Monday, December 31, 2012


Trap, Neuter, and Release, a disease that is cruel to cats, and is nothing more than outside hoarding. Free roaming cats are a public health issue as well as an environmental issue concerning wildlife. This is a case recently filed against a "caregiver" of TNR. Let's hope this brings this issue to the proper light of which it is - abandonment.

Biloxi woman's sentence in feral cats case draws national attention
BILOXI -- A Biloxi Community Court judge has sentenced a 78-year-old woman to 100 hours of community service for the hoarding of cats in a case believed to be unprecedented.

The judge decided the cats are domesticated, not feral. He said the only reference he found in state law about feral animals applies to hogs. (KEY WORD - DOMESTICATED. When a cat is free roaming, they can give an impression of being "feral" because they are scared outside. Many of them come out of the trap friendly yet are abandoned once again under the guise of being "feral".)

The judge said the cats create "unsanitary and unsafe conditions. There's a growing problem in the city with distemper." (Obviously this judge did some homework. Cats are mobile in that fences, etc., don't stop them like it does dogs roaming around. Cats are allowed to bring disease to your front door.)

"On the surface, it seemed to be a noble solution," Creel said. "I don't recall this being presented as a program to set up people in single-family neighborhoods to become agents of the Humane Society and turn single-family homes into a feral cat colony.
"Any time you have domesticated animals that are not enclosed, they are going to get onto someone else's property, leave excrement, urinate, and possibly damage property, and that's when it becomes a public nuisance. (I think that about sums it up.)

Read more here:

Read more here:

Read more here:

Read more here:

Read more here:


As most of us know, Nathan Winograd/No Kill, deletes any comments made that are not praising him or his movement from his Facebook pages. He also doesn't allow comments at all on his blog. This brave person did respond to Winograd and her response is worthy of a blog post here. Winograd's blog and facebook page spews hate, hate for any other agency, and all the while Winograd proclaims the only way to save animals is his way. Shades of Jim Jones.
by Amanda Katz on Thursday, December 27, 2012 at 5:34pm
Recently I asked Nathan Winograd whether he supported Caboodle Ranch.  He responded that he had made no statement about the ranch, then asked me a number of questions that seemed to be sparked by my cover pic of the HSUS baby seal campaign.  Here is my response to him, which came after a long series of back and forth between Winograd, myself and several other people.

Mr. Winograd - You have asked Mary Lundberg not to put words in your mouth, yet your latest reply to me certainly puts words into mine.  You seem to have made all kinds of assumptions and accusations about what I think and believe, when all I did was ask if I could post openly on your page!  I am going to go ahead and post my thoughts openly, regardless of the risk that you will remove them and ban me.

First regarding Caboodle Ranch.  I am glad to see you say you would condemn a place that is causing prolonged suffering and death to animals, even if that place calls itself No Kill.  That is exactly what Caboodle Ranch did. 

You seem to be questioning the evidence against Caboodle Ranch solely because some of it came from PETA and ASPCA, which you claim lie about the facts.  However, it is hard to see where the evidence that PETA and ASPCA got about Caboodle was a lie.  Photos and video don’t lie, which is exactly why big ag interests in several states are trying to pass ag-gag laws banning undercover investigations -- and why the Caboodle defenders sound exactly like factory farmers talking about Mercy for Animals when they claim the photos and videos were doctored, staged, etc. 

In the Caboodle Ranch case, PETA sent an undercover investigator at the request of several former volunteers to document the cruelty and neglect that caused the death of hundreds of cats.  PETA's investigation provided local authorities with the evidence required to shut down the ranch.  At that point, local authorities asked the ASPCA to remove all 700 cats.  The ASPCA housed the cats for months while the legal proceedings were sorted out, provided extensive rehabilitation and medical treatment, and eventually adopted all but the very sickest of cats into new homes. 

Even if you don't believe PETA or the ASPCA about Caboodle Ranch, there is plenty of other evidence which you can find at  Before PETA and ASPCA were ever involved, a series of former volunteers came forward with evidence against Caboodle Ranch.  The owner sued one of them for defamation and lost -- it is this court case that provides much of the evidence against Caboodle Ranch, such as the financial records showing that Caboodle took in much more in donations than it paid in care for the cats, and that its owner used donations for the cats to pay for trips and clothing. That evidence, combined with evidence from PETA and the ASPCA was certainly convincing to the courts, as the judge cited it in his order awarding custody of the cats to the local sheriff.  If all you do is read this court order, you will get a good idea of conditions for the animals at Caboodle Ranch -

Yes, I support the HSUS -- and other organzations

You have also asked several questions of me.  I will do my best to answer them, though you may not like the answers.

I do support the HSUS, as well as ASPCA and PETA.  I also support Best Friends, and believe it or not, I support some of what you do as well.  You may not think that is possible, as you have made a concerted effort to draw a line in the sand between yourself and every other national animal welfare organization.  But I do not take such a black-and-white view of these issues.

First, regarding HSUS, you have presented a number of allegations to both Jaclyn Sharp and Mary Lundberg.  I can’t answer all of those, but I can answer some, and I believe you are misconstruing their actual work and position on the issues. 

For example, regarding dogs rescued from fighting operations, your description of the HSUS position does not include the fact that they changed their position on this issue back in April 2009 -- almost four years ago.  At the time of the Vick case and the Wilkes County case, when asked, they did advise the court to euthanize the dogs.  That is not the same thing as "lobbying" -- the court asked, and they provided an answer.  Moreover, at the time euthanasia was the standard recommendation for all dogs removed from fighting operations -- most humane organizations made the same recommendation. 

Fortunately the HSUS was mature enough to reconsider this position and change its recommendations to advocate for individual evaluations.  Again, that happened almost four years ago now, yet you continue to write about HSUS as if euthanasia is their current position when it is not.  Moreover, the HSUS remained true to its word with the rescue of 200 dogs from a fighting operation in Ohio in 2010.  All but the sickest of dogs were rescued and placed into new homes. One of those homes belongs to an HSUS employee I know personally who slept with him in the living room every night for weeks so she could be there when he woke up with nightmares.  This is hardly the hard-hearted pro-killing organization that you make HSUS out to be.  For more, see "HSUS Steps Up and Seeks Help for 200 Dogs Seized from Fighting Operation" by Ledy van Kavage first published on

Why do you not present this crucial part of the story when discussing the HSUS's recommendations on fighting dogs?

Gas chamber and Vick

Regarding the allegations that HSUS has lobbied against laws banning the gas chamber, I have a very difficult time believing the HSUS did that. On the contrary, the HSUS has given grants to shelters to transition them off of the gas chamber.  The HSUS also actively supports the proposed Congressional resolution by Jim Moran (D-Va.) to condemn use of the gas chamber and encourage states to ban it. 

You told someone farther up this thread that the Moran resolution makes an exception for shelters, but again, I think that is a misconstrual of the facts.  It is a proposed resolution, not a law, so it is not binding on anyone.  The national Congress is not going to pass a law regarding shelter practices because animal shelters are regulated by state and local governments, and are not a federal matter. 

However, if Congress passed a resolution condemning the gas chamber, that would be an important tool in pushing states like North Carolina to ban the practice.  This would be a win for the animals that we are all trying to help.  That’s why resolutions like this should be supported regardless of feelings about HSUS.

Moreover, the HSUS position on the gas chamber is clear: "The HSUS considers use of the gas chamber in a shelter setting to be unacceptable under any circumstances."  The reasons are that “Gas chambers cannot provide humane euthanasia for shelter populations,” and “Gas chambers pose grave dangers to staff.”  For more, see for Vick, I can see why the HSUS worked with him, but it is not something I actively supported.  As Jaclyn Sharp pointed out, Vick can reach inner-city kids in African American neighborhoods in a way that you, I, or Wayne Pacelle cannot. He spoke to tens of thousands of them, and if he got even one kid to reconsider going into dogfighting, that is a good thing.  Unfortunately, the Vick partnership sparked a strong backlash in the animal welfare community.  For that reason, I do not think it has been a success. 

However, regardless of whether the Vick program was successful, it was not done as a quid pro quo to get $50,000 out of the Philadelphia Eagles.  That money did not go to line anyone's pockets but to the End Dogfighting program in Philadelphia.  The Eagles also gave $50,000 grants to two other humane organizations at the same time -- the Philadelphia Animal Welfare Society to build a spay-neuter clinic, and Berks County Humane Society to fund a mobile veterinary clinic. 

Why do you not mention those grants in your discussion of the Eagles money?  Is it possible the Eagles were simply trying to improve animal welfare in their community?  All three of their grants went to animal welfare programs in Philadelphia, and with a $50,000 grant, each program could help a lot more animals.

Other national groups

Regarding the ASPCA, I do not know as much about them as I do HSUS, but they stepped up to save 700 cats from Caboodle Ranch, as well as 350 dogs from a failed rescue in Ohio in 2011. In both cases they were asked to help by local authorities because local shelters simply do not have the capacity to handle so many animals. And in both cases almost every animal was saved, and these were very sick animals removed from horrible hoarding situations. 

This demonstrates one reason why we need the national groups.  What other groups have the capacity to conduct large-scale rescues from hoarding situations, fighting rings, puppy mills, natural disasters, and other cases when hundreds of animals are in need?  I don’t see that any of your No Kill shelters, as wonderful as they are, have the capacity to do that.Furthermore, in many cases in which animals were removed from so-called rescues that were really situations of great cruelty, the rescue group had a 501c3.  In fact, all the national animal welfare groups have been asked to handle major removals from 501c3 rescue organizations that were actually horrible hoarding situations.  Besides the ASPCA’s involvement in Caboodle Ranch in Florida and One More Chance Rescue in Ohio, the HSUS rescued, rehabilitated and rehomed 700 cats from Haven Acres in Florida, while Best Friends rescued 800 cats from For the Love of Cats and Kittens in Nevada, 150 of which still live at the Best Friends sanctuary in Utah.  

All of these so-called rescue groups had a 501c3, yet they all involved extreme animal suffering.  Perhaps this is why the national groups have not testified in favor of CAPA laws that would require local shelters to turn over animals to any rescue group that asks.  While most rescues are wonderful organizations, clearly some of them are not -- to send an animal to one of these places would condemn it to prolonged suffering and death. 

A 501c3 alone is simply not enough to ensure that a place calling itself a rescue is not a death camp.  Again I think you have misconstrued the position of the national organizations on this issue.  While you say they have lobbied against the CAPA bills, that is not the case in the instances I have read about, such as Best Friends which remained neutral on the CAPA proposal in New York.

Personally, I think shelters should work more with rescue groups and would support a version of CAPA that provided some kind of standards for rescue groups to meet before shelters were legally required to send animals to them.  I am not sure what those standards would be, but would support, for example, formation of an accrediting body for shelters and rescues similar to the organizations that accredit top zoos (Association of Zoos and Aquariums), and quality exotic animal sanctuaries (Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries).  Shelters and rescues would have an incentive to achieve accreditation because accredited organizations are more likely to draw donations and be awarded grants. 

We all want to end shelter euthanasia

As I said earlier, while I don't agree with some of your positions, I do support other things you do.  The No Kill Equation is a list of best practices that every shelter should be striving to accomplish, and many shelters are already incorporating some, most or all of its elements into their operations.  Others are not. There is no doubt that some shelters are in dire need of reform, and I am glad your group is there to demand that they do it.  But there is a difference between criticism meant to reform bad practices and a scorched earth campaign meant to destroy the very infrastructure we need to help animals.  I think that your rhetoric often crosses the line into destruction rather than criticism.

Moreover, I cannot agree that there is no such thing as pet overpopulation, or that adoption alone can end shelter euthanasia.  Increased adoption is certainly an essential part of what must be done, including concerted efforts at better marketing and placement of animals.  Other tactics to  help save large groups of animals should be supported, such as a creating a parvo ward for puppies and a bottle baby ward for kittens, provided they are properly staffed to avoid suffering. 

But we also must reduce the number of animals flowing into shelters, particularly from puppy mills and unaltered street cats.  Low-cost spay-neuter for low-income areas is vital, as is legislation regulating high-volume dog breeders.  Why endorse one tactic to end shelter euthanasia (increasing demand) but not another (decreasing supply)?  Surely there is room for a variety of tactics to achieve this important goal.

You say that no one can provide numbers showing there are fewer homes than animals needing to be placed.  That is because such national numbers do not exist.  We have an idea how many animals are in shelters, but we have no idea how many are being advertised on Craig’s List and other online forums, how many stray cats are on the streets, how many people get cats from accidental litters that a friend had, etc. 

The actual number of homeless animals is much, much higher than what is in shelters.  For every person who gets a cat at a shelter, many more get cats from friends or the streets.  That is direct competition for shelter animals and must be considered in these calculations of supply and demand.

Furthermore, the animals who are in shelters do not always match what people are looking for.  Most people don’t want pit bulls, yet half of dogs in shelters are pits or pit mixes.  People want kittens, not adult cats, yet shelters are overflowing with adult cats.  People don’t want black animals. 

I’m not saying that’s right.  I think it’s terrible.  But regardless of what I think, someone who comes to a shelter looking for a kitten or a Pomeranian is not going to walk away with an adult black cat or a pit bull.  So it’s not a matter solely of numbers.  It is also a matter of preferences.  Shelter director Karel Minor makes this point eloquently here - need to work together

To say that people who disagree with your interpretation of these complex issues are pro-killing is simply not accurate.  On this page I have seen you tell people who spend their entire life outside of work rescuing animals that they are pro-killing.  I believe that is a misrepresentation of their hard work and counter-productive. 

With so many animals suffering, we need ALL tactics, ALL groups working together.  You have noted that the number of no kill communities is rising.  They achieve no kill by working with others in their communities to constructively solve problems, not through vicious attacks and infighting.

I look forward to the day when all animal advocates can work together to help animals in need, when there is room for all tactics and programs to end shelter euthanasia, and when we can end this vicious infighting that is a much larger threat to the animal welfare movement than any external enemy ever could be.

Friday, December 14, 2012


One of the latest rants is about having kennel cards for the guests at Devore. I have no idea what the deal is on this because in all the shelters I have been in, I don't pay attention to a kennel card to any extent. I'm not even sure I could tell you what is on kennel cards in other shelters.

I never have found it to be an inconvenience at Devore to not have a kennel card, I just go ask staff. When I do this, many times front counter staff will refer me to another staff member who may be more familiar with the pet. They tell me things in conversations that could not all fit on a kennel card. So I would have to say that, if anything, kennel cards do more harm than good. Talking with someone, getting their observations and impressions, is much better than reading a very limited amount of info on a kennel card. Plus, it gives you a chance to interact with staff, get to know them, and I enjoy that personal one on one.

I have been in shelters with multiple pets in one kennel and several kennel cards. Which is which? I can see that confusing the public as well. I can see kennel cards as being used to cherry pick, pick and choose, by certain No Kill rescues and activists. They don't want to do the interaction part with staff, would throw off their game plan. I've seen this done before in Rancho Cucamonga when they were experiencing their hostile takeover. Kennel cards were quoted rather than the updated information that can only come with talking with staff.

Devore has outside kennels. Raining, wind, and staff is trying to update a kennel card? Or the kennel card gets wet or blows away? My suggestion is to just go to the front desk and inquire about a pet, you will learn much more about it than from a kennel card.

I can't see why these people don't wise up and spend their energies helping animals instead of finding petty things to complain about because they have been unable to find anything substantial to complain about Devore.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012


To learn this is so discouraging. A post was on this blog at the beginning about Devore shelter dogs being abandoned in a boarding kennel. Left to starve with most being emaciated when finally found. The administrator of this blog received the emails about these dogs and has them on file.

Imagine ending up at Devore Shelter. Then being pulled by some kind person who promises to help you find a home. Imagine still being in a boarding facility three and four months later. These dogs ar suffering -- some are under a vet's care for being nearly starved to death! Some have fared better than others. Many are hungry and all have had little or no human contact for months and need to get out of this terrible situation immediately. These dogs are trusting us to help them. If every rescue who reads this appeal can help save even one dog, the emergency would be over!

Seems Devore isn't the only one, this is happening in other areas and enough so there are groups forming to rescue these forgotten pets.

So No Kill groups pull pets from the shelter, pat themselves on the back, and leave them. This is No Kill, only thinking in terms of "they're alive" and not in terms of their quality of life.

The Forgotten Pet Advocates is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization that supports animal welfare.
We are the voice to those animals that have no one to advocate for them.
These animals have been abandoned in boarding facilities, in Houston and surrounding areas.

"It is a side of Animal Rescue few know about - not any more!"

There were 1400 pets taken by "rescue" and no paperwork had been turned in by these "rescues" at the end of the Rachael Ray Challenge. Where are those pets? Are they in boarding kennels, being forgotten? Why didn't the paperwork get submitted? It would have had to be submitted with a vet's report on spay/neuter. Does this mean those "rescues" aren't altering and therefore not submitting paperwork? Those who did not submit their paperwork should not be allowed to take any animals out until they do submit it. Plus they should be probation for a period time afterwards as far as paperwork is concerned for any they are allowed to pull. Stop letting these activists rule the roost, they are doing harm.

Monday, November 19, 2012


It makes me wonder what happened tothose 1400 pets taken during the Rachael Ray $100,000 challenge by adoption groups, adoption groups that failed to submit paperwork so Devore would get credit.

Schemes and scams are cropping up every week, it seems, all based in the philosophy of No Kill. Shelters being forced to give pets to groups when it is not in the best interest of the pet. These adoption groups lying, making up sob stories and all the while asking for money. Even going so far as to ask for money when the pet is still sitting in the shelter.

No Kill promotes free give away of pets from shelters, better than them dying No Kill says. In the same breath, No Kill says don't give your pets away for free especially on Craigslist. Now this seems a little hypocritical to me. These adoption groups pay a small adoption fee to Devore and get a spay/neutered pet, they have no money invested but they get a hefty adoption fee. No Kill shelters are giving away pets, pets that cost taxpayer dollars, and people are taking advantage of it to make money.

Read this article, you will once again be surprised by what is happening all because of the No Kill movement/philosophy.

Friday, November 16, 2012


Once again the terrorists have failed a dog and once again are trying to blame it on Devore. This dog, Mary as they are calling her, came into Devore on 11/9/12. The dog was aggressive and was held until 11/15/12 with no improvement in the aggression. The "rescues" were notified of this dog being urgent/aggressive on the day after impound. NONE CAME FORWARD. This is the official response to my inquiry.

On 11-9-12 a field officer impounded A544639, a tan terrier approx. 2yrs old, with a review date of 11-15-12,  the condition of this animal was “aggressive” and no vaccinations were given. This terrier was named “rescue only” the following morning 11-10 during the morning inventory when his aggressive behavior was noticed by shelter staff thereby alerting the rescue groups that monitor our website and pet harbor that this dogs status was urgent and required a rescue group to pull.  A544639 was evaluated daily and continued to growl and bare teeth when approached.  On 11-15-12 at 11:54am,  with no rescue group “hold” nor any memo stating that a rescue group was interested this terrier was euthanized.

Still the terrorist network is picking this up as if they were innocent. They are the ones that caused Mary to lose her life and they are feeling the guilt. Anytime you see these people talking about a pet dying in Devore, remember, they could have gotten it out, they choose not to. If Mary died, it is on their hands.

Sunday, November 11, 2012


 A fellow blogger who has a great grasp on the realities of No Kill in his state of Delaware issued this post and I think it is important enough to pass along to the Devore readers, be they friend or foe.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

The Blame Game of No-Kill

In the past week, I've watched the no-kill movement blame everyone but themselves for animals that
 die every day in our shelters.  There have been articles and Facebook posts about the ASPCA
HSUSPETABest Friends, and the never ending whining about the "trolls" and "sockpuppets" 
that disagree with their movement.  Now seriously, this is the movement that our Governor and 
legislators went to for the writing of our "shelter standards" law called CAPA.

ASPCA Claim - One Example

Clearly the movement has no grasp of reality.  For example, here was one of the statements against
 the ASPCA:
"One argument that people like to make is that organizations like the ASPCA use some of the money for its intended purpose. And with nearly $150,000,000 a year now in revenues, how 
can they not? But it is a question of potential: are they doing enough given their immense 
wealth? The answer is No. They could save 1/4th of all animals killed in U.S. shelters, rather 
than fewer than some rescue groups do." - Nathan Winograd's Facebook Page
So lets look at the costs per animal in Washoe County to test that theory.  Washoe County in 
Nevada is the community that Mr. Winograd uses in his Dollars & Sense - The Economic Benefits of

Washoe (Reno) - $7,800,000 Budget / 15,000 animals = $520.00 

Now let's look at how many animals the ASPCA could save at that same rate.

ASPCA - $150,000,000 Budget / $520 per animal like Washoe = 
288,462 additional saved

Considering Mr. Winograd has in the past acknowledged that 4 million animals die in animal shelters
 each year, 1/4 of those animals would be 1 million.  He appears to be off by about 711,538 animals.
 This must be the "new math" of the No-Kill movement.

I'll even ignore the fact that the ASPCA already provides million in grants to shelters across the 
country.  So according to these calculations, an additional 288,462 would be saved, 
but 3,711,538 would still be dying.  So his desire for their $150 million in funding would amount to
 one of those tiny little band-aids you place on a pin prick.

In addition, this would take away the ability of the ASCPA to investigate cruelty cases, assist those
 animals seized in cruelty cases, provide disaster training and response, their equine fund, 
spay neuter services, or any of their other services.  So who in their right mind would want to take 
these services away from our animals, and if those services were no longer provided, the fact is 
donations would drop tremendously anyway.  So the logic is just ludicrous.

Delaware's Legislature Buys This?

What bothers me most is that our state leaders actually buy into this crazy logic with their continued 
support for CAPA.  I look forward to seeing the minutes for the upcoming Delaware Animal Welfare 
Task Force Meeting on November 15, since they will be discussing adding enforcement to this 
misguided legislation.  I'm just wondering how much more money our state can waste on 
investigations, bickering, and creating an environment that is harmful to our animals.  
Maybe they should consider who responds to cruelty, hoarding, and disasters in our state, 
as well as representing our state assisting other states when they make their decision about CAPA.
“The Humane Society of the United States is thankful for the assistance of New Jersey SPCA andKent County SPCA. With the help of our partners, our response to this disaster hasresulted in the rescue of hundreds of animals in New York and New Jersey,” - The Paramus Post"  
What Does No-Kill Spend Their Money On?

Here is the Form 990 of the No-Kill Advocacy Center (Expenses $321,210).  Expenditures include 
$147,048 producing a movie to convince people that No-Kill works, $90,415 for their annual 
conference, $60,000 Salary, and $54,206 providing guidance and support with publications like 
Dollars & Sense discussed above.

Here is the Form 990 for No-Kill Nation (Expenses - $283,076).  Their notable expenses were 
$119,482 for Program Expenses which they list as conferences, $22,545 in advertising, and 
only $22,898 in awards and grants.

In fact there is even a new No-Kill fundraiser underway.  Is it to save those animals that they claim 
the other organizations neglect to?  Of course not!!!  The No-Kill movement is not about saving 
animals, it's about creating a brand identity, like the name sewn on someone's backside wearing 
those $500 jeans. So the movement needs funds to try to silence anyone that disagrees and speaks out about their tactics against organizations like PETA and HSUS.

These were my favorite statements from the site:
"In response to this — and other efforts to undermine the No Kill community — we have setup a fund to counteract slander and libel. This will be a sum of money, equally divided between No Kill Nation and the No Kill Advocacy Center.  It will be put towards efforts (already underway, and successful) to sue those who spread libelous disinformation about No Kill.
Mr. Cooper is donating all of the digital proceeds from three of his novels to No Kill, for at  
least the next six months. If you buy these novels, the proceeds will be automatically deposited 
in our bank account.  Alternately, you can leave a donation through PayPal, via the link at the bottom.
Hence, for as little as 99 cents, you can read a novel, and simultaneously contribute to No Kill’s Anti-Slander Fund." -
At first I thought it was a joke, but when I checked the Whois record, the site is owned by No-Kill 
Nation.  What a shame that money that should be spent saving animal lives, is instead being spent 
on a website to promote a fiction author and threaten dissenters. 

As much as I have disagreed with the No-Kill Movement and their legislation CAPA, they really have 
sunk to new depths reminiscent of playground bullies. As we know, bullies never accept 
responsibility for their actions, and blame the world for their mistakes and failures.  I guess that's 
why No-Kill feels it's necessary to attack other organizations. It seems the No-Kill movement thinks 
that the world is picking on them, but that's not the case, we're just pointing out that their logic 
doesn't work.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012


Recently on a media website, Pat Dunaway has been writing a series of articles relating to the failure of the No Kill movement. I recommend reading each one to educate yourselves with the damages being done by this movement.

Everyone that I know of, including myself, work for the day when pets don't have to be euthanized for time and space in our shelters. How we go about doing that makes the difference.

We do need shelter reform, no one questions that. But we have to deal with the real problem of shelter reform, pet overpopulation. No Kill pays lip service to spay/neuter but actions speak louder than words. And the actions of No Kill says they stand with the breeding community on stopping legislation about spay/neuter. No Kill lives in the present, wanting to save them all, but the cost is the future. Standing against mandatory spay/neuter now, according to No Kill, means more euthanization in the shelters. Thus far, that hasn't proven to be the case in those areas with mandatory spay/neuter.

This type of reporting needs to continue.

Monday, October 22, 2012


The No Kill movement proclaims they have a handful of shelters who are open admission shelters. So what is the No Kill definition of open admission?

Open admission, in my book, is the taking of pets at the time of presentation. No Kill tries to discourage owners from surrendering their pets, assuming an attitude toward the owner who has to surrender. Of course, shelters see those owners with excuses such as the cat doesn't match the new furniture, but for the most part, owners surrendering pets is a traumatic experience. These owners are making the best decision rather than just opening the door and putting the pet out. I, personally, am against surrender fees but can understand why we have them. But let's make sure that animals aren't turned away because the owner can't afford the surrender fees. Many times the reason for surrendering is a lack of funds. 

Recently a facebook page was established with official responses to an inquire of these No Kill shelters on their admission policies. I want to share those with you. Another thing noted was that the hours of these No Kill shelters are such that working people are out of luck. 

Manatee just became No Kill. And when you have hours that do not favor a working man, then appointments are a way to keep those owner surrenders in check. Currently this shelter only takes appointments for four hours one day a week. Plus the surrender fee is $100 and you can see how that discourages people as well. 

We're playing games with animal lives when it comes to No Kill. What is humane about turning away an unaltered or pregnant pet to be dumped and have a litter under an abandoned house to die miserably? We need to encourage owners to surrender to shelters rather than discourage. 

We need to paint a nice picture of shelters, not denying the truth, but educating people that it is in the pet's best interest to surrender it to a shelter and risk euthanasia rather than abandonment is in many instances the most humane option.  I find no humanity in No Kill, and keep in mind, this is Nathan Winograd's No Kill, I speak of. 

Saturday, October 20, 2012


The City of San Bernardino is bankrupt and this affects animal control. I challenge the Devore activists to show that helping animals is their true agenda by their going into that shelter and putting as much effort into fund raising/volunteer/adoptions as the effort they put into condemning Devore.

Okay, you want to claim you help animals, which animals are in the more desperate situation, Devore or City? I say City at this point. So what is it, Devore Activists, are you going to show that you are what you say or are you going to show your true agenda by not helping the City and the animals?

I already know the answer.

Friday, October 5, 2012


And not in a good way. No Kill is falling all over the country. Here are just a few of the current headlines. of mistreatment demand immediate probe of Cattaraugus SPCA

Does No Kill Support Cruel Puppy Mill Businesses?

Opposing Views-17 hours ago

Re-opening of Wyoming County SPCA

WIVB-Sep 16, 2012
ATTICA, N.Y (WIVB) - After a tumultuous year, the Wyoming County SPCA has re-opened. State Police shut down the No-Kill shelter in February after finding 500 ...

Group Says Cleveland Animal Control Critically Overcrowded

The Chattanoogan-Sep 16, 2012
Activists with Cleveland for a No Kill City said kennels and cages are critically overcrowded at Cleveland Animal Control and "we are begging the community to ...

Overcrowding at Animal Shelters Becoming an Epidemic

KIII TV3-Sep 13, 2012
... it was reported that the City's Animal Control Department has temporarily stopped accepted strays. Even the private no-kill shelters are at capacity. It is so bad, ...

Allegations of mistreatment demand immediate probe of ...

Buffalo News-Sep 12, 2012
Board Chairwoman Kris McDonald called Dunbar's accusations a witch hunt, telling a News reporter that the no-kill shelter since 1985 has had issues it is trying ...

The dark side of no-kill in Waco, Texas 12, 2012

These are headlines from just a week. No Kill is failing all over.

Monday, September 17, 2012


The ASPCA originally issued this statement concerning No Kill, Winograd style.


A member of the community will begin to adopt the talking points of the Extremist Agenda using aggressive and divisive language to describe the state of that community's animal welfare organizations.

The proxy forms an organization (i.e. No Kill San Bernardino/Austin/Philly) that will act as the local brand for the Extremist Agenda and begin to use social networking to expand.

The No Kill organization lobbies local public officials and candidates regarding the euthanasia rates at the municipal shelter. In many cases, there does exist public attention to the need to reform the sheltering system to increase lifesaving. The proxy will get involved in providing questionnaires and financial support to candidates perceived as sympathetic to the Extremist Agenda.

The Extremist Agenda slanders the existing shelter director and any local humane organization that is deemed as sympathetic to the status quo. The aim of the slander is to put enough pressure on the director to step down (which is often achieved).

A new "compassionate" director sympathetic to the Extremist Agenda is put into place by effective lobbying. The Extremist Agenda organization will often advocate a candidate with little or no experience who will essentially do as they are told.

The Extremist Agenda displaces blame when the program becomes unsustainable by blaming either their own director or local public officials for not backing sufficiently.

Attacking unfavorable media is commonplace for the Extremist Agenda when a story runs that questions any component of implementing overnight solutions while demonizing hard working welfare organizations.

Sunday, September 16, 2012


There is a part of No Kill that really disturbs me and that is the one concerning owner surrenders. Sure we all know the occasional excuse that the pet didn't match the new sofa, but most of the time the reasons are quite different. Especially in this poor economy where people are losing their homes, their lives, and they are forced into surrendering their pets.

Rancho Cucamonga is a good study example of what happens when owners are turned away. When Rancho went No Kill, suddenly Rancho residents were showing at the surrounding shelters trying to surrender their pets because Rancho was turning them away. Of course, Rancho denied that but it was pretty obvious to everyone. Two news articles referred to the long lines waiting to surrender when No Kill was declared. These articles referred to pets being abandoned at the shelter as well. It is no coincidence that the number of public surrenders increased.

Public surrenders are when a good Samaritan picks up an animal off the streets and brings it to the shelter. Rancho's public surrenders increased dramatically after becoming No Kill. That means that owners were turning their pets in as strays in order to get the shelter to take them. These owners and pets were already traumatized but to make it worse is when the pet is left with no history - no name. How cruel can No Kill be to rob a pet of their name, a name that could help them survive better in the shelter. But this is what is happening with the No Kill shelters.

This story reminded me of this cruelty bestowed by the No Kill movement.

They told me the big black Lab's name was Reggie, as I looked at him lying in his pen. The shelter was clean, no-kill, and the people really friendly. I'd only been in the area for six months, but everywhere I went in the small college town, people were welcoming and open. Everyone waves when you pass them on the street. But something was still missing as I
attempted to settle in to my new life here, and I thought a dog couldn't hurt. Give me someone to talk to. And I had just seen Reggie's advertisement on the local news. The shelter said they had received numerous calls right after, but they said the people who had come down to see him just didn't look like "Lab people," whatever that meant. They must've thought I did.

But at first, I thought the shelter had misjudged me in giving me Reggie and his things, which consisted of a dog pad, bag of toys almost all of which were brand new tennis balls, his dishes and a sealed letter from his previous owner.

See, Reggie and I didn't really hit it off when we got home. We struggled for two weeks (which is how long the shelter told me to give him to adjust to his new home). Maybe it was the fact that I was trying to adjust, too.
Maybe we were too much alike.

I saw the sealed envelope. I had completely forgotten about that. "Okay, Reggie," I said out loud, "let's see if your previous owner has any advice."
____________ _________ _________ _________

To Whomever Gets My Dog:

Well, I can't say that I'm happy you're reading this, a letter I told the shelter could only be opened by Reggie's new owner. I'm not even happy writing it. He knew something was different.

So let me tell you about my Lab in the hopes that it will help you bond with him and he with you.

First, he loves tennis balls. The more the merrier. Sometimes I think he's part squirrel, the way he hoards them. He usually always has two in his mouth, and he tries to get a third in there. Hasn't done it yet. Doesn't
matter where you throw them, he'll bound after them, so be careful. Don't do it by any roads.

Next, commands. Reggie knows the obvious ones ---"sit," "stay," "come," "heel."

He knows hand signals, too: He knows "ball" and "food" and "bone" and "treat" like nobody's business.

Feeding schedule: twice a day, regular store-bought stuff; the shelter has the brand. He's up on his shots. Be forewarned: Reggie hates the vet. Good luck getting him in the car. I don't know how he knows when it's time to go to the vet, but he knows.

Finally, give him some time. It's only been Reggie and me for his whole life. He's gone everywhere with me, so please include him on your daily car rides if you can. He sits well in the backseat, and he doesn't bark or complain. He just loves to be around people, and me most especially.

And that's why I need to share one more bit of info with you...His name's not Reggie. He's a smart dog, he'll get used to it and will respond to it, of that I have no doubt. But I just couldn't bear to give them his real name. But if someone is reading this ... well it means that his new owner should know his real name. His real name is "Tank." Because, that is what I drive.

I told the shelter that they couldn't make "Reggie" available for adoption until they received word from my company commander. You see, my parents are gone, I have no siblings, no one I could've left Tank with .. and it was my only real request of the Army upon my deployment to Iraq, that they make one phone call to the shelter ... in the "event" ... to tell them that Tank could be put up for adoption. Luckily, my CO is a dog-guy, too, and he knew where my platoon was headed. He said he'd do it personally. And if you're reading this, then he made good on his word.

Tank has been my family for the last six years, almost as long as the Army has been my family. And now I hope and pray that you make him part of your family, too, and that he will adjust and come to love you the same way he
loved me.

If I have to give up Tank to keep those terrible people from coming to the US I am glad to have done so. He is my example of service and of love. I hope I honored him by my service to my country and comrades.

All right, that's enough. I deploy this evening and have to drop this letter off at the shelter. Maybe I'll peek in on him and see if he finally got that third tennis ball in his mouth.

Good luck with Tank. Give him a good home, and give him an extra kiss goodnight - every night - from me.

Thank you,

Paul Mallory
____________ _________ _________ _______
I folded the letter and slipped it back in the envelope. Sure, I had heard of Paul Mallory, everyone in town knew him, even new people like me. Local kid, killed in Iraq a few months ago and posthumously earning the Silver
Star when he gave his life to save three buddies. Flags had been at half-mast all summer.

I leaned forward in my chair and rested my elbows on my knees, staring at the dog.

"Hey, Tank," I said quietly.

The dog's head whipped up, his ears cocked and his eyes bright.

"C'mere boy."

He was instantly on his feet, his nails clicking on the hardwood floor. He sat in front of me, his head tilted, searching for the name he hadn't heard in months. "Tank," I whispered.

His tail swished.

I kept whispering his name, over and over, and each time, his ears lowered, his eyes softened, and his posture relaxed as a wave of contentment just seemed to flood him. I stroked his ears, rubbed his shoulders, buried my
face into his scruff and hugged him.

"It's me now, Tank, just you and me. Your old pal gave you to me." Tank reached up and licked my cheek.

"So whatdaya say we play some ball?" His ears perked again.

"Yeah? Ball? You like that? Ball?"

Tank tore from my hands and disappeared into the next room. And when he came back, he had three tennis balls in his mouth.