Talk:No-kill shelter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cats Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Dogs Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Archives

/Archive 1

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 precisey 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)