Tuesday, September 27, 2011



The feelings I have right now are mixed. Nathie Boy's latest rant just had to make mention of Pat Dunaway, along with a few more who dare to speak against this self proclaimed Savior of Shelters. But more than that, much more than that, is seeing him as such a negative, obsessive, fanatical with a Savior complex. So that solicits the feeling of pity, of wanting to reach out and help this lost soul. 

I get accused of being a hateful person on this blog. That is intentional. This blog was meant for us to express our frustrations in whatever manner we feel like. To express frustrations is helpful in keeping focus and that's what I want people to do when they are trying to fight this man.

You can find this on his blog, I suppose. I can't stand to look at him so I avoid it, but someone sent it to me. Here are some excerpts.

He begins with this: “When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate.” Question, then why does he attack so many others, because they don't have a message? There's always two sides. This is the Savior complex, "I am persecuted" when he is so guilty of being the one doing the persecuting. 

Winograd accuses Michigan Humane Society of not being transparent yet remember that Charlottesville ain't that transparent either, neither is Nevada Humane in Reno. Just try to get information from them, public request info, and get a nice little letter from their attorney.

The question is who sets these arbitrary numbers, these arbitrary definitions of treatable, adoptable, untreatable, unadoptable? Where does all this come from? The same is happening to Palm Springs, CA http://www.kpsplocal2.com/news/local/story/Lawsuit-Alleges-Palm-Springs-Animal-Shelter/G9_IfPv6qUGEa_MTJFGm8w.cspx

A lawsuit filed today by an animal rights group accuses the Palm Springs Animal Shelter of euthanizing animals too quickly and of lax record keeping.  The suit filed at the Larson Justice Center by the Animal Legal Defense Fund names four Riverside County residents who volunteered at the shelter as plaintiffs.

The complaint alleges that the shelter violated the Palm Springs municipal code by euthanising animals before the required five-day holding period.  "There is a holding period required by law that says animals must be held for a certain amount of time so that somebody can come in and find them and adopt them," said Michelle Lee, an attorney with the Animal Legal Defense Fund. "These animals are not given that chance."

A city representative did not immediately return a message seeking comment on the suit.  But Palm Springs City Councilwoman Ginny Foat, a member of the Friends of the Palm Springs Animal Shelter, called the allegations in the lawsuit "ludicrous."

"We never, ever euthanise adoptable animals," she told The Desert Sun.  She said the shelter only euthanises animals that are vicious or very ill, deeming them "not adoptable."

The complaint alleges that, between August and December 2009, 40 cats were killed in violation of the five-day waiting period. That number jumped to 64 between July and November 2010, according to the ALDF.  During both of those periods, 40 cats total were euthanised in less than 72 hours, Lee alleged.  The shelter has an unusually high euthanisation rate, according to the ALDF, which claims that records it uncovered show more than 80 percent of unclaimed cats and 50 percent of unclaimed dogs were euthanised over certain time periods.

"The municipal shelter bills itself as a no-kill shelter, but it has a pretty significant euthanasia rate," Lee said.  The complaint also alleges that the shelter has violated a state law requiring shelters to provide prompt veterinary care and adequate nutrition, water and shelter and to maintain proper records for each animal impounded.

According to the ALDF, about 25 cats and 15 dogs were found dead in their kennels in 2009, without any indication those animals received proper veterinary treatment. Between July and November 2010, about 25 cats and four dogs were found dead without any record of treatment, according to the lawsuit.  The complaint states that, between July and November of last year, 15 cats and 11 kittens were euthanised before the fifth day of impoundment, with the shelter citing medical reasons in each case.  However, "the majority of the impound records related to those animals gave no further details on specific medical conditions or veterinary treatment rendered," the lawsuit says. "(The Defendants) did not provide any indication that the animals were not treatable or were irremediably suffering."

The lawsuit names as defendants the city of Palm Springs -- which operates the shelter, the Palm Springs Police Department -- which is responsible for animal control -- and the Friends of the Palm Springs Animal Shelter.  The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to force the shelter to comply with state and local laws, as well as unspecified monetary damages to the four individual plaintiffs who claim they suffered emotional harm.

"Filing suit is our last resort to help this city's desperate homeless animals," said Marla Tauscher, another attorney with the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

A hearing on the request for an injunction has been scheduled for May 25 at the Larson Justice Center, according to court records.

These "No Kill'ers" are turning on their own. Yes, we need something in court to define what is happening. Who says that South LA Animal Shelter should have a 90% save rate to be called "No Kill"? Go look at the dogs in that shelter and tell me that they can do this. Not Winograd's way, focusing on adoptions, adoptions, adoptions. Save them all ain't working, period.

And Lord, doesn't he paint a rosy picture of him as a home body? He is spewing propaganda, dangerous propaganda all over the world and he wants us to see him as an innocent person???? Not me, buddy, I don't fall for your shit.

Then to take to threatening, Nathie Boy, how great thou art, is another indication that you need to seek professional help. You ain't what you think you are, far from it. If you don't have anything to hide, you wouldn't be barking. You'd welcome it. 


This Is Pat Dunaway


Anonymous said...

Nathan J Winograd, does the J stand for Jesus ? Bet he thinks so.

Anonymous said...

Your prejudice against true pet lovers (No Kill Advocates) is so obvious that you lack credibility in anything you say. In fact, you have nothing to say, because you know that the No Kill equation works and that it is the RIGHT option. If YOUR ass was about to jabbed with a deadly needle, you'd be a No Kill supporter real fast. You know. I know it. P.S. First you say that you value all opinions and then I see the "Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author" notice. Once again, you are a breathing contradiction.Nathan Winograd wants to stop the killing of shelter pets. You want to insult Nathan Winograd, instead of helping him to make this a No Kill Nation. Obviously, you are not friends to pets, but the wolves in sheeps' clothing.

HonestyHelps said...

If you were a reader of this blog, you would know I don't edit comments, I publish them all. I enjoy reaming you fucking animal abusers (No Kill Advocates) a new one.

You fucking murderer of innocent animals, you read this blog carefully and you will see why you are the ones killing animals and not in a humane way either.

Why not ask your precious Messiah why he doesn't even accept comments on his fucking blog?

Read of all the animals that have suffered in his name. Ask him how many animals he took from the puppy mills and dog fighters? He actually protected a cruel puppy mill in Tompkins. You believe his lame excuse for leaving there? http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-did-you-leave-tompkins-county.html

You support a front for the breeders, you are nothing more than their pawn. Fuck you and the white horse you rode in on.