Sunday, July 19, 2009

Nathan Winograd's "Source" Per Best Friends

In followup to my last post "Who is Nathan J. Winograd?", I would like to present his "source" for his rantings against Pat Dunaway. I suspect that his rantings about Ardena Perry come from the same type of source. This is what Best Friends had to say about his "source" and obviously they didn't find the "accusations" correct that Ms. Dunaway supports cruelty at the San Bernardino County shelter. So if Best Friends thinks his source is cuckoo, would that go for him too? They have since removed it from their site but there is a cache of it.

Vikki Shore's A Loose Cannon!
April 1, 2009 : 12:52 AM
It is important to know that the following website is filled with old, and sometimes fabricated information. Going off of her allegations, an investigation was launched with the San Bernardino's District Attorney's Office and it was found that renovations and adjustments are already taking place.

Best Friends is now working with Devore to clean up the shelter and help the animals in need.

When presented with this positive information, Vikki Shore, the founder of became unstable and hostile. She is now fabricating information that she claims that I said to her. It is unfortunate, but good information for fellow rescuers to know.

Can someone say "Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs?"


Anonymous said...

His original posting on Dunaway was due to an Austin reporter yet this reporter denied in the article that Dunaway was a source.
"However, his pre-emptive reaction to a story that hadn't even been published didn't end with me. According to a subsequent blog posting, Winograd claimed to have identified a Chronicle source and purported to "out" one of his former contacts in the animal-welfare community. At great length, he vilified her reputation, accused her of misinforming reporters about his record, and more specifically accused her of being the source for material for this story – a story that hadn't even been fully reported or drafted yet, let alone published. (For the record, Winograd's putative enemy was not a source for this story.)

Some local activists point to Winograd's methods and the NKE as the singular solution to the reform and improvement of Austin's animal-welfare efforts. Considering his approach to animal-welfare workers, not to mention anyone who might question his methods, Austinites may find themselves asking if they would care to treat a dog this way."

Anonymous said...

Here's the one written by Craig Malisow. Winograd accused this reporter of trying to blackmail him!!

"Ruland quickly learned what happens to those who dare ask questions about Winograd's claims: They are summarily scorned. Before Ruland's story ran, Winograd blasted her on his blog, accusing her of asking "inflammatory and defamatory" questions.

Winograd regularly criticizes anyone who does not swallow his no-kill philosophy — no matter how much experience they have in the world of animal control and welfare. For example, Kate Hurley, a veterinarian who teaches shelter medicine at the University of California-Davis Veterinary School, has a "pro-killing agenda" because she has suggested that some no-kill shelters have simply warehoused animals.

And just a few days after Winograd spoke with the Press, he blogged about how this paper's line of questioning was based solely on the claims of one of his most vocal critics, a private citizen with the audacity to disagree with Winograd.

Under the heading "A Smear Campaign," Winograd wrote: "The line of questioning was based on the rumor and innuendo of No Kill detractors like Pat Dunaway in order to undermine my efforts and maintain a policy of killing in our shelters. No lie is too grand and no contradiction too obvious for them."

Winograd apparently believes a reporter can't ask tough questions of him based on simple Google searches or interviews with other sources. No, it is the work of the ubiquitous Pat Dunaway, a California woman who has criticized Winograd on various shelter-related blogs. Winograd has also accused Dunaway of being behind the Austin Chronicle's critical story.

In Winograd's mind, Dunaway's trespasses are so severe that he devoted an entire blog post to attacking her personally, accusing her of using false names when feeding lies to gullible reporters. Morally, Winograd has placed Dunaway on the same level as the heads of the ASPCA and the Humane Society of the United States, who are alternately described as defeatists shackled by institutional complacency and malevolent demagogues who get off on killing perfectly healthy, squeaky-clean puppies."

Anonymous said...

Hello author. Sorry but your info is not correct. This is a request that you kindly remove your post dated today which is false and defamatory.
1) This person is NOT the source of Winograd's information regarding either Dunaway or Perry AND
2) The comment posted on Best Friends was REMOVED by Best Friends because the poster was unauthorized and not credible. In fact, Best Friends BANNED the poster who made those comments from creating any blogs on the Best Friends site and dumped all their posts. That is why you will not find the comment anywhere on the Best Friends actual site.
Thank you for your immediate action.

HonestyHelps said...

Anon, I have no intentions of removing the post. There is secondary evidence not presented on this blog and I stand by my post.

Winograd does have this source as a link on his latest posting and there is a record of Best Friends having this on their web site.

Let me just say this FUCK YOU, go back under your rock.

HonestyHelps said...

Site meter says that the Anon poster is in Rancho Cucamonga, base for Vikki Shore.

Go home, Vikki, you aren't threatening me. You may have gotten your buddy to have this removed from BF but the message is still the same. Don't push or the rest of the evidence will come out.

Anonymous said...

Here's a letter regarding the accusations made by Shore on her web site and reported to the DA from a "representative" of Best Friends by the name of Kerri Reed.

Anonymous said...

To clarify about the burned dog that Winograd loves to refer to. This dog was NOT abused by the owner but by his son who was arrested. By law, the dog had to be returned to the owner and the owner demanded the dog back. Nothing animal control could do but return it. However, when the owner bailed his son out of jail and he returned to the house with the dog, then animal control could, by law, seize the dog, which they did. Another lie by Winograd, does he even know the truth?

Anonymous said...

Winograd is the one who says we shouldn't have any laws, and that people should do what they want to animals.

Winograd also says we should spend all the money warehousing huge numbers of animals so there is no money left over for cruelty investigations.

Tompkins County (one of the two places he worked, briefly, before he took off to leave someone else with the problems) spent all their money, and stopped cruelty investigations and enforcement.

No Kill creates and allows more suffering.

Anonymous said...

PAT DUNAWAY from San Bernardino.
I found out this is your site and you are "Honesty Helps". Your name is not mentioned on the nokill site and neither is Perry's, don't know of her. Nokill is not related to your fights with others. It is not the source.

While we don't agree on most issues we use to be able to communicate civilly. Please email me directly.

Anonymous said...

And Brian Cronin was blamed for the burned dog when he was not even in the job when it happened or in training for the job at the time. The decisions were made totally without him. You can check his date of employ against the dates of the abuse. Animal control has to follow the law and if people don't like it, then let them blame the ones who make the laws.

HonestyHelps said...

Anon, I have no intentions of contacting you directly. I told you before I stand by my post, what part of that do you not understand? Stay tuned for more to be posted actually. Site meter reads Rancho again on this one too.

And you are off base with your accusations.

Anonymous said...

Also noticed that although Winograd refers to the no kill website, he then refers to an article written about the CITY of San Bernardino. I live in the area and know for a fact that Dunaway spoke publically AGAINST the City of San Bernardino's shelter at public forum, I was in more than one City Council meeting and heard her. Plus she tried to have cruelty charges filed against the City shelter and this is pubic record. There was an article in the Press Enterprise about three cruelty case pit bulls that the shelter neglected even with over $10,000 in donations collected for their care. Dunaway and a couple of other women went to bat for these dogs, but were stopped by the City Attorney. During all of this, the director of animal control was put on administrative leave and then resigned. So Winograd is putting a spin on this that is not correct. She is not well liked at all by the CITY of San Bernardino Council.

Anonymous said...

Here's what you asked for Honesty.




The preview shows these are cut off so that's why they have a space between.There's more but this is probably enough for now. And no one from Best Friends has sent any kind of retraction or apology if indeed this Reed woman was not with them.

Anonymous said...

Here's the Grand Jury report which used some of the complaints posted on the no kill website. This is the final report 06-07 during the same time the website was reporting.


Animal Care and Control has installed high fences and security cameras at the
Devore Animal Shelter. They presently have a full-time security guard. There have
been no break-ins since security measures were implemented. The shelter has been
painted, is clean and well organized. Animals are scanned for identification chips and
photographed immediately upon arrival. Photos and other information are placed on
the lost pet website:
Animals are held for a minimum of five days (State law requires four days).
When space is available, animals that are “adoptable” are kept for a longer period or
placed with a certified rescue group. A larger facility would allow animals to be held for
a longer period for adoption.

The Animal Shelter is located in a rural area; the security measures taken with higher fences, security cameras and a full-time security guard make the shelter a safer place for staff and animals. The department and County are to be commended for implementing safety and security recommendations of the 2004-05 Grand Jury.

Anonymous said...

Found this on Dunaway, looks like she fights for spay/neuter and no kill because she is pushing the Maddies Fund in this article.

In July, local animal advocate Pat Dunaway asked the department's director, Janis McLaughlin, to consider letting a local animal group, such as the Pet Overpopulation Coalition, answer spay-neuter telephone calls from the public, a free service the coalition has provided for San Bernardino County since 2001.

Dunaway also referred McLaughlin to Maddie's Fund, a nationally known organization that finances spay-neuter programs. To qualify for a Maddie's grant, communities must have support from their shelters, the veterinary community and animal groups. An agency that doesn't kill animals leads the effort; veterinarians are paid to do the surgeries and shelters provide the numbers of pets that enter, are killed or are adopted from the shelter to measure the program's success over time.

McLaughlin rejected both ideas in a July 30 letter to Dunaway. "As a county agency, we cannot provide carte-blanche support to any program administered by a third party - even one as reputable as POPCO," McLaughlin wrote.

The meeting basically "went nowhere," said Dunaway.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the CITY of San Bernardino and Winograd's claim that Pat supported cruelty there, this says otherwise.

Pet advocates accuse city of wrongdoing
SAN BERNARDINO: They file a claim saying the shelter mishandled dogs and donations.


A trio of animal welfare advocates has accused San Bernardino officials of misappropriating more than $10,000 donated by the public to help three emaciated puppies rescued from neglect in July 2001.

In a claim they filed earlier this week, Pat Dunaway of Fontana and Suzanne Martin and Pauline Itkin of Riverside are seeking more than $10,000 in damages.

The three, who are involved with animal welfare groups throughout the Inland area, allege the city's animal shelter mishandled the dogs and that city officials conspired to alter and forge public records documenting how donations were spent and how the dogs were treated.

"We want justice for the animals. We want whoever is responsible for allowing those animals to suffer to be held responsible," Dunaway said Thursday. "We also want reform at the animal shelter."

Anonymous said...

Boy, this woman gets around. Here's an article still found in a cockfighting site. I don't see Winograd doing this much.

SB 732, a bill introduced by Sen. Nell Soto, D-Pomona, would strengthen California's cockfighting law by giving a district attorney the option to charge offenses either as a misdemeanor or a felony. The bill is heading to its first hearing Tuesday before the Senate Public Safety Committee.

Soto's bill was inspired by a letter from a constituent, Pat Dunaway, 55, of Rialto. Dunaway, co-chairwoman of the Pet Assistance Foundation for the Inland Empire, said she learned that a strain of exotic Newcastle virus similar to the one plaguing Southern California was discovered earlier in Mexico, and it could have been carried here by fighting roosters. Federal and state authorities, however, say they haven't proven the origin of the current outbreak.

"They (cockfighters) cause too much trouble for it to be a misdemeanor," Dunaway said. "To only give people a slap on the wrist for it seems absurd." So she asked Soto to make cockfighting a felony.

HonestyHelps said...

All this stuff but what I am looking for is links to Dunaway and Perry criticizing Winograd in such a fashion as to solict his accusations. Anyone coming across any of that?

Anonymous said...

The above posts are confusing to an outsider, but I get the drift.
I wanted to say that nothing could or should legitimize the attacks or the people that Mr. Winograd routinely attacks. Whether it's Ms.Ruland or the Houston guy or the citizens of King County. He is a wart on the arse of humanity. Only the names of his innocent victims change.

HonestyHelps said...

Gret, you have to read his postings on Dunaway and Perry, then the comments make sense. He provides no links to show that either of these woman are coming after him. These comments just are showing that they are not the witches he makes them out to be.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Honesty. I have read his ravings and am following on Oreo also. My point is even if people come after him for his defective plan, he has no right to accuse them of criminal behavior, or animal cruelty. I would assume these women hit a nerve and that would be the source of his rage. The truth hurts if you are guilty. He is guilty of promoting a plan that doesn't work and he doesn't want that shown. Telling people the truth about him is not libelous.

HonestyHelps said...

You're right as usual, Gret. It is disgusting how he does this but then again he is a disgusting man.

Anonymous said...

His connection in Nevada is Bonney Brown, whom he got hired there.

She gives the appearance of supporting these attacks. Winograd was her benefactor. She claims she is a representative of Winograd No Kill.

I hope that Ardena Perry files a formal complaint about the threats and attacks that are being perpetrated on her on behalf of Winograd No Kill that Bonney Brown is selling in her community.

As for Kitty Jung, is she involved with allowing this threatening attack on a woman in her district? Is Kitty Jung a Winograd cohort seeking the backup of threatening a citizen?

HonestyHelps said...

Slowed down a little. Still waiting for someone to provide links that show Perry and Dunaway have earned Winograd's accusations. I would like to know why he is so scared of them and the info they might have.

Anonymous said...

This has turned into a "He said She said" issue. I did find transcripts from a Rancho City Counsel meeting back in 2005 with a comment from Pat Dunaway stating a cat was killed because it scratched two employees, with a statement following that the cat had done no such thing.
This would lead me to believe that this Pat person (I don't think it is the same person you refered to) did indeed work for the city. Just because you can't find anything on the Web doesn't mean it is not true.
Of course Devore is going to clean up their act (until the investigation is over) after being exposed.
Unless you intend to investigate this on your own, I would not take either side.
Perhaps an 'drop in' is necessary to find out the truth. Interviewing some current employees wouldn't hurt either (at both facilities).
I am not advocating Nathan Winograd either. It comes as no surprise that money grubing individuals would find a nitch in our love of animals.
We simply can't afford to believe either side until it is investigated by a impartial party.

HonestyHelps said...

Really Anon, your opinion is really off the wall. Who cares who worked for the city? According to the Best F(r)iends ambassador (and I would say maybe not impartial) found nothing wrong with her drop in at that shelter. I do know that thousands of public records were pulled, a court case was filed, and that court case was dropped for lack of evidence of wrong doing. What more does it take to convince you?

And in my opinion, you are definitely drunk on the koolaid of the "No Kill Equation". Just don't drive because the rest of us care about saving lives, which NKE doesn't do.