The below was written by Nathan Winograd: (ADL-LA will post this is three parts) 

Over 150 years ago, Henry Bergh started North America's first humane society, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). While early humane efforts primarily focused on protecting animals who had been forced into labor (horses to pull railways, dogs to churn butter, pigs to eat garbage on behalf of the sanitation department), it did not take long for Bergh and his SPCA to set their sights on the abuses of local dog catchers. The other SPCAs, humane societies and animal welfare groups that began to dot the American landscape, though distinct and independent, nevertheless modeled themselves after Bergh's ASPCA. While local pounds were busy killing animals (treating them poorly in the process), humane groups were fighting to lower death rates and better their plight. In many ways, the battle rages to this day. While animal control is claiming to protect people from the (often incorrectly) perceived threats caused by animals, animal welfare groups are trying to protect animals from people. These have always been two very distinct movements, opposing each other on fundamental issues of life and death.

While we can try to bring these opposing principles closer together, the tension can never be eliminated. In the No Kill philosophy, we try to reconcile them as much as possible, forcing accountability onto animal control so that the only animals killed are those who are irremediably suffering (rigorously defined as a hopelessly ill or injured animal with a poor or grave prognosis for being able to live without severe, unremitting pain), hopelessly ill or injured (a sick or injured animal with a poor or grave prognosis for rehabilitation), or in the case of dogs, truly vicious (with a poor or grave prognosis for rehabilitation). But for 93% or so of the animals who do not fit these definitions, the No Kill philosophy not only demands that shelters save them, but through the No Kill Equation-comprehensively and rigorously implemented so that they replace killing entirely-provides the key to do so.

It is only through the No Kill philosophy that we begin to truly reduce the disparity between "animal control" and "animal welfare" in a way that is fair to the animals, and, for example, protects the public from the truly vicious dog. That doesn't mean that there aren't some irreconcilable tensions. There are, as discussed below. But it does mean we have put our cards on the table so that we can make distinctions and decisions in a fair and open manner.

When we simply ignore the distinctions (pretending to ourselves and to the American public that no such disparity exists) or when we call ourselves one thing, but profess the opposite, we come dangerously close to the dictionary definition of lying. At the very least, we are misrepresenting ourselves, hiding behind the veneer of "animal welfare" or "animal protection," when we really promote a philosophy that puts animals last or worse-even allows them to be executed based on unfair, misleading, impermissible, and thoughtless claims.

Among other things, this is the very heart of what is wrong with the Companion Animal division at the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). And it is why I have long argued that it should be disbanded. Better to disband a dysfunctional department which promotes a vision at odds with its public animal welfare claims, than to allow it to undermine the work of No Kill proponents across the country.

The Humane Society of the United States claims to be about saving animals, about promoting the bonds between people and animals, and about leading the cause of animal welfare. But how can this be reconciled with their support for the killing of healthy dogs and cats in shelters to this very day? Or with their historical claim that mass killing of feral cats is the only "practical and humane" solution? It simply cannot.

As to the question of why they insist on taking positions that are, at their core, inherently antithetical to animal welfare, we must look to the "actors" who make up the leadership of the organization, particularly the Companion Animal division. Here, the term "actor" is deliberate. Because while they play the public persona of animal lovers who would leave no stone unturned if it held out the promise of saving lives, the reality is that historically and presently, the leadership comes primarily from the ranks of animal control, from a mindset that animals can and should be killed, that people must be protected from them (without regard for true risk analysis) and even that killing them is an act of kindness. HSUS functionaries often come from animal control organizations that kill animals, and they carry that mindset with them to a new organization that is supposed to have a different mission. And so they denigrate the animals they are supposed to protect, and use HSUS as a mouthpiece to veil their reactionary animal control agendas under the cloak of "animal welfare."

And the public has, until recently, accepted it, because this view has dominated the national discussion of companion animals for so long; and, has essentially been the only voice, until the No Kill movement called it into question. In fact, the lack of challenge to this position has convinced many animal activists-even those who would label themselves as "animal rights"-to accept extreme Orwellian notions that killing is kindness, that cats are better off dead than outdoors, that dogs and cats should be killed, because it comes cloaked in the mantel of large, national animal welfare (and animal rights) groups. As a result, they have essentially been brainwashed to think that animal control based on killing poses no contradiction with an animal welfare mission, even though the latter has an altogether different philosophical underpinning. And as long as groups like HSUS simply ignore the distinction and bring animal control mindsets to animal welfare without a bridging philosophy that is ethical and rigorous, animal control based on killing will continue to ride roughshod over animal welfare-and compassion will fall victim to control. (At its most enlightened, the two will come closest together under the banner of the No Kill philosophy.)

Demonizing Cats

For anyone who loves cats, HSUS' history of villainizing, vilifying, and calling for their mass killing has been a sad and tragic reality. It was HSUS which called the mass slaughter of feral cats in shelters the only "practical and humane solution." It was HSUS which asked a criminal prosecutor to find that TNR programs are a violation of state anti-cruelty laws and can subject caretakers to jail and prosecution. It was HSUS that spread fear-based hysteria about cats and bird flu, even as the World Health Organization found no risk. It is HSUS which falsely accuses cats of:

• Being a public rabies threat: "cats are now the most common domestic vectors of rabies";
• Decimating wildlife: "free-roaming cats kill millions of wild animals each year";
• Being invasive, non-native intruders: "cats are not a part of natural ecosystems, and their predation causes unnecessary suffering and death;" and,
• Causing neighborhood strife: "they also cause conflicts among neighbors."

It is HSUS which instructed shelters to denigrate cats by having them "document public health problems that relate to cats. Include diseases that are spread from cat to cat as well as those spread between cats and other animals," without regard for real risk analysis. And it is HSUS which continues to legitimize shelter killing of healthy and treatable cats by promoting their killing in shelters as a "necessity."

As cat lovers, we have long rejected the fear-based, mistruth-based, and outright inflammatory anti-cat statements coming out of HSUS. Nor were we surprised when they left the Katrina-ravaged Gulf State area with millions of dollars in donations left in the bank unspent, which were supposed to be for animals impacted by the hurricane, even while cats continued to suffer in the area.

Demonizing Dogs and Dog Lovers

Nor has HSUS been a true model of ethical advocacy on behalf of dogs either. Like it does for cats, HSUS continues to view the killing of dogs in shelters as both necessary and proper, even if the animals are healthy or treatable. Like cats, the millions raised in the Katrina aftermath which were not spent, would have helped more dogs too. And, unfortunately, when HSUS functionaries attack No Kill and defend shelter killing, as they have in Seattle, Eugene, and Philadelphia, the dogs come away the losers, also.

But fear mongering at HSUS has taken a new turn with the publication of an interview with best-selling author Jon Katz, author of "A Good Dog," in the current issue of Animal Sheltering entitled: "I Chose a Child's Face Over My Dog." The question and answer format with Katz does nothing to illuminate the truth about aggression or dangerous dogs, and in fact, only serves to heighten stereotypes and perpetuate myths. That Katz killed his dog because of what he considered severe aggression is not what one takes from the article. That would have been a very different piece, a tragedy for all involved-Jon Katz, his dog, and the people his dog hurt. And maybe, just maybe, our hearts would have hurt for all of them.

Instead, HSUS asks a series of very deliberate questions which not only globalize the tragedy that occurred in the Katz family, but appear to assume the worst in dogs, and the worst in people who want to see less of them killed. Opposition is dismissed as irresponsible. Dog lovers are pitted against children. It's the type of either-or, you-are-with-us-or-against-us, your-dog-or-your-child hysteria most of us, especially those of us who love both our dogs and our kids, dismissed long ago. In fact, the parallel to attacks the nascent animal welfare movement was subjected to from industries which hurt animals is stark. Our movement's history is littered with these sorts of unfair accusations by those who profit from animal exploitation.

And the tenor of the article-which is merely restated as Katz' viewpoint giving HSUS "plausible deniability" about the viewpoints advanced-results in the following conclusions:

Killing dogs becomes unacceptable only when people inappropriately "humaniz[e] dogs."
"Millions of people are bitten by dogs every year, many tens of thousands of children."
If you do not believe in killing dogs, you have made them "quasi-religious objects of veneration."
"Millions of Americans seek medical attention every year for animal bites or attacks."
"[F]or every troubled or aggressive animal kept alive for months or years, healthy and adoptable animals go wanting for homes and often lose their lives."
"Insurance companies are paying out billions of dollars to people bitten by dogs."
As a result of dog bites, "lawyers [are] injected into the human-animal relationship" and this is exacerbated by people who want to see dog killing end.
Adopting a Pit Bull appears to be more trouble than it is worth.

Every one of these conclusions is deeply flawed and deeply offensive. And, unfortunately, Jon Katz (I would guess without an appreciation of the fact) has allowed himself to become a pawn in HSUS' end game of total hegemony about our role as stewards of dogs and cats-a vision for the future dog lovers across the nation are rejecting.

PART 2 POSTED SOON