Winograd to Take Over as Director of San Francisco Muni Shelter?

Nathan's website says he will be moving to SF by the end of March.

Since he told me he didn't want to move to LA because it was too expensive two years ago, I can only infer he is making a lot of money now, or he is setting up to replace arch enemy Carl Friedman when Carl retires in June.

The SF Muni shelter is almost already No Kill by Nathan's definition.

I wish Carl would come down to LA. He runs the Muni shelter in SF and has an 82% live save rate (79% the way Boks used to define live saves. Who knows how Boks is defining live saves now.) Carl's shelter along with the private SF/SPCA has a combined live save rate, according to Nathan, of 87%, and the SF/SPCA claims a live save rate of 94%.

Both Boks and Winograd bad-mouth Carl, Carl laughs at Boks, and has nothing but animosity for Nathan.


Anonymous said...

Good riddance and don't let the door hit you on your way out!!! At least he's out of Southern CA. Now if we can just convince him to make a sharp left when he gets there and keep going. Since SF hasn't been filing their Annual Report so they can be compared with all the other agencies in the State, it would make sense he would pick SF. He burned some bridges there before so it should be interesting to see what happens. I find it strange that he just picks up and goes at the drop of a hat, like he did in Tompkins County, particularly in the middle of a school year. I say he's running from something, not running to something.

Anonymous said...

Boks and Winograd are running away from their messes at shelters all the time. It's what they do, promise the world and just deliver more death. Then they run away and repeat but not before blaming everyone else for their failure.

Au contraire said...

Boks doesn't run away. Boks gets fired.

Let's be clear, people. The only city government that can't grasp that Boks lies and cooks the books is that of the illustrious Antonio Villaraigosa.

Maybe he just keeps Boks around because he can fool himself that he looks less sleazy next to Boks. Sadly, not so much...

Anonymous said...

Nathan left Tompkins county after fulfilling a 3 year contract-not a day sooner. You call that leaving at the drop of a hat? Try again. If Nathan was running from something (and my position he isn't) but if he was, it would be to get away from the most dysfunctional industry in the country - animal welfare. But he would never do that because he won't let the animals down. Instead he gets trashed by people who don't have a clue what is happening in the animal-welfare world - NOT A CLUE!! Instead you sit behind your computer and slam the one person who holds people accountable in this industry. To use Boks & Winograd in the same sentence is a sin and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you have no idea what you are ranting over.

You talk about Nathans messes? Be specific. What mess is because of Nathan, or is it the incompetent ED who can't manage their way out of a paperbag when the clock stricks midnight..... as is the case in a shelter several times a day. It's Nathans fault that the people he hires as the ED turn out to be Boks impersonators or worse....say things like it "can't be done in our community". Be real.

Nathan is the only ...I'll repeat that......the ONLY person in animal-welfare that "I" know of who puts the animals first, does what he says, and could give a rats ass about the spotlight. But I'm sure you'll argue this so when you do, know that you support my argumant that people in animal-welfare are clueless to the cold hard facts. The same facts (or incompetence) he speaks to in his book.

Ed Muzika said...

The last commenter has a point. The animal rescue and to a lesser extent, the animal humane community is quite dysfunctional. It's as if everyone dispised each other and felt only they know the truth.

You can see that in many of the comments left on this site, especially those who oppose no kill. When you oppose no kill you are destroying an idea, like peace.The idea is more important than any proponent.

A long time ago I spent 10 years trying to build cross-cultural unity among various Buddhist temples and movements to no avail. They were all very self-centered and critical of others, not wanting to let anyone but themseleves be perceived as "the" spokesperson for Buddhism, and their brand of Buddhism being superior. I don't think they knew how bad an image they projected to external observers they were trying to win over. (There were a few exceptions and I am sure I will hear about them from someone.)

The Buddhists have never organized as a community.

I see that same sort of attitude in the rescue community.

Too bad; unified we could move political mountains and surely achieve a no-kill nation.

Anonymous said...

Wise words:

" When you oppose no kill you are destroying an idea, like peace. The idea is more important than any proponent."

Well, that comment sure put me in my place. I do much prefer the idea over the reality. Much more peaceful.

So true that there's a lot of arrogance in the animal world, and in the world of religion. Especially ironic that so much pride exists among the proponents of Buddhism, of all things. Wow. Sad.

Human nature in it's imperfect state, perhaps?

Anonymous said...

Commenter 4, you sound just like Nathan. Nathan likes to blog about himself on message boards in the third person. Who else would know about his three year term at Ithaca.

Nathan does not put animals first. He thinks it's okay to overcrowd shelters. "Keep all cages completely full." This isn't humane. Showing a sick animal in with healthy ones makes them all sick. Putting three pitbulls in a cage will only leave one alive.

Nathan only cares about Nathan, his ego, and his money. He needs to get back to being a lawyer. Those attributes lend themselves better to that career.

Anonymous said...

"A long time ago I spent 10 years trying to build cross-cultural unity among various Buddhist temples and movements to no avail. They were all very self-centered and critical of others, not wanting to let anyone but themseleves be perceived as "the" spokesperson for Buddhism, and their brand of Buddhism being superior."

Yes, but it seems on of the reasons why a new movement arises is because it wants to be separated from the rest. That's the reason for so many cults, or sects, if you will, and that's why they form. It's like that with any religion. If you try to go cross-cultural by uniting all the sects, then you've got still another sect, only an ecumenical one. I think the diversity serves a purpose because people have unique personalities and needs. The sects appeal to those needs. In this way, people can pick and choose where they feel most comfortable and where they can do the most good.

Imagine combining Pureland with Zen, and Vajrayana w/ Mahayana. Sects grow out of each other. It's up to the individual to unify the best that he can get from each, sort of like Theosopy, or Liberation Theology.

Can you imagine formally uniting Liberation Theology with Protestant Fundamentalism? Or Zen with Mormonism and Fundamentialist Islam? Even trying to be ecumenical within the monotheisms is a struggle. That will only come when everyone walking the earth finds complete inner peace and there are no wars left, inner or external.

I do like the cross-cultural ideas, but when unity is not possible in the here and now, "seekers of the truth" can grow and benefit by doing their own cross-cultural research, find their own philosophies and theosophies, and thereby find their own inroads and make themselves a better people. That's what is so wonderful about the uniqueness of every person and every religion. Like art, music, and animals. Every artist and every creation has it's own unique, wonderful personality.

"Unity can move mountains."
These are ideals, and ideals are breathtaking and often mystical.

Imagine a bible-thumping Jehova's Witness carrying a conversation with a Catholic, or a left-wing protestant, democrat. You got oil and water here. Similar thing with most sects and cults, trying to mix with the original place where they arose. What they want is out, it seems to me.

I like your comments and your ideas...that's wisdom and poetry, and there's a real place for that in cleansing the soul and bringing one back to a place of harmony.

And for those people who you say that are against no-kill, they're not killing an idea as I see it. They're talking about how they see the present reality and the harm it causes.

Remember the Buddhist precept "do no harm?" Ahimsa is one of the most beautiful edicts of Therevada, but it takes work and everyone doing their part.

We really aren't going to reach complete no-kill until everything and everyone is perfected, and until everyone really understands a Buddhist precepts such as this, if nothing else from any other religion, philosophy, or sect.

It is consoling to know that these ideals exist, however. Like you, I think we can work toward these ideals as we keep trying to perfect ourselves and treat each other with humility and respect; but there again, it's a lot of work for each and every one of us on the planet, and it's ok take two steps forward and one back. Taking the steps is progress, as I see it.

I like your comments on religion. Religion and animals mix very well, as do all the beautiful things that were created for us to love and care for.