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.

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! ~

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.

I’m confused – wouldn’t a consistent position entail that millions more would be saved?

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! ~

* 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?

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.