You are WRONG if you think that COMMUNITY will not accept and embrace the “no-kill” movement, semantics be damned! Don’t give people so little credit… in fact, since I read his book and heard him speak, myself and all members of our 30-year-existence no-kill cat shelter have been preaching and spreading this word and we have been met with nothing but good will.

We are an established organization with a large membership and are pursuing this agenda with vigor…

Quit pontificating about what hypothetically will or will not be successful and JUST DO IT! Build it, and they will come…

With all sincerity,
Connie

Laura L above was talking about “No Kill” as if it included “cherry picking” (or at least that’s how I read her post) which was why I had asked her whether she’d actually read “Redemption” (given that Winograd is definitely NOT including “cherry picking” as a way to reach “no kill”).

I’ve used “euthanasia” to describe animal shelter population control killing myself, I guess because it’s been the most common word to describe it. It didn’t occur to me until recently that this is indeed Orwellian.

Winograd’s definition of “No Kill” still sanctions humane euthanasia for untreatable dogs and cats as well as vicious dogs. I do not think this is the significant source of the controversy over the use of the term “No Kill”, since this reserves the use of the word euthanasia for what the dictionary says it means: “The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.” There is no way that population control killing can rationally be called euthanasia.

I think the bigger problem is the use of the term “No Kill” by some agencies who still kill for population control since they play games with a definition of “adoptable” animals, or those who cherry pick on admissions. There are also some shelters who are basically hoarders that use the term “No Kill” to describe what they do. So some very different approaches to sheltering all go by the name “No Kill”.

Perhaps what is necessary here is for Winograd to come up with a new term for what he means by No Kill, and then get a trademark for it. That way he can enforce the use of the term, and only those agencies/communities that meet his definition could legally label themselves this way. IMO this would eliminate most of the controversy. “No Kill” cannot be trademarked since it’s a commonly used term. A new name would be required if a trademark is desired.

You might want to read a previous post, which addresses your very point — and that very post on the HSUS blog:

http://www.petconnection.com/b.....us-nokill/

Also:

There’s nothing inaccurate here. Christie was quoting directly from HSUS material. As for where the group and the sheltering industry stands now, she also makes a point of mentioning that at an HSUS conference LAST YEAR the same topics and points of view were being put forward.

I find it very concerning that the author of this article is citing HSUS information from 30 years ago. Have you even researched their current views on this issue? If not, here is a url that you may want to look at before you print information that is no longer valid for an organization:
http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/.....g-pet.html

I hope that in the future when you print these type of articles that the most current information is being used. All organizations or companies learn from past history. To not give them credit for where they are now versus 30 years ago is deceitful and makes me question the validity of the article.

“The TNR method is proven to be:
A. The only effective and humane way of handling the issue of stray cats (and dogs).”

Cats, yes. Dogs, no. Cats and dogs are not the same. For most dogs, being released to fend for themselves would be a death sentence. Cats can successfully live as ferals in close proximity to human civilization. Dogs cannot.

TNR is the right thing to do for feral cats. But it does not apply to dogs.