Wednesday, October 10, 2012


Boy, Winograd doesn't know when to roll over does he? His CAPA efforts all failed this past year, along with many other things, but now Hawaii has said Aloha.

But members Romy Cachola and Breene Harimoto sided with Humane Society official Keoni Vaughn, who said the bill would impose an unreasonable financial burden. Vaughn also argued that many of the no-kill groups, while well-intentioned, are ill-equipped to handle an influx of animals that often do not interact well with humans.

Very well said. No Kill just wants another dumping ground for pit bulls and where better, an island. Hate to tell you this, although I think pits should be on an island and not in polite society, Hawaii is not what I had in mind. Guess they weren't too impressed with their No Kill conference. Probably got sight of a few No Killers and that scared the crap outta them. Anyway, we'll keep tabs on this one until it is a done deal.


Anonymous said...

Glad they saw through the hype! What I have never understood about "No Kill" is why they just don't come get the animals! Most shelters are open at least six days a week. If they came and got the animals their would be no over crowding. The reason they don't is that they can't! Despite all their claims there is no over population and no bad animals. Have seen it a thousand times. Ask them to come get the animals and the "dancing" and "excuses" begin. They would much rather "mandate" it through the political process and put the responsibility and costs on someone else!!

Anonymous said...

I was very glad to see that for once a city hit and focused on the two key flaws present in the current "No Kill" philosopy. 1. COSTS. 2. WHAT TO DO WITH THE ANIMALS. The "No Kill" goal is admirable but unless these two fundamental questions can be addressed it is also irresponsible. "No Kill" addresses these issues by simply pretending they do not exist despite the fact that every open admission "No Kill" shelter has not been able to remain so because of these two issues. I would sincerely hope that for the animals sake any organization contemplating "No Kill" would have these questions answered before moving forward. If indeed an organization is willing to spend the money (tons of it) required to effectively implement no kill to include the extra vet bills and long term appropriate housing (not wire kennels) sometimes for years for unadoptable animals then I will be the first to applaude those efforts! The concept of saving animals lives is not the problem. The problem of "selling" it as "No Cost" is!

Anonymous said...

Until the problem of breeders overbreeding and irresposible people dumping litters instead of altering get dealt with, no kill is impossible.

Winograd sold out to the breeders who just want to deny overpopulation and prevent spay neuter laws so the suffering goes on and gets worsae under no kill, but the breeders keep making money.