Eleven steps to get to No-Kill

Today, most places in this country have a public policy of killing dogs and cats who are otherwise healthy or treatable but have no homes. Death is considered an acceptable tool of animal population management.



There is a movement that aims to take that tool off the table, that says that killing pets simply because they have no homes is wrong and that we can do better. It's called, logically enough, the No-Kill Movement.



Some people think taking killing off the table is a nice idea but that it can never happen. It's a fantasy, or a dream, but can never be a reality. And so they continue to ignore or even support the epidemic of Fatal-Plus that's taking the lives of America's homeless pets.



But they're wrong. I know they're wrong because communities across the United States, including Reno, Nev., Tompkins County, NY, and Charlottesville, Virg., have already ended the use of killing as a tool of animal population control. They've managed to save more than 90 percent of the dogs and cats coming into their shelter systems over a period of years.



Those communities, and many others like them, no longer kill dogs and cats who either have no medical or behavior problems or whose problems can be treated. Instead, they find them homes.



Every single one of those communities has done this the exact same way, using the same 11-step program developed by Nathan Winograd of the No-Kill Advocacy Center. This simple video lays them out in black, white, and a few other colors:







For the video-impaired or reluctant:

1. Feral cat trap-neuter-release programs

2. High-volume, low-cost spay/neuter

3. Working with rescue groups

4. Foster care programs

5. Comprehensive adoption programs

6. Helping people keep their pets with pet retention programs

7. Medical and behavior programs

8. Good public relations and community involvement

9. Working with volunteers

10. Pro-active redemptions

11. A compassionate director

Yes, those things can be hard. But it's a straightforward road map and it works. Stop letting people say it's impossible.



Note: I do some freelance writing for Maddie's Fund, an organization dedicated to making America a No-Kill Nation.

Comments

[H. Houlahan]

Is the only criteria for success to be "created a No Kill Community?"



If Maddie's Fund got eleventy-jillion animals adopted across the country while supporting the quest for No Kill, but didn't "create a No Kill Community," they did a Bad Thing?



I haven't created any No Kill Communities. I've fostered a bunch of dogs and helped them get homes, and done a lot of behavior consults to keep dogs in homes, and helped place over 200 dogs last year with evaluations and input. Oh, and fostered litters of kittens. But I have not created a single No Kill Community in ten years of helping out with rescue.



Rescue Fail.

[Christie Keith]

Animal Dad, I can no more speak for Maddie's Fund, for whom I do some freelance writing, than I can speak for the San Francisco Chronicle, for whom I do some freelance writing. You'll have to ask them.

[Animal Dad]

Christie - didn't Mr. Winograd just recently call out Maddie's Fund for their ineffectiveness?



By contrast, Maddie’s Fund has not created a single No Kill community despite 12 years and $300,000,000.



What do you have to say about that?



[not sure how to do quotes or italics - hope that works!]

[Lis]

So, any negative response validates your position, Animal Dad?



Was Winograd running the show in Philadelphia, or simply a consultant for a few weeks or a few months? What about the other communities where you say he has failed?

[Bett Sundermeyer]

Houlahan, if the only model of sheltering that has worked to stop the killing is the No Kill Equation, why pour millions upon millions of dollars into communities that are using some other model and who are failing miserably i.e. animals are still being killed by the thousands? Maddie's Fund has given millions upon millions to the New York City's Mayor's Alliance only to see them move back the deadline to get to No Kill 3 times. I've lost track of how many years they have supposedly been working on it. Yet, communities who follow the No Kill Equation get there quickly as in about a year (some get there literally over night).



Maddie's Fund also sends Jane Hoffman to seminars to speak as if she has successfully gotten any shelter to No Kill when she has not. If you have read anything about NY lately, you know that they have serious problems there. Obviously, what the NYC Mayor's Alliance is doing is not working. Why perpetuate this enormous failure by having her speak and "train" others in how to stop killing?



I don't see how it helps to keep funding failing programs/groups. I don't see how that helps No Kill efforts. It only promotes the idea that their failed programs will get us to No Kill, when they haven't and won't.



Additionally, Maddie's Fund (Avanzino) has blacklisted Nathan from speaking at seminars that they fund. I find this very offensive.

[H. Houlahan]

Repeat ignored question:



If Maddie’s Fund got eleventy-jillion animals adopted across the country while supporting the quest for No Kill, but didn’t “create a No Kill Community,” they did a Bad Thing?



Question was not, "What is your every beef with Maddie's Fund?"

[Animal Dad]

Bett - did you ever think that Avanzino is not the offensive one? That maybe Nathan does more harm than good? He is a very divisive figure....and before you tell me, "that's what's needed" I ask you, is it?



Maybe it's time to collaborate, not belittle and publicly embarrass. Look no further than the recent Liberty Humane mess. Despite what you may read, the early offers for help were not at all in good faith. This is all about grandstanding, Pets Alive is really good at that (tear down Best Friends one day, praise them the next, tear them down the next - mental disorder?). There are too many stories of collaboration that show how when groups share a common goal they are able to achieve infinitely more. And sure, under Avanzino Winograd did good things in SFO. He also did great things in Tompkins County. But what about other communities such as Philadelphia that haven't made it under his guidance? To think he has the magic bullet is foolish.



Unfortunately this simply isn't the goal of Mr. Winograd. I am not sure what his actual goal is, but the rhetoric has become unpalatable for me. Seems to me he is on a path to being blacklisted by everyone except for a select few who are unable to let go because they see him as some sort of religious leader - and love how he berates the work of others from the pulpit.



Don't believe me? Watch the hoards come to belittle me for my displeasure for Winograd's rhetoric.

[Animal Dad]

Lis - see, isn't that the great thing about being a consultant? Always someone else to blame....not the right director, not the right time, didn't follow everything to the tee.



All I am trying to say is that his rhetoric is harmful to what thousands of others are trying to do. I wish he would focus less on tearing others down and more on how to create change positively. That's all.

[Erich Riesenberg]

Animal Dad,



I would love to hear more about the truth at Liberty Humane. I find it absolutely fascinating no one at Pets Alive was named in the suit. Why would they ignore their primary critic?

[Erich Riesenberg]

Winograd released segments of an email exchange with Liberty which is more than I have found from Liberty. It certainly seems sincere and non abrasive to me.



http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=4091



While I see you have been reaching out to the rescue community, you need to reach out to the public. You are across the river from an adoption market of 8 million people, and Liberty’s surrounding suburbs are a good market for animals, and in that context, [finding homes for] less than 50 dogs and 200 cats is very doable. Keep in mind that in a community of 400,000 people, the [Nevada Humane Society is] adopting out 1,000 animals a month in Reno. The key is to reach out to the public in a positive, engaging way without the hoarder language you’ve been using to get the rescue community’s attention. There is no reason why you could not move the “excess” animals quickly through a positive marketing and adoption promotion, utilizing adoption venues in the shelter, throughout the community, and even, if need be, across the river. I am enclosing a packet of information which I hope will help. It includes adoption promotion ideas, marketing ideas, and more. It will come in two separate e-mails because of the size and amount of information.



Also, keep in mind that shelters can comfortably exceed capacity of design, as long as they do it smartly. There are over 500 animals on any given day at the NHS though the facility was not “built” to house that many but even veterinary critics who thought a shelter should not exceed design capacity changed their minds after visiting for themselves. As long as the animals are clean, well cared for, and socialized regularly, it’s not an issue. Most shelters, including all government agencies, have moved away from engineering standards toward performance standards. You can talk to Sue Cosby at the PSPCA how she comfortable housed animals in the garage, which was not built for animal holding, during a flu epidemic in the shelter so she did not have to kill. Again, the key is to use performance standards for animal well being.

[Animal Dad]

The key is to reach out to the public in a positive, engaging way without the hoarder language you’ve been using to get the rescue community’s attention.



That's the way to endear someone to what you are telling them. Call them hoarders.

[Erich Riesenberg]

You may want to read that again, unless your misrepresentation of what he wrote is intentional.

[Animal Dad]

What is misrepresentation?



Why not just say.....language. Without the word hoarder?

[Christie Keith]

Everyone: Please remember that you're all entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Bett, if you're going to state that Rich Avanzino has blacklisted Nathan Winograd, you need to have something to substantiate it.

And "Animal Dad," two things: Everyone here would give a lot more of a damn what you have to say if you put your name on it. And, again with the facts, unless Philadelphia hired Nathan Winograd as its executive director, which they didn't, I don't think your logic chain holds up.

Finally, let's stick to the ISSUES and not let this devolve into personal attacks. If you have a specific problem with the 11 steps to no-kill as laid out in this post, itemize them. ISSUES, not personalities.

Thank you.

[Christie Keith]

Animal Dad: Erich Riesenberg was quoting from the link he gave. This was not addressed to you. Please look at it again.

And seriously, I'm very uncomfortable with you posting here anonymously. We do allow it, but it really weakens credibility.

[Erich Riesenberg]

Back to the issue, I think No. 11 is the most important by far. People have a tendency to believe whatever the local authority states.



PETA is in Jersey City defending the shelter. PETA may have the highest kill rate in the country at its Virginia shelter, simply because at 95%+ it can not go much higher.



One hapless web commenter grouped PETA and No Kill as working together.

[Gina Spadafori]

One hapless web commenter grouped PETA and No Kill as working together.



Comment by Erich Riesenberg — September 8, 2010



Seriously? Wow. Talk about clueless.

[Erich Riesenberg]

Oh yeah this is my first time in direct action but I keep seeing it over and over.



And so many residents simply state "stop complaining and help the shelter."



One person suggested Pets Alive give the shelter a grant so it can do better. It is surreal.

[Gina Spadafori]

And so many residents simply state “stop complaining and help the shelter.”



Comment by Erich Riesenberg — September 8, 2010



Yes, because nothing works better than starting with a model that doesn't work.

[Christie Keith]

If you guys don't step up the number of comments soon, I'm going to release the "erotic fantasy" comment we trapped in our spam filter last week. And THEN you'll be sorry.

[YesBiscuit!]

Alright - NOBODY COMMENT.

[mary frances]

I'm no fire-breather - just want to help some dogs and cats - BUT in the process of trying to help, I ran into the meanest most self-righteous destructive group of people....I was wounded and perplexed...then I heard Nathan Winograd speak in Seattle...now thanks to his hard work, intelligence and his courage to say what he has to say...I am less wounded and a whole lot less perplexed..I get it now.

[Bett Sundermeyer]

Christie, of course Maddie's Fund isn't going to put it in writing that they blacklisted Winograd from speaking at seminars, but just take a look at every seminar that they have even partially funded. Do you see Nathan listed?

Nope. People that Nathan has trained may be there, but not Nathan.



I'm not going to say the name(s) of the person(s) who told me the above because, like so many others, they don't want to piss off Avanzino/Maddie's Fund because of the massive funding opportunities that they represent. It will be up to those people to speak out directly, if they chose to. I'm not going to "out" them.

[Christie Keith]

Bett, you can say that MF has not had Nathan speak at one of their seminars. You can ask about it. You can criticize it and them.



But if you're going to assert something as a fact, you need to have something to substantiate it. And I'm not asking you to "out" anyone -- their word wouldn't be evidence, either.



We say this on this blog all the time, whether it's about vaccines or sheltering or pet food or anything else. If you say something's so, please be able to back it up. You're all happy when I point out the lack of evidence for mandatory spay/neuter laws and the lack of evidence for "one cat can produce forty bazillion kittens in six weeks," but it's the same principle.



Thanks.

[mary frances]

I think Winograd is a gift. At least that's how I view him.



There is so much secrecy in the killing of dogs and cats at animal control (and also some AC's send "homeless" dogs and cats off for research and/or veterinary schools for practice surgeries then kill them as they do in my area)



He's given the dogs and cats a voice...and those making money off such things howl in opposition. But deep deep down they know they're wrong.

[Erich Riesenberg]

A shelter director used the 1 cat couple = 420,000 cats in 7 years just last week in a news article.



I agree with Mary Frances, if I had not read Redemption no way would I be ready for what is happening in Jersey City.



Winograd is a jolt to reality for a lot of us.

[Christie Keith]

Nathan is a polemicist, which isn't my preferred communication strategy, but he's done more to kick the No-Kill Movement into gear than anything and anyone since Rich Avanzino's heyday at the SF/SPCA. "Redemption" changed my life.



But people can post things questioning his tactics or differing with him here; we don't have one set of rules for the people we agree with and another for those we don't. It's just that whatever is said has to have some basis if it's presented as fact.



I don't mean we need to have peer-reviewed research or a "smoking gun" to discuss something. I'm just saying, let's be ready to support our statements and let's talk about issues rather than personalities.

[Erich Riesenberg]

Thank you for being an oasis of relative calm in the animal welfare debate.



Not that you pull any punches.

[Brie]

Christie, thank you for sharing my little no budget production. It means a great deal to me to see it here and I do hope it can be of some use and get some folks thinking. It is open for use by any person or group for any reason.



Reading "Redemption" changed my life. I thought I was aware before. Reading it made me feel hyper-aware, if that's even a word. I know there are differing methods. I have come to believe, as a single person trying to do the whole pebble in the pond routine, that the equation is what works. And even if people find fault with the equation or with Nathan's "MO," using his equation in my project was an easy way for me to present the concept in pretty simple terms (even if the process itself is not always simple).

[For the Love of Paws]

I live in Atlanta Georgia... so many people here just don't get it. There are tons of kill shelters and extremely irresponsible pet owners here. I wish there was an easy way to get to these people, but I don't hold much hope. That will not stop me from doing my part to find forever homes for as many homeless pets as possible.



Thanks for this post. It helps to know there are people out there who care about pets.



Keep up the good work!



Thanks

For the Love of Paws

[Barbara Saunders]

Right after Redemption, I think shelter managers and reformers alike ought to read The Fifth Discipline. I am blessed and cursed with being a systems thinker. What the steps of the No Kill Equation do, in concert, is re-gear the system from the purpose for which it is currently optimized (controlling the animal population by any means necessary, including death) to a new purpose (taking collective societal responsibility for the species we have domesticated.)



In terms of changing our culture's mental frameworks and getting a shift in behaviors and policy, I don't think "take killing off the table" works without this explicit, articulated shift in purpose. The 11 steps don't quite make sense until we do. E.g., "comprehensive adoption programs" and "help people retain pets" make no sense if your goal is conceived as "control the population of unwanted animals."



I see so many arguments that boil down to, "We have to control the animal population, but the killing part is morally wrong." I agree, but I think the system will always push back against that, including the benevolent part of the system - those people who believe, "This is really awful, but what can we do."



As a matter of strategy, I believe that there are a lot of people who won't buy into steps without the change of framework. Steps seem "easier" to communicate or "simpler" than philosophies; I think they only seem so if you are already inside of the frame.

[LauraS]

"the only model of sheltering that has worked to stop the killing is the No Kill Equation"



That isn't correct. Calgary saves 94% of dogs in their public shelter using a somewhat different method. They have a dog licensing rate of over 90%, leading to a return-to-owner rate of over 85% for dogs picked up stray. Calgary's primary method for saving dogs isn't adoption, it's returning dogs to their owners.



The licensing approach has several benefits.

1) return to owner is less expensive than adoption -- no need to maintain as much shelter space or have as much shelter staff

2) pet licensing in Calgary generates enough income to make Calgary Animal Services entirely self funding -- a state-of-the-art shelter, a clinic for free/low cost s/n, over 100 city dog parks, animal control -- all funded by pet licensing.

3) even dogs that No Kill considers "untreatable" can be returned to their owners, so even higher higher save rates are possible.



Calgary also stresses pet owner education. For example, Calgary Animal Services has on staff a full time credentialed teacher that goes to school classrooms and teaches children about responsible pet ownership.



Calgary has a number of the programs that make up the No Kill Equation. And all successful programs are based on a positive and respectful community collaboration among diverse stakeholders. But Calgary's approach has some unique attributes. More info here

http://saveourdogs.net/category/successes/

[Bill LeFeuvre]

Laura, while Calgary is clearly successful, it is not a "model" per se, in that it can be duplicated and repeated everywhere.



The No Kill Equation can and does work everywhere.



In Calgary, their success relies almost exclusively on Bill and his leadership. When he is gone, things can change very quickly in a matter of a couple of short years.



First of all, it works in Calgary because they have a large population; therefore, licensing fees fund a lot of programs and services. That would not be true in smaller townships where licensing fees would not raise necessary funds to cover an entire budget as it does in Calgary.



Second, enforcement is very selective and discretionary. If someone after Bill came in and had a different philosophy or approach to enforcement - a more punitive approach like many other cities - you would see immediate regression. This has happened in many communities where the success of policies depended solely on who was in control. That is what happened in San Francisco for instance after a change in leadership.



The basic model in Calgary is that you pass lots of laws that give animal control power and then they enforce those laws with discretion and a philosophy of educating.



In other words, they can write a citation, or they can impound the animal; but, in Calgary, they offer incentives to do the right thing (carrot) while dangling the stick.



According to Bill, it works great. But what happens when Bill retires and someone less progressive decides to simply enforce the letter of the law? Do you trust the officers and leadership of your community to do that? What we need is to take discretion away from animal control, not give them more. But you can see why it is appealing to the quasi-police types.



The success of Calgary is great, but it is not based on a "model," it is based on very discretionary enforcement, and demographically-specific policies.



The No Kill Equation is immune to variances in demographics.

[Bill LeFeuvre]

Laura said:



The licensing approach has several benefits.

1) return to owner is less expensive than adoption — no need to maintain as much shelter space or have as much shelter staff

2) pet licensing in Calgary generates enough income to make Calgary Animal Services entirely self funding — a state-of-the-art shelter, a clinic for free/low cost s/n, over 100 city dog parks, animal control — all funded by pet licensing.

3) even dogs that No Kill considers “untreatable” can be returned to their owners, so even higher higher save rates are possible.



Laura, the No Kill Equation, and successful No Kill Communities know all too well the importance of owner redemption. Reno, NV has a redemption rate of 65%, not as high as Calgary, but getting better every year.



They also don't keep dogs that belong to owners - untreatable or otherwise - so I am not sure what you meant by #3.



And finally, licensing will not cover the budget of small communities. In order to cover the size of budget smaller communities would need in order to provide the same services as Calgary, smaller communities would have to have higher licensing fees.



We already know that the higher the fees, the lower the rate of compliance. And, we also know that most communities are not progressive, and giving them discretion to punish people usually has an adverse reaction.



It works in Calgary solely because of Bill, not because of the policies.



Those same policies in other communities have failed miserably. The idea is to take discretion away from regressive communities, not give them more.

[LauraS]

In every case where communities have achieved life-saving success, including saving all healthy and treatable dogs in their shelters, the leadership of one or a few people has been essential to making it happen. In all cases these successes are vulnerable to having it fall apart if key people leave and they are replaced by people from the shelter system status quo. That is not unique to Calgary. Communities that have had success with the No Kill Equation are in the same boat.



You ought to study what Calgary has done, because you have totally missed the point about what has made them successful. It is not based on having tough laws that are selectively enforced. If that's all that's required, Calgary's success would be common through the US.



A key thing that made the Calgary model work is that they get NO funding from the taxpayers. Calgary Animal Services has to generate all their own income from pet licensing. They cannot afford to do stupid things like increase pet licensing fees to $150 a year or more like some communities in California have done, which Bill Bruce told me is well past the tipping point that maximizes income.



Calgary can't afford to implement mandatory spay-neuter laws that increase shelter impounds (higher costs) and drive pet owners to avoid licensing (lower revenues). The taxpayers are not going to bail out Calgary Animal Services if they screw up with stupid programs.



Bill Bruce is an engineer. Every program he starts, he develops detailed metrics to track its success. If something doesn't work, he changes it or he drops it. Costs vs. benefits. You can't afford to keep failed programs around if you can't count on the taxpayers to bail you out.



Enforcement costs a lot more than voluntary compliance, so Calgary emphasizes programs that increase voluntary compliance. They maximize the carrot, and avoid using the stick.



In Calgary, if a dog is picked up loose by an ACO, over 90% of them are licensed so they have their license ID. The ACO looks up the dog owner's contact info and calls them. If somebody is home to receive the dog, the ACO drives the dog straight home. When he tells people this during his seminars, often an AC manager says "we can't afford to do that". Bill's answer -- we can't afford not to since it's a lot lower cost than having the ACO drive across the city to impound the dog in the shelter, and then house the dog -- which chews up hours of the ACO's time not to mention the additional sheltering costs.



Bill Bruce is a professional mediator. When he started in the job, Calgary had the usual squabbles and animosities between community stakeholders. It took years and changes in personnel for Bill overcome that. Winograd also talks about having to purge employees who aren't with the program.



Calgary is innovative and always looking for new ways to increase pet licensing. When Bill Bruce visited California early this year, he showed me a new program they were going to start -- an "I Heart My Pet" discount card that is given to those who license their pets, and good for discounts at many Calgary area retailers, resorts, and service providers. The card is worth more than the cost of a pet license, and doesn't cost Calgary Animal Services anything. http://iheartmypet.ca/



Repeat offender roaming dogs? Bill Bruce negotiated a discount with a fencing company for homeowners with dogs that are escape artists.



Where I live, if I want to get a s/n discount on a dog license, I have to provide written proof from a veterinarian that my dog is altered. The hassle this creates is a barrier to licensing.



In Calgary they will not allow any barriers to be put in place that would impact the 95% of the population who are honest in order to stop the other 5% from cheating. If you want to license a pet in Calgary, you can call a city phone number 24/7 and they'll take the info over the phone, you can do it online, you can flag down an ACO and they'll do it on the spot, or you can take care of it at various kiosks conveniently located around the city. All credit cards accepted. No hassles, and it's as simple as it can be made to be.



In California, you cannot get a dog license without proof of rabies vaccination.



In Calgary, dog licensing is NOT tied rabies vaccination. Bill Bruce's comment about this -- maybe we ought to rethink having these things linked, because our lousy 10-30% dog licensing compliance rate in California indicates that it's not working.



Years ago when Calgary first considered starting cat licensing, there was an uproar in city hall from outraged cat owners. But over time, with Calgary's positive programs, pet owners came to understand the value of pet licensing. It pays for every city service dog owners enjoy, including over 100 city dog parks and extremely high save rates for dogs. Cat owners wanted the high save rates that dog owners were enjoying. And Calgary said they'd build a new clinic for low cost or free s/n with the money generated by cat licensing. By the time Bill Bruce brought cat licensing to city hall, only a handful of people showed up. The measure passed. And when cat licensing went live in Calgary a few years ago, the number of cat owners who signed up to license online was so great it crashed Calgary's webserver. The new clinic is up and running.



The main impediment to repeating Calgary's success in California is the growing distrust that citizens have in their state and local governments with regards to animal control -- thanks to Draconian differential license fees, hyper-controversial mandatory spay-neuter legislation in the state capital, mandatory spay-neuter ordinances at the local level, unreasonably restrictive pet limit laws, unfair treatment of pet owners, hatemongers like Judie Mancuso, etc. These factors probably help to explain why dog licensing compliance has been dropping in California over time.



California seems to be doing all it can to undermine the trust of pet owners. The counterproductive and divisive ordinances, policies, and practices pursued in some California communities make either the Calgary Model or the No Kill Equation Model impossible. Because both models requires a high degree of collaboration and volunteerism among diverse community stakeholders -- and trust that government will treat its people fairly and runs a good program.

[LauraS]

Per capita cost of Animal Services:



Santa Cruz County (Judie Mancuso's "model for the state" MSN) - $11.92

California state average - $6.54

Calgary - $3.67



Success is affordable

[mary frances]

Thanks so much for the above comments by Bill LeFeuvre and LauraS -



Always wondered what the differences were between Calgary and the No Kill Model -

[Bill LeFeuvre]

Thanks for the thoughtful response Laura, but I think you may have missed my point. Calgary is a big city, and they can raise enough funds strictly from licensing to implement those programs. That is not and will not be the case in other communities, especially small communities that simply can not sustain those programs solely through licensing revenue.



As you pointed out, regime change is necessary to make those things work. It is based on incentives and cooperation.



The same is true for the No Kill Equation. The difference, however, is that many of the programs of the No Kill Equation are actually revenue-neutral, and revenue-positive. In fact, San Francisco was 90 days away from bankruptcy. After making the switch, they had millions when Richard Avanzino left.



All of the successful No Kill communities see increases in community giving, and increased adoption revenue, coupled with savings from reduced intake, reduced killing, and reduced disposal costs, among other things.



What you described is 100% based on Bill. Without his sole leadership, the programs would have failed. Even yet, they may be slowly dismantled after he leaves if someone else is not able to keep them working.



It is true that that could happen in any No Kill community if leadership were replaced with someone from the old guard. That is why Nathan advocates for laws that take discretion away from the shelter, not give them more, as I said in the previous post.

[Matt]

Lets cut through the opinion, conjecture,



Lets cut through the myths, conjecture, opinions, disnformation, misinformation, etc., about No Kill.



No Kill CAN, HAS And WILL CONTINUE TO BE ACHIEVED, where those in charge take murder off the table as an option, and implement The No Kill Equation and follow it, and work their butts off to see that it is followed:



It's very simple....a raspberry doughnut can understand it: The way to stop the killing is to STOP THE KILLING:



THE NO KILL EQUATION: http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/nokillequation.html





THE COMPANION ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT: http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/capa.html

[LauraS]

Calgary is a big city, and they can raise enough funds strictly from licensing to implement those programs. That is not and will not be the case in other communities, especially small communities that simply can not sustain those programs solely through licensing revenue.



The above reads like the litany of excuses given by opponents of No Kill. "San Francisco is a big rich city, No Kill won't work in rural areas... or in the south...or..."



The fact is, as I showed above with the cost data, the Calgary Model is very inexpensive on a per capita basis. Success is affordable.



The same is true for the No Kill Equation. The difference, however, is that many of the programs of the No Kill Equation are actually revenue-neutral, and revenue-positive. In fact, San Francisco was 90 days away from bankruptcy. After making the switch, they had millions when Richard Avanzino left.



How is that a "difference" with the Calgary Model, which is FREE to the taxpayers?



You are not comparing apples to apples. The "San Francisco" you refer to is the private San Francisco SPCA. Yes, the SF/SPCA is swimming in money, thanks to donations from a generous pet-loving public.



But the government-run San Francisco Animal Care & Control costs the taxpayers of San Francisco about $3 million per year -- it's not revenue neutral when the taxpayers are forking over money like that. On a per capita basis, SF/ACC spends a similar amount of money as Calgary Animal Services.

[~Barb, AnimalResources]

Have animal protection “experts” analyzed Calgary’s combined animal sitation and shelter statistics including Animal Services, Calgary Humane, MEOW, other significant factors. I read that Calgary-owned dogs are abandoned at Morley.



Regarding the 11-step program of Winograd/No Kill Advocacy, see also Bob Christiansen’s 1998 comprehensive blueprint for community homeless animal management which includes Nineteen factors or programs that save animal lives. Download the book:

"Save Our Strays: How We Can End Pet Overpopulation and Stop Killing Healthy Cats and Dogs"

http://saveourstrays.com/

[Lis]

I read that Calgary-owned dogs are abandoned at Morley.



Read where? And what was the supposed reason for this?

[Christie Keith]

I read that Calgary-owned dogs are abandoned at Morley.

I read that Obama is a sekrit socialist Muslim Kenyan Manchurian.

[LauraS]

Calgary has a formal partnership between the city run Calgary Animal Services, and Calgary Humane. Calgary Animal Services gives money to Calgary Humane, out of the money they collect in pet license fees.



Combining stats for Calgary Humane and Calgary Animal Services, they saved 92% of the dogs in their shelters last year.

[Christie Keith]

Yeah, well, Laura, you probably believe Obama was BORN IN AMERICA instead of HAWAII!

[LauraS]

Yeah, well, Laura, you probably believe Obama was BORN IN AMERICA instead of HAWAII!



Huh? I read he was born in Texas, not America

[~Barb, AnimalResources]

Hi Lis: I read at the links below that some dogs previously owned by Calgarians are abandoned at Morley and elsewhere. Have been looking at the overall community animal management situation in Calgary and surrounding region, since Calgary began being described as a model.



http://www.rockymountainanimalrescue.com/index.php?page=about



and



http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2559701041&topic=6457



Calgary Sun

Abandoned dogs are getting their revenge the old-fashioned way -- they're forming a posse and becoming a nuisance

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Platt_Michael/2008/10/28/7226816-sun.php

By MICHAEL PLATT

[~Barb, AnimalResources]

Hi LauraS ~ Thank you for your input. Could you provide the source and combined shelter stats (can write me offline) and year. What about cats?



I have CAS 2009 stats and previous, but only parts of CHS 2009 and previous. Have some MEOW Foundation numbers.



Was the funding provided by City of Calgary to CHS about $244,800 in 2009; what is it used for?

[Christie Keith]

Barb, I'm watching the blog this weekend, and I gotta admit, there's more than a hint of "gotcha" in your comments. Why don't you tell us straight up where you're coming from in this discussion, and a little bit about your background? We'd all feel a lot more comfortable having a conversation if you did that.

[Lis]

Barb, what I see at your links is the assertion, unsupported by anything, by Rocky Mountain Animal Rescue, that Calgarians are dumping animals on the Reservation, and that it's Rilly Rilly NOT the Natives; a Facebook page that if you scroll down far enough includes, apparently in full, a Calgary Sun article in which Reserve officials assert, without citing any supporting evidence, that the feral dogs on Morley Reserve are abandoned pets from Calgary; and finally, a link to the front page of the Calgary Sun website.



Now, call me a cynic, but I can think of one or two reasons why Morley officials might want to claim the feral dogs came from someplace other than Morley.



Care to offer some real support for this claim? Or a plausible reason why Calgarians might be driving out to Morley to dump their animals rather than taking them the to Calgary's shelters?