Nathan J. Winograd's Blog

I am now writing on Substack. While there, sign up to receive an email whenever a new article is published. It is free.

Click the image above or follow this link: https://nathanwinograd.substack.com/

Although no new articles will be published on this website, the existing articles will remain available.

Dear Colleagues,

I have launched a new column on Substack to replace this blog and (eventually) Facebook postings.

My first column is an analysis of a new study in the Journal of Work, Employment and Society which looked at how staff members of traditional animal shelters navigate the “tensions” of working at a place that is supposed to “care” for animals but instead kills them. This contradiction is what the authors call “care-based animal dirty work” or “the caring-killing paradox.”

If you would like to read it, it is here.

While there, sign up to receive an email when a new column is published.

Thank you, as always, for your support. Together, not only will we save lives; we will create a future where every animal will be respected and cherished, and where every individual life will be protected and revered.

Nathan

“There is no progressive sheltering agency of any scope or stature willing to philosophically embrace gas systems for the killing of any species of animals.” Yet in spite of more modern, less stressful and less painful methods of killing, the Green River City Council in Wyoming voted to continue killing animals by gas.

Despite alarmist headlines about post-pandemic adoption returns, intakes are down overall. The Green River, WY, City Council voted to continue killing animals by gas. The Florida legislature has passed a bill requiring crossreporting of animal and child abuse. Current California budget proposals call for spending $230,000,000 to make our roads safer for animals. A New Jersey pound has rejected a request by caretakers to foster visibly pregnant cats in order to allow the kittens to be born, weaned, adopted, and then have the mother spayed. Steffen Baldwin, a well-known and until relatively recently beloved “animal activist,” was indicted last year in Ohio on “charges of cruelty to companion animals, grand theft, bribery, telecommunications fraud, tampering with evidence and impersonating a peace officer. The charges are related to the deaths of at least 18 dogs.” Baldwin is back in court facing elevated charges. And a new study looked at how staff members of kill pounds navigate the “tensions” of working at a place that is supposed to “care” for animals but instead kills them.

In case you missed it:

Despite alarmist headlines about post-pandemic adoption returns, intakes are down 24% overall for dogs and down 22% for adoption returns. Cats show similar trends. And other data also shows the number of people seeking and the amount being spent on dog trainers and veterinary services is skyrocketing, meaning people are investing in their animals, not returning them in droves.The Green River City Council in Wyoming voted to continue killing animals by gas. Not one city councilmember seconded the motion to replace the chamber with less painful methods.The Florida legislature has passed a bill requiring crossreporting of animal and child abuse. It requires child protective services officers to report animal abuse to the local authority responsible for investigating cruelty to animals if they are called out and suspect cruelty to children and vice-versa.Current California budget proposals call for spending $230,000,000 to make our roads safer for animals by building more wildlife land bridges and tunnels. Studies show that this will reduce roadway wildlife mortality by as much as 90%.A New Jersey pound has rejected a request by caretakers to foster visibly pregnant cats in order to allow the kittens to be born, weaned, adopted, and then have the mother spayed.Steffen Baldwin, a well-known and until relatively recently beloved “animal activist,” was indicted last year in Ohio on “charges of cruelty to companion animals, grand theft, bribery, telecommunications fraud, tampering with evidence and impersonating a peace officer. The charges are related to the deaths of at least 18 dogs.” Baldwin is back in court. He was charged on a superceding grand jury indictment which elevated many of the misdemeanors to felonies.

And finally, a new study looked at how staff members of kill pounds navigate the “tensions” of working at a place that is supposed to “care” for animals but instead kills them. This contradiction is what the authors call “the caring-killing paradox.” I call it evil. To read more about this study and my analysis of it, please join me on my new Substack page. While there, you can sign up to receive emails when a new article is posted.

————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

Worker emotional toll in pounds that kill

[image error]

The dog stiffened as we approached the kill-room. Fear flooded his big brown eyes and his hind legs started trembling while he sniffed the air. I forced him through the door [this is my job after all] and choked down my feelings at seeing his distress [overriding my instincts to stop].

I chained him to a wall with worn-down hooks from the countless others who had come before. The walls with their old, flaked paint told of past [failed] attempts at brightening the space, maybe in attempts to de-stigmatise and comfort us tasked with the killing. I found a frozen bone for him, actively ignoring body-bags crowding the freezer. ‘My’ dog looked sadly at the bone (not touching it), then at me, betrayed, wordlessly pleading for me to help him, while he shivered on the cold concrete floor. Some would soil themselves in fear, but most got very still like they knew what was coming.

I wish I could take him home, make him feel wanted, that he mattered . . . and not all humans wanted him gone. My colleague ‘finished’ with the dog before us on today’s kill-list, she lay dead, eyes rolled into her head, tongue flopped out. He got the fluorescent syringe ready as I looked away, holding my dog still for the injection. A perfect paw in my hand, vein filling with poison. My supervisor had tried to construct this as an act of ‘kindness’, explaining that death is better than the alternative – being unwanted, caged . . . but I wonder if he’d agree?

Stifling sadness, anger and helplessness, trying to keep calm for the sake of the dog now living his last moments, his body going limp. My dog would now wait for the weekly garbage pickup, as they were dumped into a landfill, as our societal throwaways.

A new study in the Journal of Work, Employment and Society looked at how staff members of kill pounds navigate the “tensions” of working at a place that is supposed to “care” for animals but instead kills them. This contradiction is what the authors call “care-based animal dirty work” or “the caring-killing paradox.” I call it evil.

To read more about this study and my analysis of it, please join me on my new Substack page by clicking here. While there, you can sign up to receive emails when a new article is posted.

————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here

A New Jersey pound has rejected a request by caretakers to foster visibly pregnant cats in order to allow the kittens to be born, weaned, adopted, and then have the mother spayed. Not only does the surgery put the mother at heightened risk, but full-term kittens are removed one by one and killed through an overdose of barbiturates. Even when not individually killed, when a mother is spayed, the puppies and kittens die from anoxia (oxygen deprivation) due to lack of blood supply from the uterus once the vessels are clamped. They suffocate.

A New Jersey pound has rejected a request by caretakers to foster visibly pregnant cats in order to allow the kittens to be born, weaned, adopted, and then have the mother spayed. A bill in California would end businesses that “house hundreds of dogs, mostly greyhounds, for the sole purpose of draining [and selling] their blood.” The Texas House of Representatives passed legislation banning the sale of commercially-bred puppies and kittens in pet stores and it is now being considered by the Senate. The New York Senate did the same (and included rabbits) and it is now onto the Assembly for consideration. Sen. Richard Durbin has (once again) introduced the Puppy Protection Act to regulate commercial mills “where caged dogs, one on top of the other, are often deprived of socialization, fresh air, and good hygiene.” New York legislators are also debating a bill requiring courts to consider “the best interest of the animal” when awarding custody of pets in divorce cases. New Hampshire legislators may require motorists to stop for injured cats. The No Kill Advocacy Center asked Colorado’s Governor to veto a bill that promotes killing in pounds based on an animal’s “mental and emotional” state. Fewer shelters are posting their statistics online. The Amarillo, TX, pound is once again in the news for its mishandling of a dog. A federal lawsuit contends that California law prohibiting veterinarian telehealth appointments violates the First Amendment. In another lawsuit, a federal judge ruled that the CDC does not have the legal authority to issue a nationwide eviction moratorium in response to the pandemic, putting millions of dogs and cats at risk of losing their homes. And who could possibly defend the sadistic abuse of dogs? Tragically, an increasing number of academics do.

In case you missed it:

A New Jersey pound has rejected a request by caretakers to foster visibly pregnant cats in order to allow the kittens to be born, weaned, adopted, and then have the mother spayed. California is the only state that bans “voluntary” blood donations, relying instead on businesses that “house hundreds of dogs, mostly greyhounds, for the sole purpose of draining their blood.” A bill making its way through the legislature would put an end to the abuse.The Texas House of Representatives passed legislation banning the sale of commercially-bred puppies and kittens in pet stores. If it passes the Senate, Texas will become the fifth state to do so.Meanwhile, New York is also vying to become the fifth state to ban the sale of commercially-bred dogs and cats (and rabbits) in pet stores. It’s bill passed the Senate and is now being heard in the Assembly.At the federal level, Sen. Richard Durbin has (once again) introduced S. 1385, the Puppy Protection Act. The bill is designed to regulate puppy mills “where caged dogs, one on top of the other, are often deprived of socialization, fresh air, and good hygiene.”If New York Senate Bill 4248 becomes law, animals will no longer be considered property for purposes of custody in divorce cases. Instead, the court will consider “the best interest of the animal.”Currently, many states, like California, make it a crime to leave the scene if someone accidentally hits a dog or cat with their car without calling the police or the “owner” (if known). But New Hampshire requires that only if the injured victim is a dog. That may change as lawmakers are considering a bill to also include cats. The hope is that more injured cats would get medical attention and families of dead cats would get “closure.” The No Kill Advocacy Center asked Colorado’s Governor to veto a bill, introduced at the behest of some of the most regressive pounds in the state, that promotes pound killing based on an animal’s “mental and emotional” state.Fewer shelters are posting their statistics online. In order to fulfill oversight responsibilities, animal lovers, advocates, and taxpayers need to introduce and pass legislation requiring data transparency to determine how local pounds are performing.The Amarillo, TX, pound is once again in the news for its mishandling of a dog who was given — or allowed to keep, the name “Covid” — hampering his adoption prospects.A federal lawsuit contends that California law prohibiting veterinarian telehealth appointments violates the First Amendment. If the lawsuit is successful, millions of animals will benefit, including those in pounds.In another lawsuit, a federal judge ruled that the CDC does not have the legal authority to issue a nationwide eviction moratorium in response to the pandemic and vacated that moratorium, putting millions of dogs and cats at risk of losing their homes. 

And finally, this week was the anniversary of the signing of The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act (2007), which made organizing a dog fight a federal felony. It was sponsored by a bipartisan group of legislators, led by California Senator Diane Feinstein, and signed into law by President George W. Bush. It had little opposition. It passed the House by an overwhelming margin and the Senate unanimously. Who could possibly defend the sadistic abuse of dogs? Tragically, an increasing number of academics do.

————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here

My cat Ziggy, sleeping on my office computer. This could soon be his new veterinarian’s “waiting room” if a California lawsuit in favor of telehealth appointments is successful. Less stress, less cost, more healthcare, more lives saved.

A federal lawsuit filed in California contends that state laws and regulations prohibiting veterinarian telehealth appointments — using zoom and other video conferencing technologies for care instead of in-person appointments — violates the First Amendment.

The current pandemic waiver which allows families with sick pets to conduct zoom appointments with their veterinarians is set to expire in June. The California Veterinarian Board will then require once again in-person exams.

If the lawsuit is successful, millions of animals, including those in pounds, will benefit by:

Expanding access to care across the state, country, and globe;Expanding access to care for pets living with people of limited financial means by reducing costs for such care;Allowing shelters to reduce the number of animals who are surrendered because of medical concerns by helping people resolve those concerns in a cost-effective way; and,Improving the care of animals already in the shelter by expanding access for small to medium shelters who do not have onsite veterinarians.

“The lawsuit contends pet owners and veterinarians have a 1st Amendment free speech right to telemedicine. Restrictions on veterinarians also violate equal protection guarantees because doctors who treat people can do so remotely, the suit argues.” According to plaintiffs, “People can use telemedicine for themselves and their children, so why not for their pets?”

The Dean of UC Berkeley Law School, a constitutional scholar, said the restriction on telehealth appointments for pets is “obviously is a restriction on speech.” He believes the lawsuit will be successful because the state veterinarian board has “arbitrarily deprived veterinarians of the opportunity to speak with clients using modern telemedicine communication methods, like Zoom, that are available to doctors who care for human beings, and which have become increasingly valuable and essential tools to the delivery of safe and comprehensive healthcare.”

It is not the first lawsuit of its kind and hopefully it won’t be the last. In December, a Federal Appeals Court ruled that a similar Texas law prohibiting veterinarians from giving online advice without a physical examination of the animal violates a veterinarian’s First Amendment rights.

————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here

Dog caught in coyote trap, gnawed off leg to free herself. Coyote traps are not just terrible because they can harm non-target animals. They are terrible because they harm coyotes.

A dog who chewed her own leg off after being caught in a coyote trap for three days is recovering and up for adoption. The State of Washington has become the fourth state in the nation to pass legislation stopping the sale of commercially-bred puppies and kittens in pet stores. The Orange County, FL, Board of Commissioners will vote next month on whether to do the same. “New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu has issued an executive order re-establishing a commission on the humane treatment of animals…” A proposed law in Colorado, introduced at the behest of some of the most regressive pounds in the state, legitimizes the killing of animals and calls upon other pounds to kill more of them. A professor seeking notoriety at the expense of dogs is claiming Americans love dogs because we are racists alienated by modern capitalism. Ethicists and zoologists ask how far we should and can go to give wild animals a happy life. And finally, the University of Florida is misleadingly claiming that statewide, shelters in 2020 placed “nearly nine out of every 10 animals they took in throughout the year.”

In case you missed it:

A dog who chewed her own leg off after being caught in a coyote trap for three days is recovering and up for adoption. Coyote traps are not just terrible because they can harm non-target animals. They are terrible because they harm coyotes.The State of Washington has become the fourth state in the nation to pass legislation stopping the sale of commercially-bred puppies and kittens in pet stores behind California (which extended the ban to rabbits), Maryland, and Maine. Like Maine, unfortunately, it prohibits new stores from doing so, but grandfathered in existing ones (as it relates to dogs).Meanwhile, the Orange County, FL, Board of Commissioners will vote next month on whether to ban the retail sale of commercially-bred puppies and kittens in pet stores.“New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu has issued an executive order re-establishing a commission on the humane treatment of animals, which prepares a biennial report on animal cruelty cases and legislation…”A proposed law in Colorado, introduced at the behest of some of the most regressive pounds in the state, legitimizes the killing of animals if a “shelter” says it is out of room. It does not require foster care, community cat sterilization, offsite adoptions or any number of other programs that replace killing with alternatives, and defines treatable animals very narrowly. Worst of all, it calls upon animals to be killed based on an animal’s “mental and emotional” state.A professor seeking notoriety at the expense of logic, evidence, good sense, people, and dogs is claiming Americans love dogs because we are racists alienated by modern capitalism who work to protect dogs at the expense of people of color. It also takes something noble (rescuing dogs off the streets) and turns it into something unsavory (a tool for promoting white supremacy for wanting them to go into homes).Ethicists and zoologists are asking how far we should and can go to give wild animals a happy life: Habitat preservation? Medical care? What about protecting the prey from the predator without killing/harming the predator?

And finally, the University of Florida (UFL) is misleadingly reporting that statewide, shelters in 2020 placed “nearly nine out of every 10 animals they took in throughout the year.” While the higher placement rate and subsequent reduction in killing is to be celebrated, the data ignores that not all shelters reported, many Florida shelters closed theirdoors to animals in need during the pandemic, and the data double counts placements, excludes “owner requested euthanasia,” and uses a combined placement rate obscuring lower outcomes for cats. UFL also falsely blamed cost for high rates of killing in rural communities, despite the fact that placing animals is not just more cost-effective, it creates a financial windfall for the community. Celebrating progress is key to encouraging more of it. But we must also take a hard look at what is occurring so we can close gaps in the safety net and make sure we are not causing or allowing harm to go unchecked.

————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

Arguing that the “overwhelming majority of the animals of the overwhelming majority of species appear to have significant suffering but little (or no) happiness in their lives,” a growing number of philosophers, biologists, zoologists, and others are calling for proactively working to improve the lives of wild animals. In an article entitled “The wild frontier of animal rescue,” they argue that wild animal suffering is staggering and we ought to do something about it, such as providing medical care, even if humans did not cause that suffering. I agree.

This view, however, has received pushback from ecologists who claim that beside habitat preservation, nature should be interfered with as little as possible. I reject nature. Making the claim that “natural” is better is to accept not only as inevitable, but as normatively preferable, the suffering inherent in nature, despite human capacity to mitigate it.

Indeed, many animals in the wild die prematurely and die violently. Tragically, “the overwhelming number of nonhuman animals [in the wild] die shortly after they come into existence. They starve or are eaten alive, which means their suffering vastly outweighs their happiness.”

So contrary to assertions, “natural” is not better; it is objectively and demonstrably worse. There is no compelling reason why individual animal suffering born of disease or ailments that humans have the ability to cure is preferable to the diminished suffering, extended lifespan, or opportunity to pursue happiness that an animal is afforded when humans provide veterinary and other types of care. Except, of course, an attitude that considers the avoidable suffering of animals or diminished ability to pursue fulfillment as somehow less egregious than that of humans in comparable circumstances.

Thankfully, a growing number of us are calling wild animal suffering a “very serious moral problem.” Once one accepts that pain matters, wild animal suffering advocates argue, what, if anything, can be done about it becomes an urgent concern.”

The question, of course, is how far should and can we go to give animals a happy life: Habitat preservation? Medical care? What about protecting the prey from the predator without killing/harming the predator?

If the latter seems like a tall task, some argue that it may soon be within our power in emerging CRISPR genome-editing technology. What if we could alter the genomes of carnivorous predators to remove both their prey drive and their need for animal-based amino acids?

While the argument sounds fanciful and even dangerous and my “sympathies lie with the skeptical reader who reckons humans will probably mess things up…” if we “reprogram predators,” we can reduce suffering, reduce killing, increase happiness, and ensure longevity for all species involved. Thus getting the proverbial lion/wolf to lay down with the proverbial lamb is not an idea that should be dismissed out of hand, despite the potential pitfalls. And if history is any guide, our species has never benefited from throwing up our hands in the face of what was once seen as an intractable problem.

“The wild frontier of animal welfare” is here.

————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

Photo: Many home insurance companies embrace cruel and discriminatory “breed” exclusion policies — policies that can mean a dog loses his home or misses out on an adoption.

A study finds that sterilizing community dogs actually encourages kindness toward street dogs as caretakers provide positive role models for others to emulate. The City of St. Paul, MN, has agreed to pay $70,000 to a family whose two dogs were shot and killed by police officers in front of their children. A timeline of reform in Hamilton Township, NJ. Eliminating housing discrimination for people whose families include a dog, cat, or other animal companion would allow 8.75 million animals to find new homes. Many home insurance companies have breed discriminatory policies, but they won’t tell you about it. The number of communities placing over 95% and as high as 99% of the animals is increasing. And a new study proves that cats are highly resistant to COVID-19 and do not transmit it to other cats outside or in shelters.

In case you missed it:

A study finds that sterilizing community dogs actually encourages kindness toward street dogs as caretakers provide positive role models for others to emulate. The City of St. Paul, MN, has agreed to pay $70,000 to a family whose two dogs were shot and killed by police officers in front of their children. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win: A timeline of reform in Hamilton Township, NJ. Eliminating housing discrimination for people whose families include a dog, cat, or other animal companion would allow 8.75 million animals to find new homes, roughly six years worth of killing in U.S. pounds. Many home insurance companies have breed discriminatory policies, but they won’t tell you about it. According to an an analysis by Forbes Advisor, the list of banned dog breeds “are often hidden from consumers’ view in filings made by insurers to state insurance departments.”

The number of communities placing over 95% and as high as 99% of the animals is increasing:

Avery County, NC, reported a 97% placement rate for dogs, 97% for cats, and 100% for rabbits and other small animals. Fairfax County, VA, reported a 95% placement rate for rabbits, gerbils, and other small animals, but only 91% for dogs and 91% for cats.

These shelters and the data nationally prove that animals are NOT dying in pounds because there are too many or too few homes or people don’t want the animals. They are dying because people in those pounds are killing them. Replace those people, implement the No Kill Equation, and we can be a No Kill nation today.

And finally, a peer-reviewed study of community and shelter cats found no cat-to-cat transmission of SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The study was conducted in the Lombardy region of northern Italy, which is significant for two reasons. First, Lombardy was “one of the worst affected Italian regions” with over half a million cases. Second, since community cat programs are government recognized and fairly extensive, all the community cats tested for SARS-CoV-2 had negative baselines prior to the pandemic. In other words, before the pandemic, all cats tested negative for antibodies. And of the hundreds of samples tested afterward, only one cat “was positive for antibodies” (but tested negative for an active infection). The cat posed no risk to any other cat, did not transmit it to other cats despite being a member of a cat colony, and was almost certainly initially infected by a COVID-19 positive caretaker, not another cat. The same findings applied to shelter-tested cats. As a result, the study authors conclude that “there is no indication of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in stray cats.” Combined with similar results in shelter-tested cats and those who live in human homes, cats are not a source of infection for people or other animals. And that, say study authors, “should alleviate public concerns about stray cats acting as SARS-CoV-2 carriers.”

————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

“[T]here is no indication of SARS-Cov-2 circulating in stray cats.”

It is time to close the book on concerns about COVID-19 transmission vis-a-vis dogs and cats. Despite a year of alarmist headlines, here is what we know, based on peer-reviewed studies:

Dogs are highly resistant to COVID-19 and in the rare chance they do get it from a COVID-19 positive person in their household, they cannot transmit it to other dogs, other animal companions, or people because they are dead-end hosts.Cats and a number of other animals such as rabbits, guinea pigs, and mice have been ruled out as a source of human infection. “There is no evidence that companion animals are playing an epidemiological role in the spread of human infections of SARS-CoV-2” (the virus that causes COVID-19).While there is a small chance a cat may acquire COVID-19 from an infected person, it is very, very difficult for a cat to transmit it to other cats and, outside of a laboratory setting and intentional infliction with large doses of the virus, may be impossible.

And, now, comes the final nail on the coffin: a peer-reviewed study of community and shelter cats found no cat-to-cat transmission.

The study was conducted in the Lombardy region of northern Italy, which is significant for two reasons. First, Italy was not only one of the first and hardest hit countries outside of China, but Lombardy was “one of the worst affected Italian regions” with over half a million cases. Second, since community cat programs are government recognized and fairly extensive, all the community cats tested for SARS-CoV-2 had negative baselines prior to the pandemic.

In other words, before the pandemic, all cats tested negative for antibodies. And of the hundreds of samples tested afterward, only one cat “was positive for antibodies” (but tested negative for an active infection). The cat posed no risk to any other cat, did not transmit it to other cats despite being a member of a cat colony, and was almost certainly initially infected by a COVID-19 positive caretaker, not another cat. The same findings applied to shelter-tested cats.

As a result, we can conclude that “there is no indication of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in stray cats.” Combined with similar results in shelter-tested cats and those who live in human homes, cats are not a source of infection for people or other animals. And that, say study authors, “should alleviate public concerns about stray cats acting as SARS-CoV-2 carriers.”

The study, A pre- and during Pandemic Survey of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Stray Colony and Shelter Cats from a High Endemic Area of Northern Italy, is here.

————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.