.
This was just emailed to me.
It is a new sister blog. There are a whole bunch of No-Kill bloggers now. We are a growing menace to useless and immoral shelter killing. It has to stop now!
It doesn't matter where you live, your e-mails will make a difference. Please e-mail our Kern County Supervisors and our Director and our Kern County Animal Control Commissioners at the link below:
http://deadpups.blogspot.com/
Thank you for helping us help the animals in Kern County.
NYC Shelter Ad Campaign
PETS’ “WANTED” MUG SHOTS TO APPEAR
ON NEW YORK CITY KIOSKIS AND BUSES
Bernadette Peters is an animal rights activist who has adopted two rescue dogs, one from AC&C. She will help unveil the ads before they roll out across Manhattan later in the day, appearing on 60 vertical phone kiosks, 90 bus tails, and 55 bus shelters. The fully integrated campaign has also been incorporated onto the Web and an online community has been established. In addition, there will be emails, postcards, T-shirts and street teams.
ON NEW YORK CITY KIOSKIS AND BUSES
Bernadette Peters is an animal rights activist who has adopted two rescue dogs, one from AC&C. She will help unveil the ads before they roll out across Manhattan later in the day, appearing on 60 vertical phone kiosks, 90 bus tails, and 55 bus shelters. The fully integrated campaign has also been incorporated onto the Web and an online community has been established. In addition, there will be emails, postcards, T-shirts and street teams.
The new campaign was conceived and designed by Unit 7, a Manhattan-based relationship marketing firm that specializes in “behavior change.” “We are thrilled to be able to apply our expertise in driving consumer behavior to such an important and emotional cause,” said Joe Cupani, Vice Chairman and Chief Creative Officer at Unit 7. “Our campaign is designed to appeal to both the head and the heart. Indeed, if successful, the animals appearing in our mug shots should be ‘most wanted.’” The dramatic black and white images for the campaign were shot by commercial/art photographer
Howard Berman who donated his services. A former freelance journalist, Berman has worked with many major clients and has won many prestigious awards, including the Grand Prix at Cannes.
“I must confess – this was some of the best talent I’ve ever worked with,” said Berman, commenting on the animals who “posed” for the campaign. “I’ve always enjoyed documenting our furry and feathered friends in my work, and to know that these photographs will help Animal Care and Control help these animals in need is a very special feeling.
Effects of Nathan's Philly Consult Vs. HSUC Riverside Consult Vs. Boks
.
We were talking about shelter reform and many have suggested a Winograd consult followed by his picking top management. Of course you know the Mayor and Mayoral staff will hate this idea.
Certain others with a hate Winograd attitude say anyone but Nathan. One helpful person with an attitude stated others do consults, and I was given the 2004 HSUS consult report for Riverside County by Brad Jensen. The latter if 174 pages long and Nathan's 112
Nathan's was also a 2004 consult I believe..
You read them and judge their relative qualities.
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/linked/paccaassessment.pdf
http://www.clerkoftheboard.co.riverside.ca.us/agendas/2004/2004_08_10/16.03.pdf
More info on Riverside statistics by Brad Jensen are below. Take a look at these figures, they are important:
www.sheltertrak.com/downloads/riverside/
Besides the quality of the report, I like Nathan's better for a number of reasons, it seems more to the point and has a directive toward 90% save; HSUS does not.
But the quality of the report is not enough. There are areas in which I think both fail: how to implement; hour much additional time and budget is required to do all this; best use of volunteers to help staff; manpower analysis; how to get difficult employees out.
However, we can measure the perfomance of these two systems two years after the consults. How much impact the consults had on the current perfomance, I don't know. No one does.
Remember, Philly went from a Nathan speculation that Philly was an 85-90 kill before his consult and manager placement. For the past 12 months their stated kill rate was 39%. That is more than cutting euthanasia in half in two years.
Lets take a look now at Riverside for 2006 and 2007. The pie chart is supplied by Brad Jensen on sheltertrak.com. The difference is astounding:
CLICK ON ANY CHART TO MAKE IT LARGER
Remember, Philly is 39%, Riverside, 72%; Riverside kills about twice as many.
Who provided the better consult and subsequent management? Nathan, even though he says Philly is not making the progress they should and is backsliding. Even though the operations manager he touts has jumped ship. For Nathan, Philly is now a failure, yet they are doing twice as well as Riverside.
Now, let's take LA Animal Services under Boks. We know for sure his 2006 stats are not credible because he was refusing kittens and ferals. The first year he started, as I remember, his kill aret for cats was way over 60%, and I don't have a 2006 pie chart but look, for 2007 through January 2008:
Therefore, whatever happened after the 2005 HSUS consult has led to increased impounds and killing in 2007, while Nathan's consult led to over a 55% reduction of killing.
Boks had an 11% reduction. What does this tell you?
However both consults were weak on implementation, budgeting and manpower. There was no analysis to how many hours it took to do much what was being done vs. how many how and organization and structural change it would take to implement Nathan's or the HSUS recommendations. This is a HUGE omission by both.
..
We were talking about shelter reform and many have suggested a Winograd consult followed by his picking top management. Of course you know the Mayor and Mayoral staff will hate this idea.
Certain others with a hate Winograd attitude say anyone but Nathan. One helpful person with an attitude stated others do consults, and I was given the 2004 HSUS consult report for Riverside County by Brad Jensen. The latter if 174 pages long and Nathan's 112
Nathan's was also a 2004 consult I believe..
You read them and judge their relative qualities.
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/linked/paccaassessment.pdf
http://www.clerkoftheboard.co.riverside.ca.us/agendas/2004/2004_08_10/16.03.pdf
More info on Riverside statistics by Brad Jensen are below. Take a look at these figures, they are important:
www.sheltertrak.com/downloads/riverside/
Besides the quality of the report, I like Nathan's better for a number of reasons, it seems more to the point and has a directive toward 90% save; HSUS does not.
But the quality of the report is not enough. There are areas in which I think both fail: how to implement; hour much additional time and budget is required to do all this; best use of volunteers to help staff; manpower analysis; how to get difficult employees out.
However, we can measure the perfomance of these two systems two years after the consults. How much impact the consults had on the current perfomance, I don't know. No one does.
Remember, Philly went from a Nathan speculation that Philly was an 85-90 kill before his consult and manager placement. For the past 12 months their stated kill rate was 39%. That is more than cutting euthanasia in half in two years.
Lets take a look now at Riverside for 2006 and 2007. The pie chart is supplied by Brad Jensen on sheltertrak.com. The difference is astounding:
CLICK ON ANY CHART TO MAKE IT LARGER
Remember, Philly is 39%, Riverside, 72%; Riverside kills about twice as many.
Who provided the better consult and subsequent management? Nathan, even though he says Philly is not making the progress they should and is backsliding. Even though the operations manager he touts has jumped ship. For Nathan, Philly is now a failure, yet they are doing twice as well as Riverside.
Now, let's take LA Animal Services under Boks. We know for sure his 2006 stats are not credible because he was refusing kittens and ferals. The first year he started, as I remember, his kill aret for cats was way over 60%, and I don't have a 2006 pie chart but look, for 2007 through January 2008:
Two years after Ed,there has been--at best--a 12% reduction vs. a 55% reduction for Nathan's Philly.
In addition, the HSUS consult does not really emphasize decreasing the killing as a main point, or decreasing intake. I can't find it now, but somewhere the HSUS calculated a 2003-2004 impound number as 28,000. As you can see it was well over 31,o00 in 2006 and has increased to about 33,000 in 2006-07.Therefore, whatever happened after the 2005 HSUS consult has led to increased impounds and killing in 2007, while Nathan's consult led to over a 55% reduction of killing.
Boks had an 11% reduction. What does this tell you?
However both consults were weak on implementation, budgeting and manpower. There was no analysis to how many hours it took to do much what was being done vs. how many how and organization and structural change it would take to implement Nathan's or the HSUS recommendations. This is a HUGE omission by both.
..
THE KILLING FIELDS OF KERN COUNTY
The article below will make you sick and the video sicker. The killing has to stop. To endlessly argue whether it is the public that is the cause, not the shelters, or admit that the best immediate end to killing starts at shelter reform, and whether Winograd or HSUS should consult is not the point. Many of you guys are locked in death throws of blame and mutual hatred. Because of your hatreds, ending the killing is barely happening.
Boks used to say when he was in Phoenix that the killing occurs in the shelter; this is where no kill efforts should be directed. Now he says it is spay/neuter.
The only solution is to have one united voice for change. We need a Clinton nuts and bolts type as opposed to the Obama "I have a dream type" to make that happen. You, me, united to force change in places like Kern County and LA. If we don't have that, we have endless failure. Do you continue to want that?
Every person in California should see the kill video below. That might change a lot of people, but given my low opinion of mankind, maybe not.
Kern's euthanization rates rising again
BY JAMES BURGER, Californian staff writer e-mail:jburger@bakersfield.comFriday, Mar 7 2008 11:20 AM
Death comes softly to the tan dog with the liquid brown eyes. In a few seconds, this male shepherd mix will be another dog added to the group of dogs, upper right, that have euthanized at Kern County Animal Control.
The needle goes in.
The injection is made. And the dog, his muzzle wrapped with a leash to prevent a final bite, slumps over dead.
Animal care workers pull his corpse five feet across the concrete floor into a small pile of other dead dogs.
Kern County, after three years of controversy and reform, still hasn’t embraced a plan that would one day make the recently euthanized tan dog the last healthy, friendly animal dragged into that pile.
LOSING GROUND
In 2004, newspaper stories and lawsuits highlighted Kern’s tragic euthanasia rates and the public responded.
Animal adoptions grew. Kern County Animal Control partnered with rescue groups to save thousands of shelter animals. County supervisors doubled the animal control budget to $4.6 million.
Euthanizations decreased from 18,171 in the 2004-2005 fiscal year to 16,743 in 2006-2007.
But nobody, private nor public, did much to address the cause of the high kill rates — the tide of animals flowing into county shelters.
So by mid-2007, animal population growth began to erase the three years of progress the community made to save animals.
Shelter kill numbers have topped last year’s totals by more than 100 animals in each of the months between June 2007 and January 2008.
In all of calendar year 2007, Kern County euthanized 18,669 animals — two of every three in its care. That’s 3,660 more animals than the city of Los Angeles killed last year, despite L.A. having 3 million more people than Kern.
And it’s 498 more than died in 2004-2005.
“We’re being overwhelmed by the growth of our communities and the inadequacy of our current program,” said David Price, director of the agency that oversees animal control.
'OVER MY DEAD BODY'
Bakersfield resident Kerri Hanson believes spaying and neutering animals is the best solution to overpopulation. Nobody disputes that.
Hanson told the Kern County Animal Control Commission in February it should mandate spay-neuter. She got an icy reception.
“Over my dead body,” murmured Tehachapi dog trainer Teri Kahn from the back of the room. “If my government is going to tell me, at a certain age, I’ve got to take my female (dog) and submit her to government-required sterilization, doesn’t that sound awfully draconian?” Kahn asked rhetorically in a subsequent interview. “What we’re saying is ‘You’re too stupid to think for yourself, so government is going to think for you.’”
The commission rejected mandatory spay-neuter nearly two years ago — with little debate or investigation.
“Enforcement and education are the biggest things we have going forward,” said commission member and animal trainer Janice Anderson. “Mandatory spay-neuter is not the answer.”
Hanson said animal breeders have packed commission meetings to make it seem like the general public doesn’t want mandatory spay neuter.
Price and Supervisor Don Maben say mandatory spay neuter may one day be the answer, but not now. “I’m going to need more enforcement capacity (animal control officers) or we will be subject to the legitimate criticism that we need to enforce the laws we’ve got before we put new laws in place,” Price said.
But it has been done. The Los Angeles City Council recently passed a mandatory spay and neuter law because, it believed, making unaltered animals illegal was the only way to get kill numbers to zero.
A statewide version of the law — proposed in 2007 by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine — would take the county off the hook by requiring spay and neuter, Price said. That Healthy Pets Act is stalled in a Senate committee after being approved by the Assembly last year. Maben said he prefers a comprehensive state law. A county ordinance wouldn’t affect incorporated cities like Bakersfield, Shafter and Taft.
CHANGE AGENTS
The Board of Supervisors created the Kern County Animal Control Commission two years ago to investigate and advocate for solutions to the county’s killing problem.
So far it has worked to require permits for keeping large numbers of pets and to increase shelter fees on unaltered animals. The rules are designed to fight animal abuse and hoarding.
But in all reality, Price said, the ordinance changes will do little to solve the animal overpopulation problem. And even those changes have been stalled for months by vocal opposition from animal breeders and trainers.
“Right now I just want them to get through so we have some regulations on hoarders and kennels and move on (to) the next (issue),” Maben said. Board member Anderson thinks the new rules will help pay for education, enforcement and low-cost sterilizations.“We need money so we can have manpower,” she said.
Price said enforcing the ordinance might even be a waste of his staff’s time.
“I would rather have some sort of program that gets at the high numbers of animals. I would rather (officers) did community education rather than chasing people with six to 10 animals to make sure they have a permit,” he said.
FIRST STEPS
Denise Haynes, county animal control chief, said some sort of local low-cost spay and neuter program has to be created.
Her department is just now beginning to work with local veterinarians to create a voucher system that would distribute $100,000 this year to people who need help paying for spay and neuter surgeries.
But that money, most of which sits unspent eight months into the county’s fiscal year, would only reduce the cost of a surgery by around $60, Price said. Surgery on a large female dog can cost $200 or more from a local veterinarian. Several local non-profits also offer such vouchers.
And the Fresno-based HOPE Animal Foundation picks up 100 animals from Kern County a couple times each month to be spayed and neutered up north at half the cost Kern County vets charge. But right now, that’s it.
“People all the time say, ‘Well the county should have a spay/neuter program,’” Haynes said. “Are you willing to pay a special assessment for it? Are you willing to have fewer paved roads? Are you willing to have fewer sheriff’s officers so the money can come here?”
Voluntary spay-neuter programs can make a big difference.
Years of low-cost clinics and programs helped Los Angeles drop its kill rate to 15,009 animals from more than 37,833 in 2001. A full-time, low-cost spay-neuter clinic in Kern County wouldn’t bring immediate results.
“It takes at least six years to make a difference,” said Whitney Mayeda of the HOPE Animal Foundation.
SOLUTIONS
Nothing Kern County can do will stop the killing tomorrow. And any solution paid for by the county is going to cost taxpayers. Los Angeles’ Department of Animal Services has a budget of $21.3 million this year. Kern County is spending only $4.6 million.
“There really aren’t any easy solutions,” Price said.
But there is a problem. And, Price said, Kern County and its citizens have a moral responsibility to implement a solution.
“By any rational measure the euthanization rates we have in this county are unconscionable,” he said.
Kern County animal control: By the numbers:
28,241: Animals cared for by Animal Control in 2007
18,669: Animals euthanized
3,145: Animals adopted
1,692: Animals returned to their owners
Reasons for euthanization;
3,555: Dogs that failed behavior tests
3,354: Puppies and kittens that were too young
2,474: Animals that were feral
2,333: Animals too sick
Presumably thousands: Animals killed because there isn’t enough room in shelters. The county doesn’t keep track of exactly how many.
EVERYONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO SEE THE KILLING BELOW
http://www.bakersfield.com/multimedia/
For more information of the Kern County mess, see:
Boks Legal Fund, STAR?
.
As Mike Bell and others have pointed out, STAR is a sham. Practically no money has been raised. When I asked one vet whether an injured cat could be treated under STAR, he asked me, "What is that?"
At a town meeting last June, neither Boks nor Linda Barth were able to recall even a dime spend on any animal from STAR.
But the LAAS' website has STAR donations smack in the middle of the home page. So, if you want to give to Boks' legal defense fund, please donate to STAR.
PS: Boks has been making the rounds at various social events and parties to bad mouth and denigrate a person who is suing him and the department---so I hear. His presence is noted by a photo of him at an event where he never would have been expected.
.
As Mike Bell and others have pointed out, STAR is a sham. Practically no money has been raised. When I asked one vet whether an injured cat could be treated under STAR, he asked me, "What is that?"
At a town meeting last June, neither Boks nor Linda Barth were able to recall even a dime spend on any animal from STAR.
But the LAAS' website has STAR donations smack in the middle of the home page. So, if you want to give to Boks' legal defense fund, please donate to STAR.
PS: Boks has been making the rounds at various social events and parties to bad mouth and denigrate a person who is suing him and the department---so I hear. His presence is noted by a photo of him at an event where he never would have been expected.
.
We Need to Know
.
LAAS has always been weak on analyses of the reasons for impounds, animal demographics and shelter operations.
May I suggest yet again for the 50th time that Boks hire someone to do analyses of these variables? We have got the know the nature of the problems facing LAAS and based on that, strategies for solutions. This is very simple operations analysis. Hire a consultant for six months to run all the numbers for the last five years, allowing LAAS to build a predictive model of intakes including areas and numbers.
To satisfy the animal welfare/rescue community, the City has to hire Winograd for a shelter analysis. It is not necessary for all shelters, but pick two, maybe the two worst. Have Nathan do the analyses, help select the managers for those two shelters, and shift personnel around best to see if that makes for significant improvement in those two shelters' performance figures.
I am becoming less hopeful that massive structural changes can be made in LAAS or County unless the mayor gets behind the change 100%. This is not going to happen. I fear that unless a management superstar is brought in as a new GM, improvement will be slow and uneven. How to select that superstar? Who will apply?
My solution is to isolate the two worst performing shelters, do an analysis of operations, appoint the best managers in LAAS to run those shelters, shift better personnel to those shelters and see what happens. If marked improvement can be made in a year, there will be substantial support for the idea that real no kill is possible.
LAAS has always been weak on analyses of the reasons for impounds, animal demographics and shelter operations.
May I suggest yet again for the 50th time that Boks hire someone to do analyses of these variables? We have got the know the nature of the problems facing LAAS and based on that, strategies for solutions. This is very simple operations analysis. Hire a consultant for six months to run all the numbers for the last five years, allowing LAAS to build a predictive model of intakes including areas and numbers.
To satisfy the animal welfare/rescue community, the City has to hire Winograd for a shelter analysis. It is not necessary for all shelters, but pick two, maybe the two worst. Have Nathan do the analyses, help select the managers for those two shelters, and shift personnel around best to see if that makes for significant improvement in those two shelters' performance figures.
I am becoming less hopeful that massive structural changes can be made in LAAS or County unless the mayor gets behind the change 100%. This is not going to happen. I fear that unless a management superstar is brought in as a new GM, improvement will be slow and uneven. How to select that superstar? Who will apply?
My solution is to isolate the two worst performing shelters, do an analysis of operations, appoint the best managers in LAAS to run those shelters, shift better personnel to those shelters and see what happens. If marked improvement can be made in a year, there will be substantial support for the idea that real no kill is possible.
Impound Numbers Skyrocket
.
Impounds for cats and dogs have risen to rates not seen for the last four years. Why?
I hope LAAS can release an analysis of the source of these high intake numbers. Some suspect it is due to foreclosures, that is, owner surrenders. It could be due to those same foreclosures have resulted in more animals being abandoned.
While the impounds of dogs has risen substantially, the impound levels for cats has bumped only a bit over the last few months, although there was a larger bump this past January.
Perhaps Boks will provide a timely analysis of impound causes so that rescues can coordinate with the shelters for both short and long term mitigation.
Of course, unless adoptions substantially increase, no matter what the reason for impound, there will be increased killing.
Hey Ed, how about monthly analyses of the numbers?
.
Impounds for cats and dogs have risen to rates not seen for the last four years. Why?
I hope LAAS can release an analysis of the source of these high intake numbers. Some suspect it is due to foreclosures, that is, owner surrenders. It could be due to those same foreclosures have resulted in more animals being abandoned.
While the impounds of dogs has risen substantially, the impound levels for cats has bumped only a bit over the last few months, although there was a larger bump this past January.
Perhaps Boks will provide a timely analysis of impound causes so that rescues can coordinate with the shelters for both short and long term mitigation.
Of course, unless adoptions substantially increase, no matter what the reason for impound, there will be increased killing.
Hey Ed, how about monthly analyses of the numbers?
.
LAAS Responds to My Request For Records
.
LAAS has responded positively to my Request for Records. They have 270 pages they will send me. This should answer a lot of questions and raise more.
Unfortunately I have been sick and using my last bit of energy to write psychological reports. I'll let you know what I find out in a week or so.
LAAS has responded positively to my Request for Records. They have 270 pages they will send me. This should answer a lot of questions and raise more.
Unfortunately I have been sick and using my last bit of energy to write psychological reports. I'll let you know what I find out in a week or so.
An Excellent Compendium of California Animal Laws
.
This is a booklet of animal laws. It is not a how to book or even an interpretation of what the laws mean. It is a good thing to have, although we have found out it doesn't mean much without a lawyer.
http://www.animallawresource.com/ALEFG_0306.pdf
.
This is a booklet of animal laws. It is not a how to book or even an interpretation of what the laws mean. It is a good thing to have, although we have found out it doesn't mean much without a lawyer.
http://www.animallawresource.com/ALEFG_0306.pdf
.
Groundrules and the Purpose of this Blog
.
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.
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.
.
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.
.
Health Benefits of Cats
.
From the LA Times today:
By Jeannine Stein, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer March 3, 2008
CAT owners are often fiercely loyal to their furry companions -- and such devotion may be rewarded in a surprising way: Owning a cat may lower one's risk of dying from a heart attack.
Non-cat owners appear to have a 40% higher risk of dying from myocardial infarction than those who don't have a cat, according to a study presented at the American Stroke Assn.'s International Stroke Conference last month in New Orleans.
Researchers examined the data of 4,435 people from the second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. (Dogs didn't factor into the findings because fewer participants owned them.)
"The big question is," says lead author Dr. Adnan Qureshi, executive director of the Minnesota Stroke Institute, "is this the direct effect of having a cat or a variable of people who own cats?"Adds Qureshi: "There isn't enough evidence to recommend [getting a cat] as a standard practice. But the flip side is that unlike other medical interventions, which have a risk and a cost associated with it, this has minimal risk and isn't as costly. There's not much harm to it."jeannine.stein@latimes.com
.
From the LA Times today:
By Jeannine Stein, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer March 3, 2008
CAT owners are often fiercely loyal to their furry companions -- and such devotion may be rewarded in a surprising way: Owning a cat may lower one's risk of dying from a heart attack.
Non-cat owners appear to have a 40% higher risk of dying from myocardial infarction than those who don't have a cat, according to a study presented at the American Stroke Assn.'s International Stroke Conference last month in New Orleans.
Researchers examined the data of 4,435 people from the second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. (Dogs didn't factor into the findings because fewer participants owned them.)
"The big question is," says lead author Dr. Adnan Qureshi, executive director of the Minnesota Stroke Institute, "is this the direct effect of having a cat or a variable of people who own cats?"Adds Qureshi: "There isn't enough evidence to recommend [getting a cat] as a standard practice. But the flip side is that unlike other medical interventions, which have a risk and a cost associated with it, this has minimal risk and isn't as costly. There's not much harm to it."jeannine.stein@latimes.com
.
Carson Animal Shelter Candlelight Vigil, April 5
Carson Animal Shelter Candlelight Vigil
Carson Animal Shelter216 West Victoria StreetGardena, CA 90248
During fiscal year 2007, the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control killed 52,800 of the 85,975 animals they impounded. That’s a 61.4% kill rate. Those animals deserve to be more than just a statistic. Join us in remembering the animals killed by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control in a candlelight vigil on
Saturday, April 5, 2008 from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM at the Carson Animal Shelter.
On Sunday, April 6, 2008, Los Angeles County shelters will be closed to the public, and that is when the most killing will take place. This candlelight vigil will also remember those animals that will be killed on Sunday.
The candlelight vigil will feature speakers who had animals that they were going to rescue or adopt needlessly killed by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control and those who had animals they were going to rescue or adopt die at a Los Angeles County shelter due to the neglect of the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control.
If you’d like to speak at the candlelight vigil or to RSVP, contact Ryan Olshan at Ryan.Olshan@strongtypes.com.
.
Carson Animal Shelter216 West Victoria StreetGardena, CA 90248
During fiscal year 2007, the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control killed 52,800 of the 85,975 animals they impounded. That’s a 61.4% kill rate. Those animals deserve to be more than just a statistic. Join us in remembering the animals killed by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control in a candlelight vigil on
Saturday, April 5, 2008 from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM at the Carson Animal Shelter.
On Sunday, April 6, 2008, Los Angeles County shelters will be closed to the public, and that is when the most killing will take place. This candlelight vigil will also remember those animals that will be killed on Sunday.
The candlelight vigil will feature speakers who had animals that they were going to rescue or adopt needlessly killed by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control and those who had animals they were going to rescue or adopt die at a Los Angeles County shelter due to the neglect of the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control.
If you’d like to speak at the candlelight vigil or to RSVP, contact Ryan Olshan at Ryan.Olshan@strongtypes.com.
.
TRANSPARENCY
.
There are so many claims about No Kill. Ithaca has it, Charlottesville has it, Philly almost had it, and Mayeda doesn't have a clue.
One of the reasons for the war is we have so few real facts.
Only Boks posts full and complete statistics about his shelters’ success and failure. Let me repeat that, only Boks publishes all the statistics on all of the animals on a month to months basis.
It is based on his stats that many of us recognized his complete failure in 2006 through March 2007, when he became creative with stats and juggling animals. Now we do not know how accurate these complete statistics are.
Philly publishes only quarterly stats, and just of euthanasia vs. live save. It does not break live save into categories, such as RTO, adopted, fostered, rescued, etc. It does not list died in shelter. It is two months behind. The entire last quarter of 2007 is missing.
http://www.phillypaws.org/pdfs/save%20rates%20_%202004-2007_v1.pdf
San Francisco municipal shelter and the SFSPCA---neither publish the complete monthly statistics for: impounded, adopted, RTO, fostered, died in shelter, euthanized.
Maricopa County has a different method (Maddies) of publishing statistics. But get this; they claim not one healthy animal was euthanized even though they killed 57% of all animals. Also interesting is that they impounded MORE than three times as many dogs as cats. This is highly unusual.
http://www.maricopa.gov/pets/pdf/MaddiesStats.pdf
New York City publishes an abbreviated list of statistics, listing just impounds adoptions, euth, and RTO. There is no info on fosters, died in shelter, rescues, lost, stolen, etc. NYC's stats are second behind LAAS' in terms completeness.
Personally, I don't like the Maddies' format because the categories are too subjective, like adoptable, treatable, etc.
http://www.nycacc.org/pdfs/Jan2008/intake-outcome-2008-cats.pdf
Of course LA County has no stats listed on their site. County is a horrible mess. The only stats we really have are posted by Brad Jensen on www.sheltertrak.com.
http://animalcare.lacounty.gov/your%20dacc.asp
Charlottesville, N.C., one of Nathan's touted successes, posts only very incomplete statistics, and only for 2006. No information on 2007 or 2008.
http://www.caspca.org/images/2006AnnualReport.pdf
Again, it lists only "in care" which I assume may mean total impounds, adoption, RTO and euth. All the other categories are missing, such as died in shelter. If you add all the figures, the Adoption, euth and TRO figures only account for 84% of the animals.
Despite asking Susanne twice for more recent and complete statistics, I have heard nothing from her.
Tompkins County, SPCA, the shelter that made Winograd's reputation, now lists statistics for 2005 and 2006, both the old way and the new Maddies’ way.
http://www.spcaonline.com/stats.htm
One thing that shocked me: TC has only about 2,350 impounds a year, about 1/20th of Los Angeles City! I think I could place that many animals myself from Ron Mason's house. (Jeez, this is humor.)
I think a reputation built on such a small scale system alone does not make one a no kill guru.Nathan would have to show success on a larger scale to prove an open admission shelter of significant size can reach and maintain a no kill status.
Now if Philly is failing—supposedly; Charlottesville is not answering questions and Ithaca may have to become a kill shelter if the really cheap, cheap, Tompkins County and local municipalities do not want to cough up another $45,000, and TCSPCA being only about 1/3 the size of any one of LAAS's shelters, that leaves only one open admission no-kill shelter now being touted by Nathan: Nevada Humane.
I talked to Bonnie Brown at some length and she sent me some statistics. The kill, died in shelter, adopt and rescue stats account for only about 65%. She stated the remaining animals are mostly returned to owner, but I am still waiting for those stats, which she was developing when I called. She said such a high RTO was accomplished mainly because of one individual on the County side who worked wonders in locating owners. I have yet to talk to him.
http://www.itisnotreal.com/Reno-Bonnie-Brownpdf.pdf
I will assume that any shelter that claims to be truly no kill will publish all their statistics. If they do not, I will not accept their claim.
But, even if there is not even one no kill open admission shelter of any significant size now, that does not mean there cannot be one tomorrow. It is a matter of will, resources and management.
.
There are so many claims about No Kill. Ithaca has it, Charlottesville has it, Philly almost had it, and Mayeda doesn't have a clue.
One of the reasons for the war is we have so few real facts.
Only Boks posts full and complete statistics about his shelters’ success and failure. Let me repeat that, only Boks publishes all the statistics on all of the animals on a month to months basis.
It is based on his stats that many of us recognized his complete failure in 2006 through March 2007, when he became creative with stats and juggling animals. Now we do not know how accurate these complete statistics are.
Philly publishes only quarterly stats, and just of euthanasia vs. live save. It does not break live save into categories, such as RTO, adopted, fostered, rescued, etc. It does not list died in shelter. It is two months behind. The entire last quarter of 2007 is missing.
http://www.phillypaws.org/pdfs/save%20rates%20_%202004-2007_v1.pdf
San Francisco municipal shelter and the SFSPCA---neither publish the complete monthly statistics for: impounded, adopted, RTO, fostered, died in shelter, euthanized.
Maricopa County has a different method (Maddies) of publishing statistics. But get this; they claim not one healthy animal was euthanized even though they killed 57% of all animals. Also interesting is that they impounded MORE than three times as many dogs as cats. This is highly unusual.
http://www.maricopa.gov/pets/pdf/MaddiesStats.pdf
New York City publishes an abbreviated list of statistics, listing just impounds adoptions, euth, and RTO. There is no info on fosters, died in shelter, rescues, lost, stolen, etc. NYC's stats are second behind LAAS' in terms completeness.
Personally, I don't like the Maddies' format because the categories are too subjective, like adoptable, treatable, etc.
http://www.nycacc.org/pdfs/Jan2008/intake-outcome-2008-cats.pdf
Of course LA County has no stats listed on their site. County is a horrible mess. The only stats we really have are posted by Brad Jensen on www.sheltertrak.com.
http://animalcare.lacounty.gov/your%20dacc.asp
Charlottesville, N.C., one of Nathan's touted successes, posts only very incomplete statistics, and only for 2006. No information on 2007 or 2008.
http://www.caspca.org/images/2006AnnualReport.pdf
Again, it lists only "in care" which I assume may mean total impounds, adoption, RTO and euth. All the other categories are missing, such as died in shelter. If you add all the figures, the Adoption, euth and TRO figures only account for 84% of the animals.
Despite asking Susanne twice for more recent and complete statistics, I have heard nothing from her.
Tompkins County, SPCA, the shelter that made Winograd's reputation, now lists statistics for 2005 and 2006, both the old way and the new Maddies’ way.
http://www.spcaonline.com/stats.htm
One thing that shocked me: TC has only about 2,350 impounds a year, about 1/20th of Los Angeles City! I think I could place that many animals myself from Ron Mason's house. (Jeez, this is humor.)
I think a reputation built on such a small scale system alone does not make one a no kill guru.Nathan would have to show success on a larger scale to prove an open admission shelter of significant size can reach and maintain a no kill status.
Now if Philly is failing—supposedly; Charlottesville is not answering questions and Ithaca may have to become a kill shelter if the really cheap, cheap, Tompkins County and local municipalities do not want to cough up another $45,000, and TCSPCA being only about 1/3 the size of any one of LAAS's shelters, that leaves only one open admission no-kill shelter now being touted by Nathan: Nevada Humane.
I talked to Bonnie Brown at some length and she sent me some statistics. The kill, died in shelter, adopt and rescue stats account for only about 65%. She stated the remaining animals are mostly returned to owner, but I am still waiting for those stats, which she was developing when I called. She said such a high RTO was accomplished mainly because of one individual on the County side who worked wonders in locating owners. I have yet to talk to him.
http://www.itisnotreal.com/Reno-Bonnie-Brownpdf.pdf
I will note that of all the more complete stats I found anywhere, the died in shelter stats for LAAS were the worst. However, nationally, the stats available are of very poor quality. Mostly the shelters give summaries, mostly self-serving, not the complete raw data.
I will assume that any shelter that claims to be truly no kill will publish all their statistics. If they do not, I will not accept their claim.
But, even if there is not even one no kill open admission shelter of any significant size now, that does not mean there cannot be one tomorrow. It is a matter of will, resources and management.
.
Peta Attacks Winograd
.
I what least enjoy about many in the animal community is the ease they find at holding onto any concept as the truth and the only way. You can see this in the comments left on this site.
Below is a Peta hit piece on Winograd. The author holds onto concepts which are going to doom many animals in the short-term.
If you accept spay/neuter as the only real solution to ending euthanasia, what if universal spay/neuter is never achieved? Then you will always be having killing as before—although not as much—while trying to find more and more ways to get pets sterilized.
To reject Winograd’s ideas by assuming a priori that they don’t work, or confusing open with private no kill shelters is a disservice to animals as it creates in the mind the inevitable need for killing.
The article:
http://www.helpinganimals.com/f-Winograd-No-Kill.asp?hanwnkggl&gclid=CMLquM7H7JECFRkGagodMGBmwA
Nathan Winograd's Redemption: No-Kill or No Clue?
"Every year, 6 to 8 million animals are left at U.S. animal shelters and half of them must be euthanized. The statistics alone show the severity of our country's companion animal overpopulation crisis. Yet one so-called animal advocate, Nathan Winograd, is trying to convince the public that overpopulation doesn't exist."
Misplaced Blame
“In his crusade to turn all animal shelters "no-kill," Winograd blames the shelter workers—who have devoted their lives to caring for homeless animals, giving them a chance at a home, and providing them with a painless death when no other humane alternative exists—for the euthanasia of millions of animals every year. This is akin to blaming hospitals for deadly diseases!”
(My commnent: Really? LAAS and County Animal Care and Control are like hospitals? Where? Uganda?)
“This false "logic" lets the real culprits off the hook: people who breed (or fail to spay or neuter) their animals and people who buy animals from pet stores or breeders instead of adopting homeless animals from shelters.”
My Comment: Blame the public? So, until you civilize and “educate” every irresponsible person in the U.S., what do you do to stop killing in the meantime?
“No one wants to see animals euthanized—least of all, those who hold the syringe—but denying that a crisis exists and blaming those who have devoted their lives to ending it solves nothing.”
My Comment: Peta should talk about compassionate treatment of companion animals with their 90% kill rate? Wow! That is hypocrisy.
Too Many Animals, Too Few Homes
“Winograd's calculations ignore the hundreds of thousands of puppies and kittens produced by breeders and sold in pet stores every year. When these animals are added to the millions of homeless animals who enter shelters each year, the number of animals in need of homes far exceeds the number of homes that are theoretically available to them.”
My Comment: How did this person come to this conclusion? No one knows the number of homes theoretically available—no one. There is no such thing as an inelastic or fixed demand for animals.
There are many factors that would influence demand: Cost of getting one (shelter vs. breeder); health condition of the animal at the point of adoption; accessibility of the animals to be adopted; appearance and ambience of the shelter; out-of-shelter adoption centers; adoption events; media coverage; advertising; the death rate of already housed animals; the rate of new homes being built and added population; changes in the law allowing more animals and/or disallowing landlords from discriminating against pet owners; increasing volunteer and foster bases of shelters; allowing Paris Hilton to get more dogs; banning breeders and sales in pet stores.
Actions in each of these areas will increase the demand for shelter pets. You absolutely cannot say that you cannot find a home for at least 90% of animals entering a shelter.
“After the Tompkins County SPCA in New York—where Winograd served as executive director and implemented a "no-kill" policy—became extremely crowded, it began accepting animals by appointment only and stacked animals in cages throughout the facility, including the laundry room and kitchen. According to the shelter's current executive director, the shelter slashed its adoption fees and lowered its standards for the homes in which it places animals—significantly increasing the risk of abuse and neglect—in an effort to move more animals out the door.”
My response is, “So?” If the crowding results in a 90% live save rate, and the health of the animals is maintained by having a high-enough turnover, so what?
Who is the current executive director being quoted? Winograd says there have been four since he left, and that TC is still no kill by the 90% definition. Is the current director accomplishing no kill by raising adoption fees, keeping cages empty and raised its adoption standards, or is the current manager accomplishing no kill the same way as Winograd?
“But when the shelter is full and there is no place to put even one more animal, what does a "no-kill" shelter do? Most simply refuse to take animals in, leaving them at the mercy of people who don't want them.”
“It's true that no-kill shelters don't euthanize animals, but by turning animals away, they sometimes condemn these same animals to terrifying, painful, and violent deaths. Open-admission animal shelters accept every dog, cat, bird, rabbit, hamster, rat, and any other animal who comes through their doors.”
My comments:
The assumption here is that an open admission shelter cannot be no kill. The whole point of no kill is that it is done at municipal and county shelters, not private no kills.
The concept is fixed as inevtibale: there will be a time in any open shelter where you have to kill for space and you cannot save 90%, or all "adoptable or treatable" animals. This is an acceptance of failure of all no kill attempts. Sp what is the point of even trying?
I really wish we had more hard data about no-kill attempts, successes and failures. We don't. We don't have an overview of what it takes to get there or how to maintain it. Winograd may have his recommendations, but unless the resources are there, it is not going to happen.
.
.
I what least enjoy about many in the animal community is the ease they find at holding onto any concept as the truth and the only way. You can see this in the comments left on this site.
Below is a Peta hit piece on Winograd. The author holds onto concepts which are going to doom many animals in the short-term.
If you accept spay/neuter as the only real solution to ending euthanasia, what if universal spay/neuter is never achieved? Then you will always be having killing as before—although not as much—while trying to find more and more ways to get pets sterilized.
To reject Winograd’s ideas by assuming a priori that they don’t work, or confusing open with private no kill shelters is a disservice to animals as it creates in the mind the inevitable need for killing.
The article:
http://www.helpinganimals.com/f-Winograd-No-Kill.asp?hanwnkggl&gclid=CMLquM7H7JECFRkGagodMGBmwA
Nathan Winograd's Redemption: No-Kill or No Clue?
"Every year, 6 to 8 million animals are left at U.S. animal shelters and half of them must be euthanized. The statistics alone show the severity of our country's companion animal overpopulation crisis. Yet one so-called animal advocate, Nathan Winograd, is trying to convince the public that overpopulation doesn't exist."
Misplaced Blame
“In his crusade to turn all animal shelters "no-kill," Winograd blames the shelter workers—who have devoted their lives to caring for homeless animals, giving them a chance at a home, and providing them with a painless death when no other humane alternative exists—for the euthanasia of millions of animals every year. This is akin to blaming hospitals for deadly diseases!”
(My commnent: Really? LAAS and County Animal Care and Control are like hospitals? Where? Uganda?)
“This false "logic" lets the real culprits off the hook: people who breed (or fail to spay or neuter) their animals and people who buy animals from pet stores or breeders instead of adopting homeless animals from shelters.”
My Comment: Blame the public? So, until you civilize and “educate” every irresponsible person in the U.S., what do you do to stop killing in the meantime?
“No one wants to see animals euthanized—least of all, those who hold the syringe—but denying that a crisis exists and blaming those who have devoted their lives to ending it solves nothing.”
My Comment: Peta should talk about compassionate treatment of companion animals with their 90% kill rate? Wow! That is hypocrisy.
Too Many Animals, Too Few Homes
“Winograd's calculations ignore the hundreds of thousands of puppies and kittens produced by breeders and sold in pet stores every year. When these animals are added to the millions of homeless animals who enter shelters each year, the number of animals in need of homes far exceeds the number of homes that are theoretically available to them.”
My Comment: How did this person come to this conclusion? No one knows the number of homes theoretically available—no one. There is no such thing as an inelastic or fixed demand for animals.
There are many factors that would influence demand: Cost of getting one (shelter vs. breeder); health condition of the animal at the point of adoption; accessibility of the animals to be adopted; appearance and ambience of the shelter; out-of-shelter adoption centers; adoption events; media coverage; advertising; the death rate of already housed animals; the rate of new homes being built and added population; changes in the law allowing more animals and/or disallowing landlords from discriminating against pet owners; increasing volunteer and foster bases of shelters; allowing Paris Hilton to get more dogs; banning breeders and sales in pet stores.
Actions in each of these areas will increase the demand for shelter pets. You absolutely cannot say that you cannot find a home for at least 90% of animals entering a shelter.
“After the Tompkins County SPCA in New York—where Winograd served as executive director and implemented a "no-kill" policy—became extremely crowded, it began accepting animals by appointment only and stacked animals in cages throughout the facility, including the laundry room and kitchen. According to the shelter's current executive director, the shelter slashed its adoption fees and lowered its standards for the homes in which it places animals—significantly increasing the risk of abuse and neglect—in an effort to move more animals out the door.”
My response is, “So?” If the crowding results in a 90% live save rate, and the health of the animals is maintained by having a high-enough turnover, so what?
Who is the current executive director being quoted? Winograd says there have been four since he left, and that TC is still no kill by the 90% definition. Is the current director accomplishing no kill by raising adoption fees, keeping cages empty and raised its adoption standards, or is the current manager accomplishing no kill the same way as Winograd?
“But when the shelter is full and there is no place to put even one more animal, what does a "no-kill" shelter do? Most simply refuse to take animals in, leaving them at the mercy of people who don't want them.”
“It's true that no-kill shelters don't euthanize animals, but by turning animals away, they sometimes condemn these same animals to terrifying, painful, and violent deaths. Open-admission animal shelters accept every dog, cat, bird, rabbit, hamster, rat, and any other animal who comes through their doors.”
My comments:
The assumption here is that an open admission shelter cannot be no kill. The whole point of no kill is that it is done at municipal and county shelters, not private no kills.
The concept is fixed as inevtibale: there will be a time in any open shelter where you have to kill for space and you cannot save 90%, or all "adoptable or treatable" animals. This is an acceptance of failure of all no kill attempts. Sp what is the point of even trying?
I really wish we had more hard data about no-kill attempts, successes and failures. We don't. We don't have an overview of what it takes to get there or how to maintain it. Winograd may have his recommendations, but unless the resources are there, it is not going to happen.
.
.
A No Kill Nation
.
No Kill will only NOT work is if there are not enough homes to rehome impounded animals.
Many assume that there are fewer homes than animals; that is, the demand for new pets is fixed.
As Mike Arms and Winograd both say, it is a matter of marketing. A good salesman can sell snow to an Eskimo.
I think I heard an estimate that there are 300,000 dogs in LA City and 400,000 cats. Assuming a lifespan of 12 years, that means each year the death rate creates 25,000 openings for dogs and 33,000 for cats. That is 63,000 animals that could be placed. In addition, the population of LA is growing by 100,000 a year. This is another 3%.
What presents them all from being adopted? Old age, illness, behavior prolems.
A good salesman could raise that 63,000 to 75,000 or better. Of the 45,000 animals impounded each year, 10%, or about 5,000 cannot be places due to disease, injury, old age, or behavior, leaving 40,000 adoptable.
If “sales” could be made easier through “retail” non-shelter storefront locations, better employee attitude, behaviors on the part of employees, and marketing, I see no reason that 100% of the treatable animals, theoretically, cannot be adopted. To assume that it cannot work because it has not worked is not a valid argument against no kill, but only a voicing of convinced opponents.
Even if all proponents of no kill are liars, sociopaths and charlatans, that does not mean no kill cannot work.
What is stopping no kill from working are three things: lack of resources, poor management, and the attitude that no kill cannot work. A lot of people who leaves comments on this site believe the latter. They have been disappointed by the failure of gurus, therefore they attack any and all who think no kill possible.
Beside adoptions, the return to owner category can be greatly improved through chipping and licensing.
Regarding Stray Cat Alliance, of the 40 live cats rescued, one died in treatment, or 2.5%. Already 16 have been adopted and 24 are with fosters. Knowing Cristi, these will not be killed. A save and placement rate of 2.5% means no kill is achievable, 4 X better than Nathan’s definition of no-kill—at least for cats. These are not cherry-picked cats; they are hoarder rescues with limited resources.
San Francisco SPCA claims a 94% save rate and between the muni shelter run by Carl Friedman, and the SPCA, there is a combined 87% save rate. The doubters save this is not possible and they are lying. Maybe, maybe not; but the doubters have done no homework to prove them liars as we did with Boks.
It takes a lot of research to find statistics wrong—a lot. The Naysayers need to make the case rather than us proving their case. They are so convince of no kills failure they do not allow evidence to the contrary impact them.
Winograd is the prophet; we are looking for local Messiahs.
Given good management, adequate resources, I see no kill as an easy goal. Prove me wrong. Offer a bit of proof it is not possible. Don’t lerave it ot me to prove the naysays are right. The burden of proof is on them.
.
No Kill will only NOT work is if there are not enough homes to rehome impounded animals.
Many assume that there are fewer homes than animals; that is, the demand for new pets is fixed.
As Mike Arms and Winograd both say, it is a matter of marketing. A good salesman can sell snow to an Eskimo.
I think I heard an estimate that there are 300,000 dogs in LA City and 400,000 cats. Assuming a lifespan of 12 years, that means each year the death rate creates 25,000 openings for dogs and 33,000 for cats. That is 63,000 animals that could be placed. In addition, the population of LA is growing by 100,000 a year. This is another 3%.
What presents them all from being adopted? Old age, illness, behavior prolems.
A good salesman could raise that 63,000 to 75,000 or better. Of the 45,000 animals impounded each year, 10%, or about 5,000 cannot be places due to disease, injury, old age, or behavior, leaving 40,000 adoptable.
If “sales” could be made easier through “retail” non-shelter storefront locations, better employee attitude, behaviors on the part of employees, and marketing, I see no reason that 100% of the treatable animals, theoretically, cannot be adopted. To assume that it cannot work because it has not worked is not a valid argument against no kill, but only a voicing of convinced opponents.
Even if all proponents of no kill are liars, sociopaths and charlatans, that does not mean no kill cannot work.
What is stopping no kill from working are three things: lack of resources, poor management, and the attitude that no kill cannot work. A lot of people who leaves comments on this site believe the latter. They have been disappointed by the failure of gurus, therefore they attack any and all who think no kill possible.
Beside adoptions, the return to owner category can be greatly improved through chipping and licensing.
Regarding Stray Cat Alliance, of the 40 live cats rescued, one died in treatment, or 2.5%. Already 16 have been adopted and 24 are with fosters. Knowing Cristi, these will not be killed. A save and placement rate of 2.5% means no kill is achievable, 4 X better than Nathan’s definition of no-kill—at least for cats. These are not cherry-picked cats; they are hoarder rescues with limited resources.
San Francisco SPCA claims a 94% save rate and between the muni shelter run by Carl Friedman, and the SPCA, there is a combined 87% save rate. The doubters save this is not possible and they are lying. Maybe, maybe not; but the doubters have done no homework to prove them liars as we did with Boks.
It takes a lot of research to find statistics wrong—a lot. The Naysayers need to make the case rather than us proving their case. They are so convince of no kills failure they do not allow evidence to the contrary impact them.
Winograd is the prophet; we are looking for local Messiahs.
Given good management, adequate resources, I see no kill as an easy goal. Prove me wrong. Offer a bit of proof it is not possible. Don’t lerave it ot me to prove the naysays are right. The burden of proof is on them.
.
What is the Difference Between Paris Hilton and Ron Mason?
.
What is the difference between Ron Mason and Paris Hilton except maybe a couple of hundred million—and, Ron takes care of his animals, and, Ron gets arrested and charged with felony animal neglect.
February 16, 2008 -- THE Los Angeles Dept. of Animal Services is finally paying attention to the plight of pets who have the misfortune to be purchased by Paris Hilton.
The celebretard brought the authorities down on herself when she appeared Wednesday on Ellen DeGeneres' TV show and confessed she had 17 dogs. The ex-con obviously didn't know it's illegal in LA to own more than three dogs unless you're a licensed breeder. The animal control squad paid a visit the next day to Hilton's house in Beverly Hills, Page Six has confirmed. But when they arrived, they found the house vacant and undergoing renovations. All the dogs, cats, birds, ferrets and even a monkey had been placed with "handlers at a ranch" - possibly permanently, said
SPCA spokesman Jeff Blodgett, who added that they gave Hilton a card, asking her to get in touch. (Paris has a history of de-acquisitioning her pets).
What a moron.
.
What is the difference between Ron Mason and Paris Hilton except maybe a couple of hundred million—and, Ron takes care of his animals, and, Ron gets arrested and charged with felony animal neglect.
All the below was sent to me by anonymous email, with info taken from various gossip sites and one mainstream media site.
Paris Hilton went on Ellen De Generes' show on 2.08.08 and admitted that she has 17 dogs in her Beverly Hills home.
http://defamer.com/354418/paris-hilton-admits-to-an-appalled-ellen-degeneres-of-running-secret-chihuahua-mill-out-of-her-home
One of the gossip websites (http://www.eonline.com) said that she would often put tiny Chi dogs in the closet to keep them from making "messies" and leave them there. They died and weren't discovered until the maid was cleaning and found a dead dog in the closet. (One website said this happened on more than one occasion.) On another occasion she "forgot" her Tinkerbell chi at I think her brothers' house.
Worse yet is the fact that a New Hope partner (Kris Kelly Foundation from TMZ.com) gave an unneutered cat to Paris. All New Hope animals must be neutered before they are adopted. Then Paris left the cat at the vet and didn't pick it up so they called the Kris Kelley who took it. Kelley is a personal friend of Ed Boks.
February 16, 2008 -- THE Los Angeles Dept. of Animal Services is finally paying attention to the plight of pets who have the misfortune to be purchased by Paris Hilton.
The celebretard brought the authorities down on herself when she appeared Wednesday on Ellen DeGeneres' TV show and confessed she had 17 dogs. The ex-con obviously didn't know it's illegal in LA to own more than three dogs unless you're a licensed breeder. The animal control squad paid a visit the next day to Hilton's house in Beverly Hills, Page Six has confirmed. But when they arrived, they found the house vacant and undergoing renovations. All the dogs, cats, birds, ferrets and even a monkey had been placed with "handlers at a ranch" - possibly permanently, said
SPCA spokesman Jeff Blodgett, who added that they gave Hilton a card, asking her to get in touch. (Paris has a history of de-acquisitioning her pets).
What a moron.
.
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.
http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/whatsnew.html
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.
.
Nathan's website says he will be moving to SF by the end of March.
http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/whatsnew.html
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.
.
County Returned to Owner: 8%!
Protest at Carson Shelter, Saturday, March 1 from 12:00 PM to 3:00 PM.
"Out of 73,962 cats and dogs handled by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control during the 12 months ending March 2007 only 8% were returned to owners. Most (60%) were killed while some were adopted and even fewer were saved by rescue groups. So if your pet ever ends up in a Los Angeles County shelter, do you and your family really want to risk never seeing them again?
"Spay and neuter, license and microchip your pets and demand that the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control abide by California State Laws that help protect our pets."
How is this? "New Hope" rescues 4% compared to LAAS 14%!!
County Euthanasia compared with Boks' figures for LAAS of 34%. Real kill rate for LAAS? Who knows, but probably around 39%.
County Returned to Owner, 8%, with LAAS at 9%.
I think the protesters pointed at the wrong number. With rescues less than 1/3 LAAS and killing about 50% more, I would point to the latter.
Live save rate for County: 37%;
Live save for LAAS: 53% (real as opposed to Boks' figures), or about 50% better than County.
AND, we consider LAAS as a failure. How much worse does that make County?
.
.
Is it just me or are others troubled by the Obama phenomenon?
The people I talk to (The highly articulate, intellectual, an educated Starbucks crowd.) say they are troubled too. They don’t get why everyone is wild about Obama, and, like me, they feel something is wrong with this guy, but like me, cannot put their fingers on the reason.
I have listened to several of his pre-campaign and campaign speeches. They are summarized as follows:
“Dream, dream, hope, dream, change, hope, can do, change dream, bring us together.”
This reminds me 100% of Schwartzenner, who fooled everyone by promising to make an end business as usual in Sacramento, and to make sweeping changes (remember the broom he carried to events?). He never said what the change would be. Even rational people voted for him hoping he’d be better, and, because he was wealthy, they thought he could not be bought off by corruption. (This is stupidthink.)
Look what we got: For a couple of years, the worst Republican governor imaginable until the liberal Left finally exposed his vanity and greed. Not only was he bought off by corruption all up and down California, he already was the corruption. He was the moral cancer people feared coming in "sheeps' clothing."
Some are seeing Obama in the same “promise of change” light. I feel the same trepidation now as I felt then, but even more. I see Arnie as a clever buffoon, I don’t see Obama as a buffoon, but he may be a fraont for a lot of people we don't like. Why did the power brokers settle on him a year ago? What is going on?
According to the HSUS scorecard, Obama scored 40% in 2006 and 60% in 2007. Hillary scored 100+% both years. This is based on voting on five specific bills.
Hillary dumped her cat when she left the Whitehouse and is buddies with Tyson Foods. Obama has promised his daughter to get a dog after the election.
Personally I would like to see her as president because I don’t trust him. She says where she stands (rather, where she wants people to think where she stands); he stands on “hope.” I wouldn’t be surprised that Obama turns out to be a worst-case Republican. There are even large groups of crossover Republicans backing Obama because they think he can be bi-partisan. In my opinion, after eight years of extremely right-wing Republican partisanism, we need at least eight years loaded to the left.
In the meantime, we can all cross our fingers. However, I am going to renew my passport.
.
Is it just me or are others troubled by the Obama phenomenon?
The people I talk to (The highly articulate, intellectual, an educated Starbucks crowd.) say they are troubled too. They don’t get why everyone is wild about Obama, and, like me, they feel something is wrong with this guy, but like me, cannot put their fingers on the reason.
I have listened to several of his pre-campaign and campaign speeches. They are summarized as follows:
“Dream, dream, hope, dream, change, hope, can do, change dream, bring us together.”
This reminds me 100% of Schwartzenner, who fooled everyone by promising to make an end business as usual in Sacramento, and to make sweeping changes (remember the broom he carried to events?). He never said what the change would be. Even rational people voted for him hoping he’d be better, and, because he was wealthy, they thought he could not be bought off by corruption. (This is stupidthink.)
Look what we got: For a couple of years, the worst Republican governor imaginable until the liberal Left finally exposed his vanity and greed. Not only was he bought off by corruption all up and down California, he already was the corruption. He was the moral cancer people feared coming in "sheeps' clothing."
Some are seeing Obama in the same “promise of change” light. I feel the same trepidation now as I felt then, but even more. I see Arnie as a clever buffoon, I don’t see Obama as a buffoon, but he may be a fraont for a lot of people we don't like. Why did the power brokers settle on him a year ago? What is going on?
According to the HSUS scorecard, Obama scored 40% in 2006 and 60% in 2007. Hillary scored 100+% both years. This is based on voting on five specific bills.
Hillary dumped her cat when she left the Whitehouse and is buddies with Tyson Foods. Obama has promised his daughter to get a dog after the election.
Personally I would like to see her as president because I don’t trust him. She says where she stands (rather, where she wants people to think where she stands); he stands on “hope.” I wouldn’t be surprised that Obama turns out to be a worst-case Republican. There are even large groups of crossover Republicans backing Obama because they think he can be bi-partisan. In my opinion, after eight years of extremely right-wing Republican partisanism, we need at least eight years loaded to the left.
In the meantime, we can all cross our fingers. However, I am going to renew my passport.
.
Why Ron Mason Matters
A comment was left regarding the Mason case that deserves its own post with regard to the letter Boks sent to Lori Golden.
The most telling commment is that Mason is Everyone: What can happen to him can happen to anyone. We cannot just rely on Mr. Cocek to not press charges and protect the public from Boks' police powers:
"The funny part to me is that out of the giant debacle that was the Mason setup/raid, Boks' one beef is the TV aspect.
"How about:The fact that his people lied to Dana Bartholomew.
"The ACTF hung a cat by his neck.Boks lied and said Muffin was on top of a dead cat, when Muffin was in fact very obviously next to a mirror.
"Boks, as well as various City personnel on City time slandered Ron and made unfounded, unsubstantiated allegations regarding his mental health.
"The ENORMOUS appearance of impropriety in arresting someone whose vet is days away from starting a job with LAAS- meaning if she had been called to testify she would have had a considerable conflict of interest at best, and an incentive to lie at worst.
"Bringing a County inspector on the raid, even though Ron's house wasn't within this inspector's jurisdiction.
"Either incompetently or deliberately mis-diagnosing the original six kittens, killing them, THEN "discovering" they were never sick (allegedly even before the raid took place).
"Uh - NOT READING RON HIS RIGHTS...Not giving Ron an inventory of seized property and cats at the scene.Sending an incomplete inventory later.Not informing Ron of his RIGHT to a post-seizure hearing.Playing musical chairs with which charges they were going to bring.Keeping property stolen from Ron at the raid. (For me to refer to it as "seized" they would have had to properly inventory it, then return it when they promised. At this point, with the case over, it's stolen.)
"Allowing an incompetent, ill-trained, and mentally erratic desk clerk at West Valley to further place Ron's cats in jeopardy by impeding his attempts to get them adopted out.
"And these are just the issues I can think of before I've had my coffee.As for why we still care about Ron Mason, there are two reasons.1. Ron is a nice guy who tried to help, feed & spay/neuter a lot of cats. Like it or not, we are in favor of that here.2. Because if it happened to Ron it could happen to any one of us. He tried to work with LAAS, he tried to play by the rules, except that he couldn't leave pregnant cats, newborn kittens, or injured/hungry cats to fend for themselves, which is an admirable thing.
"Boks, along with his LAAS and LAPD flunkies, used governmental power to abuse someone, deprive him of his rights, and libel and slander him. If you can't see why we think that's a big deal, then you must have something to gain by siding with the abusers."
.
The most telling commment is that Mason is Everyone: What can happen to him can happen to anyone. We cannot just rely on Mr. Cocek to not press charges and protect the public from Boks' police powers:
"The funny part to me is that out of the giant debacle that was the Mason setup/raid, Boks' one beef is the TV aspect.
"How about:The fact that his people lied to Dana Bartholomew.
"The ACTF hung a cat by his neck.Boks lied and said Muffin was on top of a dead cat, when Muffin was in fact very obviously next to a mirror.
"Boks, as well as various City personnel on City time slandered Ron and made unfounded, unsubstantiated allegations regarding his mental health.
"The ENORMOUS appearance of impropriety in arresting someone whose vet is days away from starting a job with LAAS- meaning if she had been called to testify she would have had a considerable conflict of interest at best, and an incentive to lie at worst.
"Bringing a County inspector on the raid, even though Ron's house wasn't within this inspector's jurisdiction.
"Either incompetently or deliberately mis-diagnosing the original six kittens, killing them, THEN "discovering" they were never sick (allegedly even before the raid took place).
"Uh - NOT READING RON HIS RIGHTS...Not giving Ron an inventory of seized property and cats at the scene.Sending an incomplete inventory later.Not informing Ron of his RIGHT to a post-seizure hearing.Playing musical chairs with which charges they were going to bring.Keeping property stolen from Ron at the raid. (For me to refer to it as "seized" they would have had to properly inventory it, then return it when they promised. At this point, with the case over, it's stolen.)
"Allowing an incompetent, ill-trained, and mentally erratic desk clerk at West Valley to further place Ron's cats in jeopardy by impeding his attempts to get them adopted out.
"And these are just the issues I can think of before I've had my coffee.As for why we still care about Ron Mason, there are two reasons.1. Ron is a nice guy who tried to help, feed & spay/neuter a lot of cats. Like it or not, we are in favor of that here.2. Because if it happened to Ron it could happen to any one of us. He tried to work with LAAS, he tried to play by the rules, except that he couldn't leave pregnant cats, newborn kittens, or injured/hungry cats to fend for themselves, which is an admirable thing.
"Boks, along with his LAAS and LAPD flunkies, used governmental power to abuse someone, deprive him of his rights, and libel and slander him. If you can't see why we think that's a big deal, then you must have something to gain by siding with the abusers."
.
Nathan Counterattacks Critic
.
On February 18, I published a post by Lori Tyler, the director of the Tompkins County SPCA just before Winograd took over.
Basically she said she took TC to the verge of No-Kill before Nathan came, so it was no big deal what he accomplished. She then stated No Kill was failing because the SPCA was asking for more money from the County. She also said that she now kills in her own nearby county shelter because she couldn’t make No-Kill work there.
”At my shelter in a neighboring county, we have been lured into "trying to keep up with the Jones'" attitude. We tried to change our euthanasia policy to be similar, but we didn't have the programs to keep the animals moving, and we ended up with a warehouse situation and we couldn't care for the number of cats in our care.
”We now have more stringent euthanasia guidelines- including euthanizing for issues such as dental disease and poor socialability. "No-Kill" is a euphemism for "limited admission". Animals aren't truly safe if they are being dumped on animal control or left in the street.”
WINOGRAD COUNTERS:
Dear Friends,
My book Redemption has received very positive reviews in or from the Dog Writers Association of America, Sacramento Bee, the San Francisco Chronicle’s SF Gate, Midwest Book Reviews, Library Journal, The Bark, Pet Connection, Air America, and more.
The only negative reviews have, not surprisingly, come from groups like PETA, which I am highly critical of in the book for their anti-No Kill policies, and from minor blogs who are run by those who are either part of kill-oriented shelters, kill-supporting national organizations, or killers of dogs and cats themselves.
.
There is an old saying “follow the money.” In this case, the more apt saying is “follow the sodium pentobarbital,” the drug used to kill animals in shelters. Where there is a lot of usage of this lethal poison, you can expect a negative review even, as is true in the vast majority of cases, it is clear they have not read it (they make statements about things which are not in the book!)
That is why it is not surprising that PETA did not like the book. Not only was the book highly critical of PETA’s pro-kill policy towards shelter animals, especially feral cats and Pit Bulls, but PETA killed 97% of all dogs and cats at its “shelter” last year and is the subject of a petition to the Virginia Department of Agriculture seeking to reclassify PETA as a “slaughterhouse.” PETA, in short, uses a lot of sodium pentobarbital.
But the latest salvo from the “catch and kill” crowd is the most interesting of all because it comes from a former shelter manager of the Tompkins County shelter I oversaw (she left before my arrival). In her attacks, now as the director of a neighboring kill shelter, she claims I essentially inherited the “No Kill” programs in Tompkins County. She also goes on to claim that she tried those programs at her new shelter, failed, and that this failure proves (along with recent news about animal control funding from Tompkins County) that No Kill itself is not sustainable. She never once considers the possibility that it failed in her shelter because of her own mismanagement.
In fact, I am not surprised that the effort failed in her current shelter, based on what I found at the Tompkins County shelter she left me. In a memorandum to the Board of Directors, I documented what I found on arrival to Tompkins County from this manager and others associated with her. What she left was a shelter where:
sick animals in the infirmary had no food and were found languishing over empty water bowls; animals were being labeled as "unadoptable" to tell the Board of Directors they weren't killing "adoptable" animals when that is exactly what they were doing; puppies were mislabeled and killed as “vicious;” all feral cats were killed; and, kittens were killed after foster parents fed them around the clock and then brought them back after they were old enough for adoption, because they had policies like killing cats to open up cages in anticipation of needing those cages if new cats came in. (The foster program was then abruptly terminated because of this.)
In fact, on only my second day at the shelter, I was told by staff to pick animals to kill because we were "out of room" and that is the way "we always did it." I did no such thing and found not only homes for the animals, but new staff members as well.
There was no No Kill policy in effect before I arrived. In 1999, the Board stated they wanted to go No Kill, and most of the managers were either encouraged or asked to leave or fired because of their failures to achieve it, bad press, a loss of donor support, and a subsequent volunteer revolt.
These failures included having kittens getting sick and/or dying in droves out of poor care and poor protocols, and lack of appropriate follow-up.
To say that Tompkins is not sustainable is also ludicrous. They have saved over 90% of all impounded dogs for roughly seven years. This is raw data, not filtered through this former shelter manager’s self-serving definitions of “adoptable” vs. "unadoptable.” Except for 2007 when the save rate for cats was 88% (which is largely best in the country last year), they've saved over 90% of the cats for as long. That is powerful proof of sustainability.
Ignoring this, they claim No Kill is not sustainable because new leadership at the Tompkins County SPCA has told municipalities that they need a contract increase for animal control to keep pace with increasing costs and to come up to industry standards, so that they no longer have to subsidize it. What Tompkins is arguing for this year is for municipalities to pay $4 per capita for animal control funding instead of the $1.75 they have been paying for years.
By contrast, the Humane Society of the United States recommends $5 to $7 per capita. Even though they are offering No Kill animal control, TC SPCA leadership is still asking for below the HSUS recommendation for a kill shelter, and receives far less than most shelters do across the country for animal control services.
If this was any other shelter, PETA, HSUS, and all the other voices of defeatism who keep chanting the "we must kill, blame someone else" mantra would support it. But because it is a symbol for No Kill, it is attacked as “unsustainable.” In fact, if this was any other shelter, they would be supporting the budget increase, not rooting for it to fail as they tragically and obscenely do.
Why the double standard? Why do groups like HSUS and PETA argue that shelters must be paid $5-$7 per capita for animal control, but Tompkins County should not get it, and because they seek it, they must be failing because of No Kill? Even the former shelter manager’s shelter likely gets more per capita for animal control funding, and she kills with it. And therein lies the rub. Follow the sodium pentobarbital.
Leadership at kill shelters and their national allies like HSUS and PETA must find a scapegoat for their own failures. Because Tompkins' success put pressure on surrounding communities to do better, one way to ease that pressure is to smear the success.
Another way is to try to assassinate my character because I am a strong voice for No Kill. In both these cases, it's a cheap shot. But it is no longer surprising to me.
And at the end of the day, how can I be held responsible for what happens at an agency that I left four years ago with a budget surplus, programs that saved over 90% of the animals, and infrastructure which was the envy of the nation?
Since my departure now nearly four years ago, they have gone through three Executive Directors and a complete turnover in staff and as many Board members. Really, it's stretching reality and causation to the breaking point to hold me responsible for what occurs there. And given that they are still saving nine out of ten dogs and cats at $1.75 per capita for animal control—and have been doing it for the better part of a decade—there is no blame to be had: they should be lauded instead.
In fact, in 2007, Tompkins County was the safest community in the U.S. for cats and the second safest community in the U.S. for dogs (91% compared to 92% for Washoe County, NV.)
On February 18, I published a post by Lori Tyler, the director of the Tompkins County SPCA just before Winograd took over.
Basically she said she took TC to the verge of No-Kill before Nathan came, so it was no big deal what he accomplished. She then stated No Kill was failing because the SPCA was asking for more money from the County. She also said that she now kills in her own nearby county shelter because she couldn’t make No-Kill work there.
”At my shelter in a neighboring county, we have been lured into "trying to keep up with the Jones'" attitude. We tried to change our euthanasia policy to be similar, but we didn't have the programs to keep the animals moving, and we ended up with a warehouse situation and we couldn't care for the number of cats in our care.
”We now have more stringent euthanasia guidelines- including euthanizing for issues such as dental disease and poor socialability. "No-Kill" is a euphemism for "limited admission". Animals aren't truly safe if they are being dumped on animal control or left in the street.”
WINOGRAD COUNTERS:
Dear Friends,
My book Redemption has received very positive reviews in or from the Dog Writers Association of America, Sacramento Bee, the San Francisco Chronicle’s SF Gate, Midwest Book Reviews, Library Journal, The Bark, Pet Connection, Air America, and more.
The only negative reviews have, not surprisingly, come from groups like PETA, which I am highly critical of in the book for their anti-No Kill policies, and from minor blogs who are run by those who are either part of kill-oriented shelters, kill-supporting national organizations, or killers of dogs and cats themselves.
.
There is an old saying “follow the money.” In this case, the more apt saying is “follow the sodium pentobarbital,” the drug used to kill animals in shelters. Where there is a lot of usage of this lethal poison, you can expect a negative review even, as is true in the vast majority of cases, it is clear they have not read it (they make statements about things which are not in the book!)
That is why it is not surprising that PETA did not like the book. Not only was the book highly critical of PETA’s pro-kill policy towards shelter animals, especially feral cats and Pit Bulls, but PETA killed 97% of all dogs and cats at its “shelter” last year and is the subject of a petition to the Virginia Department of Agriculture seeking to reclassify PETA as a “slaughterhouse.” PETA, in short, uses a lot of sodium pentobarbital.
But the latest salvo from the “catch and kill” crowd is the most interesting of all because it comes from a former shelter manager of the Tompkins County shelter I oversaw (she left before my arrival). In her attacks, now as the director of a neighboring kill shelter, she claims I essentially inherited the “No Kill” programs in Tompkins County. She also goes on to claim that she tried those programs at her new shelter, failed, and that this failure proves (along with recent news about animal control funding from Tompkins County) that No Kill itself is not sustainable. She never once considers the possibility that it failed in her shelter because of her own mismanagement.
In fact, I am not surprised that the effort failed in her current shelter, based on what I found at the Tompkins County shelter she left me. In a memorandum to the Board of Directors, I documented what I found on arrival to Tompkins County from this manager and others associated with her. What she left was a shelter where:
sick animals in the infirmary had no food and were found languishing over empty water bowls; animals were being labeled as "unadoptable" to tell the Board of Directors they weren't killing "adoptable" animals when that is exactly what they were doing; puppies were mislabeled and killed as “vicious;” all feral cats were killed; and, kittens were killed after foster parents fed them around the clock and then brought them back after they were old enough for adoption, because they had policies like killing cats to open up cages in anticipation of needing those cages if new cats came in. (The foster program was then abruptly terminated because of this.)
In fact, on only my second day at the shelter, I was told by staff to pick animals to kill because we were "out of room" and that is the way "we always did it." I did no such thing and found not only homes for the animals, but new staff members as well.
There was no No Kill policy in effect before I arrived. In 1999, the Board stated they wanted to go No Kill, and most of the managers were either encouraged or asked to leave or fired because of their failures to achieve it, bad press, a loss of donor support, and a subsequent volunteer revolt.
These failures included having kittens getting sick and/or dying in droves out of poor care and poor protocols, and lack of appropriate follow-up.
To say that Tompkins is not sustainable is also ludicrous. They have saved over 90% of all impounded dogs for roughly seven years. This is raw data, not filtered through this former shelter manager’s self-serving definitions of “adoptable” vs. "unadoptable.” Except for 2007 when the save rate for cats was 88% (which is largely best in the country last year), they've saved over 90% of the cats for as long. That is powerful proof of sustainability.
Ignoring this, they claim No Kill is not sustainable because new leadership at the Tompkins County SPCA has told municipalities that they need a contract increase for animal control to keep pace with increasing costs and to come up to industry standards, so that they no longer have to subsidize it. What Tompkins is arguing for this year is for municipalities to pay $4 per capita for animal control funding instead of the $1.75 they have been paying for years.
By contrast, the Humane Society of the United States recommends $5 to $7 per capita. Even though they are offering No Kill animal control, TC SPCA leadership is still asking for below the HSUS recommendation for a kill shelter, and receives far less than most shelters do across the country for animal control services.
If this was any other shelter, PETA, HSUS, and all the other voices of defeatism who keep chanting the "we must kill, blame someone else" mantra would support it. But because it is a symbol for No Kill, it is attacked as “unsustainable.” In fact, if this was any other shelter, they would be supporting the budget increase, not rooting for it to fail as they tragically and obscenely do.
Why the double standard? Why do groups like HSUS and PETA argue that shelters must be paid $5-$7 per capita for animal control, but Tompkins County should not get it, and because they seek it, they must be failing because of No Kill? Even the former shelter manager’s shelter likely gets more per capita for animal control funding, and she kills with it. And therein lies the rub. Follow the sodium pentobarbital.
Leadership at kill shelters and their national allies like HSUS and PETA must find a scapegoat for their own failures. Because Tompkins' success put pressure on surrounding communities to do better, one way to ease that pressure is to smear the success.
Another way is to try to assassinate my character because I am a strong voice for No Kill. In both these cases, it's a cheap shot. But it is no longer surprising to me.
And at the end of the day, how can I be held responsible for what happens at an agency that I left four years ago with a budget surplus, programs that saved over 90% of the animals, and infrastructure which was the envy of the nation?
Since my departure now nearly four years ago, they have gone through three Executive Directors and a complete turnover in staff and as many Board members. Really, it's stretching reality and causation to the breaking point to hold me responsible for what occurs there. And given that they are still saving nine out of ten dogs and cats at $1.75 per capita for animal control—and have been doing it for the better part of a decade—there is no blame to be had: they should be lauded instead.
In fact, in 2007, Tompkins County was the safest community in the U.S. for cats and the second safest community in the U.S. for dogs (91% compared to 92% for Washoe County, NV.)
Nathan
----------------------------------------------
Winograd has a point here. We cannot hold him responsible for what happens years after he leaves. We cannot evenconclude that his gains are not sustainable, although Nathan has ignored the Winograd phenomenon---when he is there, they will come, meaning donors and volunteers.
What is best measure of the failure or success of Winograd-style no kill? What is
the measure of accountability? When can we chalk up a win or a loss?
We cannot assume with Nathan that where it succeeds it is his consult and management that caused success, and where it has failed, it is not his consult, but management's fault.
I think the weakness I saw in the Philly consult report was making a lot of recommendations but not telling management how to implement them given the shelter's resources, practical and legal restrictions.
The other complaint made against Nathan's no kill style is that it has only worked at three smaller shelters, (and San Francisco, although Carl Friedman says Nathan had nothing to do with success there) operations where the director can have immediate and direct control of most operations.
In Reno, the humane side run by Bonnie has a public counterpart that kills most of the cats. We are talking about two organizations and a partnership. To make this work requires good management skills and vision by both partners.
There are lots of unanswered questions with regard to no kill. Boks has addressed none of them, but has recently made some mild headway after two years. Nathan has three proven successes, but only in small shelters. Tara Derby has not yet countered Nathan's criticism or addressed the problems unique to Philly. Carl Friedman says look at what SF has accomplished and maintained, yet Nathan says SF is losing its way.
We really need a conference where these issues get explored, or at least a "trialogue" with these various parties through some venue. I wish these no kill guys were open to dialogue instead of monologue. Ed's crashing a Winograd no kill event hardly constitutes an attempt at dialogue.
By the way, Lori Tyler has her own website:
http://muddypawsdogtraining.com/aboutus.html
Her resume certainly seems lightweight. Email her and ask her for more of her side of the story.
.
An End to Animal Testing in Ten Years?
Three U.S. agencies aim to end animal testing
By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
An ambitious program announced Thursday by a coalition of government agencies could lead to the end of animal testing to evaluate the safety for humans of new chemicals and drugs.
Three agencies — the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program and the National Institutes of Health — have signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" to develop and implement the new methods. The collaboration is described in today's edition of the journal Science.
The agreement is a "milestone" says Martin Stephens of the Humane Society of the United States. "We believe this is the beginning of the end for animal testing. We think the (conversion) process will take about 10 years."
The agencies acknowledge that full implementation of the shift in toxicity testing could take years because it will require scientific validation of the new approaches.
The Humane Society and other activist groups have long protested the use of animals to test the safety of chemicals, particularly those used in cosmetics and other personal products. The agencies noted that the public's "unease" with animal testing, in addition to a growing number of new chemicals and high testing costs, fueled the new collaboration.
Although there are no actual figures, Stephens says his "best guess" would be that about 10 million animals a year are used in toxicity testing, mostly mice, rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, and then lesser numbers of dogs, monkeys and other species.
Historically, toxicity has been identified by injecting chemicals into animals and seeing whether they were harmed.
"It was expensive, time-consuming, used animals in large numbers, and it didn't always work," says Francis Collins, director of the NIH's National Human Genome Research Institute.
The new systems the agencies hope to use rely on human cells grown in test tubes and computer-driven testing machines. They allow the scientists to examine potentially toxic compounds in the lab rather than injecting them into animals.
The EPA has begun evaluating 300 chemicals using the new methods.
The first phase should be finished this year, says Robert Kavlok, director of the National Center for Computational Toxicology.
Thousands of chemicals can be tested at one time under a method that uses a 3-by-5-inch glass tray with 1,536 tiny wells, each a fraction of a millimeter across, says Christopher Austin, director of NIH's Chemical Genomics Center.
A few hundred human cells grown in a test tube go into each well. Then, guided by a computer, the testing machine drips a different chemical into each well. After a while, the machine shines a laser through each well to see how many cells remain. A computer analyzes the toxicity of each compound based on how the cells react.
By comparison, it's taken the EPA 30 years to rigorously test 2,500 potentially toxic compounds, says Elias Zerhouni, director of the NIH.
All the data produced will be put into a public database.
"We think it is very important for the entire public worldwide to have access to these very precious experimental results," Kavlock says.
The agencies' agreement is the fruit of work begun in 2005 by the EPA and the National Toxicological Program to speed up toxicological testing. That resulted in a report by the National Research Council last year laying out how quicker testing might be done.
The federal agencies will start their efforts with compounds previously tested on animals to confirm that the cell-based tests are accurate, Collins says.
Animal testing won't disappear overnight, but the agencies' work signals the beginning of the end, Zerhouni says.
The testing shift began to take shape when scientists realized the same methods drug companies used to test compounds for therapeutic purposes could also be used to see whether they harmed cells.
It's a wonderful example of what scientists always hope for, Collins says. "You develop a technology for one purpose, and you realize, 'Goodness! We can use it for something else!' "
He likened it to the evolution of the military's data transmission projects of the 1970s, asking, "Who would have thought that would result in the Internet and the Web?"
Find this article at: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-02-14-animal-tests_N.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)