Playback of this video requires the latest Flash Plugin.
Please download the plugin.
Older browsers, also IE/Mac, are not supported. Please upgrade to a standards-compliant browser.
March 9, 2012
Usatoday.com published an article on March 8th 2012, discussing “costly no kill shelters” and the dilemma political officials are having financially supporting this movement. According to usatoday.com; “municipalities are looking to see how the movement toward limiting euthanasia can co-exist with their need to control stray and aggressive animals.” Nathan Winograd the director of No Kill Advocacy Center in Oakland, California has tried to bring to the public’s attention the practices of kennels and kill shelters that exist across the nation. Nathan Winograd is a former criminal prosecutor and corporate attorney, has spoken nationally and internationally on animal sheltering issues, has written animal protection legislation at the state and national level, has created successful No Kill programs in both urban and rural communities, and has consulted with a wide range of animal protection groups including some of the largest and best known in the nation.
The article goes on to explain that the Humane Society in Lynchburg, VA ( the humane society is not affiliated with the No Kill Advocacy Center) is asking the city to more than triple its animal control subsidy to $396,000 by 2015. Seems mighty steep, which leads us to question where the money given to The Humane Society is actually going. Doesn’t it seem highly possible that No Kill Shelters can exist with donations and fundraisers and volunteer workers without the community and tax payers having to shell out more than what is economically feasible?
One short year ago The Humane Society and various other animal protection organizations were accused of corruption, bribery, fraud, obstruction of justice and money laundering. In article published by www.ammoland.com, February 23rd 2010, the purpose of the lawsuit is explained;
“The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) unearthed the lawsuit in federal court records. CCF is making the lawsuit available online at its newest website, www.HumaneWatch.org.“America’s farmers, ranchers, hunters, fishermen, trappers, research scientists, fashion designers, and restaurateurs have seen for decades watched how the animal rights movement can behave like a mobbed-up racket,” said CCF Director of Research David Martosko.“But it’s still shocking to see the evidence laid out on paper. In a treble-damage lawsuit like this, a jury could actually do the humane thing and finally put HSUS out of business completely.”
Seems harsh, but not when they are being compared No Kill organizations that are doing it the ethical way. The usatoday.com article touches on the new practices of Allegany County, MD, which became a no-kill community a year ago without increasing government spending by relying on volunteers and donations. The interesting comparison lies solely in the treatment of the animals. Ironically the organizations receiving the largest government subsidies are finding themselves in more scandals regarding the treatment of the animals being housed.
Mark Batty Publisher is publishing long awaited title; Animal Shelter Portraits. In “Shelter Portraits,” photographer Mark Ross turns an unflinching eye on the animals stranded at kill shelters resulting in deeply compassionate and haunting portraits of our furred friends. Every picture is paired with the subjects name and story making Animal Shelter Portraits an important book for animals lovers everywhere.