Commencez à lire Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation & The No Kill... sur votre Kindle dans moins d'une minute. Vous n'avez pas encore de Kindle ? Achetez-le ici Ou commencez à lire dès maintenant avec l'une de nos applications de lecture Kindle gratuites.
Lire gratuitement
avec Kindle Unlimited

Envoyer sur votre Kindle ou un autre appareil


Essai gratuit

Découvrez gratuitement un extrait de ce titre

Envoyer sur votre Kindle ou un autre appareil

Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation & The No Kill Revolution in America (English Edition)
Agrandissez cette image

Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation & The No Kill Revolution in America (English Edition) [Format Kindle]

Nathan Winograd

Prix éditeur - format imprimé : EUR 11,18
Prix Kindle : EUR 2,99 TTC & envoi gratuit via réseau sans fil par Amazon Whispernet
Économisez : EUR 8,19 (73%)
Kindle Unlimited Lisez ce titre pour 0,00¤ et obtenez un accès illimité à plus de 700 000 titres, dont plus de 20 000 en français. En savoir plus

  • inclut la livraison sans fil gratuite par Amazon Whispernet
App de lecture Kindle gratuite Tout le monde peut lire les livres Kindle, même sans un appareil Kindle, grâce à l'appli Kindle GRATUITE pour les smartphones, les tablettes et les ordinateurs.

Pour obtenir l'appli gratuite, saisissez votre adresse e-mail ou numéro de téléphone mobile.


Prix Amazon Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
Format Kindle EUR 2,99  
Broché EUR 11,18  
Kindle Unlimited
Retrouvez ce titre dans Kindle Unlimited
Accédez en illimité à plus de 700 000 titres, dont plus de 20 000 en français, sur tous vos appareils pour seulement 9,99€ par mois. Cliquez ici.

Descriptions du produit

Présentation de l'éditeur

Redemption is the story 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.

Biographie de l'auteur

Nathan is the director of the No Kill Advocacy Center. He is a graduate of Stanford Law School, and a former criminal prosecutor as well as corporate attorney. He has written animal protection legislation at the state and national levels, has spoken nationally and internationally on animal issues and has created successful No Kill programs in both urban and rural communities. Under his leadership, Tompkins County, New York became the first No Kill community in the United States. He is the author of four books. Redemption won five national book awards and is the most acclaimed book on animal shelters ever written.

Détails sur le produit

  • Format : Format Kindle
  • Taille du fichier : 606 KB
  • Nombre de pages de l'édition imprimée : 256 pages
  • Vendu par : Amazon Media EU S.à r.l.
  • Langue : Anglais
  • ASIN: B00IPM67GQ
  • Synthèse vocale : Activée
  • X-Ray :
  • Word Wise: Non activé
  • Classement des meilleures ventes d'Amazon: n°387.985 dans la Boutique Kindle (Voir le Top 100 dans la Boutique Kindle)
  •  Souhaitez-vous faire modifier les images ?

En savoir plus sur l'auteur

Découvrez des livres, informez-vous sur les écrivains, lisez des blogs d'auteurs et bien plus encore.

Commentaires en ligne

Il n'y a pas encore de commentaires clients sur
5 étoiles
4 étoiles
3 étoiles
2 étoiles
1 étoiles
Commentaires client les plus utiles sur (beta) 4.3 étoiles sur 5  134 commentaires
628 internautes sur 718 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
1.0 étoiles sur 5 Redemption Ignores The Biggest Issue 14 mai 2008
Par Amy Lewandowski - Publié sur
Format:Broché|Achat vérifié
A no-kill shelter was recently built on 13 wooded acres outside a city near me. The facility has space for 250 animals. A huge budget. Slick marketing. A partnership with a major pet food manufacturer. A variety of innovative programs. 1300 volunteers, 130 foster families and thousands of extremely generous supporters. Last year, 2100 of their animals found new homes. It's the kind of operation Nathan Winograd would call a no-kill success story. And yet the organization admits they cannot accommodate the more than 300 requests they receive weekly from people trying to relinquish their pets to them.
Within 15 miles of this beautiful facility are 2 open admission shelters that have to euthanize for space. They have implemented most if not all of the programs Mr. Winograd claims is necessary to achieve no-kill status. But, unlike their no-kill neighbor up the road, these shelters do not turn any animals away. Last year, they took in 21,000 animals! Anyone out there willing to build, staff, operate and fund a no-kill shelter for 21,000 animals?
Which brings me to what I found most irritating about Redemption. Nathan Winograd never discusses what I believe is the biggest issue separating the two kinds of shelters- what to do with the staggering number of animals no-kill shelters turn away. He only briefly mentions the necessity of no-kill shelters to "occasionally" limit incoming animals. Where I live, however, no-kill shelters only occasionally accept animals! In fact, I don't know anyone who has been successful getting a stray or their own animal into a no-kill shelter. My point is this: EVERY NO-KILL SHELTER IN THE COUNTRY HAS TO FIRST ACCEPT EVERY ANIMAL BROUGHT TO ITS FACILITY BEFORE WE CAN HAVE ANY HOPE OF ACHIEVING A TRUE NO-KILL NATION.
They shouldn't be setting standards for open admission shelters when their very way of operating directly contributes to these shelters having to euthanize for space.
The author crows about his success leading an open admission no-kill in a sparsely populated rural part of New York. Note that, last year, Tompkins County SPCA took in less than 3000 animals. His urban success story - the San Francisco SPCA- did not even take animals from the public if I correctly understand their relationship with the SF Animal Care and Control. Last year, the San Francisco SPCA took in less than 4000 animals. When Nathan Winograd can take over an open admission shelter accepting 21,000 animals annually and still make it no-kill, then and only then will I be impressed enough to jump on the Redemption bandwagon.
I also did not like that Redemption is full of inflammatory, anonymous and dated remarks that cannot be verified easily because the author does not include footnotes and references you usually see in a piece of nonfiction. Fact checking is limited to a 12 page bibliography.
It is a myth that we can somehow save every homeless or unwanted animal without having to first address the disparity between no-kill and 'kill' shelter admission policies and intake numbers. Redemption only gives one side of the story and, unfortunately, the author is promoting it as the whole & balanced picture it isn't. I'm just a little surprised that readers are swallowing his half-truths with such gusto. Dig a little deeper, animal lovers! You can start by asking you favorite no-kill shelter how many animals they turned away this week.
66 internautes sur 77 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
1.0 étoiles sur 5 Completely appalled... 14 février 2012
Par <324601 - Publié sur
I am literally seething as I write this review. It took some serious willpower to get through the first 3 pages of this book, let alone the whole thing, but I wanted to be fully educated on what Nathan Winograd was trying to say before I wrote a review. I work in an open-intake shelter (taking in strays as well as owner surrender animals) in Northern California which has both urban and rural aspects. We're on the outskirts of a large city but also have farmland around us. This shelter has EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. of the programs that Winograd proclaims will be the solution to "killing" in animal shelters. We have a TNR program, adoption outreach, a fantastic foster care program, over 1,000 volunteers that occupy many aspects of the shelter's function and a wonderful relationship with over 200 rescue groups. We have high volume/low cost spay neuter surgery, a behavior department, a pet retention program and a relationship with a local veterinary school that provides many surgeries for sick/injured shelter animals as well as feral spay/neuter vets. We do over 25 adoptions in one day, and some weekends we perform over 60 adoptions of cats, dogs and small critters. Despite all this, we receive, on any given day, 40-80 ANIMALS. The math simply does not balance out.
Winogard proclaims that there are more homes available for animals than pets in our shelters. If this was true (which there is no proof, he just determines that pets get lost/die throughout the year and assumes these homes want another pet) what about the homes that don't want to add a pet to their family? People in the United States are generally sympathetic to the pet overpopulation and a large amount DO adopt from shelters. There is simply too many animals.
I challenge any person who believes this book to have validity to come work where I do for one week. You will see the sorts of animals and SHEER NUMBERS that come into an open-intake shelter. Yes, one Shepherd mix may have moderate-severe food aggression that could be managed with time, resources and the dedication of very experienced trainers, but what about the 6 more dogs that just came in that do not have behavior issues? Should they be turned away and the training resources focused on a dog that may be "cured" or may inflict injury on a person at a later time? "No-Kills" will turn away those 6 dogs that need their help and will likely be brought into an open-intake shelter like mine. Try it. Call a "no-kill" shelter and tell them you've got a Pit Bull, or a Shepherd mix that guards his food from people or a Lab mix who really likes kids but is bad with dogs. The answer you will get from them is a big fat NO.
Besides the pompous, arrogant attitude Winogard wprojects in this book (all praise Tompkins County, right?) the most frustrating part of this text is the damage that it is doing to the municipal shelters and SPCAs/Humane Societies that are trying to do right by taking in EVERY animal that is dumped at their doors. By ignorantly accusing the shelter workers (and god help you if you're a director) and declaring it's their fault that animals are dying across the country, Winogard has done a huge disservice to the community and their animals. When someone only donates to a "No-Kill" because they don't believe in euthanizing animals, they are continuing to deprive open-intake shelters of much needed support to develop programs to increase the live-release rate of their animals. If County shelters are seen as the bad guys and receive no revenue because of it, how are they expected to develop programs that REQUIRE MONEY to increase the number of animals leaving the shelter alive?

In regards to Winogard himself, this book is poorly written and lacks the sources of his "information". His footnotes only state more accusatory comments about how he is right or support in the endeavors he's led himself (aka Tompkins County, Tompkins County, Tompkins County...Why aren't you still in one place again, if you're so amazing then?) The entire afterword of the book is a disclaimer about the people that will hate it. That in and of itself is a testament to how misinformed and plain wrong he is. The fact that he believes himself to be right but SOMEHOW every major animal welfare agency (Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, American Humane Association) should also have readers very concerned (not to mention each one of those agencies has more compassion in their little finger that Winogard clearly has in his whole philosophy). All in all, this book has left me disappointed at best and disgusted at worse. If you care about animals, don't put yourself through the deception that is this book; volunteer at your local shelter, work with your rescue groups, see for yourself what is really going on.
46 internautes sur 53 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
3.0 étoiles sur 5 lack of citations, editing disappointing 4 juin 2008
Par A.C. - Publié sur
Winograd presents a compelling history of the animal-sheltering movement along with an argument for the move toward what he terms the No Kill Equation. It is a quick, interesting read, and his passion is evident. Overall I would recommend it to others interested in the subject, but with a few reservations.

On the positive side, the history of the ASPCA was very informative. I never knew about the origins of the organization, nor was I aware of how far from its roots it has strayed. It seems that things went wrong once the ASPCA took animal-control contracts from cities; at that point, it became all about the money rather than the animals. And that is why today we see depressing shelters run by bureaucrats, who often shun offers of help from idealistic volunteers.

Winograd's central thesis seems to be that the high kill rate of most shelters is indicative of massive system-wide failure. He backs this up with details of shelters' success stories. When radical changes were made, positive results were achieved. Such changes included a focus on adoption to compete with commercial breeders, with more convenient hours of operation, better customer service, and clever PR; a focus on preventative measures, with low- or no-cost spay/neuter operations made available, counseling made available for behavioral problems, and funding made available for TNR; and a paradigm shift in which employees who clung to the old model of sheltering were fired.

As a law-school grad, Winograd deftly dismantles some of the logical fallacies clung to by those mired in institutional inertia. Unfortunately, he engages in some of this sloppy rhetoric himself, most notably when he makes statements without citations and expects the reader to accept them as factual. There is also a rather embarrassing use of my favorite logical fallacy, reductio ad Hitlerum.

There are scads of quotations and passages that are not attributed to their authors, and there are studies that are mentioned but not cited. For me, the biggest disappointment was the chapter on TNR (the trap/neuter/return method for the humane management of feral cats). In addressing the concern that feral cats have negative ecological impacts, Winograd mentioned a few studies with flawed methodology and attacked them on scientific grounds. There was usually enough information for me to be able to find these studies if I did the research -- however, negative evidence is not evidence. I wanted references to the scientifically valid studies that have apparently shown a benign effect that feral-cat colonies have on local ecosystems. Winograd, however, does not reference them. I can only assume that they're included in the 12-page bibliography, but I'm not going to locate and wade through every single one of those manuscripts to find the confirmation that I want. If this were a work of true scholarly merit, the author would have included citations, footnotes, and references to peer-reviewed scientific studies.

At my old residence I trapped all of the feral and stray cats, took them in for sterilization, and released them back onto my property. I enjoyed watching them from a distance and observing their behavior, and knowing that I had made a difference was incredibly rewarding. Ferals and strays came to occupy a special place in my heart, and when I moved away I even took one of the friendlier ones with me -- he is a spoiled house cat now. Despite my love for feral cats, however, I'm not in denial about the potential impact they have on native wildlife. Maybe where I live, in an urban center, the impact is not so great, but even at the outskirts of my town feral cats have been connected with the deaths of some endangered bird species. I was delighted when Winograd pointed out that humans are the original invasive species, and I agree with his outlook. Feral cats exist only alongside humans, and we are responsible for far more habitat loss and species decimation. As long as there are human settlements, there will be feral cats, and extermination will not solve any wildlife-management quandaries.

Still, in discussing this matter Winograd actually sunk so low as to play the Nazi card. In a common association fallacy, he connects a concern with maintaining native species to racism, claiming that native-plant gardens gained popularity in Nazi Germany. I don't know whether or not that's true (there was no citation), but even if it is, that is hardly relevant. The Nazis championed lots of things, vegetarianism included, but that doesn't automatically imbue an idea with evil. Nazis' gardens are not relevant; the scientific consensus is. And the current consensus is that invasive species are a threat to biodiversity, pure and simple. This means that feral cats, depending on where they live, are indeed a potential threat to biodiversity. Of course, humans are the original threat, and the cause of the feral threat.

Another problem is the obvious lack of any editing. (If this book did have an editor, s/he should be fired.) I'm not just talking about the frequent descent into repetitive wordiness that could have been tightened up, or the irrelevant paragraph about Nazis that should have been removed altogether. I'm not just talking about the occasional sloppy and confusing wording that should have been rewritten and clarified. I'm talking about the abysmal copy errors. Misspellings; subject-verb disagreements (to his credit, this only happened with tricky words such as "criteria" and "data"); split infinitives (OK, no one cares about those anymore); and the biggest offender by far, the myriad punctuation errors. Sometimes there would be entire stretches of text in which errors appeared on every page. Maybe Winograd's ideas are valid, but the bad editing makes it seem like the work of an amateur.

These flaws combine to detract from the perceived credibility of the material. I cannot, for example, use this text to argue with a TNR opponent, because Winograd gives no citations and I wouldn't want to use such an amateurish work as a primary source. I hope to see a second edition in which the repetitive screeds are tightened up or eliminated, footnotes and references are attached to quotations and statements of fact, and the text is expanded to include references to solid scientific studies.

One criticism of this book is that No Kill shelters only push more responsibility for killing onto traditional shelters. This misses the point, because as Winograd shows, there are positive steps we can take to make things better than they are now. Even if 100 percent No Kill will never be achieved, it doesn't mean we can't abandon old models and move forward. The status quo is an obvious failure and a paradigm shift is greatly needed in order to reduce unnecessary suffering. The author gives us hope that we really can make things better.
31 internautes sur 37 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 No Kill is inevitable. Read this book and get on the bus. 13 mai 2010
Par Bett Sundermeyer - Publié sur
Format:Broché|Achat vérifié
What do I say about a book that completely changed my entire way of thinking about animal sheltering? So many things that we have all been taught for decades is completely wrong and it is shocking to discover this. We have been allowing the deaths of millions of animals every year, not knowing that there are alternatives that would save them.

I read this book on a flight to and from Minnesota. I spent most of the flight with my mouth hanging open in utter amazement.... amazement that someone figured out how to stop killing all healthy and treatable pets in animal shelters 15 YEARS ago yet US shelters are still killing millions every year; amazement that I, as an animal lover and rescuer, didn't know anything about it; amazement that all the programs and services that save lives are SO common sense that it is absurd that every shelter isn't doing them; and amazement that the largest, wealthiest animal "welfare" organizations have been fighting against these life saving methods and fighting against everything I believe in. I had been donating monthly to 2 of these organizations but immediately stopped as soon as I got off the plane.

I encourage everyone to read this book. I've read it several times now and everytime I do, I see again that everything Winograd writes is absolutely true. Now that I'm trying to bring these life saving methods to Houston's 5 kill shelters, unfortunately I see everything he talks about over and over and over... I see shelter directors that fight these life saving methods. I see bureaucrats who say they are working towards No Kill but refuse to follow the model that actually works, so they keep trying the same failed catch and kill methods.

It is disgusting and disturbing to find out what is really going on in America's shelters and at the largest animal welfare organizations. But, now that we know, it is equally as inspiring to know that many compassionate people are working hard to change the landscape.

After reading this book, I am no longer satisified to be just the "foster mom" and weekend volunteer, who saves as many as I can and cries about those that I can't bring home. I am now determined to spread this life saving message to everyone in Houston. No Kill is inevitable. Everyone needs to read this book and get on the bus.
55 internautes sur 68 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
2.0 étoiles sur 5 Hateful and misleading 14 septembre 2008
Par Gerald Harris - Publié sur
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.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ?   Dites-le-nous

Discussions entre clients

Le forum concernant ce produit
Discussion Réponses Message le plus récent
Pas de discussions pour l'instant

Posez des questions, partagez votre opinion, gagnez en compréhension
Démarrer une nouvelle discussion
Première publication:
Aller s'identifier

Rechercher parmi les discussions des clients
Rechercher dans toutes les discussions Amazon

Rechercher des articles similaires par rubrique