|WikiProject Cats||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Dogs||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|The contents of the Rescue dog page were merged into Pet adoption on 15 August 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
Adopting a dog can be more encyclopedic as Dog adoption (currently non-existent), since the noun phrases allows a history section on dog adoption ("Legal adoption began in 1748 in Michigan, until that time, the processes were..."), whereas the Adopting a dog only describes the current procedure to go thru, perhaps not even the cosequences and social implications.
- I had the exact same thought. :) Martin
This article needs complete de-americanising. It is littered with words only used in the US, terminology exclusive to the US, etc etc. Oh Zoe would just love its americocentrism. BTW is there anywhere on the planet other than the US that even uses the term Dog adoption? (On AIM tonight most non-Americans were in knots laughing at this "weird" article!) FearÉIREANN 07:05 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Well, I'm UK-based, and I would certainly talk about dog adoption. I'm not sure what terminology you're referring to. Martin 08:43 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- "Adoption" is the standard term in Canada, which is after all, the second biggest country in the world. ;-) 188.8.131.52 12:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is this page specific to dogs? I see nothing which does not also apply to other pets (notably cats). -Tim (who will sign up when he's not so drunk) 184.108.40.206 01:43, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hmmm, good point. I think there are some things here that are more specific to dogs than to, say, cats or rabbits, and there are probably some issues related to cats that don't apply, but generally this might indeed be even better adjusted for those and listed under Pet adoption. Anyone else? Elf | Talk 02:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- A good idea; apparently nobody ever bothered to do this, so I have. --Saforrest 15:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I found that the following contains an unsubstantiated claim AND has bias:
"Other people simply release the pet into the wild or otherwise abandon it, with the expectation that it will be able to take care of itself or that it will be found and adopted. More often, these pets succumb to hunger, weather, traffic, or common and treatable health problems. More responsibly, owners will take the pet to a shelter, or call a rescue organization, where it will be cared for properly until a home can be found."
Tell me if you can solve these two issues. I will be watching this page. --StevenL 03:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
---Also, the reference to breeders producing more animals than they can sell is very biased. This is true in many cases of what are commonly known as "backyard breeders" in the dog world. A true responsible breeder would never produce more puppies than they can find homes for, or would want to have in their home.
Improving the overall page, Would the paper become more organized and less of a personal reflection if the section of Big Black Dog, Black Cats, and Bunnies on Easter was put into its own section of Animals in Adoption Process or something along those lines? I believe having it currently stated in the Adoption Process is creating the thought that these three animals are the only animals affected during the process, when they are not. OliviaHendren (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Improvement aren't all improvementsEdit
Removing the section on BBD syndrome is not an improvement. It's an important problem shelters are dealing with. And why on earth would you use a picture of a purebred pug to illustrate a shelter dog? In eight years our local shelter has seen one pug among the hundreds of dogs placed, and it was quite old. The pic of the mixed breed was more representitive of a shelter dog. Mr. Shean 01:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Mr. Shean
Agreed. You have a better chance of being hit by lightning than finding a purebred Pug puppy at the shelter. LOL 220.127.116.11 12:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- The first issue was not a deliberate edit - it was cause by some rather bizarre vandalism in January 2007. I've tried to fix the vandalism. Graham87 15:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This section needs sources that show it is a significant phenomenon in pet adoption. The fact that their are a couple of small nonprofits started up around the term doesn't mean it's appropriate to spend time on in a general article about pet adoption. -- SiobhanHansa 18:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Article is too DOG CENTRICEdit
Pet adoptions includes more than dogs. It really needs to be more generic, but has lots of dog references. Also, it shouldn't mention specific organizations in the article. Perhaps in the external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC) =]
I searched "Rehoming" hoping to find an article on the informal placement of children (generally adopted out of foster care) into another's home without the state's involvement in terminating parental rights. Instead I was redirected to this page. Can someone remove this re-directing? The practice of rehoming unwanted children is very different from adopting a pet. [Other than the fact that you can just give them to whoever you decide in most states with the exchange of a few pieces of paper.] RedDarling (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)