Sunday, January 18, 2009

Winograd: No Go Houston

Lift your glasses and cheer, Houston has found the way to stop the Whino.

http://www.poocini.com/report/archives/1023

Good thing he is a vegan 'cause he ain't bringing home the bacon on this one.

6 comments:

Honesty Helps said...

Read carefully what he says here. This is an excellent tool and a new direction to go in. I suggest contacting the City and District attorneys and implore them to include the same in their contracts. Not very smart on the Whino's account giving us an excellent tool.

Anonymous said...

So someone finally got smart about the fact that when Winograd hurts people and employees and lies about them and fabricates falsehoods, then the city will get sued for Winograd's misbehavior

While he runs back to California and hides, and then blames his followers and tries to set them up as the scapegoats

Instead of wasting money on Nathan Winograd, why are these No Kill cultists in Houston not starting up spay neuter programs and actually doing something?

Part of the reason is that some of them are breeders who have no interest in helping these animals.

And the reason to bring in Winograd is not to make things better for the animals. It is to bully and harass good people in the city, clean up after the unspayed breeder dogs, and destroy animal control laws so the breeders find it easier to set up puppy mills and dog fighting (even eliminate anti-cruelty laws so they can get away with abuse.)

Codey said...

"Furthermore, Winograd noted, the city took pains to include that any lawsuits resulting from the city’s own negligence would be his responsibility"

And when he sets up a program that is handing out vicious dogs to unresearched "rescues" and the public, and those dogs attack and hurt people (remember the recent Ohio No Kill shelter handing out dogs that attacked the adopters?) then the city cannot escape liability!

Look at what happened in New York city when a city worker gave out a stray pit bull to an adopter, and it hurt the child. The city got sued and lost in a big way. The city has to pay millions. And that is just one case!

What if there were three or four of these in a year? Or multiple people were hurt in one incident? Or people were killed, which is happening too often? The judgments could head toward the billion dollar mark in one year.

That is the kind of liability Winograd is putting these cities and counties into.

And Winograd advocates PLACING AGGRESSIVE DOGS. He has made this public.

What happens when the shelter is so crowded that they can't pick up or admit strays and the strays are biting people, and rabies cases increase (happening in No Kill San Antonio) None of Winograd's shelters are truly open admission. They refuse to take animals.

And throwing untested cats outdoors and calling them wild. No caretakers. No yearly rabies shots. So what happens if the cats spread rabies.

Again, we have see signs of all this in San Antonio with their No Kill.

Honesty Helps said...

Minneapolis just settled a case this week where dangerous dogs were known by animal control but they failed to pick them up and they attacked a woman on her front porch in front of her kids. So the precedent is set for suing cities for "lack" of animal control.

Codey said...

Honesty, do you have a link to an article about that MInneapolis case?

Honesty Helps said...

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/archives/proceedings/2008/20081107-proceedings.pdf

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/08/Minneapolis_settles_dog-attack_lawsuit/UPI-46261226188552/

http://www.startribune.com/local/19227414.html?page=2&c=y

http://www.startribune.com/local/34125954.html