Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Minnesota - Here's The Truth About Fake "No-Kill" Success Stories

As the Minnesota CAPA is about to go to committee on Thursday, there's tons of misinformation and data cherry picking about Delaware CAPA being spewed on the internet.  And while "No-Kill" has cried and complained about non-compliance and lack of enforcement for 3 years running under Delaware CAPA, the movement is suddenly proclaiming that Delaware's CAPA is a success.  

Wow, talk an about an about face. The self serving claim would be concerning if it weren't for the fact that it's so easily shown to be untrue, and the claims have as much credibility as me saying that Godzilla stopped by for breakfast.

Here's the real timeline to clear up the fantasy that the MN CAPA page tries to twist into CAPA being successful in Delaware. When you see the numbers we've put into perspective with the events and their timing as they occurred, it's obvious that Delaware's euthanasia numbers were dropping before CAPA ever went into effect.  The numbers and dates speak for themselves.  

While the "No-Kill" movement tries to claim Delaware's success, and even highlight 2010 in their graphic further below, does anyone really think they are Dr. Who and CAPA can hop into a time machine and account for euthanasia statistics before CAPA even went into effect?  All I can do is shake my head in disbelief that "No-Kill' propaganda has reached this new all-time low.

Really, didn't they realize that the general public could easily see through the lies by merely looking up the bill and seeing the core "No-Kill" provisions in CAPA didn't even begin until January 1, 2011, or do they merely think their followers are too dumb to figure it out.  Either way, all I can say is shame on them for treating their followers like morons.

"Section 8.  The provisions of Chapter 80, Title 3, §8002(a) and §8004(d)(ii) shall take effect on January 1, 2011." - Delaware SB280 - CAPA

NKD & MN CAPA Did Teach Us Something

The even stranger part is that by "No-Kill" highlighting the huge drop in euthanasia in 2010, they've also shown why government funded spay neuter programs are far more successful and cost effective than the "No-Kill" Scramble.  

In fact, "No-Kill" can't even take credit that years that followed CAPA were a result of CAPA, since the timeline shows the drop had already begun before CAPA ever started, but after the state spay neuter program began. So I think that No-Kill Delaware and the MN CAPA page should be credited with showing that there is a less costly alternative to Nathan Winograd's version of "No-Kill" that doesn't require the shortcuts that allow suffering, or the warehousing that has bankrupted shelters like Safe Haven.

By posting statistics for our shelters, they've allowed us to see that the "No-Kill" shelters in our state aren't super sizing their adoption programs as No-Kill Delaware likes to profess, and many of them have in fact adopted out less animals year after year, especially if you look at the shelter sites for more recent statistics. 

We're also able to see that transfers were occurring before CAPA, and while the transfers inched up some just after, the stats that I'm currently seeing on our shelter sites indicate that rescues are taking less transfers now. In fact, some of the rescues are even importing animals from Maryland (hopefully with the required veterinary certificates as they cross state lines). 

You can also see the drop in intake as shelter doors shut to cats in the fall of 2011.  I would imagine those closed doors that everyone knew would happen could be why the MN CAPA page has a final euthanasia number for 2012, but may not have wanted the world to see the drop in intake in the more detailed statistics that the doors on our shelters began to slam shut shortly after CAPA was implemented.

So really, what did CAPA accomplish - nothing except shelter financial losses, a new state office that will cost taxpayers $600,000 a year, and costly lawsuits & complaints.   

Another Look At The Numbers

What we do know is that "No-Kill" is expensive.  That it has and will continue to bankrupt shelters and continually tap the wallets of taxpayers.  That's why Delaware is the only state to pass the "No-Kill" legislation. As horrid as CAPA has been for DE, other states see how much worse it would be for larger states.

And Nevada Humane can only continue to remain a viable entity for another 5-6 years based on the the losses they've sustained since the no-kill effort began.
Washoe/NHS - Intake 15,000.
2005 Combined Expenses - $5,347,996.
2010 Combined Expenses - $7,816,195.
Note - Nevada Humane has lost nearly $4.1 million since no-kill began. 

Nevada Humane
$4.1 Million in Deficits Since No-Kill Effort Began 2006
2004 403,343.00
2005 2,168,793.00
2006 (1,000,367.00)
2007 (855,614.00)
2008 (237,365.00)
2009 (1,000,164.00)
2010 (293,971.00)
2011 (749,016.00)

Austin Animal Services
2008-09 $ 5,397,428
2009-10 $ 6,008,659
2010-11 $ 6,883,679
2011-12 $ 7,612,186 
2012-13 $ 8.2 million
2013-14 $ 8.9 million proposed ($714,000 increase)

Compare the "No-Kill" numbers above to New Hampshire's statewide spay neuter program cost of $300-350,000 a year, or even Delaware's state spay neuter program at around $300,000 based on the statistics posted about the program by Delaware Animal Advocacy Guild recently, and it's clear that spay neuter is far more cost effective for states to pursue than "No-Kill's CAPA. In fact, the cost is only a fraction of the amount that "No-Kill" communities have seen their costs increase. 

And the additional sign that New Hampshire's program has also been more successful that CAPA, is the fact that they actually have a shortage of dogs.  That is what allows them to import dogs like the Safe Haven ones that were transported when Safe Haven failed.  Yet Austin has closed doors when they have been overcrowded, which explains why their costs continue to increase. 

I can't imagine why any legislator would pay nearly 10 times the costs of spay neuter programs like New Hampshire, especially when New Hampshire has been shown to be more effective given the fact that they didn't need to slam their doors shut like many of of the "No-Kill" communities.

Legislators need to take their fiduciary responsibility for the taxpayers seriously, and the fact is that New Hampshire's model should be what fiscally responsible legislators should be considering to lower pet overpopulation in their states.  And legislators should be saying NO to the snake oil of the "No-Kill" movement called CAPA, especially since it is so ineffective that it requires it's leaders to claim successes of the past that weren't even related to their own failed product.

Update - From Committee Meeting in Minnesota 2/27/14

Here is a link to the Minnesota Committee Meeting where CAPA was discussed.
Delaware testimony in Minnesota began around the 1:17.5 minute mark

Jane Pierantozzi of Faithful Friends testified on behalf of CAPA in Minnesota at this meeting.  It's apparent where Minnesota obtained their statistics that they've posted for Delaware. Yet again, the NK movement presented the fiction that CAPA decreased euthanasia rates since 2009, despite CAPA being implemented in 2011. And lastly, like Nathan Winograd, Ms. Pierantozzi points the finger at the larger national animal welfare organizations while her shelter took in less animals each year since CAPA was implemented as can be seen in the statistics above.  Sorry, but I don't see where PETA is to blame when it was the "No-Kill" shelters choice to take in less animals that results in less adoptions.  I guess blaming everyone else is the modus operandi of "No-Kill", so I can't say I was surprised by it.

She spoke about how statistics could be impacted by leadership at a shelter. So lets address this. What Ms. Pierantozzi didn't state in her testimony in Minnesota, was that according to the statistics provided by Minnesota, Faithful Friends took in 1,208 animals in 2009 before CAPA began.  Yet they took in significantly less animals after CAPA was enacted - nearly half the animals 639 in 2010, and 864 animals in 2011. So contrary to the "No-Kill" movements claims that "No-Kill" shelters increase adoptions, the adoptions at Faithful Friends have in fact decreased. So yet again, we see "No-Kill" bash the shelter that take in the largest number of animals, while they sit back and take it easier by taking in less animals, proving the point that CAPA was merely a weapon of mass harassment.

Lastly, a legislator asked about the cat situation. Of course Ms. Pierantozzi just discussed ferals and didn't mention the fact that a large number of the cats not accepted at our animal shelters aren't feral and are actually abandoned pet cats which in some cases have been declawed and are defenseless. She also didn't address the fact that our residents are the ones that now have to foot the bill for the brood of cats born on their properties.  While some of our residents may be more than willing and able to do that, it's still shameful that our state has shifted that burden onto the unlucky person where cats are dumped, and in many cases that's in rural and poor areas where the dumping won't be captured on video.  The testimony also failed to mention that many areas have seen a significant increase in the cat population.

Ms. Pierantozzi also said New Hampshire stopped taking in feral cats, but this chart shows a significantly different story. It was a gradual 7 year process, so NH didn't just shut their doors to cats overnight. Let the numbers speak for themselves.

No vote was taken at this meeting, and it was discussed on some of the "No-Kill" sites that the bill would be on the next committee schedule, but to date it is not on that schedule.  Let's hope Minnesota legislators realize that a bill that essentially slammed the doors of Delaware shelters shut is not good a good public safety/health decision, or a humane one for the abandoned animals that end up on the streets. And that they realize that shifting the burden from shelters onto the community, whether residents of that community have the resources or not, is not a solution.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

"No-Kill" - A Movement of Shortcuts, Excuses, and Suffering

Some in Delaware have tried to say that the many examples of cruelty that we saw at Safe Haven were merely the result of bad management at Safe Haven. While I agree that Safe Haven was poorly managed from the very start, whether it be their unrealistic proposal given the actual donations they were actually receiving, or their attempt to do "No-Kill" dog control for the same price as the previous vendor which we KNEW WOULD FAIL, these same issues are occurring in the communities that "No-Kill" claims they have been successful in.  

A recent Petition For Declaratory Judgment And Injunctive Relief filed by Ellen Jefferson DVM against the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners makes it clear that the animal suffering that happened here at Safe Haven is also happening in other so called "No-Kill" communities, and that people fostering for these "No-Kill" shelters and rescues are placed in an a horrible situation of having to watch an animal suffer as a result, as we read about in the CAPA investigation with Canine Nation, and the story about the Safe Haven foster Maggie.  This is the reality of the movement that our Governor and legislature have chosen to foolishly listen too when they passed CAPA in our state.  

Dr. Ellen Jefferson - Executive Director for Austin Pets Alive and San Antonio Pets Alive

While "No-Kill" advocates in Delaware have touted the success of these communities, I've heard for some time that Austin and San Antonio fosters were frustrated with the utter chaos that occurs due to the fact that they are sending so many animals out into foster care.  Clearly the logistics of the scramble to get animals out the doors to anywhere, and the costs would be daunting to care for that many animals offsite and provide the proper care that is promised to fosters.  

But there are apparently shortcuts that have enabled those communities to do that, even though it's clear from the case highlighted in this Petition that the German Shepherd mix named Starlight did suffer as a result of the shortcuts.  But the petition and the Exhibit C complaint also show that this isn't an isolated case, and that the very procedures that left this dog without veterinary care are in fact standard operating procedures.  
23. A week after Meade accepted the dog for foster care, the dog gave birth to five healthy puppies, all of which were later adopted, including one by Meade. In mid- November 2012, however, Meade noticed that the dog was apparently ill or injured. Over a three-day period, she exchanged e-mails and texts with SAPA!'s hotline volunteers who, in turn, contacted Dr. Jefferson for advice. As TBVME knows, the number of SAPA! and APA! foster caregivers and the wide area over which their homes are scattered make it impossible for Dr. Jefferson to provide on-site care to each animal SAPA! owns and places in foster care. For example, on November 12, 2012, the day the disputed dog initially exhibited difficulties, SAPA! had 737 animals in foster care in 307 homes. pg 10 Excerpt from Petition for Injunctive Relief by Dr. Ellen Jefferson of Austin Pets Alive and San Antonio Pets Alive

Exhibit C is the hearing notice and complaint against Dr. Jefferson which begins on page 41 of the Petition file.  Below is an excerpt from that complaint.
Respondent holds a license to practice veterinary medicine issued by TBVME. As a
licensed veterinarian in the State of Texas, Respondent is required to comply with the Act and the Board Rules. On November 23, 2012, the Board received a complaint from Mrs. Sheryl Meade of Converse, Texas ("Mrs. Meade") concerning Respondent's care from October 8, 2012, through November 15,2012, of a three-year old female German Shepherd mix named "Starlight."
On October 8, 2012, Mrs. Meade agreed to foster Starlight for the animal rescue organization in San Antonio, Texas named San Antonio Pets Alive. On October 15, 2012, Starlight gave birth to a litter of five puppies. Respondent is the founder, president, executive director, and lead veterinarian of San Antonio Pets Alive in San Antonio, Texas.
On November 12, 2012, Mrs. Meade noticed that Starlight was lethargic, appeared to have blood coming from her urethra, refused to eat, was trembling, and appeared to be in pain. Mrs. Meade first sent an email to the email address that San Antonio Pets Alive gave her as a foster to request veterinary care, When Mrs. Meade received only an automated form email in response, she contacted the emergency number for San Antonio Pets Alive by text message that evening or same day, explaining Starlight's symptoms, requesting medication, and inquiring as to whether it was safe to let Starlight's puppies continue nursing. The emergency volunteer forwarded all of Mrs. Meade's messages to Respondent, who agreed with the volunteer by text on November 12, 2012 that the symptoms sounded like a urinary tract infection, and prescribed 200 mg of the antibiotic Amoxicillin twice a day for ten days. Respondent had not examined Starlight or met Mrs. Meade prior to issuing a diagnosis for Starlight and prescribing and dispensing medication. The only means of interaction between Respondent and the owner of Starlight between October 8, 2012, and November 15, 2012, was indirect via telephone or other electronic device.
The San Antonio Pets Alive volunteer covering the emergency number responded to Mrs. Meade via text that Mrs. Meade could come pick up medication for Starlight at the volunteer's house that night. The volunteer informed Mrs. Meade that the volunteer would not be available to see her in person, but would leave the medication for Starlight in a bucket on the porch of her house. Mrs. Meade retrieved the drugs for Starlight from the bucket on the volunteer's porch. The label for the bottle of Amoxicillin stated that it had been dispensed by Respondent even though Respondent had not performed an examination of Starlight to be able to make the determination that the Amoxicillin was necessary and required for the veterinary medical treatment of Starlight. However, the prescription label was also missing both Starlight's name and her species, which is required by Board Rule.
On November 14, 2012, Mrs. Meade did not see any noticeable improvement in Starlight's condition despite administering four doses of the medication over the course of 48 hours as directed by Respondent. Mrs. Meade then contacted the emergency telephone number again via text message to let San Antonio Pets Alive know that Starlight was not improving, and was still lethargic, in pain, and dripping blood from her urethra. Mrs. Meade sent a total of three text messages, and inquired how long it should take for the antibiotics to begin resolving the symptoms.
The San Antonio Pets Alive volunteer texted Respondent, "Mama dog w/uri is slighty btr but still lethargic. She has taken 4 amoxis so far[.] Foster is asking if we can gv her something for pain." Respondent responded by text message to the emergency volunteer, prescribing two tablets of Tramadol twice a day for three days. Then the emergency volunteer forwarded a message from Mrs. Meade, stating, "[S]he is still dripping blood. Not real heavily but when I put her on my lap I get blood smears on my pants." Respondent texted the emergency volunteer, "Is she in heat?" The volunteer responded that the dog had just had puppies. Respondent then texted the emergency volunteer, "Ohl That's normal. Unless there is a foul odor. Doesn't need antibiotics." In that response, Respondent is admitting that the Amoxicillin that she prescribed was not necessary or required for Starlight's veterinary medical treatment.
The emergency volunteer and Respondent continued to discuss by text message the fact that Starlight was still bleeding. The emergency volunteer pointed out that Starlight had not just given birth since the puppies were four weeks old. Respondent was undeterred in her belief that the bleeding was not a cause for serious concern, texting in response, "Prob in heat again then." The emergency volunteer reiterated, "She's been lethargic and eating less just this wk-still ok?" Respondent responded, ''We can just continue the antibiotics since already started. Yes. If foul odor to blood occurs the[n] reassess," and reiterated the prescription for Tramadol. Respondent did not record the Tramadol prescription in her patient records for Starlight. Respondent did not examine Starlight before making a differential diagnosis of her condition, determining that continued treatment with the same antibiotic was appropriate, or prescribing Tramadol, an addictive drug that is frequently abused by humans.
The San Antonio Pets Alive volunteer manning the emergency number responded via text that she had "txted doctor." The volunteer later texted that "The doctor thinks it may not be a uti and she may just be in heat. But she says we shld finish the antibiotics and can add some pain meds for a couple days and see how she does. Let us know rt away if a foul odor is coming from blood or if she gets worse." The volunteer informed Mrs. Meade by text that 'CY olunteer in Selma will dispense pain meds for you." Mrs. Meade responded immediately, objecting, "Ok. But she seems lethargic. Is that a heat symptom?" The volunteer texted Respondent, "Foster is ?ing if the lethargy cld be a sign of heat since it is new," to which Respondent responded via text, "Possibly." The volunteer then responded to Mrs. Meade, "She said it can be." Again, no one from San Antonio Pets Alive suggested that Mrs. Meade have Starlight examined by a licensed veterinarian and Respondent did not examine Starlight before further diagnosing Starlight's medical ailments.
On November 15,2012, the next day, Mrs. Meade again texted the San Antonio Pets Alive emergency number to let them know that Starlight still had no energy. In her three texts at 3:39 pm, Mrs. Meade described Starlight as a "limp little rag doll" and as "[l]istless." In response, the volunteer manning the emergency line that day asked only if Starlight was eating or drinking. No one from San Antonio Pets Alive suggested that Mrs. Meade have Starlight examined by Respondent or any other licensed veterinarian.
At 4:27 p.m., the emergency volunteer texted Respondent: "That dog w/the maybe uti/in heat is still extremely lethargic. Foster said she was full of energy till this week and now is a rag doll. She is eating/drinking but foster is really worried. Sound like it might be anything else?" In response, Respondent texted the volunteer, "Definitely could be low calcium." Respondent then recommended that Starlight be given calcium supplements. Respondent did not examine Starlight before recommending calcium supplements as a treatment for her reported lethargy or before diagnosing Starlight as having low calcium.
At 4:43 p.m., Mrs. Meade asked if there was anything she could feed Starlight to improve her condition. At 5:25 p.m., the volunteer manning the emergency line responded that "Dr. J said mama shld get all the wet and dry puppy food she wants. And you can add calcium tabs if you want." Mrs. Meade immediately inquired "How much calcium?," but the emergency volunteer did not respond. The emergency volunteer asked Respondent by text, "How much calcium? In tab form," but Respondent did not respond.
At 7:37 p.m., Mrs. Meade again texted the emergency telephone number for San Antonio Pets Alive, saying, "Something wrong. Her eyes are startin to bug I tried to sit her up but she flop over. She needs a vet," and immediately thereafter, "I think she is dead." An hour later, the emergency volunteer responded, "Sheryl, I am so sorry to hear about Starlight. Thank you so much for all you did for her."
Despite Mrs. Meade's repeated, consistent, and insistent attempts over three days to get Starlight the veterinary medical treatment she needed, Respondent never provided it. Respondent never performed an examination of Starlight to determine what medical ailment Starlight was suffering from. However, that did not deter Respondent from blindly prescribing Amoxicillin, Tramadol, and calcium supplements for Starlight's veterinary medical problems. Moreover, Respondent did not change her treatment plan even when Mrs. Meade's regular text messages describing Starlight's symptoms over three days showed that Starlight was deteriorating rather than improving with the treatment Respondent had prescribed. Nevertheless, in her response to the Board, Respondent explained that it is her opinion that the treatment that Starlight received through this process with San Antonio Pets Alive was preferable to being euthanized as Respondent believes Starlight would have been if Starlight was left in the shelter.
The patient records for Starlight that Respondent submitted with her response to the Board contained two non-contemporaneous amendments dated November 28, 2012, and December 20, 2012, providing details of symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. Both of these amendments were made after Respondent received a letter from the Board on or about November 27,2012, informing her that the Board had received a complaint and opened an investigation regarding her treatment of Starlight. There was no indication in the patient record for Starlight that these late entries were amendments, or were intended to supplement, change, or correct the record. 
Additionally in her response to the Board, Respondent identified financial constraints as the reason that San Antonio Pets Alive does not take its animals to licensed veterinarians except in extreme emergencies, and explained that the animals that are housed in foster homes receive most of their veterinary care from volunteers and veterinary technicians who "possess some knowledge in veterinary medicine" to evaluate and treat as many cases as possible. San Antonio Pets Alive medical liaison volunteers also "receive and sign out for a kit that contains a small amount of basic medications like Amocillin and Tramadol when they are trained" so that the volunteers will have that medication when necessary. As Respondent stated in her letter to the Board: "These volunteers answer email from fosters around the clock, use their own phones for emergency calls, and text or call me with every case on which they are contacted," all without Respondent or any other veterinarian ever examining the animal patient. In this way, Respondent explained, San Antonio Pets Alive avoids the costs associated with hiring sufficient licensed veterinarians to examine each animal and thereby establish the veterinarian-client-patient relationship (''VCPR'') necessary for a Texas-licensed veterinarian to legally practice veterinary medicine. Respondent noted that "our resources are quite limited in contrast to the large number of animals" that San Antonio Pets Alive takes in. Respondent explained the lack of examinations by a veterinarian for the animals in San Antonio Pets Alive is specifically intended to eliminate the costs of veterinary care from licensed veterinarians: "We treat over 5,500 animals per year and, because of our limited resources, this 'triage' communication system that exists between me and our volunteers is also necessary and critical." - Complaint beginning pg 41 - Excerpt from Petition for Injunctive Relief by Dr. Ellen Jefferson of Austin Pets Alive and San Antonio Pets Alive

Sadly, this foster did everything that she could do for the dog that was owned by San Antonio Pets Alive.  She contacted them every step of the way.  She tried to make the organization realize that the dogs condition was worsening.  And finally she had to watch poor Starlight die after suffering for several days.

To add insult to injury, the petition merely makes excuses for their shortcuts and justifies this cruelty to Starlight by pointing to the fact that they saved other animals.  But clearly we don't know how many animals have already suffered similarly, or will in the future face the same suffering, with hundreds of animals that don't have access to medical care.

If an individual failed to treat their suffering animal, they would be prosecuted under animal cruelty laws.  So it seems SAPA and Dr. Jefferson have been treated far more leniently that the average citizen would, since the hearing is only to establish whether there were violations of the Texas Veterinary Licencing Act.
6. Failure to seek veterinary care. Conviction for failure to provide necessary care upheld where owner declined to seek medical care for dog (or, alternatively, turning dog over to SPCA at no cost) where dog suffered from heartworms with obvious symptoms. Elam v. State, No. 01-89-00048-CR (Tex. App.- Houston 1990) (unreported).  - Texas Animal Protection Laws 
But this case does bring up a point of contention between "No-Kill" activists and the rest of us. How will communities be able to prosecute cruelty in the future when we sit back and watch our "No-Kill" shelters and rescues subject animals to the very same cruelty?  The "No-Kill" movement is in effect weakening the very laws that have protected animals from suffering without proper care.

My sympathies to the foster who tried so hard to make the dogs owner (San Antonio Pets Alive) understand that the dog was critically ill and needed veterinary care.  Nobody that volunteers to help animals should be placed in this difficult situation by a shelter or rescue.  

Sunday, February 2, 2014

Nathan Winograd Ignores Failure of "No-Kill" In Delaware

Tout The Product, But Ignore The Failures

Ignorance and denial of accountability is rampant within the "No-Kill" movement.  Not only did the post by one or our "No-Kill" advocates conveniently disappear when she reached out for help in the final days of Safe Haven on Mr. Winograd's Facebook page, but Mr. Winograd continues to run away from providing the answers as to why "No-Kill" and CAPA has been such a failure in Delaware.

He take's no accountability for the fact that since CAPA was enacted, that we've seen the failure of "No-Kill" dog control for just one county under Safe Haven, or the fact that they failed despite the help of many other "No-Kill" shelters across the state. Nor does he explain why shelters in Delaware have faced losses since they've changed to "No-Kill" or after CAPA was enacted, and ultimately the Safe Haven bankruptcy.

Even when a gentleman asked him the question on his Facebook page, Mr. Winograd just sniped back and ignored the many excellent points that Mr. Willard made, and then deleted Mr. Willard so his followers would not see the reality of Delaware under CAPA.
Chuck Willard - I realize any movement will have setbacks, and I think that the shelter community as a whole be it "no kill" or not wants the same outcomes for the animals in their care. What I don't understand is the total lack of accountability and transparency with the "no kill" movement. Around this time last year, you were touting the Delaware CAPA laws as a huge victory for animals and "no kill" advocates. With the recent closings of the Safe Haven shelter contracted by the Georgetown, Delaware community to provide "no kill" shelter services, would you please explain to the layman why a shelter with increased funding, laws mandating their existence, and a committed director that followed the "no kill equation" went into crushing debt, had all of the board of directors resign their positions, and ultimately lead to the shutdown of the facility and the euthanization of 19 dogs that had been locked inside a cage for over a year in some cases? What could have been done differently? Also, before you point that self-righteous finger at someone claiming their complicity in the "killing" of 4,000,000 animals a year, like in your above post, remember that all of the "no kill" shelters getting city contracts for animal control services that do things like limit admissions, release/abandon cats on the streets, and warehouse animals until they can no longer afford to are also complicit in the awful outcomes that result.

Nathan Winograd - Chuck, do not come on my page and start casting accusations about self-righteousness. Hannah came on the page and called the movement to save lives and the successful implementation of that effort in hundreds of communities across the country a "joke." To the animals who now live instead of die, it's offensive and I will respond to that without hesitation and without equivocation and if that offends you, so be it. Self righteous? I call it right and wrong.
about an hour ago · Edited · Like
Whereas if you look at the screenshot below, you will see that while Mr. Winograd ignored the many questions about the failure of "No-Kill" in Delaware, he had a ton to say to Hannah who called the movement a "joke".  So obviously his lack of any response to Mr. Willard shows the movements attempt to sweep Delaware's failure under the carpet and pretend it never happened.

Nathan Winograd can try and sweep the mess he's made in Delaware with CAPA under the carpet, but other states have seen it and that's why CAPA has failed in every other state it's been introduced, and those states will continue to look at the many intended consequences that resulted - from shelter financial losses and Safe Haven's bankruptcy, to the closed shelter doors that have left thousands of defenseless animals on our streets to fend for themselves.

The Failure Of The "No-Kill" Business Model

No-Kill Delaware asked the following question today and actually proves our point that the "No-Kill" agenda in Delaware has been a failed business model:
"When Pan Am went bankrupt, did anyone argue that the airline business could not succeed? Of course not. Everyone knew it was one company that failed, not the whole industry. That is the same with Safe Haven. It is just one No Kill shelter that failed because of mismanagement. The failure of Safe Haven doesn't "prove" that No Kill shelters can't succeed." - No-Kill Delaware Facebook Page 2/2/14

The fact is, the previous business model for the airline industry was a failure after government deregulation of the industry, and as you can see, laws do affect industries and result in a failed business model.  Below is a list of the many airline failures that have resulted after the airline deregulation of 1978. So it wasn't just Pan Am, it was the whole industry and business model that imploded as an unintended consequence of deregulation.

U.S. airlines bankruptcy filings

Chapter 7

This is a list of airlines that have filed for bankruptcy protection via Chapter 7 in the United States.[1]
AirlineDate Bankruptcy filedNotes
National FloridaDecember 2, 1980
Evergreen International AirlinesDecember 31, 2013

Chapter 11

This is a list of airlines that have filed for bankruptcy protection via Chapter 11 in the United States.[2]
AirlineDate Bankruptcy filedDate Exited BankruptcyNotes
New York AirwaysMay 18, 1979Ceased operations
AeroamericaNovember 19, 1979Ceased operations
Florida AirlinesJanuary 24, 1980Ceased operations
Indiana AirlinesMarch 3, 1980
Air BahiaDecember 15, 1980
Tejas AirlinesDecember 31, 1980
Mountain West Airlines-IdahoMarch 6, 1981Ceased operations
LANICAMarch 16, 1981
Coral AirJuly 13, 1981
Pacific CoastSeptember 11, 1981
Swift Air LineSeptember 18, 1981
Golden Gate (Airline)October 9, 1981
Pinehurst AirlinesJanuary 26, 1982
Silver State AirlinesMarch 3, 1982
Air PennsylvaniaMarch 26, 1982
Air SouthApril 2, 1982
Cochise AirlinesApril 16, 1982
Braniff InternationalMay 13, 1982
Astec Air EastJuly 8, 1982
Will's AirAugust 19, 1982
Aero Sun InternationalOctober 15, 1982
Aero Virgin IslandsOctober 19, 1982
Altair AirlinesNovember 9, 1982
Continental AirlinesSeptember 23, 1983
Frontier AirlinesAugust 28, 1986
Eastern AirlinesMarch 9, 1989
PartnairOctober 1, 1989
Pan American World AirwaysJanuary 8, 1991
America West AirlinesJune 28, 1991August 26, 1994[3][4]
Trans World AirlinesJanuary 10, 2001Filed as part of an acquisition by American Airlines
US AirwaysAugust 11, 2002March 31, 2003
United AirlinesDecember 9, 2002February 1, 2006
Air CanadaApril 1, 2003September 30, 2004
Flash AirlinesMarch 1, 2004
US AirwaysSeptember 12, 2004September 27, 2005Second filing, emerges in conjunction with its acquisition by America West
Aloha AirlinesDecember 30, 2004February 17, 2006
Northwest AirlinesSeptember 14, 2005May 31, 2007Acquired by Delta in 2008
Delta Air LinesSeptember 14, 2005April 30, 2007Filed, putting 4 of the top 7 carriers in the United States under bankruptcy protection, wholly owned subsidiary Comair Airlines taken into bankruptcy with Delta Airlines
Maxjet AirwaysDecember 26, 2007Discontinued operations
Aloha AirlinesMarch 31, 2008Discontinued passenger transporting operations
ATA AirlinesApril 3, 2008Discontinued operations
Skybus AirlinesApril 5, 2008Discontinued operations
Frontier AirlinesApril 10, 2008October 1, 2009
Eos AirlinesAugust 26, 2008Discontinued operations
Sun Country AirlinesOctober 6, 2008
Primaris AirlinesOctober 15, 2008Discontinued operations
Mesa AirlinesJanuary 5, 2010March 11, 2011
Arrow AirJuly 1, 2010Discontinued and liquidated
MexicanaAugust 28, 2010Suspended operations
American AirlinesNovember 29, 2011Filed and continues operations - Includes AMR parent company, Current CEO steps down, takes wholly owned subsidiary American Eagle Airlines into bankruptcy.
Pinnacle AirlinesApril 2, 2012Filed and continues operations, includes Pinnacle Airlines, Mesaba Airlines and remains of Colgan Airlines [5]

No-Kill Delaware touts the success of several "No-Kill" shelters in our state, but she doesn't address why one of the "No-Kill" shelters chose to walk away from dog control for Wilmington after CAPA was enacted.  Or why the other "No-Kill" shelters haven't bid on dog control to show us that it can be done.  It appears that those shelters seem to know that "No-Kill" dog control isn't possible, even with CAPA.

So thank you to No-Kill Delaware for helping us to show that misguided laws like CAPA do result in shelter financial losses and bankruptcies.  Other states need to see that poor laws like CAPA have catastrophic consequences resulting in financial losses for animal shelters, and have an impact on the animals they care for when a shelter's limited resources are depleted as a result.