Winograd Calls Boks a Fraud

Without mentioning Boks’ name, Winograd accuses the Maricopa Shelter Director from 1998—2003 (Boks) of being a fraud.

Nathan from Best Friends (The actual link is currently down):

When San Francisco became the first city to end the killing of healthy, homeless dogs and cats, (most municipal) shelters had the leeway to kill most of the animals in their care and were doing little to change that policy, while shelter directors continued to be paid handsomely, gave national conference workshops, and were hailed as pillars of the humane movement by their colleagues. (Do you think he had Boks in mind?)

It has become common to hear shelter directors proclaim their shelters will beNo Kill in five years, or ten years, or, in some cases, even claiming that they are very nearly there already. (Do you think Boks would be included in this category? Yes he would.) It is a strategy of self-preservation, and it is becoming increasingly common.

In those communities that claimed “success” or near “success,” such asMaricopa County animal control in Phoenix, Arizona, a review of their statistics from 1998 to 2003 showed little change in the levels ofkilling or, at best, only modest declines consistent with other communities. After claiming at national conferences that MaricopaCounty shelters had not killed a treatable dog or cat in years, that the costs for No Kill initiatives were not being borne by taxpayers,that Maricopa County was a model of life saving, and that it would be No Kill within two years, its director left the agency in disarray. At thetime, the shelter was still killing over 29,000 dogs and cats a year,had a structural deficit in excess of a half-million dollars, and was nowhere near No Kill. In fact, according to former shelter managers, animals were being intentionally misclassified and poorly cared for andthe agency was near financial ruin.

The 90% Rule:

Since 2001, the open door shelter in Tompkins County, NY has savedbetween 91-93% of all animals it takes in. The open door animal controlshelter in Charlottesville VA saved 92% last year. And so far thisyear, Washoe County NV is saving 91% of dogs. This is all dogs andcats, not just those some bureaucrat claims is “adoptable” and there isno exception made for “owner requested euthanasia,” animals seized under “dangerous dog” laws, or for any other reason.

Of all the animalscoming in regardless of reason, over 90% left the shelters alive.Therefore, it is safe to say that a shelter has achieved No Kill andhas therefore “zeroed out” deaths of savable animals only when it issaving approximately 91-95% of all animals it takes in.

A community achieves No Kill when all of its shelters do so. To put it bluntly: regardless of what claims shelters make, No Kill can only be achieved when at least 90% of all the animals impounded (regardless of reason) are saved. Anything short of that precludes a shelter—or community—from honestly claiming it is No Kill..

Link to Nathan's statement:


Anonymous said...

Boks is a fraud. Winograd is a fraud. One day they say nokill is only killing an animal which a loving pet guardian would kill. The next day they say that 5 per 1,000 capita is no kill. The next day they say they have not killed an "adoptable" animal in years. The next day they say they are still killing thousands of adoptable animals.

These two frauds will say whatever they think their immediate audience wants to hear. If they want to past AB1634, Boks says he's killing 41% of all animals. If he is touting himself on his blog, he did not "kill one adoptable animal in March!"

Their words, their numbers, mean absolutely nothing. The LA City shelters are refusing animals. The NYC shelters are refusing animals. The ebb and flow of animals can be manipulated so easily that it is all meaningless.

Ed Muzika said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I love Nathan.

Since L.A. is his hometown, I wish he would feel more obligated to straighten things out by taking the GM position when it was offered to him (it's not too late Nathan!).

I am sure the position will be open again in the not-too-distant future, and even if he just did the job for one year, he could clear out the duds that have unhealthy attitudes towards animals, hire the right people, get the media involved more, etc. and provide a model that could really show some success in this town.

I think the next GM should definitely be local... someone that genuinely cares about the community and our animals.