Friday, July 31, 2015


“Unfortunately, it seems like the no-kill movement has evolved 

from noble into the no-kill people on one side and the shelters 

on the other,” says Stacy Smith, vice president of Animal 

Advocacy, Humane Society of Flower Mound. “It’s a shame 

considering one was created to help the other. No-kill was out 

there before Nathan Winograd grabbed onto it, but what no-kill 

meant was you save the ones you could save. There was a 

whole plan laid out as to what was considered adoptable. There 

was logic and reasoning to it, and it was manageable and 

doable for any shelter to get started on it. I hate what it has 

become,” Smith continues. “Now it’s accusatory toward the 

shelters. These are the people who are putting in 60-70 hours a 

week. A lot of times they’re the only ones working in some of 

these rural shelters. It breaks their heart when they have to 

euthanize an animal. Then, you’re going to come along with the 

no-kill movement and accuse them of being murderers. It’s 


The above is an excerpt from this article, an excellent article, that describes the pitfalls of the No Kill movement by Nathan Winograd.  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Remember no accusations without proof. Rant if you will, it won't be published.