Sunday, October 24, 2010

NKE Talk (Can be interchanged with NKE Lies)

Recently a new blog hit the Internet called "Maul Talk". This informative site takes the standard excuses/lies shouted by the pit nutters, dogmen, and pit bull breeders and compiles them. I realized while reading the "Maul Talk Manual" that NKE does the same, forever spewing forth the same rhetoric without even checking the validity of the claims by Nathan Winograd. This will be an ongoing project and I ask that the readers of this blog participate by submitting what they have seen repeated by the Whino and his Whinonettes. This will be an ongoing project, adding more "NKE Talk" as we come upon it.

"Open Admission" - Nathan Winograd and the Whinonettes are always referring to his "No Kill" shelters as being open admission. Nothing could be further from the truth. Gret the Vet has started a new blog that shows this is not true. Each of the Whino's "successes" are turning animals away with their policies on owner surrenders. Open admission means that any and all animals are taken upon presentation. No requirements such as temperament testing, health records, etc. determine whether the pet comes into the shelter. To do otherwise means more animals dumped, left in foreclosed homes, killed, starved, and all that. To turn away a pet means an inhumane death usually.

"If you aren't for "No Kill", then you must stand for killing". The mainstay of the Whino is to tell the public that if a person speaks against "No Kill", then they must be in favor of killing, animal killers is what they are. He fails to recognize that there is no kill and then there is "No Kill" his personal agenda, his program. In other words, there is no room in his world for any other programs that can reduce the euthanasia in shelters. Would this fall into a category of mental illness, thinking of yourself as the one and only Messiah, a Savior? Those speaking against Nathan Winograd are speaking against his program, not the noble goal of no kill.

"MSN doesn't work". His own claim to fame, the San Francisco SPCA, engages in MSN with pit bulls and it has had wonderful results. Not supporting MSN puts him in league with the devil, AKA Bill Hemby. Hemby was indicted last year for fraud by the Attorney General. Hemby stands with the breeding organizations to fight MSN. MSN would mean fewer animals coming into the shelters because fewer animals will be born. Fewer animals means less euthanization. Does this mean that the Whino is in favor of continuing the influx and thus the euthanization?

"I support spay/neuter, it is a mainstay of my program". Really now! The Whino doesn't support the law forcing spay/neuter on people because according to him, there isn't money for the low income people to alter their pets. Has he ever looked at all the programs offering help for spay/neuter? It is no longer an excuse that you can't afford it. Just reason for a second, if they can't afford spay/neuter, then can they afford yearly vaccinations? Can they afford to take the pet to a vet when it is sick and suffering? Then what kind of a life can they have, condemned to eating Ol' Roy if they are lucky enough, table scraps if they aren't.

Does it mean that the shelters will fill up with the advent of MSN? Are people actually giving up their pets because they can't afford to spay/neuter? Where has that been the case, didn't happen in San Francisco. Anytime that the Whino has tried to produce examples, the examples didn't hold water, he distorted the information to his own agenda.

"Nathan Winograd teaches practical, sensible management practices as a way to save shelter animals, based on his own experiences as director of a shelter." Winograd only has about 10,000 animals he has dealt with in his entire sheltering career. Considering that the SF SPCA handles less than 3000 animals a year, even if what Winograd says is true, it is a small shelter, not a major shelter such as LA or New York. SF SPCA would not take pit bulls from the shelter. Despite his rantings that he was over the shelter in San Francisco, just didn't have the title, was a new one for his boss, Ed Sayers. Not one of his former associates in San Francisco confirms this to be so. Considering that there are shelters that handle more than 10,000 animals a year, this doesn't quite make him an expert, does it.

"Getting the animals seen by prospective adoptive families by presenting them in locations where they may actually be seen by families, such as shopping malls, is an effective way to save the lives of pets." Some people don't want to go to the shelters to adopt BECAUSE of what Winograd says, thus the outreach programs in shopping malls, etc. But how often are these impulse adoptions? Particularly if the children are with their parents begging to get the cute puppies or kittens. Reputable rescues won't do impulse adoptions because reputable rescues take back their adoptions if it doesn't work out. Therefore, they don't want to do impulse adoptions. Ask a "No Kill" shelter that does this outreach if they take pets back, the answer will be no.

Also reputable rescues won't adopt out two pets at the same time unless they are known to be bonded. Imagine taking home two kittens, named Peanut Butter and Jelly, only to discover that they don't like each other. Or two littermates who bond with each other rather than bonding with the owner. Those reputable rescues tell people to take one home and wait a week or two, then come back for the other one. These rescues will tell you that people rarely return for the second one, not once they see how much work has to be done with the first one. Sending two pets home at the same time, probably not knowing each other, is setting up a family and the pets for failure. It does no one any good.

"Nathan's statistics seem reasonable: If we kill 5 million animals and this year an estimated 21 million people will get a new pet, doesn't it seem reasonable to sway at least 5 million of them to the shelters?" The problem is to "sway" people into going to those shelters that Winograd has described as filled with barrels of dead animals, uncaring people, blah, blah, blah. Doesn't it sound more reasonable that he encourage people to go to shelters by saying how great they are with friendly staff, etc? If anything, his rhetoric pushes people away from the shelters right into the arms of his "rescues" and breeders.

"The No Kill movement promotes these methods and they have been shown to work in highly varied communities all over the United States." This one is easy. What communities? Are you speaking of Reno or Charlottesville, non profits who don't tell the truth because if they do, they would lose donations? How about public shelters subject to public records requests, name those. I've seen this question asked so many times of the Whinonettes and they never answer it.

"For every case of abuse, there are many, many more cases of loving - usually imperfect - owners. It is unacceptable for shelters to do what some do - kill an animal rather than release that animal not to an abuser but to the non-ideal equivalent of a human parent who sometimes uses the TV as a babysitter or the spouse who leaves dirty dishes in the sink." We can't stop people who shouldn't have kids from having them, but we can stop people who shouldn't have animals from having them from the shelters. To think that SOME LIFE IS BETTER THAN NO LIFE, is wrong. There are far worse things that can happen to an animal than euthanasia in the shelter.

"In the end, it is not those who seek better outcomes for our nation's pets that deny reality; rather, it is those who deny No Kill's promise. No Kill is not only possible, it's already happening." Spoken like a true cult follower, not no kill's promise, but "No Kill"s promise. This is cultish in the true form, following blindly and no room for exceptions.

"When you quickly turn to character assassination rather than addressing a fact or argument, it becomes patently clear that you're unable to address the fact or argument." Spoken by Ryan Clinton, No Kill Austin, yet he fails to see that this is exactly what Winograd does, intimidation is the only thing that the Whino is good at. The Whinonettes make this accusation but it is their Messiah that uses it more than anyone else. Example is what the Whino calls Peta, the Butcher of Norfolk, if that ain't character assassination, I don't know what is.

"Live Release Rate" Always comparing apples to oranges here. Seems that Winograd uses the standard method to get the euthanasia numbers BEFORE his program and then uses a totally different set of numbers to get his "live release rate", making the shelter look better than it actually is. Winograd's middle name is deception.

Pat Dunaway

1 comment:

HonestyHelps said...

Mike Stark just posted an excellent version of what the term "No Kill" is doing. I have said all along that the term itself is hurting and killing animals. We had just gotten to the point where people were called animal control "shelters" rather than the negative term "pounds". ACO's are called "dog catchers".

All that progress has been wiped away with the Whino. You don't attract people to shelters with the rhetoric he uses and when you push people away, the animals are the losers.