No Hope?

.
Winograd has dissociated from Philadephia. He says it is a sinking ship.

This may or may not be true. I have been warned not to take Philly's or San Francisco's stats at face value.

The only successes Nathan backs now are Charlottesville and Reno Nevada. It appears that his other consults are not doing well either.

He blames Philly's alleged failure on the old kill mentality but indicates PAWS itself is now part of the program.

I reported some time ago that the operations manger left. I asked if it was due to problems at Philly. She denied it and said Philly is doing well.

This is a sad day for it now appears Winograd style successes may not sustain without his driving presence. However, there are still questions about Nathan's motivation for distancing himself from Philly and Tara Derby.

I do not think Winograd will ever fully commit to reforming any city but will continue to put the shelter's success or failure in the hands of his appointed managers, who may or not be able to prevail against the old mentality Nathan denigrates.

I am not sure LA will ever reach and sustain No-Kill if it is defined as a 90% save.

NATHAN:

"In Philadelphia, the fight has gone from "passive aggressive" to outright war, and it is getting uglier and uglier. In Philadelphia, unfortunately, the animals will come away the losers because a true and complete champion for No Kill no longer exists, as it did in San Francisco with the San Francisco SPCA under Avanzino; and as it does in Washoe County, thanks to the extremely capable leadership of the Nevada Humane Society under Bonney Brown.

And it is why I must remove my support for Philly PAWS, the organization that runs the Philadelphia Animal Care & Control Association (PACCA). I do not believe Philly PAWS is doing enough to save animals, and it has strayed from its core mission of achieving a No Kill Philadelphia by hiding behind half-truths, becoming complacent about problems, and engaging in only a half-hearted No Kill program implementation.

And it is this mismanagement which has allowed the Pennsylvania SPCA (PSPCA) to exploit the situation for its own benefit, which I believe will result in even greater harm to the animals of Philadelphia.

Our allegiance must always be to the animals and not to any particular institutions. When organizations act in ways that fully help animals, we should support them. When they do not, we must give voice to the needs of the animals at the expense of our relationships with particular organizations or people. (That doesn't mean that there are not some hard working people at PACCA. But I do not believe they are being supported, and it appears that their efforts are continually being undermined by higher-ups).

Sadly, these fears have come to pass, and I fear that the hopes for the achievement of a No Kill Philadelphia are fading quickly. Not only has PACCA leadership reached a state of complacency with killing, but a lack of rigor and comprehensive oversight have allowed poor care to creep back into the agency.

There is only one way for No Kill to be achieved in Philadelphia or anywhere else. And it is the way it was achieved in Charlottesville, VA. It is the way the Nevada Humane Society is achieving it. And it was how Philly began the march towards it in 2005.

But it is not being comprehensively implemented in Philadelphia now and there is no reason to believe it will be under the PSPCA. And as long as directors on both sides of the fight do not fully embrace it, the prognosis for a No Kill Philadelphia under either agency will go from guarded to what it currently appears to be: poor to grave. And I fear a great opportunity to move the City forward will be lost, until a real culture change takes place that puts the animals before personal ambition, ego, comfortable relationships with the union representing PACCA workers, and petty Board politics."