Nutcases Attack Winograd

I have no idea what motivates numerous angry attacks on Winograd from anonymous sources who never provide proof of Nathan’s purported failures.

These people—there are two of them—are almost desperate to convince me to post “facts” about Winograd’s “failures,” that they make up stuff about his projects.

When I disagree with these two nutcases’ opinions, they shoot back I should have learned from our common experience with Boks that Winograd, and all persons associated with his projects, are lying. This does not follow logically let alone empirically.

These two nutcases then post comments that soon it will be announced that Reno was a failure and that Winograd’s recommendations for the Kings’ County shelters have been rejected, as if that discredits the validity of Nathan’s consult results.

They even send me articles that they allege “prove” Winograd’s no kill has failed. Reading these articles never has revealed “facts” that prove anything about Winograd.

It is like saying Bush is a warmonger, therefore they head of all national governments are warmongers.

Doing a brief Internet search on his Kings County consult and recommendations certainly does not reveal any evidence the Supervisors have rejected his recommendations. In fact, all Internet evidence indicates that more than 2/3 of his recommendations are immediately being acted upon and the rest will be decided on sometime during August.

There was a town hall meeting on the Winograd consult on April 14, and it appears most of his recommendations were passed, according to a local newspaper article.

I found no information that the Reno shelter is failing—none. I have talked to their shelter director a few short months ago who provided me with official municipal and SPCA data. They support the claim of no kill status except in the one area of cats, which had killing increase from 10% to 13% during the past quarter.

So desperate are these nutcases, they merely repeat their litany that I was fooled by Boks therefore everyone is a liar except for shelters, like County, that are a million light years from no kill.

There are a million tons of public data that indicate Winograd is not failing although some of his consults fall short. Even those regarded as failures by these nutcases are doing better than LAAS, New York City, Pheonix, LA County and a dozen other real failures. Their only response is that everyone but them is a liar and that should be enough to convince me everyone is a liar.

I write this not only because the nutcases post their hatred of the man citing bogus data of failure, but there are also very credible and intelligent persons who share their anger towards Winograd for some reason or another.

Some fear lawsuits by Nathan, stating they were so threatened by him before. But what did they say about him that elicited his threats? Were they the nutty accusations they are now making behind his back that they are sending to me?

Below are two current articles found on the Internet. One is dated before an April 14 town hall meeting about Nathan’s recommendations, and one dated April 17 about the results of that meeting.

Look you two, you desperately need professional help to deal with your anger, whomever you are.

Below is the April 17 article from a Seattle on line newspaper.

King County demands immediate animal shelter upgrades
By KOMO Staff

KING COUNTY, Wash. - County leadership is demanding immediate upgrades for the county's animal shelters following two scathing reports that identified "deplorable" conditions at the county-run shelters.

Last month a county-hired consultant reported on the conditions and a lack of accountability at the shelters. Nathan Winograd said he found cages that were dirty enough to be labeled as a breeding ground for diseases, and animals were left without food or water.

Animal control officers dismissed the consultant's claims as one side in what they call a "he-said, she-said" mix-up. But on Thursday county officials said the egregious reports leave no time to waste. Officials demanded immediate changes, including new cat cages, new dog runs, additional staff and, most importantly, a change in the shelters' culture.

"Animals should not be considered by society or by government as disposable," King County Executive Ron Sims said.The county's Kent shelter is 35 years old. The long-term plan is to replace it. The changes bear a $1 million price tag. Most of the money will come from donations and fees, and the rest from the county coffers.

"We want to create a model animal welfare program," said council member Julia Patterson, D-SeaTac.County officials said the upgrades are just the beginning; the long-term fix is a work in progress. The county will determine whether it should stay in the animal shelter business or hire a private business to take over. The decision is expected in August.

Another article:

$965,000 for animal shelters
County comes to agreement, proposes immediate fixes
Putting an end to their squabbling over the King County animal control program, the County Council and County Executive Ron Sims jointly outlined an agreement Thursday to spend nearly $1 million on immediate improvements and to plan the transformation of the much-criticized operation into a national model of excellence.
"It's a responsibility to provide humane care and give every healthy or treatable animal a home," Council Vice Chairman Dow Constantine, D-Seattle, said at a news conference announcing the agreement.
The joint announcement represents an easing of the tensions that were heightened by a council consultant's March report that was harshly critical of Sims, who oversees the county's animal control and care services.
Under the agreement, the county will replace all cat cages and add dog runs at or near the main animal shelter in Kent to reduce overcrowding and the risk of infectious disease. Spending also will go to expand veterinary services, review agency operations, add to the shelter staff, assess building and equipment needs and hire workers to enhance placement of animals for adoption, coordinate volunteer activity and improve public outreach.
Of the $965,000 in spending, about $570,000 would come from an animal benefit fund built up over 20 years from donations by people licensing their pets, adopting animals or simply making charitable contributions. The rest will come from the county's capital budget.
Sims, Constantine and Council Chairwoman Julia Patterson, D-SeaTac, said a group comprising representatives of the executive, the council, the sheriff, the prosecutor and Public Health -- Seattle & King County will meet over the next four months and present the council with a plan for 2009-11. The plan will include recommendations for how to deliver services and measure their effectiveness, for what animal-care facilities the county needs and whether the county should reorganize its animal-care bureaucracy or possibly join with outside agencies to provide the services.
"I'm very encouraged," animal-care activist Claire Davis said after the news conference, which she attended. "I think today is a very good day for animals in King County."
Davis is president of a local anti-euthanasia organization and also is a member of a council-appointed citizens advisory committee that in September issued a report damning the county animal-care operation. County animal control director Al Dams has said his agency has either effected or is acting on about two-thirds of the committee's 47 recommendations for reform, including improvements to kennel maintenance and recordkeeping and expansion of veterinary care and volunteer activity.
But when the consultant last month also slammed the system, council members publicly expressed their anger and frustration with Sims' failure to correct problems.
Sims reacted angrily to the report, too, flatly denying its accusations of mistreatment of animals and vowing to counterattack.
"Will we bite back? No question," he said late last month.
Sims took the report's criticisms personally. His staff sought to portray the consultant -- national anti-euthanasia activist Nathan Winograd of California -- as a sort of animal-control guerrilla executing a carefully crafted battle strategy.
The ferocity of Sims' response startled some council members.
"The subject of animal care in King County has become a very emotional issue," Patterson said at the outset of the news conference. "It also, unfortunately, has become an issue that has divided King County government."
But that breach has been repaired, the council members and Sims said.
"Once we got through the rhetoric, we've discovered that we share the same vision," Patterson said. "What we've decided, collectively, is we want a model animal care and control program."
And Sims said, "We know we can do a heck of a lot better."
It's clear, Sims said, the county needs a new shelter. Beyond that, he and the council members said, the county will strive for a "no-kill" program, in which only incurably ill or vicious animals will be euthanized.


Anonymous said...

I don't know enough about Winograd to be passionate one way or another about the man, although I do think No-Kill should be an obvious goal for all animal care institutions in the U.S.

I did get a free copy of his book when I donated $50 to the No-Kill Advocacy Center to support their lawsuit against Marcia Mayeda, The County Department of Animal Control and the Board of Supervisors - again, a no-brainer.

So I read the book. In it he describes the virulent opposition No-Kill routinely gets from old-line "Animal Control" people. He says, and frankly it makes sense, that they have so accommodated themselves to the notion that killing healthy, potentially adoptable animals is unavoidable, they have so convinced themselves that it's the only way, that to consider No-Kill as a possibility will call into question (I'm paraphrasing of course) the humanity of their entire Humane careers. If No-Kill is possible, then they have to face the idea that all the healthy animals they killed in the past died unjustly.

They certainly do seem to spend a lot of time trying to convince themselves that killing isn't killing. He talks about one conference where a speaker actually flat-out denied that giving an animal a lethal injection was killing them. Something along the lines of "We are not killing them. We are releasing them, but we certainly aren't killing them." There really is no other term for that than denial indoctrination.

So, frankly, is the use of the term "euthanasia" to describe killing a healthy, adoptable animal. defines euthanasia as:

"the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition."

Injecting Euthanol into the veins of a healthy animal just isn't euthanasia. And, as someone said in some movie, "No one ever invented a polite word for a killing."

I know this is Winograd's take, but it makes logical sense. In my experience, the craziest people I've ever known came out of places or situations that forced them to deny the truth - friends of mine who were gay and in rabid denial, a guy I knew from still-apartheid South Africa. It takes a tremendous amount of mental energy to deny a truth that's staring you in the face. Until you admit the truth, you'll almost do anything to silence people who, either deliberately or by accident, allude to the truth you refuse to see.

Anonymous said...

Winograd brings some of this upon himself. He will attack anyone who says anything negative about him. Look at how he attacks HSUS, PETA, LA Mayor, Boks, LA County... He also attacks cities where he consulted that didn't become nokill. He will attack people who question his progress. He attacks shelter employees, volunteers who disagree with him. Winograd plagiarized someone. When they brought it to his attention he attacked the person from whom he stole the article. Winograd also promises to make shelters nokill "overnight." This hasn't happened though things have improved sometimes. People feel let down, used, lied to. I think this is probably why people are angry with him. I don't blame them. Because Nathan has not been 100% truthful about things, it makes me doubt what he says.

Kelley said...

Nathan is better than sliced bread and cheese. He called Wayne Pacelle a loony. I heart him.

Anonymous said...

Put the truth up for a change. Those articles are old news now. So sick of people that continue to blame animal control, they didn't create the problem and they don't have the solutions to stop it. That comes from the people and the ones they elect. Why are you always shooting the messengers? Ask these fools just what do they think can be done with all the animals that flood the shelters on a daily basis? Can we build shelters quick enough or large enough? Do they want the animal control budget to be bigger than the defense budget? These are the nut cases.

Ed Muzika said...

What do you mean old news? The articles are less than a week old.

Some idiot commented that Kings County rejected Winograd's solutions. These two articles put a lie to that "message."

Are you that messenger of that bull and lies?

What do you mean what do you do with the flood of animals?

You place them in homes. You increase the capacity to do this via good marketing, permanent adoption sites off shelter property, advertising, etc. You don't admit defeat because you have failed in the past.

That is a message of "Don't blame me, I just work there."

You slow the in-flow with educational programs to slow turn ins.

You do more free spay neuter.

You better cooperate with rescues to allow for a 10-20% increase in rescues.

Remember, Boks said while he was professing a no kill goal in Pheonix, "The killing happens in the shelter," meaning it is the shelter's job to lower the killing.

Shelters all over the country are dramatically lowering the killing. It is not the impossible job as you seem to be assuming, except maybe is for you because you lack the brains or will to make no-kill happen.

What do you mean a budget as large as the defense budget?

LAAS has a budget of $20 million. One of the F 22 Raptors costs almost a BILLION dollars!! That is enough to pay for shelters in 50 cities as large as LA. One plane!

You say the problem arises from management and elected officials; don't shoot the messenger. Who dod yopu think we are shooting at?

If you think you are the messenger who says no-kill is impossible, I'll keep shooting at you.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Dear #6:

Is this referring to anyone in particular, or is this comment about the manner in which spays are performed without anesthesia by some doctors?

Anonymous said...

If you are speaking with a shelter director in Reno who is affiliated with Winograd and they are being
" successful" someone is pulling your leg. The female director is at the NHS, the SPCA that you mentioned is Directed by Tom Jacobs. The controversy has never been about the SPCA they have had their act together for years; but they are not open admission or public. I am sure you must be hearing about the public non profit.

Ed Muzika said...

I am talking about the partnership between the Nevanda Humane Society under Bonnie Brown and the Washoe County shelter system. They have an arangement, such as between SFACC/SFSPCA in San Francisco.

They share animals under some arrangement. The overall kill rate is about 10% and I believe they count the died in shelter in the euth column.

This is the NHS stats URL. It shows their combined stats.

Anonymous said...

Get any independent numbers ? By the way, the died in shelter listing are under died in shelter. the euth rates are separated into owner requested, and time and space. Since County is not allowed to adopt out, that puts strays at the mercy of NHS. If they are not transferred ( strays are taken first in SF ) then they become time and space. NHS has no obligation to take strays and often does not. You have to have worked there to get the drift.

Ed Muzika said...

(1.) No, I do not have "independent" numbers, do you? I don't have any for LA's Animal Service either. I use what they post on the Internet.

"Independent" is nonsense unless obtained by an outside agency with hands on access to the actual operations.

The stats provided to the public and those supplied to the state, such as rabies stats are produced by the SAME entity.

Do you think someone who would post phone stats to the public would post real stats to the state? No one ever checks either unless there is an audit, and even in most audits, the stats provided are not checked for accuracy.

(2) I am not talking about the Maddies stats, I am talking about the more comprehensive NHS stats. It clearly states that their kill stats include both euth and died in shelter. As you see from the Maddies stats, the actual euth is only a small percentage of owner requested euth.

Regarding the legal setup in Reno, I have no idea if you are right or wrong, but take a look at the stats. Between the two agencies, County and NHS, 92% of the dogs are live saves compared to 76% in LA.

Whatever the arrangement, it is working.

I do note that County only transfers about 1/3 of their animals to NHS, which means County either adopts them out or transfers to other private shelters.

Again, it is working, except working less well for cats.

(3) I don't know whether your comments are meant to be critical or FYI in intent, but I don't know what "drift" you are talking about.

statistics such as the rabies stats sent to the state or Chameleon stats on the internet, you are sadly mistaken. Why would you think that two sets of statistics from the same shelter would be independent?

Anonymous said...

The County provides stats under it's own department. You used to do your homework, now you just listen to the problem? It is an FYI thing, people think we are like SFSPCA we are not; their contract is much more beneficial to impound animals and if your area is considering a contract I would reccomend how SFSPCA is handling it.

Ed Muzika said...

To the last poster: Please be more specific. You talk from an insider perspective and I don't follow.

Are you talking about Washoe County? Or SF?

Are the Washoe Co. stats different from the quoted NHS stats?

Are there other significant private shelter operations in Wshoe other than NHS? This appears to be if what you say is true, that Washoe Co. cannot adopt out, and NHS only gets 1/3 of County's impounds

Who and how big are these others?

How do their stats measure up?

What do you mean "we are like." Who is "we"?

How is SFSPCA more beneficial to impound animals?

What is your contract like?

How does the entire animal saving situation in Washoe compare to SF?

Can eithe rmodel work in LA?

Anonymous said...

We have a small, but very nice no kill SPCA, they do take some from impound, but you are correct The county cannot adopt out and NHS takes only about a third. Of course the SPCA does what they can but they are small, if their animals don't move neither do the County's.The form of no kill being used in SFSPCA might work in your area, but you must make some provisions for the impound animals. NHS only takes owner surrenders and doesn't deal with strays at all. Look up Northern Nevada SPCA , they are the only other shelter in Washoe County. I am in the non profit sector of Washoe .