Interview with Nathan Winograd

[red dog]

Has anyone read his book? I haven't had a chance yet, but this podcast was very inspiring:

http://veganfreakradio.com/index.php?id=127

Basically he talks about how it is possible to achieve no-kill communities if enough animal people have the will to do it. From the sounds of it, he almost single-handedly turned Tompkins County, New York, into a no-kill community.

Any thoughts on how to put his ideas into practice in the Seoul area? (I know some of you are already doing it, but there’s so much more to be done, isn’t there?)

[Karen]

My husband ordered Redemption for me for Christmas, it should arrive this week. I can't wait to read it, I've been reading on the No Kill Advocacy Center website about all the revolutionary ideas Nathan Winograd has been promoting... Did you read the book? What did you think? Do you think real no-kill is possible anywhere? Have you read about how the ASPCA disses the idea of no-kill? I'm sure I'll have way more to say on the topic after I get started on the book.

[red dog]

Hi Karen,

I finished reading “Redemption” a little while ago and it was a real eye opener. I might quibble with Winograd on a few points, but his central argument makes sense—if he turned Tompkins County around overnight, I don't see why it couldn't be done anywhere.

Anyway, to correct a misstatement in my last post, Richard Avanzino is the one who turned SF around; Winograd worked with Avanzino for some time and then moved to Tompkins County to prove that similar progress (or even more) could be achieved in a rural area.

Minor issues with the book:

- While conventional animal groups overemphasize the irresponsibility of "the public" (as Winograd points out), he seems to underemphasize it. Starhawk once wrote, "I don't believe in limited guilt." She was quoting someone else and didn’t seem to agree with the person she was quoting, but the point still holds.

- I can see why he refers to "pet overpopulation" as a myth, but in a way it seems misleading. In the book he mentions how important it is for shelters/pounds to lower intake by spaying and neutering. That would seem to suggest that the total population of “pets” is a factor in the problem that he’s writing about.

- I couldn’t help noticing a fair number of typos in the book. (Sorry to sound petty, but it was kind of disappointing.)

Winograd also talks at length about how not only the ASPCA, but many other organizations, have obstructed progress for homeless animals. http://www.animalrescuekorea.org/forums/images/icons/icon9.gif

Overall, an amazing book. I hope all decision-makers will read it.

[Karen]

It's going to be a while before I get a chance to read more in this book because my semester is full underway now, but I did get through chapter 1 and I agree that it's a major eye-opener!

I do have some confusion about calling "pet overpopulation" a myth. Maybe "myth" is meant to highlight the fact that that term seems to avoid the human responsibility factor, as though it's pets who are overpopulating this world without us humans having a chance to control it.

I wish I could get further into the discussion, but I have course readings to do first :( I just got pulled back to this thread actually to vent about a little thing I saw on a Humane Society of the US website.

Under the listing for "No Kill" they put "see Limited Admission"

http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/#N_topics

This really ticked me off. I understand that that is what some "no kill" shelters turn out to be, just stopping the intake of new animals "forcing" unlimited admission kill shelters to take them, but it doesn't accurately portray the No Kill philosophy I've read about... It sounds like the excuses for why No Kill allegedly doesn't work. Gr.

I didn't have time to go and read what articles they put under "Limited Admission", it's just the labelling that bothered me.

OK, back to Library Studies books now :(


(PS. I noticed some typos, too. :( I guess the publisher must be a fairly small press.)

[red dog]

I do have some confusion about calling "pet overpopulation" a myth. Maybe "myth" is meant to highlight the fact that that term seems to avoid the human responsibility factor, as though it's pets who are overpopulating this world without us humans having a chance to control it.


Well said. Yes, I'm sure that is his point, and it's a very valid one.

Ranting/venting about anti-no-kill groups is always great too. Thanks for giving me a chance to vent vicariously by reading your posts. :p