Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Suzette! Please check in.

Sorry to contact you in this fashion but I replied to two of your recent emails. And both promptly bounced. Any idea why?



Suzette said...

Still alive here. :) Been one of those weeks/days when everything is just a little....'off." Always a fun time! Email is on the brink. Hopefully, will be in working order tomorrow. I'll send you another email address. BTW, why does Winograd get so many people sort of 'up in arms?' I don't get it.

Anonymous said...

My take on why some people are so up in arms about Winograd is that AR leaders fear him because he says the problem is NOT irresponsible owners and NOT pet overpopulation; That's the belief promulgated by both HSUS and PeTA: it's because of irresponsible owners and the belief that there is a pet overpopulation that leads to the unethical premise that you have to save animals to kill them.

His proving that No Kill public shelters work pulls the underpinnings out from under HSUS and PeTA; both groups advocate that animals have to taken away from irresponsible owners and killed so they don't suffer. They say euthanize; we should call it what it is: unethical killing.

If Winograd wins the hearts and minds of the animal lovers who donate to HSUS and PeTA, those groups' money will disappear and their onward movement to end private ownership of pets will go down the tubes.

Why? Because well-run No Kill shelters rely on volunteers in the community: and guess who those volunteers would be? Animal lovers pure and simple. Animal lovers would foster and save litters of puppies and litters of kittens that are currently killed. Animal lovers would provide foster homes for animals waiting for homes, animals that are currently killed. And as the killing goes down, HSUS and PeTA would both lose money and believers.

Winograd comes out and says that there is no pet overpopulation because statistics show that there are millions more people wanting pets than there are pets available. He also says animal loving people in local communities will volunteer to help save animals; he has the audacity to say that irresponsible owners are a small minority of pet owners.

If the animal lovers who donate to these organizations start believing this, who will need HSUS and PeTA: I think that those two organizations are actually fighting for their lives. And they are so far down the road of killing animals to save them that they cannot turn around and agree that people are good and we need more animals, not fewer, to provide the pets people want and need.

Rosebud said...


Always wondered about the "Winograd" paradox myself. Especially since several local shelters have implemented (intentional or not, modeled after or not...) their policies on the steps which Nathan speaks of. WITH GREAT SUCCESS!!!! We have many examples of successful shelters in this immediate area, but we also have some of the most dismal and failure-ridden as well. Wouldn't it make sense to look to those that have significantly improved their numbers, and who place more animals than are killed. In some cases, these shelters are reaching 80%+ placement rates. WHY are we not looking at the policies of these shelters IN OUR VERY OWN BACK YARDS, and trying to figure out how they DON'T HAVE TO KILL animals coming into their care??!?!!!

Why...because many of us have suspected for a long time, that it is NOT about saving animals. It is about jobs,it is about dollars, it is about fund-raising, and to continue to support all the above, you must scare the public into believing that an "out-of-control" problem exists. And that millions of poor animals are suffering, abused, neglected...and that no matter what we do, those figures never improve. Yes, and those VERY policies INSURE that the problem NEVER DOES improve, (intentionally and by design) and exploits suffering animals every bit as much as the worst possible "breeder". That way, very a convenient finger can remain pointed at the responsible breeding community as being "evil" , and the average pet owner can be blamed as part of the problem as well (lazy and irresponsible). And "they" keep deflecting any responsibility for the problem by keeping that finger pointed in the other direction. They are never held accountable as to why THEIR policies do NOT work. As long as they can keep the disgrace and the killing as someone ELSE'S auspices..."they" are under the radar, and able to continue to operate unabated. I suspect the cat-in-the-wall was just a very convenient catalyst for the shit-storm (sorry FP...) that the powers-that-be knew would result.

Approximately 21 MILLION homes are looking for pets in any given year. If every single one of the 3 to 4 million that are needlessly killed in shelters annually, were able to find their way into shelters that were DEDICATED to finding a way out for them, period...we would have NO problem. So...why can't 4 million animals find homes among 21 million available? I think this problem has a solution. And it must come from those who insist, no...DEMAND...that it be done. I've seen it happen in shelters and rescues everywhere. If they can do it, if they don't have to kill in an open admission environment, why do others feel it's the ONLY solution? We should be fed up with "excuses", and stop allowing people to put up roadblocks...and for god sake, let's start talking to each other, and stop the hating. Breeders are NOT the enemy. Rescuers are NOT the enemy. People who perform or have working animals are NOT the enemy. People who own intact animals are NOT the enemy. Anyone who truly loves and works on behalf of the welfare of animals should be at the table, EVERYONE, EVERYONE, EVERYONE...not just one, fringe, radical voice trying to speak FOR everyone. And "judge" for everyone. "They" operate by instilling fear in the community, and killing animals in the name of mercy (but really, for convenience, or the intentional distortion of the statistics.) The operate by punishing and admonishing the very public they should be asking to help. This hateful posturing has only one lasting effect... innocent animals suffer, are killed and die needlessly.

Ok, that's my daily rant.

Suzette Watkins said...

I agree with every word! Please help me get a "Nathan Winograd No Kill" or "No Kill Education" booth at Music 4 Mutts It's about education. We need to do this! I love what I'm learning about the No Kill deal and I so agree with what you have so eloquently written above. I really appreciate you taking the time to help educate those of us who are new to animal welfare. We need sponsors at Music 4 Mutts, perhaps Nathan W. would be a leading sponsor. I think he is speaking at the Austin No Kill Workshop next week. If so, I will ask him to fork over some money and help us promote his theory. I know it's not a 'perfect' theory, none are, but I respect him for his courage and his words. I love both!! :)
Thank you Feline Provocateur for your space! You've been a rising sun for me, I am grateful!

Rosebud said...

It's would be most marvelous to get Nathan into town. I wish we could have done it for Dallas. However, I will warn you Suzette, that Nathan can be, at times, a difficult individual. the same time, I have to admit I have not dealt with him directly. But many of us in the area would faint dead away if we could get Nathan into town? When is your event? I see it's generally been in the Spring...will it again be in May?

And no, Nathan's theory may not perfect, but it beats the hell out of, oh, let's say...the Dallas "theory". And since we've seen it work in other shelters, including some right here in the DFW area, what is the harm in trying??? Can you imagine anything performing WORSE than Dallas??? And...even if it DIDN'T work, at least SOMETHING else had been given an honest try.

Suzette Watkins said...

Absolutely, what's the harm in trying?!! Yes, anything beats the Dallas theory! Anything! Music 4 Mutts is Saturday, October 23rd - in a month! "Nathan can be, at times, a difficult individual," that's ok. That's what people say about me; however, I'm not difficult if one has the ability to listen and reason and/or answer questions and/or debate an issue. He's probably very passionate about what he believes and perhaps can see it clearly with a vision which makes for some to take that as stubborn or non-flexibe, etc. Thanks for the warning.

Cynthia said...

I have the 20/20 ABC Report if you want to see it.

Rosebud said...


By the way, I wasn't sure if everyone was aware of a new group, Pawsitively Texas.

It is group just formed in August, and their goal is to be able to successfully create and maintain transports from overcrowded southern shelters, to more and more frequently empty shelters in the North, Northwest, and especially the Northeast. They also have a facebook page. They seem to have bright, creative ideas, and need volunteers and/or support. I invite you check them out.

Rosebud said... do they DO it? Yes, I know they are a "humane society", and not necessarily an open admissions shelter...but why don't we do a shelter version of "the tour of homes", but take Dallas around to a few very successful shelters, and see if possibly they can pick up some tips.

Anonymous said...

We be thinkin that Rosebud is brilliant.

Suzette Watkins said...

Just had an impromtu meeting with the leaders of Ft. Worth's tax payer funded Animal Shelter, one of them was not 'down' with the No Kill theory, the other one was willing to possibly consider it. Somehow the word on the streets is that No Kill causes more suffering of animals in the community due to difficulty getting the animals 'in' the shelters. And yes, these types have completely drank the entire glass of kool-aid. To me, No Kill is the 'Libertarian' side of animal welfare because it's a mix of the most thinking, courageous of us and it's really about personal responsibility and worth ethic -- two things many of us don't want to confront, especially if your salary doesn't depend on it.

Verjean said...


Verjean. Call me, or e-mail me. We definitely need to chat. Was at a funeral and spending the day with the family on Saturday, and working an agility trial on Sunday...but would like to "try" to meet up this month "some time".