The current state of the humane community is in turmoil thanks to a certain No Kill movement spearheaded by Nathan Winograd. Threats of blackmail, actual follow through of those threats, lawsuits, No Kill is resorting to all these to silence the growing majority of those who speak against the No Kill Equation. This cult like movement says it is either their way or no way and they are willing to put shelter animals up as the pawns so they can win their game.
A particular small rescue in New York State has even incurred the wrath of the followers of No Kill. This small rescue saved 263 animals in 2011, some of the most difficult ones such as the large breeds, and that is quite an accomplishment for a small rescue. http://delawarecapa.blogspot.com/2013/01/no-kill-is-waggin-dog.html
" Recently Waggin Train Rescue had to make the tough choice to euthanize a dog named Nikki, who despite almost three months of efforts on their part, the dog continued to be fearful, aggressive, and a bite risk.""
The rescue informed their supporters that in spite of all efforts, they were planning to euthanize Nikki on 12/27/12. In the early morning hours of the 27th, a campaign was launched by John Sibley, a well known supporter of Nathan Winograd. As we all know, non profits depend on their good reputations to stay in the business of saving lives. Yet No Kill is willing to hurt a non profit who is saving lives, rather than the offering of support to help save those lives.
An email was sent shortly after midnight on 12/27/12, threatening an online war about this dog. In this email, Sibley basically stated that if Waggin did it his way, he would pull his campaign against them. Sibley states "I can make sure Nikki's story is prominently featured in web searches for Waggin' Train in perpetuity, or we can work together to save a life, I'll pull the petition and the blog post, and everyone comes out a winner". In other words, play my way or I will put you out of business. When Waggin' did not succumb to this threat, Mr. Sibley continued ahead with his threats in the form of paid ads on Google. In other words, Sibley doesn't care that this rescue is saving lives, more than one, he wants to destroy this wonderful rescue. Is this act of people who truly care about animals, or for that matter, people?
This is not the first time that No Kill has pulled the accusation of blackmail out of their hat of tricks. Nathan Winograd was so upset following an interview with Craig Malisow at the Houston Press that he wrote and published online a nasty letter to Malisow's Editor. Winograd accused Malisow of trying to blackmail him so Malisow would not run the story. The letter was only online for about an hour but not before it was captured for proof. http://www.houstonpress.com/2009-01-29/news/barc-sucks/
Nathan Winograd has condemned a handful of people who have spoken against him. People who have contributed more than their share to the humane effort, including myself. He has undertaken smear campaigns online against these private citizens who dare question his No Kill Equation. These citizens save shelter animals, with their own money and time.
No Kill Nation filed a lawsuit against two small rescues in Florida just because the rescues were concerned about donations earmarked for a specific purpose were being used properly. One rescue, in the business of saving lives for ten years, had to dissolved because of this lawsuit. We all know the cost of lawsuits these days and No Kill Nation is wasting money on legal fees when all they need to do is show their books if they are innocent of anything. Most of us are of the opinion if you run to an attorney, you are probably guilty of what you are being accused of. One rescue is an advocate against the movement of which No Kill Nation is a part of, could this be just a vengeful act to silence him? Why hurt those who save shelter animal lives, aren't you on the same side, No Kill? http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/11/good-morning-no-kill-nation.html
To top it all off, No Kill is so paranoid at this time, that they have actually establish a No Kill "Awareness" (Legal Fund) to fight others in the humane community from speaking against their movement. No Kill criticizes officials and shelters when the officials/shelters don't listen to a whistleblower/disgruntled ex-employee) and then establishes a fund to fight whistleblowers against them. Does this strike you as something ethical or moral? On this link, you can see that it is sponsored by an author out of Canada. But look at his books, not particularly appetizing bedtime reading although I personally haven't read one. Judging from the covers, and I think that is appropriate in this case, that type of book would not be my cup of tea. http://nokillfund.com/
Why does No Kill feel money should be used to fight people who are also promoting shelter reform such as Randy DeCarlo? Don't we all want the same thing? No Kill's actions speak louder than words to me, and those words echo previous pieces written for Opposing Views, No Kill is not what you think it is.
Donations are welcome at Waggin Train Rescue. http://www.waggintrainrescue.org