I feel like screaming at the top of my lungs, “We’re on the same team!” and “The animals don’t need our grudges, our vitriol, our egos; they need practical solutions NOW.”

Nathan Winograd wrote:

“I’ve never stomped, electrocuted, hung, shot, drowned, or strangled dogs, nor have I watched them tear each other to shreds and laughed. But Michael Vick did, and he’d still be doing it to this very day had he not been caught.”

Me neither. That doesn’t make me a saint. It makes me a normal person.

We have a choice in how to react to Vick now that he’s stopped hurting dogs. We can hold a grudge, carry anger and hate, and funnel our energy into an issue that’s already been resolved or we can forgive, show and teach kindness, and funnel our energy into other issues where animals are still dying.

Winograd’s heart is in the right place. He wants to help shelter animals. But he tries to do it by attacking the HSUS president for forgiving Michael Vick:

“Pacelle has long been an apologist and enabler of shelter killing.”

OK, so this may be true. Pacelle hasn’t come around on the euthanasia issue. The HSUS and PETA aren’t dedicated to saving lives through practical means, they’re dedicated to promoting their version of animal rights, which sadly includes a whole lot of collateral damage.

However, Pacelle’s previous statements against no-kill have got nothing to do with his choice to forgive Micheal Vick. Those are separate issues. You’d think a guy who wrote a book titled, Redemption, would have more understanding for forgiveness.

You might also think that a guy who has dedicated his life to saving animals’ lives might better interpret Pacelle’s claim that:

“In a civil society, there must be accountability for grievous actions. But there also must be an embrace of people who are willing and ready to change – even in tough cases, like Michael Vick. We are all sinners when it comes to animals, and we can all do better.” [emphasis added]

Because, guess what? Nonvegan dog-rescuers aren’t any better than euthanasia-supporting animal advocates. They’re all hypocrites! The Nonvegan dog-rescuers save the lives of dogs yet steal the lives of pigs, cows, chickens…

Consider, Winograd’s own statement with just a few words changed:

I’ve never stomped, electrocuted, hung, shot, drowned, or strangled pigs, nor have I paid someone else to. But every bacon-eating American has.

Just change the species and Winograd’s statement is no longer true. He used to eat animals.

We are all sinners and hypocrites when it comes to animals. We can all do better.

It was the first of its kind, a free event covering purely local campaigns that encourage spay and neuter programs for cats and dogs.

The half-day series of presentations inspired many responses in me. Here are my thoughts in a list:

• It was great to see an organized, free, local event to help local shelter animals and local feral/ free-roaming cats.
• It was great to see so many caring people all in one place.
• From the very beginning I disliked the term “overpopulation” because it focuses on the animals as the problem, not on humans as the problem. The entire issue is framed as though animals must be controlled/ managed by humans, which simply isn’t the case.
• I support spay and neuter programs and I support TNR, but I do so because I see them as an alternative to shelter killing. I don’t believe there is a true “overpopulation” problem. I think that’s a false concept.
• I wanted to speak up and ask why they titled the conference “overpopulation” and ask if it wasn’t time to use more up-to-date terminology, but after hearing other questions from the audience of purportedly “the choir” of “animal rescuers” it became clear to me that my local community IS a bit out of date on these issues. That’s OK, we’ll catch up. Vegas is all about change.
  
• However, I can see how even if cats and dogs are not “overpopulated” and there are enough safe places for them to live (in human homes and in the “wild”), the concept of overpopulation might be useful in persuading people to get more active to save animals lives. That is, for some people it might bridge the gap between a) thinking that animals are a nuisance and if they can’t be adopted then they must be killed and b) thinking that “nuisance” animals can be controlled and managed without being killed.
• The entire conference felt very 1989 to me. The concepts were so old. It makes me sad that we’re still fighting for the rights of shelter animals to be sheltered, not killed. It makes me sad that people still see feral/ free-roaming cats as a “nuisance.” It makes me sad how few people have ever heard of TNR. It makes me sad that so many people still think shelter animals are “damaged goods” and that some people refer to them as “used.”
• I see a clear need for better “marketing” of shelter animals to help them get adopted and overcome common misconceptions. If the shelters won’t do it themselves, it’s time for others to step up and help them.
• It makes me sad that successful campaigns to change people’s perceptions of shelter animals have hinged on a sort of anti-AR view. It makes me sad how many people gleefully subscribe to a true animal welfarist perspective, rather than an animal rights perspective. (Those people are not PETA and the HSUS, by the way. I’m talking about those who wear the “animal welfarist” badge with pride.)

and… most importantly…

• In the US in general, the leading cause of death for animals are slaughterhouses, but in my community, the leading cause of death for animals are shelters. I see the two issues as intrinsically linked because they both stem from the false concept that any trivial human desire trumps the most profound animal need – life.

—

PS – Another conference dedicated to helping shelter animals and free-roaming cats will take place in Las Vegas soon: No More Homeless Pets. That conference is more geared to the national campaigns, however, and not local. And that conference is not free. (For the record, a Soapbox writer will attend that one and will likely post a review.)

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