Sunday, December 14, 2008

Found the Way!!!

Looks like there is a way to stop NKE, just declare the entire year to be Christmas!! Seems that the Whino likes to take Christmas off, so there it is folks, the way to stop him. Let's pursue our legislators to declare Christmas 365 days a year.

Sorry to make so light of this situation but we have to have a laugh sometimes. It's been a rough year for those of us who care about the shelter animals. We had to endure Philly, knowing how the animals suffered. Seattle is still up in the air about what they will do to either create or stop the suffering. What can you say about LA other than pray for those animals. NHS will probably go down this coming year but not without suffering. SF SPCA is backing off from "no kill" and they will be interesting to keep an eye on this coming year. And Patricia Ruland will hopefully continue her writing in Austin.

Hope all of you have been reading Pacelle's blog lately. He is exposing some of the Whino's cohorts. Hopefully this will give us another tool to fight NKE. Establishing the relationship between crooks, NKE, puppy mills, and breeders seem the direction to go in at this point.

We do have the weapons to fight this fight now but do we have the stomach for it is the question. As you all know, the Whino loves to threaten those who speak against him. Look at the case of Pat Dunaway. He is using her to intimidate those who oppose him. She's not scared to stand up and be counted from the looks of it. And she must have something he is scared of or he wouldn't take the time to blog about her. Let's have a goal for this coming year of giving the Whino reason to post many more names on his blog of those who oppose him.

Thursday, December 4, 2008


The One To Watch at

I do believe that a certain name has come up before on this blog and this lends credibility to that poster.

Give Me A Second, Folks

Sorry for not posting lately. But I have had two members of my pet family to pass away and I am still grieving for them. Also there is something I am staying on top of that you guys will like if I can pull it off.
And I am trying to come up with a good post with all that has been happening. I'm reading some disturbing news from Philly .
Now my take on this is that the PSPCA is just looking for donations by appearing to follow the NKE. What if they said to chuck it out the window, what would happen? Their donor base would follow. Too many organizations have found this to be true because the public is ignorant about the truth of NKE. It sounds good, sounds doable, and thus the public is easily sucked in. So it would not be the first time a major organization backed away from criticizing NKE.
And another reason for the lack of posts is that I prefer to feel love, kindness, and caring during the holiday season. I don't want to think about someone who is doing so much harm. I prefer to think of my friends out there who are working to make it better. Thank all of you, your support is appreciated.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

The Man In The Mirror

Winograd needs to just look in the mirror and he will see himself in his condemnation of HSUS.

Joining forces with PetPAC and the breeding community (AKA puppy mills) is, in my opinion, the most horrendous thing that he could possibly do and that is saying a lot considering his background of supporting a marketing term gone bad.

But despite this, he blogs about how great Prop 2 was for the animals. HE DID NOTHING TO HELP THIS LEGISLATION!! And then has the nerve to condemn the very organization that got this legislation passed. What is with this man? He who has done everything to destroy shelters and thereby hurt the animals in the shelters. He who handpicked the director in Philly who allowed the suffering of animals. Dare I go on? You know the stories.

He's no saviour but he needs to be nailed to the cross.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Just Arrived

I tried to cut and paste this emailed letter from PetPAC to whoever, members, supporters. But it only picked up the text. I'm not sure if it is posted on their web site. It appears it is by subscription. This is not good, folks.

Dear ,

The California Legislature is back in session preparing their 2009 agenda. PetPAC is seeking the introduction of a bill in support of No Kill Animal Shelters. This legislation will greatly reduce the number of dogs and cats killed in our animal shelters and defend us from further mandatory spay and neuter legislation like AB1634.
HSUS and PETA are opposing our efforts. While they say they support No Kill Shelters they have been fighting implementation of No Kill Shelter policy. The extremists' agenda of HSUS and PETA includes the elimination of dog and cat clubs, elimination of dogs and cats as pets, and elimination of pet owner rights in California.
Will you please help us fight these extremists before it's too late? We need your financial support to continue the fight. Please donate to PetPAC today.
PetPAC led the fight against these extremists on AB 1634 and we won the political fight! Now we must be prepared to defend ourselves against further attempts to take away the rights of pets and their owners.
Please help PetPAC defend your rights. HSUS and PETA are preparing to strip you of your rights and pets. Stand up and help us today.
Sincerely,Bill HembyChairman
Spread the word about PetPAC.

Have you signed the PetPAC 10,000 Thank You's petition?

Please help PetPAC support no kill animal shelters

Paid for by PetPAC, P.O. Box 1019, Sacramento, CA 95812If you would like to unsubscribe from email communications, please click here.If this message was forwarded from a friend, click here to join.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Something to Crow About

FINALLY, California has passed prop 2!!!! This is to relieve the suffering of caged food animals. And the Humane Society of the United States is to thank for spearheading the effort.
Where was Winograd during all this? No where to be found that I know of. Does he campaign or lend support to such wonderful legislation? Not that I am aware of.
Does Winograd degrade HSUS for such work? Yes, he does. Does Winograd give HSUS credit for stopping the dreadful practice of greyhound racing in Massachusetts that brings such suffering for those graceful dogs? No, he doesn't.
And people think Winograd is the "cat's meow"? When will they realize that this man really doesn't put his money where his mouth is and his actions show that he really doesn't care about the animals? Just my opinion, folks, but the track record backs me up.
Cudos to HSUS for getting this piece of legislation passed in California. It gives HSUS the backing they need to extend this legislation throughout the country. And it means a lessening of the suffering of animals that provide us with food. Maybe Winograd doesn't care about this suffering because he is a vegan. Whatever the reason, he should have been there for the animals and he wasn't. What a jerk.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

We're Not That Stupid

Just finished reading our "favorite" blog and just had to respond. Does this "guest" blogger really think we are so stupid that we don't know to look for a lost pet at the shelters?

This blogger blows my mind with her recommendations for the shelter to spend more time (like they have any extra time) to look for owners. In this day and age, people don't have to be told to look in the shelters, they know to do so. And since when are shelters supposed to dedicate all their time to looking for an owner? Does this blogger not get it that the one thing shelters don't have to spare is time.

My local shelter goes down the kennels everyday, takes the lost pet sheets filled out by concerned owners, and tries to match the sheets with their impounded pets. When you call the shelter to report a missing pet, they won't take the info on the phone, asking you to come into the shelter instead to make a report. I have seen all the pets that were reunited with their owners from this procedure. I see on the sheets the mark through meaning the owner claimed them.

Does this "guest" blogger (and probably just a guest when it comes to the issue of animals as well) realize that not every owner wants to find their pet? That is the problem, not reuniting owners with pets. The problem is that people just "get rid of" their pets by opening the door, or throwing it out in the desert from a moving car. The problem is society as a whole and the lack of commitment from pet owners.

Again someone making it look like the shelters aren't doing their job. Some aren't, but many are and this continued generalization of shelters as all being bad, has got to stop. When will people wake up and realize that the shelter has not created the problem, the public has. Now the stupid accusation that shelters don't look for owners. Owners are supposed to look for their pets and unless the owner has spent the last fifty years in the wilds of Siberia, owners know that there are shelters and that is where they start looking. How many animals have I taken into the shelter feeling confident the owner would show and never did. I have posted signs where the pet was found, I have gone door to door, and exhausted all avenues finding an owner to no avail.

We have to stop skirting the issue and begin to put the responsibility where it belongs, on irresponsible pet owners. To continue to condemn shelters only serves to drive away potential adopters and it drives them straight to rescue groups. A social change is needed and this blogger needs to realize this.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

A Honest(y) Recommendation

This story written by Patricia J. Ruland is a must read. She has a previous story where she has referred to the "No Kill Equation" as an infomercial. Ms. Ruland points out how the opposition is silenced with threats of lawsuits. Also noteworthy is that Ms. Ruland has discovered that the Winograd resume is inaccurate in stating his experience in animal control.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Back and Ready for a Fight

Los Angeles Animal Services is in total chaos. In March this year employees submitted a letter of no confidence to the Mayor. Animal Services is a department and a department head is appointed and answers only to the Mayor, not the City Council. This letter was basically ignored by the Mayor. But the City Council has now taken note and special meetings this week brought all of this to light.

LAAS is run by Ed Boks. Boks had claimed on his resume that he brought Maricopa County, AZ to no kill and was on the way to no kill in New York City. He was hailed as the savior of LAAS by the majority of the humane community. The only ones who knew the truth about him was oddly enough, the ADL-LA.

For the first year it appeared that all was well with LAAS. The numbers given out by Boks were showing considerable improvement and that LA was on the road to no kill. The ADL-LA was still insisting that all was not the way it appeared and continued to hound the City into hiring Nathan Winograd. Then the end of the year numbers were submitted and the story changed.

There are many blogs that have all the sordid details of this fiasco in LA, I won’t repeat. What I want to do is compare Ed Boks, a proclaimed “guru of no kill” and Nathan Winograd, another proclaimed “guru of no kill”. The similarities are there and they are disturbing.

Boks and Winograd, both, suffer from over inflated egos, neither will allow themselves to accept any responsibility when it comes to mistakes and failures. The documented demise of Boks makes this very clear. Winograd only takes credit if it is good, never if it is bad. Look at Philly, he first proclaimed it a success, now he yells the loudest that it is a failure. And his reasons for it failing were things he did not take into account when he did his consultation. The aging facility should have been enough to determine that going “No Kill” was not a good idea at that time. It would appear from Winograd’s accusations why Philly failed that certain things must be in place before one can achieve success. He is real big on yelling commitment. He determines commitment in financial terms, throw enough money around and it will happen. Sorry, Whino, that hasn’t proven quite true. Rancho Cucamonga, CA was definitely committed if that is the standard. They pay to the tune of $12+ per person per year for their commitment and still can’t make it work.
Boks and Winograd, both, fail to identify resources that might make their plan work. Winograd in Rancho, failed to identify any “North Shore League” that could take one third of Rancho’s animals like they did for him in Tompkins County. Rancho itself has little to nothing in the way of “rescue” groups, they would have to come from other areas. Boks is claiming a tremendous increase in “rescue” groups under his “New Hope” program but yet the number of animals these groups have taken out have fallen and continues to fall.

If you do read the blogs about Boks, you note that Boks is in denial about everything. And same with Winograd. He is in denial about his true animal control experience or rather lack of it. I have yet to hear the Whino admit anything is wrong or needs changing with his program. He offers no disclaimer that certain criteria must be met before his program has a chance of working. He sells his program to those totally unprepared to carry through on it nor do they have the means to carry through. The only one I know of that had the ways and means was the Rancho Cucamonga shelter.

Rancho has a beautiful shelter in a prime location. Most places would give all to have such a shelter. The City of Rancho owned the building but contracted with the County of San Bernardino for field services and shelter staff. The “No Kill” program was installed and within three months, the shelter was overcrowded with crates and carriers in the hallways. They had an outbreak of ringworm and failed to notify the public who may have been exposed. And did the people respond, you bet they did. Public surrenders increased from 50-100 a year average to over 4000 a year. Owner surrenders increased as well but many of the public surrenders were actually owners who wanted to avoid the staff’s hard looks, lectures, and surrender fees.
The surrenders were so bad that the director announced in two newspaper articles that they were not no kill. Staff has left in record numbers blaming poor management. Volunteer hours were reported on the city web site as only 10 hours average a day. It is plain to see that staff was overwhelmed and became burned out. Rancho has an average of 400 animals a day when the shelter was designed for about 100-150. Rancho taxpayers now pay $12 per person per year for animal control. Considering that most are paying under $3 per person per year, this says how committed Rancho is and was to go “No Kill”. But it didn’t happen, couldn’t happen.
Boks has also enjoyed the support of the City of LA as far as funding goes. They have opened new shelters during his tenure. Vets have been hired. Yet LA can’t make it work either. The argument is that the management is incapable.

Winograd always relies on that argument to explain away his failures too. The fact is that the program itself is flawed and no one is capable of pulling it off. Rancho proves that all the money in the world, being in an affluent community, and commitment doesn’t make it work in an open door shelter.

Boks claimed to have made two other cities/counties as no kill. Winograd has claimed to succeeded at making some no kill. The truth is coming out and this isn’t quite true. Winograd lays claim to making Tompkins County SPCA a no kill when actually they were trying to achieve this prior to Winograd and were close. Winograd always uses San Francisco as an example. First, SF doesn’t handle that many animals to being with. But there are several shelters that service the whole of SF and one needs to look at these shelters before calling SF a true no kill city. That leaves Nevada and Charlottesville. Both are non profits and don’t share info with the public. Rumors abound about both of these shelters.

So the similarities are there. The claims of successes which are questionable at best. The egos that won’t admit failures. Both are masters at manipulation of the media. Both are masters of giving people what they want to hear. Both make no kill look doable and good on paper. Both claim to be the only way to achieve no kill.

Personally I am not looking for the second coming of Christ as being in our shelter system.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

The Pook Is At Rainbow Bridge

Yesterday I had Pookie, my guinea pig, euthanized. The vet had done all he could do and the Pook just didn't get better. He couldn't eat properly because of a severe malocclusion. The Pook lived to eat. His favorites were cucumber, tomatoes (Romas), and eggplant. Feeding him was the highlight of each day.

Pookie was a shelter piggie. He came in with a large bust of a cavy breeder in Riverside, CA. There were over 130 piggies, most pregnant at the time, so the number rose to about 200 piggies in the shelter. I only had room for one. On my way to the shelter, I asked myself how I was going to be able to pick only one and how do I do that. I decided to let my piggie pick me.

So I put my hand in cages and waited for one to come up. Piggies are prey animals and their first instinct is to run. They did, except for the Pook. He came up and he was mine. And no piggies could want for more. He enjoyed a large pen in a dedicated room for piggies, had all the fresh veggies he wanted, and enjoyed the company of several other piggies. And he was NEUTERED.

Cavies (guinea pigs) are considered a disposable pet. They cost $5-20 in the stores. They are sold for snake food. People eat them too. But it is cheaper to let them die and get another, thus disposable. Vets for piggies are expensive, they are considered exotic animals. The Pook had had an abscess on his jaw a few months ago, probably had something to do with this problem, and his vet bill was high. I could have bought 50 piggies. But his life was precious to me and worth the money.

Just a reminder that the shelters don't only have cats and dogs, they also have piggies, rats, birds, and almost anything else. But it is most sad for these "disposable" pets because their value even says don't bother using the gas to take them to the shelter. I guess what I am trying to say is that every life, no matter what it "costs" or if it is free, is important and valuable. Pook was only $5 at the shelter but he brought me millions in enjoyment. I will miss him terribly.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Looney Tunes

I would not normally ask my readers to visit the Whino's blog site but I am going to do just that.
I am referring to the Whino talking about the movie on chihuahuas released by Disney. He is getting more and more extreme with his rantings. We all know what happened with the Dals when Disney released the movie. Now in CA, it is estimated that half of the Dals born are deaf because of all the backyard breeding to supply the demand from the movie. In one day I picked up three lactating Dals within a one block area, all had been turned loose and obviously had had puppies. One was deaf. No one claimed them at the shelter.
I have been aware and have watched the Chi population grow at our local shelter. Unfortunately many had severe genetic problems. Now there will be a rush to breed enough for the supply that will be created by Disney.
Read his rantings. As you read, think about breeders reading this. It is promoting breeding basically. Telling us that if we had his "No Kill" equation in place, nothing would happen. Trying to make us feel guilty. Yet he doesn't want the public to feel guilty about themselves and the problems they cause by not altering, etc. Where does this man get off? And if he doesn't get off soon, lets throw him from the train. So much damage from such a small man.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

A Look in the Future For King County

As I gaze into my crystal ball, I see bad things for the King County shelter animals. Actually I just do my research and these things are predicted for the future of King County.

As you know or don't know, Los Angeles City has declared they are "No Kill", I use this one because the programs are the same, the numbers are the same, the deceit is the same. This week there was a very important meeting called by the City Council due to a outpouring of animal control employees saying they have no faith in the current management of that agency. It is truly rare for the humane community and animal control to come together in such a fashion as they are doing in LA City.

So what is in store for King County? Let me outline the ways to get to "No Kill" based upon the testimony of the LA City AC employees.

First cut back on field services. I'll use Rancho Cucamonga as an example again. Keep in mind that the Rancho program is Whino-grad's program but it sounds similar to LA because they are the same for all practical purposes. Rancho Cucamonga ACO's only picked up about 600 dogs in 2007. That's less than 2 dogs a day for three ACO's. Can't kill them if you don't bring them into the shelter. But the public made up the difference by surrendering over 4000 animals. Now either the public is picking them up off the streets or the public is actually owners surrendering their own pets as strays. This number does not include recorded owner surrenders. This is an example brought up at this special meeting in LA City. Keep in mind these are city employees, not activists talking.

Resources are not the issue, it's deployment of existing resources. It's alarming that there is only one enforcement officer for 1M people. The enforcement unit was disbanded so fewer animals would be collected from the street, just so he (Boks) can say we're no kill, fewer animals picked up, fewer to deal with. Who suffers?; animals and public. It's not acceptable.

Another way to achieve "No Kill" is warehousing or in other words, let the animals kill themselves. That way you don't report them on euthanasia records. According to a public records request, Rancho Cucamonga had a 600% increase in dead in kennels while LA is still debating how high theirs actually is, right now they say 125% increase.

Warehousing is not acceptable. Dog runs are made for 1-2 dogs. They put 7 in the runs. Dog fights, employees have to break up the fights.

Another ACO describes how "No Kill" gets the numbers that look good on paper.

I'm one of 32 ACOs, Boks, Barth, Davis, all they have done is play a numbers game, animals in our care are in dangerous conditions. Boks said he'd make the city no kill in five years, instead there has been a 37% increase in euthanizaton. He put a moratorium on behavior related euthanasia, why? He's flip flopped between warehousing to avoid euthanasia and euthanized to avoid warehousing. We euthanize only for behavior or medical, never for time or space, it's just a number games. It doesn't help animals get out alive, but does stroke the ego of Ed Boks. These games diminish the quality of life for animals and employees. Boks hoards and warehouses, the shelters are overcrowded, cramped, It's a ticking time bomb.

Yet more insight into the "No Kill" numbers game. One more way to achieve "No Kill" is to refuse animals at the door. Although the "No Kill" shelters deny doing this, the other local shelters will gladly tell you that the turn aways show up on their doorstep.

ACO, 29 years, I take care of the database Chameleon, statistics, the numbers are accurate but the interpretation of those numbers, maybe not. No kill, it's an impossibility, obviously, no kill numbers exclude animals sick, injured, behavior unsuited, if you take them out, that's what he's using, no one can be no kill unless they don't accept all animals that come in the door.

A former vet tells of the desperation of getting the animals out even at the risk of the public.

Katie: I had a difference of opinion with the GM in respect to infectious diseases. He wanted us to foster animals with giardia, coccidia, scabies, if someone got ill from those animals, it's not good.

Now read the newspaper articles about this historic meeting. In all my years I have never seen the humane community and animal control employees united in such a fashion. And they all agree to one thing, the animals are suffering under "No Kill".

What does it take to make people realize that this is not the right path? How we chose to stop the euthanasia in the shelters makes the difference between whether animals have to suffer unnecessarily or not. Are we willing to "sacrifice" some animals by overcrowding and letting them kill each other or go crazy from kennel stress and then deemed not adoptable. There's more ways to manipulate the "No Kill" numbers than the accountant for organized crime knows.

The Philadelphia Story should be enough to convince but obviously it didn't make any difference to the King County Council. How many failures do they need before they see the light?

It could be the same story as the one in Rancho. The Rancho Council used animal control as a scapegoat. People just don't seem to get it, who exactly to blame here. Reminds me of the wife who beats up the other woman, excuse me, but the other woman didn't do anything, she's a victim too. Beat up the husband. And the husband in this case is the elected officials. Animal control is a victim too, just like the shelter animals. Animal control does as much as it can with what it is given to do with. The elected officials hold the purse strings, they dictate policy, they are the ones to blame. King County Animal Care and Control is a scapegoat for the King County officials, plain and simple.

Let these Whinonettes have it. Yes, animals will suffer but there are always sacrifices in war. When the time comes and all comes out to the public about the ignorance displayed by these elected officials, their time will end. It won't take long, Rancho went down within three months. When this happens, the taxpayers will end up paying higher taxes because a new shelter will then have to be built, no other choice. It may be the way to obtain what is right and should have been all along. We just need to remember the animals that had to die along the way to get there, animals that didn't have to suffer, but did because of misguided people.

Saturday, October 4, 2008

No Sashimi for Rover

A friend of mine brought me some fresh salmon last night and warned me not to give any raw salmon to my dogs. I thought this strange until she told me about "salmon poisoning". I research this subject and found this information. Pass this along to others. With the raw diet fad, people should be aware of this. Always learning something new, must still be alive.

Salmon feed on snails that carry a fluke that contain a bacteria that is harmful if ingested by dogs. This complicated process is called "salmon poisoning" and occurs if a dog eats salmon raw. The salmon may be fresh caught, or found by the dog in refuse piles. Any part of the raw salmon can contain these flukes and bacteria, but the head and "guts" contain the most....and are the discarded parts that dogs usually find near fishing areas and campgrounds. Freezing, cooking, and smoking kill this bacteria.
Although cats are not susceptible to this poisoning, it is not recommended that raw fish be fed to them. People are not affected by the flukes or bacteria.
Symptoms of salmon poisoning begin 5 to 7 days after ingestion of the raw salmon and can include vomiting, diarrhea, lethargy, and swollen lymph glands. Diagnosis is made by the history of exposure to raw salmon and by examining a fecal sample for evidence of flukes. Although salmon poisoning is easily treated with antibiotics, diagnosis can be difficult because the symptoms often mimic other diseases like canine parvovirus. The best cure is prevention. Never feed your dog raw fish or fish parts, and watch your dog carefully if you take him fishing or to areas where others have been fishing.

We Can't Dance Any More

This is an eulogy to two wonderful blogs/friends that have recently passed into the underground.

I search everyday looking for comrades in the fight against "No Kill". The Oreo blog and the KCAS blog brought a light into my day. Both so well written and their followers were well versed. Not many blogs do I learn from, but I have learned much from these two. And I was so excited that these blogs were bringing the truth to the table for all to see.

But both have now had go underground to protect themselves and their loved ones. It is the death of truth and honesty, of caring and action. Blogs such as these were the best defense against the personal agenda of "No Kill". But slowly and surely, the "No Kill" agenda is shutting people such as these two down. Then when that is done and his is the only voice heard, our shelters will become nothing more than holding pens for animals.

I don't blame Oreo and KCAS for taking their blogs off except for invitation only. Fighting this fight can be tiring and burdensome. I have experienced the full force of this movement, I lost my home because of it. I am now underground and still fighting. I can do this because I don't have family to think of, except for the four legged and winged family. I am doing all I can to protect them because they too, have been threatened. I would have stood my ground if it weren't for them. And recently my name and address was put in a major newspaper with a call to "seek and destroy". I did have to send a cease and desist order to this paper. And also have been threatened with two lawsuits just for presenting public records.

My thoughts have been that if enough people started standing up to the "No Kill" agenda then maybe it could make a difference. Now, with these two blogs have to resort to going underground and not being open to the public, I am beginning to think I will never be able to go home again. These two blogs gave me hope and now it is gone.

Oreo and KCAS will continue to be in my prayers, I pray for protection for them and theirs. I do the same everyday for myself and mine. I will continue to read them because they contribute so much to my work and life. But it is with a heavy heart. Anything I can do to help them, I do hope they will ask. Thanks for what you have done, Oreo and KCAS, I believe that you have made a difference.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Credibility - Not in His Book

The other "blogger" has posted this morning about KCACC and the new hateful website that was recently set up to condemn the shelter animals to more death.

Does this blogger have a dictionary? I suggest that he look up credibility since he doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word. The vet he quotes has no credibility at this point. But again this blogger doesn't care, he counts on people with no idea what is happening to take him at his word and BELIEVE. Now ignorant people will read his blog and think wrongly of KCACC.

This blogger is supporting a vet that has engaged in unethical medical practices (prescribing medication for himself under his dead dog's name) and cruelty/neglect to animals. He is supporting a group that has also been engaged in unethical practices of placing pets with hoarders. The cruelty these animals faced because this group wanted to be heroes. So both the blogger and this newly formed "group" are supporting and pushing unethical practices, unethical people, and cruelty to animals. All this has been documented.

Not only does this person support breeders, legit or backyard, now he is supporting people who have been documented as being part of cruelty and neglect to animals. Tells me he is losing support himself with the humane community and is turning to those who don't care about animals for support. And of course, they will support him.

This blogger hears the death rattle of this movement. The slow death of the "No Kill" equation is not soon enough for the shelter animals that are having to endure the ignorance of people who support this movement. But their lives will not have been in vain, it only serves to strengthen the resolve of those of us who truly care. Let it be known that we will defeat you, we will bring about "no kill" the right way, and your name will be forgotten with time.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

For The Beginner - "No Kill" 101

On the wonderful blog,, there was a comment that I found interesting and disturbing. I just had to put in my two cents worth on this subject. Now there are two opinions as to this commenter as to whether they are sincere or whether they are a "plant". To fill you in, there is a "hateful" website just recently to go up in the King County, WA area. As you may or may not know, there has been a great support group for keeping the public shelter open and they have been fighting against the Winograd report. In my opinion, they have proved their points about the Winograd report and more.

I would like to being by stating that negative publicity for a shelter dooms the shelter animals. A responsible family man will not take his family to a shelter when he thinks his family will see horrible things. He will go to a rescue group and adopt. Does this help the shelter animals? The public does not come running to "save" these animals, they run the other way.

But for this commenter, seems she is just now entering the game and thinks that the supporters of the shelter are radicals as opposed to the new site that is trying to destroy the shelter. She has leanings toward the Winograd program and his followers. I really can't understand why if she has read this blog and did her followup. I will be the first to admit that Winograd's program looks doable on paper. But when faced with reality it turns into a program that creates more suffering than necessary and is not sustainable as proven by a track record.

I ask this commenter to look at the only truly open door, publicly owned shelters that have adopted the "No Kill" equation. These are the shelters subject to public records requests and thus, the only shelters where we can learn the truth. Non profit shelters are NOT subject to the public's requests. They rely on donations for doing a good job and therefore, they don't talk about the bad. No one donates for doing a bad job. So the truth is not known until it is too late, such as the case in Philly or Lied, NV.

When I started researching Winograd's program, I went to the alternative newspapers, they investigate better than the dailys. I went to the minutes of meetings for cities and counties and found information of bad service. I didn't rely on the website proclaiming success. I called and personally talked with people in the area who were "in the know". It was a long and tedious process but it told me that the "No Kill" movement was not to be believed and was doing more harm than good in many ways.

Winograd fights against new legislation regarding spay/neuter and in the same breath says he supports spay/neuter. It is said that mandatory spay/neuter will increase impounds and thus, increase euthanization. Maybe so, we really don't have much to make that determination. Oh yes, his camp throws out a lot of stuff to support their side but if you look closely you will find that this propaganda is just that, propaganda. Although we estimate that 30-40% of the shelter population are purebreds, deliberately bred, Winograd is now the darling of the breeding industry. How does this help? Stopping legislation that would curb this population can only be defeating reducing the shelter population and will probably cause it to increase.

Winograd's statement that there is no pet overpopulation has caused more damage than we could have ever imagined. The elected officials are now saying if there is not a problem why do we need to address it? If there is no overpopulation, then lets throw our spay/neuter program out and use the money for potholes. For years I have fought to get government to sponsor spay/neuter programs and using the overpopulation of pets to convince them. Now that is changing because part of the humane community has set Winograd up as "guru" and he says the opposite. Those of us who have worked tirelessly for decades to reduce the shelter animals, and according to all information it worked beautifully, are having our work degraded and called worthless by Winograd's unfounded statements. Look at the figures over the years and then tell me that spay/neuter doesn't work. Population, both human and animal, have increased yet shelter animals have decreased.

I saw the days when animal control was the sheriff taking the unwanted dog or cat to the landfill and shooting it. I have seen the gas chambers and they still exist. These are the shelters we need to work on for changes. Rancho Cucamonga was the shining star of the Inland Empire in California. They no longer are. Their budget went from $770,000 a year to over $2 million when they adopted the Winograd program and they still can't make it work. He yells they aren't committed but they have shown commitment to the tune of over $12 per person, per year whereas the recommended amount is $5-7 per person per year. The public surrenders have gone from 50-100 a year to over 4000. Public surrenders were nice people picking up strays and bringing them into the shelter. Now it is owners bringing in their pets as strays to avoid the hard looks of a "no kill" staff, a lecture, and a surrender fee. There are repercussions to every action and this is one to "no kill", to take the pet to where they "don't kill them". The poor pet is left without a history or a name. Taking the responsibility off the public as the problem such as Winograd states leaves them free to not alter, have those litters, keep the kids entertained, and then take them to the "no kill" shelter. It is deceiving the public and making them even more lacking in their responsibility to alter. Since the open door, publicly owned shelters are subject to public records, the truth has come out. Winograd's program has volunteers as it's backbone. Rancho is only averaging 10 volunteer hours a day. You can say it is because of a lack of commitment to solicit volunteers but I say that it is being unrealistic to place all your program on the backs of unreliable volunteers which most are. There are good ones but they are few and far between.

Another problem I have with Winograd's program is that he doesn't believe in educating the children, the future pet owners. He says to educate the adults instead, they are the ones currently with pets. We all know that recycling became a household word because of the programs directed at children, and same here. All I have seen from the Winograd program is a lack of interest in the future.

Opposing legislation that can serve us in the future by saying it will increase shelter population now is irresponsible. If people can give up their pets so easily because they have to alter them by law can mean one thing, they don't care for the pet to begin with. What kind of life does their pet have? It is tossed outside or chained up. There could be some surrenders like this if mandatory spay/neuter is introduced. But at least give these poor pets a chance at getting another home. I would venture a guess that in most parts of the country, one can find help financially for spay/neuter. I don't see this as an argument against mandatory spay/neuter. And yes, it can be enforced, if nothing else complaint driven. Give the public something to sink their teeth in and they will become the enforcers. It's the future we need to see here, not get stuck in the present such as Winograd is.

Winograd's program is not the answer, if it was, then more shelters would be on board. I suggest that you go to the East Bay SPCA website,, and read their take on the subject of "no kill". It is realistic. Do your research but do it with both eyes open.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Words That Kill

Another "blog" has a "guest" blogger who is somewhat confused about the killing term "no kill". From reading this blogger it is obvious to me that the woman has not been in the field of humane work for very long. I oppose and hate the term "no kill" and in my humble opinion, the term alone has killed more animals than necessary.

If you didn't know anything and heard the term "no kill", how would you interpret it? Just as it sounds, no killing. Wrong, even the "no kill" open door shelters have to put animals down, those that are very ill or severely injured (hopefully). So it is not true to the definition that John Q. Public interprets. Closed door shelters who pick and chose animals may not have to "kill" and thus they can use the term honestly.

The term "no kill" is most certainly deceiving to the uninformed public. This is evident in those shelters who are under the "No Kill" banner with the incredible increases in owner and public surrenders after declaring "no kill". But this "guest" blogger is either ignorant on the subject or in denial. The numbers are there for all to see. Rancho Cucamonga went from an average of 50-100 surrendered pets by the public to over 4,000 and it continues. The director of Rancho Cucamonga has pleaded in two newspaper articles in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin that the shelter is not "No Kill" in order to curb the influx of these surrenders. Rancho Cucamonga is now paying $12+ per person per year and cannot obtain "no kill". So this shows it is not a matter of money as some would claim.

I will be the first to admit that shelters throughout the country can be improved. But they have to operate within budgets and the powers that be have never allowed decent budgets, budgets that would include programs to help curb the influx or help people retain their pets. Most shelters barely make ends meet with their budgets. I have said for years that animal control didn't make the problem and they don't have the means to solve it. Yet they are blamed by "No Kill" because the ignorance and inexperience of this movement in regards to animal control and shelter.

When you tell the public that a shelter is a "kill" shelter, do you think you are helping the animals? When you describe the "horrors" in an open door shelter, do you think they will beat a path to come and "save" the animals? C'mon, we're talking the public here, they dispose of their pets without regard and we expect them to come running? They run, but the other way. They go to Petsmart and adopt. So using the negative terms such as "high kill" shelter, dog catcher, and pound only turn the public away. "No Kill" has actually pushed the public away from our shelters and thus more animals have lost their lives. Roger Caras, longtime President of the ASPCA, once was quoted as calling "no kill" as a hoax. Although the ASPCA gave up animal control to follow their mission statement and essentially became a "no kill" shelter, he preferred that they didn't use the term. Caras, who could be considered an expert on words in that he authored about 60 books and was a commentator on television, felt the term was deceiving and hurt our shelters. He felt that it took away the volunteers the open door shelters need and they would go to the "no kill" shelters. It did and does.

We, the humane community, have an obligation to help the shelters rather than turn on them. Maybe we don't agree with some things that happen at shelters but rather than broadcast them to the public, we need to work from within to change these things. How many people actually sit in budget meetings or serve on Ad Hoc committees? How many people voiced themselves at public forum during city council or county meetings? How many people "lobby" their elected officials and try to educate them on a regular basis? The "rescue" groups don't take their time to do these things. And that is another term I don't like - rescue. I don't consider taking a pet from an owner with a donation as a "rescue". I don't consider going to the shelter and picking out the cute, fluffy, adoptable animals as "rescue". I refer to these groups as adoption groups because that is what they do. Call one of these "rescue" groups to get puppies out of a storm drain in a thunderstorm and they will tell you very quick that they don't do "rescue". Only animal control does rescue in the best sense of the word. What I am trying to say is that we have sat on our duffs long enough, it is time that we, the sensible ones, to make ourselves known. Get out there and get involved in the bullshit of politics. The politicians are the ones who hold the key to getting it all.

I see the "No Kill" movement losing it's momentum. But before it does, there will be a one last effort and it will be a good one. Right now, we have the tools to fight "No Kill" but we must continue to keep as a goal to stop the euthanizing of animals because of space and time. We must educate the public as to their role in all of this and that means putting the blame where it lies, on an irresponsible public. Taking the focus off the public and their role is hurting the animals as demonstrated in the high surrenders in the "No Kill" shelters.

Unfortunately "No Kill" is making it even more hard to get the job done. Not only do we have to deal with politicians and the public, we have to deal with the ignorant people who follow this movement. That's why we have been set back into the dark ages. According to Clifton Merritt, spay/neuter has made a tremendous difference in the last 20-30 years as indicated by the numbers in shelters. But "No Kill" fights our efforts to promote spay/neuter. You have to ask yourself, who benefits from keeping our shelters in chaos. Who benefits from keeping the humane community in chaos. You know the answer.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

One Down (Philly) One To Go (NHS)

Well, finally, PACCA is out. Hopefully that means Whinograd's program is out as well.

There has been issued an RFP on short notice for animal control service in Philly. PACCA has had a lot of trouble. The State went in and found many violations in the keeping of animals. PACCA was able to clean up their act long enough to get the State to give an okay but it was still a mess. Whinograd's hand picked director ended up not being "committed" enough. So if he picks them and they fail, why does he blame the system rather than himself?

Whinograd claims that the PSPCA wants the contract for monetary reasons. Beg your pardon, but a $2 million dollar budget for handling 30,000 animals would make you run in the other direction. Rancho Cucamonga has a budget well over $2 million dollars and only handles 5,000 animals a year and they can't make his program work. Rancho is now spending $12+ per person, per year on animal control and cannot claim "no kill". Their "public" surrenders are seven times what the animal control officers bring in. The world is beating a path to their door to surrender pets because they are "no kill". You can't proclaim yourself as a "no kill" shelter when the others around you aren't. Where do you think people will want to surrender their pets, a "no kill" or a "kill" shelter? These "public" surrenders are not people picking up animals on the side of the road, they are owners wishing to avoid fees, hard looks, and lectures. And the poor pet ends up in the shelter with no history and no name. This is the legacy of Whinograd's program, needless suffering of the animals.

I predict that one day people will spit on the ground before saying Whinograd's name. It will turn out that he has done more to cause suffering for animals than anything before or after. I have learned that "No Kill" does not allow itself to see the suffering. "No Kill" has contributed to the devaluation of our pets as well. We need to be upping the value of pets, not putting them out on two for one sales. We're not selling shoes here folks. These are lives that we need to consider valuable and treat them as such. We need to make it harder to get a pet, not easier. Our disposable society throws away things they get for free or on sale.

Now only Nevada is standing and only because public records can't be gotten because of the non profit status. And I can see that it has begun for NHS the questions that they can't answer, the complaints, the firing of employees who speak out. All the things that indicate the beginning of their downfall. Only problem is that the animals will have to suffer until it is done. Has anyone looked at the poor dogs on NHS Pet Harbor. One is 15 years old, had to have been someone's pet for all that while. I can't go back and look at all the older dogs they have. You know these dogs will sit in cages for the rest of their lives, chances of getting out are slim to none. Ask yourself, would this be what you want for your pet? Not for mine.

Keep working to save our pets from this Whinograd and his cronies.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Can You Make Up Your Mind?

First I hear that shelters should turn away owner surrenders. Give those folks stern looks, a nice lecture and some brochures and send them merrily on their way to live happily ever after with their pet. Now I hear that shelters should not turn owners who are in foreclosures away and to stop blaming the public for being irresponsible. This follows on the heels of saying that one should sacrifice everything in order to keep their pets and anything less is being irresponsible.

It's so confusing. Okay, let me see if I am reading this correctly. Now you are saying that shelters should be there to help in these times of need with foreclosures. I agree with that. But when shelters are full and more coming in all day, every day, and they need space to accommodate strays to be held in case they have an owner, it only stands to reason that owners would be told that their pets are subject to euthanasia. Taxpayers cannot bear the burden of boarding animals for people who are in crisis.

So, yes, information can be given to people in foreclosure about re-homing their pets. But you and I know that there are thousands, nay, tens and hundreds of thousands of pets out there looking for homes. Of course, according to Winograd, there are plenty of homes, so one has to ask, why so many pets are still looking? Adoption groups are always full unless, of course, you have a nice donation to go along with the relinquishment of your pet. I doubt that people who are in foreclosure have nice donations to give. And the limited admission shelters are always full. So what does that leave? The open door shelters and abandonment.

The realty industry is reporting finding more and more pets left to die in foreclosed homes. This is a result of certain lines of thinking that have left the public with a bad image of open door shelters. So bad that people will actually leave a pet to die a long, lingering death rather than take their pet to the bad "pound". This new way of thinking is now killing pets by leading people to think the shelter is a bad place, worst than the fate of starvation, alone, abandoned.

I don't know about you but this is not right. I read the article by Christy Keith at and Winograd's blog and just had to say, "Make up your minds". Either the shelters turn away owner surrenders or they don't. And if they don't, with the state of budgets, the economy, and the housing market, then something has to give and that is usually in the form of euthanasia. When Keith and Winograd come back to this planet, maybe they can tell us what are they thinking or are they thinking?

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Affects of the Insurance Industry on Certain Breeds

One of the biggest problems of placing dogs is the insurance industry "red lining" certain breeds. The Insurance Industry Institute has considerable information on this subject.

You might want to check your homeowners insurance policy if you have a pit bull or a rottie. You may not be covered if your dog bites the mail carrier or meter reader. The Postal Service reports over 3000 bites just last year.

According to my friend in rottie rescue, one insurance company has a list of 25 dogs they won't insure. That includes poodles and chihuahuas. My friend does ask to see a homeowners policy prior to adopting out one of her rotties. She has to turned many people away.

At this point, maybe we need to solicit the insurance industry regarding "No Kill" and how it wants to force people to adopt these "red lined" breeds. Also the insurance industry can help to bring about mandatory spay/neuter if they required dogs to be altered in order to be insured.

This is one of the biggest reasons why pits and other large dogs aren't being adopted from the shelters and one reason why so many are being turned in. With this in mind, where does "No Kill" stand? What if there are enough homes but these homes can't take a pit bull without losing the homeowner insurance? If you were a responsible homeowner and understand your insurance policy, would you adopt a pit bull and take a chance of losing your insurance? The answer is no and therefore more pits, rotties, etc., will be left in the shelters.

The Winograd program doesn't take nuances like this into account. This one item alone affects our shelters like nothing before has. And if we don't start paying attention to the insurance issue then it might be in the future that if you own a home, you can't have a dog and insurance at the same time. I feel this is the biggest factor in our fight at this point and we all need to pay attention to this issue.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

I Have An Anniversary-Bow to God

Let me brag on myself, it is a one year anniversary of my book. Course the whole world is reading it and I have made lots of money. I need that money too because fewer and fewer are buying into my BS on "No Kill" so I had to do something to support myself. By the way, I now charge to speak to people and some are foolish enough to pay. Like PT Barum said, there's one born every minute and PT is definitely my hero.

My book outlines the history of animal control is this country. Course I don't give any footnotes or reference materials so one can check on my writing for themselves, don't want them doing that, might find out I "fudged" a little. Course "fudging" is my mainstay and people know that, so they give me slack.

My book, of course, tells everyone that I am the way and the Savior, there are no others before me, you will follow my commandments. (Oops, sorry, I had the bible sitting next to me) But it is true, I am the only way and I am big headed enough to say it.

I can picture now the types who are reading my book. As they sit in front of the TV eating bon-bons, haven't washed in days, and sinking lower into the sofa with the weight of their body, my book is providing hours of time to eat their bon-bons, they like books like this.

I just know that one day people will put my book on the same level as the Bible, they will proclaim me as the second coming and I will accept.

And never mind that my book didn't answer many questions as to how to accomplish "No Kill", you don't need to know that. I just put it out there and let you figure out how to force people to foster and volunteer or where all the rescues are going to come from to take the animals out of the shelters. Never mind that I forgot to add in a few things that would alter my perception that there are enough homes, and therefore there is no pet overpopulation problem.

Also the fact that I have had nothing but failures this past year has not hurt sales of my book. There's always the kooks such as the ADL-LA to threaten people into accepting me. And the hoarders, they love me too. So there will always be the outer fringe of mentally that will be there for me.

My book, "Back to the Dark Ages" is a must buy for all of you who have no idea what the problem is, for all those who breed and keep our shelters full. As long as the breeders are my buddies, I have nothing to fear. They will keep our shelters full and hopefully, I will get some work from it. Keep it up Breeders, I love you.

Another Satire by Honesty Helps.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

"Crate "em & Stack "em Conference

Join me, mostly me, and a few others at a conference unlike any before and hopefully any after.

Me, myself and I am teaming with whoever will have me with all my failures this past year, to bring together the most closed door shelter directors and the misguided top animal lawyers to teach you how you too can "get those numbers".

Learn from closed door shelter directors how to "crate them and stack them" and how to teach employees to ignore diseases. Being able to manipulate those numbers is a must on your experience. Sure fire way to make sure the "died in kennel" figure rises and therefore is not counted against your "euthanasia" numbers. Learn the basics of shoe selling so you can put together programs such as BOGO, buy one get one free. Don't forget the seniors for seniors program where you put the least adoptable older and sick animals with people who are suckers for a sob story and the least equipped to handle the medical, but that's their problem when they adopt. And don't forget the seminar on how to blame everyone else for problems will help you to deceive those who count, don't waste time on the public, they aren't the problem and I will teach you how to explain the increases in "public surrenders".

Learn how to get the breeding community to support you against the very things that can only help such as mandatory spay/neuter. Learn how to force landowners to rent to irresponsible pet owners. Lead the fight to stop pet limits so everyone has to tolerate hoarding.

Learn tactics such as making of pipe bombs from the activists fighting to provide consulting opportunities on "No Kill". And in addition, a free seminar on speaking the language of "No Kill" so as to evade questions or place focus on other areas not in question.

This is a must attend event from pipe welding activists, hoarders posing as rescuers, closed door shelter directors and staff, lawyers with an interest in money, and anyone else who wants to get a piece of the action.

Speakers and workshops are all conducted by myself, yours truly. RSVP at

This is a satire, a very sad satire.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

It's About Time

This is an interesting article and one to bring up when the breeding community tries to fight mandatory spay/neuter or anything else for that matter. Still new at this so can you copy and paste this site. Thanks.

Friday, August 15, 2008

Does He Think We Are Stupid?

Mandatory spay/neuter does work and is proven to work. How many more times do we have to say it?

I have a saying that you keep your friends close but you keep your enemies closer. Well, today I was checking up on my favorite "enemy", Nathan J. Winograd. Usually his rantings on his blog make me laugh but today I didn't. I am so sick of this man condemning mandatory spay/neuter. Anyone with common sense, and he obviously has very little, will tell you that you stop the euthanasia in our shelters by stopping the influx of animals into the shelter. DUH!!! Can't kill them if they aren't there.

Yet he insists it will bring about more "killing" in our shelters. How does he figure that? He uses LA as an example. Hello, Nathan, they haven't started their program yet but you are saying already the shelters are seeing surrenders because of the law. You are jumping the gun on that one just like you jumped the gun on the article in Austin. And San Mateo, CA, they didn't pass mandatory spay/neuter, opting instead for a difference in licensing between altered and unaltered. Grasping at straws, are we, Nathan? Again common sense tells us that this can't be true, fewer animals in the shelter are fewer that go down. The argument is that people will turn in their animals because they can't afford spay/neuter. I say if they can't afford spay/neuter then they can't afford yearly maintenance or rabies shots. They can't afford to treat the pet if it gets sick. And besides, there are so many programs out there to help people get their pets spay/neuter, this excuse does not hold water. If a person truly cares about their pet, they will find a way. If they don't truly care, then maybe the pet is better off in the shelter. I don't appreciate his defending those people who are so slack in taking care of their pets. Then again, I think he is against it because the breeding community is probably making donations whereas the rescue community can't. And besides, if the influx continues to rise it only means more opportunity for him to spread his BS to the shelters. Truth is, it is his program that doesn't work and has caused so much suffering in the overcrowded shelters per the example of Philly. He's not to blame, everyone else is by not being "committed". Rancho was committed and put the money up to prove they were committed but they failed within three months of implementing his "program". They are still throwing good money after bad trying to make his program work. It ain't happening.

Society has to police itself, if it doesn't, then we make laws. Although we have come a long way with spay/neuter as the only reason for the difference, it has always been an option. Some people are just too lazy to take the pet to the vet for spay/neuter and these are the people that we want to force to take responsibility. It is disgraceful, morally, ethically wrong for Winograd to continue to speak against mandatory spay/neuter. He has no evidence that it doesn't work. He alters the truth of places that have installed mandatory s/n to suit his opinion. I have yet to see him offer good, reliable evidence to the contrary about mandatory spay/neuter. He can't, it's not out there.

Let's put Winograd where he needs to be, in with the problem, not the solution. Let the breeders pay him to lobby for them. We don't need people like Winograd putting animal control back into the dark ages which he has managed to do. At least that's one accomplishment he can truly call his.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Austin Fights Back

An interesting article was published in the Austin Chronicle on August 8th by Patricia J. Ruland.

Even more interesting is the response by Nathan J. Winograd to the editor.

Please make note of the Editor's comment. Anyone wishing to make a comment on the story or write to the Editor, please feel free to do so. Letters are definitely encouraged.

Sunday, August 10, 2008

No Kill - Dying a Slow Death

Along with all the animals warehoused in overcrowded "no kill" shelters everywhere. Let's hope it is as painful as what the animals feel.

You may have read these before but I think they are worth repeating. The first link speaks of the financial problems of the Tompkins County SPCA. It appears that in order to reach "no kill" the SPCA had to pay the way for servicing the contracts they had rather than contracting for the appropriate amounts. What government animal control agency is able to do this? They have to operate from a set budget. Some agencies have acquired a non profit status in order to obtain grants, etc., but people are funny about making contributions to the government, they feel they pay enough in taxes. My opinion of this situation is that the TC SPCA was a fall guy for the "no kill" equation. Rather than their pompous former director, Winograd, seeking sufficient monies from their contracts to sustain the program, they were used to further the "no kill" equation. Now they are having to pay for it. The second article explains a lot of what really happened in Tompkins County. Of course, the drama king explains it differently with the infamous "Stop the killing, stop the killing, stop the killing". I have yet to see Winograd admit to one mistake. Do we not learn as much or more from our mistakes as our successes?

I have said for years that the term "no kill" is killing animals. It is lulling the public into thinking they can continue to allow their pets to multiply because they can take them to the "no kill" shelter and they won't be killed. So they allow the cat to have kittens, keeps the kids entertained for a few weeks. Then when the kittens become problems, off to the "no kill" shelter. No guilt and it is easy to tell the kids that the kittens won't be killed at this shelter. Rancho Cucamonga has seen public surrender sky rocket since Winograd was there. The public is coming from outside Rancho so they can surrender their own pets to a "no kill" shelter. Rancho has had two newspaper articles denying they are "no kill" to try to stop the influx of public surrenders. Public surrenders are usually from a person who tries to help a stray. But when the public surrenders are 7 or 8 times the amount of animals the ACO's bring in, then something is wrong. This is another major flaw of Winograd's program that keeps it from being sustainable. You cannot be the only open door "no kill" shelter in the area, it is either all or none in this case.

Article #1:

No Kill Doesn't work in Tompkins Co. NY

by Lori TylerMonday Feb 18th, 2008 4:25 PM

As a previous shelter manager of a shelter Nathan Winograd "saved" and a board member of an SPCA in a neighboring community, I absolutely believe that the "No Kill" movement has failed us in Tompkins Co.- once touted as the "safest place in the US for animals"

I was the manager at the Ithaca SPCA two years before Nathan was hired. Under my management, the euthanasia rate for all animals (not just those deemed adoptable) decreased by about 50%. We were developing programs to achieve "no-kill" before he came along. In fact, the board resolved to stop euthanizing BEFORE Nathan was even working at the shelter.

What he did do was raise money and he built a new shelter (which we had already been planning and had already bought the property for). However, this shelter is not sustainable for the shelter. They cannot afford the operate it- its too big.

Now that Nathan has gone away, the donors have dwindled and they are in a danger of losing their animal control contracts as they have had to ask for large increases in money from the towns and city.

At my shelter in a neighboring county, we have been lured into "trying to keep up with the Jones'" attitude. We tried to change our euthanasia policy to be similar, but we didn't have the programs to keep the animals moving, and we ended up with a warehouse situation and we couldn't care for the number of cats in our care.

We now have more stringent euthanasia guidelines- including euthanizing for issues such as dental disease and poor socialability. "No-Kill" is a euphemism for "limited admission". Animals aren't truly safe if they are being dumped on animal control or left in the street.

I personally want to be part of an organization that accepts all homeless animals in the community and tried to help them- even if that means some will be euthanized. There are worse things in this world than euthanasia- I have seen them. I choose to euthanize over leaving an animal to suffer in a cage, starve on the street, or suffer from a treatable- yet un-affordable to care for disease.

You can limit the number of animals being euthanised in your shelter by creating programs to increase adoptions and reduce the number of animals coming in. It is not, IMO, a front-loaded proclamation- it the the result of sustainable programs within the shelter and in the community.

Once the population is stable and the community sees your results- the money will come to help you help more animals be adoptable. We are far from this in Chemung Co. It is far easier to get a cat from your neighbor than the shelter and far easier to just leave your cat to breed recklessly than get her spayed. This is where we need to work- not making sweeping proclamations about not killing animals.

Article #2:

Tompkins County (Ithaca) SPCA also moving away from "no kill" language

The writer is the Executive Director of the Tompkins County SPCA.

Abigail Smith

Originally published June 7, 2007

Today I stopped down to see Lou “The Hot Dog Man” to thank him for the fundraiser he recently did to benefit the animals at the Tompkins County SPCA. Upon introducing myself as its new director, Lou threw up his arms and announced to Ithaca Commons that I'd arrived. “We love the SPCA!” he cried, and many seemed to concur.

But not the woman standing behind me. “I don't support 'No Kill' shelters,'” she stated. Blast! There's that bad language again, I thought. “There is no such thing,” she said.

She's right. Several years ago the term “No Kill” was touted all over town — all over the country, really — and it's not true. Most national organizations are slowly changing the words they use to describe a policy that does not accept the practice of euthanizing healthy animals for the sole purpose of making room for others.

We don't kill for space — that's what “No Kill” is supposed to mean. The new term being used is “adoption guarantee.” We guarantee that every single adoptable animal will remain in our care until the day they go home.

I hope the lady at Lou's reads the paper. I hope people know that the SPCA isn't a hospice for suffering pets, but a place that makes tough decisions everyday about sick, diseased, dangerously aggressive or otherwise untreatable animals.

I hope people can forget that marketing campaign from years ago and believe that the SPCA will always make the most humane decision that we can for each animal — including euthanasia.

ADOPTION GUARANTEE?? Doesn't that sound a little like "limited admission"? Can you guarantee that you will adopt out a vicious dog or a terminally ill dog or cat? I don't think so. That leaves you with a "turn away" or translated, a dumped pet. Again a term designed to fool the public. I vote for straight forward language that people understand - we don't accept those we feel are not adoptable. Course then you have to go into the definition of "adoptable" and that is a whole nuther post.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

In Praise of Firefighters

I have to take a moment of your time to praise firefighters. As you may or may not know, this morning a helicopter crashed in Northern CA and killed 9 firefighters with several hurt.

Through the years I have had the opportunity to place pets with firefighters and their families. I have to say that in my opinion, firefighters make the best guardians. They are a special lot and have great respect for all life, not just the human kind. I have seen them rescue cats from trees, puppies in storm drains, and of course, from fires. A life is a life to them.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the families, friends, and pets of these fallen firefighters. I ask that you take a moment also to include them in your prayers.

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

A Must Read

Seems that the number uno "no kill" city is no longer. The San Francisco Weekly has an article about the SF SPCA that will open your eyes. Now the paper contributes the downfall to the SPCA needing money to finish a white elephant. But it appears to me that they have seen the cruelty of their ways. I suggest that you read this article, it is lengthy, but well worth it. And this is the best tool we have now for the fight against the cruelty of "no kill".

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Being Alone: The Sadness of Dogs

Dogs are such social creatures, meant to be with others of their own kind and with humans, that they feel deprived when these conditions are not met. We have bred the dog to be a communicating animal and we have been successful. Dogs need to speak and be spoken to, to touch and be touched, to love and be loved.

So where would you find depressed dogs? Dogs deprived of the above? Certainly my first thought is at the dog races where they are held in small kennels, only thought of as a product that has to satisfy. They live in an atmosphere of constant tension.

Puppy mills of course would depress any dog and should depress any human.

Experimental labs where contact is minimal and distress is at max due to pain, abuse, etc.

And now, in the so called "no kill" open door shelters. Overcrowding creates tension, stress, feelings of abandonment, fear, and it becomes a living hell for the social creature named dog.

Accepting a "no kill" program prior to installing all that is necessary to make it work is deterimental to all the animals, but particularly the dog. Cats are solitary creatures "by nature" (and who are we to determine what "nature" is), but by all observations, cats don't seek out interaction with humans quite as much as the dog.

Dogs can be anxious or irritable, be subject to panic attacks, can develop phobias if subjected to lengthly stays in shelters. Kennel stress is a bad word to use around the "no kill" shelters. Dogs seek out the companionship of humans just as quickly as they seek out other dogs, and for that matter, other animals. They just don't prosper without companionship. Dogs have actually commited suicide by some accounts. Most of us have seen depressed dogs sitting in kennels in the shelters.

You will see the Rancho Cucamonga, CA shelter mentioned often. I do this because Rancho is truly a muncipally owned open door shelter, subject to public records request. Those shelters run by non profit groups are up for suspect because they do not have to answer to the public, they don't supply public records request, and donations are at stake if they admit they are doing a poor job. Thus the Rancho shelter is the best example to use because it offers proof.

Rancho has on the city website their numbers for 2006-2007 ( It lists the volunteer hours and if you average it out, it comes to about 10 hours a day. Now this shelter has about 19 staff members but keep in mind that working in animal control is a high risk job. Injuries, maternal leave, etc. usually puts all animal control agencies with less than a full staff. I think two positions would usually be vacant due the above. And then there are usually at least one position that needs to be filled. We will subtract the field ACO's who are not physically at the shelter. And the front desk has to be staffed at all times and that requires two people. So that leaves around 11 staff available to interact with the animals.

The last time I looked at I saw 130 dogs and 306 cats. There were also several "others", rabbits mostly. If each dog is allowed 15 minutes a day interaction, that would be 32 man hours. If each cat is allowed 15 minutes a day interaction, that would be about 86 man hours a day. So you would need about 118 man hours a day to just provide a bare minimum of 15 minutes of human interaction. If dogs are together, they still need supervision. So Rancho with approximately 88 man hours a day with staff and 10 hours a day with a volunteer, cannot possibly provide adequate interaction that prevents kennel stress in dogs. Rancho's staff also has other duties outside of providing interaction and one on one contact with the dogs. Even though cats are somewhat different than dogs with their needs to interact, they still suffer from lack of attention.

I do hope you are getting my drift here. I am reading on Oreo's blog about how many dogs and cats are there in the Washoe and NHS shelters. How many employees and volunteers are there? Rancho boasts of over 400 volunteers. The problem is they are required to bring their parents when they come to the shelter. Thus accounting for only an average of 10 volunteer hours a day.

As I stated at the beginning, dogs are social animals. It is not so much that we needed them as they needed us. For good, stable mental health, dogs must be able to interact with us everyday. They must not be allowed to sit in a kennel for 23 hours and 45 minutes everyday. An ideal situation would be that they are taken out certainly more than once a day.

Not only do we disrespect the dog in "no kill" shelters by ignoring the need for interaction more than 15 minutes a day, if that, but these shelters put the dog in more jeopardy from fights, disease, and bad adoptions just to get them outta there. Overcrowding has resulted in vet schools thinking in terms of adding another course, Shelter Medicine in Overcrowded Shelters.

Dogs have many more needs than just food, water, and shelter. The need for human and dog companionship is just as great a need as food and water. Those of us who accept the dog as an equal know this, those who just use dogs as their venue for their personal agendas support this abuse in the "no kill" shelters. One of the purposes of this blog is to put the guilt back where it belongs rather than let these people off easy. Your personal agendas are not saving animals, it is causing more suffering. The suffering is not necessary but these people refuse to accept that there are alternatives that do not cause additional suffering.

It is often said that humans are so arrogant when they seek out life on other planets when they don't understand the life on our own planet. "No kill" doesn't understand, refuses to understand, and therefore has become the problem. I see the shelters such as Rancho and Reno as more along the lines of abuse than helping.

Being alone is the worse thing that can happen to a dog, worse than euthanasia, worse than abuse. And they are alone if a shelter has not and cannot prepare in advance before accepting to go "no kill". This is the one biggest flaw of the movement, not understanding what is needed and making sure that it is there before opening the doors. Anything less amounts to abuse.

Sunday, August 3, 2008

Dixie Cup Love

I felt the comment on a previous post deserved it's own space. The phrase "Dixie Cup Love" so well describes the state of our animals today. When you consider that fifty percent of marriages in this country end in divorce, it only stands to reason that it applies to the animals as well.

People who take vows and break them so easily will do the same to their pets. How often do you hear of custody of the family pet being in the divorce decree? I have known one and yes, the pet was in the decree. The wife got the child and the husband got the 10 lb. fluffy poodle, Dew-Dew. Fortunately the husband loved the dog and took Dew everywhere. Dew was quite a magnet for the ladies it seems. He lived the good life, traveling the country, attracting the lovely ladies for his dad.

But the point is that we are definitely a disposable society. And the programs for our shelters need to reflect this. No animal should be turned away from our shelters, ever. To think that a lecture during an owner surrender will save the day is ridiculous, beyond ridiculous. I recall the story of the man who tried to turn over his dog only to be turned away. He then took the dog into the parking lot of the shelter and started beating it. The man was frustrated and took it out on the dog. Is this what we want?

Social change is one of the hardest things to accomplish, yet we have to have a social change in order to help the animals. Just to keep harping on animal control and the shelters to make changes isn't going to get the job done. We need to work for a social change. If you can influence just one person, then you have done a great thing. Look at Oreo and Music Man. Oreo influenced Music Man and now he is working to influence others. Just that chance meeting at the dog park can end up with many people changing their attitudes toward animals. Don't pass up any chance to bring people to the light or you will end up in darkness.

Shelter Overcrowding Increases Euthanasia

Thanks to Oreo, this article was sent to me and the critters.

It points to another flaw in the "no kill" equation. This is the suffering I most often refer to. Read it and then give your take on it.

Saturday, August 2, 2008

Living Up to the Name of This Blog

It's been a long, tiring, but rewarding trip to get to this blog today. So many disappointments but much more successes keep one going after several decades of trying to make the world a better place. My chosen venue is helping people to help animals.

So many have said in the past, why help the animals when so many people need help? I have pondered that question many times and hope that all of you have also. It is called teaching mankind the lesson of humanity and humility.

We, the human species, have so many flaws. The biggest flaw is the lack of humanity toward our own kind and any other creatures we encounter. Chosing to teach this lesson through the animals does make sense in that we have to start somewhere. Animals don't solicit the competitive spirit or the jealous spirit, or just the plain "I am better than you" spirit. Since these aren't part of the relationship between mankind and animals, it is easier to teach lessons using the unconditional love of animals. If we can teach mankind to be humane toward animals then possibly we can learn to love our fellow man.

My concern in this day and time is the attacks being leveled on the animal shelters and animal control agencies. I spent many years blaming animal control for the problems but I have changed. Becoming friends with a wonderful person helped me to see that animal control is not the bad guy. We have been raised with words such as pound and dog catcher, negative words, to describe a terrible job that we, yes, we, the public, has cast upon a few people who have to clean up our mess. I have heard of terrible ACO's but have not met one personally. I have met some who were more animal lovers than others but none that I felt would deliberately hurt an animal. So therefore, let it be said that I am pro-animal control in that I feel attacks on animal control and shelters only serve to hurt the animals more than is necessary.

So many depend on "riling" up the public to pursue their agendas. Spreading the bad serves little good on this issue. Does a responsible father want to take his family to a shelter and chance to see "barrels" of dead animals? So what happens is this responsible father takes his family to the local Petsmart or Petco to adopt and another shelter animal has to die because he didn't want to expose his family. Why do people insist upon condemning a shelter to the public knowing that it will keep the public away? Because some are not in a real world, but rather a perfect world where the public would come running to save the animals. It doesn't happen in this world and this is the one I live in.

Yes, we have an obligation to change our shelter system but it can be done in such a fashion as to encourage people to adopt at the shelters instead of turning them away. And no, I am not talking the movement of "no kill". I hate that term, it is deceiving. Roger Caras, long time President of the ASPCA and authored over 60 books, would not use this term to describe the ASPCA after they relinquished animal control to the City of New York. Although he said that the ASPCA fits the "no kill" definition, he preferred to not defer to the term. I have seen him quoted as saying the "no kill" movement is a hoax. I say George Carlin would have a field day with the term.

Spay/neuter, I can't say it enough, is the way to stop the influx of animals into our shelters. New programs such as free basic obedience training, low cost clinics for vaccinations and spay/neuter, financial aid for senior citizens to pay medical vet bills, required education prior to adoption, etc., could help get us where we want to go. Stopping pets being given away for a can of beer outside a liquor store, stopping pets from being smuggled in from Mexico, stopping the backyard breeders, and working with the kennel clubs for more responsible and less breeding. Establishing the value of animals again is important, making it harder to get a pet rather than easy. Our society doesn't respect easy come and then it is easy go. We are a society that lives for disposable. But if it takes work to get and hold on to a pet, then we have a little more respect and value for it.

Okay, folks, your turn now. I'm just getting started. Let's talk.

Welcome to our blog.

Like any new blogger I am feeling my way through this. Maybe later we can add pictures or post documents and links, but first lets get started. And remember,
Honesty Helps