenwich (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Control Agency

[edit]

"fgsdgsdr (huh?) training or resources."

Yeah. Not acceptable. Sailorknightwing (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect

[edit]

dog pound redirects here. there is a movie called dog pound (Adam Butcher, Shane Kippel). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.8.80 (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Animal shelter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Animal shelter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Reference

[edit]

Reference No. 5 to the main article makes secondary reference to an injunction issued by a court of law, yet the reference does not verify its claims by producing a copy of the alleged court order. Therefore, it is recommended this reference either be removed, or additional sources cited for independent verification. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soapbox issues in the United States section

[edit]

The final paragraph of the article reads like an advertisement for the ASPCA, which violates WP:SOAP. I'm an inexperienced editor and don't really know how to fix this, but maybe another NPOV banner would be a start? And we might at least take out the line about why the reader should donate to the ASPCA. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdsinthewindow: Good catch! I've removed the paragraph. P.S., while it doesn't hurt to take things slow as a new editor, especially when removing content, do rememeber that in general Wikipedia editors are encouraged to be bold. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Birdsinthewindow (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The linked survey

[edit]

"While no-kill shelters exist, it is sometimes policy to euthanize animals that are not claimed quickly enough by a previous or new owner. In Europe, of the 30 countries included in a survey, all but six (Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Italy and Poland) permitted euthanizing non-adopted animals". - Well, in the linked source actually a lot more countries respond with the exact same policy as these six mentioned - that killing is only allowed for ill or aggressive dogs. It's just that most of them still ticked the "yes" box to the question "is euthanasia in shelters legal in your country" - but so did Poland, Austria, the Czech Republic... so I guess they were included on the basis of the lined legal acts, not the linked survey.

Taking into account legal acts, not a survey, is definitely a better approach either way, but - if said survey is to be believed - similar legal reality exists in several other countries, which makes the quoted sentence untrue either way. And even if we focus only on the survey, the actual responses of countries which ticked "yes" and "not for healthy animals" to the euthanasia questions are often the same, so the quote should be changed to reflect it. Or deleted and changed into something like "in several European countries (e.g. Germany, Greece, Austria, Poland, Italy...), if it's easier. 79.184.225.115 (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animal_shelter&oldid=1204872951"