Nathan Winograd:
HSUS also refused to commit resources to help save the dogs (saying No Kill advocates were harming their ability to raise funds to do so), refused to revisit their dog fighting law enforcement manual which recommends that all dogs be killed, refused to back down from their statement that these dogs have an “unstoppable desire to fight,” refused to back down from their belief that we can’t save these dogs and that we shouldn’t really try because it isn’t fair to other dogs at the shelter, and basically reaffirmed the HSUS position that if dog lovers just shut up and let them quietly kill these dogs, they can continue to fight dog fighting.
BAD-RAP:
As much as we would love to, it's not appropriate to share details of the meeting in this space[...]
Best Friends:
The HSUS has a new policy of recommending that all dogs seized from fighting operations be professionally evaluated, according to agreed upon standards, to determine whether they are suitable candidates for adoption.
Posts
3 comments:
"Tragically, some rescue/Pit Bull advocates in attendance said that no one expected HSUS to use their resources to try and save the dogs, nor do they want these dogs to “take resources away from other dogs"--Winograd
I wish he would name the names of these quislings... though I can take a good guess.
Me too, Emily.
Overall, I'd be surprised if anything constructive emerged from this meeting, considering all the toadies, milquetoasts and profiteers in attendance.
Does anybody remember electing any of these people to represent 'pit bulls' in general, 'fighting' dogs in particular or to speak for anyone involved in the issues? If so, I must have missed that memo.
Caveat! They elect themselves through slick websites, clever self-promotion and holier-than-thou condescension. No dissenters allowed! (and evidently no one with more than a couple of years experience, either...)
Post a Comment