More of My Opinion on Philly

I don't know where the story about Philadelphia will go, but be clear, Philly has almost zippo resources campared to LA. The city did not even provide funding for one full time veterinarian. LAAS has six vets and still they are killing 45%. Philly kills 40%. Philly went from 90% kill to 40% in two or three years. Boks did not drop kill rates even 1% the first year and we can't trust any figure he has given us since May.

Philly takes in 28,000 cats and dogs, LA over 42,000 depedning on who is lying to you.

I find what Philly has accomplished with $3 million astounding, compared to $25 million in LA.

Why Winograd has publically turned on them is inexplicable unless there is something really, really wrong at PAWS that no one is talking about so far.


Anonymous said...

Honestly, Philadelphia is instructive, as is San Francisco, etc. But Los Angeles has resources, manpower and money those cities can only dream of. Why are we sitting around waiting for everyone else to show us how to do it? Why are we thinking, "If Philadelphia can't achieve perfect no-kill in one year, why should we bother trying?"

We are Los Angeles, one of the wealthiest cities and counties in the world. We have access to great technology, virtually limitless personal wealth, plenty of land (of the size needed for shelters), and absolutely unparalleled media, outreach and a huge pool of celebrities to generate attention. And we're saying what? "Jeepers, if only we were Philadelphia?"

We don't need to follow anybody. We could, if we actually wanted to, create the paradigm. We are big enough and high-profile enough that we could re-frame the entire sheltering industry.

It doesn't have a damn thing to do with Philadelphia or Winograd or, in the vast scheme of things, even Boks. We're not failing because of Philadelphia. We're failing because rescues refuse to work together, because we use personality conflicts to avoid creating a coalition, because we absolutely REFUSE to create a powerful political force.

Either we care or we don't. It's got nothing at all to do with Philadelphia.

Ed Muzika said...

I agree with the above 100%.

I mention Philly because Bickhart and Boks say we will never reach no kill in LA because there has never been a large city with no kill and the problems here are so much worse than anywhere else.

I used Philly as an example to counter that bullshit. Now Boks and Bickhart will use the Philly story as proof no kill doesn't work.

That is why I talk about Philly becasue they are doing so much with so little, trying to shame Boks or show his incompetence to get rid of him.

I too am saddened by LA's animal community's failure to get its act together.

I have been trying for months saying we need to unite to prevent another Stuckey and Boks. However, those who were actively associated with me trying to find a replacement for Greenwalt have just disappeared: Bell, Sorentino, Dyer, Metropole, Tamie Bryant, Casselman and a few others. They have just disappeared.

You tell me what I can do to help unite us.

Anonymous said...

Winograd needs to accept that his program has created more unnecessary suffering for the animals at Philly and Rancho. It is based on an unrealistic perception of the world and society. Because of that it does not work as he presents it, only in a perfect world. The last time I looked, I was living in an imperfect world. Can you get his address so I can move there??