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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Oreo says yes to spay/nueter, and no to the senseless, almost malious ramblings of this uniformed consult. One can play the fool in in prvacy, but now animals are feeling the touch of the fools meddling. I thought the article he did in 1997 was more honest, it said in essence " give me money" and you know if ya could pay the dude to go scrub toilets it would be worth it to reduce animal suffering.
No, he is stupid. Spay/nueter takes time, and money. Wino wants to just keep throwing them in the back room. why put the money in spay nueter, which is what he says on his tours; give me money for spay/nueter...The only thing that will reduce the intake is to reduce the general animal population in society. If you read all this man proposals, he contradicts himself frequently. I won't take up bandwidth explaining the obvious. He may as well stand on the corner of Mission in the Bay and scream "give me money". It is the only thing he has been honest about.
He doesn't do his homework and he thinks nobody else does. Anyone who does any researchis going to toss this solution right out with the flushables....
One has to follow Nathan's blog to figure out which way the wind is blowing today. He contradicts himself so frequently that it is a joke to go back to another page and see the exact opposite of his lsatest proclamation. He was for spay/neuter before the breeders bought him, and that was about the only dang thing he had right. His plan is nothing, he is clueless and yet for such a small petty little person he has created so much havoc. He helps nothing and hinders the people who are trying to help. I don't know what any one could see in any of his reports if they really read them. Miserly, of spirit and mind.
Winograd IS working for the breeders.
On the breeder boards, and their forwarded emails, they brag about having him on a string like a puppet, doing what they want.
The breeders have been making lots of money, hiding out, breaking zoning and other laws, not collecting sales tax, not reporting income nor paying taxes, not reducing their profits by altering prior to sale.
They oppose mandatory spay neuter because it exposes their illegal activity and tax fraud because they have to get licensed.
Many of them also claim to be "reputable" but are really running puppy mills, or even dog fighting rackets. Licensing and documentation exposes their activities.
These breeders think Nathan Winograd is a simp. They laugh about how easy it is to get him to work for them. One breeder even claimed that she "felt a little badly because he might be retarded." That is how stupid they think he is.
But he continues to work for the interests of the puppy mills, the dog fighters, the AKC that only survives because of their puppy mill registration money.
Also according to breeders, their lobbies ARE giving him money to lobby for them.
Cudos Cody, you are so right. Breeders will now have him to fight for any kind of legislation or local ordinances. And since his "reputation" is still in tact at this point, elected officials will bow to this opinion. They love hearing that there is no pet overpopulation because now this gives the officials the opportunity to CUT animal control budgets. And not allow monies for other programs for animal control. Why throw money after something that doesn't exist? It is a sad day for those of us who care about animals. Hopefully, with all his failures, he will soon be out of the picture. I do hope you read the article I posted about how the breeding community is destroying the breeds. This is a powerful tool to throw back at the breeding community when they say they are responsible.
My wife and I have not been impressed with no kill, although she volunteers at a small no kill shelter. It is not sustainable on a large scale and the only thing that is working is to lower the birthrate. We saw a poodle today that was so deformed, and you could see it had been born that way. Sweet dog, but you know it was the result of a bad breeder. I think responsible breeder would welcome reform. I follow 4 blogs and the only one condoning the awful things going on is our local paper. I wish they has something in other communities where we could find the truth. When I moved to Reno from Sac we had no idea of the impact of no kill. I am saying we must educate. Lower the birthrate, be choosy in who you let adopt to lower the returns, and humanely put down an animal that doesn't have a chance for a home. That is why no kill only works at limited admission shelters like our local SPCA or Pet Network. I wish HSUS or somebody more aggressive would investigate our situation in Reno. You hate to move someplace and gripe, but this is a nice building and they are trashing it.
Sheldon, I know that PETA and HSUS are keeping very close tabs on the "No Kill" situation. Note the capital letters on "No Kill". "No Kill" is promoted by Whine-ograd, no kill is what we all work for. There's a big difference. One is a personal agenda and one is a lofty goal. Yes, no kill can work well in a limited admission shelter such as the one your wife volunteers for. But you're right that it can't work in an open door shelter. "No Kill" turns away pets in open door shelters although they try to claim they don't. That is the biggest sin of them all is to turn away an animal. It's so good to see that people are waking up to the dark side of "No Kill". It's so much easier to believe.
Post a Comment