Take a look at the comment wars on the May 16 posting called, "Mr. Boks, Where are the April Statistics."
There is a dialogue between old school, catch and kill shelter people, and Winograd-style No-Kill proponents.
Some of the old school people were once No-Kill advocates, but then watched 'n0-kill" shelters like LAAS, where everything is done to decrease the kill numbers, but no more animals are saved than before. This means crowding, which causes disease, which allows killing for medical or temperament reasons, transfers to other municipal high-kill shelters, etc. These people got angry and have denounced the entire No-Kill movement is a fraud.
Some of these people have sent me comments that now that we have uncovered Boks' fraud, we should realize all No-Kill endeavors are fraudulent. Of course, this does not follow logically. You cannot condemn all No-Kill efforts because they are run by shelter directors like Ed Boks who is doing everything to lower numbers, but saving even fewer according to his annual report predictions.
We do, however, ned to look closely at the statistics coming out of apparent No-Kill successes.
In any event, this dialogue is going on in comment section of the May 16 post. One of the dialoguers may be Nathan himself.
I would post these as a dialogue post on temperament testing, but right now we are on the verge of blockbuster revelation, concerning which I can say nothing now.
That does sound like Nathan Winograd. Funny. I personally think we should do whatever it takes to get to nokill or at least less kill. Maybe there are good ideas from both groups.
I am not Nathan Winograd, but thank you for the compliment. You can't really believe that he would spend his time anonymously commenting on this site. I do it for the animals.
What some don't seem to understand is that I'm supporting who I think is honest, is a professional, is genuine in their desire to accomplish no kill, HAS A NO KILL PLAN, and a track record of success to date. That happens to be Nathan Winograd. IF someone else met those qualifications, I would support them also! Please, let there be others...that would be wonderful. But, there don't seem to be any. I support Winograd because he is the logical choice.
Ed Boks is NOT representative of someone engaged in a no kill conversion attempt. Ed Boks only represents himself and his self-interests, in a dishonest manner and to the detriment of the animals. He doesn't even have a plan after "20 years of experience"!
Those that didn't want a no kill conversion to begin with are using Boks' failure as a means to broadcast their lack of regard for animals. I don't believe it has much of anything to do with Boks' incompetence and deception. That just makes it convenient.
Post a Comment