Chat Week Events PetHobbyist.com Main Chat Month Schedule Reptile & Amphibian Chats Dog Chats Cat Chats Bird Chats Small Mammal/Exotic Pet Chats Subscribe to our free email newsletters about pets and animal issues Email Address:

PHKeeper: On behalf of Jeff Barringer and all of us at RescueNetwork.org, I sincerely wish to thank Nathan Winograd for being our part of our 10th annual Chat Week! Nathan Winograd's 2007 book "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America" set off a firestorm of controversy -- and inspired an army of animal lovers across the country, calling for serious reform of the American shelter system and an end to the use of killing as a tool of animal population control.

Nathan is here this evening to help us understand exactly what the No Kill Revolution is and how you can look at groundspring efforts to reform your community into No Kill. If you have a question for Nathan, please type a "?" in the room. You will be called on in order. Please do not speak openly in the room. Do not private message the hosts or our guest. Nathan when you have completed your answer, please type GA so we know to Go Ahead. Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, furkids of all ages, I present Nathan Winograd.

NathanWinograd: Hello and thanks for having me this evening.

PHKeeper: Nathan you have any opening comments?

NathanWinograd: I've worked for two of the most successful shelters/communities in the country when measured against the most important job a shelter has-saving lives.

I've helped other communities reduce rates of shelter killing so that they are now saving over 90% of impounded animals, without self-serving definitions of "adoptable" vs. "unadoptable."

I've seen shelters in the North, South, East and West, those in "blue states" and those in the reddest part of the reddest states embrace the No Kill philosophy and achieve great lifesaving success, while those who follow the traditional path of blaming the public and avoiding responsibility continue killing, with political cover provided by the nation's largest animal welfare groups.

And I have seen firsthand how our movement, which was founded on the highest ideals of compassion, has turned its core mission of saving lives on its head.

As a result, we make it easy to surrender pets to shelters, but hard to adopt.

The Humane Society of the United States published an article arguing that we should worry about the animals we adopt out, not the ones they called "put to sleep." We call killing "kindness" and even deny that killing is killing.

The nation's largest animal protection organizations say killing 22,000 of 25,000 dogs and cats in one shelter is "within U.S. norms" and not the fault of the shelter, but when the San Francisco SPCA said enough was enough in the early 1990s and sought to end killing, it was attacked by shelters and national groups from coast-to-coast.

The latest: Trying to end the killing of dogs is anti-children.

What's wrong with this picture? And how can we make it right? I'll answer your questions. GA.

PHCatByte: ashields, you are our first question tonight!

ashields: hi nathan.....after reading your book, i met with a commissioner of miami dade county and presented a big booklet of info based on your book and presented the no kill and that the shelter in our area would benefit from it......well, it's been months now and the killing is still continuing, and the shelter director agree several months ago to have you come down to do an eval

and we are trying to raise money to get you down here, but until then do you have any suggestions as to what to do in the mean time?

who to speak to, what to do to help stop the killing?

NathanWinograd: This is sort of the situation that's happening more and more across the country. The reality is that the shelters are funded by the community.

ashields: i feel the commissioner blew us off

NathanWinograd: The killing is being done in the community's name, and the community, the public, is being blamed for the killing. And while the killing is being done in our names, we are not paying the ultimate price. That is being paid for by the animals with their lives. When these shelters don't reflect our values, as citizens it is incumbent on us to make that decision known.

NathanWinograd: It's not enough to wait to hear for them. We need to attend city council meetings, making phone calls, demanding accountability. They need to respond to our concerns.

ashields: yesterday, i was there at the shelter twice and the time diff was maybe 2 hours, and in those 2 hours, 15 dogs were killed and i was the last one to see them and speak to them

ashields: who do i start calling?

ashields: city officials?

NathanWinograd: Sometimes that takes years, but that is what causes changes in places like Atlanta. That type of consistent showing up to meetings and making demands is what caused the old guard, kill-based regime to fall, and be replaced by a more progressive one.

There are communities around the country that are saving over 90 percent of the animals and spending no more money to do it, so we need to draw attention to those communities to contrast what is happening in our own communities, to force commissioners to bring accountability to local shelters.

ashields: and as far as accountability, the shelter is very secretive about that

NathanWinograd: There are several things we have in our favor to combat secrecy. We have public records and freedom of information act laws. We just have to know what to ask. We have to ask for very specific statistics, document policies, use examples, and then make the case for change.

ashields: the problem is that the shelter director and her boss are kind of crooked

NathanWinograd: And if they don't reply, unfortunately, while we always hope government agencies will obey the law, they don't always. So sometimes you have no choice but to file a lawsuit as we did in Los Angeles, and that's what it takes to force those agencies to change.

NathanWinograd: GA

PHCatByte: alaska_hounds, your question is next.

alaska_hounds: Was No Kill Solutions asked to give a bid on the evaluation of the San Luis Obispo shelter? Or was the H$U$ given that job without bidding?

NathanWinograd: I was not asked to submit a bid. I was not aware they were seeking solicitations.

NathanWinograd: GA

alaska_hounds: Thank you. I think that as taxpayers, it should be in our best concern to demand such studies by alleged 'shelter specialists' be put up for bid :)

PHCatByte: kelley, go ahead

KelleyS: Nathan, small rescues, especially cat rescues are being targeted by animal control in our city. This leaves everyone afraid to join together and fight. They think that if they hide and do not criticize animal control they will not lose their animals. In our state there is no right of appeal for animal seizures and so this is a very real concern. The state legislature doesn't meet until next January for us to attempt to find a legislator who will sponsor a bill to remove the no appeal clause, what can we do in the meantime?

NathanWinograd: First, if Animal Control comes to your door, you don't have to answer any questions or let them into your house. In terms of seizure, under the 4th Amendment, they will need a warrant. So if they don't have one, don't let them in.

NathanWinograd: Second, there are constitutional issues that trump legislative ones.

NathanWinograd: Just because the legislature doesn't specify an appeal doesn't mean you're not entitled to one. In this day and age, pets are considered property. Your property cannot be taken without due process of law. Under due process, you are ALWAYS entitled to judicial review. So you can file a lawsuit to get your animal back no matter what the statute says.

NathanWinograd: If we don't come forward, we're never going to make change.

One of the things we were able to do in CA is succeeding in getting a law passed preventing animal control from killing an animal if a rescue group was willing to save its life. The reason for that law is because rescuers were being forced into silence about abuses because they were afraid they wouldn't be able to save the animals if they spoke out. Those are the kinds of laws that advocates should be seeking so saving lives is not contingent on fearing their animals be killed, or silence as to shelter abuses.

PHCatByte: jenny, you have a question for Nathan?

Jenny_nr: Can you explain the comment "trying to end the killing of dogs is anti-children?" Where did it originate?

NathanWinograd: That comes from an article that was recently published in Animal Sheltering magazine, where HSUS, through an interview with an author, essentially stated that often we have to choose between dogs and children. And that - actually, if you want to read more about it, I did a whole blog about it at nathanwinograd.blogspot.com. I consider it to be fear-mongering by HSUS in an article called "I chose a child's face over my dog."

If you want to read about it, it's on my blog.

PHCatByte: eskierama, you're up now!

eskierama_nr: Clearly mandatory spay/neuter is part of the equasion to bring the pet population down. Yet it seems SO difficult to pass! And breeders of the tiny tea cup breeds say they can't comply. How can we encourage shelters and discourage puppymill petstores on every corner. I hear education being floated as the answer but the public seems to love convience

NathanWinograd: Okay, so, let me start with this: I define success in communities when all the shelters are collectively saving 90 percent of all impounded animals. The communities that have been able to achieve that, all of them used the same model, which originated in San Francisco in the mid-90s.

It involves comprehensive implementation of a series of programs and services which I collectively call the No Kill Equation, which you can find at http://www.nokilladvocacy.org.

None of the programs involve passing that type of legislation, mandatory spay/neuter.

First of all, mandatory s/n assumes the problem is with the community and not with shelter practices, something which is demonstrably false.

Second, shelters use this as an excuse to divert resources from truly lifesaving programs to bureaucratic enforcement of these laws

Third, simply providing a low cost alternative results in more people getting their pets altered -- cost is a primary obstacle to compliance.

Fourth, there's not a single community in the nation that has been able to achieve save rates in excess of 90 percent with mandatory spay/.neuter.

Finally, because it doesn't remove the obstacles from acting the way shelters want, all it does is increase the number of animals in violation of a law, and subject them to impound. So in many of these communities, impounds increase or they fail to keep pace with declines in surrounding communities.

NYC_NYIfan: In terms of accountability .. New York City's pound (Center for Animal Care & Control) has accepted Maddie's Fund monies and is trying to go no-kill (or at least low-kill), but they have to take all animals and too many residents refuse to get their pets speutered. What are acceptable progress milestones for an agency with such a large intake population?

NathanWinograd: I want to take a step back.

NathanWinograd: What this question pre-supposes is that there is pet overpopulation in New York or in the country as a whole. If you look at Washoe County, NV, they are taking in over three times the per capita rate of the city of Los Angeles.

They are taking in over four times the per capita rate of the City of San Francisco.

They are taking in over twice the per capita rate as the national average

It is higher than the per capita rate of New York City.

Yet despite having an open door environment, they reduced the death rate of dogs and cats by over 50 percent in ONE YEAR they've increased the adoption rate for dogs by over 50 percent, and cats by 84 percent. By comprehensive implementation of all the programs and services of the No Kill Equation they are now saving 92 percent of all dogs and 72 percent of all cats without a comprehensive low cost spay/neuter program.

If you look at all the communities that have achieved that kind of success, not only did they do it very, very quickly, they did it after their longstanding leadership was replaced with a director fully committed to implementing these programs.

I don't believe it should take NYC that long to achieve that success. They have more shelters, more money, and a greater adoption population. If anything it should be easier in NYC than in Washoe County.

PHCatByte: maryny, your turn!

MaryNY: how do you include the fighting dogs in your 90% no-kill rate? our county has a major problem with this. so many of these dogs are horribly injured or have come to bite all humans. as a group, they are a mess. and in spite of police/citizen/animal control teamwork, the problem seems to be growing.

NathanWinograd: If you look at those communities that have saved in excess of 90 percent, they include communities in the south that have problems with fighting dogs. They include communities that have pockets of incredible poverty. They are rural as well as urban, so they don't fit any one single demographic.

MaryNY: poverty is not the issue---the dog fighters have money

NathanWinograd: When you look at save rates across these communities, what they are finding is that 92-93 percent of the dogs coming in are not aggressive to kids, cats or other dogs. If you were just to isolate aggression to people, you're looking to 96-97 percent of all dogs being friendly. That has held true in all these communities despite different demographics and problems with dog fighting in their communities.

Unless there's real good data to the contrary, my guess is that the percentage of dogs that are aggressive is lower than you really know.

MaryNY: so they only have impound rates of 2-3 % for the fighting dogs?

NathanWinograd: At the end of the day, as long as the only dogs being killed are truly hopelessly ill or injured or vicious, you should still have a save rate over 90 percent. While we're working to reduce dog fighting and prosecute these people, we should be working just as hard to make sure shelters are rigorous in their determination that these dogs are truly vicious and need to be killed.

My experience all over the country is that well over 90 percent of all dogs entering shelters do not meet that definition.

PHCatByte: ashields, you have another question for nathan?

ashields: the shelter in miami just recently found out that their funds are being reduced once again, so how would they be able to implement the full no kill equation, because i know that is going to be one of the key questions that i will get asked when i meet with the shelter director.....and also, the shelter director has said "why would i spend more money on cats that are feral and not adoptable instead of cats that are"......also, would you be able to give your opinion on BSL?

NathanWinograd: First, the money question. In Thompkins County, we reduced the death rate by 75 percent, and were able to CUT expenses in the process.

When I inherited that shelter it had a $124,000 annual deficit. By the time we had finished reducing the death rate to only 7 percent of all impounded animals, we finished the year with a $23,000 surplus.

In Philadelphia, they went from an 88 percent killing rate to 61 percent save rate without a single dollar increase in their animal control budget. In Washoe County, they have actually been able to reduce the deficit at the same time they are reducing killing by over 50 percent. The reason for that is that most of the programs of the No Kill Equation are more cost-effective than programs to impound and kill animals.

NathanWinograd: To use your example, it is cheaper to neuter and release a feral cat to a volunteer caretaker than it is to impound that cat, hold that cat for the stray period, and kill that cat and dispose of the body.

ashields: i agree

NathanWinograd: And the savings for neutering that cat are exponential, because of the savings of not having to care for the offspring that are never born.

The other programs are no different. Volunteers do a lot of the work of lifesaving in communities that have EMBRACED the no kill philosophy. Adoptions bring in revenue, while killing, while disposing of bodies costs money. At the end of the day, shelters can reduce the number of animals that are killed, and actually run a more cost-effective operation.

ashields: which this shelter only has maybe 3 adoption fairs per year, which is sad

NathanWinograd: Now, the BSL question. Banning pit bulls, or any breed of dogs, leads to overkill by definition because the vast majority of dog bites occur within the home by many breeds, with the dog biting a member of the family after some provocation, a different causal mechanism than the false image presented: an epidemic of free roaming Pit Bulls attacking unknown children or the elderly. As a result, a breed ban won’t stop the vast majority of dog bites. On top of that, roughly 20% of those bites are a result of the dog defending him or her-self from being attacked. On top of that, 92% of all bites result in no injured. Let me repeat that: nine out of 10 bites result in NO ONE GETTING HURT.

ashields: for the past 10 years, miami dade has banned pit bulls, so they all get killed

NathanWinograd: Of those that do result in injury, 7.5 percent are considered minor, less severe than any other class of injury. Less than 1 percent of all bites rank at moderate or above. We do not have dog bite epidemic in this country that would warrant killing dogs who are family members just because they belong to an unfavored breed by public policy officials.

When I isolated "pit bulls" in the animal control shelter I oversaw, 86 percent passed a rigorous screening requirement showing they were friendly to kids, cats, and dogs. They were adoptable and were adopted.

ashields: that's great!!

NathanWinograd: Those results are consistent with national temperament testing of pit bulls. In fact, national temperament testing of pit bulls has consistently found that 86 percent of the breeds we refer to as pit bulls are in fact friendly dogs. That is a pass rate higher than the historical rate of the Golden Retriever. There is no data warranting passing BSL if we are really concerned with reducing dog bites. On top of that, dogs are ALREADY heavily regulated: they must be licensed with local authorities, they cannot go in public places without a leash (if at all), they must be vaccinated against rabies, you can’t live with more than a small number of them, animal control officers can seize and destroy them if they determine that they are a nuisance, and the threshold of making a determination that they are dangerous and subject to extermination puts dogs at a disadvantage, even when the facts show otherwise. Together, license laws, leash laws, vaccination laws, pet limit laws, nuisance laws, health codes, property laws, and dangerous dog laws control dogs, in concert with an animal sheltering system built on overkill, that there is little justification to tighten the noose even further.

ashields: again, i also agree. thank you!

PHCatByte: kelley, your turn!

KelleyS: How can people be educated about the H$U$ and ASPCA not being no kill? They get huge amounts of money as I am sure you know. More importantly they get a lot of respect. We had a shelter move resolution here get passed despite public outcry against it. The ASPCA's argument was basically we're mission orange, so listen to us. City council refused to even meet w/us, because we aren't the ASPCA or H$U$. Teh ASPCA wants to create a "humane community" which really means whatever they want it to mean.

NathanWinograd: I don't really see the question in there...

PHCatByte: j_yo, do you have a question for nathan?

j_yo_nr: I find that I agree with a lot of what you say; I think shelter leadership in most communities is abysmal and that we should demand better. However, I find that your lack of references and willingness to take quotes out-of-context undermine your credibility and make me nervous about quoting you. But you really lost me when, as a self-proclaimed 'ethical vegan,' you engaged the pro-factory farming shill Center for Consumer Freedom to help sell your book. How can you rationalize throwing 9 billion animals - all of whom suffer every day of their lives - under the bus because you're not happy with how HSUS and PETA approach pet-related issues? Why did you align with CCF (which has a banner ad for your book running right now)?

NathanWinograd: First of all, I included a pretty comprehensive bibliography.

Second, I have not aligned myself with CCF. They contacted me and asked if they could ask me some questions, and I agreed, as long as I could review the answers, which they agreed to. I don't endorse the CCF, I don't follow the CCF. I have no control over whether they do or don't promote the book.

NathanWinograd: But I do have a question: If the CCF reaching dog and cat lovers, how would not reaching those people have helped? If the CCF can reach owners of dogs and cats, how does that take away from farm animals?

Finally, I have been an ethical vegan since 1991, and I also as an attorney did pro bono work for Farm Sanctuary and the Animal Legal Defense Fund. I even surreptitiously volunteered with HSUS on some wildlife issues.

j_yo_nr: I'm quite certain that Gene Baur won't be advertising his new book on CCF.

NathanWinograd: My allegiance is not to any institution, it's to the dogs and cats being killed in shelters. If a group is willing to promote saving them, and I don't have to endorse them, it would be a betrayal of the dogs and cats if I said you have to pass a litmus test before I answer some of your questions. I just don't see the argument nor do I see how not getting the word out on saving dogs and cats takes away from farm animals. But I also do not believe your position is principled, since PETA kills 97% of all dogs and cats it claims to rescue and HSUS legitimizes that approach.

PHCatByte: memazz, you're up next

rmemazz: I hope that you will give all the pertinent links at the end of this chat, so that the participants will be able to read the excellent philosophy that is presented there.

NathanWinograd: Yes, and I'm told they will also be in the transcript. Thank you.

PHCatByte: humasocsteve, it's your turn!

HumSocSteve_nr: What do you do when you have other local Animal Protection Organizations (rescue groups) siding with the Municipal Kill Shelters against implementing the No Kill Equation?

NathanWinograd: I think you have to let the public know that they are betraying their core principles I have no doubt that, like HSUS, when they are fundraising in the communities, they are presenting images of kids hugging dogs, they are presenting images of animals going into loving new homes, they are promoting themselves as a safety net for the animals. If in fact they are promoting unethical and unnecessary killing, it is our duty to let the public know

PHCatByte: dragon_sanctuary, you have a question for nathan?

rockierookie_nr: ?

dragon_sanctuary: I do. My question is this: I run a reptile rescue, and we've always been no-kill. All our funding is out-of-pocket by our members. 501c stats are hard for us to get, because of the type of animal we rescue. What advice do you have for people like us?

NathanWinograd: 501 C status has nothing to do with what type of animal you rescue... are you asking about fundraising?

dragon_sanctuary: Yes and no. I'm also asking about any suggestions on making our shelter more effecient, even though it's already no-kill.

NathanWinograd: Maybe you could contact me through my website, as we're getting to the end of the chat and I'm not quite sure what to tell you.

NathanWinograd: www.nathanwinograd.com

PHCatByte: KAJ, your turn

KAJ_nr: My city kills 80,000 dogs and cats a year. I voluntrr with animal control which ills about 26,00. We ahve 6 Petsmart off site locations and 2 store fronts but it barely makes a dent. Any suggestions to up adoptions?

NathanWinograd: The quick answer is that I have a step by step guide on the nokilladvocacycenter.org website. There are several steps that are involved.

The first includes what I call a series of comprehensive programs. They include public access adoption hours -- weekends and evenings. We have to beat the competition. It makes no sense to charge a hundred dollars for adoption when people can buy a kitten for less. Off site adoption has to occur on a daily basis. We have to attend special events in our community. We need adoption incentives, to work with rescue groups. Screening needs to be thoughtful but not bureaucratic. We need to promote the hell out of our animals.

That's how more animals get adopted out.

PHCatByte: ashields, you have another question?

ashields: i understand that in order to have a shelter become no kill it is especially important to have a director who has the animals interest in mind and also a director who has never really been a part of a shelter before, because it brings in fresh new ideas and a whole new mindset, instead of the brainwashing that is already happening in most shelters, but in order to "clean house" so to speak, but what could be done or should be done in order to have the current director removed and replace them with someone who wants the no kill solution to be implemented and therefore finally see the shelter turn around....

NathanWinograd: Without knowing about how hard it is to get animals adopted, where your shelter is, customer service, how friendly is the staff, how clean the shelter is, etc. it's hard to offer more than generalized advice. GA

PHKeeper: Nathan thank you for sharing all your knowledge with us

PHKeeper: Thank you and goodnight. On behalf of Jeff Barringer and all of us here at all the Pethobbyist.com communities, we want to thank you for taking your time to chat with us. Transcripts will be posted with in a few days. Once again, thank you Nathan. For more information about Nathan Winograd and the No Kill Revolution, visit, http://www.nathanwinograd.com and www.nokilladvocacycenter.org. The chat room is now open for chatting.

NathanWinograd: It has been my pleasure

Wiscats: Thank you so much. I am devouring your book. I heard you speak at a No More Homeless Pets Conference in Chicago a few years ago.

HumSocSteve_nr: THANK YOU....NATHAN!

ashields: thank you!!

alaska_hounds: Thank you very much, Mr. Winograd!

NathanWinograd: What I really want people to do is to go the no kill advocacy center website. There is a section there called Reforming Animal Control and it has everything from shelter protocols to a step by step guide for your community. It's all free and available for download and if the information you need is not there, you can submit a question and I will personally answer it. You’ll find it at http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org.

NYC_NYIfan: thank you

PHKeeper: Applause Applause

dragon_sanctuary: Thank you very much, Nathan.

Wiscats: clap clap clap

NadineL_nr: Bravo, Nathan!

miika_nr: thanks- loved the book

KelleyS: thank you nathan

Jan_nr: applause!

alaska_hounds: Just bookmarked it, it's an excellent website. thank you!

PHKitkat: Thanks Nathan, Nite All

ashields: the shelter down here only has 3 adoption fairs a YEAR, which is pathetic

Wiscats: that's exactly what we need! Thanks you so very much.

PHPanzer: Thank You Nathan