Nathan Winograd brings No Kill home
By Christie Keith
November 12, 2007
On Thursday night, I braved some of the worst parking in San Francisco to hear Nathan Winograd speak to a packed house.
It was the latest stop on his nationwide book tour for “Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America.” He only has two dates left, and you’d think that by now he’d be running out of steam. You’d be wrong.
This is what would have been a liveblog of the event if I’d had internet access during the presentation. Since I had time to polish it up, you’ll get to skip all the usual typos, but I still hope those who aren’t able to see him will get a feeling of what it was like to be there. I’m covering the material that was in “Redemption” more lightly than the material that was new to me, so as always, I strongly encourage anyone interested in these issues to read the book.
Standing in front of a screen that read “Reclaiming Our Movement,” Nathan Winograd told an enthusiastic audience how he became involved in caring for the feral cats on the Stanford University campus when he was a law student. When the university announced it was hiring a professional exterminator service to have the cats trapped and killed, Winograd and other students, staff, and faculty banded together to find a different solution. They turned first to the local humane society, which handled animal control for the area. Their solution? Trap the cats, bring them to us, and we’ll kill them for you.
The cat advocates had expected something more from a group with the word “humane” in the title, but they perservered. They turned to the nation’s largest and wealthiest humane organization, the Humane Society of the United States. Their solution?
Amazingly, exactly the same as the first two: Trap ‘em and kill ‘em.
That little group of Stanford cat lovers found another way, and today the Stanford Cat Network is a model for responsible management of feral cat populations. But why, asked Winograd of his rapt audience, didn’t any of those “humane” groups think saving the lives of those animals was the right thing to do — or even any kind of option at all? What went wrong with the modern humane movement? How did this happen?
To answer the question, he took the audience back 150 years to the founding of the country’s first animal protection organization, the American Society for the Prevention to Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). Its founder, Henry Bergh, is Winograd’s hero; when I interviewed him, he told me that one of the goals of his book was to “to resurrect Henry Bergh from obscurity.”
After outlining the early years of the humane movement, he recapped another story familiar from “Redemption”: the evolution of most humane societies into animal control agencies, a function that Bergh believed would mean the destruction of the movement, a view Winograd obviously agrees with.
The animal welfare mission, he said, is to protect animals, while the animal control mission is to protect people. For animal welfare groups to take on the task of animal control is a hopeless conflict of interest, creating an inescapably adversarial relationship between animal shelters and the animals for whom they are supposed to be a safety net, and their owners. “In the 21st century, we’re living with a 19th century sheltering model,” he said sadly.
It’s a model that hurts animals, communities, and shelter workers. Shelter directors were asking how to make killing more efficient, more humane, and less stressful for shelter workers, but never how to stop the killing.
In 1974, animal welfare groups including HSUS, the American Humane Association (AHA), the ASPCA, and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) met in Chicago to investigate the cause of surplus cats and dogs in American shelters. Who, they asked, is to blame?
First, Winograd said, were the animals themselves. They were “to blame” for not being adoptable enough, with shelters estimating that only around 40 percent of the animals entering their doors were adoptable. They had a moral obligation to kill the other 60 percent.
The next group to get blamed were, of course, pet owners, and the answer to pet owner irresponsibility was more laws. Leash laws, limit laws, mandatory spay/neuter proposals, prohibitions against feeding strays, animal seizures allowed by animal control officers, and increased licensing fees exploded across the country after 7000 copies of the conference proceedings were distributed to shelters nationwide. “Shelters became adversaries of the public, often the most compassionate members of the public.”
As a consequence, shelters that were complaining they didn’t have the money to implement lifesaving programs like low-cost spay/neuter clinics or care for the animals inside their walls were diverting more resources to bringing in more animals, thus driving their kill rates even higher.
Why this focus on legislation, he asked, when all the most successful communities in the country did it without laws? “When was the last time a mandatory spay/neuter law led to a 50 or 75 percent decline in kill rates? Never.”
Legislation was just the first part of the three-part program for dealing with the animal problem. The second was humane education, which Winograd described as diverting yet more resources by sending staff into classrooms in the hopes that the next generation would be more responsible than this one. “Does it work? Do the kids grow up and spay/neuter at greater rates? Do they keep their pets longer? No study shows that they do,” he said.
The third part of the plan is sterilization, which is something, he said, everyone can agree on. The problem is, low-cost sterilization was opposed by most groups in the humane movement, because the AVMA perceived it as a threat to veterinarians. But is it?
In 1971, Los Angeles started Mercy Crusade, the first municipally-funded spay/neuter clinic. In its first decade of operation, LA shelters took in 50 percent fewer animals, and found that every dollar spent on spay/neuter saved $10. Their kill rate was in the lowest third in the country, with no loss of business to local veterinarians, because only the poorest people, who wouldn’t have gone to the vet anyway, were using the clinic. Eighty-seven percent of all surgeries were still being done by private vets.
But then LA closed the clinics (by that time, there were three), and replaced them with some of the country’s most draconian animal control laws. “To this day, tens of thousands of dogs and cats are needlessly losing their lives,” Winograd concluded.
He then moved his story north, to San Francisco, where in the 1980s began what he called the “Experiment in Compassion.” This story, too, will be familiar to readers of “Redemption,” and it’s familiar to me because I lived through it. It’s the story of how Richard Avanzino and the San Francisco SPCA decided to give back their animal control contract and instead build a system of safety nets and programs designed to turn the city — not that one shelter, but the entire city — into a No-Kill area for dogs and cats. All dogs and cats, not just the healthy, cute, and cuddly.
The SF SPCA was the innovator of many programs that are in wide use today. They included:
- Offsite adoptions
- Foster care
- Behavior advice
- Feral cat trap/neuter/release, citywide
- socialization and training in the shelter
- pediatric spay/neuter
- low cost spay/neuter, which became free spay/neuter, which became “paid” spay/neuter when they started the “Greenback for Gonads” campaign (which Winograd, who was at the time Director of Operations for the shelter, had wanted to call “Bucks for Balls”)
Did it work? Intakes were cut in half. Deaths of healthy animals fell to a trickle. From 1993 to 2000, feral cat deaths declined by 73 percent, even while they were increasing elsewhere. Kitten deaths went down 81 percent. Dog deaths went down 66 percent. And the number of healthy dogs and cats killed in San Francisco? Zero.
Of course, he said, shelters and cities everywhere immediately flocked to San Francisco to find out how we did it, and to see what they could do to get the same results. Right?
Not exactly. All over the country, shelter staff rejected the San Francisco experience, calling it a matter of “smoke and mirrors.” The city was too wealthy (even though the SPCA, which did animal control for the city at the time, was 90 days from bankruptcy when Avanzino took it over; the shelter’s financial success was not the cause but the result of its new approach, said Winograd). The city was too liberal, too urban, even, said Roger Caras of the ASPCA, “too gay,” for its success to be duplicated anywhere else.
“Rather than coming to San Francisco to learn about the cure to the epidemic of killing, they insisted San Francisco was unique,” Winograd said. “It was like no kill had never been achieved, as if the key had not been discovered.”
The key is what he calls the “No Kill Equation“:
- Feral Cat TNR Program
- High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay/Neuter
- Rescue Groups
- Foster Care
- Comprehensive Adoption Programs
- Pet Retention
- Medical and Behavior Rehabilitation
- Public Relations/Community Involvement
- Volunteers
- A Compassionate Director
He tested this equation in a community on the opposite end of the country from San Francisco, Tompkins County, New York, where he proved that no kill could work in a rural shelter. He showed a slide presentation, with music, of the many animals (including blind, old, sick, and otherwise “unadoptable” pets) who found loving homes due to innovative advertising and outreach programs at the shelter.
When that experience was shrugged off because, despite its rural setting, Tompkins Country was still “too liberal” and “too Northern,” the equation was shown to work in Charlottesville, Virginia, as well as ultra-conservative Ivins City, Utah. When it was said it couldn’t work in rapidly growing areas, it worked in Reno, Nevada, the fastest growing area in one of the fastest growing states in the country.
The most important factor in making the No Kill Equation work? “A passionate director who doesn’t believe there are too many animals and not enough homes,” he said. “Contrary to conventional wisdom, we can adopt our way to no-kill.”
Is the public to blame for shelter deaths? Giving to animal charities is the segment of philanthropy expanding the most rapidly right now. Catering to pet owners is the fastest growing segment of the travel industry. “In communities with no kill, it is the public who has made the difference,” he said.
He also said that just because he calls pet overpopulation a myth doesn’t mean “we can all go home.” And just because he says people aren’t the problem doesn’t mean there aren’t irresponsible pet owners out there; there are. He then told a long and very funny story about someone who wrote into Dear Abby about her relationship with a guy who was cheating on her, who had cheated with her on his former wife, who was herself involved with two men, all in the same neighborhood. She was asking for advice on what to do with this guy, who was, by the way, about to be sent back to prison, and oh yeah, his two kids, who were starting to get into trouble on their own.
“What does this have to do with animals in shelters?” he asked. “If you’re waiting to make these people into responsible pet owners, it’s never going to happen. There will always be irresponsible pet owners. You can’t change that. The shelters are supposed to be the safety net for their animals. Instead, they’re killing them to make a point about what bad people their owners are.
“At the end of the day, it’s up to the shelter if the animals of these people live or die. It’s as simple as that.”
Winograd became particularly impassioned as his 90-minute talk drew to its end. The room was stiflingly hot, but everyone was still completely focused on what he was saying.
“While it is people who surrender animals to shelters, it’s the shelters who kill them. Most dogs and cats die in shelters for one reason: Failure. While shelters decry public irresponsibility, they refuse to take responsibility for the fate of animals in their care. They say people are treating animals like they are disposable, but they’re the ones who are disposing of animals in body bags.
“You cannot achieve a new goal — no-kill — with old methods that have never worked.”
I’ve heard great things about Nathan Winograd, and I’m so glad to hear that he’s effectively spreading the news about the feasibility of no-kill shelters.
I do think the no-kill movement might benefit from more consistency in its message — which animals are we choosing to protect, and why?
This blog post might elucidate my concern a bit more.
Nevertheless, thanks for your fascinating post on this very important topic!
Comment by Jennifer — November 12, 2007 @ 9:16 am
“And the number of healthy dogs and cats killed in San Francisco? Zero.”
that’s implausible, if not impossible (unless, he’s gaming the word “healthy” as others game the word “adoptable”)
He must be limiting this statement to only mean the SF SPCA.
SF ACC kills many dogs, and certainly while euths are decreasing, SF county still kills dogs. http://www.naiashelterproject......m?state=CA
If there’s anything I don’t like about the “no kill” movement, it’s the incredible carelessness about words, as if they didn’t mean anything.
Even Winograd, when pushed, will state that “no kill” means only 90-95% not-killed.
90-95% would be a fantastic accomplishment for any shelter.
But it is NOT “no” kill
Comment by EmilyS — November 12, 2007 @ 10:09 am
Emily, if you go back and read what Nathan said, he was not talking about NOW. He gave a set of years and limited his comments to that time period. Things have changed since Rich and he left San Francisco.
Second, I disagree with you on the term “kill.” Kill is not “euthanize.” “Kill” is when you kill animals for population control. When my dog Raven’s cancer made her life miserable and the treatments were no longer working, I euthanized her, not killed her. I gave her a “good death,” which is what euthanasia is.
When an animal is killed because the shelter ran out of room, or thinks it’s going to run out of room, or to “show those bad pet owners the consequences of their irresponsibility,” it’s not euthanasia, it’s killing.
Both Rich and Nathan estimate that somewhere less than 10 percent of the dogs and cats in shelters require the dictionary definition of “euthanasia,” ie, a “good death” by the standards any loving owner would use.
The rest are being killed, and that is what they oppose.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 12, 2007 @ 10:14 am
Winograd doesn’t have to be “pushed” at all to explain what he means by “no kill.”
Neither Nathan Winograd nor Richard Avanzino are with the SF SPCA anymore, nor are they responsible for what goes on in the city and county of San Francisco these days. In the book (have you read it?), Winograd makes the point that the SFSPCA changed when its management did.
The key is “healthy” pets. There will always be some animals that will not be able to be re-homed. He makes the point that “no-kill” does indeed mean 90-plus percent going back out the shelters’ doors — community-wide.
Really, read the book if you haven’t yet.
Christie will probably add to this when she checks in this morning.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 12, 2007 @ 10:18 am
oops, she beat me to it.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 12, 2007 @ 10:19 am
If there’s anything I don’t like about the “no kill” movement, it’s the incredible carelessness about words, as if they didn’t mean anything.
Actually, it’s the traditional shelters who are careless with words, hence the abuse of the word “euthanasia” to include population control killing. The no-kill movement is being CAREFUL about words, and using them as if they DO, indeed, mean something.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 12, 2007 @ 10:40 am
I just ordered the book. But before I get into it, I want to bring up the term euthanasia.
Euthanasia…..sure, it means “good death.” But what is “good death”?
There’s far too much “definition confusion” when it comes to these words. My definitions:
Euthanasia: ending the animal’s life painlessly and with dignity in a loving environment because there is no hope for medical recovery or for eliminating intractable pain.
Kill: all other death
But how many people would agree unconditionally with me?
As I see it, the definiton can mean a number of things, not all the same, and certainly often used unforgivingly by certain people [e.g., shelter personnel] to downplay the act. I’ve heard people use the term “euthanasia” on the basis of whether or not a syringe with sodium pentobarbital was used. [Gee, think of it, the vet in Tennessee injecting animals with sodium pentobarbital in the heart with no pre-anesthetic. They call that euthanasia?]
Rather than use questionable terms, in any speech, seminar, blog, or book, it’s imperative to be clear on what the act of dying consists of and should be described on the basis of [1] the environment where the death takes place and [2] the means [chamber, injection] used for the killing, and [3] who is administering the act.
We need to eliminate definition confusion first.
Comment by Lynn — November 12, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
Here’s what Merriam-Webster online has to say:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/euthanasia
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 12, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
I’m going to do a post about this … Tuesday or Wednesday.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 12, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
A few months ago I participated in a phone survey about ‘animal issues in your community.’ One of the questions concerned the definition of a ‘no kill shelter’. Three choices were given 1 - all young healthy animals placed, 2)all animals healthy or with minor illness placed, 3)all animals healthy or not than can be placed in a reasonable period of time. My answerts were No,No,No. This was obviously very frustrating for the interviewer.
I’m pretty sure this study was being underwritten by one of the biggest shelters here that is not ‘no-kill.’ They are moving in that direction (have a low cost/free spay/neuter program, do behavioral training of dogs) , but given the amount of $ they have, they could have been there long ago.
Their problem is that they are set up as a caged environment which does not allow for taking care of animals which could be, but might never be adopted. Yes we know you can’t keep a cat caged for 10 years, so change your set up - don’t try to develop a definition that you can get away with calling ‘no-kill.’
Comment by 2CatMom — November 12, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Hi, “The OTHER Pat”:
Not sure if you thought I didn’t know the definition of euthanasia…..trust me, I do.
Let’s look at Webster’s definition: “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.”
Now that doesn’t coincide with my definition, partly because of the world “relatively.” I beg anyone to define what “relatively” means and how it has the potential of changing the entire meaning of the word euthanasia.
The problem is that when people read literature that addresses killing animals, each reader makes his own interpretation. [And he’s not going to go running to check it out on Webster’s online.] The word euthanasia is overwhelmingly, inappropriately misused and can easily create a false impression on the reader which might further cause the reader to make faulty assumptions. For that reason the correct words must be used and elaborated upon.
I have said enough. I will look forward to Christie’s post in the next couple days.
Comment by Lynn — November 12, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
Nah - mostly to start looking for widely-accepted authorities on what the accepted definitions are. The problem is, when people start putting out their own personal definitions of words, that just tends to make things even LESS clear, even if they’ve come up with really great definitions.
In debates of a national scope (such as this one is) there need to be mutually-accepted definitions of terminology in order for any ensuing discussion to be meaningful at all. And most folks find dictionary definitions to be acceptable starting points. Of course, sometimes even dictionary definitions can vary (or be open to interpretation - as you have pointed out). Even so, citing these source for definitions adds the legitimacy of authority, and helps limit how widely a discussion can range.
And heck, think about it - if even the DICTIONARIES can yield that much variability in “What did that REALLY mean?” - then it’s no wonder things get into such a mess when organizations and/or individuals begin interjecting their own definitions!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 12, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
To “The OTHER Pat”:
Exactly my point. That’s why it’s important to define succinctly from the get-go.
Comment by Lynn — November 12, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
” I disagree with you on the term “kill.” Kill is not “euthanize.” “Kill” is when you kill animals for population control.”
I’m sorry Christie, but what you write is Orwellian.
Kill means kill. Dead.
The dead don’t care if you say they were euthanized. Put to sleep. Sent to the Bridge.
They are still dead.
And yes, it is NOT always wrong to kill a pet, as everyone who’s had to end a pet’s suffering knows. (not to mention the appropriate killing of animals who may truly NOT be safely adopted out)
I am absolutely in favor of the goal of “no kill” and I think Winograd’s strategic vision is brilliant.
But this playing around with words is just plain wrong.
And it is deceptive.
The public will assume that when they give up a pet to a “no kill” shelter that it will live out its natural life.
That is not always true.
I think we should stop using words that try to make what we do sound “better”
I think shelters should be absolutely upfront about how many pets they KILL.
The public needs to understand what may happen to their pets when they give them up…. perhaps it will make them think twice.
That to me must be part of the “no kill” goal.
“no kill” will NEVER mean “every pet will live out its natural life whatever its health and/or temperament”.
There will always be a certain number that will be killed.
Let’s be honest.
Honesty will not derail the movement to end the unnecessary and preventable slaughter of pets in shelters, which some are calling “no kill”.
Comment by EmilyS — November 12, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
And yet, it’s the traditional shelters who are claiming they don’t kill… they are the ones who insist they’re euthanizing and putting to sleep. If it’s Orwellian, the Orwellian balance is hugely on the side of the TRADITIONAL shelters, not the No-Kill Movement.
Yes, I had Raven killed. The form of her death was euthanasia. Either term is correct and I sincerely, as someone who makes her living with words, do not agree with you that it is Orwellian or even euphemistic to say she was euthanized.
The dog killed at the shelter because they ran out of cage space was NOT euthanized. That dog was just plain killed. There aren’t two words for that one. Calling that “euthanasia” is Orwellian.
And if my decision to euthanize Raven because I couldn’t stop her suffering was euthanasia, why isn’t a shelter’s decision on the exact same basis also euthanasia? I believe that when a shelter kills an animal who is untreatably suffering or ill in the same way and for the same reasons I did for Raven, it is euthanasia and the use of that word is not Orwellian in the slightest.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 12, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
Emily writes:
“The public needs to understand what may happen to their pets when they give them up…. perhaps it will make them think twice.”
This is what shelters do NOW. “People are ‘bad,’ and we have to kill the animals to show people they are ‘bad’ until they LEARN.” This is what’s happening now, and this is what’s NOT working. Hence the ever-more misguided and draconian laws.
It’s not us, say the shelters, it’s “them.” We need laws to punish “them.”
Emily, have you read “Redemption”? It would be helpful to the discussion if you have, instead of arguing your assumptions about what Winograd has said and written.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 12, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
The term “euthanize” is a subset of “kill”. That is, all “euthanizing” is “killing”, but not all “killing” is “euthanizing”.
Remember years ago in math classes when you had to draw circles to represent sets, subsets, intersecting sets, and so on? That concept is useful here to make these distinctions. Draw a big circle and draw a smaller circle inside it. Label the big circle “Kill” and label the small circle “Euthanize”. That describes the relationship between the two terms and might help a person understand which situations in which the two can be used interchangeably and which situations in which they cannot.
When a shelter kills healthy animals for population control, they’re operating in the “big circle”. They’re simply killing. That’s the only word between the two that applies.
When Christie chose to end Raven’s life because her suffering could not be relieved any other way, she was “killing” her, but she was ALSO “euthanizing” her (the little circle within the big circle). There is nothing deceptive in this case in choosing to use the word “euthanize” rather than the word “kill”. They BOTH apply, but in this case, “euthanize” actually offers a more precise description of what occurred.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 13, 2007 @ 8:05 am
The problem is that many people are clueless as to whether the use of the word “euthanize” is used in its proper context [assuming they KNOW the correct definition]. So with that much confusion about the context and definition, anytime anyone reads any literature addressing no-kill or euthanasia, they should make sure they understand the AUTHOR’S definitions.
Comment by Lynn — November 13, 2007 @ 9:29 am
Of course, it would help a LOT if the *author’s* definitions match up with widely-held (e.g. “from the dictionary”) definitions.
Not trying to keep going in argumentative circles here - just pointing out that there has to be SOME common ground for dialogue to be meaningful - otherwise people either continue to be misled, or get frustrated and give up.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 13, 2007 @ 9:35 am
What I discern from the arguments is starker than the battle over the language “no-kill.” I think the debate is actually between those who believe that it is unacceptable to kill companion animals unless they are suffering or imminently dangerous and those who believe that it is justifiable to kill companion animals for other reasons, including “society should spend its money in other ways,” and “because human life is more valuable than animal life, the threshold is low for tolerable ‘harm’ or even ‘risk of harm’ posed by an an animal.”
I am unconvinced on the discourse strategy of the “no-kill” camp; however, I am firmly in solidarity with what I perceive as their stance that if a pet animal ends up homeless, it is immoral to kill that animal as a convenient means of solving the problem of its homelessness.
Comment by Barbara Saunders — November 13, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
It may well BE cheaper for a municipal animal-control agency to kill every animal who comes in, and since those are taxpayer dollars, it’s legitimate to discuss how the majority of taxpayers want municipal animal-control money spent.
HOWEVER, for those shelters that are NON-PROFIT and supported by donations from people who believe the organizations’ purpose for being is to HELP ANIMALS, killing animals for population control is at best a perversion of the messages they are sending out to donors, and at worst an immoral fraud.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 13, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
A missing logical piece in this argument is that the use of the word “euthanasia” to describe shelter killing derives from a time when the battle at hand was to put a stop to the most horrific methods of killing.
Today, I agree, shelters use the word euphemistically and dishonestly, to soften the notion that they are killing at all. However, I do not think it was insincere for activists of the late 19th century to say, “If we’ve got to kill these animals, we should not be drowning them in cages or clubbing them. We should do something that is not so painful and prolonged,” and to use the word “euthanasia” to describe what they were promoting.
Comment by Barbara Saunders — December 31, 2007 @ 2:10 pm