----- Original Message -----
From:
To: adl@animaldefense.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:56 PM
Subject: forwarding Winograd's post to you

The e-mail below was forwarded to ADL-LA by an individual who requests to remain anonymous. If Nathan Winograd meant the below to be private, we apologize. But because ADL-LA was forwarded the message and the party who forwarded it did not tell us it was confidential, we feel that we have the right to post it to our list serve, even if it was meant to be private.(If anyone wants to post something to ADL-LA and keep it confidential, you must say so in your post!)
ADL-LA

---

Thanks for contacting me about the misuse of the No Kill Equation model by Ed Boks in his recent blogs. It is clear to me that he is doing so to justify a tenure in L.A. that has been marked by high killing, skyrocketing rates of animals dying in their kennels, and poor care. As I have repeatedly stated, this is an increasingly common tactic from those who are failing at saving lives.

To be successful, however, a shelter must utilize the programs and services of the No Kill Equation not sometimes, not merely when it is convenient or politically expedient to do so, and not just in name, but for every single animal, every single time so that they replace killing entirely. The No Kill Equation, when implemented with integrity by a director sincere in their desire to end the killing, fundamentally changes shelter operations so that killing is no longer an option—except for irremediably suffering animals, animals who are hopelessly ill and injured and truly vicious dogs (less than 8% of the total shelter population). Achieving No Kill, in which over 90% of animals entering a shelter are saved, requires replacing century-old failed protocols with innovative, life-affirming alternatives for every single animal, every single time. It is not enough to simply recycle sexy names for programs like “New Hope,” “FELIX,” and all the other public relations gimmicks and claim success as he did in Maricopa County even while 29,000 dogs and cats were being put to death. The programs must be implemented so that they replace killing entirely for all animals who can benefit from them, not just for the lucky few.

For example, the No Kill Equation requires every neonatal kitten to be cared for in a foster home, not just sometimes because the director has not spent his time or ordered his staff to effectively recruit and train foster homes, put the protocols in place, and then make sure the programs are being carried out. It should go without saying that if these alternatives are not implemented wholeheartedly and comprehensively to replace killing in its entirety—for example, if only a small percentage of neonatal kittens entering the shelter are sent into foster care while the rest are killed—No Kill is not and cannot be achieved.

In other words, if Boks truly implemented all the programs he claims to, animals dying in kennel would not be skyrocketing as they are. They would be plummeting. Nor would deaths for rabbits and other animals be increasingly so dramatically. And, finally, where there are declines, they would be substantial—like they are for example in Washoe County, NV where deaths have fallen for dogs by 50% and 80% for cats in one year. Not the paltry level of decline Boks claims as victory in his spin-heavy press releases that obscure reality more than they illuminate it.

Feeling the pressure to change, directors like Boks are implementing token level changes to their operations, some of which include the ones I describe in the No Kill Equation, both to diffuse criticism and to claim they “tried” these programs and they didn’t work as claimed. Activists must be vigilant in demanding that those programs be expanded to the point that they replace killing entirely. These benchmarks, for example, include:

	A fully functioning volunteer program where at least 300 people for every 100,000 human residents actually help at least one time per week at the shelter;
	Offsite adoptions at multiple locations seven days per week;
	Socialization programs so that cats get out of their cages at least two times per day and dogs at least three times for walks and play time;
	Medical & behavior rehabilitation programs that control disease, keep animals healthy, and provide care for those who are savable (the fact that animals dying in their kennel is skyrocketing in your community’s pound system is absolute proof that this is not the case);
	A fully functioning TNR program that replaces killing through neutering and release (See the following Model Feral Cat Protocol at http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/FeralPolicy.pdf)
	A foster care program for underaged kittens, puppies, as well as injured and traumatized adults, those needing a break from the shelter, and to handle overflow during peak periods;
	Low and no cost spay/neuter opportunities for at risk animals, with a minimum of 1,000 surgeries for every 100,000 human residents (It should be noted that most successful communities around the country achieved success before the spay/neuter effort was in place);
	Adoption programs seven days a week with evening and weekend hours;
	Carte blanche for legitimate rescue groups to save any animal on death row, any time without bureaucratic hurdles and permissions from a select group of animals;
	Programs above and beyond haphazard advice from hurried workers on the telephone to help owners overcome the behavioral, medical and environmental conditions which cause them to surrender their pets (A 1996 JAVMA study found that this reduces the chance of relinquishment by as much as 94 %);
	A compassionate, hard working director who holds his or her staff accountable, making sure customer service is good, people are friendly, animals are getting proper care, the shelter is clean, people are doing their jobs, all the cages and kennels are kept full if necessary, and programs and services are being expanded and carried out.

But, in the entire history of animal sheltering, the transition from a culture based on killing to a culture of lifesaving has never happened without significant staff turnover. In Philadelphia, all the managers and half the line staff were terminated or resigned within six months. In Reno, every manager was given the option of resignation or termination. The same holds true in Charlottesville, Tompkins, and other places. If Boks has not done that, there can be no true change. The end result is the same killing, packaged with new rhetoric—A false hope, not a new hope.

At the end of the day, the irony here is that if Boks spent his time putting the programs in place, rather than blogging about them without having done so (or attacking me personally), he would really become the hero he pretends to be. Instead, he simply pats himself on the back, while the animals in the shelter slowly die because of improper care and business as usual. That is what makes the whole thing so obscene. And that is why he undermines the movement to save lives—because newspapers like the Daily News falsely think that No Kill by necessity means skyrocketing rates of disease and animals dying because of it, when communities which are succeeding have proven this to be patently false.

Let me close by saying that the high numbers of animals dying in kennel, which evidences lack of oversight, poor care, and neglect by shelter personnel; combined with the paltry declines in killing rates and in some cases, such as rabbits, shocking increases, put the lie to the claim about true and comprehensive No Kill Equation implementation. And no amount of blogging can spin the truth out of that.