Many of us used to believe that if we just went on and did our part for animals, that the nuisance movement which has come and gone in so many communities, including major failures in Philadelphia and Indianapolis and Las Vegas, that the public would eventually realize that a one size fits all solution is not realistic, feasible, or affordable. Unfortunately most of us didn't take into account that there would always be a small number of people that would believe the excuses for failure, and that the vocal minority merely needed to find a couple of clueless legislators or county commissioners who either hadn't thought through the sales pitch, or were too afraid of ending up on the wrong side of "no-kill" activist's hateful rhetoric.
So eventually some of began to speak up, and despite the fact that the "no-kill" activists want to claim that there are only a few opposed to their horribly flawed legislation, we are not one person with various personas, we are a growing group of individuals who are willing to speak the truth regarding regarding the costs, both financial and to the health and welfare of animals. We grew tired of watching their movement harm hard working animal shelter workers, of watching them create a constant revolving door of shelter leadership across the country, and seeing the resulting chaotic atmosphere that leads to mistakes and harm to animals.
As our ranks have grown, the "no-kill" movement apparently is beginning to feel pressured to justify their malicious behavior. It seems ironic that as Nathan Winograd is about to release his book called Friendly Fire, which continues his ongoing blame of other organizations for the failure of his movement to pass their legislation in numerous states and more recently in Oahu, Hawaii, that we are now hearing stories of his opponents calling him vulgar names and threatening to harm his dog.
"When animal lovers learn about the cruelty and killing that are rampant in U.S. shelters, and that national animal protection organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) defend these shelters and thwart efforts at reform, the first and the most logical question they ask is: Why?" - Understanding Friendly Fire, Nathan WinogradNow keep in mind that it has been his "no-kill" movement that has been on the offensive against almost every open admission shelter across the county, who has been writing incessantly about how the big 3 animal welfare organizations are to blame for communities not buying into his No-Kill Equation for YEARS, and has been deleting anyone from his Facebook page that didn't agree with him. Just in the last year, we've seen a "flashmob" (or what I consider cyberbullying) against the ASPCA last Thanksgiving weekend, encouraged a similar cyber attack against a small vegan bakery Facebook page for "no-kill" followers to spew their hatred against PETA, has recently been using his proxy to go after PETA and HSUS in a series of articles on Huffington Post, and also encouraged followers to spam those organization's Facebook pages.
Do continual attacks and blame work? They may work to excite the die-hard base, but it also pushes away those followers that may like the concept of no-kill, but also know the many contributions those other organizations have made. As a result of the continual attacks, and the fact that the movement continually pushes spay neuter to the back of the pack in priority even though the majority of his followers considered it to be the top priority, we have seen more dissent on both Mr. Winograd's Facebook page and No-Kill Nations page recently.
Is this what led to the 2 recent articles referencing the claim of threats to Mr. Winograd's dog? I can't say with certainty, but I do find it suspicious that the claim comes at a time when there has been a backlash against the movement for it's continual hateful message against so many, and I also find it strange that nobody else appears to have seen the threat. In a day and age where one merely needs to hit the Print Screen button and paste, I find it odd that this threat was not substantiated. For example, I've spoken in the past about a threat against a past shelter director by followers of the no-kill movement here in Delaware that was left on the No-Kill Delaware Facebook page for 11 days, and here it is. Of course, when you post the screenshot as I did below, you also know that it can be tracked back for authenticity and where it originated.
So while both of the recent articles would like to paint those of us that disagree with Mr. Winograd's negative message as threatening or merely a couple of disgruntled people, they are sorely mistaken. Remember that it has been the "no-kill" movement that has been using that very tactic for years, and trying to claim that others who offer alternative viewpoints and facts are threatening is not even in the same ballpark. Unlike his page, I've never had a need to dredge through his past or make malicious references to his personal life to divert attention away from the real facts at hand, because I want the focus to be on the message.
If you go to Mr. Winograd's page, you can see how he has targeted individuals at the bottom of the page, and that he has subsections for each of the 3 animal welfare organizations that he has been attacking for years.
His proxy's article also shows that the author advocates for the same hateful message, with his role in a mean-spirited parody of someone else's blog, and his continual childish references to people as stalkers, trolls, sockpuppets, and toads. Maybe he and his followers think those references appear more intelligent with the signature sprinkle of Latin (ad hominem, ad nauseam, etc), and a dash of psychology references (cognitive dissonance, etc), but it really is just the same hate and blame message.
So, IF the threat against Mr. Winograd's dog Pickles was really on the Facebook page he referenced, I wonder if it was on there for 11 days?