ANIMAL REVOLUTION: EMBRACING NO-KILL
Nathan Winograd interviewed by Claudette Vaughan

Nathan Winograd has just written a book called Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America. It’s a riveting read and we highly recommend it. Here’s our interview with the doyen of No Kill Sheltering Practices in the US today.

Abolitionist: Your book, Redemption, The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America was released on September 1. What is Redemption about?

Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America uncovers an “industry’s” dirty little secret—that the killing of five million dogs and cats in U.S. animal shelters is largely unnecessary. Indeed, shelter killing is believed to be the leading cause of death for healthy dogs and cats in the United States. The numbers killed are staggering. And for far too long, Americans have been led to believe that there is no other way. More than that, they have been told that killing is, in fact, an act of kindness for homeless or unwanted pets. But, in fact, killing is neither kind nor necessary, nor will it prevent animal suffering. It is population control killing that itself is the root cause of animal suffering in our nation's animal control shelters.

Today, most Americans hold the humane treatment of cats and dogs as a personal value, which is reflected in our laws, cultural practices, the proliferation of organisations founded for animal protection, increased per capita spending on animal care, and great advancements in veterinary medicine. There are over 70 million pet dogs and 90 million pet cats in the United States, and their caretakers are collectively spending 38 billion dollars a year on their well-being. But the agencies that the public expects to protect homeless animals are instead killing more than five million animals annually.

How did this happen? How did the very charities founded on the highest ideals of compassion become the nation’s leading killers of dogs and cats? And why does the pet loving American public, the very same people who talk to their pets and celebrate their birthdays, not only accept it but continue to foot the bill through taxes and voluntary donations? And, more importantly, what can be done about it?

Redemption tells the story of animal sheltering in the United States – a movement that was born of compassion, but then lost its way. And it tells the story of the No Kill movement which says that we can and must stop the killing. It is about heroes and villains, betrayal and redemption. And it is about a social movement as noble and just as those that have come before it. But, mostly, it is a story about believing in the community, and trusting in the power of compassion.

Is No-Kill feasible?

Yes, No Kill is feasible, and there is no better proof of this than the fact that it already exists. Tompkins County, NY (which has been No Kill for 5 years) and Charlottesville, VA are examples of communities whose shelters are saving over 90% of all incoming dogs and cats in their open admission, animal control shelters. In Tompkins, for example, the only dogs and cats killed are hopelessly ill, injured, or vicious dogs with a poor prognosis for rehabilitation. Nineteen out of 20 dogs and cats are going home alive.

These impressive results were achieved in the same way, when new directors dedicated to the No Kill paradigm took over and transformed the shelter’s own practices and procedures, redirecting the shelters’ efforts away from killing and towards adoption and lifesaving. They did so by implementing a series of programs and services called the No Kill Equation, which includes foster care, the use of rescue groups, TNR for feral cats, comprehensive adoption programs, low cost and free spay neuter, good public relations efforts, behavior and medical rehabilitation programs, and more.

The combination of these specific programs, earnestly implemented with integrity by a compassionate, hard-working shelter director who sincerely wants to end the killing, is the only model that has achieved No Kill success. Yet, tragically, the success of these communities remains the exception among the thousands of shelters nationwide. No Kill is feasible, realistic and not even difficult - but it does require commitment and the will to change – both characteristics which are in tragically short supply among the current leadership of our nation’s shelters.

Why do you focus on reforming animal control agencies rather than the general public when talking about No Kill?

For decades, the public and animal lovers have been told that the reason animals are being killed in shelters is that there are simply too many and not enough homes. Those who run the shelters, and the large, national animal protection organisations which focus on companion animals, such as HSUS and the ASPCA, have convinced the public that killing homeless animals is unavoidable, and that those running shelters are simply doing the public’s “dirty work.” As a result, they claim that efforts to curb shelter killing should be aimed at the irresponsible public who fill the shelters with unwanted animals.

These beliefs have become dogma amongst animal activists, who have taken them as marching orders that the way to lower shelter kill rates is to punish and reform the public through the use of punitive legislation. But experience has shown that this approach is not only ineffective, but in many cases actually exacerbates shelter killing. Meanwhile, with their energies focused on the public, activists fail to hold the shelters in their communities accountable for failing to build the infrastructure necessary to save, rather than kill, the animals in their care. For in the end, legislation and educational efforts aimed at the public does nothing to spare a neonatal kitten from being killed who enters a shelter that refuses to have a foster care program. Hand wringing and preaching to the public by animal activists about becoming more responsible with their animals does nothing to save the life of the feral cat impounded at their local shelter if that shelter has failed to implement a TNR program, or to spare the life of the dog on death row which a rescue group is willing to take, but the shelter refuses to release.

The fact is, we already know how to end the killing and we could do so immediately, if the political will existed to do it. But it does not. Despite the existence of lifesaving alternatives to killing for over a decade, almost every shelter in this country clings to the two pronged strategy of failure – adopt a few and kill the rest. Many shelters are still not sterilising animals before adoption or providing the public with affordable alternatives. Some do not have foster care programs and do not socialise and rehabilitate dogs with behavior problems. Still others do not take animals offsite for adoption, have not developed partnerships with rescue groups, limit volunteerism, are not practicing TNR, and still retain adoption hours that make it difficult for working people or families to visit the shelter, the very people they should be courting to adopt the animals they are charged with protecting. And except for a tiny handful of dedicated, progressive shelter directors who were outsiders to the sheltering industry when they began, none have implemented all of these programs as a comprehensive whole to bring an end the killing of animals in their communities.

It is true that shelters are filled with animals, in no small part because of a small segment of the public’s throwaway attitudes about their animals. But activists need to recognize the undeniable, and, quite frankly, obvious, reality that there will always be some people in this world who are irresponsible and, as a consequence, homeless animals in need of help and sanctuary. The notion that the killing of homeless animals will only and can only be brought to end at some mythical time in the future when every person is made a responsible caregiver is not only an unrealistic and unattainable goal, but a violation of our immediate duty to the animals who are entering shelters now. Just as there will always be orphaned human children in need of alternative care and placement because their parents are unable or unwilling to care for them properly, so there will always be people who or unwilling or unable to care for their companion animals. Animal shelters are supposed to be the safety net for animals the same way orphanages, foster care programs and child protective services are the safety net for parentless and abused children. How we respond to the needs of these animals determines whether they live or die, not the mere fact of their number or homelessness. While people surrender animals to shelters, it is the shelters that kill them, and one does not necessarily follow or excuse the other, as those communities which have already ended the killing have proved.

Moreover, the facts also show that the view of the public as callous and uncaring to the plight of homeless animals is simply not true. In the communities which have achieved No Kill, it could not have been accomplished without the community’s participation. Time and again, shelters in No Kill communities turn to their citizens and ask for help, and time and again, the people in these communities respond with overwhelming compassion – opening their hearts, wallets and homes to sustain No Kill. There is enough love and concern for animals in every community to overcome the irresponsibility of the few.

The time has come for animal advocates to broaden their understanding of why animals are really being killed in shelters, to stop accepting the excuses which rationalise the killing, and to adjust their advocacy accordingly. The animal protection movement must begin to stand up to shelters directors who refuse to change the way their shelters operate so that animals find there a new beginning, instead of the end of the line. Imagine this: if every shelter did as well as communities who have embraced No Kill, we would save 4.1 million of the five million dogs and cats who are scheduled to be killed in U.S. shelters this year. It is not an impossible dream.

And why do punitive laws fail?

Ultimately, punitive laws fail to reduce shelter kill rates because they are attacking the wrong problem. Although it has been over a decade since San Francisco first ended the killing of healthy animals, and over 5 since Tompkins County, NY became the first truly No Kill community (thereby ending the killing of all healthy and treatable animals – a save rate of over 90%), these achievements remain a but small minority. Why? It is not because there are too many animals and not enough homes. It is not because No Kill is not feasible. It is not because No Kill is difficult to achieve. And it is not because each community requires a different approach, as the guardians of the status quo often proclaim. No Kill is not more widespread at this time because those who currently staff our nation’s animal shelters, and the large, national animal protection organisations which provide them political cover, are simply refusing to change and to embrace the No Kill paradigm, and animal lovers and activists nationwide who proclaim to be working for No Kill are not demanding that they do so.

While grassroots activists and animal lovers may be sincere in their advocacy for No Kill, their efforts are being squandered, because ultimately, they are attacking the wrong problem. They believe that in order to achieve No Kill, they must attack the problem of “pet overpopulation.” To them, that means addressing the issue of public irresponsibility through a series of punitive laws like cat licensing, pet limits, and mandatory spay/neuter which, as their logic goes, will force people with pets to become more responsible, and, as a result, reduce intakes and therefore death rates in shelters.

There are several problems with this sort of approach (each of which I go into in much greater detail in my book) – the greatest of which is that these laws ultimately exacerbate shelter killing rather than relieve it by empowering dysfunctional animal control agencies to have more reasons to impound, and therefore kill – more animals. In communities which have passed these types of laws – and there are a great many which have – not a single one has achieved No Kill as a result, and each, in fact, has seen their death rates increase after their passage rather than decline. It is a point worth underscoring – these laws worsen, rather than improve shelter kill rates - because they give animal control more power and more reasons to impound animals, and yet do nothing to force these agencies to embrace the lifesaving programs of the No Kill Equation - the only model of proven success. As a result, animals subject to impound under these laws are often killed at the shelter which impounds them in a supposed effort to stop the killing. It is both tragic and absurd.

There is not a single community in the United States which has achieved No Kill through these punitive type laws, while those that are most successful in terms of lifesaving – Tompkins County, NY, San Francisco, CA and Charlottesville, VA – have achieved their impressive results without them. Studies and history have shown that if you want to improve spay/neuter rates in communities, the most significant thing that can be done is to simply provide access to free and low cost spay and neuter – one of the programs of the No Kill Equation. And that if you want to truly reduce the numbers of animals killed in a shelter – efforts should be focused on forcing a shelter to adopt the No Kill Equation as a comprehensive whole.

Why doesn’t cat licensing reduce shelter killing?

The theory behind cat licensing is that if you require cats to be licensed and identified, it will make it easier to reunite lost cats with their caretakers. While this may sound logical, in practice, cat licensing does not achieve this objective. The primary reason why licensing fails to help most cats is simply because the vast majority of cats entering shelters do not have anyone to license or reclaim them. They are either feral cats, homeless strays, or surrendered to shelters by individuals who no longer want them. While obvious, this fact is conveniently ignored by animal control agencies and other groups to push for more punitive and expansive laws, and to do so at the expense of feral cats and homeless strays who become subject to impound as a result of being in violation of such laws. Cat licensing is nothing more than a license to round-up and kill outdoor cats.

Can No Kill be legislated and how do you envision it happening? Also, what's the American Companion Animal Protection Act like currently?

Not all legislative solutions are misinformed—laws can help protect the weak from the strong. Laws aimed at shelters—the very agencies doing the killing—are ones that the humane community should support. Legislation that focuses on requiring shelters to improve the quality and quantity of their services can be of benefit.

To this end, the No Kill Advocacy Center recently introduced one of the most important pieces of shelter legislation in decades: The Companion Animal Protection Act of 2007 (CAPA). The legislation is part of our national strategy to end the unnecessary killing of millions of animals in U.S. shelters annually by forcing a community’s shelters to embrace the No Kill Equation. Unlike mandatory spay/neuter, cat licensing and other forms of punitive legislation aimed at the public, CAPA is aimed at reforming the shelters by mandating the programs and services which are the blueprint for No Kill. CAPA requires that shelters alter all their animals before adoption, provide medical treatment to the animals in their care, work with rescue groups and volunteers, and improve their holding periods, among other things. Activists interested in achieving No Kill should seek passage of CAPA in their own communities. A full copy of the model law is available on the No Kill Advocacy Center’s website at www.nokilladvocacycenter.org.

In a section of your book entitled “the Blame Game,” you state that “leaders” of the animal welfare movement met in Chicago met to look for causes to what they said was “the surplus dog and cat problem.” The language itself is cold and removed whilst describing homeless cats and dogs in need of help. Why do you think these organisations have chosen to take this hard line against animal rights and animal welfare? Do you have any insights into why mainstream welfare organisations treat the animal rescues side of animal advocacy with disdain?

The reason why many shelter directors and their colleagues in the large national animal protection organisations which focus on companion animal issues often sound and behave as though they do not share the same goals of animal activists and rescuers who are seeking to save the lives of animals in shelters is - quite simply – because they do not.

As the incredible and often immediate lifesaving results reaped by shelter directors who have embraced the No Kill philosophy and its programs and services over the last decade have demonstrated, we know how to end the killing of homeless animals. The same programs and services have resulted in success in every community in which they have been implemented comprehensively and with integrity. Unfortunately, few communities have done so, and most lack the political will to implement them. This failure speaks volumes about the true priorities of those currently staffing our nation’s animal shelters. Yet animal advocates who should be demanding the resignation of these directors are, for the most part, failing to do so. And this failure has at its core misperceptions about both the reasons animals are being killed in shelters, and the motivation of the people who are doing that killing. It is the entirely false notion that most shelter directors and their staff share the same goals and values as animal advocates in the community which stifles criticism - even in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary - and, as a result, prevents true reform.

Since many of the agencies contracting to perform animal control come with the label “humane society” or “Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA),” the assumption is that these shelters are in fact operating humanely and staffed by directors and employees with a passion for animal protection. In reality, while many of these agencies may have initially been founded by people with enormous compassion and dedication to animal welfare, this focus was lost over time as many of these organisations took over the “pound contracts” from the cities and towns in which they reside. As a result, killing became the central strategy for these agencies, and working in an animal control shelter became a “job” not a “mission.” In fact, the only qualification these agencies look for in hiring their directors is not a passion for and past lifesaving success; it is simply experience running other animal control shelters. The fact that the previous shelter killed the vast majority of the animals under a director’s tenure does not stop him or her from getting other animal control jobs. The most important question “how successful were you at saving lives?” is never even asked. Not surprisingly, while many of these organisations became very large and influential, they also became bureaucratic, with none of the zeal for reform that characterised our movement’s early founders.

In some communities, animal control shelters are placed under the rubric of health departments. These shelters are not focused on saving lives, but tend to focus primarily, if not exclusively, on “public health.” Too often, they take an overly broad view of “public health” that says all animals are potential disease threats. Other times, these agencies are placed under the umbrella of police departments. These agencies relegate lifesaving to the sidelines as they tend to focus primarily, if not exclusively, on “public safety.” A stray dog is not an animal who needs to be rescued and placed in a home so much as she is a potential threat of a bite who must be removed. And, tragically, some agencies are placed under the control of sanitation departments. What does this say about a government’s commitment and view of animal sheltering and the priorities of the bureaucrats who oversee and staff these facilities? In fact, it shows that the county considers strays to be akin to “trash” which must be “picked up” and taken “away.” And staff at these agencies often does just that. In fact, it is not uncommon for shelter directors to say “our primary focus is public health,” “rabies prevention,” or “public safety.”

In spite of this reality, animal activists have been told – and have internalized – the idea that we are all part of the same movement, that nobody wants to kill and that we must not criticise those doing the killing. As a result, few in the animal protection movement recognise this reality and obvious dichotomy, while those who do and who state such facts publicly are labeled as “divisive.” Indeed, it is a common notion in the animal protection movement that if we could all set our differences aside and “get along,” we would better serve the animals. But how can this be so when there are those staffing humane societies and shelters who hold positions which are the anti-thesis of the very goals—saving lives, doing no harm, and advancing the rights of animals to be free of suffering and to live—that the animal protection movement exists to promote? Why should we remain silent and complacent about their failures simply because they claim to be part of our movement and to care about animals, even when their actions reveal opposing values and priorities? Movement unity and cohesion do not—and should not—supersede our duty to animals and the goals we seek on their behalf.

While it is always more difficult and uncomfortable to stand up to one’s so-called “friends” than it is to stand up to one’s “enemies,” we must find the moral courage to do so. For if we are ever to achieve a No Kill nation—and end the wholly unnecessary killing of millions of animals every year in U.S. shelters—then our actions must be strategic responses to the actual problems that cause animal suffering and prevent greater lifesaving, and not phantoms of our wishful thinking. And the biggest impediment to No Kill is a failure of caring and an eschewal of their duties to animals by a great many of those who currently staff our nation’s animal control shelters.

Nationwide lifesaving success will only be achieved when all shelters and all animal protection groups fully embrace the No Kill paradigm which says that the killing of cats and dogs in our nation’s shelters must end—and not when we “respect” opposing views that accept and legitimise the killing. To the extent that shelter bureaucrats and their large national allies oppose the No Kill philosophy, animals will continue to needlessly die. To the extent that animals continue to die needlessly, we are morally bound to speak up. Now that we know the key to ending the killing, the time has come when our silence is betrayal. The animal protection movement must acknowledge that animals in shelters are entitled to equal compassion, equal consideration, and equal rights that it advocates for other animal species. And that will only occur when we speak up loudly and clearly in defense of animals in shelters, and soundly reject the viewpoints within our movement which have historically stood in the way of No Kill’s widespread implementation.

You discuss in your book that, historically, shelters have done a very poor job of adoptions. Please explain.

It has long been a cliché that a community cannot adopt its way out of killing – that there are simply “too many animals, and not enough homes.” Like so much conventional wisdom in the world of animal sheltering, this viewpoint has also been proven to be wrong.

Currently, people get their animals from shelters only 15% of the time. In order to replace all shelter killing with adoptions, we need only increase that percentage a few points by overcoming the barriers that currently prevent many people from finding their animals at pet stores, from breeders, or through free-to-good-home ads. Many potential adopters refuse to go into a shelter with poor customer service. Many shelters have extremely limited adoption hours. Many are in remote locations. And, perhaps most significantly, many people do not want to enter animal control shelters and look into the faces of animals destined to be killed.

An animal lover explained it best:

I tried to adopt from my local shelter, but they weren’t open on the weekend, it was almost impossible to reach them on the telephone and when I did, I was treated rudely. Nonetheless, I raced down there one day after work, and the place was so dirty. It made me cry to look into the faces of all those animals I knew would be killed. But I found this scared, skinny cat hiding in the back of his cage and I filled out an application. I was turned down because I didn’t turn in the paperwork on time, which meant a half hour before closing, but I couldn’t get there from work in time to do that. I tried to leave work early the next day, but I called and found out they had already killed the poor cat. I will never go back.

The bottom line is that there are plenty of homes out there, and it is up to shelters to promote their pets effectively so they find their way into those homes. In other words, if shelters better promoted their animals, they could increase the number of homes available and replace all population control killing with adoptions. Adopting an animal means a shelter does not kill that animal. Instead of adopting their way to No Kill, however, too many shelters continue to make excuses for their own failures and rely on meaningless platitudes to justify their refusal to change. Chief among these is the myth of pet overpopulation, that we are a nation of too many animals, not enough homes.

Simply improving customer service by eliminating rude employees, expanding adoption hours to accommodate working people and families with children, and taking the animals outside the shelter to offsite adoption venues throughout a community where they can be seen and enjoyed by the public outside the animal sheltering facility are all creative, effective ways No Kill communities have dramatically increased their adoption rates and as a result, achieved greater than 90% save rates.

One issue that returns again and again in your book is how the large, national animal protection organisations which are supposed to be working to help companion animals – such as HSUS – have, instead, been historically hostile and derisive of No Kill and worked against, rather than for its implementation. Please elaborate.

Since the beginning of the No Kill movement in the 1990’s, local animal control directors and their cronies at the large, national animal protection organisation have waged a fierce campaign to disparage No Kill and to sow seeds of suspicion and doubt about it amongst the public and animal activists. While the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (the ASPCA), and the National Animal Control Director’s Association (NACA) have all played a sordid role in disparaging No Kill and the efforts of activists working to achieve it, it is HSUS – the largest, wealthiest and best known companion animal organisation in the country – that has and continues to be one of the most significant factors inhibiting the spread of the No Kill model nationwide.

Historically, whenever and wherever No Kill success has been achieved, the response by the old guard of animal sheltering has been the same: they have either created elaborate fictions to downplay it significance, or have chosen - equally devastating to its widespread implementation - to simply ignore it and continue with business as usual. One of the most unfortunate aspects of continued opposition or failure to fully embrace the No Kill philosophy by national organisations like the Humane Society of the United States is the lost opportunity to profoundly influence animal shelters in a life-affirming way. We can imagine, for a moment, what the future would look like if HSUS embraced the notion that animals in shelters have a right to live, No Kill philosophies should be implemented everywhere, and used its vast wealth to provide shelters with the tools, training and knowledge they need to succeed in those endeavors. No other agency has the ability, resources, and influence to bring about a No Kill nation faster. No other agency is poised to hasten the day when feral cats and homeless animals find a new beginning in shelters, instead of reaching the end of the line there. Yet they refuse to do so.

Every day that HSUS or any other group denigrates or fails to fully and unequivocally embrace No Kill, delays that potential future.

It is a shocking fact to consider that there is not a single companion animal protection organisation – not HSUS, not the ASPCA, not the AHA, not NACA– that is working to promote the implementation of the No Kill Equation as a comprehensive whole – although this model – now nearly a decade old - has proven that it is the only key to ending the killing.

Let me put this situation into startling perspective – indulge a fantasy for a moment and imagine that a group discovered how to end factory farming or the eating of animals in a community. Imagine that wherever this approach has been implemented, factory farms are forced to close and there is a proliferation of vegetarianism. And now imagine that rather than work to see that all communities adopt this approach, the animal organisations supposedly working to protect animals killed for food, feel threatened by it. As a consequence of these fears, imagine that these groups worked to hinder, rather than promote, its spread by ignoring, rather than embracing it, by lying about its efficacy to the public and other animal activists rather than celebrating it, and by actively working against its proliferation by denigrating the efforts of dedicated individuals who were working to see that it was spread throughout the world. This is exactly what is happening to No Kill in the field of animal sheltering today - and it is nothing short of tragic.

Can the organisations doing the killing be stopped?

Yes, and, in fact, it is inevitable that they will someday do so. But how soon that will happen is entirely dependent upon how long it takes the animal protection movement to do what is necessary to stop it.

150 years ago, a small minority of compassionate people began the animal protection movement by founding the first organisations dedicated to protecting animals - our local humane societies and SPCAs. These were visionary individuals, who – with nothing to build upon but the dictates of their own consciences and with views in total contravention to prevailing norms – for the first time in history envisioned, and began the work to create, a society in which animals are treated with the compassion and respect they deserve.

But over the intervening decades, the passion and vision which characterized the early founders of our movement and the organisations they created to fulfill their hopes was lost, as many of these groups took over contracts to run animal control in their communities. As a result, over 6,000 animal protection groups, founded with the intention that they would work to further the rights of animals, became, by and large, nothing more than slaughterhouses. Correspondingly, dedicated animal activists - unwilling to face or be a part of this grim reality, turned away from them, and bureaucrats beholden to expedience rather than the welfare and rights of animals took over their operations.

The glaring contradiction between the noble mission statements of these organisations and the actual content of their work has always been irreconcilable. But today, in the age of No Kill and with the knowledge we now have as to how to stop the killing and the subsequent failure of such organisations to dedicate themselves to that task – this glaring contradiction has become more than incongruous, it has become intolerable. When will the animal protection movement recognise it as such?

In the future, when historians record how it was that the tragic killing of animals in shelters was finally brought to an end, they will write of the moment when animal activists finally stopped blaming the public, and recognised the obvious but unpleasant reality that the real cause of shelter killing was the shelters themselves failing to do what was necessary to stop it; and when, armed with this knowledge, animal activists committed themselves to reclaiming leadership of these humane societies and SPCAs, and restored them to the original vision of their founders.

As history inevitably marches towards a more compassionate world for animals, No Kill’s conquest of the status quo is inevitable. But how long it takes us to get there – and as a result how many more millions of animals will be needlessly killed as result – is entirely up to us. The power to change the status quo is in our hands.