Imposters are an unfortunate reality in our movement. They often rear their ugly heads, attempting to draw the spotlight towards their false assertions, and away from the work of real No Kill advocates. We’ve seen it time and time again, and Nathan Winograd even discusses it in detail in the pages of “Redemption”.
As he says: “Most directors, however, found another way. They began to say one thing, while they did something else. In short, they learned the art of political double-speak. The supposed effort to save animals deemed ‘adoptable’ began, even by those who were No Kill’s fiercest detractors. These old guard institutions began to use ‘new’ language and promote ‘new’programs. Leaders who once pledged to stop what happened in San Francisco from spreading to their own hometowns were now seeking to save all ‘adoptable’ animals. In reality, they did nothing of the kind. Instead, they narrowed the definition of ‘adoptable’ to the point of meaninglessness.”
It’s easy to pay lip service to a concept like No Kill. Claim you want to save lives, halfheartedly implement a few new policies, then, when you fail, state that No Kill is an impossible dream. It’s happened time and time again.
The most recent pseudo-No Kill voices come from the Dallas Companion Animal Alliance. Just hours after No Kill Dallas announced its launch, this group popped up, calling themselves a “task force” designed to advise the city on achieving a No Kill goal.
While No Kill Dallas is backed by Nathan Winograd, Ryan Clinton and other experienced No Kill leaders, the Dallas Companion Animal Alliance is run by Rebecca Poling, a woman who successfully fought to kill shelter reform legislation in Texas just last year. She’s also a member of the Dallas Animal Services Commission, an organization which has been working with the shelter through years of abuse, neglect and rampant killing. Hardly someone with a track record of success.
The Commission seems to be intentionally drawing the attention away from No Kill Dallas and onto their organization. For instance, they created a No Kill Dallas Facebook page, in addition to their own, which serves only to redirect people to their main page. This will certainly confuse people looking for the real No Kill Dallas.
Additionally, they’re using a quote from Nathan Winograd on their website, which seems like an obvious attempt to lead people to believe he’s affiliated with their work. In fact, he most certainly is not. You can read Nathan Winograd’s full letter to the Dallas City Council expressing his opposition to this organization here.
Given Poling’s opposition to shelter reform legislation, and to No Kill in general, it’s hard to believe she’s genuine in her interest to see Dallas improve their lifesaving efforts. If she were, wouldn’t they have already done it?
The Dallas Observer blog is even weighing in on the situation, although their bias seems pretty palpable.
Dallas citizens who are truly interested in a No Kill goal for their tragically under-performing shelter should direct their attention to No Kill Dallas.