I am having difficulty walking the line between criticizing Winograd and praising him.
I often refer to him as what he says about no kill and the obvious truth of what he says as well as being impressed by his analyses of shelter operations, rather than about him as a person.
I think he is not so good at assessing the resources needed to implement his recommendations, or ways to sustain no kill if and when achieved.
But mostly when I defend Nathan I am actually defending his his concepts and the goal of a no kill nation.
When I appear to defend him in this blog, I am actually defending his ideas.
I find many attacks on the ideas and strategies of no kill unwarranted or based on poor logic or no facts. Some of the attackers even demand I post any and all facts that support the no kill concept, which they then choose to shoot down without any facts or logic on their side. It is up to me to do everything and they can merely criticize.
If you just attack the notion of no kill, what has that accomplished?
If you attack certain of Nathan's recommendations without adding some codicil or alternative formulation, what has that accomplished?
If out of spite for Nathan as a self-promoting individual "asshole" as one shelter director called him, I understand that and can welcome that kind of dialogue. But just assuming no kill is impossible is a disservice to all animals in shelters in the US.
I choose to start from the notion that 'no kill' is possible using Ed Boks' definition: The animals who are killed are done so based on criteria reached by a compassionate owner or vet. This is as stronger or stronger than Winograd's definition. It is an ideal.
I don't care whether this ideal can reached or not, it is a goal I choose to support.
Without a belief it is possible, there can be no will to make it so. If there is no will to make it happen, it will not happen.
Therefore, if you want to comment here, it is fine to criticize Winograd, calling him a jerk, liar, self-serving sociopath, or whatever, but if you attack the concept of no kill without citing reasons based on fact, I will no longer post those comments. I will not be a sounding board for the unending litany of a few who say that no kill will never work based on illogical or hypothetical assumptions.
Yes, even if you attack Winograd, give specific reasons you call him a liar or fake, or a sociopath. Tell us specific details. Tell us who he has threatened to sue and why.
We can all see the viciousness of his attacks on any and all and see how that reflects on him to the detriment of his mission. But if you criticize, please be specific.If you attack parts of his plan to implement no kill, please provide logical, fact-based arguments, not just opinion. This blog is not a free for all. The whole motivation is to have a no kill nation. Keep that in mind. Offer alternative solutions to that end, or specific reasons why one of his pillars of belief is unfounded. But please be fact based and logical.
The same holds true for TNR. If you have an opinion one way or the other, make it logical and do not make it based on assumptions or hypothetical arguments that have no ground in fact.
I don't like posts that talk about TN & Run. Or comments that talk about the immorality of TNR or shelter crowding and how the latter inevitably leads to higher died in shelter rates. That may be happening at LAAS, but if the turnover is high enough, there are sufficient isolation cages, and animals are given quick acting vaccines the moment of impound, I do not see that a a necessity.
I see for every supposed problem there is or may be a solution. It is that I am trying to get from you.
THE SAME HOLDS TRUE FOR BOKS.
I will try to refrain from attacking him unless criticism is fact-based.
That he was fired from NYC is old news. Ditto his problems at Maricopa. I am interested what he is doing here, now. I am interested in knowing why/how kittens stopped showing up last May and whether it will happen again. But this, I mean facts, not speculation. Is there a witness?
I am interested in info about specific busts, raids, department policies, employee problems, CHANGES AND IMPROVEMENTS IN LAAS, SUCH AS BETTER OR WORSE FUNCTIONING. That is, I want to go more balanced and positive.
If more animals are being medically treated successfully this year compared to last, I'd like to hear about it. If there are more spay/neuter certificates given out than last year, I want to hear about it. I'd like to hear about the success or failure of LAAS' in-house surgeries.