Book Review: Redemption
Print This Post
The primary message of Redemption, by Nathan J. Winograd, is that animal shelters and humane organizations in the U.S. have lost their way. They have become killers of animals. The author takes an approach to the killing that I had never considered, that the shelters themselves are responsible for the killing, not the general public.
Winograd indicts the leaders of several major animal protection societies, including those that have never maintained shelters of their own, because these societies set standards and make pronouncements that support the killing. The reasons these leaders have not embraced “no-kill” are varied but do not stand up to scrutiny. Over the years leaders of shelters and humane organizations have resisted change to the status quo to protect the profits of veterinarians and breeders, because they don’t want to accept responsibility for their previous wrongheadedness, because they “have always done it this way”, because they simply don’t believe true no-kill is possible. Along the way they have forgotten why they were formed – for the protection of animals.
Early in the book he notes that the head of the SPCA in San Mateo, CA went public with the killing of animals. She chose to show the killing on television. To many, including the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) this was a courageous act. I happen to agree with this position in one respect: I believe that whenever our society condones the killing of people or other animals such killing should be in our face. We should know about it, no mistake. When such acts are hidden from the public people can forget it happens and convince themselves they have nothing to do with it. A friend of mine, for example, tells herself that the meat she eats comes from cows who died of old age. Such fabrications may make people feel better but they certainly do not advance any animal cause.
So I believe when animal shelters kill they should do so openly so that we can see our failure. I have been persuaded, however, by Winograd, that the failure is not ours alone. Winograd’s objection to the publicized killings is that it appeared to condone the killing, to suggest that it is inevitable, and that the citizens, not the shelter, are ultimately responsible.
I honestly believe that the intent of the shelter leaders who performed these executions live was to raise awareness, in the hope that the actions would bring about behavioral change in the public. The error in their ways was in ignoring the part the shelters themselves play. Blaming us instead. By doing so they not only attacked the very people who would be their most likely supporters, financially and otherwise, but they managed to give some of us a sense of guilt that it is impossible to overcome alone. I have lived for years with the sense that I have not done enough to save the animals in shelters, yet I have believed that only a change in attitude by the public could possibly make a difference. I did not see a way that I could bring about that change, except on an individual level, and that never seems to be enough.
Winograd says that the shelters have been blaming the citizens for what they consider to be the overpopulation of companion animals and what they consider the necessary killing of many healthy animals while in fact the shelters themselves deserve the blame. My personal position is that the killing is a shared responsibility. However, the examples of a few committed shelters make it clear that shelters can end the killing without needing to rely on some vague time in the future when “the public” becomes “more responsible”. Shelters can end it right now. Even in parts of the country where the public is supposedly too ignorant or poor to get their animals neutered or to provide veterinary care to them.
The further I got into the book the more I came around to Winograd’s position. And the more I came to the sickening conclusion that the organizations that are supposed to be protecting our animals are not only needlessly killing them, but are at the same time attacking those shelters that have indeed achieved a real no-kill status. It is this resistance that forms the core of the message, because the means are available to make this a no-kill country. Now. Virtually overnight.
Paramount to understanding why this can be done is knowing that in fact that pet overpopulation is a myth. This simple fact, illustrated in this book, knocks all other arguments on their heads.
Winograd’s method, which he calls the No-Kill Equation, includes several actions that any shelter can take:
* Neuter all animals that enter the shelter except those that are incurably and painfully ill and must be euthanized for that reason.
* Support and even operate Trap-Neuter-Release programs for feral cats in the community.
* Use volunteers to socialize and foster animals to make them more readily adoptable and to create additional space in the shelter.
* Provide medical care and isolation as needed for sick animals
* Use the media to bring the animals and their needs to the public
* Expand shelter hours and offer off-site adoptions to meet the needs of the public
* Allow animal protection groups to take healthy animals for adoption at their shelters or off-site adoptions
* Get rid of employees who can’t get with the program and bring in those who can.
Winograd currently accepts the killing of dogs that are considered irretrievably vicious, because to date there are not enough sanctuaries for these dogs. I have difficulty with this position because these are innocent dogs who deserve to live. They may not be suitable companion animals but there are not a lot of them (by his own calculations) and I suspect there are enough sanctuaries who can accommodate them. Best Friends Animal Sanctuary always finds a way to keep animals alive, including those with behavior problems. This one issue is a type of quibble, though, in the face of the astonishing success Winograd outlines here.
In the cases Winograd outlines in this book, media attention on the activities of true no-kill shelters (those that are not selective in the animals they take in) quickly brought in the money needed to undertake all of the above actions, and eventually the aggressive actions reduced the number of animals brought into the shelters. It’s a win-win all around. But it only works, Winograd reminds us again and again, if the shelter is absolutely committed. His three-step program:
* Stop the killing
* Stop the killing
* Stop the killing
Unless shelter directors and staff are fully committed to stopping the killing it will go on. It is unfortunate that at this time it takes special directors to achieve no-kill status, but even this situation can and likely will change. Winograd sees a change in the public perception of animal shelters based on greater visibility, and accordingly the public will no longer accept the standard operating procedures that are so common today.
I don’t feel as hopeless now. I know what tools can be used at the shelters and I know I can demand that these tools be used.
Every shelter should have this book. Every governing board that regulates these shelters should read this book. And every humane society leadership should read this book. And honestly pay attention to it.
book rating: 10 out of 10
After reading this book myself, I felt compelled to do some things to help reduce the kill rates at my local shelters. I haven’t done much so far, but at least now I have some tools.
I thought Redemption was a good book, too. It really convinced me that we CAN create a no-kill nation. My only problems with it were 1) there was some anti-AR messages/tones, and 2) it had a slow start. I’d give it a 9.5 out of 10
Although as you say it’s sickening to hear about the complicity of these organizations and the mendacity of the shelters, it also sounds like the situation is (potentially) a lot more hopeful than many of us animal-rights advocates thought. That the population of animals isn’t wildly out of proportion to potential adoptees as long as some of the steps the author advocates are taken is new information to me, and good to hear.
i really enjoyed the book as well, and it gave me a lot of hope. the thing that stuck out most to me, was how many shelters say the killing is “inevitable” while shelter cages and kennels remain empty. they kill animals even when they actually *do* have space. and of course, PETA’s postion that killing animals is the “humane” thing to do. i don’t understand how they think farm animals deserve life but shelter animals don’t. and the effort they make to *ensure* that animals die really upset me.
i also appreciate that winograd is vegan so his message is consistent with farm animals and shelter animals.
~ Recent blog post: BFFs come in all sizes! ~
Although my overall tone in this review is perhaps angry I really did feel an overwhelming sense of hope after reading it. I no longer feel personally responsible for all of those animals and I no longer feel like there is nothing to be done. So I agree with all of you on this.
Our local shelter (pound) now claims that it no longer kills for lack of space. That leads me to wonder why almost 500 animals were killed last year there. I refuse to believe there were that many incurably ill or impossibly vicious. So I, too, am just starting my investigation into my local shelter.
In the past few days, I read an article by a professor at Western Carolina University (at the moment I don’t remember where) which said that due to spaying and neutering programs, overall shelter populations have decreased markedly in the last few years. In the north where spaying and neutering have been widespread, many of the animals turned in to shelters have behavioral problems which render them a poor fit for the average household, and relatively few of the shelter animals are readily adoptable. Southerners have not embraced spay-neuter programs enthusiastically, and the shelters there have many readily adoptable animals. The author suggested shipping the surplus of adoptable animals from the south to the areas which actually have a shortage of family-suitable companion animals. If his information is correct, it would seem that mass killing of animals by shelters should soon be a thing of the past.
I have not read this book. But I can not agree with his conclusions (that you explain in your blog)
I have been working with a local feral cat program here in Toronto for the last year and a half. We follow ALL the steps that he suggested in bold.
And we still have no room in foster homes and many cats that we can not trap because we have no recovery homes for them.
I suggest that this Winograd is being simplicistic and would be interested to know what he bases himself on. (I will look for the book
Meanwhile we have over 180 cats that are not being adopted, and the Toronto humane society has over 800!
and we keep finding more and more cats abandoned on the streets everyday.
It may make people “feel” better to blame the shelters and not themselves, but that is like blaming the salvation army for running out of food, when half of the hungry starve.
The slavation army is not the reason why these people are hungry.
And the shelters are not the reason why the cat and dogs are in the shelters!
In fact the main problem with the organization that I volunteer with is that it follows all the steps listed above, spay neuter release, feed, foster homes, adopt the tame cats, use the media to draw attention etc etc…
but they are a welfare org and they CARE for the feral cats, and they do NO poublic outreach NO education
and so the problem never changes.
I agree with all the steps above, and I strongly disagree with the kill approach when spay/neuter and release is possible, but all these approaches WITHOUT also educating the public and telling them that THEY MUST stop this by spaying and neutering their pets and not buying from pet shops is useless.
In fact the organisation that I volunteer with is all about helpign the cats and like Winograd loves to hate kill shelters, but they NEVER tell people to spay and neuter and to stop buying from pet shops…they never balme…in fact not even themsleves as they are very adamantly ANTI-VEGETARIAN (although many of their new members are vegans!
Is this Winograd vegan? Why does that matter you ask? Well he can still have good points and I will still read his points (mostly because you recommend it) but if he is not vegan this may explain why he is so desperate to pull blame away from himself.
The reality is that if we do what he says and follow his steps without telling the public anyhting about it and without placing the blame at their feet… the problem will never go away!
In fact, while nothing would stop me from continuing to trap and feed the feral cats in the area, I still believe that PETA with their education campaign geared towards the public educating people about spaying and neutering and TELLING them not to buy from pet shops is MUCH more effective than what we do with the feral cats.
PETA’s campaign has the possibility of actually educating the people responsible for this overpopulation : humans!
The method used by the organization that I volunteer with and that Winograd suggest will ENSURE that we continue forever as we are now.
oh…and I have seen the amount of cats on the streets and I see them die, I have many friends across the United States who have seen packs of stray dogs.
Anyone who actually believes that he can prove that there is no cat and dog overpopulation problems is either lying or seriously delusional.
Antoine, I highly suggest you read the book.
Beyond that, my thoughts:
a) Winograd agrees there should be an education component, but mostly he suggests low-cost or free spay/neuter clinics. They do the most good.
b) The Salvation Army doesn’t KILL homeless people. Homeless shelters just say, “We have no more beds. We’re very sorry.”
c) Winograd doesn’t suggest there aren’t stray cats and dogs. He suggests that if current pet parents simply always adopted (not bought) another animal whenever their current one dies, there’d be more homes than animals in shelters. His main premise is that shelters should be as pro-active in finding those homes as petstores and breeders are.
“His three-step program:
* Stop the killing
* Stop the killing
* Stop the killing”
Sounds good! Oh, but wait:
“Neuter all animals that enter the shelter except those that are incurably and painfully ill and must be euthanized for that reason.”
…
How exactly is a ‘no-kill’ shelter that kills ill and vicious animals different from a ‘kill’ shelter that kills ill, vicious and unable-to-be-cared-for animals?
Is it too much for me to ask for a little consistency from no-kill advocates?
Jay, read the book. The difference is in the MILLIONS of lives it would save. Consistency is overrated. It’s about saving lives, not about moral consistency or purity.
i agree that you should all really read the book. it’s a very interesting and enlightening read and will answer all of your questons as to what winograd believes and how he thinks we should go about it.
winograd *is* vegan.
while he believes that vicious and extremely ill, unsavable animals should be euthanized, he points out how MANY shelters put animals in the “vicious” and “unsavable” category even when they aren’t vicious and are savable. i.e. the tendency to put all pit bulls in the vicious category based on their breed or putting black cats in the unsavable category because they take longer to adopt out.
“no kill” doesn’t mean NO animals are ever killed, it means that the standards used to determine which animals get killed are a lot stricter than they are now and that we save EVERY animal that IS savable.
really, y’all should read the book. it’s really good and will answer your questions. he also has a blog: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?page_id=166
~ Recent blog post: Hee hee hee haw haw! ~
“The difference is in the MILLIONS of lives it would save. Consistency is overrated.”
I’m confused – wouldn’t a consistent position entail that millions more would be saved?
I was away from this blog for a while and so did not have a chance to respond…now it may be too late, since there are already about 10 blog posts after this one.
but here I go….
a) I agree 100% all cities should have free and MANDATORY spay and neuter clinics.
b) The difference is in the difference in legal status of a homeless human and of a homeless dog or cat. Homeless humans are allowed to live freely, but non-human animals are not allowed to live freely in a city, they are rounded up by animal control. Because of that it is irresponsible and unfair for us to “leave them on their own”
AGAIN: I work in a feral cat colony trap, spay and neuter, and release program. I feed the feral colonies, and set out shelters for them for the winter (in Toronto it goes down to below -20 Celsius (below -4 F)!
The main reason why PETA believes in euthanizing is because it is used in the true sense of the world (to end one’s existence to avoid suffering)which is often the most Ethical (pEta) choice to make if one knows that the only other solution is for the animal to live in horrible conditions.
c)Yes and again I agree of course (kind of an obvious statement). BUT that is why I used the salvation army example…
It is misplaced to blame the salvation army FOR homelessness
and similary it is misplaced to blame the shelters for the dog and cat overpopulation.
the blame lies suqarely on people who buy animals and people who dump animals in shelters (and these two groups are often the same people)
As for “being proactive for adoption”, well pet stores and breeders are proacvtive by treating the animals simply as commodities to sell, and pet stores have huge marketing campaigns because they are high profit businesses.
All of us who have witnessed horrible animal cruelty can tell you that euthanazia would have been much better.
instead of trying to get more funds to shelters and allowing them to become no kill shelters, if we attack the ROOT of the problems, maybe sometime (soon!) we won’t need shelters anymore…and shouldn’t THAT be the goal?
and the only way we will achieve this is by EDUCATING those who are causing the problem: HUMANS.
not by attacking shelters that are trying to help.
hi antoine,
i think you should really read the book before you decide his theories and practices are all wrong. i shared your perspective on the mandatory spay/neuter thing as well as some of your other views, but once i read the book, i came around to his way of thinking. he’s very smart and convincing.
1) mandatory spay/neuter ends up killing more animals because if someone doesn’t spay/neuter and animal control decides to take the animal in and it will likely get killed. winograd suggests low-cost/free spay/neuter clinics. most people WANT to do the right thing for their pets, but they can’t always afford to. he talks about how many laws that on their face seem to be ablout helping animals and punishing irresponsible owners really end up killing lots of innocent animals which the animals would probably argue isn’t very helpful.
2) to me, rounding up feral cats just to kill them (as peta encourages) doesn’t seem like a very “kind” or “compassionate” thing to do. we don’t round up squirrels or raccoons and euthanize them. they’re considered wild animals and part of nature. feral cats are the same. TNR works and i think those cats deserve to live out their lives in their colonies. alley cat allies has lots of great statistics as well.
winograd’s book is quite interesting and he really gives excellent insight and evidence. i think you’d enjoy it and i really do recommend reading it before you decide he’s full of crackers.
~ Recent blog post: Hee hee hee haw haw! ~
Wow. Go away for a few days and see what happens.
Antoine, your point about education is correct. In fact, Winograd really pushes aggressive education and outreach. It is a cornerstone of the program. And he does not apologize or place blame elsewhere – he has run successful no-kill shelters so he knows how it is done and why it isn’t being done everywhere now.
I think where the education part is different is that he advocates letting people know about specific animals who need homes and he makes it easy, though off-site adoption sites, longer hours and other means, for people to adopt. He does not attack the people who can help, which is us. His point is that most people really do care and do try to do the right thing, even in the dreaded south, where supposedly nobody takes care of their pets (yes they do, even the poorest, as best they can).
What he attacks most of all is the attitude that this is the best that can be done. The reason he uses the mantra “stop the killing stop the killing stop the killing” is that this needs to be the primary focus. Look for the solution if it isn’t obvious, is what he’s saying. It is impossible to describe everything in the book without actually writing another book.