Comments on: How do you feel about “No-Kill”? Do you understand it?

By: Carol

Carol — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:54:43 +0000

What about killing of wildlife to protect birds? They are regularly killing foxes and raccoons at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore to protect some birds. While I believe in the protection of birds, I also believe that no one has the right to kill a wild animal doing what comes natural. When did advocacy groups get the right to play God? Why not just remove the eggs and incubate?

By: Barbara Saunders

Barbara Saunders — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:34:33 +0000

One option rarely discussed, for a reason I cannot fathom, is to simply legislate the killing of “surplus pets” off the table. No state, no municipality, no county has the option of not taking care of “surplus people.” We don’t give taxpayers the option of deciding that “surplus people” are not a priority. And, no, I am not “comparing” people to animals. I believe the protections to animals should be added not because they deserve “the same” as humans but because animals deserve this in their own right.

By: George Eigenhauser

George Eigenhauser — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:06:17 +0000

There really are no “surplus pets.” The number of homes seeking pets exceeds those available. That’s why tens of thousands of pets are smuggled into this county each year, and tens of thousands more brought in legally. There is no surplus, only badly run animal shelters. No Kill is being opposed by traditional shelters because it exposes the truth, that the killing is a choice the shelters make, not a result of a bogus “pet overpopulation” crisis.

George Eigenhauser

By: Paula Hanson

Paula Hanson — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:25:52 +0000

How long have you been a shill for the H$U$? The only reason Wayne Pacelle is bringing up the No Kill topic is because of Nathan Winograd’s book “Redemption”. Otherwise it would be “business as usual”.
I urge you to read the following by Nathan Winograd. http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2007/11/same-as-it-ever-was.html

By: Laura

Laura — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 04:16:32 +0000

Gary,
Nathan Winograd’s well-researched response to Wayne Pacelle’s ‘no kill’ blog post can be found here
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2007/11/same-as-it-ever-was.html

By: DogLover

DogLover — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:08:11 +0000

Gary,
Do you EVER do any research into the articles you write?
Most of what Wayne Pacelle has written (and I’m talking like 99.9%) has been what Nathan Winograd has been saying (and doing) for YEARS.
Not even one year ago Wayno was completely against No Kill….that is until those ideas started damaging his donation coffers. Wayno wouldn’t know the first thing about running a shelter; the H$U$ owns none. Now that Wayno’s donation coffers are down he has now decided to do a complete 180 on the subject of no kill and what we get is regurgitated info straight from Nathan Winograd’s new book Redemption. Wayno is becoming more pathetic as each day goes by.

By: Laura

Laura — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:37:10 +0000

The best information about the No Kill shelter movement that I have seen is in Nathan Winograd’s new book “Redemption”. Gary, I figured this would be a subject that interests you, so I sent you a copy of the book last week. I hope you have a chance to read it, and write about it in your column.
All the best.

By: Stacy

Stacy — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:19:36 +0000

I believe that Nathan Winograd has developed a workable solution to euthanasia of shelter pets. Unlike mandatory spay and neuter laws such as AB 1634, the No- Kill method of shelter management has proven to be successful time and time again in the elimination of euthanasia. The PAPA initiative will mandate that all California humane shelters shall operate according to Winograd’s No- Kill protocol. This will make California the first No- Kill state in the nation. A humane solution to the care and adoption of our shelter pets as well as a proud accomplishment for California! Be sure to sign the petition for PAPA as soon as they start to circulate.