My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« More on Los Angeles MSN | Main | Fear the Dachshund »

July 10, 2008

Comments

Christie

Very nice summation!

EmilyS

Good for you folks! I wish you all the best.

The only problem with your explanation is that it just highlights how confusing (and wrong...) the name "no kill" is.

Reducing killing to a minimum by adhering to the sensible yet visionary Winogradian guidelines you lay out . Yes. Fabulous. Essential to creating a humane nation.

But why be surprised that the general public (and those who know better, but whose agenda is to maintain the killing status quo) naturally concluce "no kill" means "no" kill?

Which it does not.

How I wish there wasn't so much invested in that phrase.

Becky

I have read Redemption and been to Winograd's lecture, and I commend Brent for strictly adhering to Winograd's philosophy and steps, while clarifying this movement for those who have not seriously looked at this.

With the possible unfortunate exception of dogs that are found to be too aggressive to rehabilitate (which we have learned is an extremely small percentage), I believe that 'No Kill' is an appropriate term. In cases of the terminally ill who are suffering, I believe that 'euthanasia' would be an appropriate and correct term.

In spite of the controversy over the phrase 'No Kill', I think we should try to consider it as moving forward in a very positive direction.

Afterall, if we seriously commit to Winograd's steps, one would hope and tend to believe that cases of hopeless aggression and unbearable suffering will dramatically decrease -- and who knows -- perhaps with enough public education and moving in these positive directions, such extreme degrees of aggression may eventually cease to exist.

So with these positive thoughts and hopes in mind, I believe 'No Kill' is a very appropriate phrase for this endeavor. It is what this program hopes to eventually accomplish.

Becky

Sorry -- to clarify my post above, ie; Although No Kill is not yet the reality, No Kill is, in fact, the goal towards which the movement is working.

s kennedy

I think that any shelter which does poorly simply because it doesn't know what to improve, could actually do better just implementing some of the NMHP (no more homeless pets) items. Because it does require more work on part of the shelters, that is the main reason you don't see it succeed so often. Success is often disguised as hard work.

casseysmith

I have read Redemption and been to Winograd's lecture, and I commend Brent for strictly adhering to Winograd's philosophy and steps, while clarifying this movement for those who have not seriously looked at this.

===========================
casseysmith

casseysmith

I have read Redemption and been to Winograd's lecture, and I commend Brent for strictly adhering to Winograd's philosophy and steps, while clarifying this movement for those who have not seriously looked at this.

===========================
casseysmith

casseysmith

I have read Redemption and been to Winograd's lecture, and I commend Brent for strictly adhering to Winograd's philosophy and steps, while clarifying this movement for those who have not seriously looked at this.

===========================
casseysmith

http://www.legalx.net

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Working...
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.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

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