Product Description

Redemption is theÊstory of animal sheltering in the United States, a movement that was born of compassion and then lost its way. It is the story of the 'No Kill' movement, which says we can and must stop the killing. But most of all, it is a story about believing in the community and trusting in the power of compassion.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #79963 in Books
• Published on: 2007-09-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 238 pages

Customer Reviews

Required reading for anyone connected to animal shelters!!
This book turned out to be exactly what I was hoping to find. It contains the solution to preventing 5 million cat and dog deaths (killings) each year. "No Kill" is more complex than just keeping all the homeless animals and excepting no more when the space is full, in the book Winograd outlines the 10 programs that, take together and executed mindfully, will drastically reduce euthanasia rates..instantly!

Hateful and misleading
It is a tragedy that millions of healthy, adoptable companion animals are euthanized each year in the U.S. Conventional thinking on the cause of this tragedy focuses on the overpopulation of companion animals: there are too many cats and dogs available and too few adopters. Shelters do not have the resources to keep up with the constant supply of animals.

In Redemption, Nathan Winograd disagrees with the conventional thinking. He argues that the problem is rooted in the policies of animal welfare organizations and animal control agencies. And if shelters would embrace the No Kill policies, the killing can be prevented.

While the first chapter on the early history of animal welfare in the US is interesting and the second appendix on how to implement No Kill policies is useful, the remainder of the book is filled with polarizing diatribes. At times Winograd's writing is so over the top, even Ann Coulter would be proud. As such I cannot recommend this book.

Much of the book is about denigrating others and placing blame. He could have written a book that was appropriately critical of animal welfare policies without burning the very bridges he needs to get his policies in place.

While there is a lot to criticize over past policies, after reading this book you'd think the Humane Society of the U.S., various ASPCAs, and most animal control officers are heartless bastards who would as soon put a dog down as have a cup of coffee. I'm not exaggerating - much of his ranting is hyperbolic; for example, at one point he actually associates people who want to protect native habitats with Nazis and apartheid South Africa!

Much of the book is polarizing. Even the term "No Kill" is polarizing (if you aren't a no kill shelter, you must be a kill shelter). Mr. Winograd constantly makes the false dichotomy that if you don't believe in these policies you must support killing.

Many of his arguments are weak or illogical. For example, take his argument about the "myth" of pet overpopulation. This is probably the most important argument he must make - if there is an overpopulation of animals, then No Kill cannot be achieved. He makes 2 claims to support the "myth" of overpopulation: 1) there are empty cages at shelters, and 2) the number of houses that become available for new adoptions (as pets pass away) outnumbers the number of available animals. His first argument is naïve - there are many reasons why shelters leave open kennels (and he'd be hard pressed to find more than one or 2 open kennels at many of the shelters around where I live). The second argument is unsubstantiated - he gives no numbers or citations to back the claim. Actually there is a third component to his argument not identified in the chapter of the "myth" of pet overpopulation- feral cats don't count. But I digress.

Winograd uses all the argument tricks modern politicians are so adept at. He boldly knocks down straw-man arguments. He takes things out of context. He tells only those parts of the story that support his argument. For example, he insinuates that PETA supported the employee who was killing puppies in the back of the van and throwing them into dumpsters. While I'm no big fan of PETA, I do know that the organization went out of its way to denounce these actions and made it clear that it was not their policy. Anyway, Winograd uses these types of misleading arguments throughout the book.

There are numerous shelters, private and municipal, that while not fully embracing "No Kill" policies, implement many of them (strong foster programs, trap/neuter/release for feral cats, convenient hours for adoptions, having adoption events outside the shelter, low cost spay/neutering, etc.). These policies are working to reduce the overpopulation of companion animals. Yet at times Mr. Winograd seems to even despise these shelters for not fully embracing the policy. Appendix I has a No Kill declaration with this classic line that pretty much sums up his attitude: "Now, therefore, be it resolved that No Kill policies and procedures are the only legitimate foundation for animal sheltering."

Clearly Mr. Winograd is outraged by the amount of euthanasia. I can understand that; I am too. But his ranting and hyperbole does No Kill no good. So instead of buying this book, I suggest donating to a local shelter. And the time you would have spent reading this book? Use it to volunteer at a local shelter.

Ignorant
There's no such thing as "No Kill Shelters"! "Limited Intake Shelters" on the other hand,
are becoming increasingly popular. And how do you think they affect the "kill-percentage"
of those shelters picking up what's left behind after the "No Kills" have taken the most adoptable,
the puppies,the small dogs,the pure breds and the cuties?
And where do the most "valuable" volunteers spend their spare time?
The ones with fund raising experience? With a marketing background?
Or the ones with jobs in an environment where it'is possible to raise a
decent amount of money by selling cookies to coworkers or employees?
I have a hard time understanding how so many people can be totally blind,
or totally ignorant. Does anyone really believe this has to do with differences
in management or operations style?
The facts might be rough,but that does not give anyone an excuse to
ignore them.
Maybe it's the whole shelter-consept that's wrong...