Episode 4: Nathan Winograd pt. IV [8:01m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
 Episode 4: Nathan Winograd pt. IV [8:01m]: Download

In this episode of the IAM podcast, Nathan Winograd tells us about his experience with the San Francisco SPCA, and how moving the shelter — and city — to No Kill brought in more money than ever before. Also, if you’re interested in the No Kill movement but don’t know how to make a difference, Winograd shares some tips.

We hope this series with Nathan Winograd has provided some food for thought; please leave a comment about No Kill and animal sheltering to share with other listeners. And as always, we’re looking for great topics for future podcasts. Are you an animal welfare expert with knowledge and experience to share? Do you know someone who invests their time working for the betterment of animals? Send us an email!

Interview with Nathan Winograd: Part IV

IAM: It’s been around in the news here quite often that the Humane Society is turning away strays – can an organization like that still move to No Kill and keep their high-profile brand? Or should money currently used to market the organization only be used to directly save lives? How can the motives of, say, spending money for brand awareness versus saving lives be reconciled?

Winograd: The irony is that if the Humane Society were to lead the No Kill endeavor in Indianapolis, they would have more money than they knew what to do with. When San Francisco started the march towards No Kill, the SPCA there was 90 days from bankruptcy. It was literally 90 days away from closing its doors forever. It didn’t spend money on brand awareness. It didn’t say “give us money so we can save lives.” It started to save lives. It first did good things for animals, then it told people about it, and it asked for their help.

When I left San Francisco in 2000, we had an $8 million/year budget, and $50 million in the bank. We got that money as a byproduct of all the good work we were doing to save the lives of animals. It wasn’t the cause of the lifesaving, it was the byproduct, the support that people flocked to us because they knew when they gave us money it would be used to save the lives of animals. Not just what we call the “cute and cuddlies,” but what, again, I affectionately call the old & uglies. And to sweep animals under the rug because they don’t meet your misinformed, restrictive, meaningless, unfair definition of adoptable is unfair to all the savable animals losing their lives at Animal Care and Control.

In fact when I walked through Animal Care and Control today, I saw a tremendous number of friendly, cute animals of all shapes, sizes and colors that should have filled the empty cages I saw at the Humane Society. And if that occurred, and the Humane Society led the movement, there would be no need to spend money on brand awareness. Everybody would know who the Humane Society was, because what it would be would be was the leader of the No Kill revolution, which I have no doubt that people in Indianapolis would flock to support.

IAM: I’m still rather new to the idea of No Kill, and I know many people who would probably assume that all shelters operate under a policy of wanting to kill as few animals as possible. How can the average animal lover, who might not know much about the history of agencies such as the ASPCA and Humane Society of the United States, make a change in their community towards No Kill?

Winograd: Well, first of all, they need to educate themselves, and there are organizations like your own and Move to Act in the community that sort of lay an accurate portrayal of what’s happening in terms of the life and death calculus for animals that enter Indianapolis shelters.

One, it starts with knowing what the problem is, and knowing which agencies are doing their part to solve the problem, and which agencies are content to pass the blame to others and continue business as usual.

The second part of it is to get involved. One of my favorite stories, and it’s a story I tell in my book Redemption, is you look at Fulton County, Georgia, where the shelter was killing over 90% of all the dogs and cats coming through the facility. And two people, regular citizens who loved dogs and cats and found out about this and were outraged, decided they weren’t going to tolerate this any more. So they started attending the county board of supervisors’ meetings, and saying “we’ve got to do better. There has to be a better way.” And it took some time, and it took a lot of energy, but at the end of the day, the county commissioners finally backed down, and they formed their own humane society – I don’t think people need to do this – and took over sheltering operations. And they haven’t killed a single puppy or kitten since the day they took over. And again, virtually overnight like the experiences of Reno, Charlottesville and Tompkins, they reduced killing by 50%. So one or two people can make a huge difference in the lives of the animals.

More globally, we don’t know who the No Kill leaders of tomorrow are going to be, and I would argue that anybody with a passion for animals, a commitment to saving lives, and any requisite skill sets that might be applied to the shelter environment: they could be web-savvy and help promote the animals on the internet. They can be carpenters and help build socialization pens for animals in shelters. I mean, there’s a whole host of skills that people can take from what they’re currently doing to the shelter environment, and you’d quickly achieve the kinds of results that some of these more progressive shelters are achieving, and you could do it very, very quickly. So the one thing after getting informed, is I encourage people to jump in with both feet and make a lifesaving difference to animals in their community.

IAM: Anything else you’d like to share?

Winograd: We can make this happen, and we can make it happen very, very quickly. If all shelters have the will and desire to embrace this new approach in sheltering, I think we could be a No Kill nation today. Unfortunately, right now in the United States, there are about 5,000 or 6,000 shelter directors who are mired in old ways of doing business, who are thwarting the will of the 100-plus-million dog and cat lovers in the United States. And so we’ve got numbers on our side, and we’ve got the hearts and minds of the citizens on our side, and we spend billions on our animals and we give billions more to these animal-related charities. These are our organizations, and we need to take them back.

IAM: Nathan Winograd, thank you very much for your time!

Winograd: It’s my pleasure.