Nathan Winograd on King County shelters
By Christie Keith
March 25, 2008
Last year, a county advisory committee in King County, Washington reported back to the county council that had created it that things weren’t going too well at the county shelters:
Far from being a “model animal control program” or a “recognized leader in the animal welfare field,” we found
King County ’s animal care program to be well beneath the standards that should be expected in a prosperous, compassionate, and generous community such asKing County .The animals in KCACC’s shelters suffer from high rates of disease, improper housing, inadequate exercise and social contact, a lack of basic comforts, and high levels of stress.
[....]
The Crossroads shelter is unsuitable for the sheltering of animals, while the Kent shelter has been badly neglected for many years, and is plainly inadequate to provide for the animals’ most basic needs…. The facilities at the Kent shelter are also unacceptable for the humane housing of animals, although it is likely that the most pressing issues can be resolved through a remodeling and some basic maintenance. The shelter is run down, and does not appear to have been kept up over the years. As noted in the subcommittee’s discussion about health protocols, the Kent shelter has no isolation for dogs, and inadequate isolation for cats. Sick cats are housed outside without proper shelter and inside next to the dogs, where they experience severe stress.
The committee recommended an outside consultant be hired to fix this badly broken system. Nathan Winograd was that consultant, and his report was made public today. It found, as expected, that the shelter system was in need of a massive overhaul.
From the county’s website:
Among his findings:
• Some of the sickest animals didn’t receive food or water for up to four days.
• High rates of disease among animals were caused in part by a lack of vaccinations, inadequate medical care, and repeated instances of animal waste in cages.
• Many cages in the adoption viewing area were empty, despite the availability of adoptable animals.
• Mismanagement of animal cruelty investigations have resulted in a 0.5 percent conviction rate for these offenses.
• Repeated attempts by partners and private businesses to offer financial and volunteer aid have been rejected or gone unanswered.“It is unacceptable for this county, which models itself on innovative and cutting edge performance, to have an agency in such deplorable condition,” said Councilmember Jane Hague.
“It’s critical for the council to act with urgency on the issues raised in this report about conditions in King County’s animal shelters,” said Councilmember Larry Phillips. “These are matters of life and death to the vulnerable animals dependent on our care. They are voiceless, so we must speak loudly on their behalf.”
“The lack of improvements to our animal control system, in spite of months of warnings and promises, is a clear indicator that King County staff’s oversight of facilities, operations and customer service is entirely inadequate,” said Councilmember Kathy Lambert. “This scathing report should serve as a catalyst for reorganization of the service delivery system, and perhaps even a charter amendment providing the Council a role in holding department heads accountable, so that we can prevent this kind of failure from occurring again in the future.”
“The inadequacy of care at animal shelters is an embarrassment,” said Councilmember Bob Ferguson. “Today’s scathing report shows the County still has not reformed its efforts to provide humane care to animals under its control.”
Council chair Julia Patterson said, “King County Animal Care and Control has failed the animals and the people of King County. The Council has only two choices – continue to micromanage the Executive department until change occurs, or find another entity that can fulfill our county’s expectation for humane animal care.”
In response to a March 20 letter from citizens expressing concern about conditions in the shelter, the county council yesterday wrote:
Our goal is to find homes for all healthy or treatable animals…. With these values in mind, we retained Mr. Nathan Winograd to provide an expert consultant review of shelter operations and, like you, were were very distressed to hear his direct observations of current conditions. The findings in his final written report, which is being released today, are in many respects consistent with those made by your own KCACC Citizens Advisory Committee and with other reports we have received.
We have asked to meet as soon as possible with the County Executive so that we can move forward with the many urgent reforms that have been identified in these reports.
Not everyone sees it the same way. KCAS Creatures, a blog that describes itself as being “Dedicated to saving the King County Animal Shelter from proverbial extinction” (not the animals, but the shelters themselves) has become something of an anti-Winograd hotspot, and is especially vehement in its rejection of Winograd’s report (italics and caps the author’s):
While I haven’t read the entirety of the final report by Nathan Winograd, I AM APPALLED BY THE BLATANT ATTEMPTS TO ADVANCE HIS “NO KILL” AGENDA and SELL IN HIRING THE NO KILL ADVOCACY CENTER.
She’s not alone in her concern over bias on Winograd’s part; the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported:
(T)he consultant, Nathan Winograd, is not a neutral observer but a strict anti-euthanasia advocate who seeks to stir up public sentiment for his point of view, a [County Executive Ron] Sims spokeswoman said Thursday.
“We’re being painted as bad guys when we’re not,” she said.
But see, this is the thing: I’m sure Nathan Winograd is biased. I’m even pretty sure he’d agree with me on that. He’s biased in favor of doing things differently in the hope of getting a different result. Biased in favor of saving animal lives and completely ending systemic tolerance for the use of killing as a tool of animal population control.
So here’s a simple question: Doesn’t everyone on all sides of this issue want to see shelter killing eliminated as a method of animal population control? Is someone actually in favor of continuing this practice? Isn’t ending shelter killing the entire justification behind every mandatory spay/neuter and anti-breeding piece of legislation proposed at the local, state, and national level in the last two decades, including the ones passed in King County?
In fact, didn’t the King County animal shelter department already claim it was not killing any adoptable animals and didn’t the county name reaching no-kill as its goal?
And more to the point, how on earth is someone overseeing the operation of an animal shelter system, as Sims does in his capacity as County Executive, able to tell a reporter through a spokesperson that Nathan is biased because he’s “anti-euthanasia”? Doesn’t Sims share that goal? If not, why the hell not? Why is that even remotely acceptable?
Here is Winograd’s report — all 147 pages of it, with photos, in two parts (PDF files): Part 1, Part 2. There’s video here (WMV file).
What do you think?
“Nathan Winograd is not a neutral observer but a strict anti-euthanasia advocate”
And that’s a BAD thing?
Sheesh!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 25, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
And what you’re doing isn’t working, so maybe, just maybe you need to try SOMETHING else?! Even if it’s a plan to save every adoptable animal and keep animals healthy and sane until they get adopted? I know, crazy thinking!
Comment by mikken — March 25, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
You wild-eyed radical, you!
Comment by Christie Keith — March 25, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
No one on any side is claiming that “no-kill” is bad. We all want “No Kill” Shelters. Nathan Winograd’s bias does not just stop there though, he is “No pets period” His only goal is to pass mandatory spay/neuter laws and end responsible pet breeding once-and-for-all, so there will never be another pet again.
And I find it even more offensive, that he of all people was appointed to this position and paid for it.
Any real and scientific study can only be done by a third party with no alterior motives or interests.
Nathan Winograd’s motives are his own distorted views, and frankly for money as well, to continue to perpetuate his views and force them on everyone.
Every single responsible pet owner, breeder, and pet shop absolutely desires that “No Kill” be the way things should be. There are many “no kill” shelters in many communities without mandatory spay/neuter. Many pet owners however, do not and should not be “forced” to alter their pets, and responsible breeders should not be forced out of business. This is still America, and the freedom to choose what’s best for us and our pets should never be taken away, especially based on the word of someone who wants to take our Pet freedoms away.
Comment by Andrew — March 26, 2008 @ 1:30 am
…the toilet’s backed up…shoot the messenger!
By all means, let us assemble a committee to discuss the findings, and to verify that no one is culpable for the mis-management of a government program.
Comment by eli — March 26, 2008 @ 5:37 am
I lived in Seattle from 1990 to 2001 and Ron Sims should know all about being biased. He is a MSN advocate trying to use his position to sterilize pets against the owner’s wishes while letting his charges in the shelters languish and die. I pulled more than one dog from King County shelters and the conditions are awful.
http://www.paws.org/about/mag/.....ssaved.php
Comment by slt — March 26, 2008 @ 5:40 am
Sorry - meant to add - above link is to an AR group, mentioning Sims. The mailer referenced in the article was mailed out to all residents, including myself, and this was the first thing that really opened my eyes to the AR movement. They killed that puppy and that kitten for an ad - that’s my belief.
Comment by slt — March 26, 2008 @ 5:46 am
Andrew writes: “Nathan Winograd’s bias does not just stop there though, he is “No pets period” His only goal is to pass mandatory spay/neuter laws and end responsible pet breeding once-and-for-all, so there will never be another pet again.”
Andrew? Hello? You might want to check the program again. Winograd is widely reviled for being on the “side of breeders” by the folks pushing forced spay-neuter of all pets.
The no-kill movement is a way to get (and keep) pets in homes without wiping out reputable, responsible breeders.
Do some research. Start by reading Winograd’s “Redemption” and visiting MaddiesFund.org to understand what is being talked about here.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 26, 2008 @ 7:23 am
Andrew, have you even read “Redemption”? Winograd says that MANDATORY s/n is counterproductive to saving animals’ lives. He does - however - support widespread availability of LOW COST s/n.
Let’s just keep the facts straight, shall we?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 26, 2008 @ 7:30 am
Comment by Andrew — March 26, 2008 @ 1:30 am
“Any real and scientific study can only be done by a third party with no alterior (sic) motives or interests.”
Also - by the way - the committee wasn’t commissioning a “scientific study”. Rather, the specific wording of their objective was “a shelter consultant must be promptly hired to provide further, detailed advice on how to IMPROVE (emphasis mine) KCACC standards of care and to revitalize KCACC’s policies and programs.” This is not a description of a “scientific study”, and given the wording, hiring someone with a “bias” TOWARDS the saving of animals’ lives was perfectly appropriate.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 26, 2008 @ 7:46 am
It’s news to me that Winograd is anti-pet, which means radical AR. He is a radical animal welfare advocate, no doubt, and I think he’s terrific.
Now, if you were talking about H$U$ or Peta who refuse to endorse the No Kill program, I’d agree.
I support the sterilization of pets being adopted from shelters and have for years. I’m not keen on juvenile sterilization because there are health concerns and there hasn’t been enough study to declare it safe. However, I get that the SPCA/local shelter has a goal and I support it. Risk/benefit and all that.
Mandatory sterlization is a repulsive, intrusive and unnecessary AR-driven idea - the kinder, gentler way to hurry the extinction of domestic dogs and cats.
Incidentally, I detest the misuse of the term euthanasia, as is the practice by media and others.
Comment by Caveat — March 26, 2008 @ 8:40 am
Wait did I read this correctly:
• Some of the sickest animals didn’t receive food or water for up to four days.
• High rates of disease among animals were caused in part by a lack of vaccinations, inadequate medical care, and repeated instances of animal waste in cages.
How come folks are not up in arms about these statements. if I did not properly feed, seek medical attention and forced my animals to wallow in feces in their crate for any amount of time I would be arrested and charged with animal cruelty. But it is okay for an Animal Shelter which also enforces animal creulty laws to house animals in such conditions!
If both Winograd and the Citizens group noted such conditions…why are we having a political debate. First provide minimum decent care and then spend as much time debating what political stance the agency will have.
Citizens and Elected Officials of King County… FIGURE OUT YOUR PIORITIES PEOPLE!
Comment by eastofeden — March 26, 2008 @ 10:33 am
Didn’t the Peninsula Humane Society use King County as a model when going for San Mateo Counties mandatory spay/neuter law many years ago? What happened??
Comment by CLynch — March 26, 2008 @ 10:38 am
I think it should be realised that some people, regardless of the position he holds, are feeling resistant to the ‘cult of personality’ that seems to be growing around Winograd. It only takes one person going on at you about his ideas like it is the second coming of Christ for a negative emotional response to start to form. Enthusiasm is nice, expertise and a record of success is great, but it can cross over into fawning about the personality not discussing the goals and method.
Comment by emily — March 26, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Comment by CLynch — March 26, 2008 @ 10:38 am
If I’m understanding your question correctly, it was the other way around. San Mateo went into effect first, with King County hot on its heels.
Comment by slt — March 26, 2008 @ 11:40 am
“I think it should be realised that some people, regardless of the position he holds, are feeling resistant to the ‘cult of personality’ that seems to be growing around Winograd.”
“Cult of Personality”? Are we talking about saving animals lives or are we talking “personality conflicts”? I know which one I’d prefer to talk about.
Winograd is the only one out there saying and proving that “there is a better, safer, more humane way”, and your worried about a “cult of personality”?
Comment by Katrina — March 26, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
Comment by emily — March 26, 2008 @ 10:54 am
“some people, regardless of the position he holds, are feeling resistant to the ‘cult of personality’ that seems to be growing around Winograd. It only takes one person going on at you about his ideas like it is the second coming of Christ for a negative emotional response to start to form.”
I remember when clicker training was first starting to catch on a similar sort of phenomenon. It was just that it was SO exciting to realize you could get such amazing results in training your animals and that you did NOT have to use punishment as part of it. What a “paradigm shift” (talk about overused phrases!) it was, and it WAS exciting! No doubt about it.
Problem was, you just wanted to tell the whole WORLD about this Great New Thing, and in the face of all this gushing excitement, people sort of got turned off. Clicker trainers were referred to as “clicker evangelists” and a lot of trainers were very upfront about how offensive they found this almost religious zeal that clicker trainers exuded. So yes - the excitement tended to be counter-productive.
Most of us eventually learned to turn it down a few notches, and eventually the “message” started getting out despite the “messengers” (VBG!)
But looking back, what a shame that we had to be so careful NOT to be excited about information that was - simply - quite exciting. No matter though - if we didn’t want to drive people off, we had to moderate our presentation. That’s just the way it was.
And that’s what comes to mind when I read emily’s comments about people who are so clearly excited about sharing Winograd’s ideas and how successful they are. The excitement itself turns people off. Fair? Maybe not. But as my Daddy always used to say, “Life ain’t fair”. And THAT is just the way it IS!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 26, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
The pictures don’t lie - the cages are filthy and the animals are being kept in deplorable conditions. You don’t get that much build up of dirt and fecal matter overnight. Yes the building is old and needs to be replaced. But that is no excuse for those cages and runs not to be clean.
I agree that Nathan can be a polarizing figure (I personally disagree strongly with his stand against Maddie’s Fund and the ASPCA’s no kill programs). But love him or hate him, the pictures don’t lie.
I don’t care if you call it No Kill, Less Kill or OverKill - this facility is a disgrace!!! I’ve volunteered at shelters that were in old converted houses, not in the best condition, but I can at least say that these places were clean, the animals had plenty of food and water.
Comment by 2CatMom — March 26, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
have been a volunteer and foster parent with King County animal Control for the last 3 years. I participated in the Ciizen’s Advisory Committee process and Mr Winograd’s volunteer surveys.
I believe Mr Winograd has some valid points which are the same recommendations which were outlined in the Citizen’s Advisory Committee Report. The shelter is in horrible shape and very outdated - it was built in the 70’s. they are very understaffed and underfunded. The rest of King County is housed in new buildings while the shelter is not a great environment for the animals.
Mr Winograd’s accusations of animal neglect and abuse, abuse of volunteers by staff, and animals going without food,water, or medication are FALSE! Myself and many other volunteers know this to be true. I was in the ISO ward on the day he claims to have found empty dishes and old food in cages. Of course he would find this before the cages were cleaned on a Presidents Day holiday! The cat in slide 22 is one of my foster cats - Uncle Jessie who I brought home on President’s Day. He was sick with URI so his faced was covered with bloody snot, he is now well and has been adopted.
Think about this - the ASPCA and HSUS did not apply to complete the assessment of the shelter system because they felt that the mandated Euthansia rates could not possibly be met in the time frame required. These rates were developed by No Kill King County and Nathan Winograd.
Nathan Winograd has an agenda to privatize the shelter system in King County not do whats best for the animals!!!!
Comment by KCAC volunteer — March 26, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
“I was in the ISO ward on the day he claims to have found empty dishes and old food in cages. Of course he would find this before the cages were cleaned on a Presidents Day holiday!”
So … you claim he’s lying and yet you admit he was telling the truth? Care to pick one?
“Nathan Winograd has an agenda to privatize the shelter system in King County not do whats best for the animals!!!!”
“Privatize the shelters system” … could it be that this situation is about of government employees (and their friends) doing anything to hold on civil service positions? From the posts we’re getting here, it seems the people who are against the Winograd report are all about keeping the shelter (and the jobs) on the government payroll, no matter the cost to animals.
Nathan Winograd can be an ass, of this I have no doubt. But at least he has the courage to point out what isn’t working and suggest alternatives that give priority to caring for animals — not pleasing the animal-control officers and their unions.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 26, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
“Of course he would find this before the cages were cleaned on a Presidents Day holiday!”
Is this a sincere attempt at excusing the conditions Winograd describes? In the multiple vet clinics and one animal research facility I worked in, we (the people who cleaned cages, fed, administered to and socialized the animals) had to work weekends and holidays - no exceptions. Which makes sense because you know, the animals are counting on people to care for them. Do shelter employees and/or volunteers get weekends/holidays off? WHO TAKES CARE OF THE ANIMALS?!
Comment by slt — March 26, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
You know, where there’s smoke there’s fire, and just the fact that so many people keep having to make so many excuses and explanations about the findings at the King County shelter in and of itself speaks volumes about whether or not changes need to be made . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 26, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
This shelter has animals that need medication. So shelter volunteer, who’s responsible for making sure the animals get their medication (not to mention food and water) on holidays? After all, hospitals and nursing homes, even prisons still feed and treat their patients, residents and inmates even when its a holiday.
And who cleans on the cages on a holiday? Last time I checked, animals will poop regardless if its a holiday - they’re just not into them.
Comment by 2CatMom — March 26, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
if Winograd’s NO KILL is so great, why are the shelters he’s proud of mentioning (every other sentence - sf, ny, reno) moving away from it? Even the Humane Society of Tacoma/Pierce County (king county neighbor) has had to redefine their “no-kill” mission statement after being inundated with abandoned animals.
As a volunteer at the king county shelter, i can tell you first hand that many of the observations winograd made were skewed and false. as were statements made by other volunteers (no all the volunteers complained or have issues).
yes, the kennels were dirty, but it was also 7AM in the morning.
dogfood piled on the back bay (referred to as being stored in unsanitary conditions) was actually being thrown out because it came donated in such poor condition.
he’s really good at commenting on the negative, while avoiding or skewing the positive.
case in point - he refers to the tukwila petsmart not being utilized, but conveniently forgets to mention the other 4 off site locations that are managed by volunteers, the adoption events, and the summer adoptathon.
i totally agree that the shelter is a dump and needs a more effective management with accountability and policies in place. no argument there.
but, i also question how the whole process by which this consulted was selected and his ulterior motives. Given the controversy that seems to follow him - i’m not sure i’d want to use his report as the end all - be all, but as one of many to make final decisions.
and, i think that the blog you mention does more than just pick on winograd - you should start reading from the beginning (november). not just pick and choose the information most appropriate information to comment on…
Comment by jfk — March 26, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
oh- forgot a tidbit of info for 2catmom and anyone else concerned.
there is staff cleaning and feeding and medicating the animals at the shelter 365. including holidays. let’s thank them for the sacrifice.
how many of us would be so willing?
Comment by jfk — March 26, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
“there is staff cleaning and feeding and medicating the animals at the shelter 365. including holidays. let’s thank them for the sacrifice.how many of us would be so willing?”
Depends … how many people need a job?
Pardon me, but my brother’s a firefighter. I’m going to thank him for his sacrifice — 24/7 shifts and working the holidays — LONG before I thank someone who has to come in on the weekend to do a job I do every day … feed and clean up after animals. Does your staff even LIKE animals? It sure doesn’t seem that way. You make excuses for inhumane conditions and you are angry at anyone who points them out.
Maybe you all could transfer to some nice desk jobs and stop making all these “sacrifices.”
I don’t know what’s going on up there in Seattle, but sure seems like you folks are very defensive about a bad operation … and very much in a “shoot the messenger mode.”
“if Winograd’s NO KILL is so great, why are the shelters he’s proud of mentioning (every other sentence - sf, ny, reno) moving away from it? Even the Humane Society of Tacoma/Pierce County (king county neighbor) has had to redefine their “no-kill” mission statement after being inundated with abandoned animals.”
That’s because — as Winograd and Richard Avanzino continue to point out again and again and again — no-kill shelters aren’t the answer. No-kill communities ARE.
Your neighboring shelters are being inundated with animals because your operations horrify people, and people don’t want their animals to suffer and die inside your walls.
Perhaps if your shelter became a SHELTER, not a warehouse and kill factory, things would improve for all pets in the region.
Suggestion: Learn something about what no-kill is and what it isn’t, instead of just driveling on what you heard it’s all about while defending practices that aren’t helping animals at all.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 26, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
Have you even been to our shelter? Do you know the situation? Obviously No.
What I am saying is that when Nathan visited the shelter-it was prior to the officers cleaning, feeding, and medicating the animals.
I was in the shelter that day - so I know what I saw. I don’t work for the shelter, I’m not defending a bad operation, or “shooting the messenger”. NO ANIMALS ARE BEING NEGLECTED!
If they were I would have reported it. I know many of the other 100 volunteers would have also. We spend our free time helping animals get adopted - not abused.
Comment by KCAC volunteer — March 26, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
It seems to me that at issue here is not that “Winograd’s NO KILL is so great” but rather that the King County Animal Shelters are so dreadful. Fixing THAT has to be priority number 1 to my mind.
As far as “how many of us would be so willing?” - I don’t know but I know there are LOTS of applicants for county jobs because people like the benefits that go with them. A friend of mine from a vet clinic tried to get a job at King County Animal Control for years, spending her spare time on ride-alongs with the officers and such, but was unsuccessful due to the huge number of applicants each time an opening came up. I guess there may be more people willing to sacrifice than one might think.
Comment by slt — March 26, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
NO ANIMALS ARE BEING NEGLECTED!
If they were I would have reported it. I know many of the other 100 volunteers would have also.
And they did. Have you read the report? I have. There are many volunteer statements and complaints documented in it.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 26, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
“Have you even been to our shelter?”
Many times. The dogs always had poop in the runs, they were often crammed in (two dogs in a one dog space), never saw anyone tending to their social or exercise needs, and one of the dogs I pulled from there had the worst case of kennel cough my Vet had ever seen. Every dog that was in her practice the day I brought that rescue in came down with kennel cough.
Comment by slt — March 26, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
On the one hand, people are admitting that the shelter is ‘a dump’ but still persist in trying to claim that because Winograd’s report said that it’s bad, that’s somehow inexcusable and suspicious?
Please.
He’s against the current status quo of kill shelters, and the folks that are happy with that status quo don’t like having their boat rocked. They want to keep feeling like they’re on the moral highground and could not possibly do anything better or different for the animals in their care, and Winograd showing that improvement IS possible pisses them off. People need to stop being so emotionally attached to killing animals ‘for their own good’ and be more open to alternatives. This is the entirely of Winograd’s philosophy, and people hate him for it, because people hate change.
Comment by Pai — March 26, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
THE OTHER PAT WROTE”
“And that’s what comes to mind when I read emily’s comments about people who are so clearly excited about sharing Winograd’s ideas and how successful they are. The excitement itself turns people off. Fair? Maybe not. But as my Daddy always used to say, “Life ain’t fair”. And THAT is just the way it IS!”
In concept I agree. Too much “exposure” to an idea can turn folks off. However, there is one teeny-tiny, very minor problem with the example you used. Clicker Evangelists or folks that got turned off by them were not going to kill animals.
Folks that allow themselves to get turned off by a “personality” that promotes the end to the Kill shelter reality are essentially killing animals or are supporting the killing of animals (unless they can come up with a better idea). I can only think it’s an ego thing. These folks are allowing their egos to get in the way of a more humane, fiscally responsible method of managing the animals that come to shelters/pounds. Or they are letting their egos get in the way of new ideas.
My personal opinion is that these folks should “get over it or get out of it”. There is no room for EGO in animal care and welfare. The animals and thier lives are at stake here. And that is what this should be all about. Not about feeding into someones bloated ego.
Comment by Katrina — March 26, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
Katrina, never doubt for a moment that ego played a role in the traditional trainers’ resistance to the “kinder and gentler” ways brought about by clicker training.
But what you and I are talking about isn’t about clicker training. It’s about all the silly reasons that cause people to continue to resist new and often better ways of doing things. And you bet ego is a part of it.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 26, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
“how many of us would be so willing?”
Someone saying they are a shelter volunteer actually thought to post this line on a pet blog???? Are you kidding me? Talk about not knowing your audience!!
Our household is currently ramping up to actually try to care for abandoned feral kittens this year — last year, Pepper brought me several that were left at the community garden and I had no idea how to care for them.
This year, I’m getting the PetMilk, bottles, the heating pads, towels, Depends, etc all ready so that when the season starts, we’ll be ready. It appears it will be every two hours/round the clock for at least a month — and I’m not supposed to get upset if 50% of them die. Then if they live, I’m going to have to find good homes for them — NONE OF WHICH WILL I BE PAID FOR.
So, excuse me for not feeling bad for the poor King County shelter workers who receive both salary and benefits, yet can’t seem to find the wherewithall to clean and disinfect a cage on their shift!
Comment by Dorene — March 26, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
Woah, woah woah…Can we all just take a giant step back and a deep breath?
I merely meant that shelter employees (in King County and elsewhere) have to take on some pretty awful tasks as part of their job, face public scrutiny and stereotypes (“dog catchers”), bear first witness to the cruelty that others inflict on animals (and please don’t jump on the Winograd comments when I write it in this context…I’ve read the report - I know were you’re going to go), often take abandoned and sick animals home to give them a break/make them better, work in less than ideal conditions, and deal with it 365/year.
Would you do it? I don’t think I could.
I think we owe them (not the abusive or mean ones or the ones who don’t care) more than a smidge of compassion and maybe keep in mind “there but for the grace of God am I.”
Nobody is saying we all, as animal rescuers, don’t make financial and emotional sacrifices, more so than the next one. I’ve done both (newborn kittens, adult cats), and obviously you have too. Kudos.
And, it’s quite obvious that different volunteers have had very different experiences with the shelter system. That’s a concern.
Same with shelter staff and officers. Also a valid concern.
I am also concerned about the fact that there are questionable actions surrounding how this particular analyst was selected, as well as some of his fact finding and conclusions.
Yes, he made some legitimate points that need to be addressed and soon - I am not disputing that. I am also not disputing no kill shelters, though it’s important to note that shelters (not just Winograds) are backing away from the language and modifying it. What should this be telling us?
I’ve done hours and hours of research on this topic and related subjects since November. I haven’t come to my conclusions over night. I’ve attended meetings, read the documents, etc.
As part taxpayer, part volunteer, part foster parent, and pet parent, I want additional points of view and ideas on how to create and implement new programs, expand and build upon current protocols and to make a model, sustainable, financially stable shelter. Not just one persons - and controversial at that.
An acquaintance once wrote to me a quote she learned from her vet while she was a tech, and I think we can all agree,
“If you are going to help animals you have to look at the whole picture.”
Words to be considered.
Thanks.
Comment by jfk — March 26, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
Along the lines of finding alternatives, there is a report in the Macomb Daily Paper in Michigan that the Macomb County Shelter has jumped on the bandwagon to work with various rescue groups to explore alternatives to euthanizing strays. 80% of cats and 4 in 10 dogs are euthanized at this shelter. An advisory committee comprised of a county commissioner, three county officials and five animal rescue groups will devise new policies and procedures at the shelter. There’s more.
Thank goodness it’s a new beginning for strays.
This shelter has caused me to be angry more than once. Glad to see changes coming.
Comment by VJ — March 27, 2008 @ 8:04 am
The University of California’s School of Veterinary Medicine’s Shelter evaluation preliminary report was submitted to Ron Sims weeks ago. His office didn’t release it to anyone. The final report is due by next Monday. It will be interesting to see if the people discounting Mr Winograd’s report because he has an “agenda” will find some reason to reject the professional opinions of a team of internationally respected veterinarians as they report their findings at the KCACC in January, 2008. I anxiously await the report, and am frustrated that the Executive’s office has not released the preliminary report already. I suppose he’s preparing his rebuttal. Or perhaps, he hasn’t read it. After all, there is absolutely NO mention of any animal control issues on his own website which is very representative of his entire attitude to this issue from the start = IGNORING IT. Time to go, Ron. Time to go.
Comment by shelter vet — March 27, 2008 @ 11:01 am
KCAC Volunteer writes:
“Have you even been to our shelter? Do you know the situation? Obviously NO. . . NO ANIMALS ARE BEING NEGLECTED! If they were I would have reported it. I know many of the other 100 volunteers would have also.”
As another poster noted, the volunteers have reported neglect at KCACC — over, and over, and over again.
Volunteers have been writing to County Executive Sims about these situations for years — complaining that animals are not given adequate food and water, are forced to sit in filthy cages, and suffer for lack of proper medical attention. They have also reported that the volunteers have been bullied and retaliated against for voicing these concerns, and that their volunteer “privileges” have been constantly threatened. Not only did volunteers make these complaints directly to Sims, but they did so to the advisory committee through their responses to the committee’s surveys. In fact, it was a series of volunteer complaints in January 2007 that caused the King County Council to begin looking at this issue.
In addition to the current volunteers who have voiced these complaints, many volunteers have left over the years because the conditions were so intolerable and they could not bear to witness them anymore — and could not make themselves heard to the people with the power to change policy.
Imagine their frustration now. Their concerns have been echoed by the advisory committee and now Mr. Winograd, and Mr. Sims is still pretending the problem was there. In response to this frustration, 22 former and current KCACC volunteers joined with 11 others — including advisory committee members and representatives of local humane organizations — to publicly call for a criminal investigation into conditions at KCACC. Even the organization set up to support the shelter, “Friends of KCAC,” has joined in this call.
Ron Sims is making this about Nathan Winograd because it is harder to attack shelter volunteers and the shelter advisory committee. But they all have been saying the same things for a long, long time. . .
Comment by KCACC Advisory Committee member — March 27, 2008 @ 11:37 am
My point was meant to be a pragmatic one. If it matters—and it shouldn’t—I support Winograd’s approach to running shelters. But I find some of his acolytes appraoches to convincing people to run shelter sthat way to be ineffective. Ineffective approaches should be changed. Unless of course egos get in the way there too? We all have egos and goals, the goals should be more important.
Comment by emily — March 27, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Emily, actually I agree with you. But here’s the thing.
Each individual won’t fall into line with an effective approach, because every movement to change — every one, in every arena of life — has its envelope-pushers, who move the discourse along by being an extremist.
I’ve called Nathan a “bad-cop.” Gina calls him a flamethrower. And he is. And he has moved this discourse along further in the last year than every other group in the ten or more years before, not despite his approach but because of it.
I’m not as much of a flamethrower as Nathan is, by temperament, but I’m closer to being one than, say, Gina is. While I believe in trying to build consensus when possible, I also believe that there are really times when one should throw the baby out with the bathwater because, yo, the baby? It drowned a while back.
But that’s not DESPITE my belief that the goals are what matter, not our egos. It’s BECAUSE of it. Because having lived now nearly 50 years and been involved in a whole lotta social change, I recognize the stages, and know which one the shelter reform movement is in today.
We still need someone like Nathan.
And it’s not that one day he’ll be an unalloyed positive and the next day he’ll be an unalloyed negative. He’ll be who he is, a mixture of both, as are we all, from beginning to end. He’ll be black-and-white, he’ll point fingers, he’ll upset the status quo, he’ll make people defensive.
Well, he may actually change; people do. But I don’t think he will or needs to. The movement will change and shift around him, and people will rise up to do the work they’re inspired to do, and there will be resistance and battles and wins and losses.
And in the end, the animals will be much better off, the center will have advanced towards lifesaving by a huge degree, and Nathan Winograd will become an éminence grise in the movement, and one day, there will be someone else saying something we don’t want to hear.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 27, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Some video Nathan Winograd made available to us, of his inspection of the shelter. There are three clips, all very short, all Windows Media Player files:
http://www.rescuenetwork.org/articles/2.wmv
http://www.rescuenetwork.org/articles/3.wmv
http://www.rescuenetwork.org/a.....ptions.wmv
Comment by Christie Keith — March 27, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
I volunteer at one of the KCACC shelters, and they are dumps. I was shocked on my first visit. I don’t believe this is the fault of the on hand staff or volunteers though. It is the fault of King County elected officials. King County loves to tax people for adding bike routes, remodeling parks, forming committees to ‘talk’ about one day building a light rail system, etc. But this county won’t spend a dime on upgrading houses that should be torn down and are instead used as shelters to house animals. And it’s not like this problem just popped up recently.
I’ve personally never seen any neglect by the staff while I’ve been volunteering. They are understaffed and work in bad conditions, and that’s not their fault. They always seem caring as far as I’ve seen.
If Winograd’s involvement leads to King County finally taking action for this problem that they have kept swept under the rug for over a decade, then I’m all for it. And I think the #1 change needed is new facilities that are properly staffed. Who cares if the shelters are privatized?? I think that would actually be better. Too bad Bill Gates won’t get involved, because we could use some of his charity $ in his own county.
Comment by KCACC volunteer — March 27, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
I am absolutely certain what you’re saying is part of the problem, KCACC volunteer, but then we hear about the $500,000 that the shelter has but won’t spend, programs offered to be paid for by the Friends of the Shelter and other donations and offers of help that have been ignored, and it makes me think that the problem is as much, or even more, that there is catastrophically bad management and a culture of defeatism to blame, than neglect by the county.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 27, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
I’ve gotta say that if Nathan (or anyone else) wants a video to have an impact - they need to learn how to use a camera. Watching bars and hinges fly by only make people queasy with motion sickness. Focusing on things like the med chart and food bowls would have helped make his point as well.
Comment by cheryl — March 27, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
2catmom wrote -
“I personally disagree strongly with his stand against Maddie’s Fund and the ASPCA’s no kill programs.”
What stance against Maddie’s Fund is that? Winograd supports Avanzino and Maddie’s Fund, and vice versa, last I heard.
Comment by Sally — March 28, 2008 @ 11:54 am
Ron, admit there is a problem with the shelter system. Work cooperatively with Council for a change and fix this problem. It’s past time.
Comment by kb — March 29, 2008 @ 1:08 am
*************************Press Release*************************
*********************For Immediate Release*********************
Animal Control Officer’s Guild
PO BOX 146
Kent, WA 98032
March 28, 2008
acoguild@comcast.net http://kcanimalcontrol.blogspot.com
In a statement released today, the Animal Control Officer’s Guild (ACOG) said it is disappointing the King County Council is willing to stand by its consultant’s report without recognizing ACOG members’ right to due process.
The ACOG applauds King County Executive Ron Sims’ support of its members and looks forward to a continued working relationship with Executive Sims and the Council in their efforts to reduce euthanasia in King County.
The ACOG points out between 1992 and 2007 the population in King County has increased from 800,000 to over 1,200,000. In 1992 there were 36 Animal Control Officers; in 2007 there were less than 28.
In light of these facts King County Animal Care and Control (KCACC) has reduced euthanasia by over 5% in 2007, as well as, increase offsite adoptions from 69 in 2006 to over 690 in 2007. Over 800 animals were placed in foster homes in 2005; while over 1800 were placed in foster homes in 2007.
It is curious these facts were intentionally left out of the recent Council report. This not only shows the willingness of the ACOG members to reducing euthanasia it shows their commitment.
Show you want to keep King County animal shelters public by sending dog biscuits and catnip to King County Executive Sims’ and your Council representative. Please include a note of support.
The Animal Control Officer’s Guild represents King County Animal Control Officers, Sergeants, and a Veterinary Technician. The ACOG became a Washington State non-profit on January 20, 1995. The ACOG was granted tax exempt status as a 501(c) 5 [labor organization] on May 26, 1995.
The Animal Control Officer’s Guild is represented by the law firm of:
Emmal, Skalbania and Vinnedge
4241 21st Ave W
Suite 104
Seattle, WA 98199
206-281-1770
office@unionlaw.org
Comment by ACO Guild — March 29, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
How about we send poop bags to the ACOG, or their lawyers, telling them to clean up their mess?
Comment by Lis — March 29, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Well, I did find it interesting that they put their “rights to due process” in the first paragraph, and even sucked up to the boss before mentioning anything at all about the goal of working towards reduced rates of killing in the shelter for population control.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 29, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
Sally - I had heard Winograd speak recently and while he did not come right out and condemn Maddie’s Fund there were some snide remarks about people who aren’t as committed to No Kill as he is. Maybe he wasn’t referring to Maddie’s Fund, but what he was decribing about the other group sure sounded like them.
Comment by 2CatMom — March 29, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
So he didn’t mention Maddie’s Fund, but you’re sure he meant Maddie’s Fund—why exactly?
Winograd is not exactly a roundabout and non-confrontational personality, and if he meant Maddie’s Fund, I’m pretty confident he’d have said so.
Comment by Lis — March 29, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
I know intimately the lies spread in Mr. Winograd’s report. I have been in the shelter for months now and have met him and read the report. There are some truths and if he had stuck to those and not lied and embellished it would have been enough to make the Council and Ron Sims see that changes need to be made.
Consider the fact that Mr. Winograd is an attorney. He is well versed on what chain of custody and evidentiary rules are. Yet NO animal ID #’s were referenced nor were cage #’s. All of these are in plain sight on the front’s of the cages. No footnotes referencing the sources of his “data” were included in the first report he submitted…….yes there was a FIRST report that was so embarassingly full of inacuracies and so unprofessionally written that the Council pulled it from their website mere HOURS after it was posted citing “clerical error”. They then had to request that Mr. Winograd re-do and edit for professionalism. How sad that after 3 and a 1/2 days and $30,000 of tax payers money all we got from him was an inflammatory embarassment full of inacuracies that he could NEVER hope to prove. His own report states that it does not offer any solutions to his accusations nor was it intended to. WTF?!?!? How much of my tax dollars went to this “expert” who does not offer solutions nor was he hired to?!?! Who hired him? Oh yeah, his cool aid drinking minions on the council…..
I submit my tax dollars should have gone to hiring an animal behaviorist for a year or another couple of officers to actually SAVE animals lives. That would actually be a solution to SOME of the problem…..more than we got from Mr. Winograd.
To set some of your minds at ease the staff at the shelter does not let animals go for up to 4 days without food or water. That is ludicrous.
The ISO ward was staffed partially(except on the holiday) on the days in question by LICENSED VETERINARY TECHNICIANS who have left previous careers in veterinary hospitals to make a difference in the shelters and animals lives. These people have treatment sheets(considered a medical record, governed by the FEDERAL MEDICAL RECORDS ACT) on the fronts of ALL the cages that record eating, drinking, medication given and progress. To take a picture of ONE empty water dish and empty food bowls and conclude that they are going for 4 days with out food/water is embarrassing for Mr. Winograd not the staff. Cats are kept in small kennels(the Council needs to provide funds for larger ones) and larger cats will occasionally stretch out and dump their waters. On other occasions cats will actually drink ALL of their water given the night before and eat their dinners. “Horrors!!!!” and will have an empty dry bowl. Sometimes in the upper cages that you cannot see into the bowls an officer might not get it all the way full so that it will be dry before the next TWICE A DAY FEEDING. Yes TWICE A DAY. EVERYDAY. So if one were to me missed once (which I do not believe) then they would be fed 8 hours later at the next feeding.
BTW the treatment sheet reports of eating and drinking that he claims professional medical staff are falsifying (actionable slander on Mr. Winograd’s part- how good of a lawyer can he be?)is not determined by whether or not the animal had its bowls filled but by the fact that there is urine and feces in its litter box. You cannot deny that if there is no input for 4 days there will be no output of urine and feces. WHICH THERE WAS. Again this is a MEDICAL RECORD. Does he really think that the public would believe that a licensed vet tech would risk their license over food and water intake on an animal?!? Maybe he got out of the law field and into the “cult of personality” field because he was a did not understand you cannot make things up and hope to prove it in court with no evidence to back it up?!? He cannot hope to defend his slander without animal ID#’s or cage #’s and some way to prove that these were not all on one day or at one time prior to cleaning and feeding. Again how nice it would be to wave a wand and have all cages cleaned and watered/fed simultaneously……in actuality it can take HOURS to properly clean/treat/medicate/force feed a dozen cats in ISO so they might have dirty cages and empty bowls until someone gets to them. NO MATTER WHO RUNS THE SHELTER THIS WILL HAPPEN. Mr. Winograd himself could not make it happen any faster.
If he had only told what is likely closer to the truth- That on the understaffed holiday that he observed empty water bowls and food dishes NO ONE would have argued with him. It MIGHT have been the truth as the shelter is only staffed by 3 officers and there are HUNDREDS of animals. So it is realistic that some will take HOURS for an officer to get to them to feed and water. I will point out that the officers do not determine the staffing levels……the COUNTY does!!!!! So do not attack the very people who would HAPPILY work but the COUNTY will not pay the additional wages for holiday pay.
There ARE legitimate problems. The STAFF has pointed them out for YEARS to the council with no action. The facility is old and terrible and creates overcrowding and YES when they have to cram 2-3 dogs in a run designed for one dog there WILL be that much urine and feces OVERNIGHT and not all of the runs can be simultaneously cleaned (where is that magic wand?) So some WILL look like that until an officer can get to them. Please believe the REAL issues.
Realize that there are enough things that are legitimate that we do not need Mr. Winograd’s personal agenda(did you know that he was also here signing/selling his book…….nothing like a local news story to sell more copies and put more $$$ in your pocket. He is FAR from the neutral/objective observer) to deflect light from the REAL issues which have been well documented by LEGITIMATE, INDEPENDANT auditors from the HSUS in the 1990’s and UC Davis just prior to Mr. Winograd’s BS. These were not fluff pieces…..they too found serious flaws, but they also had SOLUTIONS which the COUNCIL has not acted on.
Lets be concerned and demand changes but lets do it based on real facts and not on someone’s hidden ego driven agenda.
Comment by Reality Check — March 30, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
I read your entire anonymous screed, and one line pretty much says it all for me:
“The ISO ward was staffed partially (except on the holiday) … “
Oh heaven forbid that partial staffing extend to a HOLIDAY when animals need to be cared for.
Thank heavens the firefighters, police officers and the people who keep the lights and heat on up there in King County work on holidays.
Geez, even Starbucks barristas work on most holidays. I worked for a newspaper for almost 20 years and guess what? That included almost every damn holiday.
I gotta tell my pets that I am taking holidays off now from caring for them. I’m sure it won’t be a problem.
Look, I know the life of an animal-control officer is not easy. And I know that when the economy goes south animal control gets a big budget hit. And I know that Winograd’s bluntness and belief that what he is doing is right makes a lot of enemies. Granted, granted and granted.
But what I see from the postings here are people who seem angry at being challenged and afraid of what a community-wide no-kill strategy might mean in terms of their jobs, and who think that adding more money and more staff will make things better — for the animal control officers.
I don’t believe putting more effort and money into a system that hasn’t worked before at any level of staffing and funding — with regard to increasing adoptions, not ACO pay, working conditions and benefits — is going to make it work any better.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 30, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
Liz: I’m not sure - but while he names some names - HSUS, ASPCA, as groups he doesn’t like, he refers to other organizations that don’t implement immediate 92% save rates as being inadequate. That would include Maddie’s Fund.
I think it was on this blog that the carrot vs stick approaches of the organizaitons were examined. I just think that sometimes carrots work better than sticks. And I think there can be more than one approach to ending the killing of adoptable animals.
Don’t get me wrong, I admire the work that Winograd is doing. And his in-your-face approach has done more to raise this issue in the publics’ awareness than all the other No Kill (or no kill) organizations put together. But in the end, I support all the groups that are diligently working to bring down the kill rates. And I’d hate to see infighting over approach take away from any of these efforts.
Comment by 2CatMom — March 31, 2008 @ 10:27 am
2CatMom, Maddie’s Fund is not a sheltering agency - it’s a grant giving agency that gives funds for various programs. When did he call Maddies’ Fund inadequate? Can you post a link?
Comment by Sally — March 31, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
I’m aware that Maddie’s fund is not a shelter -during a recent talk he gave he did not refer to Maddie’s fund by name but said that any organization that wasn’t using a minimum 92% save rate as their base wasn’t really No Kill. I think he recognizes that Maddie’s Fund, as well as some other shelters and programs are reaching nearly the same goal (in some cases higher), so he didn’t want to knock them directly.
I’m sure he’s aware that his positions strike some as overly rigid, but I think his over-riding concern is to set the bar high enough that shelters (or organizations helping shelters) are really placing all adoptable animals, even those that take extra work.
Comment by 2CatMom — March 31, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
2CatMom, that seems to me to be awfully weak reed on which to rest a claim of “his stand against Maddie’s Fund” which is what you said.
Critcism that you have to infer, while conceding that he recognizes that Maddie’s Fund is working towards the same goal, “reaching nearly the same goal,” does not, in fact, meet any reasonable definition of “a stand against” something, not in my understanding.
Comment by Lis — March 31, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
2CatMom, I don’t think that’s in any way at all referring to Maddies’ Fund.
Maddie’s Fund doesn’t have a save rate to measure, specifically because Maddies Fund isn’t any kind of sheltering organization.
Maddie’s Fund is a private foundation whose stated purpose is to make the US a no kill nation, facilitating change via giving grants. It’s privately funded by some very wealthy and generous individuals and named after their dog.
What kill rate can you attribute to a private grant-giving foundation that has given away over fifty million dollars of private wealth? Kill rate isn’t applicable.
Also, last I saw, Winograd’s threshold rate was 90%, not 92%.
The reason I was so surprised is that Rich Avanzino (Maddie’s Fund president) and Winograd have had a long and cooperative history. Avanzino, at least to some degree, is Winograd’s mentor and the guy who originally hired him into animal sheltering. Their styles are very different, but I have never considered them to have an adversarial relationship of any sort.
Comment by Sally — March 31, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
Yes he is Winograd’s mentor, but as you so rightly pointed out, Winograd doesn’t mince words. From Redemption pp. 148-154, in reference to the Asilomar Accords
“What is suprising, however, however is that the Accords found support in Richard Avanzino. According to Avanzino, if the large national groups and local shelters supported the one element of the Accords he believed in -transparency in statistics - the rest would follow over time…There are significant problems with this viewpoint… Avanzino argues that each community should have the power to determine what the lifesaving expectations should be for their local shelter…This view is reckless.”
…
“As a result, Avanzino’s goals for the Asilomar Accords are incompatible with the actual document. His view is misinformed because it continues to ignore a vital truth: most of the time, animal control and large provate shelters vested in the status quo do not feel compelled to change…”
I went back and checked and my notes from Mr. Winograd’s presentation..the phrase he used was that Mr. Avanzino had “lost his way.”
I would call that criticism, perhaps you would not. But I think we would agree that he isn’t exactly singing praises about Avanzino.
And that’s my issue - when people who have a lot more in common than they have differences over begin to criticize each other, the whole goal gets distorted allowing people who don’t support your goals at all to discredit you. Kind of like the situation with the current Democratic party candidates.
To me, the most important thing is to keep your eye on the goal (more adopting/less killing. Frankly I don’t care if you get there using a carrot, a stick, or using carrot sticks - the important thing is to get there.
And as I said before, I support Winograd’s programs. I also support Maddie’s Fund. I even support the much more modest goals of the ASPCA’s Mission Orange (which is kind of like being fed mushy carrots) because the goal is the same - more adoptions/less killing.
I guess I just don’t believe that one size fits all. And since all three approaches have resulted in save rates of 90% + at some (but not all) locations, I think there’s merit to all three.
Comment by 2CatMom — March 31, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
I think Nathan and Rich are still friends… they just have areas of disagreement as regards policy and approach. I often say Rich is the good cop and Nathan is the bad cop, but when I interviewed them, their respect for each other was genuine and heartfelt.
Disagreement happens, even among the closest of friends.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 31, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
I guess I don’t have any problem with people who are friends disagreeing with each other. I don’t think disagreement, or even criticism, equates into an adversarial relationship.
If we don’t criticize ourselves - and that’s a painful process - there is no possibility of improvement. It can be painful, but it’s necessary.
I also do NOT think, based on recent comments each made, that Winograd considers Maddie’s Fund a failure or an adversary, nor do I believe that Avanzino considers Winograd a failure.
My take is that they respect each other, although they do not always agree.
Comment by Sally — April 1, 2008 @ 4:44 am
There isn’t an animal shelter public or private in King County that could take in all 11,000+ animals - dogs,cats,pigs,chickens, peascocks, goats, snakes,etc.; which KCAC takes in per year. So where do they all go?
Nathan makes pie-in-the-sky recommendation how can it play out? No matter who runs the shelter a sustainable plan must be devised.
Gina why are you such a nasty person?
Comment by get real?! — April 2, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
When the San Francisco SPCA gave up its animal control contract, everyone said the same thing. The city ended up having to build its own facility, and in the process making the City cough up a reasonable amount of money to pay for these taxpayer services. The non-profit SPCA had been basically subsidizing a government service with donations, volunteer hours, etc.
If the reports and complaints are correct, and it seems that in the main they are, the King County shelter can plead lack of resources all it wants, but it has not taken advantage of the resources it has. It has ignored offers of support, including money, it has unspent funds, it has not asked for more money, it has ignored donations, it has alienated the Friends of the Shelter that formed to try to support it… so it’s not about lack of resources, it’s about bad decisions and bad management.
If they’ve needed more resources and a new facility for years or decades, then a smart, caring manager would have made that a top priority and fought for it long before this.
There are shelters in far poorer areas that are much better run than this one seems to be. Don’t shoot Nathan for pointing it out.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 2, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
Oh, and user with the name ‘get real’? It would have been fair and helpful for you to mention that you’re logging in from a King County government computer… but now I’ve taken care of that for you. :)
Comment by Christie Keith — April 2, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
I am not logging in from a King government computer. It’s just another lie - which I should expect by now.
Comment by get real?! — April 3, 2008 @ 8:01 am
Oh - I guess I also should mention that I don’t work for King County. I am a volunteer & fosterparent for King County Animal Services. Since I have been in the shelters a few time a week for the last 3 years - I have true prespective.
I am not saying that the shelter is without problems. I needs alot of work and alot of improvements. Myself and many other volunteers made shared our comments and experiences with Mr Winograd suring meetings he held and as responses to his “surveys”. Apparently he paid no attention to anything we said. He only listened to the small number of volunteers who made complaints about things which happened years ago.
Fortunately we will not give up in our support of the animals & shelter staff. Support KCAC :)
Comment by get real?! — April 3, 2008 @ 8:17 am
>I am not logging in from a King government computer. It’s just another lie - which I should expect by now.<
Really? Here’s your IP information:
: King County Gov
OrgID: MMS-7
Address: 401 5th AV
Address: Suite 700
City: Seattle
StateProv: WA
PostalCode: 98104
Country: US
NetRange: 146.129.0.0 - 146.129.255.255
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 3, 2008 @ 8:33 am
I’m always amazed at what can be found on the Internet!
http://directory.metrokc.gov/G.....upID=30672
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 3, 2008 @ 9:19 am
Since you remove my posting of April 3. I will post it again.
Again you are wrong. This is not my IP information. You really should check your data before you post incorrect info. It really amazes me that you would post false information and then remove my post just because I pointed it out again.
Just like in Nathan’s report - use false information to advance your agenda. I should expected as much!
Comment by get real?! — April 5, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
We weren’t wrong. During the week you were using a King County government computer, according to your IP address. Now you’re signing in from a computer in Kirkland, WA.
Nice try, but the IP addresses don’t lie. And neither do we.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 5, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
IP addresses don’t lie but apparenetly you do!
My computer is not located in Seattle or Kirkland, WA.
Comment by get real?! — April 5, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
You really crack me up. Go ahead; look up your own IP addresses on your posts yourself. The first few, made during the week, had the IP address 146.129.251.133, which when you look it up at ARIN WHOIS, resolves to:
OrgName: King County Gov
OrgID: MMS-7
Address: 401 5th AV
Address: Suite 700
City: Seattle
StateProv: WA
PostalCode: 98104
Country: US
Once the weekend arrived, and after we outed you as using a King County government computer, you suddenly admitted you were a volunteer at the King County Shelter. Not really good for your credibility, is it? Especially as you’re still denying what anyone can plainly see.
Then this weekend you started logging in with a different IP address, this one from Clearwire in Kirkland. It doesn’t matter where your computer is located; that’s your ISP. Your IP address, which again, you and anyone else can look up, is 75.92.189.101, which resolves to:
OrgName: Clearwire, LLC
OrgID: CLEAR-26
Address: 5808 Lake Washington Blvd NE
Address: Suite 300
City: Kirkland
StateProv: WA
PostalCode: 98033
Country: US
That’s the end of this particular discussion, by the way. Continue to call us liars and we’ll send our web site access logs to the abuse admins at King County IT services and Clearwire. They’ll know what they’re looking at, just like we do.
You want to have an argument on the issues and facts, fine.
Just don’t expect people to believe what you say when you’ve been caught in lies so publicly here.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 5, 2008 @ 11:53 pm
This is really funny!
Just to explain it for “get real?!”: Gina and Christie have tons of hard-earned credibility. You don’t even have a real name you’re willing to admit to in public.
Comment by Lis — April 6, 2008 @ 5:46 am
Threatening people who disagree with you does not make you look credible. But is one of the tactics learned from Nathan.
Comment by get real?! — April 6, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
Says the person who came to our site, hid his identity, lied, accused us of being liars, and when confronted with evidence supporting what we were saying, resorted to personal insults.
Who did you learn that from?
Comment by Christie Keith — April 7, 2008 @ 12:18 am
At this point, I’ve pretty much got “get real” set on “ignore”.
I mean, get REAL! LOL!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 7, 2008 @ 5:11 am
Speaking of Winograd, I feel the tale is now being told. His failures are more than his claim of successes. Rancho Cucamonga that only handles about 5000 animals a year can’t make it work even though their budget has jumped from $770,000 a year to over $2 million. If you can’t make it work with that few animals, it is not a feasible program. And another question, if he indeed saw this horror, why didn’t he do something right then? He walked away from these animals in need and all he did was criticize. Same in Philly. Rather than trying to see where the problem was, he could only use the lame excuse that they weren’t committed enough. I find the man disgusting myself and the worst thing to happen to the humane movement in the last fifty years.
Comment by It's Not Real — April 9, 2008 @ 9:25 am
“I find the man disgusting myself and the worst thing to happen to the humane movement in the last fifty years.”
Well do tell what is the *best* thing to happen to the humane movement in the last 50 years?
Comment by slt — April 9, 2008 @ 11:49 am
Well, “get real”, from what I’ve seen of Winograd, his successes are exceeded only by the willingness of his detractors to distort his record.
His shelter in Charlottesville, an open-admissions, no-kill shelter, was at 92% live exit a year ago and is still in the high 80’s - WITHOUT huge budget increases, without warehousing animals, and with the support of the community. It’s a FABULOUS shelter and a HUGE success.
Personally, while he is not perfect, I think his work has done more to change how we save animals nationally than any but a bare handful of people. He’s up there with Avanzino, the Duffields, and the Sauls.
Comment by Sally — April 9, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
Excuse me, that should read “an open admissions, animal control” shelter. They are, however, now publicly calling themselves a no kill shelter - only the sick and vicious are now euthanized.
See http://www.caspca.org/MissionVision.htm
They are terrific.
Comment by Sally — April 9, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
only the sick and vicious are now euthanized.
There must be something wrong with me, or this innocent statement wouldn’t have had the effect it did. I should not be thinking “the possibilities are beyond counting.”
Comment by Lis — April 9, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
Hee hee hee!!!
Let me rephrase. Only animals that are a danger to humans, or that are suffering from illnesses that cannot be treated, are euthanized at this shelter.
Not any other interpretation that might cut down on troll overpopulation.
Comment by Sally — April 9, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
Aw, dang! :)
Comment by Lis — April 9, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
I just noticed the “Bill Gates should give” comment above. I wonder if the poster realizes that the investigations into KCAC began when a Microsoft employee (not me) tried to save the life of a kitten that hadn’t been eating for several weeks that then died in foster after seeing private vets. I tried to help as well. The KCAC officer had to manage the shelter alone due to staffing policies at the time. I’m not sure I would blame the person, but the situation was awful. (There are two officers on duty recently - yay!)
I’ve also tried to reach out to KCAC management as a Microsoft employee and not been received well - as in our mails were not returned. I’m fairly active charing a yearly charity golf tournament at Microsoft for example.
I’d be happy to help sponsor some funding if we can meet the standards of the Gates foundation or other similar groups. Unfortunately with the current situation that is not likely, but with a private take over it might be possible if the group is well organized. I say that, but at the same time I hesitate to blame KCAC employees, there are organizational and leadership issues here that put everyone in a tight spot.
BTW, as most folks know I don’t blog anonymously - so feel free to Google me. :)
Comment by Arie van der Hoeven — April 9, 2008 @ 10:10 pm