ACOFunStop.Com Forums

Go Back   ACOFunStop.Com Forums > Kicking Back > General Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-26-2009
Getting too old's Avatar
Getting too old Getting too old is offline
Moderator
Giga-posting ACO
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ft. Worth, Texas
Posts: 3,386
Getting too old is on a distinguished road
Default Redemption

I just got a post card advertising a 2nd edition book called “Redemption, The myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Movement in America” by Nathan J Winograd. The title sounds like some kind of fairy tale written by somebody who has never spent a day working in a shelter, but has anybody read this book yet? Is there something useful in it?
__________________
There are no problems, only challenges and opportunities.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-26-2009
stmelangell's Avatar
stmelangell stmelangell is offline
Giga-posting ACO
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SF Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 4,150
stmelangell is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to stmelangell
Default

Well, depending on your level of willingness to suspend your disbelief ... I haven't read it, myself. But in the countless discussions I've heard about Winograd and his theories (he's a hot topic out here in Cali), most of the ACOs I know would consider him to be a well-educated fruitcake. Lots and lots of fabulous statements and feel-good ideas, very VERY little ability to deal with statistical facts, and an extremely frustrating tendency to gloss over anything he doesn't want to deal with by blaming the "traditional animal control" mentality for society's problems with animal. (In other words, if the economy tanks and crime gets out of hand, blame the police.) I probably should read it, and get my own information. But it seems like a less than efficient use of time.
__________________
Winnie

It's not what we have in our life, but who we have in our life that counts. (J.M. Lawrence)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-26-2009
Getting too old's Avatar
Getting too old Getting too old is offline
Moderator
Giga-posting ACO
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ft. Worth, Texas
Posts: 3,386
Getting too old is on a distinguished road
Default

So I take it that you're vote is some kind of fairy tale written by somebody who has never spent a day working in a shelter?
__________________
There are no problems, only challenges and opportunities.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-26-2009
DRNEGRIN6 DRNEGRIN6 is offline
Giga-posting ACO
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Roselle Park, NJ
Posts: 1,200
DRNEGRIN6 is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to DRNEGRIN6
Default

I got a copy at the last NJ ACO meeting. I gave a copy to one of my ACOs. We have been so overwhelmed with work that I have not had a chance to read it myself. People at the meeting stated that they enjoyed it. If I ever get a chance to read it, I'll let you know what I feel about it. It's not that big a book; just need the time to get 5 minutes to myself.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-27-2009
stmelangell's Avatar
stmelangell stmelangell is offline
Giga-posting ACO
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SF Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 4,150
stmelangell is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to stmelangell
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Getting too old View Post
So I take it that you're vote is some kind of fairy tale written by somebody who has never spent a day working in a shelter?
As I understand it, the guy has run two shelters: SFSPCA and Tompkins County. But I would summarize my take on him more like "here's a guy who has learned how to define the problem in a new way, so he can claim he's got a fix for the problem, and I would have a lot more respect for him if he had more respect for gathering concrete, hard-and-fast statistics."

Here's an article from the SF Chronicle, written by a fairly well-known animal advocate, on that book. It presents him in very positive light. However, I think it also indicates, by the very quotes used, the major flaws in his arguments (for example, using his logic, if I hire 2 nurses to take care of 1,000 patients, I should blame/fire the nurses if they can't save every one of those lives, right?). And, of course, he's a polarizing, divisive force, no matter which side of the polarity one happens to espouse:

=======================================

Is pet overpopulation a myth? Inside Nathan Winograd's "Redemption"
Christie Keith, SF Gate, 10/2/07

In the still-heated debate over reducing shelters deaths in California, there is probably no more polarizing figure than Nathan Winograd, former director of operations for the San Francisco SPCA.

At first glance, Winograd has all the credentials any animal rights activist or shelter professional could ask for. He's a vegan. He left a lucrative career as a prosecuting attorney to devote himself to helping animals. Last year, his income was only $35,000. He has spearheaded the No Kill Advocacy Center, a national organization aimed at ending the killing of pets in animal shelters. While director of operations at the San Francisco SPCA, he worked with then-president Richard Avanzino to implement a wide variety of animal livesaving programs, and then went on to achieve similar success as director of a rural shelter in upstate New York.

But Winograd isn't making a lot of friends in the shelter industry these days. That's because he authored a book called "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America" that challenges the very foundation of nearly every theory and principle of shelter management in this country: The idea that there are more pets dying in shelters each year than homes available for those pets.

In fact, with between 4 and 5 million dogs and cats being killed in shelters nationwide every year, denying the existence of pet overpopulation seems ridiculous. If there aren't more pets than homes, why are so many animals ending up in shelters in the first place?

Conventional wisdom tells us it's because of irresponsible pet owners who aren't willing to work to keep their pets in their homes. It's a failure of commitment, of caring, and of the human/animal bond. If fewer pets were born, there would be fewer coming into shelters. If people cared more about their pets, they wouldn't give them up so easily, would spay and neuter them so they wouldn't reproduce, and wouldn't let them stray.

That is exactly what I always believed, too, for the nearly 17 years I've been writing about pets. And yet, after reading "Redemption," I don't believe it anymore.

Winograd's argument is simply this: Based on data from the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, the Pet Food Manufacturers Association, and the latest census, there are more than enough homes for every dog and cat being killed in shelters every year. In fact, when I spoke to him for this article, he told me that there aren't just enough homes for the dogs and cats being killed in shelters. There are more homes for cats and dogs opening each year than there are cats and dogs even entering shelters.

He's not suggesting this is really nothing but a numbers game, though. "When I argue that pet overpopulation is a myth, I'm not saying that we can all go home," he said. "And I'm not saying that there aren't certain people who are irresponsible with their animals. And I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of animals entering shelters. Again, I'm not saying that it wouldn't be better if there were fewer of them being impounded. But it does mean that the problem is not insurmountable and it does mean that we can do something short of killing for all savable animals today."

There is probably nothing Winograd could say that would more inflame the shelter and humane society establishment than calling pet overpopulation a myth. But Winograd doesn't just stop there. In "Redemption," Winograd lays the lion's share of the blame for shelter deaths not on pet owners and communities, but on the management, staff, and boards of directors of the shelters themselves.

"If a community is still killing the majority of shelter animals, it is because the local SPCA, humane society, or animal control shelter has fundamentally failed in its mission," he writes. "And this failure is nothing more than a failure of leadership. The buck stops with the shelter's director."

Redemption makes the case that bad shelter management leads to overcrowding, which is then confused with pet overpopulation. Instead of warehousing and killing animals, shelters, he says, should be using proven, innovative programs to find those homes he says are out there. They should wholeheartedly adopt the movement known as No Kill, and stop using killing as a form of population control.

Mike Fry, the executive director of Animal Ark Shelter in the Minneapolis area, was one of those who had a problem with Winograd's analysis. Interviewing Winograd on his radio show, he said, "I was one of those people, when I saw the title "The Myth of Pet Overpopulation ..." the hackles kind of went up on the back of my neck. This is a problem we're struggling and fighting with literally day in day out in the animal welfare community."

Winograd, who has been in the same trenches himself, responded with some specific examples of the buck stopping at the shelter director's desk. "Let's just look at various animals dying in shelters around the nation today," he said on Fry's radio show. "If ... motherless kittens are killed because the shelter doesn't have a comprehensive foster care program, that's not pet overpopulation. That's the lack of a foster care program.

"If adoptions are low because people are getting those dogs and cats from other places, because the shelter isn't doing outside adoptions (adoptions done off the shelter premises), that's a failure to do outside adoptions, not pet overpopulation.

"And you can go down the list. If animals are killed because working with rescue groups is discouraged, again, that's not pet overpopulation. If dogs are going cage-crazy because volunteers and staff aren't allowed to socialize them, and then those dogs are killed because they're quote-unquote "cage crazy," because the shelter doesn't have a behavior rehabilitation program in place, once again, that's not pet overpopulation; that's the lack of programs and services that save lives.

"And you can say that about feral cats being killed because a shelter doesn't have a trap-neuter-return program. You can say that about shy or scared dogs because the shelter is doing this bogus temperament testing that's killing shy dogs and claiming they are unadoptable. It goes on and on and on."

Winograd's not just talking about something that could happen, but something that has already happened many times in a number of American communities — including San Francisco, which in 1994 became the first city in the United States to end the killing of healthy dogs and cats.
Of course, the San Francisco SPCA was not the first no-kill shelter in the United States. There have always been individual shelters and rescue groups that have not used population control killing. What San Francisco did was to institutionalize No Kill on a county-wide basis, guaranteeing that animals would not be killed simply for lack of shelter space. The SFSPCA promised to take all adoptable, treatable, and rehabilitatable pets that came into San Francisco's municipal shelter, and find homes for them if the city shelter could not.

"If you look at what San Francisco did between 1993 and 1994, the number of deaths didn't decline by one percent or two percent," Winograd said. "In the case of healthy animals it declined 100 percent. In the case of sick and injured animals it declined by about 50 percent." Nonetheless, instead of adopting similar programs for their own communities, most observers of the time shrugged it off, saying that it wouldn't work anywhere else. San Francisco, they said, is special.



As a fourth-generation native, I'm the first to admit my city is special. But the reality is that No Kill has worked in a wide variety of communities. Winograd later left California and took over the SPCA in Tompkins County, N.Y., which held the animal control contract for the region and has an open admissions policy. One of the most compelling sections of "Redemption" tells how Winograd walked into the shelter and, literally overnight, ended the practice of killing for shelter space:
"The day after my arrival, my staff informed me that our dog kennels were full and since a litter of six puppies had come in, I needed to decide who was going to be killed in order to make space. I asked for 'Plan B'; there was none. I asked for suggestions; there were none."
He spoke directly to his staff, saying, "Volunteers who work with animals do so out of sheer love. They don't bring home a paycheck. So if a volunteer says, 'I can't do it,' I can accept that from her. But staff members are paid to save lives. If a paid member of staff throws up her hands and says, 'There's nothing that can be done,' I may as well eliminate her position and use the money that goes for her salary in a more constructive manner. So what are we going to do with the puppies that doesn't involve killing?"

The story of how Tompkins County stopped killing for population control and started sending more than 90 percent of the animals that come into its animal control system out alive may be one of the greatest success stories of the humane movement. It's certainly one of the most compelling parts of the argument laid out in "Redemption."

Because, although it wasn't always easy, these programs worked, and not only in San Francisco or Tompkins County. "In Tompkins County, we reduced the death rate 75 percent in two years. In Charlottesville, Va., they reduced it by over 50 percent in one year. And Reno, Nev. ... has reduced the death rate by over 50 percent," Winograd said.

"If all shelters not only have the desire and embrace the No Kill philosophy, but comprehensively put into play all those programs and services that ... I ... collectively call the no-kill equation, then we would achieve success." The issue of pet overpopulation is only one piece of the story told in "Redemption." Within its pages, readers and animal lovers can find the blueprint not so much for our failure to save the animals in our communities, but for our ability to start doing so today. It challenges us to demand more of our shelters than the status quo, to insist on an end to the use of killing as a form of animal population control, and tells us to stop allowing our tax dollars and donations to support shelters and animal control agencies that refuse to implement programs that have been proven in communities across America to work to end the killing.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...02/petscol.DTL

Last edited by stmelangell; 06-27-2009 at 04:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-27-2009
Sunny's Avatar
Sunny Sunny is offline
Giga-posting ACO
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,764
Sunny is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to Sunny
Default

I own this book and am still reading it. I take forever to read books.

He is opposed to putting down healthy sound animals for cage space, which I have to agree. I don't believe that healthy animals should be put to sleep to make space.

He also goes into that the shelters should stop putting the blame the entire blame on the public. It is just has much fault as the shelter.

I find that many shelters lack resources in order to decrease euthing in shelters and don't really want to find the time to change it. Sometimes it is just easier to euth, in some shelters mind.

Sunny
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and it's moral progress can be judged by the way it's animals are treated".

"Saving just one pet won't change the world, but, surely the world will change for that one pet." You might be the only love they know in their life.

Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly

You can either be the cure or the disease.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-27-2009
mecritterlover's Avatar
mecritterlover mecritterlover is offline
Field Operative
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 279
mecritterlover is on a distinguished road
Default

I think a lot depends on the community. If they are willing to financially support these programs, then the shelter is obligated to make the effort. I think some shelters do need a serious "shake up" from the top-down. There is a lot of "burned out old guard" at the top that are "closed" to some of the new programs available (we've got a director at our shelter that fits the profile!) But his assumption that "his program" could be universally "cut and pasted" into every shelter will equal success is niave (sp?).
We are fortunate to have a heavily supported shelter; our euth. rate is very low. Seems to me, with just some of these innovative programs, it could be close to 0. But, the very fact that it's low gives the director/board the excuse they need to continue the status quo. Should the community support dry up (and in this economy, it's just a matter of time!) things could get ugly very quickly for this shelter, with no "plan B" to fall back on...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-27-2009
stmelangell's Avatar
stmelangell stmelangell is offline
Giga-posting ACO
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SF Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 4,150
stmelangell is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to stmelangell
Default

(a) naive ()

(b) I completely agree. It's completely bogus to compare, as an example, the multimillion-dollar liberal support, high current spay-neuter status, and teeny little 0.5% population intake that SFSPCA has available with the $6K budget, high intact status, and 25% daily population intake at a small-town Southeastern shelter.

(c) And even if you could get him to admit that those two things are apples and oranges, no one is addressing the underlying cause of the Great No-Kill Divide: that the average "no kill" shelter has the same "kill" rate that many liberal coastal municipal shelters do -- the no-killers just statistically classify animals that they euthanize into a different, "nonadoptable" category instead of doing a straight live release rate. OR, they permit themselves to become animal warehouses, full of unhappy, badly maintained inmates that must be cared for by whatever shelter staff they can fund, plus whatever volunteer staff they can "depend on" (a recipe for inhumane conditions if ever there was one).

(d) And shelter management is not likely to get any better or more enlightened, as long as the only reward for years of service is a kick in the teeth from someone who doesn't listen to you before they judge you. (Said by someone who has suffered GREATLY, believe me, at the hand of "old-guard" shelter management. I don't concur with coddling severe burnout cases; just with being fair-minded before people leap to conclusions.)

(e) I'm going to shut up now, because otherwise I'll just keep going, and going, and going (kind of like the Not-So-Energizer Bunny). Everyone who grapples with the problem is helping on some level; and really Winograd has just made outward-and-visible the sick symptoms of the system that were inward-and-invisible before. A little hard-and-fast scientific responsibility about the data is all I'm really asking for.
__________________
Winnie

It's not what we have in our life, but who we have in our life that counts. (J.M. Lawrence)

Last edited by stmelangell; 06-27-2009 at 09:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-27-2009
Getting too old's Avatar
Getting too old Getting too old is offline
Moderator
Giga-posting ACO
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ft. Worth, Texas
Posts: 3,386
Getting too old is on a distinguished road
Default

One has to wonder? When our new facility opened up, we would adopt more animals in a month than we used to adopt in a year, so for several years our numbers looked really good. Then adjoining cities opened new facilities, and every time a new one would open, our adoptions would take a hit. So when 1 facility has a exceptionally high placement rate, are they simply taking adoptions away from neighboring facilities? In the book, does he say if he pulled stats from a 50 mile radius around his facility to see if the over all adoption rate increased, or did everybody else’s euthanasia rate increase and negate the increased adoptions from his facility?

Also, the things he mentions like off site adoptions etc cost $$. I remember reading about his Cali operation, and as I recall his budget was more than that of my entire city. I’m spread so thin between shelter operations and field operations, that my field operations especially are suffering. We made a presentation to council to hire a PT kennel tech, but that fell flat. Volunteers are only good for so much and for so long before they get burned out and leave. So you’ve got to shell out the bucks for personnel to do this. It’s headline news around here that the City of Ft. Worth is facing a $61 million shortfall, so they will be cutting staff instead of hiring.

We all just got this email from the PD’s Admin Sec. “As we all know, we are in a “heap of trouble” on spending this fiscal year – and it’s not all our fault. But we all know we can and must be “creative” in some areas to help ease the money crunch and hopefully keep some City employee/s from facing furlough or losing a job.” I think my job is secure, but my boss is getting on patrol for not doing a better job of covering for me when I’m out, so who knows.

Also, keep in mind, “no-kill” doesn’t mean no-kill, it means limited kill, and what is adoptable can be wide open for interpretation.
__________________
There are no problems, only challenges and opportunities.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-27-2009
Sunny's Avatar
Sunny Sunny is offline
Giga-posting ACO
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,764
Sunny is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to Sunny
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Getting too old View Post
Also, keep in mind, “no-kill” doesn’t mean no-kill, it means limited kill, and what is adoptable can be wide open for interpretation.
No Kill means that they do not kill healthy/temperment sound animals for space. As it should be, in my opinion.

Shelters that classify no kill, will humanely put down sick/injured, animals that are not deemed adoptable, ie, aggression, food aggression, going stir crazy in a cage, unhealthy animals.

I often wondered why shelters that euth for cage space, seem to think that there are animals in cages dieing, because they don't want to put them down.

I think is it shelters that have gone brainwashed, for thinking that there is nothing wrong or give it a second thought of euthing animals for space.

Yes, community plays a part in the soluation, however I believe shelters play a bigger role. But there are alot of shelters out there that get more money and give it to the wrong resouses, all while praising the good work that they do on behalf of animals, yet turn around and euth over 50% of what they brought in.

Alot of these shelters did to be city shelters, in my personal expereince.

Sunny
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and it's moral progress can be judged by the way it's animals are treated".

"Saving just one pet won't change the world, but, surely the world will change for that one pet." You might be the only love they know in their life.

Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly

You can either be the cure or the disease.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2007 ACOFunStop.Com. All rights reserved.