Maddie ' s Fund sneak peak

I spent the afternoon at the offices of Maddie's Fund in Alameda, Calif., and I did a lengthy interview with Rich Avanzino on the history, present and future of the no-kill movement. Rich is what journalists call a "great interview" -- articulate, passionate, knowledgeable.



I lived in San Francisco when Rich first turned the shelter world on its ear by giving up doing animal control for the City and deciding that if the SFSPCA wanted to stop killing dogs and cats the best way to do that was probably to stop killing dogs and cats. Today, almost 20 years later, he's convinced that within another decade this will be a no-kill nation, thanks not, he says, to him, or SFSPCA, or Nathan Winograd, or to Maddie's Fund, but to the American people.



Our syndicated newspaper Pet Connection feature will do a piece on the no-kill movement, based on this interview as well as a long interview I did with Nathan Winograd. We'll also be doing some additional coverage here on the blog ... so keep watching!



(Images by Morgan Ong, the Pet Connection's Director of Photography.)

Comments

[catmom5]

We have a long way to go, but I am happy to hear that someone "in the know" is so optimistic. I fear that one of the biggest obstacles is attitudes and those are surely harder to change than policies. With that said, every animal that is spared a death sentence to find a forever home is a success in my book. Looking forward to learning more about this.

[EmilyS]

I am very much in favor of a new approach to lessen the killing of dogs and am intriqued by Winograd's writing. I like his holistic concept of changing the whole way we think about this issue.



But as one pit bull rescuer notes, it's weird to hold up SFSPCA as a great example, since they don't adopt pit bulls.. they let other orgs do their dirty work which is exactly what critics of "no kill" claim is a major hypocrisy of this movement



"SF has not solved its homeless pet problem...It's only pretending that pit bulls are unadoptable in order to hold up the multi-million dollar facade of being a no-kill city."

http://www.pitbullforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=76983&start=15

[Gina Spadafori]

In the first place, the SF SPCA is NOT the same organization as it was when Avanzino was in charge.



In the second place, the no-kill strategies outlined by Avanzino and Winograd emphasize community, regional and national solutions. A single shelter can't be no-kill on its own.



Finally, the charge of "cherry-picking" and "someone else kill" is blowhard-ism and distraction by folks who can't see beyond the status quo, or by disingenous animal-rights radicals who have a true goal of ending the "explotation" of all domestic animals by ending their kind.



Read "Redemption." READ IT. READ IT. READ IT. Winograd has an entire section on pit bulls. Luisa wrote about that aspect on her Lassie Get Help blog, here.



If you're going to argue against no-kill, it really does help to know what the heck you're talking about. The critics often either don't, or are being intentionally misguiding.

[Jessica]

"Our syndicated newspaper Pet Connection feature will do a piece on the no-kill movement, based on this interview as well as a long interview I did with Nathan Winograd."



I can't wait to read it!

[EmilyS]

I'm not attacking the no kill notion, and I've read Redemption.



But it is ABSOLUTELY TRUE that SF SPCA TODAY is not adopting out pit bulls at the same time it pretends to be no kill. It's BAD RAP, who works in that area, who is pointing out this reality.



The hypocrisy of some no kill advocates is fair game... Winograd makes the same point.



Getting defensive about the reality of CURRENT no kill practices doesn't help get to the desired end of a real "no kill"nation



Which by the way is NOT "no kill"... Winograd himself only believes 90-95% of animals can live. Of course that's remarkably better than the current situation and would be a superb accomplishment.



But the very term "no kill" is highly deceptive. I asked him about that in the Best Friends forum and he blew me off, to my disappointment.



Words matter. The movement needs to find another name.

[Christie Keith]

I believe that he distinguishes between killing and euthanasia. He does that in the book and in the interview I did with him. Killing is done for population control. Euthanasia is done for the same reasons loving pet owners would do it.



No one would suggest an end to euthanasia. No kill is about not using killing for animal population control.

[Sue Cosby]

Emily,



Christine is correct and you are right, words matter. The fact that animal shelters have adopted the word "euthanasia" to describe the killing of healthy and savable animals is the only highly deceptive use of wording.



The word euthanasia must be reserved for irremediably suffering animals just as you might choose to do if your animals were suffering and their prognosis for recovery is poor to none.



The movement doesn't need to find another name, the name is correct. It's shelter workers who need to choose their words more carefully.