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.
3 comments:
Before anyone can even think of being No Kill, FIRST there has to be a civilized society.
Firm, solid animal control laws, enforced by trained animal control officers who work not to protect offenders and dangerous dogs, but for public safety and humane animal treatment.
There need to be meaningful fines and punishments for offenders.
There needs to be a high rate of spaying and neutering, and involvement of local vets to offer reasonably priced altering to lower income people, and also to educate.
There needs to be breeder licensing and inspections, dog limits unless a kennel license is obtained, and basic humane and public safety laws.
In those areas, no kill can be a possibility.
But that's the groundwork that needs to be set up. No one can just impose No Kill overnight without doing those other things first.
And Winograd, to cater to the breeders and puppy millers, opposes animal control laws. He guarantees that No Kill won't work and has no hope! And that animals will suffer and people will get hurt or killed.
Like most quacks, he doesn't want to do the work it takes to get there.
If you install his "No Kill" program prior to doing those things, it only creates chaos. His program is a pipe dream in a perfect world.
What is hard to understand is why he rejects making it harder to obtain a pet, rather than making it harder. Making it harder can only help people realize the commitment that a pet truly is. We would have no need for shelters if people were more responsible for their pets. Education can only go so far, then the programs and laws take care of the rest.
The Whino makes no sense to me. I usually pride myself with being able to see the other side but not this time.
In addition, just like the crazied pit nutter posting on "My New Blog" I don't see the sense in his/her argument either. If you care about pit bulls, then you would have to want BSL, I would.
Post a Comment