On 08/10/2008 Mike Fry said: Reality CheckSorry, Shelly, if I misinterpreted your post. You had written:
It doesn't talk about the current euthanasia numbers in the whole of Tompkins County. Isn't "no kill" meaningless if one shelter refuses to admit pets and they just go down the street to animal control to be euthanized?
That sounded to me like you were suggesting that Tompkins Co SPCA was sending animals to animal control to be killed, which is not true.You are right about one thing: this is a complex issue and there are subtleties and nuances that are nearly impossible to articulate well, especially in a short, 20 minute video. You should understand this, because you seem to be encountering the same challenge. For example, you write about poor, underfunded shelters working to spay/neuter all they can. While that is certainly true for many organizations, it is also true that there are large, very wealthy "humane" organizations that are, quite literally, sitting on millions of dollars and not investing in spay/neuter. Since you brought up the Animal Humane Society, you might want to take a look at their financial portfolio and realize that itß was only within very recent years that they began sterilizing all of the animals they adopt prior to adoption. Their director told me then that spaying/neutering their animals prior to adoption would be a "waste of their resources." While they have plenty of cash (their Board recently approved spending $4.5 million to build a boarding kennel at the airport) they have no TNR program to help feral cats, they have no public assistance program to help fund spay/neuter. They have virtually none of the programs that have been successful at accomplishing "no kill". The shelters with the greatest resources are, by their positions, responsible for managing the "overpopulation problem." Too many of these very wealthy organizations are failing to do so. I do not call them "murderers." That is your word. You are also right that the shelters are not responsible for people abandoning animals. They are, however, responsible for implementing the programs the animals need. If they have failed to do so, they are responsible for the result. |
On 08/09/2008 Shelley K said: Also, Mike, I'm glad about Tompkins County being communitywide results -- that's great. But when I asked the question about turning animals away, I wasn't speaking about that shelter directly but about a common practice at many other no kills. If animal control in a community is still killing thousands, where's the victory? Responsible no-kill orgs acknowledge that they are choosing to stop euthanizing -- and acknowledge that stopping doesn't mean they've solved the problem in the community.
Every organization and agency can contribute to the solution, but the blame game that Winograd plays is destructive, not helpful. And here are some hard facts: according to your site, Animal Ark handles 1000 animals in a year. Animal Humane Society in Minneapolis (the staff of which, by your video's accounting, are "choosing" to kill animals and are committing murder) handled over 36,000 animals last year. They adopted over 20,000 of them. Would your shelter have been able to rehome the 14,000 plus they euthanized? Reality check! Maybe they can all go live with Winograd. But if they can’t, and they can’t come to Animal Ark, maybe you’d consider acknowledging that many of the staff at these “murderous” shelters are working their butts off to save lives. Maybe you wanna rethink the blaming? Your site's FAQ answering the question “Wouldn't I be making a bigger difference by adopting an animal from a shelter where animals are euthanized?” is downright irresponsible. Do you really want to encourage people NOT to adopt animals from animal control or humane societies where they might be killed? That is NOT an answer that shows a desire to solve the problem at a communitywide level.
|
On 08/09/2008 Shelley K said: I’m impressed you posted this. Will be buying beer for my shelter buddies tonight. But I’ve been researching this issue for 20 years. The drop in numbers that has happened over these past decades is in intake and euthanasia at open-admission and animal control facilities (the concepts of adoption and spay/neuter were not a new idea of no kill; they’re standard operating procedure at all the best shelters). Those millions of animals have stopped being born, or are staying in their homes, or are getting placed more often. Shelters in the northeast are actually running short of adoptable dogs. I hope you’d agree that’s a huge victory? No-kill shelters have been hugely helpful in contributing to the drop in intake by taking animals who would otherwise have been surrendered and probably euthanized. And no kill shelters have given the animal welfare movement a major energy shot in the arm. Kudos to all shelters working together to save animals’ lives—how about Winograd says THAT now and then? But I never hear this from “gurus” like Winograd. How much energy is wasted on blaming shelters that are fighting the good fight with little money and little public support? This video does not focus on effective programs, but instead draws a line in the sand, encouraging the public to think of open-admission shelters as bad, uncaring places. It helps persuade people not to go to their local shelters. How many dogs will die as a result? Whatever policy disagreements shelters may have, there is no legitimate reason to blame them for animal homelessness. It is not shelter workers who are abandoning their animals, failing to spay/neuter them and allowing them to roam, buying them from puppy mills, etc. etc.
|
On 08/07/2008 Mike Fry said: Sorry, ShelleySorry, Shelly, but you owe your friend 50 bucks. Typically, we only edit posts if they are profane, spam, or something along those lines. We routinely allow posts from people expressing different opinions from our own. No matter what you say about the "naysayers" actually being "heros", the fact that the reduction in shelter killing has directly correlated to wide-spread, rapid growth of no kill initiatives. And, frankly, it is hard to take your arguments seriously when you have, clearly, not done your research. Tompkins County SPCA is an open admission shelter, with animal control contracts. Your notion that people are turned away from the SPCA and sent to animal control to be euthanized is completely without merit. Additionally, the "save rates" reported in Tompkins County are community-wide results, meaning that the scenario you describe cannot account for the high save rate in that community. Maybe you would like to bet me 50 bucks? Your argument could get a bit costly. BTW - the executive director of Tompkins County SPCA will be a guest on Animal Wise Radio this Sunday. Maybe you should tune in. As for Nathan's blog, I have great sympathy for folks who may not want to provide a voice to people who post information that they have not researched. |
On 08/07/2008 ShelleyK said: By the way ...I've bet my friend $50 that you won't post my previous comment -- Nathan never posts criticisms on his blog! I'll be highly impressed if you do. But the fact that you tell people multiple times that you reserve the right to edit comments or refuse to publish makes your position pretty clear. |
On 08/07/2008 Shelley said: The real heroesThis video fails to acknowledge that it's the "naysaying" shelters, through programs like spay/neuter, outreach, and coalition-building, that are largely behind the vast drop in euthanasia nationwide. It doesn't talk about the current euthanasia numbers in the whole of Tompkins County. Isn't "no kill" meaningless if one shelter refuses to admit pets and they just go down the street to animal control to be euthanized? It doesn't talk about the fact that what many shelters object to is not the goal of no kill, but the approach that's allowed one animal shelter to turn away pets while calling the shelter down the street "killers"—and fundraising off that. It doesn't mention the many shelters that have become no-kill in the wrong way, and become hoarders instead. Google the news for the past years about Lied Animal Shelter in Vegas -- only one example. Nathan never talks about problems like overcrowding and sickness and suffering -- just euthanasia. If we fix the latter by introducing the former, should we celebrate? It's more complex than Nathan portrays, and he continues to blame animal shelters for a community problem. The approach is toxic and ensures resistance. It's like blaming the American Cancer Society for cancer. I’d be more inclined to listen to Nathan if he ever wrote something that wasn't full of vitriol against animal shelter staff. It's not enough that they're doing the hardest work out there -- they have to take him telling them that euthanasia is their fault. It's madness, it's hurtful, and most importantly, it's flat out wrong. |
On 03/09/2008 Betty V said: WowI love this video. I am sending it to everyone I know. |