SHOCKED AT NATHAN WINOGRAD'S COMMENTS AT MARCH 24, 2012 ALBUQUERQUE, NM WESTERN STATES CONFERENCE

THIS CAME IN AS A COMMENT BUT DESERVES TO BE A POST!!


SHOCKED AT NATHAN WINOGRAD'S COMMENTS AT MARCH 24, 2012 ALBUQUERQUE, NM WESTERN STATES CONFERENCE I am elated to have discovered this blog. I participated in the Albuquerque, NM "Western States No-Kill Conference" held Saturday, March 24, 2012. Nathan H. Winograd spoke on "Building a No Kill Community." WAS I EVER SHOCKED AT NATHAN WINOGRAD'S demeanor and "YOU'LL DO IT MY WAY OR NO WAY ATTITUDE!" 


In front of concerned people- many of us long-time animal rescuers, Nathan very rudely rejected ideas and questions. Nathan stated (as did his fellow presenter Michael Mountain) that it is useless to try and educate and/or actively involve our young people on the issues of saving the lives of millions of innocent dogs and cats. Additionally, Nathan made negative remarks about the T-N-R programs! What a shocker! How can you even begin to stop the HOMELESS and EUTHANIZIA issue if you never take steps to prevent the problem from the onset? Michael Mountain made some very "cutting" remarks about "crazy cat women" and made it appear during his presentation that he (Mountain) is "above" the rest of us in his (Mountain) intellect, his dress ... basically that those of us who are trying to save these animals lives are just beneath him (Mountain.) 


THERE WERE NO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ALBUQUERQUE ANIMAL CONTROL (WELFARE) DEPARTMENT AT THIS MARCH 24 CONFERENCE. THERE WERE NO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ALBUQUERQUE MAYOR'S OFFICE. THERE WERE NO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ALBUQUERQUE CITY COUNCIL. THERE WAS NO MEDIA COVERAGE ... NOT TELEVISION, NOT NEWSPAPER, NOT RADIO. IF WINOGRAD and MOUNTAIN HAVE SO MUCH "POWER" IN THE NO-KILL COMMUNITY, WHY DIDN'T THE TWO OF THEM ASSURE THAT THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REPRESENTATIVES WERE IN ATTENDANCE? As one of the women setting beside me stated "We should have saved our $100.00 (paid to register for this conference) ... Used our $100.00 toward our T-N-R project ... Our 100.00 would have paid to spay/neuter several cats. Of course, Nathan Winograd was selling his books ... as fast as he could sign them! (FYI: Many of your PUBLIC LIBRARIES have Winograd's book(s) on their shelves. You DO NOT have to purchase Winograd's books and therefore PAD WINOGRAD'S POCKETS!) I am glad that I attended this conference ... because I now know first-hand that the "glowing B.S." I had been fed is indeed ..... Apparently, Winograd believes that he is a GOD. As a Licensed Paralegal and B.S. Criminal Justice Degree, I worked for criminal defense attorneys for years .... on a daily basis, exposed to the same INFLATED ego that Winograd displays. 


As for Winograd and Mountain's "better than thou" attitudes ... we are NOT "crazy cat women". All of the rescuers that I work with are intelligent, stable, well-educated, hard-working, tax-paying citizens. Many of us are single-parents who have raised our children without any help from the system (the same system that Winograd and Mountain make their livings from.) We work 60-70 hours a week at our employment, balance our children's school and sports activities, are furthering our college education ... ALL THE WHILE dedicating every single spare minute and spare penny to our T-N-R projects; our dog and cat adoptathons; presenting to local civic groups; and working toward cooperation with our local Albuquerque Animal "Welfare" Department. 


 I left this conference shaken and in shock! I spent Sunday praying about the belief's and hope and inspiration that I have tried to hold-on to throughout the years of working at my job all day ... and then setting up all night setting T-N-R traps. In tears each time that an Albuquerque Animal Control ("Welfare") van passes me on the street (cages full of innocent dogs and cats) . Possessing the knowledge that at least 400 loving, innocent, full of life and at one-time hope dogs and cats are being SLAUGHTERED by Albuquerque Animal Control (Welfare) Department. Rather than Winograd and Mountain padding their pockets to stand in front of these trusting conference attendees and blowing smoke, Winograd and Mountain could have better utilized their time to meet with the Albuquerque City Politicians and Albuquerque Animal Control (Welfare) Department to STOP THE KILLING! To all of you participating in this blog and to the FOCUSED animal rescuers out there, please DO NOT allow the Nathan Winograds and Michael Mountains to alter or mislead your belief in the true mission that we are trying to accomplish. WE ARE NOT ABOUT THE MONEY!! Thank you for reading this. Have a GREAT Day! 

GOOD MARKETING OR BAD IDEA, I VOTE FOR THE LATTER

I came across this on another favorite blog of mine and felt it was worthwhile to put here along with some comments that were posted. "No Kill" has devalued our pets, have engaged in setting up pets and families for failure. This is so wrong.


Can we say " adopt an unsuitable pet week" ? Houston has it and so do a few other places where the edge with reality is blurred. This plethora of unadoptable pets is part of the No Kill movement they haven't quite figured out how to handle yet.  Usually when the garage sale is over you call the Salvation Army, but thats hard to do with mean and sick animals.
Some hot items you might want to grab right away are " a cat that may live under the bed for a year or so, maybe a cat with food allegies requiring an expensive diet, otherwise she goes bald ?  Not the one's ? How about a dog that is hyper-active and needs training who can't be left alone?  Please?  They offer several dogs that will quit growling at you over time, all needing to be a single pet with no children.  Must be lots of those homes hanging around. 
I sound angry and I am angry.  These animals will be right back in the shelter in less than a week, even the ones that Nevada Humane  is offering a " lifetime health care package at our cost "  Beware the " Angel Pets" 

COMMENT: I saw the nice man who adopted the gorgeous BC last year and he was walking today, dogless. That truly made me sad. He gave the dog 6 months and returned it, he's since had two others. I remember when I first met him he had a whitish pit mix that jumped everything in sight, then it got some disease that was incurable and had to be put down. He was dogless for a bit, then the BC which bit everyone in his family and a couple of neighbors before being returned. I didn't see the next two. He has given up on dogs, and I feel bad. He's a nice man and he's trying to do a compassionate act.

A success story is a happily ever after, not just seeing the ass end of a pet going out the door. "No Kill" is just a numbers game, it doesn't care about the animals once they are "outta sight", they are outta of a "No Kill"er's mind.

BET ALL OF YOU ARE WAITING TO HEAR ABOUT NATHAN WINOGRAD'S ATTEMPT TO PASS HIS MORBID CAPA

And I bet you expect a long and lengthy post about it. Well, not this time, no lengthy post necessary. In all five states where his legislation was introduced, it didn't make it. A good friend wrote this to celebrate.

And it came to pass,
And it came to pass,
There's an Alelujia in each and every alas,
And it came to pass. 

THERE IS A GOD!!

THANK YOU!!

Here's praying that New York has the good sense that the others have shown.

BRENDA BARNETTE AND PAUL KORETZ MAKING MONEY FOR BREEDERS

Breeder Barnette is sure living up to her name these days. Paul Koretz has become a puppet for the LA breeding community and neither he nor Barnette give a hoot about how the breeders contribute to the shelter population.


This transmittal shows how Barnette has finally managed to help her breeder friends in LA. Boy, they must love her now. http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-0754_RPT_MAYOR_01-18-12.pdf



A. Adopt an "Interim Control Ordinance" (lCO) that would establish a three-year prohibition of sales of live dogs, cats and rabbits in retail businesses (ie. pet shops) commencing six months after the effective date of the ordinance, with the exception of those businesses that can show proof that the animals were obtained from animal shelters, humane societies, registered rescue organizations or local breeders that meet all federal, state, and City requirements for the breeding and selling of animals within the City of Los Angeles.


Do you see what she has done? She is closing the door to outside competition for her breeder friends, making a monopoly for them. Now what business wouldn't want government to do that for them, except that it is illegal. 


Instead she should be putting more controls on breeders. Ron Kaye gets it. http://ronkayela.com/2012/03/brenda-barnettes-no-kill-policy-and-the-mystery-of-the-disappearing-animal-services-commissioners.html


BRENDA BARNETTE SQUAWKS LIKE A BREEDER, WALKS LIKE A BREEDER, AND WORKS FOR THE BREEDERS. PAUL KORETZ SHOULD BE ASHAMED. Then again, if Koretz wants to run for office, breeders have lots of money to contribute whereas the rest of us who truly care about animals don't have the money to contribute. We spend it on taking out the results of breeders from our shelters.

"NO KILL" NOT COMING CHEAP FOR AUSTIN, DIDN'T SOMEONE SAY THAT "NO KILL" SAVES MONEY?

Welcome to a guest blogger, Jake, who has submitted a piece showing just how costly "No Kill" can be for a community. Jake's excellent blog on the results of CAPA in Delaware is a tell all must read. www.DelawareCAPA.blogspot.com 

THE AUSTIN EXAMPLE 

UNAFFORDABLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE

Below are the numbers from a recent Austin budget proposal (pg. 244)  http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/budget/11-12/downloads/fy12proposed_budget_vol1.pdf

Austin Animal Services
2008-09 Actual $ 5,397,428
2009-10 Actual $ 6,008,659
2010-11 Estimated $ 6,883,679
2011-12 Proposed $ 7,612,186 

As you can see, the cost for Austin's Animal Services has increased over half a million every years for the last several years leading into their "no-kill" effort. In addition to the above increases, the city also had a bond issuance that included $12 million to build the new animal shelter that just opened several months ago.  http://www.fixaustin.org/pub/bond_language.pdf

The question is how can a community afford this? While it's understandable that Austin is in a far different position than most communities considering they are in the heart of the highly profitable oil industry. I filled my tank today, so I definitely get that. As a result, their foreclosure rate is less than a third of the national average during these trying times for many. http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/atxpansion/austin-area-foreclosure-rates-decrease

Despite the fact that this community is in a better position than most, their constituents have be burdened with tax increases http://www.myfoxaustin.com/dpp/news/local/042110-Property-Taxes-On-the-Rise-During-Sluggish-Economy and 792 school teacher and staff layoffs  http://muse-musings.blogspot.com/2011/03/austin-isd-school-board-votes-to-lay.html. While the additional $2.2 million animal services is costing Austin is only one item in their budget, one has to wonder how this is affordable to Austin, let alone less affluent cities across the US. The fact is that it's not. 

SUSTAINABILITY

Looking at above budget for Austin Animal Services, and the fact that they have increased by over half a million each year for several years running, there's no sign of the costs for this "no-kill" effort leveling off. Clearly, there will eventually be resistance at some point as tax rates continue to increase.

 

That may explain the choice now for Austin Pets Alive to also handle the overflow of animals for San Antonio. By taking the "no-kill" effort to San Antonio and aligning it with Austin, the movement will have the ability to place the additional costs elsewhere for a while. Think of it like Bernie Madoff and his pyramid scheme, he found new investors to get funds to pay earlier investors that he was showing paper profits for, In this case the "no-kill" movement can pass on the escalating costs onto San Antonio for a couple of years, then they can possibly come back to Austin for more funding, or find another community to align with. As happens with all pyramid schemes, the house of cards will eventually tumble. 

I find it strange that Austin is such an affluent community yet their owner surrenders are considerably higher than those of the State of California. http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/07/yep-austin-you-have-big-problem.html

HONESTY HELPS thanks "Jake" for this information. Surely our officials will be able to see how "No Kill" not only hurts the animals but also hurts our community as a whole. Rancho Cucamonga is another example of the costly "No Kill". They went from $800,000 a year for animal control to over $2 million in just one year and it has been rising since. And they didn't build a new shelter so no excuses on that one.

HAS THE BUBBLE BUSTED IN AUSTIN WHILE AUSTIN PETS ALIVE HOLDS THE NEEDLE

The fat lady is singing the final chorus, the balloon is popped, the honeymoon is over, all cliches befitting the current state of affairs in Austin. http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/austin/animal-groups-spar-over-town-lake-site

AUSTIN (KXAN) - Austin's no-kill animal shelter status could be in jeopardy as the number of pets continues to pour in. City animal officials fears it could eventually run out of room at its new shelter.


Austin has just recently moved into a new shelter with fewer kennels than before. Smart move when you declare "No Kill" - NOT! Now Austin Pets Alive wants to take over the old shelter.


Austin Pets Alive loses the lease at its main headquarters later this spring and wants to take over the entire Town Lake site. The city's animal services staff said they need part of the site for overflow from its new center.

So what has been going on with this move into a new shelter just when you are packing them in, stacking them up, moving them out to questionable foster homes?

"We lost ground since we've moved into the new shelter," said one volunteer from the new Austin Animal Center. "Dogs that could be saved with some amount of training and work are being euthanized."

Does that matter to Austin Pets Alive? Course not, they are seeing dollar signs. Austin Pets Alive has entered into a deal with the City of San Antonio to take 4000 animals and bring them to Austin for adoption. Now wait, how does that figure in when Austin is now having to euthanize for space? APA is taking space away from the Austin pets and getting paid to do so.

Now for the comments which are a story in and of themselves. These are questions that need to be answered.

Why are the other Austin rescues not being given the chance to use the kennels, it was mentioned other groups would like the chance. My other question, what happens when the out of town "quickly adoptable" pets that are being used to fund APA, hit 6-7 months or 18 months and their impulse adopters get tired of them? Does APA have a back up plan for them? Will they take them back in or will they then flood AAC or WCRAS and surrounding shelters to be killed there? Making our kill numbers increase in a few months.

 What is the plan for the out of town returns? Are other groups going to have access to the space? WIll AAC be able to house the overflow dogs (who decides the amount) so behavior or long term stay dogs can get help instead of being killed for lack of space? 

FACTS:

FACT: The APA is getting from the City of Austin.

FACT:  The APA is getting to use TLAC kennels at no cost to house their animals.

FACT:  The City of Austin is paying $7,000 to $8,000 a month to cover the utilities at TLAC.

FACT:  The APA wants to use all the kennels at TLAC, many of which are deteroriated and they want the City of Austin to pay for repairs.

FACT:  APA feels that they can not only take animals from AAC, but they also want to bring animals from San Antonio.  That is because the City of San Antonio offered them $200,000/year to take 4,000 of their animals.  All will be housed at APA's only location- TLAC.

FACT:   APA yearly revenue is over 1 Million Dollars, yet, they do not pay for a facility or utilities.  2/3 of their expenses is used for salaries.
FACT: Nowhere in negotiations, there are any considerations to benefit any of the other rescue organizations in Austin.  Even though rescue organizations pull a large number of animals from the shelter, those local rescues are not offered kennel space at the shelter and of course, local rescues are not offered any compensation. 

SHADES OF BRENDA BARNETTE, LA CITY AND BEST FIENDS!!!

As usual, our favorite in Austin, the man that Whinograd loves to hate, Delwin Goss sums it up.

I just want to register my opposition to the way last night's AAC meeting was held.  9 of the 10 slots for pubic input  were allotted to APA supporters  because; instead of making it 5 and 5; the chairman allowed first come first serve. Most other rescue groups have to operate rescue  in their homes and mostly out of their own pockets. They don't have the luxury of fat budgets and being able to store animals  at the taxpayers  expense.

 Our current "No Kill" plan just continues to gobble up more and more tax dollars while we cut back on public safety, the parks, the arts, programs for our at risk kids, programs for our disabled and programs for the homeless. Then again? This is Austin and it's a City with a lot of people who never felt the sting of poverty growing up.

 I think the conclusion was forgone and the meeting was basically a dog and pony show to meet the requirements of taking public input. Still hoping the other rescue groups will organize and sue the City for allowing to occur " conflict of interest" on the animal advisory commission

I doubt it matters. We can all see where this is going. The outsourcing of shelter operations to a nongovernmental ; i.e. private entity. No surprise since the City Council and the Animal Advisory Commission is dancing to the tune played by FIX Austin; a Republican lead organization.

 Keep Austin Weird!

So there you have it folks. Austin ain't quite working the way Natan Whinograd wants it to go. Then again, does anything ever go the way he wants?

"NO KILL" TURNS AWAY KITTENS THAT ARE ABANDONED AFTERWARDS

These are excerpts from a letter writer in Texas. I know her frustration. She tried to do the right thing and "No Kill" forced her into doing the wrong thing. Has anyone noticed that "No Kill" doesn't want to blame the public for a pet overpopulation problem (because there isn't one) and that results in their living in a make believe world where everyone loves pets and will sacrifice anything to help them. 


This letter writer has found a cat with kittens in her yard. Not unusual these days at all. Although the cat could be termed "feral", the woman felt the kittens could be saved from being "feral". She goes to a "No Kill" shelter and they fed her all the standard fare. They told her to do their work basically and sent her away.


Ask these questions. What if this woman was allergic to cats or her family members were? What if this woman couldn't have cats where she lived? What if this woman was not physically able to take care of these cats? That doesn't occur to those "No Kill" shelters that use waiting lists, brochures to send people away only because they want to save their numbers rather than save the cats.


The results of this was that the woman put the cat and kittens back outside to fend for themselves. http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2012/mar/01/letter-kittens-are-worth-saving/


Now here comes the rebuttal from the "No Kill" rescue/shelter. They admit to getting about 300 calls a month for similar situations and "unfortunately" they can't help them all. Okay, then what happens to those they can't help? They offer to supply food if this woman will foster the cat and kittens, bottle feeding them every 2-4 hours, blah, blah, blah. What if this woman has a job?


The most telling of this is how they blame the woman for trying to help these cats. Keep in mind that this is a RESCUE telling a person to do their job. Plus they admit what happens to pets abandoned yet they are the very cause of the abandonment because they turn away these cases. 


Releasing those cats to "the streets" was the most irresponsible thing the writer could have done. She, perhaps unintentionally, has now become a part of the problem because these infant animals she "turned loose" are now at risk for disease or may become prey for other animals — a death far worse than euthanasia. At best, they will all survive and reproduce, resulting in more homeless cats
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2012/mar/05/jenie-wilson-all-should-accept-role-in-rescuing/


"No Kill" is a major part of the problem, not the solution. Animals are suffering under "No Kill" but as long as they don't have to see it, it doesn't exist in their minds.

WHO REALLY DOES KILL MORE ANIMALS? PETA OR THE "NO KILL EQUATION"

Once again is PETA bashing time, happens every year. Course with Natan (not sic) Whinograd, it is an obsession of every day of his miserable life. I find PETA refreshing, truth in this world of lies. 

Let's look at this at little more closely. Years ago, I was somewhat taken aback by PETA. Naked people, graphic pictures were just a little much for me. Then, like a lightening bolt out of the blue, I realized what it was all about. PETA is a genius at marketing. Without PETA, without how they do things, Wayne Pacelle would probably be looking at closed doors instead of being welcomed. Officials would rather deal with a good looking suit than with PETA activists running around with no clothes. So PETA is the driving force for any and all that has been accomplished for many years now either in a direct or an indirect way. Pure genius.

Now, "No Kill" likes to be dramatic in how they approach the issue. Words, photos, videos, all describing our open door shelters as "hell holes". Having demonstrations in front of shelters that turn off and away the public is another of their dramatic stunts. Using the Internet for misinformation only leads to more hoarding, more slow lingering suffering and death, more drama. Sounds to me like they have taken a lesson from PETA actually.

EXCEPT:

PETA doesn't misguide, doesn't lie, they face it square on. Yes, their euthanasia numbers were released and Natan has jumped on it. PETA is not a shelter. People have heard about PETA and euthanasia, yet these people are still surrendering their pets to PETA. Does that not make you think? So what that PETA has to euthanize? Why are they not supposed to? Does Natan think that because PETA is dedicated to animals that they are not to do what is in the best interest of animals? Probably, considering that what he does has proven time and time again it is not in the best interest of animals. 

PETA's numbers probably can't even come close to the number of animals that died this past year in the name of "No Kill". Just look back at the number of rescues, shelters, sanctuaries that were busted for horrible cruelty and death, all in the name of "No Kill". Neither did PETA allow animals to be caged, wallowing in their own wastes, sick, diseased, dying slowly at the hands of proclaimed saviors, those following their Messiah, Natan Whinograd. How many were victims of Natan Whinograd and his puppets? PETA has never let that happen, they don't victimize pets like "No Kill" does. PETA admits their numbers, Natan denies his. 

NATAN WHINOGRAD - "NO KILL" BUTCHER 

is appropriate at this point.