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.
