Talk:No-kill shelter

Unused references

• A Fate Worse Than Death: Are 'No-Kill' Shelters Truly Humane? J.T. Foster, July 20, 2002, Reader's Digest
• Animal shelters faulted for pet overpopulation Denise Flaim, March 20, 2008. Newsday

Unbalanced tag

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)

I just looked through this and it's well balanced up to the criticism section, I think. The imbalance comes from there being so much in the criticism section and a lot of that from PETA. For starters, criticism could be changed to controversy. Or, some of the material in the criticism section could be incorporated into the article, like the PETA page. Maybe others can weigh in too so we can all work on something that doesn't get immediately reverted.Bob98133 (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking we might start by summarizing some of the criticism, rather than reporting at length on single cases of shelter neglect, as PETA seems to have done. But otherwise, you're right that it is fine until the criticism section.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just PETA making those criticism. Look at the EL to Louisiana SPCA, which mentions limited admission/warehousing/poor quality of life. I don't think it's the criticism itself but the defensively phrased rebuttals (the "it's true but they are worse than us" tone) that makes the POV seems off. --Dodo bird (talk) 01:35, 8 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)

I agree - its not just "no-kill" shelters that have poor conditions. In my experience the argument could be made that there are more no-kill shelters that strive to maintain a higher-than-average quality of life for their animals than in "kill" shelters. You can also check out the Edmonton Humane Society - a No-kill shelter with an open-admissions policy. They regularly have representatives/staff/directors from other shelters and rescue organizations across the continent come visit to see their new facilities, learn about their behavioral and volunteer programs, etc. Opendestiny (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Revert re:SF SPCA

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)

If you look at the reference the word "spirit" does not appear. The reference does say:

"The SF/SPCA adopted the language of the Asilomar Accords to standardize our statistics and work in collaboration with other shelters to help animals. The SF/SPCA is moving away from using the “no-kill” reference for our agency because it misrepresents the reality that some of the animals in our care with serious medical and behavior problems are euthanized. We are committed to being transparent in our operations and to helping the public understand the plight of homeless and abused animals."

If they wanted to say something about the spirit of no-kill they had their chance. Instead, they quoted the Asilomar Accords as a reason for not saying "no kill" because "the “no-kill” reference for our agency ... misrepresents the reality..." That doesn't sound like anything you've added and reverted. Either stick to the source, or find one you agree with, but throwing in this "spirit" nonsense is unreferenced and contradicts the existing reference.

The first sentence of this article already precisely states what you've tried to change this section to say. The section you changed is just about SF, not about no-kill in general, and was accurate before the spirits showed up.Bob98133 (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"...using the Asilomar Accords to categorize animals as untreatable/unrehabilitatable to justify euthanasia..." Let me repeat myself, they didn't need the Asilomar Accords to justify euthanasia, "no-kill" already allows euthanasia. If you have such strong objections to the "spirit of the law" phrasing(which was not a recent addition, by the way), remove that phrase. The recent addition of Asilomar Accords as justification for euthanasia is what I object to. --Dodo bird (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

From here:

Is the San Francisco SPCA a "no-kill" shelter?

San Francisco has been on the forefront of the "no-kill" movement, which aims to stop the killing of homeless cats and dogs. The San Francisco SPCA guarantees to find a home for all San Francisco's adoptable cats and dogs — animals that are healthy and free of serious behavior problems. In addition, each year we save thousands of dogs and cats that need medical or behavioral treatment before they're ready for adoption. Animals are euthanized only if they are too sick to be rehabilitated, or too aggressive to be safely placed in a home.

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)

Sorry, Dodo. It wasn't clear to me what part you objected to or that you hadn't added the spirit thing. Agreed - using that section to justify euthanasia isn't needed. I changed this around - I hope I kept the context intact. Feel free to make improvements though. You were right, the inclusion of the Asilomar stuff was bogus the way it was presented. Bob98133 (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it was added by me, just not recently.--Dodo bird (talk) 12:57, 9 July 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.

Hermitage no-kill

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)

Definition in lead

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)

Instant transition to no-kill

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)

Ref re Maddie's Fund

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)

You replaced "By increasing that number by just a few percentage points, they belief that the problem of euthanasia of healthy cats and dogs can be solved" with "...if only someone stepped up to save their live, these animals could potentially make wonderful pets." What was that about. That sentence was sourced to the Maddie's Fund press release. And the two reference are consistent with each other. Why don't you try reading. --Dodo bird (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncited POV material

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..."

This is among the most important techniques for a community to achieve its no-kill goals. A disproportionate amount of intact animals belong to poor people.

Who said it is most important. What evidence is there that poor people have intact animals?

A very high number of cats killed at shelters are feral cats and/or offsprings of feral cats.

Says who? What is a "very high number"?

No-Kill tends to attract more volunteers.

Says who? More volunteers than what? How about a reference? I think that anti-cancer groups have more volunteers than no-kill shelters.

Taking a cue from libraries, no-kill shelters try to be open at times

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:

A number of communities in the United States have significantly increased their live-release rate and gotten closer to their no-kill goals with the help of Maddies.[3] According to Maddies Fund, in America only about 20% of pets are adopted while the rest are from breeders and other source. By increasing that number by just a few percentage points, they believe that the problem of euthanasia of healthy cats and dogs can be solved.[4][5]

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)

It's already presented as "according to maddies fund", so I don't see what the problem is. I added a ref where winograd says the same thing. --Dodo bird (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob

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)

Dodo

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:

No-kill is an animal sheltering philosophy which rejects euthanasia as a means of population control. Animals are only euthanized if they are too sick to be treated or too aggressive to be suitable for adoption.

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)

No-kill shelter vs No-kill

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)

I agree completely. There is no point just renaming and moving this article when there are clearly differences between the philosophy and its implementation.Bob98133 (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Does "no-kill philosophy" really need its own article? I think it would make sense to have the first paragraph after the lead section be "No kill philosophy," and it could be split off into its own article if it gets too large and unwieldy. --Fullobeans (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the "no-kill philosophy" is wider-ranging than just shelters. So, including it as a subtopic of No-kill shelter doesn't really sound appropriate to me. Conversely, because of the volume of material, it wouldn't make sense to make no-kill shelters a sub-topic of no-kill philosophy; it deserves its own article. That's why I think having two separate articles makes better sense.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, and there seem to be plenty of references for "no-kill philosophy"; so, yes, I'd support starting a separate article. --Fullobeans (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I will work on restoring this article and creating and migrating some material to No-kill philosophy as soon as the renegade editor who refuses to discuss his changes appears to be done. I will post an explanation of any major changes to the talk page - once I do, please feel free to comment and edit. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

article rewrite

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)

Third opinion: Folks, this article is a huge mess. Dodo bird's latest edit aside, this article is hugely pushing WP:POV. If you want, I can help with a rewrite of the article, but there would be a lot of deleting and rewriting involved in that. If you two are just going to bicker, and if Dodo bird is going to be both tendentious in their edits and unwilling to talk, then nothing is going to get done. So what's it going to be? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been attempting to discuss this article and remove POV. A third opinion is welcomed by me, including massive deletions or rewrite. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Dodo bird's latest edit aside," Do you have a problem with the article's POV or do you have a problem with my edits introducing POV? If it's the latter, please point them out to me. I am not responsible for mess that is not introduced by me. --Dodo bird (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The bigger problem I'm seeing here is that you weren't willing to discuss your edits. Right now the two of you are just sniping and attacking each other, which is really not cool. I disagree with Bob removing the comment you left on his talk page, but he is technically allowed to do that. If you really feel that he's been stalking you, then there are channels that you can go through to report that.

My advice to both of you would be to take some time away from this article and all the others over which you two have been clashing. Mutually agree not to step on each other's toes, go work on some other articles, and maybe come back here when you've cleared your heads. If it's alright with you, I'd like to take a swing at this article, though I've been rather busy recently. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:59, 11 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)

The talk page edit I removed was a notification about you reporting me for 3rr. It requires no reply. All your other talk messages were replied either at my talk or at the relevant article talk. Can't say the same for my comment at your talk page. Don't act like removing stale talk page discussion is such a big deal.

Specific issues that you have commented on, I have replied. I don't see why I should justify my edits to you point by point when you do IDONTLIKEIT removals. Please stop with the POV/RS crap. If you don't think primary sources are appropriate for stating what those sources say, then please go work on the PETA article.

From my deleted comment on your talk

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

increasing the percentage of people who obtain their pets through adoption—by just a few percentage points—we can solve the problem of euthanasia of healthy and treatable dogs and cats.

You put on the talk page

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?

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...

Ten years ago, shelters accounted for 17 percent of marketshare. So of all the animals in people’s homes, 17 percent came from shelters. This year that’s 21 percent. When we get to 24 percent no more dogs and cats will die.

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 shelters increased their market share by just a few percentage points, we could be a no-kill nation right now. But we are far from it.

If you want to discount the two sources, we still have Maddie's Fund, which is more than enough.

When I say that

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.

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.

So tell me, who's not discussing edits?--Dodo bird (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Add to the Article

Would this article be the place to put a list of open-admission no-kill shelters?

Could we have under US, a list of open-admission shelters who have achieved a 90% save rate?

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.

Can we agree that no-kill is defined by a 90% save rate, what Nathan Winograd calls the 90% Club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoosierGal (talk • contribs) 06:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

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)

WP:RS

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)

This is a fairly contentious article. I don't object to advocacy organizations being cited to present or clarify their views, but I agree that other than these types of opinions or policy statements, facts should be supported by reliable sources. Bob98133 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

cleaning up

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)

Cleanup

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."

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." 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:

California Law, SB 1785 Statutes of 1998, also known as "The Hayden Law", defines the terms as follows:

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.

Adoptable dogs may be old, deaf, blind, disfigured or disabled

A treatable animal shall include any animal that is not adoptable but that could become adoptable with reasonable efforts."

Sick, traumatized, infant or unsocialized dogs need appropriate medical treatment, behavior modification and/or foster care to turn them into healthy animals ready for placement.

"Unadoptable" or "non-rehabilitatable" means animals that are neither adoptable or treatable. By way of exclusion, SB1785 defines "unadoptable":

1. Animals eight weeks of age or younger at or subsequent to the time the animal is impounded;
2. Animals that have manifested signs of a behavioral or temperamental defect;
3. Those that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet and
4. Animals that have manifested signs 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.

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