1. PHD | 06.23.09

This book has contributed nothing to the humane community other than to rip us apart rather than bring us together. To say there is not an overpopulation of pets is immoral and unethical. It means that officials can now say why bother to increase budgets if there is not a problem. And the program that the book endorses has brought plenty of suffering to pets in open door shelters. Look at what it did in Philly.
http://www.philadelphiacontroller.org/page.asp?id=340
First, PACCA staff admitted to the auditors that some animals had been put to death prior to the required ten day holding period for bite cases. PACCA records were not maintained sufficiently to allow us to confirm compliance with holding requirements for animals that had bitten someone and could possibly have had the rabies virus. PACCA also failed to keep separate files for bite cases.
Second, PACCA’s monthly reports to the Health Department, mandated under the contract, were not always accurate.”

Butkovitz continued, “For example — the monthly “Put-to Death” reports for 2007 that were provided to the Department were incorrect and euthanasia logs for July 2007 were missing”.

And because of this “error” several people had to undergo rabies treatments.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/bizarre&id=5900625

The city controller’s office began its probe after serious allegations from the Pennsylvania SPCA.
“We’re talking basic care. We’re talking life-sustaining care, proper medical treatment working with partners to save animals,” said Howard Nelson, CEO of the Pennsylvania SPCA.
The SPCA points to a number of animals it claims were being neglected and near death at PACCA. An SPCA staff member allegedly found a pitbull boxer bleeding to death in a cage after surgery to remove an embedded collar in its neck. The staff member rushed the dog to SPCA.

This is only one shelter that met with disaster under the program of Winograd. There are others. Keep in mind that the management of Philly were hand picked by Winograd but since the truth came out, he now condemns his hand picked staff. No kill was a marketing term for closed door shelters. It was called a hoax by Roger A. Caras, longtime President of the ASPCA and noted author. This hoax is creating more unnecessary suffering of our shelter pets.

2. Valerie Hayes | 06.23.09

It sounds like you have a vested interest in continued shelter killing, and a serious reading comprehension problem. I was a volunteer at the Tompkins County SPCA before Winograd was hired as director. Indeed, I was the volunteer whose (perfectly healthy) foster kittens were killed (see p. 92) by an employee too lazy, incompetent, uncivil and uncaring to call me so that I could take them back, even though I had made it abundantly clear that I would drop whatever I was doing to come get them if they needed me to. Working there then was like being trapped in a Kafka novel. Upon his arrival, he changed the place completely. He made it into waht a shelter should be–a place where animal lives are saved and people are treated civilly. The difference was as dramatic as night and day.

3. Clifford Blizard, Ph.D. | 06.23.09

Dear PHD,

I am baffled by the vitriol of your letter concerning Winograd’s book. Regarding a number of your statements concerning no-kill, I refer you to the following: http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/Open%20Door%20Myth.pdf.

I would like to know what you would favor, if not a no-kill scenario? The opposite is a “kill shelter”. Please explain to me how this is better for animals.

I have rescued animals from “the jaws of death”: healthy kittens and young dogs that were likely to be “put to sleep” (what a harmless phrase, that!) at the whim of shelter management. And I know there has to be a better way. And what I have seen of Jason’s work, I commend him for showing such a way.

Kind regards,
Dr. Clifford Blizard

4. Joni | 06.23.09

I read this book and thought it was well written and thought out. I think that people should keep an open mind to new ideas especially if it may led to less killing in our so called animal shelters. New programs should be considered and tried out and good records kept to look into the full outcome and costs of the program over the short term and the longterm.

Problems are to be excepted with complicated issues like animal control. I certainly do not think the person writing the book should be blamed for a shelter causing animals to suffer and plenty of kill shelters are in the news all the time for causing animals to suffer within their walls.

If all shelter management read this book and implemented just a few of its live saving programs many more animals would be leaving the animal shelters of America alive.

Most people in America would love to see less shelter pets killed and I welcome any person that is willing to put effort into exploring the past and look into new ideas that may lead to a better future.

5. PHD | 06.24.09

Did anyone read the links I provided? I can provide more showing that this particular program is not sustainable and has actually caused more suffering than is necessary. Just because I am against this particular program does not mean that I am against the goal of no kill. Also this book brings nothing new to the table. It doesn’t help animal control, only complicates it. The author has no experience in dealing with governmental budgets and this is the biggest problem shelters face, lack of funding to do programs. A reporter in Austin had a story in which she states that he has mislead people about his experience. Here’s the link and an excerpt:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=696455

Sayres denies that charge. As the current president of the national ASPCA and the architect of a nationwide pet-adoption program known as Mission: Orange, a mystified Sayres told the Chronicle he was the one who hired and then promoted Winograd to “operations director” in San Francisco – a job Sayres said Winograd held just a week and a half before resigning. That tenure makes Winograd’s online promotion of his book – Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America – rather misleading. The promotional material describes Winograd as the former “director of operations for the San Francisco SPCA and executive director of the Tompkins County SPCA [New York], two of the most successful shelters in the nation.”

And I find it strange that the director before Winograd in Tompkins County has put in print that this shelter was already on its way to no kill prior to his arrival. Also the current director has put in print that Winograd did a disservice by not addressing budget issues, chosing instead to build his “program” off the backs of donors, thus putting the shelter in a bad position now. Tompkins has lost several contracts because of this neglect.

I have no “vested” interest in “killing” animals in our shelters. In fact, I have worked for decades to stop it. But when someone comes in and deceives the public with false hope, I will stand up. I didn’t do anything but report what is on record regarding this program. Don’t blame me for it not working.

6. PHD | 06.24.09

Valarie, you might be interested in this article done by Cornell at the Tompkins shelter. It basically says that the garden room is cruel to cats.

http://dspace.library.cornell.edu:8080/bitstream/1813/11075/1/Caroline%20Monk%20Research%20Honors%20Thesis.pdf

In a study on group versus single housing conditions, Ottway and Hawkins (2003) looked at cats kept in groups of 33 to 65 individuals. These cats lived in a typical shelter atmosphere with cats constantly coming in and out of the groups. They found that cats in this type of housing were on average more stressed than those in single houses.
The critical period for a cat’s socialization to conspecifics and humans is between two to eight weeks postpartum (Jongman, 2007). Cats that do not have adequate interactions with conspecifics during this time period become socially dysfunctional and have inappropriate reactions towards other cats. These reactions may be hyper-aggression or extreme fear (Crowell-Davis et al, 2004) toward conspecifics and humans. These poorly socialized cats were more stressed than socialized cats in group-housing and have a negative affect on the rest of the group members by increasing their stress levels (Kessler & Turner, 1999b).

7. Valerie Hayes | 06.24.09

The director immediately before Winograd was a complete incompetent, and was fired for that reason, thus creating the job opening for Winograd. Had he not been fired, that shelter would be killing just as many animals as ever. The study you cite is not an “article by Cornell” it is an honors thesis done by an undergraduate student at Cornell. There is a difference. Furthermore, it does NOT conclude that the group housing of cats (in groups of 3-9) at TCSPCA is cruel. In fact, it is by far preferable compared to housing them singly in small steel cages or killing them.

As for Winograd building his programs “on the backs of donors”, pardon me for stating the obvious, but didn’t the donors donate for exactly that purpose? What motivates you to try to put a negative spin on that? What is your real name, anyway, “PHD”? If the book “brings nothing new to the table”, then why are you so upset about it?

Read the book.

Work to make your community No-Kill.

Have a nice day.

8. PHD | 06.30.09

The Cornell “thesis” does stress that the garden room concept is not a good idea. You are sweating the small stuff when you need to see the big picture. And even the new Director, Abigail Smith, put in print that Winograd did Tompkins County SPCA an injustice by not seeking appropriate funding from their contracts. I saw the townhall minutes where the contract amounts stayed the same under Winograd even though the program was costing more money. He had no experience in dealing with contracts and budgets so he let the donors pay for the development of his “program”. Then when he left so did the donations and left TC SPCA in a world of hurt. They have lost contracts showing that the cities didn’t really support “No Kill”, they were in it because it was offered cheap. And I would like to know what you might say about the others such as Philly? Or will I hear the lame excuses about poor management? I am upset about this book because it offers false hope based on a perfect world. I’m not so foolish as to be attracted by the shiny “live release rate”, I look at the died in kennel rate, the inceased impound rates, the owner surrender rates, overcrowding, disease outbreaks.
Winograd promises the volunteers will come (the backbone of his program). This didn’t happen in Rancho Cucamonga, CA where the city web site reports an average of only 10 volunteer hours a day. They lay claims to over 400 volunteers, the only problem is they have to bring mama and daddy with them. Thus Rancho now pays over $12 per person per year for animal control whereas the recommended amount is $5-7 per person per year. And they still can’t make it work. Don’t overlook the obvious and that is this particular program is not sustainable. Reno, just last week, voted NOT to adopt this program although Winograd lays claim to it.
We all are working to stop euthanasia for time and space but how we get there makes the difference in whether animals have to suffer needlessly or not. The problem was not created overnight and cannot be eliminated overnight as Winograd likes to proclaim.

9. Valerie Hayes | 07.01.09

PHD–
I’ll ask again: Who are you, really? And, what do you do besides say negative things about No-Kill?
Also, please limit yourself to facts. The TCSPCA Animal Control Contract money was woefully inadequate long before Winograd arrived. The ‘new’ director you spoke of actually says that the No-Kill policy is not to blame for the situation.

From http://www.co.tompkins.ny.us/news/detail.aspx?ContentID=819

“Among county agency representatives appearing before the committee was Tompkins County SPCA Director Abigail Smith, justifying a more than $28,000 over-target request which, if granted, would double the County’s support of the SPCA . The county administrator has called for only $5,000 in additional target funding, an 18 percent increase which would return the agency to nearly the 2003 target level. Smith called her agency’s animal control budget “severely under-funded,” with expenses nearly double the amount of contract revenue that the County and other municipalities are providing and, in response to legislators’ questions, indicated that the SPCA’s no-kill policy is not to blame.”

Loss of contracts does not indicate a lack of community suport for No-Kill. It indicates town officials not wanting to pay fair market value for services.

Winograd accomplished more to save animals on his first day as director of TCSPCA than did all of his predecessors combined throughout their entire tenures. He established a new paradigm and held the staff to it.

And as for poor management being a “lame excuse” for problems at some shelters which he has worked with–poor management is probably the number one reason for organizations of any kind not reaching their goals. Saving shelter animals is a big job. It takes more than one person. All those people have to work together towards a common goal, which is where good management becomes of paramount importance. Kill shelters, by contrast, thrive on poor management. It is endemic to them. If your answer to every homeless animal is to give them an injection of barbiturates or to gas them, all the while blaming the “irresponsible public” for your actions, then no leadership is required, and no thought process either.

Read the book.

Work to make your community No-Kill.

Have a nice day.

10. PHD | 07.02.09

Why do you want to shoot the messenger? Have you read the links? I don’t make these things up, they are all public record. I just thought you might want to be informed. Ignorance is the fodder that feeds false prophets. And for the record, I am against this particular program, not the noble goal of stopping euthanasia in the shelters for time and space. I just don’t believe in creating more suffering than is necessary with a program that proves to be unsustainable.

11. Valerie Hayes | 07.03.09

Well then, who are you and what do you believe in? As for shooting the messenger, I thought that was your self-appointed job.

12. PHD | 07.03.09

Excuse me but why do you need to know who I am? What difference does it make? And why get mad with me for supplying information that is necessary to anyone who wants to get the full story before making a decision. I stated what I believe in. I believe in the noble goal of no euthanizing for space and time in our shelters, same as you. Yet you condemn someone who thinks it can be done differently than your selected program. This says a great deal about you. Do you say that the links I provided are a conspiracy of some sort? I can’t help it if this program failed and created more suffering. That’s not my fault. Go blame the person who created this program, not me.

13. Valerie Hayes | 07.04.09

Hiding behind anonymity is rude, but I suppose it does afford you the opportunity to say ridiculous things with impunity. What have you offered as an alternative to the programs outlined in this book?

Nothing.

The programs work. I’ve seen them work.

Read the book.

Work to make your community No-Kill.

Have a nice day.