Talk:Animal shelter

message: ¿¿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)
thread_title: "The Ideal goal...."

message: 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)
thread_title:  External link removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Even More NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think I have mostly resolved this. 122.105.134.22 (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The incorrect redirection of 'Dog pound' to this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This is going to sound rude.. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Release Back 

message: "fgsdgsdr (huh?) training or resources."
Yeah. Not acceptable. Sailorknightwing (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal Control Agency 

message: 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)
thread_title:  redirect 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000320/http://www.kittyvillage.com/morton_v_irvin.pdf to http://www.kittyvillage.com/morton_v_irvin.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110083040/http://www.animallawcoalition.com/gas-chambers/law/289 to http://www.animallawcoalition.com/gas-chambers/law/289
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Bad Reference

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Soapbox issues in the United States section 

message: "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)
thread_title:  The linked survey