I Support Winograd

One thing is clear: our LA animal community id deadlocked by bickering, hatred and self-righteousness. We are not moving. We attack everyone and so the animals are dying and NO ONE is offering a solution.

I have to counter all you Winograd haters out there. You may hate him as a person for may different reasons, such as his penchant for bad mouthing everyone; plagiarism; attacking former clients (which I don't like at all; and establishing his reputation by success with a VERY small shelter.

But, I do not see anyone stepping forward and really offering to help. I see no one making much headway in getting rid of Boks. I have even been feeling sympathy (short-lived) for him lately. I do not see any other shelter director offering even moral support in our struggle to end the killing.

Boks has brought the killing way down and that is good; but it is too little too late and is mostly a function of refusing impounds and increased dying in the shelters, and perhaps a little Chameleon juggling. But this is not a sustainable solution. What is happening with the animals refused? His euth numbers are improving because he is failing to do his job.

Rather than wait for a consensus---I don't even see the slightest attempt to wrestle with the problem of finding a non-Boks solution--and watching the animals dying at over 1,000 a month, I feel it is time to act.

The only agent of change I see on the horizon is Winogard. No one else is coming out of the woodwork. There is a degree of consensus behind him but mostly naysayers filled with anger and doubt make comments on this blog. No one appears to want improvement so much as say it cannot happen with Nathan, or it cannot happen as long as there is a public who has animals.

One commenter said that only 15% of persons adopting animals get them from the shelter. The rest are store-bought or from a neighbor's litter or someone who adopts an animal from someone who cannot or will not take care of the animal anymore.

If Boks were doing his job, many of those animals would be showing up in the shelters and the shelters would be "the" place to get an animal.

Given all this I am announcing my complete support for Winograd to come in and shake up the system. We need change now and can't wait for eight or nine years for impounds to drop because of spay/neuter.

I find very few commenters offering solutions, only opinions that nothing will work. That attitude is killing animals.


Anonymous said...

Much as I am loathe to place too much reliance on the public, there's GOT to be some room to expand shelter adoptions to responsible people who just don't know enough about shelter dogs/cats.

There's apparently now a pet store at the Westside Pavilion that sells puppies. And much as I will never shop there because of that, at the very least it indicates business believes there's a market for dogs. We need to figure out how to penetrate that market. Sorry if that offends your mushy worldview, but if we're going to try to save dogs and cats we have to assess the situation, see the possibilities for marketing, and do it.

The other thing is assuming that the general public is as familiar with the issues facing dogs and cats as we are. A couple of weeks ago I was showing a dog at our rescue to a family, very nice, very bright people. I was wearing my HSUS anti-puppy mill t-shirt. All of a sudden the husband asked me what a puppy mill was. He simply had never heard the term.

Like it or not, this is a small, insular community, and a lot of times our interactions with people who aren't as focused on animals as we are tends to be insulting to them, hence zero-return for us, and the animals.

I explained what a puppy mill was and the fact that they are part of the reason the rescue community opposes buying puppies or kittens from pet stores, the other reason being the abundance of shelter and rescue dogs & cats. I wasn't snotty or condescending or righteous (although, trust me, I can be all three if I don't put some effort into it) and the upshot was they learned something painlessly. They also loved our rescue dog and adopted her and she's happy as can be.

Kelley said...

Go Nathan!

He signed my book this weekend...never doubt we will succeed.:)

Kelley said...

I think all animal communites are deadlocked by bickering, hatred and self-righteousness, unfortunately, so yall are not alone.

Ed Muzika said...

Mike Arms regards marketing as the key to placing more animals. I agree 100%. As Mike put it, we are markeding used animals.

I will get comments that Mike is a jerk. Everytime I make a remark about him I do get those remarks.

There is never any real substantaition of those remarks, they are only opinions, or remarkes that he has failed miserably without any prrof to support that claim.

A couple of years ago I suggested using the Internet to "advertise" animals for sale such as on eBay, but where the price would be the adoption fee and the "winning" adopter still had to meet qualification screening, and the winner had to actually show up at the shelter to claim the animal.

The animal community was hugely critical of this suugestion feeling I was regarding animals as chattel rather than live beings. Winogard came to my rescue and said it was a good idea.

My thought was if it kept a cat or dog from dying, marketing was a good idea.

It is my opinion that if a concept interferes with the adoption of an animal because of an absolutist opinion of the necessity to regard all shelter animals as guardian animals accompanied by the concept of hating the terms 'selling', 'marketing' or 'bidding', then that concept should be ignored.

If a moralistic concept or one that failure is inevitable prevents adoptions, that concept must be ignored.

Saving lives should be the only goal.

Of cousre, there always will be the complaint that the animal will not be adopted to the perfect home. True, but so what? There is no perfect home but degrees of loving homes declining to a level of "good enough" homes.

No one has had perfect parents either; therefore psychologists talk in terms of "good enough" parenting to form a "normal" or somewhat functional person.

So too with adoptions. Even animals and people in perfect homes suffer, just not as much as in a 'perfect' home.

Until there is a revolution in human consiousness, this will always be so.

Anonymous said...

What makes you think that "hatred" of Winograd is personal? First of all, no one hates Winograd, we disagree with his method of reaching no kill. We are experienced enough to know how his methods will affect the shelters. I can hear you now, who is we and what is our experience. You don't listen anyway to what is being said. Boks made a fool out of you and you haven't learned anything from that experience. You are in the same position and letting Winograd make a fool of you as well. Go on your merry unrealistic, inexperienced way and I will be fighting to end the suffering created by this no kill movement. All of us work to end the euthanization of animals because of space and time but some of us are realistic about getting it done and you ain't one of those.

Anonymous said...

Not wearing holey jeans to a job interview is marketing. So is smiling charmingly at a man or woman we're attracted to. If you want to get someone to do something you need to face the fact that you had better figure out how to market to them.

If we have websites for our rescues (and we'd better) our care to have good pictures and appealing names and stories for our animals is marketing.

We need to get off our high horses, get WAY over ourselves and our moral superiority and face the fact that since there aren't enough of us, and we can't give a home to a thousand animals apiece, if we can't market we CANNOT succeed in saving animals.

Ed Muzika said...

It is quite clear from many comments left over the months there is a hatred of Winograd and any other no-kill advocate. You may call it naivete on my part vs your superior knowledge and wisdom, but that is bullshit. Just listen to your attitude. There is no openess, no willingness to listen; there is only your repeated opinion that I am full of shit and Winograd is a fake without providing evidence----ANY. You just will not accept his evidence. That does not prove your arguments at all.

Also, your attitude guarantees failure. You are saying no kill is impossible and anyone who claims it possible is a fake, naive or stupid.

You say Boks pulled the wool over my eyes and so he did. But your attitude allows for no acceptance of a 90% save shelter.

I think your "realism" is bull.It is an acceptance of failure without the possibility of success. It is an opinion that no kill has never happened and never will, and for some reason, the concept of a 90% save shelter causes more animals to be killed than would have been had the concept not existed.

Your reasoning is without any support or merit whasoever. You repeat your opinion as absolute fact and your only argument is that Boks pulled the wool over my eyes. That is not evidence of the failure of no kill. It is only an expression of your inability to be logical. Waht does my ignorance or naivete prove about the viability of no kill? It is as if you can't put 2 and 2 togther to form a logical argument.

You are a loser and support losing as a realistic atttitude. Jeez, I'd hate to be an animal in your care. You are so poisoned by failure you don't even consider the possibility of success. Your attitude sickens me.

Anonymous said...

I think Nathan can do a good job finding the problems in LA. I just have no faith in him finding real world solutions or getting them implemented. The City would be throwing $150,000 down the drain if they hired him. Because Nathan works with ADL the employees would hate him. They would never follow the suggestions. They'd stab him in the back.

Ed Muzika said...

Maybe, maybe not. This is your opinion. I've heard the employees stabbed Boks in the back just as he stabbed them and they stabbed Stuckey, except those who loved him.

Assuming stabbing is a given, what alternative do you offer other than the same old, same old? Are you not also assuming no real change can occur except in the long term?

If that is your assumption, you ought to be happy with Boks as the killing is going down, very slowly and adoptions are going up, very slowly.

Aren't you tired of Boks' reasons for failing? Employee problems, mayor problems, activist problems, anomolies, not enough vets problems.

Anonymous said...


What solutions do I offer? We need to find a GM that the employees will respect and obey, someone who knows how to work with unions. The union and employees hate Ed Boks because he sides with some activists and rescuers. Maybe Boks should have schmoozed Julie Butcher. Maybe Boks shouldn't have supported activists.

Any new GM must know the problems and solutions. He must be able to get them implemented with the employees, rescuers and the public. This is no easy task.

Here's an example. The commission approved having animals premedicated before euthanasia. They told Boks to do this. He told the employees to do this.The employees said "no" so it didn't happen. We need a GM that can get the employees to do as instructed either through persuasion or force. Maybe you offer bonuses, maybe you schmooze the head of their union, maybe you threaten to fire them. I don't know what will work but it's not happening.

Here's another one. We need the public to spay and neuter their pets. You can't just tell them to do it. You need to advertise, market, do community outreach, PSAs, enforce the new spay and neuter ordinance, have neuter police at major dog walking areas... The new GM must be able to get this implemented. Just having a law on the books does nothing.

Ed Muzika said...

Now you are talking! Go for it!

Another commenter offered a positive approach--which most everyone would agree is part of the solutin to end the killing, but no one has yet rolled the ball: extensive community outreach and education as well as law enforcement of appropriate legislation.

Now we are talking outside the bag of presumed failure.

If anything, I'd like to have volunteers research all the literature on TNR failures and successes, the effects of different autis and consults at different shelters, recommendations for the Chosen Ones" etc.

Jim Bickhart has an tremendous amount of that research we been already.

I really like the idea of community effort.

Anonymous said...

Ed, you must be aware that Winograd does not support education. He has made statements that money for education is the first to be cut from his budgets. Do you really know what the man stands for, no new laws (fought against mandatory spay/neuter) and no education? He was contacted to help with the breeding ordinance in Long Beach and he was nasty to the person who asked for his help. And she had attended his "convention" so his response to her plea was that if she attended his convention she should know he doesn't support new laws. So don't educate children and don't pass laws is Winograd's motto. Give me a break.

Anonymous said...

Truthfully, as much as I look at the rescue community sometimes and think we can't get a consensus on whether the sun is shining, I would rather see a GM who is responsive to the rescue community than one who is "friendly" with current union administration. The rescue community cares about saving animals. So far, the unions care about saving bad employees from the consequences of BEING bad employees.

It doesn't make me happy to say so because I'm pro-union, but not past the point where the union protects bad employees. Employees who refuse to do as they're instructed, who attack volunteers, who slack off on their jobs or abuse animals should not EVER be protected by the union, nor should they continue to work for LAAS, PERIOD.

One commenter said "We need a GM that can get the employees to do as instructed either through persuasion or force." But with the current state of civil service and the unions the only thing that will get employees to do their jobs is the fact that they'll lose their job if they don't do it. It's unfathomable to me that there is a union that thinks its job should be protecting employees who refuse to do THEIR jobs.

On top of which, the whole premise that a GM has to pick between having a good relationship with the unions OR having a good relationship with rescuers is illogical. An employee who is doing his or her job should have NOTHING to fear from a volunteer. In a functional, mission-driven LAAS, a good employee should be happy to have the workload eased by a good volunteer, as well as seeing their collective efforts result in more adoptions.

The ONLY employees who should have a reason to dislike volunteers are shirkers and abusers. And there is NO REASON an ethical union should support shirkers or abusers under ANY circumstances.

From what I've read, for there to be real change at LAAS, there also needs to be real change in the civil service system and the unions involved. There is no reason on Earth why incompetent and/or abusive City employees should have more job security working for us than they would in the private sector.

PS - when I say I'd like to see a GM who's responsive to the rescue community, I DON'T mean the kind of responsive where Ed Boks stares at our chests, and cozies up to vanity rescuers whose idea of "Rescue" is a website filled with pictures of themselves and their friends posing with animals as props, in between Botox and lip-collagen parties. I mean genuine rescuers.

Anonymous said...

When Riverside was in the same position as LA with their director of animal control, the game plan was to seat someone on the Grand Jury. Understanding how the GJ works is imperative to understanding how this scheme worked so well. The person who volunteered to take a year out of her life to sit on the GJ was an activist. She was able to direct the jurors to the right places to see what the problems were. Otherwise these jurors don't have a clue what to look for. Even things such as needles being left out in the open so that people on community service for drugs could get them, got the jurors attention. She was able to show the jurors how to put two and two together to get four. This resulted in a report that did get the attention of the elected officials, the newspapers, and the public. Hard to overlook a Grand Jury report. This may be a solution for LA if you can find someone willing to sacrifice a year of their life and who knows the problems well enough. Boks cannot say no to the Grand Jury when they make a request for records. Think about it, it may take something this drastic to get what you need in LA.

Anonymous said...

http://kcascreatures.blogspot.com/search /label/Nathan%20Winograd

Anonymous said...

You can learn just as much if not more from the failures so don't push this info away. Learn from the mistakes of others. /newsitems/2008/02/17/18479756.php%3F show_comments%3D1+Winograd %2Banimal%2B%22rancho+cucamonga %22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=us&client=safari

Ed Muzika said...

I know who wrote this piece. It is an opinion piece. There are no facts mentioned. This is not "proof" of any sort.

I acknowledge that Nathan may have clay feet and may cause all kinds of problems if and when he comes here.

But noone can deny he does not get things moving whereever he goes.

This is what we need here, more movement.

Ed Muzika said...

I know who wrote this piece. It is an opinion piece. There are no facts mentioned. This is not "proof" of any sort.

I acknowledge that Nathan may have clay feet and may cause all kinds of problems if and when he comes here.

But noone can deny he does not get things moving whereever he goes.

This is what we need here, more movement.

Anonymous said...

Ed you had a following, a chance to help the animals, now you say movement for the sake of movement is enough, moving in the wrong direction helps nothing.

Ed Muzika said...

We have been deadlocked for a long time. Villaraigosa has little incentive to get behind real no-kill which would take the Mayor's full support.

To succeeed, Boks would have had to turn the operation of the shelters upside down, but he is not an operations man, he is a PR person.

Winogard is nuts and bolts. He reveals all the broken bolts with scathing reports. The reports generate anger and the will to change.

The media is not carrying the charges activists are making about LAAS or the County. Winograd will bring that attention. That attention will cause change.

For the worse? I doubt it. World War I was deadlocked for 3 years in treanch warfare where lines may not have changed more than a few hundred yards over a period of 6 months.

Then came the tank which added mobility and a year later the war was over. Winograd is that tank.

Do you really think more animals would die after a Winogard consult than before? It has not happened on any of his previous consults.