Nathan Winograd and the "No-Kill Movement"

Nathan Winograd is an advocate of the "No-Kill movement" and he expresses that throughout his blog posts. He has many strong opinions about national organizations and their opinions on what no-kill shelters do. In his blog "Is No Kill Going Mainstream", he mentions that "The No-Kill Equation" provides the key to ending the killing of homeless animals. He speaks about different programs that have been carried out to save animals but how these ideas are not new. He says that the time has come for the no-kill movement and a sheltering movement based in killing is now moving towards lifesaving. According to Winograd, it goes beyond ending the killing, it's about providing the type of care that meets every single individual that enters that shelter. In this blog he also mentions a woman, Kate Hurley, and he says that although she has come a long way her ways of thinking basically still need improvement. She says that people do not want to kill these animals and also that the decision to kill animals in shelters should be left up to each shelter. It is his belief that shelters be legally mandated to adopt the no-kill philosophy and is working towards convincing Hurley of this as well, calling shelter directors lazy and uncaring if they continue to kill. 

 

In the above video he explains what this means and the various things involved in the "No-Kill Equation." In class we learned about how Nathan Winograd developed the "No-Kill Equation" to attack large animal organizations. This is definitely the kind of vibe that I got from reading his blog, he was attacking organizations like the HSUS, the ASPCA and others. He says that pet overpopulation is a myth and he wants shelter directors to be removed. I definitely saw this present in the blog as he called directors uncaring and lazy. He personally attacks them along with the organizations to spread his ideals about no-kill. We also discussed how he does not address any issues that can come from this type of sheltering. 

I personally used to believe that the no-kill movement was the way to go, I advocated for it and didn't think much about the problems with is. It seems like such a great idea to get all the homeless animals off the street and into shelters where they have a chance of finding a home or are at least being taken care of. It was because of organizations and people like Winograd that I thought this way. I let myself be convinced by them and didn't do my own research. Since coming to college and taking courses like ANSC 250 and ANSC 305 I have been able to form my own ideas because of the variety of information that we cover along with each topic. I have been able to see the issues with no-kill shelters. We learned how a lot of these animals are depressed and even develop repetitive behaviors because of the frustration.  They don't talk about how these animals can be there their entire lives and how the shelters are supposed to be a temporary place. While I wish no animals had to be killed, sometimes they are suffering so much that they need to be put out of that misery. 

In another one of his blogposts, "No-Kill 2.0", Winograd writes about how animal shelters and animal control found loopholes in laws in order to continue killing animals and getting money for their budgets. He repeats again that the no-kill philosophy is to consider each and every animal separately and to give them individual consideration. In this blog animal shelters with 90% save rates are praised and said to be doing a good job although they still must continue on the journey towards no-kill. Attention is also called to the fact that no-kill and the 90% save rate does not apply to other animals. It is meant for dogs and cats but there are still many species like rabbits, guinea pigs, and etc. that are not saved. He says that places that have achieved such a high save rate cannot sit down and say that is enough, they have to continue working and implementing new programs and saving lives. That no-kill advocates must keep pushing forward towards the goal and that animal organizations need to re-evaluate which laws they oppose or support. Like in this cartoon below from his "No More No-Kill News" blog, he described that the ASPCA needed to stop opposing the law because it would help a lot of animals. 

Winograd is not satisfied with high save rates. Yes he praises the shelters that have achieved such high numbers but in my opinion it is only to continue to push them forward. He's motivating and praising them in order to push them toward his philosophy of the "No-Kill Equation". Winograd is past the point of just advocating his beliefs, he's trying to push them onto people through legislative reform. Of course if a no-kill law is passed people will find ways around it and it will have a worse outcome. There is a way around anything and he doesn't accept the fact that not everyone can afford to do this. 

In class we talked about how no-kill can lead to warehousing and hoarding issues. If places continue to take in animals past their capacity they will have animals warehoused in unlivable spaces/conditions. There is no way a shelter will have enough kennels/spaces for dogs and cats, some are forced to live in small crates. It is no life for these animals if they are stacked upon each other and have no adequate living spaces. Hoarding as we learned is also a big issue because places can claim to be no-kill and it's just a cover up to hoard the animals. People will buy into it and donate money without investigating facilities for themselves. 

In class we have learned and discussed that we need to be the judge of these types of situations. We need to go inside and access the situation for ourselves. Questions need to be made about important issues like the average and longest term of stay. We need to see for ourselves the kind of conditions that animals are being kept in. No-Kill sin' always bad but we won't know unless we see it for ourselves. The "No-Kill Equation" sounds ideal but there are many issues it does not cover. It would be great if we lived in a world where this worked but we don't, it's far more complicated than just taking in all the animals and not killing them. Different places have different resources and its just not an attainable goal in some areas. Not to mention it's not always what is best for the animals because really their best interests should be what we work on.