Sunday, October 31, 2010
Wrong. Here is the status of this "No Kill" shelter.
Organization Name FRIENDS OF ANIMAL ADOPTIONS, INC. D/B/A ANIMAL ARK
Federal ID# 411311053
For Fiscal Year Ending 8/31/2009
Direct Public Support $508,228
Government Grants $0
Other Revenue $337,711
Total Revenue $845,939
Amount Spent for Program or Charitable Purposes $831,978
Management/General Expense $144,878
Fundraising Expense $53,595
Total Expenses $1,030,451
Total Assets $937,636
Total Liabilities $522,056
End of Year Fund Bal/Net Worth $415,580
Wait, there's more. Since the year before their donations dropped dramatically. They better get the Whino off the radio show it looks like.
Organization Name FRIENDS OF ANIMAL ADOPTIONS, INC. D/B/A ANIMAL ARK
Federal ID# 411311053
For Fiscal Year Ending 8/31/2008
Direct Public Support $786,232
Government Grants $0
Other Revenue $312,631
Total Revenue $1,098,863
Amount Spent for Program or Charitable Purposes $941,401
Management/General Expense $122,802
Fundraising Expense $24,431
Total Expenses $1,088,634
Total Assets $1,067,694
Total Liabilities $467,602
End of Year Fund Bal/Net Worth $600,092
Wow, can't wait to see the next tax report. Does one have to file a report when you go under?
Wise up, Mike Fry, you are riding a dead horse.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
January 27, 2009
By Fax and E-Mail: 713-280-2444
Dear Ms. Downing,
I just read the blog by Craig Malisow claiming he is going to show my "real" credentials in an in-depth piece about me in the Houston Press tomorrow. I was always concerned about the tenor of his questions, feeling he was looking for dirt on me, rather than focusing on the issue at hand: shelter reform in Houston. I suggested that rather than talking to only detractors, he speak to successful shelter directors such as Bonney Brown in Reno, Suzanne Kogut in Charlottesville, and Abigail Smith in Tompkins County. He chose not to.
Instead, he sent me the enclosed e-mail attempting to blackmail me for money. When I challenged him on it, he claimed it was just a joke, but his refusal to speak to successful shelter directors, and his teaser of somehow exposing me, the tenor of his questions, and the fact that it is not funny, unprofessional, and in fact is blackmail on its face, puts his claim of trying to be funny into doubt. It has also caused me a great deal of personal distress.
After I received this e-mail, I debated not responding to further e-mails, but frankly I feared not being supported by his superiors, and angrying him further. But I see now that an appeal to fairness with Mr. Malisow has fallen on deaf ears. I am asking that the Houston Press look into the matter, censure Mr. Malisow, and preempt the publication of any hit piece. It isn't fair and it isn't right.
Trying to blackmail someone is neither funny nor professional. It is, in fact, illegal. Of course, I didn't pay the cash but maybe my detractors did? Even if it was a joke, it shows a remarkable level of unprofessionalism and lack of sense. Please do what is right.
Very truly yours,
Nathan J. Winograd
When Patricia J. Ruland was doing her story in Austin, Winograd wrote to her editor, not accusing her of blackmail, but accusing her of unprofessionalism, blah,blah,blah. The editor of the Austin Chronicle fired back at him that he stood by his reporter and wondered how Winograd knew what the article was about BEFORE it had even been written or published.
I'll tell you how he knew, he knew from the type of questions being asked by Ruland and Malisow. Some people have enough common sense to know that Winograd's version just doesn't make sense. Winograd also said that Bonney Brown in Reno was displeased for whatever reason when Ruland interviewed her and the editor invited Brown to voice that directly to him. She never did.
It doesn't take a psychologist to see that there is something bad wrong with Winograd. It takes an idiot to think that he is sane. Birds of a feather shit together, Brent Toellner and Mike Fry.
And to all those PUPPETS who followed this berserk liar, ask him for the evidence. Don't continue to take his word, HE IS NOT THE MESSIAH. Stop letting him make fools of you all unless you want to be his fool.
This is Pat Dunaway
and I'm not scared of you but you are scared of me.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Update: It turns out Mike Stark surrendered his “Pit Bull” (pit bull mix at best) at his local shelter, which just happened to be the Charlottesville SPCA, a facility I helped make No Kill and which is following the No Kill Equation model of sheltering. (It's a non profit, not subject to public records so how do we know what they are doing, take your word for it Winograd?)Stark admits his dog is doing well and most importantly, alive. (but it has been in foster care for two years, hardly a sucess story for "No Kill") Had Susanne Kogut not visited me when I was in Tompkins County, had she not taken the job at my urging, had I not done training for the staff there, had she not followed the model, (a lot of animals would have been better off, not languishing in their cages for years) Stark’s dog would be dead. (And how would you know?)His tribute to his dog? Attacking the person who played a role in keeping that dog alive. (it would piss me off to if I had been lead down a rosey path with a promise that the dog would be adopted and wasn't. Seems Kogut didn't try very hard to place this dog in a permanent home) And why did Stark get rid of his dog? He was having a baby. (And Stark had the good sense to realize that his dog was much too big and hyper to be around a child, in other words he cares about human life which is more than we can say about the Whino) This is the new spokesman for the anti-No Kill, pro-killing crowd. (Oh, we hope) It is pathetic and shameful. (Not near as much as your deceit and lies, Winograd)
Further Update: I posted a comment on his community blog that I would not be responding to Stark because I read online that he had been arrested. (No where on his "source" did it refer to Stark being arrested) Mike Stark subsequently e-mailed me and threatened me with a lawsuit because he says the information I found on the internet that he was arrested at Bill O’Reilly’s home following incidents at his speaking engagements is not accurate. ( and how many people have you threatened, Whino. You have sent two cease and desist orders to Pat Dunaway, and I know others you've done the same to) And he demands a retraction. Really? For a guy who tries to make his reputation defaming me based on inaccurate (sic, should be accurate) information he gets on the internet, this is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black. (What inaccurate info, it was all true) Will Stark be retracting his crossing of the line by accusing me of being in league with puppy mills? (Why should he, the puppy millers all claim you are their friend, that's all over the internet) Will he stop the Nathan Winograd “is for torture” attacks? (Well you are, you praised PACCA all the while animals were being tortured with overcrowding, disease, lack of care or do you conveniently forget about that one too?) Because that, also, as he says “tests the boundaries of New York Times vs. Sullivan.” Will Stark play by the same rules? Or will he continue to play the Karl Rovian-game of slander? (You're the only one playing that game)
According to information online, including Wikipedia, Stark confronted O’Reilly at his home. (And if you read all the links, it was journalism. He had a camera man with him, not quite the same as your stalking Pat Dunaway with absolutely no evidence to back yourself up) He also went to O’Reilly’s neighbors telling them that O’Reilly could not be trusted with their daughters. (And in your name the ADL-LA did the same thing, only they picked on the kids in the neighborhood. They destroyed property, they smoke bombed high rise apartments with innocent people living there, all in your name, trying to force you onto the City of LA) [Do not read this as support for O’Reilly’s politics. I’ve posted extensively about my politics: www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=2153.] (Your politics? Your agenda is more like it)
But I was scared (Bullshit) when I read online that Stark actually targeted his home with those kinds of attacks. (It didn't bother you when the ADL-LA smoke bombed that apartment building with children living in, all in your name, Whino) Did I want my kids being similarly confronted by Stark because he now targets me? (Your kids will know one day what a wanker their dad is anyway. You didn't consider the innocent kids that day the ADL-LA smoke bombed their home in your name) Did I want my neighbors being told I am for torture or in league with puppy mills who torture dogs? (Yes, they need to know. Just like the ADL-LA did to the directors of animal control all in your name trying to get you hired in LA, you can dish it out but you can't take it? ) What else was Mike Stark capable of? I also received two e-mails from people telling me to be careful. (Just two?? Doesn't look like you have many friends.)
According to Wikipedia, even liberal commentator Keith Olbermann named Stark one of his worst persons in the world. (Like who cares?) But Stark says he was not arrested for that conduct and says that this doesn’t amount to stalking. (Turn about was fair play in this case, after all it was O'Reilly who did the same thing to JetBlue but you aren't accusing O'Reilly of anything.) I was using it in the colloquial sense, but fine, it has legal connotations and I fully retract the statement. (No, Winograd, as usual you distorted the facts for your own personal agenda. Lawsuit scares you but you have sent so many cease and desist orders threatening people with a lawsuit, they can't be counted. Turn about is fair play I would say)
But this does not mean I am not scared of what Stark is capable of. (Yeah, right, and your shit don't stink either.) And it does not mean I think he is acting responsibly by attacking me also based on lies. (You're scared alright, scared that your scam is ending) Apparently for Stark, the rules only run one way. (Oh get real) Mike Stark claims he is a liberal commentator, but he has more in common with the Karl Rove politics of personal destruction than he cares to admit. (Chaps your butt that you couldn't scare him, doesn't it? How does it feel to be on the receiving end, Winograd?)
I realize that you guys won't know who or what about this so let me explain.
Rex Gutierrez was the Rancho Cucamonga City Council member responsble for bringing in Winograd. He has been convicted on several counts, two counts of grand theft and one count each of conspiracy to commit a crime and filing a fraudulent claim. In other words, he is a crook.
The first Ad Hoc meeting I attended, I was sitting at the table with Michelle Dawson of the City Manager's office when Rex walked in with the "activist" who was pushing to bring in Winograd. I watched those two, turned to Michelle, expecting her to direct them out of the room, and when she didn't, I said, "Michelle, those two need to find a room". She informed me of who they were and I was shocked. I responded I didn't care, they need to find a room and fast. They were all over each other, it was so obvious what was going on.
Upon leaving the meeting, I jumped the head of animal control as to why she didn't tell me about this and she said she didn't want to influence me. I can understand that. It was so apparent what was happening and why it was happening. Pillow talk brought Winograd to Rancho, without a doubt.
So I just had to post this. Makes me wonder how many other places have seen the same thing. This particular activist dropped out of sight once the Winograd program was installed. She didn't care when Rancho had them stacked and crated in the hallways. She didn't care when the State report showed they were letting them die in the kennels. She didn't care when the staff came in and found a bloody mess from their housing dogs with pit bulls. She didn't care when disease went through the shelter. Oh, she's still in Rancho, working in the Recreation Department, a new job after her activism on the shelter so she is aware of what is happening there. This activist filed two cases against her boyfriend for domestic abuse too. The first time not bothering to show for court. When a woman does that, she makes all women look bad. Her sister commited suicide by jumping from a bridge over the 210 freeway during all this.
Just had to vent. Justice is coming to Rexxie and no one deserves it more than he does. Makes you wonder just how far Winograd and his cronies will go.
The Nevada Humane Society is Winograd's bragging right. Bonney Brown, head of NHS, is on Winograd's broad of directors.
"We are incredibly full right now and so is Washoe County Regional Animal Services," said Bonney Brown, executive director of the Humane Society.
"Unfortunately, a number of animals continued to come in," she said. "While we're a no-kill shelter, the county facility can't be, so if we cannot pull them and other rescue groups are full, those animals are at risk of being euthanized."
So what else is new? So what will happen now? The County side will now tell their ACO's to not pick up new strays, they will turn away owner surrenders, they will allow animals to be dumped in hopes that cars and coyotes will do their job for them.
And another one, this time one that points out how cruel "No Kill" can be.
Washington Area Humane Society has a problem. With 350 animals in its no-kill shelter, it can't handle any more, and so its board has voted not to take in more animals or investigate complaints of abuse until adoptions reduce the population.
The organization has come under fire from Kym Secreet, animal control officer for 40 municipalities in Washington County, who said the shelter is "allowing animal cruelty to happen and doing nothing about it, which I think is criminal." Readers of this newspaper have written letters critical of the public for not being more willing to adopt pets from the shelter, and of the shelter for not being larger.
Few would argue with the fact that there are simply too many dogs and cats. The solution to the problem is to reduce their numbers, and spaying and neutering is an effective way to do it. But because many people don't bother to have their pets fixed, and abandon or neglect them and allow them to breed unchecked, sometimes more drastic methods are necessary - methods that few want to talk about, like euthanasia.
Ever since the American Humane Association was formed in 1866, it and other organizations that followed have campaigned for the humane treatment of animals, of pets, zoo and wild creatures and those meant for slaughter. The humane disposal of animals was and still is considered a necessary function, although no-kill shelters have become the rule rather than the exception.
The idea of euthanatizing unwanted pets is chilling and distasteful, but even more so are the other ways in which those animals might die: by starvation, poisoning or being drowned or shot.
The no-kill shelter creates another cruelty for the unwanted pet - living out its life in a cage in a noisy, crowded kennel.
By refusing to euthanatize, no-kill shelters ironically condemn unwanted animals to miserable outcomes their organizations were meant to overcome.
Animals should be treated with compassion, and cruelty to them punished to the full extent of the law. At the same time, we must come to realize that humanely ending the life of a sick, dangerous or simply unadoptable pet is not an immoral act.
Me thinks that this person gets it!!!!
Thursday, October 28, 2010
First of all, there was a mandate with the Hayden, recently suspended, thank God, that most people didn't understand. This mandate actually paid shelters to euthanize, yes you heard that right. It didn't pay to increase adoptions and save lives, it paid only when an animal was euthanized. By it being suspended, the reimbursable portions of this mandated are temporarily suspended, until the State of California elects to fund the mandate or actually repeals the mandate at a later date. Hayden did pay for animals held an extra day and who were subsequently euthanized, but it also paid for many other things including, veterinary care, proper record keeping including database management, feral cat testing as well as other requirements. But my focus is on what it does wrong which is to allow rescuers to control shelters.
Second, it is killing innocent animals this way. The Hayden Act allows anyone who just represents themselves as a "rescue" to take animals from the shelter. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A 501c3, ONLY SAY THAT YOU ARE A RESCUER. If the shelters refuse to give animals to these wannabe rescues, all hell breaks loose. So the shelters can't use their good sense to stop it without be called murderers.
How does this work? These so called wannabe rescues will put a hold on animals and then leave them in the shelters like the shelters were private kennels. I bring this up because I just learned that a couple of these wannabe rescues have tied up over 20% of the kennels at a shelter in California. They put a hold on dogs and have left them in there for over a month. This means that other dogs are being euthanized in order to hold on to these dogs on hold.
And this brings up Zephyr. Zephyr was a dog on hold by a rescuer in the Carson shelter in Los Angeles. A rescuer put a hold on Zephyr, a pit mix. This effectively stopped the shelter from euthanizing Zephyr. But Zephyr became sick while at the shelter and the shelter did treat Zephyr. She responded to the medication at first but soon succumbed to another bout and wasn't responding to the second round of treatments. She died in her kennel.
The story behind the story is this. This rescuer left Zephyr in her kennel all the while knowing that the reason Zephyr was becoming ill was from being left there, being re-contaminated with each incoming dog. The rescuer knew that Zephyr stood a better chance if she was taken from the shelter and treated. Yet this rescuer, who was at the shelter almost daily, was walking right by Zephyr and getting cute, fluffy dogs out. On the day of Zephyr's death, this rescuer saw Zephyr, obviously dying. The rescuer even took a picture and that picture says a thousand words but most of all says that this is a dying dog. Later, a news reporter asked the rescuer why she didn't take Zephyr since it was so obvious the dog was dying and after all, she had the time to take a picture. The rescuer responded that her vet was already closed for the day. I mean, c'mon, there is an emergency vet clinic on almost every corner in LA, that was not an excuse.
So now this rescuer files a lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles, and guess who a co-plaintiff was. Yes, you guessed it, Nathan J. Winograd. The case was settled out of court and I hear that the rescuer and Winograd were not very happy about it. Winograd has blogged about it and calls it a success but far from it.
So let's see now, what does all this mean? It meant that other dogs had to die to keep Zephyr alive. Zephyr was taking up a kennel, not a kennel that was shared either because policy is to not house another dog with a pit. So how many dogs died while that rescuer used the shelter as a private kennel. Zephyr was there over a month so that means about 25-30 dogs or more didn't have kennel space and were euthanized. Winograd didn't consider those dogs, they were losing their lives because of this rescuer that he supported, he, of course, blames the shelter for them dying. This is what Marcia Mayeda had to say about it. http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/36960.pdf
Animals that are on "hold" status pose a dilemma for staff; they struggle between euthanizing an animal versus holding on in the hopes that a volunteer or rescue group will meet their commitment to take the animaL. Even when an animal on "hold" is euthanized for humane reasons, staff is often criticized even if it is in the animal's best interests. In this instance, staff erred on the side of trying to accommodate the volunteer's wishes.
On December 1, 2007, Zephyr passed away. Zephyr had been in the Carson Animal
Shelter for five weeks and on "hold" for the volunteer for a month.
One of the challenges faced by the Department in its efforts to work with volunteers or
Adoption Partners is ensuring that the animals these partners place on "hold" are removed
by them in a timely manner. This is critical because animal shelters cannot become a place
to keep animals for extended periods of time. Animals that are housed too long at a shelter
become stressed, are exposed to illnesses from other animals, infect animals with their own
illnesses, and take up valuable cage space needed for new arrivals. Moreover,
overcrowded shelters exceed staff's capacity to effectively and humanely care for the
As part of the Department's review of the holding practices used by Adoption Partners and
volunteers, it was discovered that the Carson Animal Shelter in particular had a large
number of animals being held for a very extended periods of time. In fact, over 50 dogs
were being held by volunteers or rescue groups, some for as long as five months. The Department has corrected this abuse of the system by insisting the animals be removed in a timely manner.
Can you see how the Hayden Act is a killer? It allows the rescuers to be in charge, and therefore they are the ones killing animals in the shelter by screaming "Hayden" whenever they can't get their way. Winograd should have chastised the rescuer instead of joining her on the lawsuit. This rescuer killed Zephyr and a lot of other dogs with her actions. Instead Winograd joined her so this makes him guilty of killing all those dogs as well.
The Hayden Act is without a doubt the worse piece of legislation in the history of the humane effort and it is the darling of Winograd and his cult followers. It has killed more animals probably than it has helped. And Winograd wanted to do the same to New York. He is truly the most evil and misguided demon ever to walk the earth. He's not an animal lover, he is an animal hater.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Nathan Winograd 2 hours ago (3:33 PM)15 Fans
Become a fan Stark relinquished his dog at a shelter when he was having a baby--a shelter I helped make No Kill and therefore kept alive a dog he abandoned. Now he is interested in scoring cheap points with a blog based on lies. In his recent blog, he blames me for things that happened after I left the Tompkins County NY SPCA. For example, he accused me of running a deficit by citing figures when I was no longer there. In fact, I inherited a deficit and closed it with surpluses. Moreover, he attacks me for what my predecessors did/didn't do, citing a 2009 period (five years after I left) when they temporarily housed cats in the laundry room. What does that have to do with me? And so what? They got food, water, shelter, socialization, and were eventually all adopted. Isn't that what we want--creativity short of killing? And why should cats from '01-'09 have been killed because like all shelters they got jammed in '09? Tompkins didn’t kill them, and Stark calls that failure, while other shelters do kill, and he calls that success. Most significantly, I have recently learned that Mike Stark was arrested for stalking someone at their home. That is very scary. For my personal safety and for the safety of my family, this will be my final post, nor will I engage him further. If people want to learn the truth, go to nathanwinograd.com and judge for yourself.
I guess he forgets that he admitted to a deficit to the Rancho Cucamonga City Council and explained it in his own terms. He kept saying he left Tompkins with a surplus but thanks to Pat Dunaway, the City Council learned differently and questioned him about it. Although the link provided is now off line, it is still a matter of public records and if you don't believe me, then request it and see for yourself. Be sure and check the response recently by the interim director after Winograd on the older post.
Liar, liar, pants on fire. Now I don't want to see anyone running up to the Whino with a fire extinguisher.
I understand that non profits have to lower their expectations, remain objective, and sometimes are caught between a rock and a hard place on their stances in order to keep the donations rolling in. I've been in that position as well. But to be all out against the very thing that can help the pits as well as save human life is going too far. I've been a contributer for decades to HSUS but today I wrote them to take my name off their list and informed them they would no longer receive any donation from me or my friends because of this stance.
I can always hope for a change of the Board to bring a change in philosophy, happens all the time with non profits. They are getting a little too extreme for me now with this stance on pit bulls. Although I consider myself to be radical, HSUS is getting much too radical even for me. PETA, here I come.
Honesty and Pat
Monday, October 25, 2010
""Robert and Blain Aymond were accused of hiring a trapper to take ducks from the Frenchman's Landing community. The couple said the ducks were a nuisance, causing damage to their plants and leaving droppings on their lawn.
The couple said they hired the trapper to take them to a "no kill" shelter but the ducks were later euthanized. A Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office investigation found that the "no kill" shelter euthanized the birds because the Aymonds had given a large donation.""
Their neighbors are upset with the couple, what about being upset with a shelter that is supposed to be "No Kill" and killed them upon presentation? I would blame the shelter quicker than the couple. Wonder how many "feral" cats end up the same way with the same circumstances. Just goes to show that you can't trust these "No Kill" shelters, they can be bought off.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
"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. http://gretthevetretired.blogspot.com/ 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.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
First of all, welcome to our world Mike Stark and his new blog http://4k2.org/ , it is indeed exciting to see another new and open blog. I see you don't take comments and turn about is fair play since the Whino doesn't take comments either.
A new favorite blog, http://friendsofbestfriends.blogspot.com/ had a posting this morning taken from Mike Stark's new blog http://4k2.org/ concerning the infamous deficit left by the Whino when he left Tompkins County. This is the link for the original posting in January 09. http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2009/01/infamous-tompkins-county-spca-deficit.html
I posted a couple of comments to Friends and wanted to share those with my readers and encourage them to visit Friends. These were taken from the original posting.
I believe I addressed this deficit in one of my postings.
""As you have probably seen there has been a response to the Houston story on Winograd's background. In that response Winograd makes it very clear that there was no deficit when he left. According to the minutes of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council, Winograd was asked about this deficit in operations. A Tompkins County SPCA Boardmember confirmed the deficit to the City of Rancho.
His response was it was due to adding an additional shelter, requiring more services, and stated that the interim director gave himself a raise. The interim director was a board member filling in. In fact, Winograd was the receiver of a generous raise the first year of service."" I do have the link to those minutes but it is now offline. http://www.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us/pdf_agendas/cc040605m.pdf Page 16
In fact, I just recently got an email from the interium director that I posted in the comment section:
Jim Tantillo said...
I was the interim director of the Tompkins County SPCA after Nathan Winograd left. If he or anyone else ever stated "that the interim director gave himself a raise," then that statement is false. Only a board of directors can set the compensation for an executive director, and my compensation for the entire time that I served was in fact set by the board of directors. Fwiw I continued to teach at Cornell for the year I ran the shelter.
Does this show a discrepancy between what Winograd states and Tantillo states?
The Houston story I referred to is in one of these links:
In looking about the deficit, I came across some interesting tidbits: http://www.houstonpress.com/2009-01-29/news/barc-sucks/1/
It is 8 pages long, I came across this tidbit on page 5
""This didn't mean the city didn't have their feelers out, though. During negotiations, Benjamin Hernandez, chief of staff of Health and Human Services, called Abigail Smith, the current director of the Tompkins County SPCA, to get an idea of what exactly becoming "no-kill" would involve.
"I said, 'Don't jump off the edge of a cliff," Smith said. "You're going to need a lot of money. You're going to need a phenomenal facility. You're going to need huge community buy-in. You're going to need a ton of foster homes. And you're going to need a bunch of vets that are going to donate services to you.'"""
And this tidbit on page 7:
"Winograd told the Press he left Tompkins County in order to move his family back to California to be close to his wife's dying father."
According to this website his wife's father is alive and kicking: http://www.petpaccorruption.com/
That would kinda back up Winograd getting the hell outta Dodge (Tompkins County) before the s*** hit the fan. I believe the new website refers to his leaving somewhat suddenly.
I had noticed that the Whino's leaving Tompkins County was out of the blue it seemed. And in a couple of years following his sudden departure, there were four directors. Tompkins should have been a director's dream, a post one would not leave easily yet three of them left pretty quick. I also like the quote from Abigail Smith of what it takes to be "No Kill", a lot of things that most shelters don't have going for them. Particularly the one about community which is the mainstay of the Whino's program. The losing of contracts shows that the community was not so behind his program, they opted out when money was needed to sustain it.
I read in the minutes of a town hall meeting where the Whino actually told them that he didn't intend on raising the cost of their service. Instead he put it on the backs of the SPCA donors and rode them to his claim to fame. He did an injustice to Abigail Smith when she tried to get more money to sustain his program. Instead of gradual increases which he should have obtained while there, he left it to Smith to have to ask for large increases and thus drove away the contracts.
Also it is interesting to know that his father in law made a miraculous recovery. According to the PetPac Corruption site, his father in law must have been suffering from the stress of having charges filed against him. Is stress normally associated with dying? Guess in some cases could be.
Let's wish Mike Stark "Happy Hunting" and let's show support for our new "Best Friends" blog.
Since these fools have made up their minds that this blog is by Pat Dunaway, I have decided to make it so. Pat is joining me on this blog so in essence now it will be her blog. We both will be making posts and comments but you'll know which one because we will sign them.
Pat has some interesting tales to tell and I am giving her free reign to do so. Tales that will open your eyes as to the terrorism of the Whino and his Whinonettes. I need more time anyway for what I do which is to work with the officials and animal control to stop his morbid movement. Pat also does the same so it only makes sense to combine our efforts.
Welcome Pat, looking forward to hearing even more about the Whino from you.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Mike Stark has an article in the Huffington Post that is receiving a slew of comments. Of course, the Whino's cult followers are commenting, the likes of Ryan Clinton and Mike Fry. But the comments from those not drinking the koolaid are putting these cultists in their place. I ask that anyone wanting to weigh in do so. We always need to encourage getting the word out to the public, plus it is an education for Stark. He will be doing more in the future, including a blog to "explore" the connection between Berman and the Whino.
You will have to register and don't forget to mark the rational comments as favorites and/or as a fan of the commenter. The Whino himself is making comments although most of the comments have to be from his wife under another name. Don't blame her, I would be ashamed to let people know too if I were married to such a man. God forbid!!!!
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
There are playERS in this game, those who are dedicated to getting the truth out about the Whino and then there are those playING for whatever reasons they have. Looks like this is the case with "No Kill, No Way". In short, this blog is now totally worthless because it has gone private. My question is why hide your light under a basket? What good does a private blog do other than to make with the chit-chat? It doesn't reach anyone other than those who agree with you, it doesn't do anything to bring attention to the Whino. It is a waste of time to be a private blog with an agenda.
If this issue is not worth keeping an open blog, spreading the word, then close it. It makes you no better than the Whino with his closed comments on his blog. It makes you a coward, just like him. Either be a playER or take your toys and go home, there is no place for playING when it comes to this serious issue. As the saying goes, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Nathan Winograd is a fucking liar, always has been and always will be. Now, Winograd, where is the evidence of what you say? Not once have you presented any of this evidence to support your incredible lies. WHERE IS THE FUCKING EVIDENCE, WHINO?
Note how Winograd says that if you are against "No Kill" then you are an animal killer. In other words, it is his way or no way. We aren't against no kill, WE ARE AGAINST YOUR "NO KILL", your personal agenda, your method of achieving it because IT DOESN'T WORK. How dare you think that the only way to stop euthanasia for time and space is by doing it your way, how arrogant can one be? You have too many failures under your belt to be so arrogant.
Payback is hell, Whino. I accuse you of being a woman hater, a closet gay who doesn't have the courage to tell the world that you are gay and hate women. I accuse you of abusing animals, torturing them. I accuse you of killing cats daily. And your chubby chipmonk cheeks tell me that you are lying about being vegan. The only vegan you know is at the drive thru window at McDonalds. Two can play this game.
Friday, October 15, 2010
If anyone has any suggestions for increasing his appetite, please feel free to share.