I've added the unbalanced tag after seeing that most of the affirmations in the article come from PETA, an avowed opponent of the no-kill shelter concept.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem with many of the criticisms is not that they aren't true, but that they're not just true of "no-kill" shelters. I don't have cites, but many of the "regular" shelters are as bad or worse as the no-kill. The no-kill tend to be about the same, in terms of animal care as the shelters that euthanize. I have no idea how to get cites on that - it's an ugly, but true fact that isn't publicized often. I'll go poking about, looking for reputable cites. Also, I think a rebuttal could be information from Reno. They're no kill, have a lovely facility and their animals are housed appropriately. Or Caddo parish in Louisiana, which is working towards no-kill status and doesn't have any problems with care. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.11.156.205 (
talk)
02:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Like I said in the edit summary, it is inaccurate to say the Asilomar Accords was used to justify euthanasia since no-kill already allows euthanasia under the same circumstances.-- Dodo bird ( talk) 13:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
From here:
I guess since there is no "yes" to be found anywhere in that answer, they don't really follow the whole no-kill thingy. -- Dodo bird ( talk) 15:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
San Francisco, the rumours are, is not no-kill anymore. It's still well run and nice, but not no-kill. But that's more rumour than anything else. . .the stated mission and goals are the same as they've always been, I think.
I have looked at this organization's website [1], and the numbers stated are contracdicted in several places. In one place they claim 400-500 cats in residence, elsewhere they say, sometimes as many as 400, but on their website they only show about 25 animals available for adoption. Are the other 375 hidden? Not available for adoption? They claim 3000 adoptions per year, but offer no details. I am concerned that this shelter may be misrepresenting what they are doing - they certainly aren't transparent about their efforts. Bob98133 ( talk) 14:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a summary of the cited definition. Why would I need a cite for that?-- Dodo bird ( talk) 12:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Please get over the idea that an entire community can "instantly" transform into a no-kill community. Even your shaky reference says "virtually instantly", whatever that might mean. If you read the previous section of the page you reference, it indicates that the process of change began in 2005 and they were no-kill by 2007. Sorry, that is a two-year transition, not instant. What instant says is that one minute they were kill, the next mintute they were not - no planning, no discussion, just shazaam, now we're no kill. Please revert this text back, or change it to reflect a more realistic version of events. If this change was so dramatic, there must be local media coverage of it. I would trust the local media a lot more than a no-kill advocacy web site which is bound to be POV, particularly since they are citing this as an example of their success. If you can't find something, I'll take a look when I have a chance. Bob98133 ( talk) 21:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Dodo - you keep reverting info that is not supported by the reference supplied. I went in and quoted from that reference with the correct info and you continue to revert it. Now you've supplied another reference, but left the one that disagrees with what you've written. Cmon - why not read the reference yourself before continuing to revert incorrect info? Bob98133 ( talk) 15:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is full of uncited material to support no-kill. Rather than add a dozen or so fact tags, I think that the entire article should be gone over - either references should be supplied, or statements presented as facts should begin "According to no-kill advocates..."
For example: Under "Techniques Used..."
Who said it is most important. What evidence is there that poor people have intact animals?
Says who? What is a "very high number"?
Says who? More volunteers than what? How about a reference? I think that anti-cancer groups have more volunteers than no-kill shelters.
Who says that no-kill shelers took a cue from libraries? This is nonsense and irrelevent.
As well, sections of this article are based entirely on press releases or blogs supporting or related to the organization being quoted, such as:
This entire section is based on press releases from the organziation being discussed and/or blogs which claim to only represent the writer's opinion.
I know that this is a controversial subject, which is all the more reason for everything in it to be scrupulously referenced. I will go through this and add references to remove POV and ask your help in improving this article. Thanks Bob98133 ( talk) 14:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Bob, I don't understand why you reverted me. It's difficult to see any of my edits being objectionable except maybe the shifting of the subject from "no-kill shelter" to "no-kill". Surely you don't have to undo all my edits.-- Dodo bird ( talk) 21:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You just don't get it, do you? The idea of the talk page is to discuss controversial changes, not to post some excuse then revert the changes. Ideally, other editors would also have input.
You've totally ignored the questions and comments above and proceeded to revert your inappropriate content.
For example, you changed the lead to this:
Look - this article is about no-Kill shelters, not about the No-Kill Philosophy, so you can't just change the lead to define something else - you've got to stick with the subject. There are many other POV edits that you have mad ethat should be discussed.
I am again reverting your text until these changes and POV matters are discussed on this page. Bob98133 ( talk) 14:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not have an article on the No-kill philosophy per se and one on No-kill shelters?-- Ramdrake ( talk) 15:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Prior to multiple disputed edits by former editor Dodo_bird, this article was focused on no-kill shelters. Through his numerous edits, Dodo changed this, and tried to move the page, to no-kill movement. I think that the no-kill shelter page is a logical place to start. I will work on a separate page for the no-kill movement, but it is not the same thing. I tried to remove much of the POV that has been added to this article. I have left the unbalanced and worldwide tags since this article could use more input. Please add to this and correct any misinformation or POV that might have gotten through.Thanks Bob98133 ( talk) 18:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
HelloAnnoyong - that sounds good to me. My objections to previous edits in this article were that almost all were referenced to POV or advocacy websites or press releases. I'd like to see some better sources, a better balance, or a 3rd party or media coverage refs that present a more balanced view. It's fine to use those sources to express the objectives, but not to predict or evaluate success, as they were used. I'll back off editing this, but will comment in talk if I have any major problems w/your rewrite. Thanks for your input. PS - I agree w/you about not deleting talk. That was the first time I've ever reverted my talk. However, that was common practice for Dodo-bird when I attempted to communicate with him, so my thought was fair's fair. It was juvenile. Sorry. Bob98133 ( talk) 17:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
In this edit to No kill shelter, you not only accused me of making things up, you removed the key point of that section. The claim that increasing shelter adoption by a few percentage point would solve the killing of healthy animals, you replaced with irrelevant stuff about how "if only someone stepped up to save their live, these animals could potentially make wonderful pets". Way out of left field. I'll quote the relevant section just for you
You put on the talk page
Like I said in my reply on that talk, and as can be seen from the quoted text, the first ref backs up what I have written. Just fyi, the second ref reads...
After this "not in source" nonsense, you changed tack and claimed the sources are not reliable. Maddie's Fund is a reliable source on what Maddie's Fund says and it is made pretty clear in the text that that is just what Maddie's Fund says. The blog transcript is supplementary. It gives more info about the number. And even though it's from a blog, the author is a San Francisco Chronicle journalist. The point can also be sourced to Nathan Winograd who says
If you want to discount the two sources, we still have Maddie's Fund, which is more than enough.
When I say that
You kept reverting EVERYTHING and replied only to, wait for it, the topic shift, failing to explain why you reverted all the other edits as well. You say "You've totally ignored the questions and comments above and proceeded to revert your inappropriate content." when if you actually look at the two threads that are above that section, I have already replied. The "Techniques Used" issue I don't really care about (at least in it's current form) and my edits in no way touched them.
Would this article be the place to put a list of open-admission no-kill shelters?
I do not think any purpose is served by listing no-kill rescues that are not open admission. There are a great many no-kill rescues, such as Best Friends, who do not accept all animals and this article would be just one long list of rescues, big and small, if they are all cited here. However, people are often researching open-admission shelters that are no-kill. There are only a handful in the States and there is nowhere online, that I have found, where they are listed.
Agree that failed attempts list is getting fairly long. I didn't really think about it when adding the one today. However, the US section does the same thing for currently operating no-kill shelters. I don't think that listing every shelter that closes for mismanagement is appropriate, however the no-kill ones that close for overcrowding, starvation, warehousing, etc. might be a different sotry since those reasons are ones disputed by both sides of this issue. Perhaps both sections (US and failed attempts) could be shortened which might provide more balance both for US and international. Good idea to discuss prior to major rewrite. Bob98133 ( talk) 20:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Most of the citations for "facts" on this page seem to be blogs, op-ed, advocacy centers, and other non- WP:RS material. Astro$01 ( talk) 10:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, this page seems to have suffered from neglect, so I've started going thru and refreshing links, references, etc, modifying some POV language. May take a while. Please discuss any issues you may have. Cheers! Bob98133 ( talk) 20:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I made a few minor edits today. There was a section called "Advocacy" that simply had some links in it; I moved these to "External Links".
I added some items to suggested reading and updated one of the references listed there.
I created a "see also" section and added some articles of interest. Just a beginning I'm sure.
Now for some of the content. In the intro section comes this statement: "No-kill shelters are trying to end this killing by increasing the demand for shelter dogs and cats. The demand increase could be achieved by an event called Spay Day. "Every year Spay Day encourages people worldwide to help animals by spaying or neutering their pets." By decreasing the amount of new born cats and dogs the demand for the ones already in shelters will increase. [1]"
This set of statements is somewhat bizarre. It is far too simplistic to say that no kill shelters are trying to end killing by increasing demand for shelter animals. There are many strategies involved. Beyond this, how does Spay Day increase demand for animals? It is a way to lessen the eventual numbers of homeless animals entering the shelter system, not increasing their demand. The statement also suggests everything could be solved by Spay Day, which is again simplistic.
Instead I would say something like this: "A No-kill shelter uses many strategies to promote shelter animals; to expand its resources using volunteers, excellent housing and medical protocols; and to work actively to lower the number of homeless animals entering the shelter system." I like to have current references for everything, so I will find some to include. The Spay Day reference can be added to "Techniques used" in a discussion of programs to increase spaying and neutering of pets. The World Spay Day event has taken off, and has its own page with lots of information there.
I'm also giving more updated references on the numbers of pets euthanized - not that the numbers have changed much, the estimates are so fraught with error. In order to address these issues it's necessary to have a separate section on euthanasia statistics.
The next paragraph that mentions some legal boosts to no kill in the US: the Hayden law is more about requiring cooperation with rescue groups vs. accountability, so I will adjust the wording. I think however that this needs to be moved elsewhere in the article, for another day.
Canadianknowledgelover ( talk) 01:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Continuing with edits today. The reference for this is now a dead link "A rule of thumb is that, to be no-kill, a shelters saves more than 90% of all animals received." [2] It wasn't perhaps the strongest reference. I'll use something from Nathan Winograd. I understand the 90% rule as a benchmark rather than having achieved no kill status. If there are still healthy/treatable animals being killed, it is not really no kill.
The issue of adoption is another one. Using the adoptability term can be a way that a shelter calls itself no kill but is really killing a lot of animals, so I'm going to revisit the main definition slightly. The issue is dealt with awkwardly in the page right now, with a lengthy reference to a legal definition in California. I'll repeat the part I'm talking about; I'm going to take it out:
Adoptable animals include only those animals eight weeks of age or older that, at or subsequent to the time the animal is impounded or otherwise taken into possession, have manifested no sign of a behavioral or temperamental defect that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and have manifested no sign of disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the animal or that is likely to adversely affect the animal's health in the future.
A treatable animal shall include any animal that is not adoptable but that could become adoptable with reasonable efforts."
"Unadoptable" or "non-rehabilitatable" means animals that are neither adoptable or treatable. By way of exclusion, SB1785 defines "unadoptable":
I'm also going to move the "legal boost" bit from the intro to the U.S. discussion, as it's all about California laws.
Earlier I added a detailed section on Euthanasia Statistics, but now I'm not sure it really belongs here. The same info is in the article Overpopulation in domestic pets. Inclined to take it out now, including the bit in the intro about euthanasia.
Canadianknowledgelover ( talk) 00:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
References
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've added the unbalanced tag after seeing that most of the affirmations in the article come from PETA, an avowed opponent of the no-kill shelter concept.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem with many of the criticisms is not that they aren't true, but that they're not just true of "no-kill" shelters. I don't have cites, but many of the "regular" shelters are as bad or worse as the no-kill. The no-kill tend to be about the same, in terms of animal care as the shelters that euthanize. I have no idea how to get cites on that - it's an ugly, but true fact that isn't publicized often. I'll go poking about, looking for reputable cites. Also, I think a rebuttal could be information from Reno. They're no kill, have a lovely facility and their animals are housed appropriately. Or Caddo parish in Louisiana, which is working towards no-kill status and doesn't have any problems with care. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.11.156.205 (
talk)
02:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Like I said in the edit summary, it is inaccurate to say the Asilomar Accords was used to justify euthanasia since no-kill already allows euthanasia under the same circumstances.-- Dodo bird ( talk) 13:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
From here:
I guess since there is no "yes" to be found anywhere in that answer, they don't really follow the whole no-kill thingy. -- Dodo bird ( talk) 15:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
San Francisco, the rumours are, is not no-kill anymore. It's still well run and nice, but not no-kill. But that's more rumour than anything else. . .the stated mission and goals are the same as they've always been, I think.
I have looked at this organization's website [1], and the numbers stated are contracdicted in several places. In one place they claim 400-500 cats in residence, elsewhere they say, sometimes as many as 400, but on their website they only show about 25 animals available for adoption. Are the other 375 hidden? Not available for adoption? They claim 3000 adoptions per year, but offer no details. I am concerned that this shelter may be misrepresenting what they are doing - they certainly aren't transparent about their efforts. Bob98133 ( talk) 14:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a summary of the cited definition. Why would I need a cite for that?-- Dodo bird ( talk) 12:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Please get over the idea that an entire community can "instantly" transform into a no-kill community. Even your shaky reference says "virtually instantly", whatever that might mean. If you read the previous section of the page you reference, it indicates that the process of change began in 2005 and they were no-kill by 2007. Sorry, that is a two-year transition, not instant. What instant says is that one minute they were kill, the next mintute they were not - no planning, no discussion, just shazaam, now we're no kill. Please revert this text back, or change it to reflect a more realistic version of events. If this change was so dramatic, there must be local media coverage of it. I would trust the local media a lot more than a no-kill advocacy web site which is bound to be POV, particularly since they are citing this as an example of their success. If you can't find something, I'll take a look when I have a chance. Bob98133 ( talk) 21:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Dodo - you keep reverting info that is not supported by the reference supplied. I went in and quoted from that reference with the correct info and you continue to revert it. Now you've supplied another reference, but left the one that disagrees with what you've written. Cmon - why not read the reference yourself before continuing to revert incorrect info? Bob98133 ( talk) 15:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is full of uncited material to support no-kill. Rather than add a dozen or so fact tags, I think that the entire article should be gone over - either references should be supplied, or statements presented as facts should begin "According to no-kill advocates..."
For example: Under "Techniques Used..."
Who said it is most important. What evidence is there that poor people have intact animals?
Says who? What is a "very high number"?
Says who? More volunteers than what? How about a reference? I think that anti-cancer groups have more volunteers than no-kill shelters.
Who says that no-kill shelers took a cue from libraries? This is nonsense and irrelevent.
As well, sections of this article are based entirely on press releases or blogs supporting or related to the organization being quoted, such as:
This entire section is based on press releases from the organziation being discussed and/or blogs which claim to only represent the writer's opinion.
I know that this is a controversial subject, which is all the more reason for everything in it to be scrupulously referenced. I will go through this and add references to remove POV and ask your help in improving this article. Thanks Bob98133 ( talk) 14:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Bob, I don't understand why you reverted me. It's difficult to see any of my edits being objectionable except maybe the shifting of the subject from "no-kill shelter" to "no-kill". Surely you don't have to undo all my edits.-- Dodo bird ( talk) 21:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You just don't get it, do you? The idea of the talk page is to discuss controversial changes, not to post some excuse then revert the changes. Ideally, other editors would also have input.
You've totally ignored the questions and comments above and proceeded to revert your inappropriate content.
For example, you changed the lead to this:
Look - this article is about no-Kill shelters, not about the No-Kill Philosophy, so you can't just change the lead to define something else - you've got to stick with the subject. There are many other POV edits that you have mad ethat should be discussed.
I am again reverting your text until these changes and POV matters are discussed on this page. Bob98133 ( talk) 14:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not have an article on the No-kill philosophy per se and one on No-kill shelters?-- Ramdrake ( talk) 15:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Prior to multiple disputed edits by former editor Dodo_bird, this article was focused on no-kill shelters. Through his numerous edits, Dodo changed this, and tried to move the page, to no-kill movement. I think that the no-kill shelter page is a logical place to start. I will work on a separate page for the no-kill movement, but it is not the same thing. I tried to remove much of the POV that has been added to this article. I have left the unbalanced and worldwide tags since this article could use more input. Please add to this and correct any misinformation or POV that might have gotten through.Thanks Bob98133 ( talk) 18:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
HelloAnnoyong - that sounds good to me. My objections to previous edits in this article were that almost all were referenced to POV or advocacy websites or press releases. I'd like to see some better sources, a better balance, or a 3rd party or media coverage refs that present a more balanced view. It's fine to use those sources to express the objectives, but not to predict or evaluate success, as they were used. I'll back off editing this, but will comment in talk if I have any major problems w/your rewrite. Thanks for your input. PS - I agree w/you about not deleting talk. That was the first time I've ever reverted my talk. However, that was common practice for Dodo-bird when I attempted to communicate with him, so my thought was fair's fair. It was juvenile. Sorry. Bob98133 ( talk) 17:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
In this edit to No kill shelter, you not only accused me of making things up, you removed the key point of that section. The claim that increasing shelter adoption by a few percentage point would solve the killing of healthy animals, you replaced with irrelevant stuff about how "if only someone stepped up to save their live, these animals could potentially make wonderful pets". Way out of left field. I'll quote the relevant section just for you
You put on the talk page
Like I said in my reply on that talk, and as can be seen from the quoted text, the first ref backs up what I have written. Just fyi, the second ref reads...
After this "not in source" nonsense, you changed tack and claimed the sources are not reliable. Maddie's Fund is a reliable source on what Maddie's Fund says and it is made pretty clear in the text that that is just what Maddie's Fund says. The blog transcript is supplementary. It gives more info about the number. And even though it's from a blog, the author is a San Francisco Chronicle journalist. The point can also be sourced to Nathan Winograd who says
If you want to discount the two sources, we still have Maddie's Fund, which is more than enough.
When I say that
You kept reverting EVERYTHING and replied only to, wait for it, the topic shift, failing to explain why you reverted all the other edits as well. You say "You've totally ignored the questions and comments above and proceeded to revert your inappropriate content." when if you actually look at the two threads that are above that section, I have already replied. The "Techniques Used" issue I don't really care about (at least in it's current form) and my edits in no way touched them.
Would this article be the place to put a list of open-admission no-kill shelters?
I do not think any purpose is served by listing no-kill rescues that are not open admission. There are a great many no-kill rescues, such as Best Friends, who do not accept all animals and this article would be just one long list of rescues, big and small, if they are all cited here. However, people are often researching open-admission shelters that are no-kill. There are only a handful in the States and there is nowhere online, that I have found, where they are listed.
Agree that failed attempts list is getting fairly long. I didn't really think about it when adding the one today. However, the US section does the same thing for currently operating no-kill shelters. I don't think that listing every shelter that closes for mismanagement is appropriate, however the no-kill ones that close for overcrowding, starvation, warehousing, etc. might be a different sotry since those reasons are ones disputed by both sides of this issue. Perhaps both sections (US and failed attempts) could be shortened which might provide more balance both for US and international. Good idea to discuss prior to major rewrite. Bob98133 ( talk) 20:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Most of the citations for "facts" on this page seem to be blogs, op-ed, advocacy centers, and other non- WP:RS material. Astro$01 ( talk) 10:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, this page seems to have suffered from neglect, so I've started going thru and refreshing links, references, etc, modifying some POV language. May take a while. Please discuss any issues you may have. Cheers! Bob98133 ( talk) 20:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I made a few minor edits today. There was a section called "Advocacy" that simply had some links in it; I moved these to "External Links".
I added some items to suggested reading and updated one of the references listed there.
I created a "see also" section and added some articles of interest. Just a beginning I'm sure.
Now for some of the content. In the intro section comes this statement: "No-kill shelters are trying to end this killing by increasing the demand for shelter dogs and cats. The demand increase could be achieved by an event called Spay Day. "Every year Spay Day encourages people worldwide to help animals by spaying or neutering their pets." By decreasing the amount of new born cats and dogs the demand for the ones already in shelters will increase. [1]"
This set of statements is somewhat bizarre. It is far too simplistic to say that no kill shelters are trying to end killing by increasing demand for shelter animals. There are many strategies involved. Beyond this, how does Spay Day increase demand for animals? It is a way to lessen the eventual numbers of homeless animals entering the shelter system, not increasing their demand. The statement also suggests everything could be solved by Spay Day, which is again simplistic.
Instead I would say something like this: "A No-kill shelter uses many strategies to promote shelter animals; to expand its resources using volunteers, excellent housing and medical protocols; and to work actively to lower the number of homeless animals entering the shelter system." I like to have current references for everything, so I will find some to include. The Spay Day reference can be added to "Techniques used" in a discussion of programs to increase spaying and neutering of pets. The World Spay Day event has taken off, and has its own page with lots of information there.
I'm also giving more updated references on the numbers of pets euthanized - not that the numbers have changed much, the estimates are so fraught with error. In order to address these issues it's necessary to have a separate section on euthanasia statistics.
The next paragraph that mentions some legal boosts to no kill in the US: the Hayden law is more about requiring cooperation with rescue groups vs. accountability, so I will adjust the wording. I think however that this needs to be moved elsewhere in the article, for another day.
Canadianknowledgelover ( talk) 01:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Continuing with edits today. The reference for this is now a dead link "A rule of thumb is that, to be no-kill, a shelters saves more than 90% of all animals received." [2] It wasn't perhaps the strongest reference. I'll use something from Nathan Winograd. I understand the 90% rule as a benchmark rather than having achieved no kill status. If there are still healthy/treatable animals being killed, it is not really no kill.
The issue of adoption is another one. Using the adoptability term can be a way that a shelter calls itself no kill but is really killing a lot of animals, so I'm going to revisit the main definition slightly. The issue is dealt with awkwardly in the page right now, with a lengthy reference to a legal definition in California. I'll repeat the part I'm talking about; I'm going to take it out:
Adoptable animals include only those animals eight weeks of age or older that, at or subsequent to the time the animal is impounded or otherwise taken into possession, have manifested no sign of a behavioral or temperamental defect that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and have manifested no sign of disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the animal or that is likely to adversely affect the animal's health in the future.
A treatable animal shall include any animal that is not adoptable but that could become adoptable with reasonable efforts."
"Unadoptable" or "non-rehabilitatable" means animals that are neither adoptable or treatable. By way of exclusion, SB1785 defines "unadoptable":
I'm also going to move the "legal boost" bit from the intro to the U.S. discussion, as it's all about California laws.
Earlier I added a detailed section on Euthanasia Statistics, but now I'm not sure it really belongs here. The same info is in the article Overpopulation in domestic pets. Inclined to take it out now, including the bit in the intro about euthanasia.
Canadianknowledgelover ( talk) 00:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
References