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.
http://latopdog.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed-boks-e-mails-reveal-mandatory-sn-law.html
"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.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=696455
" 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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
I'm quite sure that the pawns of Winograd will find some excuse to offset this. Let's see, what would a good one be?
Winograd suddenly loses his hearing or Winograd was misquoted or Boks is just a big liar.
They'll come up with something, Winograd never accepts blame for anything. He is GOD, the Messiah, he can do no wrong. Can't wait til his karma kicks in, he's got a helluva price to pay for the damage he does.
The breeders posted a video with a clip of Boks saying "this will not save cats and dogs." I was shocked at the time. Now I'm shocked to realize that it was edited. I thought it odd back then that Boks would say that but I disliked him enough to believe it ;-)
Boks and Winograd are both liars. They would try to sell yellow snow to Eskimos. I just don't think people are buying their bullshit any more. Plus, in this economy who is going to spend tons of money for nokill consulting when there are no funds for the programs anyway. And, we already know all the programs. We need people who can do the programs in the real world. It ain't easy.
Anon, I did the same, thought it was odd that Boks said that. Especially during that particular time.
And of course the breeders edited the video, they are in with the Whino, what would you expect? They love the Whino, even to the point of trying to get legislation to force shelters to use his program. Whino is no better than the puppy millers/breeders, a lying sack of shit.
I think you are right that people are finally catching on. Just received the press release for Seattle and he is defeated there. Big loss for him and his Whinonettes. Including the vet that prescribed medication for himself under his dead dog's name, a perfect example of the idiot's that follow him.
Let me ask the obvious question here that you appeared to have missed.
When was the MSN ordinance in Los Angeles passed?
The answer is January of 2008.
So the 24% number than Winograd is referring to is the increase in euthanasia from 2007 to 2008 whereas the 6% that Boks is referring to is from 2008 to 2009.
Based on the link, it appears that both are right, just referring to different numbers.
Anon, did you miss the point here? Out of all that info you seem to be nit picking.
You may call it a "nit pick", but it seems like a pretty major point. Either Winograd is lying about the numbers, or he's not.
And regardless of what anyone thinks of either Boks or Winograd, the numbers are what they are. And the numbers show:
A 24% increase in dog euthanasia in 2008 over 2007.
And
A 6% increase in 2009 vs 2008.
Boks blames Winograd for fudging the numbers to suit his purpose, but given that January 2008 is when the ordinance was passed, it looks like Boks is guilty of exactly what he accuses Winograd of doing. Which then calls Boks' entire post into question -- which is the basis for your entire criticism of Winograd.
So either Winograd is a lyer, or he's not. And in this case, it looks like Boks is the one fudging the numbers.
I don't suppose you would like to comment on the Whino's editing of Boks' comment regarding the program, would you? Boks' comment that spay/neuter can't save the ones already here but can save the future ones is appropriate and the truth. Mandatory spay/neuter does save the future. But the Whino doesn't give a shit about the future. His philosophy sacrifices the future. You can't save them all now, that is impossible. There is a pet overpopulation problem despite his manipulation of a "formula" to say there isn't.
If you have ever dealt with large spay/neuter programs, you would know that it takes about two years for the numbers to show if it works or not.
Any comments on the misrepresentation by the Whino of anything else? It's getting harder and harder for you to defend this snake in the grass, isn't it? Or are you just closing your eyes a little tighter so you don't have to see your hero in a bad light?
MSN in LA City was passed January 2008. It became effective October 2008. Winograd should not have used the 2008 number for comparison but 2009. Winograd and Boks twist numbers to fit their needs. They are both liars.
"While the dog euthanasia rate did increase 6% over the past year (NOT 24%)"
Boks didn't mention what year and since this is 2010, he says the past year and that would be 09. In government in LA, their fiscal year is July 1 to June 30. So when he testified he was in his 08-09 fiscal year. Therefore Boks is correct. LA may have passed it but it was later coming into effect too. Should I add your name to this posting as one of the liars?
I don't disagree with Boks' statement that spaying and neutering now will avoid killing later. I think everyone who knows anything about this subject supports low cost spay/neuter programs.
But his mandatory program (and ones done elsewhere) increased the killing in the short term. Killing them now to avoid killing them later doesn't seem like an ethical approach and wouldn't be something I could ever defend.
I don't disagree that there is a pet overpopulation problem. I would disagree that mandatory spay/neuter is a way to solve it.
Anon, yes, both of them are liars and I can't say which one is the biggest liar actually.
In LA, there are programs to help people get their pets alter, no excuses. Mobile service, vouchers, financial aid groups all contribute. You are making your determination based on this economy without considering that it would increase anyway because of that very fact. The Whino took advantage of that. People who give a shit about their pet aren't going to take them to the shelter because of MSN. Those who don't give a shit will but then again, they probably would anyway. And those pets belonging to those people who don't give a shit are probably better off at the shelter. They stand a better chance of having a life than they would have with this uncaring people. At least they have some change at adoption and if not, they won't have to suffer at the end of a chain or lie on the side of the road and die slowly. The Whino's way is slow death and suffering. But we all know that Whinonettes can't see the suffering. They are the Frankensteins of the world, "They're alive" but what kind of life?
For anon 3:15 - it looks like there was a lot of mis-information about the law to the general public between when it passed and when it was enacted. The city controller was HIGHLY critical of Boks and AC's ability to communicate the necessary messages out to the public. http://controller.lacity.org/stellent/groups/electedofficials/@ctr_contributor/documents/contributor_web_content/lacityp_008251.pdf
I quote: "First and foremost, the department had no plan to educate the public regarding the mandatory sterilization and how they can comply. In fact, the city council instituted a six month grace period till the ordinance goes into effect this October to give the opportunity to prepare the public. Now, on the eve of its enactment, the department has done little to promote the awareness of the law."
So it looks like some poor communication about the law and when and how it would be enforced led to some problems before the law even actually took effect.
"You may call it a "nit pick", but it seems like a pretty major point"
You think so? I don't see it. I think the major point is the misrepresentation of Winograd's credentials regarding the SF SPCA. I know that Winograd has tried to offset this by saying he was doing the job before getting the title or something like that. Bullshit. When you add up the number of shelter animals he has actually managed it is around 10,000 in his entire career. I don't call that enough to qualify him as an "expert".
Winograd is just another jerk who sees the weaknesses of those in the humane community and takes advantage. They used to call them snake oil salesmen.
Anon, there was that problem not advising the public. Now how do we look at that and how it affects the Whino's contention?
And I agree, Anon, that the bigger issue here is how the Whino misrepresents so much. The Anon/Whinonette can't see the forest for the trees it seems.
Anon 3:54 - in fairness, the SF part was not even part of the original post, so probably not the main point of the blog posting.
Your bigger point is that Winograd misrepresents too much, but the major proof point is that Boks says he did. However, one of the big reasons Boks says he did doesn't seem valid because the numbers Winograd talks about are actually accurate.
So at that point, I'm not sure how much he's really mis-representing...your entire post was based on a premise that hasn't really checked out.
Anon, I decide that, not you. And the Boks posting was not the major point, the major point overall is the misrepresentation examples of the Whino. This posting is not about Boks, it is about the techniques used by the Whino to contort the truth to fit his agenda and obviously some commenters missed that altogether.
Anon, did you bother to read the other links? You don't fucking decide what I meant on my blog. I decide that. I don't even care about the explanations for anything other than the Whino doing an "edit" on Boks' statements on MSN. This may have been the difference between this passing the legislature or not, which it didn't. And the fact that the breeders did the same thing, following the lead of their hero, Winograd. Doesn't it bother you that the Whino is the darling of the breeding industry? Doesn't it bother you that he has given them credibility to continue to overbreed? Doesn't it bother you that this puts the shelter animals in danger with the breeding of more? What is your problem?
Can you see beyond your own nose? No because if you did, then you would see what a lying SOB the Whino really is. Keep eating his lies, eventually they will make you puke.
In your 4:02 post, you SAID that was the bigger issue. I can only go by what you say.
And no, I have no problem that this didn't pass the state legislature. If state-wide MSN had the same impact in the entire state as it had in the city where Boks was enforcing it, it would have meant the deaths of tens of thousands of pets. The idea that we kill them all now to quit killing them later seems like an unethical stance to take.
You are one stupid SOB. Damn right I'm calling names because you aren't human enough for anything else. You call yourself an animal lover when you are nothing more that a pervert who wants to see the problem become worse.
You condemn the fucking future in the name of "No Kill". You know you have nothing to back up this "theory" from that crazed Whino. You want animals at the end of chains to suffer in the name of "No Kill", any home is better than no home. Are you so naive to think that you give people a good lecture, send them out the door and all ends well?
You are one sick motherfucker, you and your short dicked Messiah. You can't see the real story here. you can't see that the Whino wants everything fucked up, means he can be a big fish and that is all that selfish MF wants. His program has caused more suffering that anything else.
Don't worry MF, Whino's and your days are over, you are losing the war. More and more people are standing against you. You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass, you don't deal in the truth. You deal in your own personal agenda and I will not allow that perverted agenda to prevail. You can't handle the truth, all you can do is stick that fucking nose up Whino's ass and both of you enjoy it.
Quit calling people names just because you like to kill animals. Talk about a sick fuck - go look in the mirror.
PAMM, just as soon as you take your skinny dick out of your fucking pit bull's mouth, then I'll quit. At least I'm not a closet animal abuser like yourself, I don't let them suffer. Fuck you and the white horse you rode in on, low life animal abuser who enjoys watching them crated and stacked and suffering with "No Kill". Kick that pit bull in the ass and tell it turn around, you need some poking.
Pat, WOW, we know how YOU feel about pit bulls even tho you blame Winograd for not saving enough. I have cats, thank you very much.
We all know that you Pat, are really Honesty Helps - at least TRY to write in another voice. You like to KILL to save? PLEASE keep spewing the bullshit honey! The sooner Lifetime get's to air "Snapped - The Pat Dunaway Story" the sooner people will stop listening to your hate.
You can take your Pat Dunaway and cram her up your ass, fucking idiot. I've been accused before of being that woman and I'm sure it won't be the last time. You fuckers think there is only one person that hates what you stand for that that ain't true. There's many of us now, too many for you to name. You're scared of Pat Dunaway obviously, what the hell is she doing to scare the shit out of you? Is she telling the truth about you fuckers to the right people? Is she stopping you in your tracks? God, I sure hope so.
Pat, if you are out there, please hit this blog, I want to join forces with you to fight these animal abusers. I want to know what you have on them other than they are the real ones that make animals suffer and from the looks of it, they enjoy it. All I can say is "Sic 'em Pat", whatever you are doing you are doing it right. Stupid, one track perverts.
Here are some details about that bogus claim by the Whinonettes that LA euthanasia rose 177% in one year (2008).
First of all, the LA ordinance did not even begin enforcement until Oct 2008. As far as the 177% increase claim, here is what's actually going on. The Los Angeles dog euthanasia numbers reported to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) are as follows:
2004 37,078 dogs euthanized
2005 33,723 dogs euthanized
2006 30,250 dogs euthanized
2007 12,118 dogs euthanized*
2008 33,601 dogs euthanized
The CDPH has a note next to the 2007 number that states " * Report was not received from entire jurisdiction".
Lying Whinonettes are taking the incomplete 2007 number, comparing it to the actual 2008 number, and concluding that dog euthanasia went up 177% in one year (12,118 to 33,601). But clearly the 2007 number is just incomplete data.
The 2008 number did actually rise 11% since 2006, primarily because of the thousands of people relinquishing their animals due to financial troubles. How do we know? Look at the total number of "surrendered" dogs in Los Angeles:
2006 43,559 dogs surrendered
2008 60,712 dogs surrendered
That's a 39% increase in surrendered dogs, primarily due to the terrible financial crisis today.
The Dept of Health fixed their error within a week, but the folks on the wrong side of this issue kept the old data that allows them to claim the sky is falling in LA based on 2008 data.
Honesty, I have been commenting all along on your blog. These "No Kill'er"s try so hard to convince the world that I am the only one who is doing all those comments, just as Craig Malisow pointed out in his article http://www.houstonpress.com/2009-01-29/news/barc-sucks/6
"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."
These "No Kill'er"s want the world to believe that no one could possibly be against "No Kill" because it is sooooo wonderful. I have seen the rise of many in opposition in the years since I confronted him in Rancho. And they continue to grow with every failure of his abusive program.
Do I work against this horrible abuse of animals in our shelters when this program is adopted? You bet your tutty I do, everyday. Winograd and his delusional no pet overpopulation has invited the breeding industry to expand, the public to surrender their pets because there's no guilt involved (take them to the shelter, they won't kill them), and the hoarders to increase.
Winograd has not once produced any evidence to back up his accusations of me. He presented a couple of letters that were written by one of his followers because she was pissed off. This shows again how desperate Winograd really is. It shows his use of intimidation tactics because he can't fight fair just like this posting has pointed out.
You're wasting your time dealing with these nuts. The truth could be hanging on their noses and they would deny it. But keep them busy, it keeps them out of trouble.
I'll contact you via the comments and mark them not for publication.
I am indeed honored that you are a reader of this blog. The info you provided is overwhelming to say the least.
All I can say is that when this comes down, there will no longer be a need for this blog. Then I can concentrate all my efforts toward ending the killings by pitocide. Does this make my day, no it makes my decade. Can't wait for these fools to get theirs.
And I wonder who did the anon postings about you when I blogged you. Now I know.
Post a Comment