Some things have happened in the last day or two that has lent itself to some thoughts on my part and I would like to share.
If you read my blog and you are in Southern California, or New York, or any other large metropolitian area, then it makes sense. But if you are in Podunk, USA, it may not.
My prospective from Southern California says that "No Kill" in a major, open door shelter does not work as presented. It should always be a goal however. My prospective on TNR is that is does not work in major populated areas as presented.
BUT, that doesn't mean it can't work in a small, less populated, more humane area. I was thinking of a couple of places I know where these programs can stand a good chance of working. Areas where people love their dogs, where you'll never, if ever, see a dog without a collar and/or tags. Areas where cats can walk around without fear of neighborhood punks, traffic, or loose pit bulls. Believe it or not, these places do exist, I won't tell you where because I don't want these places spoiled.
So can these places indeed become "No Kill"? Almost. There's still the problem that these are small places, small budgets, so animals may not be able to receive treatment because of the costs. Still those would be few and far between because small places have less traffic to cause injuries, less disease because things are further apart.
And where is Winograd's program in all of this? The shelter and animal control in both these places have never heard of Winograd, yet they rarely have to euthanize for time and space. They average saving well over 90% of their impound population. They haven't even heard of no kill really. Their responses were that means a private shelter, right? My answer is always, yes it does.
So please if you read this, think of my prospective. I'm used to shelters that handle tens of thousands of animals every year. When that is the case, then "No Kill" is only adding to the woes of those shelter animals, it's not saving them.