Talk:Skunks as pets

Proposed revisions

• How can the Table of Contents be made less choppy, while still making it easy to find information at a glance?
• What are some other sections that could be added to make it less of a skunk-care-focused article?
• Does anyone have any information about pet skunks in other countries, that could be added to make this article less Americo-centric?
• What info should be added to the lead paragraph?
• Is anyone noticing specific layout problems?
  • Update - most of this stuff has been resolved.

Nathanlarson32767 07:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) Thanks, Nathanlarson32767 04:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) I think that If a person would like a skunk as a pet they should be able to get one,after going through somekind of course to learn how to take proper care of them,NO MATTER WHAT STATE THERE IN. I myself like skunks and would like to own one,but where I live they are not leagel, thats not fair.

I'm not sure this belongs here

There seems to be plenty of information in this article, but I'm not convinced it is the kind of information I would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Apart from the huge list of legal statuses (disproportionately US-centric), this seems to be (at a glance) more of a "guide to skunk-keeping" than anything else, and as such I would suggest belongs on Wikibooks more than here. I don't mean to discourage the effort that has clearly been put into it so far, but Wikipedia is not an entire reference library; Wikibooks, essentially, is. - IMSoP 22:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right - and the disputes over what is proper skunk care advice have been the bane of my existence the last few weeks. Nathanlarson32767 03:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate for the other point of view, though, the original idea was to give an overview of what it is like to own a skunk. If you look at ferret, there is an abbreviated guide to ferret care, probably included for the same reason. Neither article is complete enough to be a reference book on caring for the animal.

Also, there are a lot of articles in Wikipedia that one wouldn't expect to see in an encyclopedia—for instance, Gunship (game), Jujyfruits, and MHM Services. Those subjects are not of interest to enough people to warrant the space in Brittanica, but they are the kinds of things I would look up on Wiki. Nathanlarson32767 03:53, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My concern was not so much that an encyclopedia should not contain information about pet ferrets, but rather that the volume of specific advice (e.g. "Foods to avoid", "Skunks should not be declawed...", etc.) makes this feel more like a "how to" guide than an informational article. Now, it's by no means universally agreed that such information should not be here, but there are some/many who feel that Wikipedia should be informational rather than instructional. The current feel of this page (for me) is of a web-page about how to care for a skunk rather than an article that forms part of a general encyclopedia. - IMSoP 23:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[PS: Your mention of "disputes" made me realise you've been removing discussions from this Talk page; this is generally frowned upon since it's often useful to see how decisions / agreements were arrived at. If the page gets really long, you can split some off into an archive sub-page, like Talk:Pet skunk/Archive1, but until then it's best to just leave it be.]

Well, my own opinion is that an encyclopedia should be informational as well as contain basic instuctions. If the article were about dogs, there would be proper diet and medical care for them listed as well as intructions about walking every so often, etc., wouldn't there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillbillylingo (talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 December 2004‎

Most of the discussions (which were voluminous) took place over email, so they didn't appear here. I will leave future postings up.

I agree with you about the tone. There is a fine line between an informational article and a how-to. I don't know if the ferret page is a good example to be working from, but it seems like they are trying to walk the same line of providing an overall impression of what it's like to own that pet without turning it totally into a how-to. E.g.:

Ferrets are also fine backyard companions and especially enjoy 'helping' you in the garden. However, they should not be allowed to wander; ferrets are fearless to the point of foolishness and will get into whatever holes they will find, including storm drains. Whenever they are outside they should be closely supervised and preferably kept in a harness leash.

The "should" statements, at first glance, seem a little unusual in an encyclopedia. However, consider this excerpt from a Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia article on cats:

Diseases in Cats. Regular checkups for cats by a veterinarian should be the first consideration of cat owners. Diseases contracted by cats include pneumonia, rabies, skin ailments, worms, and feline enteritis. The last named, a highly contagious, often fatal disease, is now controlled by inoculations that are started while kittens are being weaned.

General Care. . . . Cats' nails need frequent trimming; to prevent damage to furniture, animals that live indoors without access to trees should be provided with a scratching post. . . .

So, it is not unheard of to see that type of tone in an encyclopedia article. Owing to the space devoted to skunk care, this article is probably on the borderline. My concern about putting it in wiki-books is that it's too much of a summary and distillation of info to be useful as a full-fledged reference book in itself. Also, there's the practical concern that wiki-books is where Wikipedia was a few years ago—pretty threadbare and not used by many people. It might be better to wait until they have some more momentum going before moving a niche subject like this there, where it might go totally unused.

Nathanlarson32767 00:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See also How-to.

Nathanlarson32767 03:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The skunk care section has since been trimmed to about 1/3 the total article size. Nathanlarson32767 14:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Worm discussion (restored from deleted talk page)

The section about worms is fictional, and needs to be updated, changed, or removed. Almafeta 05:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you explain in more detail about the worms? The info came from Skunk Stuff. Jane Bone has been studying skunks for about 30 years and her work has gone through successive revisions over the years.Nathanlarson32767 05:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know Mrs. Bone's work, which is usually top-notch, but this is a myth (similar to the 'all skunks are born rabid' myth that still spreads). Although there are special breeds of parasites especially adapted to skunks, they are not the sole carriers (dogs often carry Baylisascaris columnaris as well), and a skunk from a throughly hygienic breeder will not have these worms. I'm not saying it's not a danger, however—perhaps the worms part of the veterinary care section could be changed to "problems" that list common problems that a skunk might face (such as distemper and weak immune systems). Anyhow, it's nice to see a fellow skunk lover about.  :) Almafeta 06:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The main carriers of Baylisascaris are raccoons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.221.112 (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pet skunk → Domestic skunk

"Domestic skunk" is the more formal name. -- Nathanlarson32767 06:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support Nathanlarson32767 06:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think the term "domestic skunk" is factually inaccurate, since these have not been "domesticated" in any way (as far as I can tell from the article) - they are merely tame. Domestication is not synonymous with "taming" - Domesticated animals, plants, and other organisms are those whose collective behavior, life cycle, or physiology has been altered as a result of their breeding and living conditions being under human control for multiple generations. Unless these skunks have been altered much more than I can tell, they would not qualify as domestic, and thus, the new title, while a useful re-direct, is not a suitable page title. There may be something better than Pet skunk - that doesn't really have the ring of a formal encyclopedia entry to me - but the name of an article should at least be factually accurate. Guettarda 20:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Guettarda said it well. "Skunks as pets" may be a better article title. - UtherSRG 20:50, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Possibly. The literature refers to both "Skunks as pets"[1] and "Domestic skunks"[2]. I wonder, though, how many years of captive breeding it takes for an animal to be considered domestic? It took many generations to obtain the brown, tan, and white skunks we have today[3]. As the article notes, they were raised for fur for several hundred years. By comparison, ferrets have been raised in captivity for about 2,500 years, and they are definitely considered domestic by now. Ferrets and skunks have many of the same care issues, in reference to housebreaking, etc. Nathanlarson32767 21:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Most animal articles, such as cat, dog, ferret, horse, etc. combine the feral/domesticated animal information into one article. Skunk and spotted skunk used to be that way, but I broke off the pet skunk content into its own article. Should it be integrated back into skunk? Nathanlarson32767 21:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Per an email from Jane Bone, of Skunks as Pets[4]: "Well, they are domestic skunks that are in fact pets. Pet skunks could refer to the ones from the wild. Where as Domestic Skunks mean not from the wild" In other words, a domestic skunk is one that was bred in captivity, as opposed to being caught in the woods and turned into a pet. Nathanlarson32767 21:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merging back in would probably make sense, although it is quite long now for that. Note that there is a difference between a "domestic" animal (one kept as a pet) and a "domesticated" animal (one which has been bred through many generations so as to be adapted to living with humans). While cats, dogs, horses, ferrets etc. are all domesticated (although they can all go feral) and the behavioral difference is enough for biologists to label them as subspecies of their wild cousins, pet skunks are simply "tamed" wild animals and are more akin to pet rats, ferrets, rabbits, reptiles, or even cuttlefish; their behaviors are very similar to those of their wild kin. So while it is wholely appropriate to have a distinct article for the domesticated subspecies, it is more appropriate to note on the species page some information about their being kept as pets. Remember also that Wikipedia is not a pet owner's manual. - UtherSRG 22:13, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Here is what Lynnda Butler of Skunks as Pets said in an email: "They are all referred to as domestic pen-raised skunks...and by the way, they get wonderful care!!!! I should be so lucky. This way they have been kept far from any disease and rabies contact. We try to correct vets who refer to them as "exotic"....they are not....that seems to give them a license to charge more!!!!! Lynnda" Not to digress, but there is nothing listed on the "Wikipedia is not" page about pet owners' instructions. Wikipedia also has numerous How-to guides with procedural instructions. Nathanlarson32767 23:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Captive breeding, care, all these things to not make animals domesticated. Lab rats are not domesticated, ferrets are borderline. Colour patterns are easy to change - it often takes just a few genes. Even so - almost all the animals in the pictures have 'wild-type' patterns. I understand that they are loving, hand-raised pets. But most domestics (all that I can think of) are classified as separate species (or at least sub-species) from their wild relatives. In addition, I would hazard a guess that at least a certain proportion of pet skunks are actually wild-caught, or within a few generations from the wild. Or is there a distinction between "domestic" skunks (which have seen maybe a hundred generations of captive breeding) and simply "tame" skunks? If there is, I am willing to revise my position, but then the article should only apply to those skunks, and not simply any old skunk kept as a pet. Guettarda 01:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • If the criteria for calling them domesticated is that there has to be an official sub-species of domesticated skunks, then they are not domesticated. Skunk taxonomy (and skunk research in general) is in an early stage of development; it was only recently that DNA work led to them being transferred out of the weasel family[5]. I don't have enough information to know how big a difference there is between the wild skunk lines and the captive-bred skunk lines, which make up the vast majority of legally-owned pet skunks. Anyway, if they're not going to be called "domesticated," what do you think would be a good article name? (For reference, here is the article Domestic vs. Domesticated by Pamela Troutman of Shelters that Adopt and Rescue Ferrets.) Nathanlarson32767 04:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Usage of "domestic skunk" in skunk literature: Bow to Me for I am the Domestic Skunk by Diana Geiger, People for Domestic Skunks, American Domestic Skunk Association, Pet Peoples Place article mentions "a domestic skunk, bred in captivity." "Domestic skunk" turns up 2,340 Google hits, compared to 31 for "domestic raccoon," although both have been raised as pets. Nathanlarson32767 11:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. While "domestic skunk" may get 2,340 Google hits, "pet skunk" gets about five times that many. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Domestic and pet are not synomyms. Icundell 12:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's cool where it is. I like the idea of a pet skunk. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• However, note language used in House Bill 91, An Act Concerning Disease Prevention - Rabies - Domestic Skunks, Maryland House of Delegates, 2001. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 07:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Domestic skunk" is less common and less accurate. →Raul654 07:55, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Having been born in captivity does not domestication make, as common sense or a visit to the local zoo will tell you. Do not confuse "fluffy" with "formal." (As an aside, should we really be looking to someone who uses "...." as a punctuation mark as an authority in a semantics debate?) A. D. Hair (t&m) 13:11, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. There would be little benefit from moving the page, other than making it harder to find.
• Oppose but also oppose the status quo as A demomestic skunk is a type of skunk, a pet skunk is not a type of skunk. Actualy now I think about it I can't think of a clear cut reason why this is so but it seems intuitivly acurate. Is it up to us how we catogarise animals or biologists?--JK the unwise 14:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Well.. the unofficial distinction I have heard is that any skunk that likes sitting on the couch watching TV with you is probably domestic. 205.217.105.2 22:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support I think many here are confusing the words 'domestic' and 'domesticated' a domestic skunk is a skunk that lives in a domestic environment - which pet skunks do. Moreover, the word 'pet' had certain connotations of care and appreciation, which, sadly, is not always the case, as any animal resue worker will tell you. Regardless of the hits on google, the name Domestic Skunk sounds more academic and less silly, which is the aim of any encyclopaedia. The search item 'Pet skunk' would still, obviously link here if the name were changed. -- Tom dl (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. 'Domestic skunk' just doesn't have that ring to it. Danleugers (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Legality section

I wonder if the "Legality in North America" section could be "lightened up" a bit. I notice there is now information about Canada, but this still leaves the rest of the world missing, and I worry that if as much detail were given for every country as is given about the US, the section would go on and on for far too long. Now, my initial thought was that the entire list could contain the same information in much less space, by being summarised along the lines of

"... they are illegal in most states, with the following exceptions: Alabama (if bred in the state); Florida (with permit); Georgia (except black & whites); Indiana (with permit) ..." etc.

I see, however, that some effort has been put into tracking down the applicable laws in each state, including those where it is illegal, and it seems a shame to just delete that information. But then, other than as a source for the information, is anyone going to want to read laws which are flat bans? If not, perhaps "we" [it would be unjust for me to claim a significant part in this article] can do numbered links [6] for those that allow some, and leave the rest summarised? - IMSoP 23:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree it takes up a lot of room. The main purpose of breaking the laws out by state was that readers were disputing about which states were legal and which weren't. All of the info originally came from Skunks at Pets. Then some people from Skunk Haven started making edits, turning some "legal" states to "illegal," etc. To make sure it was accurate, and to facilitate an convenient means of checking back on the laws in case they changed, I started adding links to the statutes. Sometimes the state laws have a provision saying skunks are legal, as long as you have a permit, but then an administration refuses to issue any permits, so it shows up on someone's web site as "Illegal". Some states allow you to have skunks under strict conditions. For instance, some states require them to be kept in enclosures, while others only issue permits for research permits. Those I usually counted as "Illegal". These laws are rather hard to research sometimes. Some states don't even own their statutes database; Lexis-Nexis or somebody owns it.

Here are a few possibilities:

• Use a state-by-state map, similar to the one at Owners of pet skunks,
• Move the state law details to the talk page,
• Hide the state law details in the main article as invisible text that people will see when they make an edit, or
• Use a sub-page off of the main page, similar to how some talk pages archive old discussions.

Nathanlarson32767 23:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is probably enough to only talk about legality in English-speaking countries, since there are separate Wikis for the others.. Nathanlarson32767 23:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's not a 100% convincing argument: as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia in any language covers all sorts of information - we have articles on the history of France, for instance, although I'm sure the French Wikipedia covers them better. I know it's not quite the same, and in this case you might be right, but that still leaves an awful lot to cover, so if people start researching this, I guess we'll have to create a Legality of pet skunks article (or somesuch - automatic subpages are not allowed in the article namespace, only for Talk:, Wikipedia:, etc). - IMSoP 13:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. It was rather difficult trying to find info about legality in other countries, since I don't speak other languages, and pet skunks aren't common in very many countries. The Legality of pet skunks page sounds like a good idea. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 16:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe both the legality and politics sections could be moved to a seperate article, as they only deal with North America.--213.162.108.112 00:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Have you guys considered using a table? This is what they were designed for, after all. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK I put a table. Any suggestions for prettifying it? — Nathanlarson32767 | (Talk) 03:39, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've folded the ext. links and details back into the table, because it just made things harder to find, and take up more space, having them seperate. I know it makes the table look rather wide (if you have a large scree resolution & window size) but I'm not entirely sure what to do about it.

My other thought, which I haven't done yet, was that they could be colour-coded: red for illegal, green for legal, yellow for legal with conditions. (See Comparison of instant messengers for an example of how to do this / how it would look).

Oh, and Wisconsin had a reference to a statute, but no entry in the table, so someone needs to check what it should actually say (demonstrating the problem of seperating information rather neatly, I guess). - IMSoP 13:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm posting here rather than editing as I'm not an expert; however, I do work with the Captive Wild Animal Protection Coalition (CWAPC), which closely tracks legislation regarding the legality of keeping wild animals as pets (and by any reasonable standard of "domestic", skunks are still "wild"); the article currently states this: "In the 20th century, most U.S. states outlawed the keeping of wild animals as part of their efforts to stem the spread of rabies. Only about one-third of states continued to allow domestic skunks."

As a point of fact, "most" U.S. states by no measure outlaw the keeping of wild animals; some, certainly not most, have outlawed the keeping of "dangerous" wild animals; in most states, all that is needed, if anything, is an easily obtainable USDA permit to keep anything from monkeys to lions. By the CWAPC count, only 13 states prohibit the keeping of wild animals; 9 other have only a partial prohibition (which generally means prohibiting things like lions, tigers and crocodiles, but not skunks); 15 other states have no laws whatsoever on keeping animals like skunk, mountain lions, and alligators as pets, and the rest only require a nominal payment to a government agency. That means that only 25% of the states outlaw keeping pet skunks, and that's assuming that skunks are implicitly or explicitly covered by the state anti-wild-pet law. I'm not saying the CWAPC necessarily has it right, but you can see the list here: http://cwapc.org/legislation/state.html and if the "most U.S. states" line is right, it should at least include a reference to the relevant legislation. Cmerrick 09:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Continued streamlining of skunk care overview

I have trimmed the skunk care overview, so that it is about 1/3 the total article size. I have mainly tried to keep stuff that gives an overall impression of skunk care, and also the Diet and Roundworms sections, because they were controversial and it is hard to find NPOV info elsewhere on the internet. Should the skunk care overview be trimmed further, and if so what parts? Nathanlarson32767 23:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• OK, I went ahead and eliminated the lengthy checklists of healthy/unhealthy skunk signs. Nathanlarson32767 00:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Explanation of "pet skunks are not for everyone"

There was a part of the "Handling skunks" section reading "pet skunks are not for everyone," which Neutrality deleted a moment ago. That is a good change, in my opinion, since it makes the style more encyclopaedic.

That language had originally been added to satisfy certain users who were adding warnings throughout the article (e.g. some skunks can't be housebroken) in order to deter would-be skunk owners, and also inserting numerous pitches for their organization. It was headed toward an edit war, so I added the General Considerations section, that other language, and a paragraph about their organization as a compromise.

Anyway, I don't know if they'll be making more edits, but I'm sure we can work something out. Here was one of the emails received Dec. 8, 2004 in reference to that matter. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 07:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I've come to the conclusion that you are an INSANE

hypocrite. You accuse me of following anecdotal

evidence, when I pointed out that Deb is the only one

with blood values and blood tests on her side to prove

that her diet is beneficial to her skunks. THEN you

take the only shred of scientific evidence on your

entire TERM PAPER off??? Yesterday there was info on

there about Deb's vet, and how to contact him. Today,

GONE. Yesterday there was info on there about Deb's

diet plan, and a link to the skunkhaven site about it.

Today, GONE. You claim you're going to butt out and

let 'the skunk people' take over the article. Are you

going to continue to delete everything that Deb puts

on there? Because that's what appears to be

happening. If it's not you doing the erasing of

things, then you better think seriously about shutting

the whole article down.

I don't normally insert my comments into the middle of another's, but this long, weirdly-formatted one's comments cannot be addressed easily without doing so, so I will make an exception This time.

1.) This is not a "term paper". Either your English is not fluent, or I have no idea why you're calling it that. This is an encyclopedia article.

2.) If that person has blood tests to support her claims, please note where they can be found in the References section, so they can be referenced in the article to cite the claims you believe should stay. Also note however that if anyone has criticized or questioned these results, or if the results are self-published outside of accepted, peer-reviewed scientific journals, that should be noted in order to maintain encyclopedic accuracy and neutrality in the article. You would expect the same of any claims contrary to this, would you not?

3.)From the sounds of it, a single diet plan was only a small portion of what was removed. It was removed because apparently the article was sounding more like a how-to guide than an encyclopedic entry, and the how-to stuff was dominating the article in place of a basic informational overview. It also sounds as if somebody suspected a neutrality issue (one person spamming or disproportionately supporting one view over another). Please calm down.

4.)Anybody can edit Wikipedia, and you can see who removed what by checking the History page for the article, including the ability to compare and contrast different edits side-by-side. Look it up yourself.

5.)Nobody is going to shut down an entire Wikipedia article just because WAH WAH SOMEBODY KEEPS REMOVING A SINGLE PORTION OF INFORMATION. I'm sorry to take a sarcastic tone, but really, that's not how Wikipedia works. If you are going to be commenting on how an article is being handled, you should brush up on how it does work, as well as its policies and guidelines. Articles are only really deleted if their subject is not considered "notable" enough to support having its own article. All articles online at Wikipedia can be considered Works in Progress. Runa27 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice of you to turn Deb's invite to Skunfest down,

while deleting the info about it on your site at the

same time. If you're going to use that crap in your

second reply to me about Deb having updates soon as

the reason you took her info off, you can shove that.

Deb will ALWAYS have updates, because her research

never stops.

Nice of YOU to inexplicably bring what appears to be a private conversation into the public and confuse the hell out of anyone who wasn't the one person you're actually responding to. Especially when it's as something ridiculous and irrelevant to the article as "Wah wah, you turned down some other person's invitation to some event/site nobody's heard of and removed the link on your personal website." Unless... wait, you're not referring to the links section here on the Wikipedia article, are you?

Besides, a link to a non-independently-notable external site or event can be considered spam in some circumstances. Most likely, that was why it was removed. Calm down. It happens all the time. Runa27 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to read anecdotal evidence, I have LOADS

of emails from the Bone-heads themselves saying the

craziest crap you've ever heard in your life. One

such INSANITY is that you can never ever feed a

healthy skunk a raw egg because it will kill it. But

if a skunk is near death the only thing that will save

it is to feed it a raw egg. What the hell is the

scientific evidence in that? My skunk's been eating

free-range raw eggs for years now, and doesn't seem to

be nearing the grave.

What you just said is a combination of "stuff that couldn't be put into Wikipedia because of reliability issues" and "stuff that makes no sense".

1.)Private emails are usually univerifiable sources, not considered reliable for Wikipedia.

2.)If they did say you shouldn't feed a raw egg, I'm sure it's because of say, salmonella or other infection concerns, not because of some weird anti-egg bias.

3.)If a skunk is near death. You feed it an egg. And that... is the only thing that will save them. Riiiight. That is the biggest bullshit I have ever heard. "Near death" includes being hit by a car or electrocuted. Are you claiming this, or are you claiming they claimed it? Your phrasing is a bit ambiguous. Please clarify.

4.)Keep your POV out of the article, please. We are trying to create a neutral, informative encyclopedia article. Calling someone a "Bone-head" is not particularly conducive to that. Runa27 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Your site doesn't even have the correct info on it for

which states are legal and which are illegal. Deb has

rescues that were confiscated in illegal states.

If it isn't correct, then change it. Jeez. Runa27 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The people you are dealing with have actually

threatened Deb with harm(Deb has loads of proof in

writing), threatened to burn her house down, and

threatened to kill her skunks. You are not dealing

with stable people here. If I were you, personally,

instead of being in the middle of this insanity, I'd

take the whole damned thing off the wiki site and quit

now. If you think I'm joking, I've got those emails

to show you too. There are some seriously unstable

people in the skunk world. They have good spelling

and grammar, but the conscience of a turnip. If

you're lucky you won't find out about that aspect of

them.

All we have for this is your word. "Emails" aren't proof of anything since they can be faked, unless she has actually noted something about death threats on her site we don't even have a shred of evidence for it other than an angry and nearly deranged-sounding poster on Wikipedia's (a poster which does not even know the deletion policies on Wikipedia, I might add; simply having some inaccurate information in it, nor people the information comes from allegedly being "unstable", are not valid reasons to delete an article on this site) word. Keep such things out of the discussion. They are essentially irrelevant to the article, which is not about this "Deb" person, or her site, or anything but simply the concept of skunks as pets. Runa27 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No way... I just realized you can delete anything

you want at any time on wiki.... You've got to be

kidding... This has got to be the dumbest thing I've

ever seen in my life... What's the point? Boy, what

a waste of your time this has been... What a waste of

everyone's time. Congratulations, you've just started

a war. I hope you're happy.

Wait, Wikipedia, advertized as the "Free Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit"... and you only just now realized you could edit it? Wow. Just... wow.

Waste of time? Really. Because we're apparently as accurate or better as Encyclopedia Britannica. Yes, what a horrible, dumb, pointless system it must be. Clearly.

And you'd go to war over a Wikipedia page on pet skunks? Wow. Please tell me you're not the leader of a nation with nuclear weapons. Runa27 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Someone asked if all the links in the References section are actually used in the article, or if some are really External Links. Yup, all the References correspond to a footnote. The footnotes are in this type of format: [7]. That links them to a web site, but doesn't link them to a reference in the References section. Superscript footnotes look nicer, and solve the problem of linking the footnotes to items in the Reference section, but I'm not sure it's possible to auto-number them. So, it would be laborious to insert or delete a footnote in the middle, because all the others following it would have to be incremented or decremented.

It could probably be done with some type of macro, though. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 16:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Skunks getting hit by cars

"Most wild skunks only spray when struck by cars or attacked." What a hoot. And this was plastered on the front page. I'm sure skunks spray just before being crushed to death by a car. I mean, just in case. Or *maybe* the glands rupture when the skunk is turned into roadkill, eh?

What a hoot.

It could be a little of both.. see Roadkill: Driving Animals to Their Graves:

Skunks newly awakened from winter hibernation are slow to recognize danger. When threatened, their defense is to turn their backs and spray. If you see a skunk beside the road, don't slow down abruptly. The skunk may think you've seen him and will attack. Act as if you're minding your own business and he'll go on about minding his.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the sentence (as amusingly-worded as it is) is sort of trying to refer to the fact that skunks usually reserve their spray for emergencies. In fact, they usually will do a considerable amount of threatening actions before then, ranging from stomping, to skidding back (sometimes both at once, i.e. jumping forward to stomp, then perhaps pulling back with nails still on the ground), etc., and they also sort of rear up like a cat, and raise and fluff out their tails (they only raise their tails if they're threatened). If they're really seriously threatening you, they may also twist their body so the scent gland (i.e. their rear) is pointed towards you, while still trying to keep an eye on you. Looks very funny, actually (though the stomp really can be alarming if you're not aware they're there!). But yeah, they'll run away or threaten you first, often both. Spraying is very much a last resort for them. Runa27 22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Pet skunk issues

Nathan, since you're the primary author of pet skunk, I'm going to put this comment here on your talk page instead of talk:pet skunk (although you could very well move this there). I scheduled the article go on the main page on the 9th, and neutrality raised two objections - that (a) it uses a mixture of superscripts and inline references (I have fixed this) and (b) that the copyright status of the picture is a bit uncertain. The latter is a valid concern. I'd appreciate it if you take a look at the Copyright Faq that Jamesday and I wrote, and (since most of the pictures are not yours) you could contact the person(s) from whom you got them and be a bit clearer what license they are available under. →Raul654 00:53, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Whoops. The link I gave you was broken. Try Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ →Raul654 03:02, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the one currently on the Main Page (of Mocha, the mahogony-colored skunk) is definitely okay to be there.. although most permissions have come in the form of "Sure, you can use it" without specifying a license type. Hmm. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 18:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

...Pet Skunk?

I'm not really sure why this subject has its own page. Why not incorporate it into the Skunk page? This is what is done with other domestic animals, such as Domestic cat and Domestic Dog—they redirect to their corresponding pages (Cat and Dog, respectively), which have sections about having these animals as pets. Besides, the title 'Pet Skunk' is quite amusing; when I saw it featured on the Main Page, I wondered what was going on... Coolsi 18:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about unifying the two articles. At first glance, it seems to make more sense. However, note the article feral cat. I think it is useful to the reader to divide the info on feral and domestic animals of the same species into two separate articles, if there are large populations of each. The feral skunk info goes under skunk, since that is probably what the majority of people going there are looking for. I would have preferred renaming this page domestic skunk, but the voters chose otherwise.. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 18:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's because "domestic" implies it's bred in captivity and tamed. You can have a pet squirrel, too; that doesn't mean it's domestic. Trained perhaps, but domesticated implies being bred.  ALKIVAR™ 02:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They have been selectively bred for fur for several hundred years, so in that sense they are at least as domesticated as the mink. [http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+reg+4VAC15-20-50 Virginia law recognizes "domesticated races of mink". — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 17:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the other, note Jane Bone's comment[8]: Baby skunks are not puppies or kittens and cannot be raised as such! They have been bred not for their personality, but for their fur. They are rejects from a fur farm and require more handling than puppies or kittens. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 17:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How soft is a skunk's fur?

As soft as a cat's? Kent Wang 11:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Their fur is more silky. Like muskrats, they are usually classified by law as fur-bearing animals[9]. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 17:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Skunks and contagious diseases

Someone wrote:

Inside the European Union, purchasing or transferring skunks between countries isn't regulated in any way. Skunks also don't carry any contagious diseases, which would mandate quarantining them or requiring pet passports or vet certifications. Importing skunks from outside the EU area might not be allowed; laws differ from country to country.

Can we find support for the statement that skunks don't carry any contagious diseases? It sounds doubtful. A reference would be helpful. 24.75.98.89 01:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Citations

This article should be converted to the <ref> and </ref> format. Kilo-Lima ^{Vous pouvez parler} 20:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The Tennessee citation is incorrect. At the moment, it is citing to a local town's code, not state code. The correct state code citation is TCA § 70-4-208, which speficially prohibits selling skunks or any private ownership of skunks. I would correct the citation, but I can't find a good website to link to for TCA that isn't java or requires a paid account. Thehedgehog 05:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

How many?

How many pet skunks are there roughly in the United States? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.1 (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

There's probably no real way to get an accurate count of even legally-owned skunks, though if licenses are public knowledge, then those numbers could be cited in states where you can have one only with a license. However, even then certain states have different approaches to it; apparently in one state, you can only have one skunk per household. In Florida, though, you can not only have multiple skunks per household, you only need one license to cover all of your skunks. Not mentioned in the article, but it is true because when my mother bought the second skunk, they told her she wouldn't need a new license because the old one covered it, especially since it (the license) was only a couple of years old. There are, however, enough skunk owners to have at least one convention, which implies several hundred to several thousand owners, so I would say several thousand pet skunks at least, but I can't give any better estimate than that without looking at the number of licenses. Plus, do some states require notification of when one skunk dies? Not all might, further hindering efforts to get reliable numbers. Runa27 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

How agile and active are skunks?

I have a chihuahua and a cat, my chihuahua is more active but my cat is more agile. My chihuhua can jump about 22 inches high, my cat can easily jump up 25 inches, how high would an adult skunk be able to jump? How active are skunks compared to chihuahuas and cats? Dionyseus 18:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Skunks are not particularly agile, as they are adapted more for burrowing and digging and hibernation than cats and dogs are, and their natural scent glands mean they don't usually have to jump away from predators and such. They don't really jump, though they can learn to pull themselves up to, say, the top of a hassock by their front legs, and when we got our second skunk and decided to keep him in a large training cage for the first few months, he really liked to climb up the walls of it. So, they can be quite strong and somewhat decent at climbing, but they don't really jump because they aren't made for it (short legs and very bottom heavy). How active they are really depends on the skunk and the conditions. A fatter skunk is usually less active, I've found, and they can be quite "active" in following you around, especially if they think you're going to feed them. They can run surprisingly fast, but I'd imagine cats and most dogs are faster, not to mention less clumsy. They do play a little—stomping/skidding games mostly—but they're not active players in the way kittens and puppies are. They are very curious though, and ours spend most of their waking hours trying to get cabinets open or digging in underneath the ferret cage for stray food pieces. :P They're sort of more built to fatten up for the winter than to be sleek hunters, if you will (when they do hunt, it's more oppurtunistic than stalking, partly because of their extreme nearsightedness. They'll eat live bugs, but unless a bug is about an inch from their face, they'll never notice it unless they smell it). Also: adorably clumsy. They're more a cuddling-and-ambling-around, trying-to-get-into-the-pantry type of animal. Runa27 22:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting pet legality in Georgia

Alright, so if you look at the state legality list on the main entry for pet skunks, you'll see for Georgia it says that they're illegal, except for the black and white ones. It referred me to Georgia's Department of Natural Resources which has a list of animals that aren't allowed to be pets, Skunk being one of them, which contradicts what the list on the Wikipedia entry says. Thanks. Sdws17 20:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

All skunks are prohibited as pets in Georgia. The information that stated they were legal except black & whites was incorrect information and has apparently been corrected by the GA DNR. I contacted them a couple of years ago and also a few weeks ago and both times they stated all skunks are prohibited as pets in Georgia. They also stated they are trying to figure out how to deal with the issue of the pet skunks currently in GA. RFoxx (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Temperament Section Neutrality

The section reads like a brochure. It is very slanted for skunks as pets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.245.194 (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Temperament section needs significant work. The rest of the article is fairly informational, but this section is way too folksy. "You" should never be used in an informational article, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.19.143.2 (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sugar -> diabetes?

It's a myth that eating sugar leads to diabetes in humans (check the Canadian Diabetes site for verification) and I suspect that it is a myth that it does in skunks, so the several references here need citations for clinical evidence of such a link if it does exist.

That said, I'm inclined to buy the argument that sugar in any form isn't a natural food for too many animals.

--174.7.25.37 (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The article’s name

Shouldn’t this be located at something like “Skunk as pet”? The title “Pet skunk” seems to imply that this is a different thing than having a common skunk as a pet. —Frungi (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Since this Talk page seems to have been inactive for years, I’ll just start an RM. —Frungi (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Pet skunk → Skunks as pets – as per Frogs as pets, Chickens as pets, Crickets as pets, Wolves as pets and working animals… The current name doesn’t seem encyclopedic, and it seems to imply that a pet skunk is somehow different from a common skunk kept as a pet. Frungi (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And it’s done. That was easy. Thanks, Apteva! —Frungi (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.skunksaspetscanada.cjb.net/

  Triggered by \bcjb\.net\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Skunks as pets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041212094707/http://www.aphis.usda.gov:80/vs/sregs/nj.html to http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/sregs/nj.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Skunks as pets. 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/20110525090920/http://www.aspenskunk.org/canadastudy.htm to http://www.aspenskunk.org/canadastudy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041221174514/http://www.captiveanimals.org/news/2003/disease.htm to http://www.captiveanimals.org/news/2003/disease.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050924074354/http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/awlicreg.html to http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/awlicreg.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040920232602/http://www.agfc.com/pdf/agfc_code_of_regulations.pdf to http://www.agfc.com/pdf/agfc_code_of_regulations.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041214003801/http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=250020036.K to http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=250020036.K
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204155007/http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/sregs/mo.html to http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/sregs/mo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031125060513/http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/50/23/50-23-101.htm to http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/50/23/50-23-101.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212164034/http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/50/23/50-23-102.htm to http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/50/23/50-23-102.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051202001710/http://statutes.unicam.state.ne.us/Corpus/statutes/chap37/R3704077.html to http://statutes.unicam.state.ne.us/Corpus/statutes/chap37/R3704077.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041208234309/http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/sregs/nv.html to http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/sregs/nv.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041222165810/http://www.agr.state.nc.us/vet/cwdregs.htm to http://www.agr.state.nc.us/vet/cwdregs.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041225052350/http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t47c005.htm to http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t47c005.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041226161119/http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t50c016.htm to http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t50c016.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041212145739/http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/titles/title23/c01a01.htm to http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/titles/title23/c01a01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050321184038/http://www.dbm.state.md.us/SearchUtility/IndDetails.asp?EmpID=10639&OID=1881 to http://www.dbm.state.md.us/SearchUtility/IndDetails.asp?EmpID=10639&OID=1881
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204074544/http://www.animalforum.com/wferrethist.htm to http://www.animalforum.com/wferrethist.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041216105710/http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/PreviousNext.asp?NodeID=89772 to http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/PreviousNext.asp?NodeID=89772

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Skunk Legality

    Skunk legality in my personal opinion should be updated on Louisiana. The reason of me stating this is as of 2019 I having checked Louisiana's parishes can say as a fact that it is directly stated that skunks can be owned as a pet in New Orleans as according to the bottom of Sec. 18-1. – Definitions of the section designated to animals, located in the City of New Orleans Code of Ordinances ( <ref>https://library.municode.com/la/new_orleans/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeId=PTIICO_CH18AN_ARTIINGE). It id in here that it is directly stated that skunks can be owned legally as shown from this excerpt

Wild or exotic animals means: (1) Any live monkey (nonhuman primate), raccoon, skunk, wolf, squirrel, coyote, fox, leopard, panther, tiger, lion, lynx, serval cat, or any other warm-blooded animal not otherwise defined; (2) Any venomous or constricting snake (such as Boidae family) that will grow to an adult size greater than three feet; (3) Any tarantula which can normally be found in the wild state; (4) Any member of crocodilian including, but not limited to, alligators, crocodiles, caimans and gharials; (5) Any exotic animal hybrid; or (6) Any rooster, cockerel, cock, or chanticleer.

{Ferrets, nonvenomous snakes (other than constricting snakes that will grow to an adult size larger than three feet), rabbits, box or aquatic turtles, laboratory rats and <SKUNKS which have been bred and raised in captivity which have never known the wild>, and pocket pets or pet rodents including, but not limited to, hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, chinchillas, sugar gliders or hedgehogs shall be excluded from this definition.}

   As on might now this is considered to be illegal for one to own any exotic animal in New Orleans but Skunks, along with rodents, ferrets, sugar gliders, rabbits, and most reptiles are excluded from the definition of exotic. 
And while the argument could be made that Louisiana as a state is still said to be against owning skunks local laws cannot go against state laws meaning that this law in theory was okay with the Louisiana government or at the least to minimal to warrant any real attention. 

Because of these reasons I believe that the Wikipedia article stating that it is illegal to own skunks in the state should be updated and changed.