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.

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.


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.


Anonymous said...

Muzika, I totally support what you are trying to do here. Nokill is a very nobel goal for all of us. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be nokill.

My only issue is with a few people who are using "nokill" to sell their services and make money. I'm talking about Nathan Winograd and Ed Boks.

Nathan uses nokill to get consulting gigs to make money. He then writes words on a piece of paper and is gone to his next job. He has damaged the term, turned it into a dirty word, false hope.

"Nokill" now means overcrowding, disease, death, and cage crazy animals that get returned.

Ed Boks has done the same thing but at least he tries to be the Director. He takes some of the heat though he does blame others when he fails.

Nokill is a wonderful goal. We just need real prophets instead of false prophets. Boks and Winograd have spoiled the term.

We need to find real people who can make shelters nokill in the real world.

Ed Muzika said...

I do not think 'No-kill'is a dirty word. I think it may be to some in the rescue community, but probably not even to the humane community or the general public.

To say it is a false hope is different. Again, without a belief it can be so, there will be no will to make it happen. So to say it is a false hope is not supported in fact. There have been general admission shalters that have gone no kill and some who have maintained fo a while,however briefly.

As to suggestions that we abandon the term 'no kill' and substitute something else, I ask who is this change for?

Is it for those who dislike Boks and Winograd and they use that term, and want to erase their memory forever from the world?

The term 'no kill' is perfect. It has to be beter defined for both the community and the public, but it is here to stay. That is the term I prefer to use. That is our true goal isn't it, where there is no unnecessary killing and animals are placed, not in perfect homes, but in "good enough homes."

Psychologists use the term 'Good enough parenting' as opposed to perfect or even optimal parenting. Don't we need such latitude when it comes to companion animals?

Don't quibble over words or who owns them. Just let us examine or comment on how to make it so or how Boks, Nathan whomever fail to make it specifically.

Anonymous said...


Are we now of the opinion that Boks does actually care about the animals, except as a way to make a fat living and meet highly susceptible/gullible women? Because I'm not convinced of that at all, given his record and his unbelievably, blatantly cynical treatment of Ron Mason as a (thankfully backfired) PR ploy.

Ed Muzika said...

No, I have not changed my opinion about Boks and I think Winograd has sullied his own reputation by attacking everyone including those he sponsored and helped create no kill.

I am most concerned as to why he attacked the current Philly management or at least plead they need resources.

I do not believe he should go back and help for free; that is unrealistic as he needs to make a living.

The LAAS shelters seem to be making some prgress. When it comes to veterinary care this is largely due to Dr. Feldman who, I hear, is pulling the whole veterinary operation together.

Adoptions are up and New Hope is no longer negative.

Of course there has been no real progress overall, only in small parts overall.

For there to be substantial progress, there needs to be a Winograd-like analysis of all shelter operations; the Mayor himself has to stand behind needed changes, including personnel changes. Linda Barth has to match needed changes against budget and resources. The union and City Personnel have to get behind firing or transfering bad employees.

Historically, over a period of two years, 2/3 of kill shelters resign or are fired before an effective no kill staff is in place. This would require strong support for change by external pressures, such as ADL like pressure over a long period of time.

I don't think Boks could remain as GM because he won't implement any idea or policy he did not create. He is too removed from operations. Also, he does not care.

Showboating in itself does not cause failure, but showboating when substituted for real change or competence is a loser.

I will continue to expose Boks' failures, but it has mostly always based on criticism flowing from fact. That is what I ask you out there to do also.

Ditto Winograd.

But there are more losers out there when it comes to no kill, such as Ed Sayers and others too many to mention.

Personally, I like Carl Friedman to consult or help find a new GM. He is straight talking and no bullshitter--I think. Of course I was wrong about Boks.

Mayeda is far worse than Boks.

Firing her is not enough. The crappy mess will continue because it is institutionalized. Will any successor lead to real change? No, unless the Supervisors make reform, accountability and no kill a priority.

It is demonstrated they don't care just as Villaraigosa does not.

I see no real change in either system until a portion of the animal community joins to exert coordinated politcal will and muscle, including supporting specific Councilmen and Supervisors, campaign-wise and contribution wise.

I am aware that no real chnage will happen just by changing shelter directors.

Change happens when there is a will to create no kill, the resources, planning and more managerial control of employees and operations.

Anonymous said...

muzikla = death

Anonymous said...

What does that mean?:

"Muzikla = Death?"

Why does commenter #5 say this? Could you say more? That's all this person said.

There's Boks = Death; now it's Muzika? Why?

Anonymous said...

muzika = death

you killed muffy

Anonymous said...

Nice try #5, but for that to work there has to be truth behind it.

Boks equals death because he lies about the numbers and has for years, because his idea of "care" is letting the animals do the killing for him in overcrowded cages, and recently, because he was the means of killing Ron Mason's kittens (who, let us remember, WEREN'T sick) for publicity, then proceeding to kill and lose a bunch more of Ron's cats.

In my estimation, the Mason cats who lived did so because Ed Muzika publicized the situation. Muzika doesn't kill, Boks does.

Your lack of logic, lack of truth (and sadly, lack of spelling) make you just a twit with too much time on your hands. Maybe if you were doing the job we pay you for...Oh, but why do I dream?

Anonymous said...

How did Muzika kill Muffin, commenter #8?

Wasn't he trying to defend Muffy and stand up for people who are in your situation?

In what way do you feel that Musika killed Muffy, commenter #8?

What happened?

Ed Muzika said...

Muffin is alive and well. I can take a photo and post how well he is doing.

Muffin was reunited with Mason along with two other cats. I posted their names earlier.

About eight others have been adopted by rescuers.

We are looking for homes for 10 more. Please help. The cats are going crazy.

I think Ron wants this all over with now except for finding homes for his cats. It is very hard to maintain anger without poisoning the soul and I think he has had it with hate and motives of revenge.

Anonymous said...

Does Muzika = DEATH get paid, #8? How do you know?

Poor Ron. I have no idea how he holds up.

Rotten neighbors were feeding the cats all over the neighborhood, didn't bother to alter them, and then moved.

I know one of them. She was my next door neighbor's daughter. Lived only a block away from Mason.

The son used to visit with me on occasion and we used to talk over the fence about how his mom would buy a whole bunch of Meow Mix cause there were so many cats along their alley way.

Especially kittens, he said.

When they moved to Arizona the cats the woman left behind to starve most likely went down the street to eat at Mason's house.

On U-Tube Mason said he started doing this with the cats about three years ago.

The bitch moved and left behind a ton of cats two or three years ago.

I'm almost certain Mason inherited them all when he couldn't stand to see the suffering.

He wanted to do something about it. The bitch never did, and neither the bitch who lives next door to me.

My neighbor, the mother of the fat bitch who lived on Napa, down the street from Mason, was supposed to care of all the cats another bitch who moved from this joint before we moved in left behind.

I inherited the damned problem when she wouldn't stop feeding and wouldn't let me spay and neuter them. They wouldn't pay for any of the medical care either.

The daughter who lived only one block away from Mason was the same fucking way. SAt on her ass.

Then people like Mason and me try to take over, and we get stuck with all the damned medical bills, cleaning all the shit, building shelters for them, buying loads of kitty litter and food, and flea control, you name it.

Damned fucking obese asshole pieces of shit! They won't participate with the bills or the care the cats incur, but they have enough dough to buy a fucking Lexus with the works.

Fucking Christmas lights on all year round and fancy computer equipment for the grandsons.

I hope they die hungry and on the street someday so they know what it's like to be born a feral through no fault of your own; somebody feed you for a while, and then quit cause they got better things to do like move and leave you to your own defenses.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to hear Ron has about had it with all of this and that he has been letting the anger get to him. I just figured if a cry baby firefighter can get a big city payout for tasting dog food then there must also be some sort of compensation given for trampling all over a person's rights.

Oh well...