Nathan Winograd is an "activist" that purports to stand up for the most helpless of society. By declaring war against animal shelters that euthanize strays, abandoned pets and feral cats, he's made himself the de-facto face of the "No Kill" movement. Winograd's polemic, Redemption, the Myth of Overpopulation and the No-Kill Revolution in America is a strident attack on virtually every animal shelter in America, save the two or three that have adopted his shelter model. In a nutshell, his argument is that shelters should follow a three-step plan to get to zero kill: "1) Stop the killing. 2) Stop the killing. 3) Stop the killing." According to Winograd, any shelter that, for any reason, comes up short of his model may as well be considered an animal death camp.
The "No-Kill" animal shelter movement has certainly chosen a sympathetic name for itself. After all, who wants more kills?
Unfortunately, sometimes life is a bit more complicated than the latest catchy slogan or absurdly simple three-step plan. For example, if zero tolerance for killing means that we must warehouse animals in overcrowded, disease and pest-ridden cages, and there are not enough staff of volunteers to provide these animals with adequate exercise, aren't we actually torturing these animals for the sake of our own vanity? What if this warehousing resulted in fewer animals being placed in homes because people stopped visiting the shelters, or came to believe that shelter animals were unhealthy or otherwise inferior?
The flat truth is that Winograd's "No-Kill" model is limited. It can work when shelters serving smaller towns decide to limit intake (by turning away older, unsocialized or less attractive animals). It is simply unworkable in larger municipalities.
Sheltering policy is difficult; it's a field in which the utopian ideal is seldom achievable. Instead, the animal lovers that run shelters make must make difficult choices and strive for best outcomes after considering the totality of the circumstances. The decision to euthanize is always dispiriting and sometimes heart-wrenching. But if it is the merciful decision, it may be the correct choice. Across America, there are thousands of shelters. Each respective community served is unique and comes with its own strengths and weaknesses. "No kill" is probably suitable and the ethically sound choice for some shelters, but for many more, a "no kill" policy condemns animals to a miserable existence. In those communities, mercy must prevail.
Nathan Winograd does not agree; he doesn't see nuance. He has run a scorched-earth campaign against the thousands of animal lovers that disagree with his black-and-white vision of sheltering policy. The question is, "Why?"
Does it have anything to do with his ties to the puppy mill industry? To Rick Berman, the anti-everything decent public-relations lawyer that is famous for his astro-turf campaigns on behalf of large moneyed interests (like puppy breeders)? In the coming weeks and months, a new blog I've launched, 4k2.org, will explore the answers to these questions while arguing against Winograd's ridiculously simple sheltering notions. "No Kill" sounds wonderful, but there are good reasons many of the most respected animal welfare organizations oppose Winograd's brand of no-kill.
Follow Mike Stark on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mike_stark
Bruce Friedrich: An Advent Reflection on God and Animal Cruelty
http://gretthevetretired.blogspot.com/
The No Kill Equation is succeeding in these cities by implementing programs that limit the number of animals coming in, through Animal Control reform, TNR, effective pet retention programs that help people keep their animals, and more, AND by increasing the number of animals leaving shelters (alive) through successful foster programs, innovative marketing and promotions, comprehensive adoption programs, and many more.
There are 3 to 4 million animals killed in shelters every year, but over 20 million people acquiring animals every year. There ARE enough homes for them all, you just have to go out and find them, instead of just opening the door the shelter and hoping the people come. It takes more than what many currently working under the traditional shelter paradigm are willing to do.
This idea that NO Kill means hoarding animals is completely false, and is used to simply muddy the waters of the argument. I will, however, look into this accusation that Nathan Winograd has ties to the puppy mill industry. Thanks for sharing.
Yet some people attack No Kill with lies (because they cannot attack it with truth). For instance, some claim that Nathan Winograd opposes spay/neuter, when in reality, spay/neuter is one of the cornerstones of the No Kill approach. The key is making it affordable for people. Mandatory SN is not part of No Kill because it has been proven to increase killing, not decrease it. Passing a law without making SN.affordable doesn't result in compliance by the public. It merely gives Animal Control license to impound and kill more animals. Sorry, but that is the real world.
There are too many distortions and outright lies opposing No Kill for me to address. But I've seen the No Kill programs work. As local shelters have adopted some of the elements of No Kill, their save rate has jumped: The most dramatic was from 2% saved to 60% saved - just from working with rescue groups, having a strong volunteer program, supporting TNR and offering low-cost SN. When all of the No Kill elements are finally implemented, more will be saved.
Those who oppose life saving will not be swayed by my arguments. But to others - please read the book and judge for yourself.
First, that no-kill sheltering usually results in "warehous[ing] animals in overcrowded, disease and pest-ridden cages," which he equates with "torture". Certainly, as a journalist, Stark's opinion is based on research - but he doesn't cite any investigations or provide any examples.
Stark's second complaint is that Nathan Winograd has links to the Center for Consumer Freedom (a truly despicable organization as any animal advocate would agree). But Stark doesn't provide any evidence for that either, and the claim seems to be based on the fact that Nathan Winograd allowed himself to be interviewed by the CCF under the condition that nothing be edited from his interview no matter how critical his statements were. As someone else pointed out, if Jesse Jackson allowed himself to be interviewed by the KKK, would that make him a white supremacist?
Today I checked the 4k2 blog again looking for evidence of the CCF claim, but all I found was a link to a blog which makes the same claim - also without offering any evidence.
Perhaps a better article would have been if Stark examined Winograd's contentious and inflammatory tone. Rather, Stark has added his own unsupported, inflammatory, and hyperbolic allegations to a debate that is already far too heated.
In short, is this article only about a personal grudge?
Yes, TLAC's intake is down. That of course doesn't mean those animals have been 'saved'.
spouse
It's alread been mentioned by others that Reno turns away animals to be killed at the pound. Please investigate open admisssions that aren't really. Thanks
Had you read the book, you would know that Stop the killing statement is simply a first step in his well thought out program.of TEN basics that must be implemented to stop the killing. It requires work, programs, and a decent shelter director who actually CARES about animals. And there is nothing simple or easy about his "sheltering notions", as you call them.
By the way, the "Rick Berman" link in your last paragraph is a great interview with Winograd - everyone should read - unless you decide to change it.
Why do you try to portray Wingrad as sympathetic to puppy mills and anti spay/neuter?? Nothing could be FURTHER from the truth.
This article is a very strange brand of journalism. And I suggest you take a little time off and actually READ the book you are making light of, instead of just skimming for things to denigrate. At least read the last section of the book, APPENDIX II, where he outlines the TEN steps of this program, for heaven sake!!
alfalfa
He and his followers don't seem to understand that they hurt animals when they turn the public against good shelters by painting a picture of all animal shelters as places where there is little concern for the lives of animals.
I work for a progressive animal shelter and we are continually attacked by those who blindly follow the no-kill movement. A very loud proponent of Nathan’s defames our organization on a regular basis, and his statements are based off of radical assumptions, not facts or knowledge. I’m sure that many would be surprised to learn that this proponent recommends our shelter to people who bring an animal to him that undoubtedly needs to be euthanized. I certainly hope that is not part of the no-kill equation.
Sadly, Nathan has filled people with such hate with his panoptic statements about animal shelters that they can’t see what’s really going on — we’re all working toward the same goal. We could get there faster if the infighting he has created didn’t exist.
I've seen a poorly managed "kill" shelter transition to a well-managed "no-kill" shelter. Everything is different. Employees are now accountable, the facility is beyond clean, the community is involved and supportive, and there is an over-abundance of volunteers.
I don't doubt that you have seen a poorly-managed no-kill shelter. There are outstanding, mediocre, and poor examples of both kinds of shelters. However, I am concerned that you insist that no-kill can't work. It can, does, and is working on a daily basis.
This has been noted by Craig Malisow in Houston and Patricia J. Ruland in Austin in their articles about Winograd. What needs to be said is that we aren't against no kill as a goal, stopping euthanasia for time and space, a noble goal. Rather we are against Winograd's program because it doesn't work the way he presents it. And it is wrong to push people away from shelters by condemning them the way he does. He and his followers are probably responsible for many pets losing their lives with their rantings about barrels of dead animals, etc. What man will take his family to a shelter that is described the way Winograd describes it? It would accomplish so much more to work with a shelter rather than against it. It only leads one to think there are alternative motives for his rants, like pushing people into the arms of breeders and rescues.