My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Two fatalities this week, pit bulls blamed in both | Main | No Kill vs MSN »

May 19, 2008


s kennedy

Unfortunately, when ARs demonstrate and end up turning people off, and Peta types go too far off, and then MSN keeps cropping up, those items do not really contribute to shelter adoption of dogs. Adoption should not be out of guilt and done for that reason.Also many shelters don't have dogs people want. I am not against increasing adoption rates but there is a vast difference between what ARs claim is "adoptable" and what actually is adoptable.Convincing people to take a dog that is not really what they want won't likely help. Latent aggression in many dogs is not necessarily detected by whomever is temperament testing. The study done last fall showed 93% of the biting dogs (of small kids) were altered. And I would put some $$ on it that those dogs were either rescued or rehomed. For dogs,there needs to be a better intake assessment (would cost $0.00) and a standardized testing procedure--not the plastic hand,pinching,ear/tail pulling,food bowl thing, and--a behavior/safety training class for adopters. Shelters need to work with behavior trainers to obtain free/low cost classes. If none of these things are done the adoption rate might still go up, but doesn't mean much if the dogs are biting.


"And I would put some $$ on it that those dogs were either rescued or rehomed."

This comment is just way off base. Show some proof that shelter dogs are more likely to bite-sounds like breeder propaganda to me. No rescue I know adopts out dogs with aggression and buying a dog in NO WAY guarentees you won't end up with an aggressive dog. It stands to reason a lot of aggressive dogs will end up in the shelter but that doesn't equate to making it to the adoption floor.

And you'll have to conect the dots for me on what MSN has to do with this.

Its not about convincing people to take a dog they don't want its showing people they don't NEED a purebred puppy and can find wonderful dogs that need a home. Some people will still want purebreds and that is fine. But NO ONE NEEDS to buy those "designer" mutts that have been marketed so well - they can adopt them all day long at any shelter!

We've only owned one purebred, of many dogs (including chow mixes), in my 38 years and never had a dog that has bitten. And that one purebreed was the breed of a notorious biter - the Cocker Spaniel. And she was perfect as well...hmmm, must have been the owners! :-)


If you read Winograd's Redemption you will find that...

1) Temperament is only one small piece of the issue. MANY shelters are euthanizing for space and temperament is not ever factored in the equation. Other reasons are, "This cat has ringworm," or "I don't feel like cleaning ALL the cages so let's euthanize some dogs to make my job easier." These are all poor excuses for animals being killed.

2) Winograd is not a proponent for MSN. He devotes a good portion of the book to outlining why voluntary low-cost S/N programs and education are more effective. Not everyone is an irresponsible breeder. But a lot of people have no business breeding and if you can convince them to S/N voluntarily through low-cost options and incentives, great!

3) In cities where the No Kill model is used, dogs are only temp tested for the purpose of determine what type of rehabilitation, if any is needed. Of the dogs adopted out in Winograd's case studies, none were returned or documented as being aggressive in the home after adoption. Certainly there is no complete fail safe but those sound like really really good stats to me.

4) City shelters are already pouring money into euthanizing. It's a multi-million dollar industry. No Kill is about reallocating money and using it in a smarter way....for actually helping animals, not mass killing them. You can't follow the No Kill model half-way, you have to get behind all steps in the equation. That also means working with rescues to accept animals. This offsets shelter costs too.

I do agree that providing adopters with tools for handling behavior problems is great. Providing training for new adopters is something I can get behind. Some shelters are already offering these resources and I would like to see more of it.

I don't see how trying to save shelter animals is an AR agenda. It's about making humane choices and it's about smarter use of taxpayer money.


s kennedy-

Do you have stats that show the dogs involved in the bites were shelter dogs or rehomed?

If so, please post your source.


KC KS Kills Dogs

So much of Nathan Winograd's philosophy is true - it's about marketing, it's about a public city shelter making an effort, it's about thinking outside of the box.

Whatever reason people adopt shelter dogs is fine with me - and yes some people do adopt shelter dogs out of "guilt". Guilt that they can't save all the dogs out there, but maybe they can save one dog and feel good about it. After all aren't people supposed to feel good about adding a dog into their lives?

I have been adopting shelter dogs since way back in the '70's. One of the shelters I adopted a dog from, was in a smaller city that probably didn't have animal behavorists, etc to test the dogs; they just used "common sense". I never had any behavior issues with adopting dogs from these facilities.

Currently I have a pure bred dog living in my household, she came from a breeder. So I don't have issues with people obtaining their dogs from breeders either.

It's unfortunate that the recent actions of AR fanatics i.e. California, are currently overshadowing the root issue - animal shelters need to do a better job of marketing their dogs. I can't believe that a hard core AR fanatic even cares about shelter dogs or they would be behind Nathan Winograd 100% about the failure of the Animal shelter system and quit trying to lobby responsible dog owners rights away.

Here in the Midwest, since we haven't had years and years of available low cost spay/neuter, we do have quite a few purebred dogs in our shelter system. They need homes - plain and simple.


For anyone interested in this discussion, please consider attending a book discussion on Winograd's No Kill philosophy. All view points welcome!

Redemption Book Discussion:
Presented by Kansas City Dog Advocates and
No More Homeless Pets KC

Session 1: Monday, June 9, 2008
Session 2: Monday, June 23, 2008

6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Meet & Greet and Refreshments
6:30 - 8:00 p.m. Book Discussion

Kansas City Public Library, Waldo Community Branch
201 East 75th Street
Kansas City, MO 64114

Meeting Room A

**Attendance at both sessions is encouraged but not required.**

Please RSVP to:

Get your copy of Redemption!

Buy a signed copy of the book in advance at Cost is $20 and will be available for pickup beginning Friday, May 23rd at the NMHPKC Clinic located at 5428 Antioch Drive, Merriam, KS 66202.

The book may also be purchased at the book discussion in June.

**Reading the book in advance of the discussion is encouraged but not required. All are welcome to participate!**


I agree with Nathan about increasing market demand for shelter animals and think it is achievable if shelters are willing to think big around customer service. I don't think the choice of animals are the real problem behind low adoptions through shelters. I think customer service is. Many people start at shelters when looking for a new pet. They get so frustrated with how they are treated that they go to a breeder.


Carianne (I hope you can come to our book discussion if you live close),

One of our members relayed a story that when he adopted a dog from KCMO. The vet he picked it up from (although it had kennel cough they altered it anyway) said "Are you sure you want to take it? It's probably not going to live." Who would sign up for that?

And its not just the shelters, rescues are often worse. Not all of course, but I've heard too many stories to think they're rare...

Standard fencing requirements regardless of the dog, wanting a farm dog, no same sex placements, if you have an unaltered pet in the household you won't get a dog (even though it would be altered), if you ever admit you had a dog that got hit by a car...all of these things will get you denied and none of them are good reasons for it, in and of themselves.

And yes, I've run into several people that were denied adoption that went out and bought dogs.

s kennedy

Reallocating is fine. I could contact the researchers to see if the dogs were mostly shelter or rehomed. I put $$ on rehomed, even if not shelter. That many dogs biting indicates some kind of common denominator to me, when 93% were altered.If I am wrong then I stand corrected. I don't disagree w/Winograd, BUT it is an AR problem in CA bec MSN, MSN MSN is spouted as the cure, and NW has some on his side, and others not.I understand NW isn't for MSN. But no kill as alternative to MSN will bring up other issues.
It is not uncommon for rescues in CA to be able to take biters into rescue. It's a matter of whether shelters allow them to take it. If they deem it "reasonable" rehabilitation, they can take it. NW uses the stats in his favor, I have no objection; but as I said, adoption of more is fine, as long as the owner is training it, and it is not going to cause problems for owners. I am not opposed to no kill, but actually carrying it out certainly requires a big effort--and you need a shelter to *want* to do it. Wanting to, and actually doing it are separate. I don't believe they could do it in Los Angeles right now. They would need to target the shelters w/highest kill rate first, in lower economic areas first with 100% altering, low/free for several years. They would need to see both a drop in intake and in the kill rate before they could attempt it. It is alleged MSN in Los Angles will not be targeting people to see if they are in compliance. If you take what I just said combined with they won't go looking for violators, you can see why MSN won't get anywhere there. I will be meeting NW in July and perhaps get his take on huge cities and no kill. I note that the job was offered to NW (los Ang) but he did not want the job. I can't say I blame him.


Interesting discussion.

Sabrina, I'd love to see whatever information you think you have regarding biting dogs being rescues. If anything, I would expect it to be the opposite. If anything, I think because of the liability issues, and the surplus of dogs, I think most shelters are way over-eager to put down dogs because of "bad temperament". If anything, with proper testing and resources, the vast majority of these dogs would be very easily rehabbed. I know I've had over the years at least a couple of fosters in my house that would likely have been put down at a shelter that with some socializing and rehab became perfect housepets. Instead, too many use stupid things like rubber hands for temp testing.

If anything, I think getting more people to adopt older dogs would be a HUGE benefit to the shelter/rescue community. How many people get "cute puppies" for their kids, but grow tired of the dog later, or the dog is no longer cute, or "too big" or whatever? We had one turned in a year or so ago -- Rottie. Family bought it as a puppy and now it was "too big" for them. Well yeah, it's a Rottie, it's going to get big. Plus, puppies need a LOT more work in housetraining, and go through that maddening adolescent stage (that is hard for most average people to deal with) and have a TON more energy requiring more and longer walks (which most people don't do). Older dogs are MUCH easier to work with for the average home in my experience.

But I agree with Carianne and MichelleD, too often shelters/rescues make it impossible for average people to get good dogs. They are looking for "perfect" homes, instead of good homes. Heck, I'd be denied by a lot of places that don't allow multiple dogs of the same gender in the same home, or because of my zip code. Sheesh. And my dogs have a pretty fabulous life. And yes, as Michelled notes, these people do end up getting dogs from somewhere else.

Sabrina, I highly recommend reading the book. Winograd is very against MSN - -says it doesn't work (it doesn't) and is counter-productive (it is). He will tell you that absolutely No Kill can work in large cities (his first experiment with this was in San Francisco, and almost got it to No Kill, then he left and they started doing stupid stuff including BSL/MSN which is driving up their kill rates again). But he would also agree that it absolutely contingent on everyone involved wanting to make it happen and strong support from the community (which is likely why he wouldn't take the LA job).


I still have no idea what MSN has to do with NW's No-Kill Solution - no community that has reached no-kill has done it with MSN. He is against it, no one in this discussion is promoting it. Yes, some people think its the cure all but no ONE thing is the answer to anything and those people are just delusional. That isn't the issue.

I would suggest reading his book before you meet him as I think your opinion is clouded by those promoting MSN as a way to reduce the killing.

"adoption of more is fine, as long as the owner is training it, and it is not going to cause problems for owners"

No one is promoting adopting out aggressive dogs. And I would retort that with "Buying a dog is fine, as long as the owner is training it" and EVERY dog can potentially cause problems - its the owner that needs to deal with it appropriately.

The common denominator with so many kids getting bit is because they're stupid, mean little creatures.

As for LA - Yes, you have to do real work to reach no-kill. No one is saying you can do it with one or two changes. And Low-cost VOLUNTARY s/n IS a part of the equation. More than likely, NW wasn't going to be allowed to run the program as he wanted. And so what if you can't reach no-kill - why not try to reduce the killing at least!? We can't be perfect so why even try? No, I don't buy that...

Everyone, go read the book!


MSN crops up because of AR's propaganda about 'pet overpopulation', which I spotted as nonsense years ago. MSN is geared to extinction, it has nothing to do with improving temperament or solving the 'crisis'.

Around here, there are hardly any dogs in the shelters, by which I mean the humane society types, not the city pounds,which is what I think Winograd means when he talks about shelters.

As for temperament, I think it's very overblown. Most dogs, treated consistently and well, lose their anxiety. Biting dogs can be created quite easily. In fact, one of my dogs came out the back door of the SPCA because they didn't want to put him up for adoption. He was very snappy and still needs management, especially around men, 11+ years later. He and I get along fine and I can do anything with him.

I don't think it's a big deal if a dog has a few problems, as long as the owner is prepared to handle them.

Most people here in Ontario like to go to the SPCA to get a dog because it makes them feel good and because they usually know what they are getting into, since pups are so rare.

Seriously, they are importing dogs from the US for the shelters here because so many people adopt from the SPCA/Humane Society.

My old SPCA is doing a lot of what Nathan suggests - good hours, friendly staff, they often have booths in shopping malls, etc, where they'll have a few pets with them (usually rabbits, cats, etc, the occasional dog). They appear on the local TV station's news show every Friday with an adoptable pet, blah blah blah. It seems to be working for them because the kennels are sparsely populated most of the time.


What a great discussion!!! Although I have just read every word of every post on this, I cannot possibly make all the comments I would like to make.

However, a couple kind of stand out.

1) I do not believe that people adopt dogs from shelters because of 'guilt'. I believe that they do this for several reasons: 1) They want a good dog. 2) RESPSONIBILITY: There IS, in fact, a certain population of people who realize that Man has domesticated Dog, and that we have turned our back on them, and that we must redirect our attention and energy into properly cohabitating with Dog, ie; taking responsibility for him. 'You are responsible forever for what you have tamed', said The Little Prince. And this true.

Whether we choose to believe the adoption and the care (and $$$!!!) are done out of guilt or out of responsibility makes little difference. SOME people are responsible and empathetic and many people are not.

2) I have read Redemption and attended Mr. Winograd's book signing and lecture. He discussed his concerns regarding the proper definitions of 'aggressive', as it applies to who lives and who dies. Although he did not actually define 'too aggressive', he did state that he takes exception to too many shelters' and rescues' definitions and aggression tests, whatever they may be, even if they do not involve the gloves and food being jerked away.

He is only asking for what is reasonable, and killing a dog because he is so scared that he reacts, or so hungry that he lashes out are not reasons to define a dog so aggressive that it must be put down.

Brent and Michelle are correct on this one. Winograd's book MUST be read and his website must be researched before making comments on his philosophy and proposed programs.

3) Winograd states that the very first and most important decision and statements that can be made, when deciding who will be put down, must come from knowledge and the heart. ie; Even if a dog has bitten and/or maimed, or appears to be non-rehabilitatable and a decision has been made to put it down, we MUST admit that this is a failure. In our system, in humankind.


s kennedy

Am not sure if anyone here lives in CA. Theory wise,it's easy to talk about doing things. In any event, I don't necessarily disagree w/NW. But I do point out that in CA, many shelters do not have dogs that people are looking for; smaller dogs are often transferred/imported;most dogs not adopted are not because there are NO homes, but because people have been led (misled) by the media--med.-large sized male dogs do NOT go flying out the door.Eventually even in no kill, those dogs are not always adopted. In fact, Charlotte Laws (leading LA) claims she will get all pitbulls deemed non adoptable and then ban them from Los Angeles via no kill. CA is facing AB1634, mandated altering statewide, as the "solution" to all shelter killing in CA but most jurisdictions admit they will not go out to enforce it. It is simply not viable,feasible, nor the answer. Serious questions must be asked concerning no kill so that more than just theories can be used to show how it could work in a huge area of high shelter killing. For CA--numbers/theories may not be enough.Just 2 days ago, Sacramento City shelter alleged that they killed 58% and adopted out 19%,12% returned to owner,9% transfered. This is a much higher kill rate than the state's average which has consistently dropped over past 2 decades. We know MSN is not the proper answer. But when shelters,rescues,and others line up behind MSN, we need more than theories. Besides MSN being very political, NW has been called both AR and non AR. I do not believe he is AR. A legal challenge has been filed against Los Angeles ordinance MSN(4/08) by a private dog advocate group/several plaintiffs. We believe the no kill theory is good, but Los Angeles claims that MSN is what they need to "achieve" no kill. So there is a problem for those of us opposed to MSN.


MSN must be fought as hard as BSL because it's a faster, easier way to achieve the AR goal. It has nothing to do with dog welfare - my research shows that it may in fact be harmful when a broad brush approach is used.

It's all about extinction, not animal welfare.

But we knew that.


I would love to attend this discussion with Nathan and learn more. I will not be able to make it because I live in OH. You know the state where a bill was just introduced at the state level to ban pit bulls - 90 day clause to get out. This is the same state with one of the highest crime rates, highest poverty rates, highest foreclosure rates, etc. But, I have an idea, let's solve all of Ohios problems by banning a breed of dog. Bitter? Yes. Embarassed? Yes.

On this same note, I would love to be there to ask some questions around larger dogs and misrepresented breeds (pit bulls, rottweilers). I think customer service drives people in and out but the product selection does come in at some point if the customer service component is achieved. What are some ideas to turn over larger dogs and misrepresented breeds?


Carianne, that is a good question. Hell, I wouldn't have a "pit bull" if I believed 1/2 of what most "pit bull advocates" say - how do we get the GP to want to adopt a pittie or rottie (or BBD even)? Esp, when many rescues won't adopt them out - if a rescue won't deal with them why would the GP want to? Plus all the horror stories the mediots are so fond of...

I haven't read this in a while but NW addresses it in

If anyone doesn't have the book or can't get it you can read a bunch of his stuff for free - plus the blog.

IMO we've got to do a better job of marketing, period. And getting bye-in seems to be the hardest part - I'll give Sabrina that. If peope can be convinced to pay 1-3 THOUSAND dollars for a labrador/poodle mutt, it seems we can accomplish anything! ;-)

For all of you that live in places that import dogs please send a truck down to Kansas City!

s kennedy

I would be happy to report back w/ NW input once we hear it. Knowing the political climate in LA, we are assessing the chances.We want pets represented, not just show dogs or police dogs. Even mixed pets should be represented. NW's advocacy group is suing LA county,the other group is suing LA city. ADL (animal Defense League, LA), supports NW, but ADL is watched by govt. as a link to ALF.
There is no way that Charlotte Laws making APBTs "unadoptable" will help get them adopted or fix the shelters. that is absurd.(She said that several years ago in her master plan to overhaul Los Angeles.)
They need to get rid of her.She is basically an AR person,for example, she is on advisory council for CALA,see:

Go look at her own biography on Google.
Go look at the titles of her BOOKS. She is an AR, a vegan,an animal rights advocate.
She is using "no kill" simply as the tool to get rid of animals by saying they are "unadoptable." It's very plain to see, they will be eliminating animals (as not adoptable) and claiming to have a higher "save" rate. It's not that hard to manipulate documents, esp. when there are NO standardized reporting methods required nationwide for shelters. A recent post on a blog by people who keep watch on the LA shelters indicates they know LA has destroyed docs pertaining to killing animals in an FDA audit. Not surprising.

"Unadoptable" in no kill, is subjective. Even Peta has used the "unadoptable" term to justify killing their 97%.
This is an issue in no kill---if you have ARs running no kill, they will simply end up killing most of them. MSN is of course, an AR idea to get people used to no more dogs born...[We killed that dog bec he wasn't altered/his owner didn't come and bail him out...]
This is Peta work in action---with Laws leading the charge. And most people don't even know about her...This has been the case for several years, ever since ADL started smoke bombing employees. They actually got an AR to get the shelters cleaned out!! By eliminating them, not saving. And by subterfuge, by calling it no kill. Biggest con job in CA.
I know everyone believes SF SPCA is a no kill success. Before you buy into that 100%, do we really think they adopted out all the APBTs and other large breeds? Their own ordinance considers the APBT or look alike as dangerous. Look at the '94 info in regard to what is adoptable:
I would believe it only if I met the dog/new owner 3yrs after the fact. I have been told personally by adopters that SF mainly has pitbull mixes for adoption/no other suitable dogs, esp. NOT puppies at all. I have talked personally to people who rescue/live there/know what happens there. The entire Bay area is run by ARs. I have been in rescue long enough to know that APBTs, no matter how good--take a long time to get homes--and they often get turned back in. Even BR only adopts out 3 per month. Some no kill places just won't take a dog which they cannot get out quickly.
I am a proponent for low/no kill if it is properly administered, but not when it is run by AR people, since it would be defeating the purpose while appearing to save pets. Which is what they intend to do in Los Angeles. *AR use of rescue/no kill has 2 sides; allow questionable animals to go out, and then blame 'people' if they inflict harm; allow no kill, so 'unadoptable' can be used to get rid of animals. I have not seen anyone question Laws' plan for APBTs in her master plan. In fact she even stated they eventually would be completely banned from the city. Is this the type of person who should draw up the master plan for no kill? Probably not.
Re BSL, ARs simply pounced on it because it was the easiest target. If they eliminated all APBTs, ARs would just move on to another thing like "eliminate" all large breeds, or eliminate all guardian breeds,etc. because the ARs will never stop,we will always have work. As long as ARs are IN the shelters (and they are) we can expect to see only mediocre results. As for the latest guy in Ohio to suggest BSL like Toledo has, or worse, ACF has personally talked to the guy/sent out evidence. If he still goes for BSL then he is an idiot.



Don't confuse the issue here. What Winograd is proposing is not AR. It is not killing all pit bulls and ruling them "unadoptable". It is not fudging the numbers to make it look like you're not killing animals when you really are. There are certainly shelters that do those things and call themselves no-kill. That is very different that the No Kill plan that Winograd administers. You're definitely confusing the two (and you're the only one here who is). Winograd is very anti MSN and very anti BSL. There can be no confusing that.

Please, please, please just buy a copy of the book and read it and quit trying to group him in with the wackos out there. He is not one of them.


I understood Sabrina's comment not to be critical of NW, but of the situation that has developed during the 25-year stealth campaign by AR.

She's right. If you allow AR troops to watch the shelters, you may as well kiss it all goodbye.

They've had politicians elected, lawyers graduated, shelter workers indoctrinated and a lot more - while pet owners have been sleepwalking, thinking everything is fine.

Even worse, a lot of pet owners have bought into the mythology - about breeds of dogs, about 'overpopulation', blah blah blah.

What we're all doing now is playing catch up but the propaganda has been quite successful. It's really hard to fight emotional reactions with facts and figures.

We have to change horses, methinks, if we want to win this. People aren't interested in facts. They're interested in feelings and AR knows how to manipulate opinion, I'll give them that.

It's so depressing sometimes.

At least Peta is starting to lose credibility - finally.


The notion that a shelter can achieve "no kill" by declaring large numbers (or any number, for that matter) of dogs as "unadoptable" , killing them and then pretending they never existed, is such a perversion of language and morality, it's hard to imagine that any human would actually hold it in her mind.

Though of course, that's what Sternbergian "temperament testing" led to. Too many shelters claimed high adoption rates by simply not including "unadoptable/killed" dogs in their statistics. And my my, isn't it easy to decide that a dog is "unadoptable" if your only goal is about numbers, not lives.

One of the most important parts of NW's message is that this kind of behavior IS perverse, and must be rejected. ALL intakes must be included in statistics, and shelters must be honest about the numbers of animals that come in and that go out alive.

Though it also points out the inherent problems with the term "no kill" (which really means "low/minimal kill") which is MY pet peeve. (the term not the goal)

s kennedy

B: I wish I was confused--but unfortunately I am a realist and on this specific issue, I know exactly what I am talking about. NW has some great ideas but if you have any experience in actually doing what he says to do, there are difficulties along the way. And I believe just by looking at who has succeeded out there (no kill), we get a drift of the difficulty. I just read E Boks' blog. He claims they need MSN because they have hit the 'wall'-- that is the term for "can't go much further" unless we do something else in addition. Dogs are now dying in LA not due to shelters killing them, but due to disease, etc. Still, they got funding for the new larger shelter spaces.

Most claim E Boks has manipulated data; his stats have won awards for "transparency" as they post them monthly. I don't know who is trying to fool who in LA--I just know you can't take no kill to LA and boom! make it work overnight. I receive hundreds of emails per week from So Cal, begging rescues to take dogs that are unwanted.They use catchy phrases and sing praises of the dogs, AND a 501(c)(3) rescue can receive $400-$2,000 per dog if u take the dog. Yet those dogs don't get taken. That is the magnitude of the issue. The AR people have spread so many lies about dogs, medium sized dogs, and the AR people have poisoned a lot of the rescue efforts--the public is afraid to take the dogs and don't adopt them. I can't make it any more clear. I noticed NW even moved back to Northern CA, he probably got sick/tired of LA and their inability to make impressive change. And of the AR people/smoke bombing. I guess most know that shelters do not take NW to heart in many instances. For many of them (shelters) he is considered an enemy.

Against that backdrop, LA had already sworn to no kill (actually they swore to it 10 years ago)--but they had made a huge mistake and stopped their low cost/free mobile spay units years ago, and only recently started them back up. That is why they want MSN and Charlotte Laws. She will stay in background and slowly get more AR people in there. And one day APBTs won't be there languishing because they will have killed all of them. The only ones around will be in someone's basement. Now that is a problem.

Caveat is absolutely correct re AR people. They have several decades head start and they use emotional ploys. We can't deny it. People are moved by emotion, hence puppy milled pics, cattle downer pics, etc. They work. Now where are the emotional ploys we would use? I don't think we have too many. This entire scenario is actually a war. Law itself is not usually very emotional, so the AR people get stuff going which pushes peoples' buttons. That is how you win people over. And that is why Newkirk is a master marketer, however wrong her mission is. The saying to fight fire 'with fire', I think this situation calls for it. any less and all of the dogs we defend will not even be around. I do defend dogs. I can honestly tell you that no kill alone will not save maligned dogs. Bad owners are one thing, but ARs simply take situations and hype them up so much, no one checks or cares to check for facts. It's apparently too time consuming. I think the dogs that are well tempered but not adopted could be used in programs (at every shelter) to teach child/dog safety. There would be plenty to choose from. The only objections would be from parents who are afraid.


s kennedy: "no kill" is a vision/goal. No one believes that LITERALLY no dog will ever be killed. But if you don't have a far-reaching goal, you won't get anywhere.

This is no different from organizations that want to "end starvation".. No one believes that at any point in the future, no one will die of starvation.

It is a VISION/GOAL to work towards.

No one would say "oh, ending starvation can never happen, so let's disavow/ignore specific steps that prevent people from starving"

In the same way, Bok asserting that they've gone as far as they can go with "no kill" and therefore LA needs MSN (even though MSN have NEVER worked) is simply justifying for himself, and the people of LA, the high numbers of animals he kills.

s kennedy

I agree it is a vision and something to work toward. What I have pointed out is the other side of the coin. As counsel I would be doing an injustice to sit here and think/say that no kill will be implemented without snags. Underestimating the enemy (and they are an enemy, otherwise we would be in their position with little shelter killing and everyone loving large dogs, unafraid)--can get more dogs taken out, if for no other reason than the movement has more financing, more power/political connections in some cases, more dedicated zealots, and more time in. The track record for most dog owners in the past has been complacency, generally. It's almost like we are the USA and they are the Middle East. We sat around and they kept pounding away.This is not personal to anyone on B's blog, as I know people here work hard to educate.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)