Winograd Interviews and more No Kill News

Valarie Hayes, who writes as the Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner, wrote a 2 part series detailer her interview with No Kill Advocacy Center Founder Nathan Winograd.

While there isn't a lot of "new" info here for people who have read Redemption or heard Winograd speak, there were a few key ideas around no kill I felt were very well laid out in this interview that I thought were definitely worth sharing.

In Part 1, here is what Winograd had to say about his idea that Pet Overpopulation was a myth (which is probably the most challenged of any of Winograd's positions):

 I talk about this in my new book, Irreconcilable Differences. I did not wake up one day and say, “Pet overpopulation is a myth.” Nor did I think that someday I would champion the notion that it was. I did not even set out to prove it. It unfolded as part of my work in the humane movement and the facts began to compel further analysis. In fact, many years ago, I too believed the opposite. I once argued with my wife that “There were too many animals and not enough homes.” I am ashamed of having done so, but I did. She correctly argued that even if it were true, killing remained unethical. She also correctly argued that if we took killing off the table, human ingenuity and human compassion would find a way to make it work. But, more importantly, she asked me how I knew it was true.

How did I know? Because I’ve heard it repeated a thousand times. Because I took the fact of killing in shelters and then rationalized the reason backward. I was too embarrassed to admit so. But therein began a journey that started in San Francisco, then Tompkins County, New York, then Charlottesville, Virginia, followed by dozens of shelters in communities across the country. I reviewed data from over 1,000 shelters nationwide, and reviewed several national studies. And the conclusion became not just inescapable, but unassailable. Rather than bury it, ignore it or downplay it, I did what anyone who truly loves animals would have done. I celebrated it. Why? Because it meant that we had the power to end the killing, today....

Contrary to what many shelters falsely claim are the primary hurdles to lifesaving (e.g., public irresponsibility or lack of homes), the biggest impediments are actually in shelter management’s hands. Effectiveness in shelter goals and operations begins with caring and competent leadership, staff accountability, effective programs, and good relations with the community—which do not currently exist in most shelters. It means putting actions behind the words of every shelter’s mission statement that “All life is precious.” And it is abundantly clear that the practices of most shelters violate this principle.

And in part 2, Winograd discusses Mandatory Spay/Neuter -- an idea that is still trumpeted by many as a solution to the "overpopulation" problem:

If they worked, I would say “Yes.” If they worked, I would be mandatory spay/neuter’s biggest advocate. I would be going around the country seeing to it that every community passed one. I am not philosophically opposed to them, and I would never put a human-centric interest (breeding, breed enthusiasts, perpetuation of a breed) over the life of an animal. I know that is going to get a lot of people who support my work very upset. But I’ve never claimed otherwise. I’ve never written anything against mandatory spay/neuter on the basis of those other interests. I’ve been very clear from day one: I oppose them because they lead to more killing. And ending killing is my only goal.

It is not that I don’t support spay/neuter. I do. And when I was in charge of shelters, I supported it more than most shelter directors do. Spay/Neuter is one of the cornerstones of the No Kill Equation and a program I offered for free in both San Francisco and Tompkins County. My opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws is because they increase the power of the animal control bureaucracy to impound and kill animals for violations, and that is what has occurred in municipalities which pass them. They exacerbate rather than decrease killing. This is not an anomaly. It has happened time and time again. It also causes animal control to divert scarce resources from programs which save lives to enforcement of ordinances that result in higher rates of killing. Now, the ASPCA has come out against them for the same reason, so even an organization that supports killing shelters and backs killing directors could no longer ignore the overwhelming evidence that they do not work. In fact, the evidence is so overwhelming that even the former head of animal control in Los Angeles, one of the chief proponents of such laws, admitted that his mandatory spay/neuter law was a failure.

These laws are not about saving lives. They are about more power for animal control departments, more officers, more sweeps of stray animals, more citations written, more animals impounded, and more animals killed. (They also feed the backyard breeder market as people then find other unaltered animals.) That groups which claim to be concerned with high levels of shelter killing would actually seek legislation to empower a dysfunctional animal control bureaucracy to impound—and thus kill—even more animals, is a contradiction they conveniently ignore.

When was the last time a mandatory sterilization law reduced killing 50% or 75% as has occurred in communities using the No Kill Equation model of sheltering? It has never happened. Ever. And more often, the opposite results. Los Angeles City shelters saw the first increase in impounds and killing in a decade after passing their spay/neuter law—a 24% increase in dog killing and a 35% increase in cat killing, at a time when other California communities were seeing killing decline.

It's a great interview and I highly encourage you to make the time to read through the interview (both parts).

Meanwhile, Valarie also has a first person account of the change in Tompkins County from being a high-kill, non-compassionate shelter -- to a caring, no-kill shelter virtually overnight just based on a 100% change in attitude. She recounts the stories of animals that were killed even though she, as a volunteer had offered to foster.

It's a pretty moving piece that just shows how the right mindset can dramatically change a shelter.

Nice writing on all fronts Valarie.

 

 

Comments

[Alana]

I love Winograd's goals in theory, but as someone that has seen literally 20-30 dogs come into the KC shelter daily it's hard for me to visualize how they can adopt out that many daily, particularly when many of them are sick (Heartworm$) or have behavior issues. I haven't read his book, but to say pet overpopulation is a 'myth' runs counter to everything I've personally experienced, both at the shelter and walking down my urban street full of sickly feral cats and discarded dogs. The city certainly doesn't have the resources to put towards creating the adoption utopia he envisions. But it's a great goal to work towards!

[mary frances]

Thank you for posting all this - The account "I was there" is powerful - Valerie Hayes is a gifted writer but more so a great person - and the interviews (part I and Part II by Hayes of Winograd) are basically a how to for building No Kill - I'll be distributing copies.....

[Brent]

Alana,

It's interesting that you say that because I think that Kansas City (metro-wide) provides an awesome example of how it COULD be done just about anywhere if the whole community is involved in making it happen.

Last year, the Ray of Light program in KCK turned what once was the 2nd highest kill shelter in our city into a no kill shelter virtually over night by making such strong efforts to adopt out animals.

In KCMO, taking the shelter from city control to private control led to a 35% decrease in shelter killings in the first year -- just because they are making an effort to adopt animals out. And this has been almost solely without civic support as the metro continues to have very restrictive pet limit laws, BSL throughout the metro that makes it very difficult to find homes for bully breeds, and ordinances like the pit bull MSN that is causing 20-30 pit bulls a month to be brought into the shelter needlessly.

Do we have a lot of work to do? Absolutely. But it's doable if we can get city leaders involved in changing the policies that are leading to so many impounds and that are preventing many of the animals from getting into homes.

And I HIGHLY recommed you read the book. I have an extra one I can loan you.

[Alana]

Maybe I just feel gloomy today, but I don't believe the city has the desire to spend the $ and energy it would take to become No Kill. Look at the awesome job they've done with our school system. Look at their current animal control enforcement efforts. They are NOT focused on the No Kill goal because it doesn't make them any $. Sometimes it's hard to be a liberal when all government seems to do it make problems worse.

[Brent]

Interestingly, I think it could be done with less money, not more. If the city would simply repeal the law that is allowing them to confiscate unaltered pit bulls, get rid of their quota system making there be a minimum number of animals brought into the shelter by each officer, quit confiscating healthy, happy pets in homes over the pet limit, and quit making it illegal to care for feral cat colonies - they could cut about 25% of their intake almost instantly....it's not a money issue, it's policy issue.

[mary frances]

Also I want to add - I have distributed many copies of Redemption and just ordered copies of Irreconcilable Differences as well - and Alana No kill shelters are not utopian goals if they exist - they're happening now. Keep the faith..

[Valerie]

Thank you so much for posting this, Brent, and thank everyone for their comments. I have to say that I am almost overwhelmed by the response to the "I was there" article--the comments, the emails, the things people have told me directly. I've held off replying to them, because I didn't know what to say.

I knew that I had a compelling story to tell, and I knew that many people had had similar negative experiences with shelters, but I couldn't have predicted the degree to which people would take up the story as their own, or what a huge relief it would be that they did.

A few days after it was published, I was out walking my dog, and I suddenly realized that I felt tremendously relieved. I'd read, but not yet replied to the many comments and emails the article has gotten (still have to work through them all), every last one of them positive. I'd been carrying this story around for almost ten years now, and now it no longer belongs to me, it's everybody's. That really means a lot to me and I thank everyone who took the time to read it, to comment on it and to pass it along.

My criticism of "Redemption" has always been that it did not portray just how bad things were prior to Winograd's arrival--his portrayal was downright charitable towards those who deserve no charity, which serves to downplay what he accomplished there. If No Kill could happen at that shelter overnight, it can happen at any shelter overnight with the right leader and community support, and community support is pretty much a given if a shelter has the right leader and asks for it.

[Valerie]

It costs money to round up family pets who aren't bothering anyone and to house and kill them. It costs money to catch and kill feral cats. It also destroys community support for the shelter. If a shelter is run by a nonprofit, they should consider whether a person (or any of their friends) who has had their dog taken away and killed would donate anything to the agency that did the dirty deed, or whether anyone who takes care of feral cats would do so either. It is costly in so many ways to have a crappy policy like this.