D(UMB) A(SS) COOPER ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH TO CRAWL IN MERRITT CLIFTON'S FOOTSTEPS

UPDATE:  Looks like Barbara Kay reamed you a new one, Cooper. Whiney Boy will love that. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/-barbara-kay/pit-bull-merritt-clifton_b_5900736.html

So D(umb) A(ss) Cooper is at it again in that Huff Puff rag. Following his Master's order to get the bad man. Cooper hasn't the sense to come in from a shower of rain, hasn't he even seen the light yet? His Messiah was proven to be a false prophet, an out and out liar. Cooper isn't as stupid as we think, he knows his Messiah has fallen and he is right there trying to pick up the distressed groupies.

What does DA know about pit bulls anyway? What are his credentials when it comes to pits? What are his contributions, other than lip service, to the issue of pits? I doubt seriously he even wrote that piece, I lay my bets that Whiney Boy himself wrote it. Cooper isn't that bright a bulb.

Cooper, who isn't in his homeland fighting cruelty there, isn't in the States either so he contributes nothing here. Nope, he is in Mexico claiming to be saving a rare breed aka breeding for big bucks is how it translates. Living the good life with a little girlie girl who loves to kiss on chihuahuas. I would say this is a better reason for his living in Mexico than trying to save a breed. Some things just aren't allowed in this country. What's the matter, Douglas Anthony Cooper, isn't Lucy enough woman for you?

And his book goes right along with it, a child's book for his girlfriend. How sweet of him. So here is Barbara Kay's review of that book. And the funds raised for it seem somewhat suspect to me. http://www.animals24-7.org/2014/07/23/galunker-by-douglas-anthony-cooper-reviewed-by-barbara-kay/

WHY DID ABIGAIL SMITH REALLY LEAVE TOMPKINS COUNTY?

Some interesting info crossed my path recently and I will present it to you. Interpret it whichever way you will. I will give you my interpretation. The writing was on the wall, and all rats desert a sinking ship.

Now let's look at the time line here. Abigail Smith was in Tompkins until April 2011, I believe. These charts show a steady decline in cat intake but yet a surprisingly increase in euthanasia. Dog takes were declining but again euthanasia was increasing. Does one see a question to be asked here?

Another interesting item comes out with the wash and that is the percentage of intake classified as 'healthy' went from 26.9% to 5.3%. Raises another question, doesn't it?

Of course that goes along with classifying unhealthy and untreatable rising dramatically from 7% to 22%. 

Forum is open for questions, folks. I know I have a few. Like why did Abigail Smith really leave Tompkins? Better job? Or she saw the writing on the wall regarding No Kill. 

Thanks to Lisa Wahl for bringing this to my attention. 

http://spayship.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/whats-my-agenda-the-spayship-equation/

HOW WILL WINOGRAD WEASEL OUT OF THIS ONE?

Once again, the No Kill Equation has been exposed for what it is, one man's agenda. 

There are only 74 No Kill shelters approved by the No Kill Equation. According to the ASPCA, there are 5,000 independent animal shelters overall, meaning only 1.4% of that total are NKE shelters. All 74 of these shelters were contacted and 49 of those have stated they are not following the No Kill Equation. There are 10 shelters who stated they are partially following the NKE. But 14 of all shelters have never heard of the No Kill Equation. Again one can ask, how does the NKE take credit?

Winograd always take the credit, how many times have we known him to say that his way is the only way. That's the talk of mad men. 

Read this, use it to fight the fight. 

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/no-kill-equation-truth-revealed#

WHAT'S NO KILL NATION AFRAID OF?

Over a long holiday weekend, this article received over 1400 facebook recommendations!!

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/no-kill-nation-big-bully

I wonder how many "pro bono" cases NKN's attorney will be willing to handle. Can't sue them all.

SPRINGTIME IN AUSTIN, SMELL THE POOP

Well it should be an interesting spring in Austin. For the first time the City stood fast and did not allow double digit budget increases. They also stood fast and did not pay Austin Pets Alive additional funds. Also, Austin Pets Alive is now prohibited from bringing in animals from outside of the jurisdiction to get more revenue but at the expense of saturating Austin's market and in direct competition with the shelter. Couple that with the need of Austin Pets Alive to raise funds to make their current facility pass State inspection in the fall of this year and it is going to be a challenge. That does not even mention the fact Austin Pets Alive's lease on the old animal shelter (Town Lake) only goes through 2015 and low and behold they don't have funds to build a new facility since both their facility and the new Austin shelter are full. Okay so much for no pet over population and you can go No Kill over night and it costs nothing! 

Interesting article in the Huffington Post from an attendee at the Austin Pets Alive Conference (tickets paid for by Austin Pets Alive). The published slide show provided by Austin Pets Alive on "How to Help Rescue Pets" is interesting not so much for what it has in it but for what it does not. Actually some pretty good advice in it but only one minor mention of the "No Kill Advocacy Center" at the end. No mention of Winograd or Clinton. No mention of the no kill equation, nothing. Hmmm, could it be that APA is trying to distance themselves from No Kill and will eventually like so many other rescues have move away from supporting the shelter and leave Austin Animal Services holding the bag so to speak? Then of course they just become limited admission, never report numbers since they are private and then blame Austin for failing? Maybe APA sees the handwriting on the wall? Like I say interesting spring. For the animals sake I hope I am wrong.

An interesting side note. Once each year most of the mayors of cities in Texas meet in Austin for a conference. While I would guess Animals Services is not on the top of their discussion list I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear Austin's feedback to them about No Kill. Reduced killing is possible just not with the no kill equation as it stands. 

Thanks Anon.

WINOGRAD CAN'T MAKE HIS OWN BACKYARD NO KILL

Looking at some figures on Alameda County this morning. Winograd is based in Oakland, or at least that is what we think. The address given for the "Advocacy" center is a drop box location. Anyway, maybe he lives close around. Let's look at Alameda County.

The Hayden Act came into play in 1998. The Companion Animal Protection Act, CAPA, is based on the Hayden. Why I will never understand but. Now, let me remind you of the infamous slogan of Nathie, "STOP THE KILLING OVERNIGHT !" So here we go.

In 1998, the year of the start of the Hayden for Alameda County:

Dogs Intake  10,555  
Dogs Euth.     4,850
Cats Intake    10,452
Cats Euth.       5,612

Jump to 12 years later, 2010. The reason is that the last full online report is for that year. This is taken from the Annual Report of Local Rabies Control Activities, a state required report for all shelters done by county. Some counties have more than one entity doing animal control and/or housing.

Dogs Intake     7,136
Dogs Euth.      1,651
Cats Intake      8,357
Cats Euth.       3,495

So do the math. My figures come out to a little over a 1% difference in those 12 years. Overnight, I don't think so. This is slower than the strides being made by spay/neuter focusing on the problem. Maybe Winograd meant one of those long Arctic nights, you think?
  

SO MUCH DESPERATION FROM RYAN CLINTON. WANTS STATE LAW SO AUSTIN CAN CLEAR SHELTER OVERCROWDING

What is this I'm hearing that Ryan Clinton of Fix Austin and Ellen Jefferson of Austin Pet's Alive are trying to get Eddie Rodriguez to file bill to get  a state law passed allowing  city and county shelters to send out animals to rescue groups that arrive at the shelter with no tags and no microchip with only a 24 hour hold instead of the normal 72 hours?

Is there a shortage of dogs for Austin Pets Alive  to pull?  Do they now need to steal family pets through legal maneuvering? Austin Animal Center is about 50 large dogs over capacity on any one day. Go pull  those dogs instead of trying to legally "steal" some one's family pet.

Add to it these private rescue groups have little to no oversight regarding conditions at their facilities; at least not to the same extent as our municipal shelters . No Kill seems to have no compassion and all under the pretense of saving tax dollars. If they were really worried about tax dollars they would pass a state wide requirement to spay and neuter most owned cats and dogs and start doing something to reduce intake at our City shelters instead of turning them into high volume holding and adoption centers at the expense of the tax payer.

And who says there's no money in rescue? Austin Pets Alive  has certainly figured out how to do it. Just take out the compassion component.

http://tinyurl.com/dx56qmv

Makes sense when you consider the constant problem Austin has with overcrowding and now a cut in the budget to boot. Why don't they realize that No Kill is already dead in Austin, just roll over and get it done with. This was the state of Austin just 4 days ago and you can see where this selfish, ego driven legislation is coming from. Clinton is trying to save face and he can't do anything on a local level now, it is out of hand. So he is resorting to the State. 

From: carrie.wells@austintexas.gov
Reply-to: ProjectStarfish-owner@yahoogroups.com
To: ProjectStarfish@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 3/10/2013 11:43:58 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: [ProjectStarfish] HELP! AAC is -47 dog kennels today!

Fosters,

Our medium-large dog kennel count this morning was -47. Yikes! Holding is full, the truckport is full, animals are in rolling cages, but we have NO place to put them!

So, how can you help? Consider taking one of the animals that we have already posted, OR visit the shelter, look around, and speak to the staff in the lobby about any medium-large dogs that you think you might be interested in fostering. They will let you know if the dog is available for foster or not, as well as provide you with any behavior/medical information that we may have. The initial criteria for being available for foster is the dog cannot already have a customer interest hold on it, and it can't still be within its stray hold period.

To help you in marketing a dog from your home, we can offer tips on writing an effective post that will get noticed, and our weekly adoption events are always available to you as well to help the dog find a permanent home. We can't do it without your help! And as always, THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO!

AND ALL THAT YOU ARE DOING IS PUTTING OFF THE INEVITABLE. You can fill every household in Austin with fosters, that will not solve the problem.   

Delwin Goss, the only rational mind in Austin on this issue, puts it in sane terms.

Our old shelter is still open and over flowing. Our new shelter is over flowing. All the rescue groups and foster families are maxed out. And puppy and kitten season is just around the corner. We've lowered the standards for adoption at the animal center to the point where homeless people and people convicted of animal abuse can walk in the door and walk out with an older cat or dog for free. Michael  Vick could walk into our shelter and if no one recognized him; he could walk out with a cat or dog. Our animal services department has had an increase in budget of over 60% over the last four years. Animal  Services director asked for an additional $1,300,000.00 but saner voices at the City prevailed and that request was cut to $300,000.00.

As it's been, all the other city departments saw budget reductions. Those reductions impacted things like housing the homeless, public safety, parks and trails, programs for our seniors and our children.

 Every large senior animal organization in Austin has passed a resolution asking our City  to pass a spay/neuter ordinance. Even the Austin Neighborhoods Council and some of the political clubs have also passed resolutions asking for a spay/neuter ordinance. Over 15,000 mostly East Austin residents have signed a pen on paper informal petition asking The City  to pass a spay/neuter ordinance .

 All that support yet our City seems to listen to one voice and one voice only.  Recently City staff and the animal advisory commission started work on a Differential Licensing  ordinance and once again that same voice scuttled the work. And the reason this time? Concerns over privacy. Really? Privacy over a pet owners registration records?  Who the heck cares about those records? I certainly don't.  Just how weak is that?

One of the things that leaves me most perplexed is that voice doesn't work with animals. No hands on  rescue, no hands on  cat work, no hands on dog work. Absolutely no first hand experience. Just an unending litany of "those ordnances don't work". "The ordinance will lead to more animals entering our shelters." The same statements  as the breeders, the same claims  as R.P.O.A. and the same dogma as the Endangered Breeds group ( basically Pit Bull Breeders and Fighters)

That's the same thing opponents of a State wide mandatory rabies vaccination said way back when. That's the same thing opponents of laws mandating that animal owners provide food , water and minimal shelter claimed .   It's the same thing that opponents of Austin of Austin's anti tethering ordinance said and it's the same thing opponents of Austin's pet sellers ordinance said. Strange thing; it never happened.

It's just depressing to me to learn some of our City's leaders and some City staff hear  voices but not the voices of the people, the voices of those of us who work with animals each and every day   and/or the voice of sanity.

  Keep Austin Weird!

Thanks Delwin for being a true animal/people advocate, not the fake ones such as Clinton. Hang in there, it will end. If nothing else, there will be a show down with Clinton and Winograd that will end all of this. Clinton is now on his "divine" trip and he wants to take over.

PAT DUNAWAY NAILS A FEW MORE NAILS IN WHINO'S COFFIN

Read these articles. They say it all.


http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/does-no-kill-kill-yes

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/no-kill-policy-puts-pa-animals-harms-way

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/why-are-animals-dying-no-kill-lynchburg-humane-society

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/rebuttal-huffington-posts-nathan-j-winograd

NO KILL NEWS - LYNCHBURG IS KILLING THEM IN THEIR CAGES AND KENNELS

Either No Kill has a learning disability or No Kill just flat lies through their teeth. No Kill News, that ridiculous website, announces another "victory". Lynchburg Humane Society supposedly is now at a live release rate that qualifies them as No Kill. Let's take a look at this "victory".

"In Lynchburg itself, stray intake dropped from 1306 in 2009 to 1018 in 2010." according to NK News. What NK News fails to tell you is that 100 animals died in their cages and kennels during that time as well. Now let's compare that death rate.

Rancho Cucamonga's State report for 2009 shows that 103 animals died in their cages and kennels. Rancho handled five and a half thousand animals that year. Lynchburg handled only 2254 animals, half of Rancho's numbers. Yet Lynchburg had as many animals die in their cages as Rancho.

No Kill News compares Lynchburg to neighboring communities. Amherst had NO ANIMALS TO DIE IN THEIR CAGES THAT YEAR. Bedford County only had 35 animals to die in their cages and kennels that year and handled more animals. Campbell County had only 27 to die in their cages and kennels. WHY IS THE RATE SO HIGH FOR LYNCHBURG OF ANIMALS DYING WHILE UNDER THEIR CARE?

The year of 2010 also shows that Lynchburg had a high death-in-kennel rate at 62 deaths. Amherst only had 35 to die like that, Bedford County had 50 and Campbell only had 17 deaths.

NOW HERE IS THE BEST, OR WORSE, PART. In 2011, Lynchburg allowed 164 to die while under their care, in their cages/kennels. This was with an intake of 2131 animals. Surrounding communities: Amherst - 37 to die in kennels with an intake of 2514, Bedford - 13 to die in kennels with an intake of 2568, and Campbell - 11 to die in kennels with an intake of 2814. Why do the surrounding shelters have a much lower number of those dying while under their care and all with a a higher intake number of animals? Ask why. Is it because those aren't counted in the "live release rate" and neither counted on the euthanization rate? Is someone not telling the truth?

WHY DOES THE LYNCHBURG SHELTER HAVE SO MANY DYING IN THEIR KENNELS AND CAGES?

Look at other No Kill shelters, see what their in-house death rate is. That's is telling the truth about this program.

C'MON WINOGRAD, PROVE THYSELF. MORE EVIDENCE SHOWING YOUR LIES ABOUT PAT DUNAWAY

This is a re-post of an old post by Honesty Helps.  Winograd claims that I protected a cruel shelter when just the opposite is true.

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2010

Another Day, Nathan Winograd, No Evidence Yet

Yet another day where the Whino doesn't present any evidence to back up what he says about Pat Dunaway. I pulled this one out of my old posts to show that Pat Dunaway doesn't hesitate to go after animal control, again making the Whino out a liar since he says that she supports animal control no matter what. This shows plainly that Dunaway doesn't tolerate cruelty at the shelter and fights against it. So take that Whino, you've been caught in another lie.

http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/2003/02/28/1046418464.html

Pet advocates accuse city of wrongdoing
SAN BERNARDINO: They file a claim saying the shelter mishandled dogs and donations.

BY KAREN GAUDETTE
THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE
SAN BERNARDINO

A trio of animal welfare advocates has accused San Bernardino officials of misappropriating more than $10,000 donated by the public to help three emaciated puppies rescued from neglect in July 2001.

In a claim they filed earlier this week, Pat Dunaway of Fontana and Suzanne Martin and Pauline Itkin of Riverside are seeking more than $10,000 in damages.

The three, who are involved with animal welfare groups throughout the Inland area, allege the city's animal shelter mishandled the dogs and that city officials conspired to alter and forge public records documenting how donations were spent and how the dogs were treated.

"We want justice for the animals. We want whoever is responsible for allowing those animals to suffer to be held responsible," Dunaway said Thursday. "We also want reform at the animal shelter."

The claim, filed Monday by the women's attorney, Mark Blankenship, follows an 11-month city investigation into the dogs' treatment that was prompted by earlier complaints from Martin.

San Bernardino officials interviewed more than 16 people involved with the care of the puppies and concluded in November the dogs had received the best care possible under the circumstances.

City Attorney James Penman did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment Thursday. He has defended the city's integrity in the past, saying claims that the donated money was misspent are unsubstantiated.

The women also claim City Administrator Fred Wilson released a fraudulent report that the city had completed an investigation involving former city animal control director Jon Cicirelli.

Cicirelli resigned in November. City officials have said the investigation was unrelated to the animal cruelty case but have declined to specify its nature.

The three puppies, named Chopper, Bandit and Rosie, all have been adopted. As of November, a little more than $3,000 remained in an account for them after medical and food bills were settled, and the city said it was researching what to do with the rest of the money.

THIS IS PAT DUNAWAY.

CAP LOCK WAS MADE FOR NO KILL/WINOGRAD STUPIDITY

This is an impressive piece and the author insists we spread it around. Glad to do so. http://veganmeanie.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/nathan-winograds-loaded-pet-overpopulation-survey-and-why-you-should-take-it/

“If you are one of those people who believes you “love” animals but continues to defend killing based on a belief in pet overpopulation, I want to understand why it is that—when the very thing which you have publicly lamenting all these years as the “tragic” cause of animal killing turns out NOT to exist—you do not celebrate, but rather, go on the attack in its defense, even as HSUS—the flagship of the killing establishment—has abandoned you in the belief. Here is my survey for you:”–Nathan Winograd

Nathan Winograd wants to know why you still don’t trust him. I mean, you love animals, right? You hate that they die in shelters–right?  Didn’t you hear? The numbers just don’t add up. There is no companion animal overpopulation crisis. There are more than enough homes for all of the animals who are needlessly dying in shelters–so why aren’t you celebrating? What’s wrong with you?

According to Winograd, the data supports his claims that there are 17 million potential homes for the 3 million animals who are currently dying in shelters’ revolving doors, thus proving that companion animal overpopulation is a myth. Winograd says that shelters all over the country have adopted his patented shelter reform principles and literally ended their euthanasia of adoptable animals–overnight. Yet there are holdouts within the animal protection community who say it’s just too good to be true and Winograd wants to know why. And now he’s asking. Sort of.

Nathan Winograd is challenging naysayers to refute his evidence–in survey form. And while his survey reads more like a cry for help than a pet overpopulation survey, you have to admit it’s an interesting way to frame his argument. So, let’s take the bait. Let’s take his survey right here, right now, together, where our answers may actually count for something. As we go through each question, think about how you would answer it.

THE SURVEY:

QUESTION ONE:

I believe that there are too many animals (“supply”) and too few homes (“demand”). The latest data says three million dogs and cats are killed but for a home. I believe demand exceeds supply because my data shows demand is___________________ [fill in number of homes annually, please state whether this includes replacement homes (a pet dies or runs away), new homes (a first pet) and expanding homes (a second, third, etc. pet), as well as your source].

Answer: No one really knows how many animals (“supply”) are entering our shelters and being euthanized there. While some states require animal releasing facilities to report their intake and disposition of animals to state agencies, others don’t, and there is no centralized national agency counting animals. The National Council on Pet Population Study & Policy identified and mailed intake and disposition surveys to over 5,000 shelters that handled a minimum of 100 animals per year in 1994, and repeated the survey for the following three consecutive years. While the endeavor was remarkable in its ambition, the results were disappointing. With only 20% of the polled shelters responding (even after reminder cards were issued throughout the year), the NCPPSP abandoned the collection of data using survey cards, with the following disclaimer:

“It is not possible to use these statistics to estimate the numbers of animals entering animal shelters in the United States, or the numbers euthanized on an annual basis.  The reporting Shelters may not represent a random sampling of U.S. shelters.”

The NCPPSP is conducting new research, tracking the intake of animals and their disposition in eighteen US shelters and weighing the data against the human populations of the communities each shelter serves. The NCPPSP is hopeful that the formula will be useful in developing hypothetical annual and quarterly shelter population tracking trends that will allow them to estimate the number of animals entering shelters in other areas, in the future. Until all shelters report their numbers to their respective states, and each state reports its data to a centralized agency (like the USDA) , we can only guess at how many animals America’s shelters handle every year, even with sophisticated hypothetical tracking formulas.

The Asilomar Accords has designed a comprehensive standardized annual statistics table to track shelter trends, but like the NCPPSP survey, shelter participation is completely voluntary, and fewer than 200 shelters are currently participating.

Estimates for combined shelter euthanasia numbers range from 3 million to 10 million, but no one really knows for certain how many animals are dying in shelters, not even Nathan Winograd. And while Winograd limits the discussion of pet overpopulation to shelter animals, adoptable animals entering shelters account for only a portion of all homeless animals (“supply”). A study published in 2003 puts the number of homeless feral street dogs (“supply”)  in America at 33 million animals. In his book “Introduced Mammals of the World: Their History, Distribution, and Influence,” John L. Long writes that several American cities have homeless feral street dog (“supply”) populations of as many as 50,000 animals. Long estimates that feral cat (“supply”) populations in the US are as high as 70 million animals.

I should probably discuss why I’m answering this question backwards.  Nathan Winograd clearly asks about the “demand” end of the equation in his survey, not the “supply” end. Well, I’m not disputing that there are 17 million American households that may potentially be persuaded to adopt a shelter animal rather than acquiring an animal elsewhere. I’m not disputing it because it’s a pet products industry survey statistic, and purchasing the data ranges in cost from several hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on which marketing research firm you purchase it from. We’ll just have to take Winograd’s word about the 17 million potential homes for now. Some of us have bills to pay.

When and only when the discussion includes all homeless animals, those who enter shelters and those who make a hard living on the streets, can  we even begin to discuss “supply” and “demand” ratios.  So the companion animal overpopulation crisis is officially back on. In anticipation of this startling new development, Nathan Winograd issued the following statement on the online survey form:

“* Even if “pet overpopulation” was real, shelter killing would still be immoral. Advancing a practical over an ethical argument has long been the safe haven for those who want to justify untoward practices. Even accepting the sincerity of the claim, even if the practical calculus was correct, protecting life that is not suffering is a timeless and absolute principle upon which responsible advocates must tailor their practices. Every action they take must be subservient to preserving life. Ethics will always trump the practical and the two are seldom so inexorably linked that an untoward action must follow some fixed practical imperative.”

Let’s move on now.

QUESTION TWO:

“There are roughly 70 communities representing about 200 cities and towns across the U.S. that achieved No Kill, many of them overnight simply by changing the way the shelter operated. Some of these communities are small, some large taking in over 20,000 animals a year and they cover the demographic spectrum (urban, rural, liberal, conservative, affluent, impoverished, municipal shelter, private shelter). They are not “turning animals away” as they are open admission municipal shelters. Animals are not sitting in cages and kennels for years (see No. 5, below). This is logically inconsistent with pet overpopulation since they adopted their way out of killing, many times before a comprehensive spay/neuter program was in place. Yet I can prove that pet overpopulation is real in spite of these successes because ________________________________________________.”

Answer: Let’s talk about shelter admission policies first. “Open-admission” shelters take all strays and owner-relinquished animals on presentation. Many open-admission shelters utilize “drop boxes” that make it possible for persons finding stray animals, or those wishing to surrender owned-animals to relinquish those animals outside of normal shelter hours. “Limited-admission” shelters limit their intake of animals in any number of ways. Shelters that restrict their intake to specific species or breeds are limited-admission shelters. Shelters that restrict their intake based on space availability, or that use scheduling and waiting lists for admitting animals, are limited-admission shelters. Shelters that restrict their intake to healthy animals only, excluding animals who may require humane medical euthanasia, are limited-admission shelters. Shelters that require owners surrendering their animals to pursue all alternatives prior to their relinquishment, or to pay exorbitant relinquishment fees, are limited-admission shelters. Shelters that do not take all strays and owner-relinquished animals upon presentation, are limited-admission shelters.

The “70 or so communities representing about 200 cities and towns” (0.06% of the 35,000 cities and townships in America) that Nathan Winograd refers to in this question, are shelters that have “live release” rates of 90% or higher. “Live release” rates include animals who have been adopted and who have been relinquished to rescues and fosters. “Live release” rates also include animals who are transferred to other shelters and holding facilities, both inside and outside of the community. There is no data supporting Winograd’s claims that shelters are “adopting their way out of killing animals.” Many shelters are simply transferring their way out of killing animals.

I recently polled dozens of the shelters Nathan Winograd claims are “not  turning animals away,” and many stated that they do in fact limit their admissions. Some decline to accept owner-surrenders for medical euthanasia, and many limit their admissions due to space constraints. Some schedule admissions, or have waiting lists that are weeks and months long. Several accept either stray animals or owner-surrendered animals–but not both. A few limit their admissions to animals who fit their established adoption profiles, or require a medical screenings prior to admission. All rely heavily on rescues and fosters to make room for new animals. Nearly all of the shelters I contacted were candid about their realities: They limit their admissions so that they can limit their euthanasia. They limit their admissions for the health and safety of the animals who are already in the shelter. Shelters limit their admissions to give the animals they already have the best possible shot at being adopted, but at the expense of the animals they have to turn away.

Shelters that limit their admissions can focus their limited resources on “live release” rates, but the animals they refuse to admit may still go on to be euthanized elsewhere. They are not ending the euthanasia of adoptable animals in their communities, they are simply redirecting it elsewhere.

Shelters are turning animals away, and they’re admitting to it. Over 34,000 cities and townships are euthanizing greater than 10% (the national average is 50%) of the animals their shelters admit, and there are still more companion animals than potential homes for them.

QUESTION THREE

“There are communities with per capita intake rates 20 times higher than New York City that are No Kill, higher than the intake rates in most communities. This is logically inconsistent with pet overpopulation. Yet I can prove that pet overpopulation is real in spite of this information because ______________________.”

Answer: Detroit has fewer human residents than New York City and they are dealing with a homeless feral dog population between 20,000 and 50,000 animals, and a feral cat population that is even higher. These animals aren’t represented in Detroit’s shelter statistics. Tens of thousands of homeless feral street dogs in a single city is logically consistent with companion animal overpopulation.

QUESTION FOUR

“Since puppy mills and pet stores that sell milled animals are only in it for the money, they wouldn’t exist if they weren’t making money by selling animals. And given that they wouldn’t be selling animals if there weren’t plenty of homes available, if pet overpopulation is real, why do puppy mills and pet stores exist? My answer is ______________________________.”

Answer: There are nearly 316 million people living in the United States today, 271 million of whom own cell phones. There are over 700 million operable used cell phones in the US–roughly 2 for every man, woman, and child. The average American cell phone user replaces his or her cell phone every 14 to 18 months, even though with proper care cell phones are designed to last up to five years.  Apple cannot make iPhones as fast as Americans want to buy them. There is no cell phone shortage, yet there are factories churning out new cell phones, and there are cell phone kiosks in every American mall, and in nearly every department and electronics store. Though some consumers may be considering purchasing a used cell phone, new cell phone manufacturers and providers are constantly assessing ways to tap that pivotal market.

There’s psychology behind consumerism, and trends in consumerism are closely studied. Information about our daily consumer choices is collected and sold to marketing research firms, and then resold to retailers throughout the world. But what motivates our choices as consumers?

Motivation has been defined as “a need that is sufficiently pressing to drive the person to act.” In “An Overview of Needs Theories Behind Consumerism,” by By David Ward (PhD), and Marta Lasen (BA), it is explained that our human needs fall into several basic categories; biological and physiological needs, safety needs, belongingness and love needs, esteem needs, cognitive needs, aesthetic needs, self-actualization needs, and transcendence needs, and what we acquire and why we acquire it is based on those needs. The data shows that we consumers acquire goods and services not only based on need, but also based on our incomes and opportunities. Pet stores and breeders give us lots of opportunities to acquire pets, and they breed them with our “needs” in mind.

Americans spent 2.14 billion dollars on live pets last year, according to American Pet Products Association, Inc. The pet industry is clearly a lucrative market, and animal breeders work very hard every year to increase their share of it. If the animal protection movement were matching the pet industry’s marketing budget for promoting live animal sales, dollar for dollar, promoting adoptions, we could still only expect to have 50% of the undecided market. That’s 8.5 million potential homes–for 100 million potential animals. Best case scenario.

Who’s promoting animal adoptions on a national level? The HSUS, and PeTA. Two of the groups most attacked by Nathan Winograd for not doing enough for companion animals.

QUESTION FIVE

“When shelters do a good job, when they keep animals alive long enough to be adopted, when they market their animals, when they have good customer service, when they fully implement all the programs of the No Kill Equation, animals live instead of die. And they are not sitting in cages or kennels for year. Average length of stay runs from 8 to about 14 days, about the time a dog spends in a boarding kennel when his family is on vacation. My response: ________________________.”

Answer: In an important paper regarding shelter cat stays, Dilara G. Parry writes: “At the San Francisco SPCA, where I have worked for the past 6 years, a cats’ average length of stay is 21 days. However, at any given time, five to ten percent of our cats have been in our facility for longer than 90 days, a stay we consider long-term. About two percent of our cats stay past the 120 day mark. And we have had cats stay as long as 240 days. When we analyze those cats who have been here longer than 90 days, we find that 8 out of 10 had presenting behavior problems. Other factors that contribute include serious medical concerns and/or old age.”

And some animals are staying in cages and kennels for years:

“Many of our readers were heartbroken to hear the tale of an 8 year old dog languishing in a rural Missouri pound after spending her entire life in confinement. Our inbox was flooded with your questions after we shared her Petfinder listing recently, and it was apparent that many of you were on a mission to spring Hailey from her kennel at the Dogwood Animal Shelter. We’re happy to tell you that mission has been accomplished.”~ Life with Dogs

Still, many shelters that are limiting their admissions to focus on adoptions are having great success. I applaud their efforts. I get why shelters don’t want to euthanize unwanted animals, and there are many unwanted animals. Open-admission shelters deserve love too, though, because they aren’t turning unwanted animals away, leaving them to fates that may be worse than death. I say this a lot, but as long as people consider animals to be disposable property, euthanasia will be the by-product of their ignorance.

Now it’s time for you to take the survey, on your own, and with your own answers. But instead of answering it on Nathan Winograd’s website (where your valuable insight will fall on deaf ears), answer it on your own blogs and discussion forums, where it may actually do some good. Spread this survey far and wide, and ask your friends to answer it for themselves. Oh, and I encourage you to be as emphatic as you want. Your CAPS LOCK is welcome here.

FIRST THE BREEDERS, NOW THE VEGANS, WINOGRAD'S LIST OF FRIENDS IS DWINDLING FAST

Geez, Whiney is getting hit from all directions. Even vegans are turning on him. 
http://veganmeanie.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/picking-battles/

Perhaps the better question is why is Nathan Winograd choosing to train his magnifying glass on insects, just days before his fifteen-thousand-strong readership will be arm-deep in the hulls of dead turkeys. And that is in no way meant to be a commentary on the moral relevance of one group of animals over another. It is meant to be a commentary on Nathan Winograd’s clear lack of vegan fortitude, given the audience he has, and his self-professed commitment to saving animals. Plato described the concepts of beauty and art this way: real beauty reflects truth, and art is a deceptive imitation of nature.  There is nothing beautiful about Nathan Winograd’s choosing the vegan low road, while so many of us are still reeling from Mercy for Animals’ recent release of their undercover Butterball investigation.  But it’s a detail about who he might be, and I think it’s a telling one.  No worries, though.  I’m pretty sure we’ve got this one without him.

And that vegan diet has sure made the math skills of vegans better than those of the Whiney's puppets. 

http://veganmeanie.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/nathan-winograds-loaded-pet-overpopulation-survey-and-why-you-should-take-it/
Nathan Winograd is challenging naysayers to refute his evidence–in survey form. And while his survey reads more like a cry for help than a pet overpopulation survey, you have to admit it’s an interesting way to frame his argument. So, let’s take the bait. Let’s take his survey right here, right now, together, where our answers may actually count for something. As we go through each question, think about how you would answer it.

Well, thinking leaves out the Whiney's puppets. I'm impressed that this coming from the vegans but not surprised. Everyone is figuring out Whiney, finally. Only the slow ones are sticking with him now, are you listening DA?

UPDATE: The entire post from VeganMeanie is now on Opposing Views. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/nathan-winograd-takes-vegan-low-road

WINOGRAD FUNNY FOR THE MORNING

I was sent a series of screen shots of a conversation between a breeding group of the recent pictures of Nathan Winograd. Seems Whiney has managed to tick off the breeders, his biggest supporters. So what's new, he ticks off everyone.

I really like this one to begin with, the coining of a new phrase that I will use often now. This is one translation offered by a member of this breeding group on Winograd.

Oh, and BTW, I don't give a rat's patoot about breeds and think it would be just dandy if all dogs were mutts......
BUT all you breeders of purebreds, while I campaign to devalue your dogs and eliminate you, please buy my books, donate to my No Kill Advocacy Center, support my legislation and my brand of shelter reform only. After all, if you're not fighting for No Kill you're fighting for high kill. ISN'T EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL A WONDERFUL THING?

Another was asking the question as to why Winograd is presenting such a poor showing of himself by posting these old high school pictures of himself. This was the response.

He's a salesman. He lives on book sales, donations, and shelter contracts. I don't care that he is asking for business... that is what business people are supposed to do. I care that he is AR and has played to breeders and welfare people, even going so far as to speak at dog shows to sell books there. His recent statements reveal his true doctrine and attitude. He is viewed as being moderate, but he's not...people need to know that since not everybody pays close attention. When a man tells you what he is, believe him. HE IS NOT GOOD FOR US AND WE SHOULD NOT BE GOOD FOR HIM. 

This conversation clearly shows that the breeders were in love with Winograd before his "recent" statements. Winograd can deny his connection with breeders all he wants, but the breeders know that connection. Now this can play in Winograd's favor, he might be trying to separate himself from the breeding community since so many of us have pointed that out so often. However, he goes with the money and he knows the welfare community doesn't have the money. Let's see if he does a quick turnaround and tries to bring the breeders back into his harem.

NO KILL FALLING LIKE FLIES

I had no more gotten the post below published about the Connecticut SPCA than this hit the news.

Another No Kill. http://www.nokillnetwork.org/d/Florida

Animal Rescue Konsortium Inc. (DeLand)    DeLand, FL

http://arkfl.rescuegroups.org    More info about Animal Rescue Konsortium Inc. (DeLand)   

http://m.news4jax.com/news/More-than-100-animals-rescued-from-DeLand-shelter/-/16626108/17340406/-/6w6o9m/-/index.html More than 100 animals were rescued from a DeLand animal shelter on Thursday after police received complaints that the shelter was keeping the animals in unsafe conditions.

One hundred cats and 26 dogs were removed from the Animal Rescue Consortium as Volusia County firefighters wearing oxygen masks entered and set up fans to air out the facility.

But does the No Killers see the suffering? Not at all. 

Johnson told WKMG-TV that she was shocked when police served her a search warrant Thursday morning on complaints of animal mistreatment.

"The living conditions? We do everything everyday," said Johnson. "I never sit down."

Same song, second verse, Whinograd.

ANOTHER NO KILL CAUGHT IN SCHEMES

Yet another one bites the dust, involved in cruelty and a transport scheme. Seems this No Kill imported dogs from South Carolina, are you listening Biscuit Bitch? This is your people doing this. And then he was selling them, not adopting them by ethical standards, selling them. The bad part is the conditions these dogs had to endured once at their destination.

Yep, it's No Kill. http://www.nokillnetwork.org/d/Connecticut/SPCA-of-Connecticut-(Monroe)~1653/

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/State-Seizes-Dozens-of-Endangered-Dogs-177993821.html On Thursday night in Bethlehem, 65 dogs had to be rescued from a freezing barn at an animal rescue run by the Connecticut SPCA. Even more concerning was that the owner, who is the director of SPCA of Connecticut, has been in trouble before.

Investigators told NBC Connecticut that the dogs were freezing and dehydrated at the animal rescue and at least four were rushed to the animal hospital. Animal control said officers demanded that Acker fix conditions for the dogs in October.

Shades of Spindletop and Boggs Mountain!! No Kill has always promoted hiring the inexperienced for key positions in shelters. That way he can have some control. However, it is beginning to look as though No Kill also promotes hiring prior abusers.

That problem had since been fixed, but court records showed dozens of criminal charges have been filed in Milford, accusing him of illegally importing animals. The case is still pending, but another case could be brought against him for the disturbing discovery police made in Bethlehem.

No Kill, the enemy of those who can't speak for themselves. But we will speak for them against this cruel, vile movement of Natan Whinograd.

WILL THE REAL PAT DUNAWAY PLEASE STAND UP

As of late, I have acquired some obsessed stalkers. Blogs were posted, conversations on a conspiracy to discredit me, pictures of unknown persons with claims of them being Pat Dunaway. Pictures that were not very flattering, I might add. 

The above picture is that of Pat Dunaway, me, the only person, not all the other persons that these stalkers claim me to be. I do have a better picture, made at the same time, but I really don't want these stalkers to know what I look like. 

Regardless, this picture was taken when I was recognized by the City of Fontana for my "selfless contributions to the betterment of (your) community" with my work for the animals. Note the picture shows me shaking hands with the then Mayor of Fontana. This information can be verified via public records all you stalkers. As a result of my work in Fontana, a spay/neuter voucher program was established. A voucher for $50 for a dog and $25 for a cat plus we had availability of low cost services. 

Here is where I stood up against the shelter that Winograd accuses me of supporting. http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/2003/02/28/1046418464.html 

Pet advocates accuse city of wrongdoing
SAN BERNARDINO: They file a claim saying the shelter mishandled dogs and donations.

BY KAREN GAUDETTE
THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE
SAN BERNARDINO

A trio of animal welfare advocates has accused San Bernardino officials of misappropriating more than $10,000 donated by the public to help three emaciated puppies rescued from neglect in July 2001.

In a claim they filed earlier this week, Pat Dunaway of Fontana and Suzanne Martin and Pauline Itkin of Riverside are seeking more than $10,000 in damages.

Also I was credited by the late Nell Soto as her inspiration to make cockfighting a felony, something that went against her culture as she told me on the way to a Senate hearing committee meeting. http://www.cocka2.com/newcastle/media/med04031.htm

Press-Enterprise, CA

http://www.pe.com/business/local/PE_BIZ_nnewca02.a2144.html

Game fowl focus of disease fears 
NEWCASTLE: Because of the poultry epidemic, some want to increase the penalties for cockfighting. 
04/02/2003 
By LESLIE BERKMAN
THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE 

Soto's bill was inspired by a letter from a constituent, Pat Dunaway, 55, of Rialto. Dunaway, co-chairwoman of the Pet Assistance Foundation for the Inland Empire, said she learned that a strain of exotic Newcastle virus similar to the one plaguing Southern California was discovered earlier in Mexico, and it could have been carried here by fighting roosters. Federal and state authorities, however, say they haven't proven the origin of the current outbreak.

The County of San Bernardino has a national award winning spay/neuter program. I am proud to say that I played a role in obtaining this program that has not seen a cut throughout this bad economy. It also has been copied in other places.

The stalkers are children who don't understand that they are playing with a loaded gun. Winograd appeals to the unstable, those who are not playing in the real world and those people are dangerous. 

I issue a challenge to Debi Day to prove the picture that she posted is me. Just like I have repeatedly issued a challenge to Winograd to prove what he says about me. He has yet to submit any proof and his unstable puppets just continue to believe what he says without researching it for themselves. These are a sick bunch of people and they are being instigated to commit violence with these childish pranks. Let me forewarn you, that if anything does happen to me, officials have the names of those to question first. Keep it up, dig that hole deeper, the end of all of this may be sooner than you think. 

HOW'S THAT NO KILL WORKING FOR YOU NOW, AUSTIN??

Not to well. In the previous post, the Town Lake shelter didn't fair well in a recent State inspection. So now the begging begins.

 Subject: Please Help Austin Pets Alive

>  

> Hi Friends,

>  

>  

>  

> Many of you might have seen the segment last night on the news

> regarding

the potential closing of the Town Lake Animal Shelter currently being utilized by Austin Pets Alive. The city is threatening to stop all funding to them and close them down if repairs to their kennels aren't made by Nov 30th. They had just had an inspection this summer and all was fine and then a surprise inspection a day ago happened and all of a sudden things for the inspectors weren’t fine.  Hmmmmm.  Either way, if you have ever volunteered there, adopted from there, or been there, you will know this awesome organization is busting their buns to keep Austin a No Kill City. We need them desperately. Please go to their website to see how you can help. I know many of you are owners of pets and animal lovers and I hope you can find it in your hearts to help out our friends at APA.

What was that about No Kill costing less? Sure it can cost less if you don't care about the conditions the animals are kept in like Spindletop.

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/19968363/austin-pets-alive-struggles-to-keep-no-kill-policy-due-to-money-woes

Austin Pets Alive says the city is in danger of losing its no kill status. The non-profit group says more animals may be put down unless more money comes in. But the city says there's no bite behind that bark.

And the solution according to everyone - just hunker down. This should be interesting.

 

Texas Health Department puts the old Town Lake Animal Center on probation

•  

by SHELTON GREEN / KVUE News and Photojournalist DATHAN HULL

Bio | Email | Follow: @SheltonG_KVUE

kvue.com
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 10:23 PM
Updated today at 7:29 AM
AUSTIN – A surprise inspection from veterinarians with the Texas Health Department on Monday didn’t fare too well for the non-profit Austin Pets Alive! at the city’s old shelter, the Town Lake Animal Center.
“They're still not happy with the kennels here. They believe the kennels are condemned. They don't believe the kennels are up to par to have animals in them,” said Faith Wright with Austin Pets Alive!.
When the city of Austin opened its new animal shelter in East Austin, APA! signed a three-year contract with the city to use its old facility, the more than 60-year-old Town Lake Animal Center.
APA! is credited with saving hundreds of animals from euthanasia, helping Austin reach the coveted "No Kill" status.
On Wednesday Chris Wilson with the Texas Department of Health said that on Monday inspectors took issue with the cracks in the walls of the kennels at the Town Lake Animal Center because those areas can harbor diseases and germs.
“They were talking about how we needed to either completely re-do the kennels, re-cement there and make them smooth impervious covers, or else bulldoze them down and build new kennel spaces for them. And obviously that's hundreds of thousands of dollars that we'd be looking at,” Wright said.
Austin became the largest "No Kill" city in the country, meaning that at least 90 percent of all animals coming through get live outcomes. Because the TLAC houses at least 500 animals through Austin Pets Alive! and is an overflow for the new Austin Animal Center, closing it could have devastating effects on the city, not to mention its "No Kill" status.
“If there were to be an issue with a state inspector that couldn't be remedied, we as a community would have a huge issue,” said executive director of the new Austin Animal Center Abigail Smith.
The Town Lake Animal Center is sitting down with cement companies on Thursday hoping to get estimates on what it will take to bring the kennels up to state standards.

JUST GOES TO PROVE THAT NO KILL CARES NOTHING FOR THE QUALITY OF LIFE ONCE AGAIN.

BANG, BANG, SHE SHOT YOU DOWN!!!!

Here's the link to the latest article by Pat Dunaway in Opposing Views. Seems it is a take off on Cooper's latest attempt to condemn HSUS for his own personal gain as a breeder. Wonder why he's in Mexico?

So Pat decided that Mr. Cooper needed a lesson in being a hypocrite. Look at recent events like Spindletop and Boggs Mountain. Taking money and killing pets, all under the guise of No Kill. And where does the money go? No Kill doesn't have any shelters, No Kill doesn't offer low cost/free spay/neuter, so what good is it? And the list of these scamming No Kills gets longer every week.

And Cooper has the nerve to insinuate that people are too stupid to know who and what they are donating too. Money comes hard these days and most people are pretty knowledgeable when it comes to what they want to donate to. Not to mention just why would anyone want to harm the only organization that does bust dog fighting, that does bust the cruelty of puppy mills? Evil and vile people that's who.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/please-dont-give-no-kill-if-you-care-about-pets

In a previous post, I announced that Cooper and his band of groupies are off Facebook. I don't know how long, won't be long enough for me. Prior to that, I would read the pages and it was like listening to a bunch of kindergarten kids talking about pulling a joke on their teacher. Cooper doesn't have a clue about the underbelly that Winograd associates with, or maybe he does and doesn't care.

Anyway, enjoy the read.

WHO'S CRYING NOW?? NOT HONESTY.

Although Nathan Winograd insists that there is only one person in the entire world that speaks against him, Pat Dunaway, and even though there are people dumb enough to believe that, Douglas Anthony Cooper, it just ain't so.

So now friends of Winograd are banned from Facebook and rightfully so. They played their childish games there never realizing the consequences.

A Facebook message board yesterday contained this message.

Per: Debi Day (of No Kill Nation)
EMERGENCY: Douglas Anthony Cooper has been banned from posting on Facebook, for his efforts to expose the HSUS. The campaign of intimidation began with an attempt to have his name removed from Wikipedia.

Debi Day -- the president of No Kill Nation -- has so far now been warned to remove content. 

And I was sent this as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Douglas_Anthony_Cooper