RECENT UPDATE: This just in and it shows another of the Whino's lies. San Francisco has never been no kill, they have always euthanized pit bulls because the SF SPCA won't take them out of the shelter. Yet, the Whino proclaims it to be, just another of his delusions of grandeur. http://www.kcbs.com/bayareanews/Animal-Rights-Activists-Debate-San-Francisco%C3%83-%C3%82-%C3%82-/6760839 “The public really needs to be aware that this is traditionally not a no-kill city, but it is within our reach to achieve that goal.”
All my readers know that there is no love affair between me and Ed Boks, former director of Animal Control in LA. If you unfamiliar with Ed Boks, then google his name, his charades are too long to put on here.
However, Boks has finally clarified his stance on mandatory spay/neuter that the Whino has used to fight MSN. In typical Whino fashion, he has again spun another tail that is not true.
"Recently Nathan Winograd mischaracterized a portion of an email from me as suggesting LA’s spay/neuter law is a failure. This is typical of the divisive sniping endemic in all of Nathan’s self-aggrandizing philosophy."
Nathan conveniently quotes only the first portion of my response. The entire quote was, “No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats ALREADY IN THE SHELTER, it is about saving untold lives in the future by ensuring they are never born.”
(Whino's quote)“Ed Boks made headlines in his support of a California sterilization law, Assembly Bill 1634. During legislative hearings, Boks admitted that the legislation was more about expanding the bureaucratic power of animal control than saving animals when a Senator asked: ‘Mr. Boks, this bill doesn’t even pretend to be about saving animals, does it?’ To which Boks responded: ‘No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats.’
Nathan then transitions to attacking the results of a successful spay/neuter ordinance in the City of Los Angeles, claiming I “demanded more officers to enforce it, and was granted over $400,000 in enforcement money to do so, money that was taken away from truly lifesaving programs. The end result was predictable. Almost immediately, LAAS officers threatened poor people with citations if they did not turn over the pets to be killed at LAAS, and that is exactly what occurred. For the first time in a decade, impounds and killing increased – dog deaths increase 24%."
What a horrific lie! What is the reason for such sensational fiction? In fact, LA Animal Services’ budget was reduced after the passing of this ordinance, and the department was the only City department at risk of a layoff of officers. While the dog euthanasia rate did increase 6% over the past year (NOT 24%) the intake rate also rose from 31,082 to 31,953 as a result of the economic down turn NOT BECAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE. All across the United States shelters are experiencing an increase in intakes as a result of the economy, but it seems to serve Nathan’s business purpose to vilify LA’s spay/neuter law.
Nathan sadly continues: “…to defray blaming the spay/neuter law for increased impounds, Boks and his killing apologists in Los Angeles… blamed the economy. But the data did not bear out the claim. While the City of Los Angeles had one of the lowest foreclosure rates (1.79) at the time, it saw killing increase following the passage of its spay/neuter law.”
Nathan has the luxury to pick and choose the facts that support his presuppositions. He shoots his arrows and then paints a target around them. While the foreclosure rate for Los Angeles might have been 1.79%, the animals most at risk in Los Angeles come from the East Valley and South LA where foreclosures have seen rates as high as 2.23% compared to the national average of 2.04%.
It is truly pitiable that Nathan has chosen as his guiding business principal Oscar Wilde’s self-effacing precept that, “It is not enough that I succeed; my friends must also fail.” If he would spend as much time helping communities as he does sowing strife we would all be that much closer to achieving No-Kill. "
Boks has the Whino's number for sure. Remember folks, that Patricia J. Ruland also discovered that the Whino misrepresents his credentials and that was in her story in the Austin Chronicle.
" As the current president of the national ASPCA and the architect of a nationwide pet-adoption program known as Mission: Orange, a mystified Sayres told the Chronicle he was the one who hired and then promoted Winograd to "operations director" in San Francisco – a job Sayres said Winograd held just a week and a half before resigning. That tenure makes Winograd's online promotion of his book – Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America – rather misleading. The promotional material describes Winograd as the former "director of operations for the San Francisco SPCA and executive director of the Tompkins County SPCA [New York], two of the most successful shelters in the nation.""
And because Ruland asked the "right" questions, the Whino knew exactly what he was in for and actually wrote a letter to her editor PRIOR to the release of the story, didn't even know what she was going to write. He did this because he realized that she was on to him. A reporter in Houston who asked the "right" questions was accused by the Whino of trying to blackmail him.
Nathan J. Winograd has no shame. Those who follow him have no sense.