I think I mentioned Winograd recently in comments, too. I haven't been able to come to terms with his book enough to fully review it, but I'll let you know when I do. (Ironically, I just posted a similar topic on my blog this morning.)

He does have some good things to say. His stance on PETA, for instance, probably isn't that much of an exaggeration. I don't know enough about the workings of the HSUS, though, to comment fairly.

I think the "ideal" audience for Winograd's book are those who are surrendering a pet for convenience who believe that all shelter animals will be adopted to a good home; maybe they'll see the light and stop treating pets as disposable commodities.

However, the book is a one-trick-pony. He talks about the "myth" of pet overpopulation, claiming that the HSUS and shelters simply aren't educating the public well enough. In the book, 1 shelter = all shelters, without giving attention to rescues, ethical breeders, and the myriad number of people/organization who do see the reality of pet overpopulation every day.

David's comment above and Carey's response are not exactly talking about the same thing vis a vis Winograd's argument. Winograd claims that there ARE enough adoptive homes, but that HSUS/shelter policies actually cause many more unnecessary euthanizations because shelters aren't doing all they can do to adopt animals out. One of his examples discusses shelter policies describing potentially unadoptable animals as the only ones euthanized, but their definition of "unadoptable" is so broad it encompasses the majority of intakes.

I think Winograd is partially right and partially wrong throughout the book (which is what makes a review so difficult), and that there isn't a black/white right/wrong solution.

I'm going to end now, because this is getting to be a post in itself, but I certainly appreciate your efforts for all animals.

Ack...I didn't read the first sentence closely...where are you going?

Please, take a look at the shelters where Winograd has consulted. He didn't make them nokill. In fact after Winograd consulted with Philadelphia, the SPCA had to come in because conditions were so bad.

Winograd is just words. He blogs, writes articles, a book, gives seminars about this "myth." He is the only person in the US sayings it's a myth. He is not a shelter director. He doesn't volunteer at shelters. I am a rescuer, a volunteer. I see the animals coming in and being euthanized. The directors don't want to kill them. That's ludicrous.

Currently most modern directors are using all of the programs which Winograd tries to take credit for. These programs have been in existence for years before Winograd ever uttered the word "nokill," and the shelters are still not nokill.

Winograd attacks HSUS and PETA because they refused to sign his "nokill" "bill." He wanted them to support him publicly, and they didn't want to. Winograd also attacks the Mayor of LA because he wouldn't hire him to consult. Take a look at what Winograd did to the director of Philadelphia after he consulted with them. He attacked her, blaming the poor conditions on her alone when it was really his "warehousing" program that failed.

here in California shelters are paidMORE money to kill dogs/cats than they are to place. them.. What kind of incentive is that? NONE at all.. as for Nathan not "working at a shelter".. you have to be kidding.. that is just about all he has done. Our shelter here is "open" 10-4 weekdays.. Grreat chance for those adoptions right.? of course they won't "adopt" to just anyone.. no fulltime working people.. no people wihthsmall children.. no people with other pets.. no apt dwellers and the list narrows from there.. is it any wonder animals are killed..
Nathan is right .. it is not TOO MANY dogs and cats.. it is TOO many people not stepping up to the plate..and horrible legislation.. Breed specific and all of the media hype keeps "pit bulls" ( no such breed of dog) from being selected for placement... in fact many shelters kill them automaticly.. feral cats are routinely killed instead of ( as Nathan promotes) trapped/neutered and released Many shelters IMPORT dogs from other countries due to a LACK of dogs available ( at least the kind the "public" wants.. small cute and fluffy) and peopel snap them up.. soemtimes for hundreds of dollars..
As for the H$U$.. they advocated the killing of Vicks dogs.. peta did too.. all but one of Vicks dogs are alive wnd well and some are even therapy dogs.. The head of the H$U$ Wayne Pacelle does not own a pet.. not even ONE while Winograd is up to his eyeballs in cats and dogs of his own.. speacking of which.. one reason dogs and cats are killed.. PET LIMITS.. the H$U$ supports "pet limits".. when they are passed many people have to make the "Sophies Choice' of which animals to give up ( to the local shelter, where they may be 'adopted.. but can be killed as well). Pet limits do NOTHING to keep hoarders from keeping mulitple pets ( many hoarders are rescue people) but do plenty to keep responsible owners from "adopting" another dog or cat..
Winograd is right.. amazing that someone would trash him without reading the book or hearing hm speak.. or even reading his blog..
Joe.. warehousing..as you call it.. is an alternative to DYING..
The mayor of LA had two UNEUTERED dogs.. a father and son.. no breeding going on there..
I might also mention Maddies Fund.. a huge donor group with MILLIONS ot give.. funny thing.. they will NOT give any $$ to any state or city that passes or has in place punative mandatory spay/neuter bills..
By the way Carey.. I get ll sorts of "save me now.. or I will die" emails.. dogs.. cats.. but mostly children.. they ask for the same thing.. MONEY..and yes I have been in the shelters.. I do rescue and place dogs..

I apologise for my lousy typing. and spelling. This is a very small box to type in .. LOL I would make corrections but I think you get the point. Mandatory spay/castrate will not work, has never worked and never will work. No Kill is the solution to the shelter problem. ( hope this is all spelled correctly but no guarantees.. passion trumps typing!)

Over the past five years, several animal control shelters in communities across the United States have embraced not only the No Kill philosophy, but the programs and services which make it possible. As a result, they are achieving unprecedented lifesaving success, saving in excess of 90% of all impounded animals. Not only are death rates plummeting and adoptions skyrocketing in these communities, but these results have been achieved in a very short period of time-virtually overnight-proving that saving lives is less a function of any perceived pet overpopulation, but rather of a shelter's leadership and practices.

In the history of animal protection, this news is seminal, as it harkens the fulfillment of the chief goal of the companion animal movement-ending the killing of savable animals in U.S. shelters. The formula for saving lives of over four million dogs and cats, and hundreds of thousands of other animals, has been discovered. And we should be working feverishly to ensure that this formula is replicated in every community across the country.

Instead, this No Kill success has not been met by celebration by those vested in killing, but by an entrenched defeatism. The response by bureaucrats who oversee the national infrastructure that is responsible for the killing of over four million dogs and cats, and hundreds of thousands of other animals annually in shelters is disturbing, but less surprising. Their "leadership," their positions, their salaries, their fundraising, and their failures are being directly challenged by No Kill success and they are lashing out in order to protect themselves.

The response by many animal lovers has also, at times, been disappointing. It is almost as if some people in this movement have no language for success and remain steadfastly determined to find excuses for why present No Kill success cannot be replicated in their own community. No matter what information is offered, no matter how successful No Kill becomes, the answer for them remains: "It can't happen here." These people like to point to something unique, something peculiar about either the successful community or their own to downplay success elsewhere and claim that it holds no promise for animals entering shelters in their own community. Not only does that stop progress toward No Kill before it even starts, it is undeniably false.

When San Francisco achieved success by saving all healthy dogs and cats city and countywide in the mid-1990s, shelter directors and large national organizations across the country complacent with the status quo and threatened by emerging No Kill success said it could only be done in an urban community, not a rural one because of what they claimed were antiquated views of animals and poverty. When No Kill was achieved in rural Tompkins County, NY at an open door animal control shelter (93% save rate), they said it could not be done in the South for similar reasons. When it was achieved in the South in Charlottesville, VA at an open door animal control shelter (92% save rate), they said it could not be done in developing communities that are seeing tremendous population growth and urban sprawl because of the influx of new people and animals. The developing success in Reno, Nevada (one of the fastest growing counties in one of the fastest growing states)-a more than 50% drop in killing and doubling of the adoption rate in less than one year-despite 16,000 dogs and cats entering the system annually disproves that, too.

Yet these cities have either achieved No Kill, are a whisper away from doing so, or have begun moving aggressively in that direction by implementing the programs and services of the No Kill Equation. And they are not the only ones. Building the capacity to save lives, after years of failing to do so, may take time, but that does not obviate the fact that shelter killing is a result of shelter practices and not "pet overpopulation." Furthermore, the argument that success in the South is precluded by some peculiarity of lack of caring is not only wrong, elitist and mean-spirited; it is simply another example of excuse making. It ignores success in rural Tompkins County. It ignores tremendous success being experienced in Charlottesville, Virginia, a community in the South. It goes against a study by a South Mississippi humane society that found 69 percent of people with unsterilized pets would get them spayed/neutered if it was free, a fact which is not surprising for a state with some of the lowest per capita income levels in the United States.

That is ultimately why the question of public vs. private shelter, urban vs. rural, or South vs. North is not relevant. The only relevant inquiry is whether the shelters are staffed by truly compassionate staff who are working tirelessly to rigorously implement the programs and services that save lives. And that is why any argument that "every community is unique" or its residents are particularly-or peculiarly-"irresponsible" is simply excuse making. The only relevant inquiry is whether the shelters are rigorously implementing the only national model which has achieved success-The No Kill Equation.

The time has come for animal advocates to broaden their understanding of why animals are really being killed in shelters, to stop accepting the excuses which rationalize the killing, and to adjust their advocacy accordingly. The animal protection movement must find the moral courage to stand up not only to shelters directors who refuse to change the way their shelters operate and to national organizations which legitimize the killing, but also to those who ignore facts (or else choose to remain willfully ignorant of them) and champion defeatism by repeating the "it can't happen here" mantra which provides regressive shelter directors the political cover they need to continue killing.

When I argue that pet overpopulation is a myth, I am not saying that our work is done. Nor am I saying that people aren’t irresponsible with animals. It doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of animals entering shelters. It doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be better if there were fewer of them being impounded. Nor am I saying shelters don’t have institutional obstacles to success. But it does mean that the “problem” is not insurmountable. And it does mean we can do something short of killing for all savable animals right now, today: if all shelters had the desire and will to do so, and then earnestly followed through. That is good news. It is news we should celebrate. And it should be the focal point with which we target our advocacy efforts to achieve the greatest declines in killing possible in the shortest amount of time.

Current estimates from a wide range of groups indicate that between 4 million and 5 million dogs and cats are killed in shelters every year. Of these, given data on the prevalence of aggression in dogs in society (based on dog bite extrapolation) and save rates at the best performing shelters in the country from diverse regions and demographics, about 90% of all shelter animals are “savable.” The remainder are either hopelessly ill or injured or vicious dogs whose prognosis for rehabilitation is poor or grave. That would put the number of savable dogs and cats at roughly 3.6 on the low end and 4.5 on the high end of the spectrum.

But even at the high end, it means that we only need to increase the market for shelter pets by 2-3% in order to eliminate all population control killing. Today, there are about 165 million dogs and cats in homes. Of those, about 20 percent come from shelters. Three percent of 165 million equates to 4.9 million, more than all the savable animals being killed in shelters. This is a combination of what statisticians call “stock” and “flow.” In layman’s terms, some of the market will be replacement life (someone has a pet die or run away and they want another one), some of that will be expanding markets (someone doesn’t have a pet but wants one, or they have pets but want another one). But it all comes down to increasing marketshare (where they get their pets from).

These same demographics also tell us that every year about twice as many people are looking to bring a new dog into their home than the total number of dogs entering shelters, and every year more people are looking to bring a new cat into their home than the total number of cats entering shelters. On top of that, not all animals entering shelters need adoption: some will be lost strays who will be reclaimed, others are feral cats who need neuter and release, some will be vicious dogs or hopelessly ill/injured and will be killed, and so on.

From the perspective of achievability, the prognosis is very good. And we have seen this in action in various communities. Some are urban, some rural, some in the North, some in the South, some in what we call “liberal” or “blue” states, and some are in conservative parts of the community (at least one is in the “reddest” part of the “reddest” state.) Demographically, these communities share little in common. What they do share, however, is shelter leadership committed to saving all the lives at risk. And they are proving the validity of the data.

Statistics aside, the fundamental lesson from the experiences of successful communities is that the biggest variable to whether animals live or die comes down to the choices made by the leaders of the shelters. Thanks to new leadership in Washoe County (Reno) NV, adoptions were doubled and kill rates were cut in half in 2007 compared to 2006, and so far this year the lifesaving picture looks even better.

In addition to the speed by which it was attained, what makes Washoe County’s success so impressive is that it takes in about 39 dogs and cats for every 1,000 human residents. That is over two times the national average of about 15 (According to Animal People, the national average is now even lower), over four times that of San Francisco and over three times that of the City of Los Angeles. So if there is a problem with “pet overpopulation,” it would exist in Washoe County. But with save rates of 90% or better, the community is proving that shelters can save the vast majority of animals even in the face of public irresponsibility. This is augmented by the 54% stray reunification rate for dogs and 6% for cats. Given the high per capita intake of animals (which some suggest would evidence high rates of “irresponsibility”) one would expect Washoe County to have a very low redemption rate. Instead, it is tops in the nation. Why? The traditional conclusions we draw from intake rates and shelter killing might be suspect for one. But more immediately, the shelter is proactive in reclaiming lost pets, rather than passive; the same way they are proactive about the adoption and marketing piece for shelter animals. Combined with a pet loving public (the real picture as evidenced by their support of the new shelter bond measure, high rates of animal adoptions, reclaims, and volunteerism), the end result is that the save rate is even better so far this year.

But let’s put this aside. Let’s assume “pet overpopulation” is real and insurmountable. To do that, we have to ignore the data. We have to assume that groups as diverse as the AVMA, AAHA, APPMA, Animal People, the No Kill Advocacy Center, even HSUS who fundamentally agree on the range of numbers are all wrong. This is a stretch given that we disagree about most everything else. We also have to ignore the experiences of successful communities. We have to pretend they do not exist. How does this change the calculus?

Shelters nationally are killing roughly half or more of all incoming animals. That puts us at the 50 yard line. And although the evidence is fairly overwhelming to the contrary, let’s say the Naysayers are right and we can never cross the goal line because of “pet overpopulation.” What is wrong with getting, say, to the 20 yard line or 10 yard line? If all shelters put in place the programs and services of the No Kill Equation, the model which brought rates of shelter to killing to communities from San Francisco, CA to Ithaca, NY; from Reno, NV to Charlottesville VA, and points in between to all time lows, we can save millions of lives nationally, regardless if we ever achieve a No Kill nation. Even if you do not believe that a No Kill nation is inevitable as I do, that is worth doing and worth doing without delay. Because every year we delay, indeed every day we delay, the body count increases.

As it stands: the system is in crisis. Without denying public irresponsibility (as a former criminal prosecutor and animal control director, I would never make this claim), I believe as a general rule, Americans are progressive, caring, compassionate, and generous when it comes to dogs and cats. We spend $40 billion a year on the care of our animal companions, catering to pet owners is a top growth market for the travel and care industries, and giving to animal related causes the single fastest growing segment of American philanthropy. Yet, our animal shelters do not reflect these progressive and compassionate values. Instead, they are often antiquated, regressive, dilapidated, and even cruel.

If we replace the directors who allow this with those who would champion progressive approaches, if we improve their efficiency and effectiveness, we can begin to carry the ball down the field of play, saving lives by the millions. Whether we cross the goal line or not, those of us who value life intend to reform these shelters for the simple fact that these animals deserve better, thus bringing shelters more in line with the values most of us hold about companion animals.

Nathan

In response to "David" stating, "First they aren't designed to ease pet overpopulation -- they're designed to make it more and more expensive and difficult to own animals -- which is part of the radical animal rights agenda.Also, there isn't a pet overpopulation problem at all. Read Nathan Winograd's book -- "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation" and you'll understand that it's simply a marketing issue and that there are plenty of adoption homes!"
I think David and Nathan are living in a blind fantasy world. TAKE YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR YOU-KNOW-WHATS and WAKE UP!!! I find it unbelievable that people are still so flippin' naive to things right in front of their faces. These two must be backyard breeders. Yeah, it's all a "marketing scheme" to spay and neuter pets. OMG!! David and his buddy Nathan just need to go away. Go live on your Fantasy Island, okay? Let the people who CARE deal with real life issues.