Winograd has polarized the animal welfare and rescue communities across the country. Some love him, some hate him. Some love the idea of no kill, others find it only a marketing tool.
Neither community presents much in terms of proof, although Winograd can point to shelter published statistics.
The naysayers present their observations and hearsay about what others have told them. One repeatedly cites Rancho Cucamonga and only tells of its failure and really does not provide any dates or names with contact numbers.
The pro-Winograd people generally supply statistics to prove improvement. The naysayers say these people are liars and are in it for donations. They also say that these shelters do not supply independent statistics. My comment would be they do provide something while the naysayers do not except acrimony.
If the naysayers want to be believed, they need to supply credible proof other than just hearsay about what others told them.
I am just blown away by how easily the animal community accepts the most ridiculous assertions as fact and get outraged--on any side of any issue.
For example, with regard to my Pierce allegations, I present documents and printed articles. Many have photos.
One cannot claim to know anything for certain without providing proof that their observations are accurate. No one in any scientific community, from physics to sociology to demographics, would ever accept as proof the statement, "Trust me, I know everything." In fact, such an attitude would be laughed at because so many fraudulent claims made without proof or suport.
Foremost among the frauds is Clifton Merritt whose claim to authority is his claim to authority--40 years in the field of animal statistics. He really never provides any proof and when asked, says "Look at my body of work and. "Everyone who is anyone, says I am terrific."
For the Cucamonga claim, you'd need to have statistics as to the shelters' statistics before 2005, during 2005, and after 2005 when Winograd's "plan" was being implemented.
I have seen no facts, only claims by Naysayers, or observations by Naysayer's friends and acquaintances.
On the other side, one commonly accepted belief in the animal rescue community is that manditory spay/neuter is the answer. Yet, during the past three years LAAS has made a dramatic improvement in spay/neuter efforts (36,000 to 44,000 plus 2 city-owned opened spay/neuter clinics, with no real reduction in impounds during those years. Indeed, during the last 8-9 months there has been a dramatic increase in impounds. The spay/neuter people do not explain this.
They hold onto spay/neuter solutions with extraordinary disregard for statistics that go against their viewpoint as lies for donations. They don't even touch recent stats here but talk about failures in some distant town and maybe refer to a news article about success or failure there.
As to the claim that after a shelter is announced no-kill, impounds dramatically increase along with kill rates, this "common sense" point of view is contradicted in LA, and Reno and Philly.
LA's impound numbers have been steady for the last three years and almost totally plateaued for six years (except for the last 8 months) despite the fact of Boks' repeated contentions that LA is close to no-kill. Impounds have not increased at all except during the past eight months and Ed blames that on foreclosures.
According to Naysayers, impound rates should have dramatically increased since May of 2006 when he published his fantastic decrease in killing during his first 6 months, saying LA was rapidly approaching no-kill. It didn't.
It should have dramatically increased in April of 2007 when he announced March was LA's first No-Kill month. It didn't.
In addition, the adoption rate has dramatically increased in LA during the past 2-1/2 years, by a little over 30%, meaning demand has increased. Actually it does not mean demand has increased, it means supply has been made more readily available through increased adoption efforts, new shelters and more outreach. Demand may have been increased a little through PR.
The same with Philly. According to their statistics, which Naysayer denies because she thinks they lie, as does anyone with a different viewpoint or experience lies.
She bases almost all of her observations on her experience with Rancho Cucamonga. She has not seen the Philly, Reno, Charlottesville or San Francisco shelters in the last 2 years. She refuses to accept their numbers calling them all liars because they want to appear to be no-kill to get more donations.
According to the Philly stats, impounds have decreased every year since the Winograd consult while adoptions have increased and eithanasia decreased.
Naysays will send me articles of claimed failures in Philly or Rancho, but these are only claimed, ad hoc, observations of failure. I talked to the reporter who wrote the article that Naysayer sent me, and he said though there were claims of failure of the shelter, even by Winograd, the statistics did not worsen, but only failed to improve with the rapidity they did before. I am sure Naysays did not call and talk to the reporter.
I have given this person a free run to express her opinion. I am sure she will say what I am saying now is denegrating her once again. This is not true. I am constanttly appalled by her lack of facts and how strongly she opposes No-Kill and Winograd without proof, or proof based on hearsay about Rancho Cuvamonga.
She states she has not hatred of Winograd yet complains that Nathan has threaten to sue her twice. Winograd repudiates her opinion and she attacks him. She attacked me by calling me uninformed or not listening to her even though she knows better because she has spayed/neuter 100 times as many cats, or she "laughs" at my inexperience. Only she should be believed.
Experience does not trump science.