On November 21, Ed Boks wrote on Facebook:
"The Oreo Law is nothing more than a political vendetta on the part of Nathan Winograd against Ed Sayres. The law adds nothing to the saving of lives in NYC. While there I implemented a program called New Hope COST TO THEM and we provided the s/n surgery, vaccinations, and microchip, again, at no cost to the rescue groups. New
"Hope
"Hope
Nathan Winograd Responded to me via email:
“Ed Boks left Maricopa on threat of termination. He was fired from New York City Los Angeles
“And how did his program help Oreo? Not at all. The fact remains that shelters kill in the face of lifesaving alternatives. The only way to change that, and to change it forever, is to legally remove the discretion men like Boks and Sayres have to ignore what is in the best interests of animals and kill them needlessly. These directors already have had 15 years to follow the model pioneered in the No Kill movement and they have chosen not to. The animals do not have the time or luxury to wait another 15 years.
“If they won't save these animals willingly, we are going to force them to do so. This is not a vendetta. This is a war. A war to save the lives of animals under the threat of a death sentence by men like Boks.
"I might also add that Boks' argument is nonsensical. First, the law is state legislation meaning it would help animals in every shelter, not just NYCACC. Put aside the issue of Ed's claims (most of his "programs" were programs in name only and had no substance), laws set minimum standards. There is nothing preventing shelters from enacting more comprehensive lifesaving efforts. All Oreo's Law does is take away the power of shelters to kill in the face of a rescue alternative. It's focus is small, but its reach is enormous and will save thousands of animals every year. Boks is trying to undermine that and in doing so, shows his true colors: he doesn't appear to really care how many animals live or die, as long as he can make a name for himself. Which begs the question: if Boks talked and nobody listened, would he really make a sound?"
“And how did his program help Oreo? Not at all. The fact remains that shelters kill in the face of lifesaving alternatives. The only way to change that, and to change it forever, is to legally remove the discretion men like Boks and Sayres have to ignore what is in the best interests of animals and kill them needlessly. These directors already have had 15 years to follow the model pioneered in the No Kill movement and they have chosen not to. The animals do not have the time or luxury to wait another 15 years.
“If they won't save these animals willingly, we are going to force them to do so. This is not a vendetta. This is a war. A war to save the lives of animals under the threat of a death sentence by men like Boks.
"I might also add that Boks' argument is nonsensical. First, the law is state legislation meaning it would help animals in every shelter, not just NYCACC. Put aside the issue of Ed's claims (most of his "programs" were programs in name only and had no substance), laws set minimum standards. There is nothing preventing shelters from enacting more comprehensive lifesaving efforts. All Oreo's Law does is take away the power of shelters to kill in the face of a rescue alternative. It's focus is small, but its reach is enormous and will save thousands of animals every year. Boks is trying to undermine that and in doing so, shows his true colors: he doesn't appear to really care how many animals live or die, as long as he can make a name for himself. Which begs the question: if Boks talked and nobody listened, would he really make a sound?"
No comments:
Post a Comment