May 27, 2008

Pet Pulse Photo by Victoria Lim

ORLANDO -- The creation of a no-kill society is the battle cry for one animal activist author. Nathan Winograd’s new book blames shelters for not doing enough to save healthy, adoptable animals. But the finger-pointing has gotten a reaction from the shelter community.

Winograd roamed the halls of the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals when it became the first no-kill shelter in the country, 13 years ago. He chronicled the success in his book: “Redemption: the Myth of Pet Overpopulation and The No Kill Revolution in America.”

"Sheltering mostly fail because a shelter's primary job, its number one function, is to save the lives of animals.” Winograd said. “And every time a shelter kills a homeless animal that could be saved, and should be given a loving new home, that to me is a profound failure.”

Winograd believes every shelter in the United States can become no-kill. He blames the sheltering system for creating and continuing a cyclical process that euthanizes healthy, adoptable animals for reasons such as (limited) space and overpopulation, which he calls a myth.

Michael Markarian president of the Humane Society of the U.S. Legislative Fund argues that there are several factors adding to the challenge of reaching no-kill.

“This is a complex issue and rather than point fingers, we need to look at all the different components that add up to this problem,” says Markarian. "It's not a myth for shelter directors and animal control directors who find unwanted litters of puppies and kittens in streets. This is a serious problem. We need to provide solutions, not just rhetoric."

In opposition, Winograd questions why there are pet stores in virtually every community. “The fact that there are commercials sources (for purchasing) animals, indicates people are more motivate by profit, (than) saving lives."

Winograd believes shelters are victims of what he calls "institutional defeatism" -- managers and systems stuck in "old ways" of running a shelter.

"Because of bureaucratic inertia and a sense of defeatism, and since a lot of shelters aren't willingly embracing this philosophy, what I believe it'll unfortunately take, is a new generation of people to take over and reclaim the institutions because they will have no allegiance to the status quo,” Winograd said.

But Markarian is quick to point out the “tremendous amount of forward progress made by the shelters” over the past 30 years.

“We used to kill 15 million dogs and cats in shelters in the 1970s. Today, it's about four million and we need to keep going (and) pushing forward.” says Markarian. “There's no quick fix, this is not just rhetoric or declaration. This is an operational state and we needed communities to band together to make this a reality."

Although they are seemingly on different sides of the fence, the two men do agree when it comes to certain steps, such as spay and neuter programs, feral cat programs, and more aggressive marketing of adoptable pets, which can be effective in reducing euthanasia rates.

Furthermore, while Markarian may not agree with the finger pointing in Winograd's book, he appreciates the conversation it's stirring. "I think people in the no-kill movement have raised important questions and caused a lot of re-examination of animal sheltering, stimulated some innovation,” he says.

“And it's a goal every shelter strives to reach.”

To read more about the Humane Society of the United States' stance on no-kill sheltering, check out two blog entries from the organization's CEO at hsus.org.

Tell us what you think about “Shelters Respond to Winograd Criticism” below, and be sure to watch this video at the top right of your page. Share your favorite videos by clicking on the ZootooTV tab. Send us your story ideas by e-mailing us at news@zootoo.com or by calling us at 877-777-4204.