Wednesday, November 23, 2011


UPDATE: Yet another article showing the troubled shelter. Another parvo outbreak. Can anyone say overcrowded because of their following "No Kill"?

I recently blogged about Porter County, Indiana.

Porter County has been a bragging right of Nathan Winograd, and now it reads like a duplicate of the Philly fiasco.
The municipal shelter in Porter County Indiana used to kill roughly 115 dogs and cats per month, young and old, healthy and sick, friendly and aggressive. There were even allegations of cruelty. After firing the long term director and staff, they now kill about 7 hopelessly ill animals or aggressive dogs a month. They did it overnight.

Like crooks stealing, they did it overnight. Now here is the latest on this miracle of "No Kill".
VALPARAISO — The fate of the Porter County Animal Shelter — riddled with concerns about theft, the loss of a new director after only 90 days at the helm and a parvo virus outbreak that shut the facility down last week — was the main topic of discussion at Tuesday’s Porter County Council meeting.

Porter County is now talking the talk of privatization. Could this be another hidden agenda of Nathan Winograd? Look what he did in King County. Could it be that his program was designed to lead a shelter to failure so shelters could be taken over by the private sector? Winograd has so many hidden agendas but let it suffice to say, saving animals never has been one of them.

Monday, November 21, 2011


The descriptions of what these animals had to endure are more than true animal lovers can stand. However, the "No Kill'ers" think nothing of this, it is common place in their world.

The shelter, One More Chance Rescue and Adoption, had been declared a public health nuisance, and with good reason. Conditions at One More Chance were pitiful: Dogs were housed in hog barns dotting the property and lived in stacked crates. The shelter manager, Jeff Burgess, also managed a second shelter in Piqua, Ohio, where 100 animals had been confiscated earlier in February.

The Clark County Humane Society and Clark County Combined Health District called on the ASPCA to help shut down One More Chance and assist the animals. When our responders arrived, they found 367 living and 76 dead dogs on the horrifyingly filthy property. Our responders immediately set to work helping local authorities collect evidence for possible criminal charges and triaging the animals, many of whom were in critical condition.
“The conditions these animals lived in were deplorable,” says James Staley, the executive director of the Clark County Humane Society. “These dogs were forced to live in their own waste, alongside rats and other vermin. Add to that the stress of coping in a crowded and poorly ventilated environment, and you have animals whose overall health is severely compromised.” 
And the quote to end all quotes: “This is an example of a no-kill situation that spiraled out of control,” says Kyle Held, the ASPCA’s Midwest Director of Field Investigations and Response.
This is happening altogether too often. You never hear Winograd condemning these shelters, do you? You never see him going in and helping the victims of his philosophy, do you? And you won't. He doesn't care, never has, nothing but a deadbeat failed attorney trying to make a quick buck off of gullible people.

Thursday, November 17, 2011


As usual we find that the truth about these "open door" "No Kill" shelters is just not to be found. This link has Porter County, Indiana listed as a "No Kill" shelter to watch, the question is "Watch for What?"

The Porter County Animal Shelter takes in strays from all of Porter County except Portage.  The shelter got a new director, Kristina Montgomery, in August.

While my recent post shows the link to an article that disputes this statement about strays. 

First there was a controversy with the first director hired to make Porter a "No Kill" about the theft of money. Then another shelter director was hired, one with a background in "No Kill". Suddenly that director has resigned in only less than 3 months. The "reason" being that she wants to spend more time with her daughter. Okay, she didn't realize that a mere 3 months ago? And she moved with this position. I would venture to say that she realized that this was a mistake, not because of spending time with her daughter, but rather in terms of "No Kill".

This article also points out a certain amount of cruelty involved since Porter made the mistake of drinking the koolaid of "No Kill".

More troubling details about the shelter emerged at the end of July when County Council President Dan Whitten discovered cats where being housed in rooms with temperatures over 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

So the saga of "No Kill" continues. 

Sunday, November 13, 2011


Here we go again. Lying, lying, lying about the "No Kill" "open door" shelters. Nathan Winograd and his puppets wouldn't know the truth if it ran up their collective asses. None of their claimed "open door" shelters are truly open door. Either they have a waiting list for owner surrenders or an evaluation for acceptability into the shelter or they just flat turn owners away with dirty looks and criticism.

This one is out in the open now. People are speaking out. And also officials are beginning to realize that they just can't afford to spend the money saving them all and are setting limits on treatment. That probably means more animals will have to be euthanized in those shelters and that will mean they are no longer "No Kill". Isn't happening quick enough for me and probably not for the shelter animals either. Forced to live in a kennel with maybe, if they are lucky, human interaction for 20 minutes a day, is not a good life.

Montgomery said shelter officials have yet to come up with either a clear definition of no-kill or decide how much money to spend treating a sick animal. More money for treatment would translate into less animals euthanized, she said.
Shelter advisory board members formed a subcommittee last week to look at the financial threshold for care.
The Humane Society of Hobart criticizes Porter and Lake counties' shelters in the fall issue of its newsletter for refusing to accept stray animals, which has put a greater burden on its facility. This impact of overcrowding was among concerns voiced when the no-kill policy was adopted.



As always, give them enough rope and they will hang themselves. And that is exactly what is happening with the "transport" program. I have said all along that transporting dogs to other states is not based in saving lives, but based in pimping "No Kill". It's simple really. Supply rescues with product so that they don't have to pull from their own local shelters and force more euthanasia, thereby giving Nathie Boy a consulting gig. Only Nathie Boy ain't getting those gigs like he planned, thank God.

The transport scheme is taking homes from shelter dogs and that cancels out any good from saving another dog. That's not the way it should be, sacrificing dogs to feed a small, fat man's ego. Rescues are not in business, they don't need to think in terms of competing with breeders. This is the excuse they use to justify what they do in accepting these transported dogs. The term "rescue" means you save lives, it has nothing to do with providing the public with what they want, yet this is what these receiving rescues say they are doing. We as rescues need to show the public the good in any dog whether it is old, black, big, or whatever. To subject these types to die in the shelter while you play businessman with the public does not make you a rescue nor does it make you a life saver. 

Breeder Brenda Barnette was caught red handed for bringing dogs across state lines without vaccinations, risking bringing in disease. This particular article points out those risks. States are beginning to pay attention to this morbid scheme and passing legislation. Connecticut has already passed regulation legislation, Maine is considering the same. Now New Jersey is jumping on board. This indicates to me that we don't hear all the horror stories about this scheme. But it can't be hidden very long, all evil things eventually come to light.
The problem is too many people on both ends of this rescue spectrum and sometimes the transporters in between are unreasonably profiting from this burgeoning enterprise and the animals are suffering. We have heard of cases where unscrupulous "rescues" sweet talk shelter managers into giving them dogs, comb Craig's lists in the South, pick up puppies for a song, cram them into filthy cages, haul them to New Jersey - a hot bed of faux rescue activity - and peddle them at the local shopping mall for hundreds of dollars.

Bad rescues are rarely exposed until tragedy strikes. Puppies who haven't received proper vet care or were living in unsanitary conditions are flipped at the local Tractor Supply store for hundreds of dollars. The "rescuer" makes off with the cash while the new owners face high vet bills and emotional trauma of trying to save a severely ill dog.

But the profit mongers out there are preying on people's desires to adopt. With the torrent of publicity surrounding pet stores and their connection to puppy mills, families are looking for ways to adopt animals. Some New England states have a shortage of adoptable dogs, period. Blessedly, you don't see pregnant coon hounds roaming the back roads of Vermont. Sadly, many urban - and now suburban - shelters are overloaded with pit bulls. The number is well above 90 percent in Philadelphia. While pit bulls can and do make fine pets, unfortunately many in shelters have been abused and neglected. Many families are just looking for a fluffy puppy or more well-adjusted adult dog.

Transports deliver those animals. Beautiful hounds. Furry shepherd mixes. The occasional lap dog whose owner was living in her car because she lost her house. All abandoned, willfully or not.

I have several posts here on this scheme. Just do a search for transport. 

Monday, November 7, 2011


When you read things like this, it just makes you sick at heart. And it is happening far too often since the advent of "No Kill". George Bengal of the PSPCA was quoted in an article that before 2004 (when Philly drank the koolaid of Nathan Winograd's NKE program and he hand picked the management staff) the PSPCA saw about one or two hoarding cases a year, but since the PSPCA is seeing one to two CASES OF HOARDING A MONTH! Coincidence, I think not. Shelters are being pressured to "stop the killing" and this is resulting in too many animals being given out to totally irresponsible people. This pressure is a result of Nathan Winograd and his koolaid drinking puppets like Bett Sundermeyer and Ryan Clinton. Oh, they try to deny it but this is what happens. It's time that Ryan and Bett realize how much damage they are doing but that ain't gonna happen, they are on their ego trips and will be gone for a long while.

“The cats and several of the dogs were living in filthy conditions in the house situated closest to the street. The cats were kept in a small, filthy room attached to the garage of this first house, where they had no choice but to live in their own feces and urine. Eight to 10 dogs were living, some in rusted crates and some loose, in a room accessible from a bedroom in this first house. The floor in this room was decaying, and was coated in feces, urine and filthy bedsheets and blankets. The door to this room had been sealed off with industrial tape and hidden by a curtain,” a spokesperson with the SPCA said.
The second house contained approximately 20 dogs who were living in deplorable conditions.
The SPCA of Texas has received information that the animal owner in this case was a part of a rescue group, and was separated from that group to start her own purported rescue group called Elliot’s Friends Rescue, allegedly transferring animals from at least one municipal shelter. (But Winograd and his buddies think this is just a-ok, just as long as they are alive, who cares about the conditions they are living with or without.)
“Some licensed shelters are put under such pressure to not euthanize animals for any reason that they end up transferring animals to anyone willing to accept them. Some rescue groups that end up taking more animals than they can reasonably handle then often end up warehousing these animals,” the spokesperson said. (No shit, Sherlock!!)


My readers know by now that I hate Trap, Neuter, and Release. I consider TNR to be the ultimate cruelty for cats. I think of it as outside hoarding and this is a good example of why I think that. While reading this article, note that this cat was taken from the PSPCA by a "No Kill" rescue, microchipped, altered, and THEN PUT OUTSIDE IN A FERAL COLONY WHEN IT WAS A FRIENDLY CAT!!!! How frigging cruel can you be?

The female cat is spayed and micro-chipped, said Nicole Thompson, one of the humane officers involved in the case. The cat was originally at the SPCA in Philadelphia, which micro-chipped and released the cat to a no-kill rescue group that took her to a feral cat colony, Thompson said.
Both cats are at the SPCA's Lahaska shelter and appear to be friendly, Thompson added. Morrell has owned the black-and-white male cat for several years, according to people who know her.
Charges of animal cruelty against Morrell are pending, based on the outcome of the veterinary exam, Thompson said.
Why are they considering cruelty charges against this woman? She did the right thing by taking the cat in. The "No Kill" rescue group should be charged with abandonment. TNR is a horrible thing unless you subscribe to Trap, Neuter, and RETAIN. That's what the letters need to represent. Outside hoarding is all this case is, that rescue should be brought up on charges.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011


Yes, I am looking at that because I have discovered that Newfoundlanders have more common sense about animals than this country does. 

I came across this piece of media and it uplifted my spirits considerably. Seems that Newfoundlanders don't like "No Kill". They've figured it out without having to deal with it. Seems that instead of "No Kill" looking good on paper, these folks have a real sense of what it actually does.

It asks a question: Do you believe animal shelters should adopt the "No Kill" policy for stray pets? And the poll shows:

Of the 1785 responses, only 29% said "Yes", whereas 61% said "NO". 

Plus the comments are great too.

No, how can they continue to keep abandoned pets without winding up with more than they can handle. It also isn't fair to the animals to keep them penned indenfinately. The problem is with the owners, not the work of the shelters 

Let's be realistic here. I love animals but I do not love them stuck in cages their whole lives. we cannot possibly find homes for all animals. 

if no one wants a animal then put it down .keep it for one month to see if anyone wants it . 

I am an animal lover with no connection to any of the groups involved in this article.
With the huge numbers of stray and injured animals in this city ,it is unrealistic to adopt a no kill policy.There will never be enough temporary homes for all of these critters and lives in cages can only lead to greater issues in aggression and social isolation with them. 
The city should not use tax money to fund the housing and care of animals when so many of our HUMAN citizens are living in deplorable states of poverty and homelessness.

So it is good to know that there is a place where the sun shines but not on the morbid movement under Nathan Winograd.