Okay, I'm beginning to see where this animosity between the No Kill Advocacy Center and Best Friends comes from. Apparently, as of last year, Winograd believed Best Friends was on their side and Best Friends was a key player last year.
Here are a few quotes from a Winograd Article from last year that illustrate this.
1. "No Kill Movement United Behind Oreo’s Law
Not only have thousands of animal lovers contacted Kellner and Duane thanking them for introducing Oreo’s Law, but the leaders of the No Kill movement have unanimously embraced it as well. Louise Holton, Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR) pioneer, Alley Cat Allies co-founder, and head of a national cat rescue group, was the latest No Kill leader to embrace Oreo’s Law, urging New York legislators to pass it.
She joins:
* National leaders
including myself at the No Kill Advocacy Center and Michael Mountain, founder of Best Friends;"
...and the list goes on.....
2. "In fact,
Best Friends Animal Society asked New York State rescue groups whether they supported the bill, and whether they have seen animals killed by shelters despite their offers to save them, and the overwhelming response was “Yes.” (When Best Friends presented these findings to Ed Sayres, however, he dismissed them as irrelevant.)"
3. "Nonetheless, activists working with Kellner’s Office
approached the ASPCA this week, through Best Friends as an intermediary, in the hopes of removing Sayres’ opposition to the bill, and offered additional (though unneeded) protections and a face-saving change in the name of the law in exchange for the ASPCA’s support,"
From this link...
Ed Sayres Threatens To Kill Oreo’s Law : Nathan J Winograd
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It certainly appears that Winograd believed Best Friends was working to pass the bill. This doesn't seem to be the case, given the way it actually played out. Here's this....
"During the very public discussion of Oreo's Law, Best Friends remained remarkably silent on the subject. However, following the tabling of the bill, various sources made statements indicating that Best Friends had actually worked behind the scene to kill Oreo's Law. When the bill was being discussed by the Agriculture Committee in the New York Assembly, it has been reported that the lobbyist for the ASPCA told legislators that Best Friends Animal Society actually opposed the bill. She also was reported to have told them that Best Friends was afraid to anger their animal rescue supporters by opposing the bill, and that their "neutrality" or "silence" on the topic should be interpreted as opposition.
Best Friends Facebook page was deluged with complaints about their failure to make a public statement regarding Oreo's Law. In a late-night attempt to quell the discontent, they published statement indicating they had been "neutral" on the bill. The statement only seemed to anger many of their members more. They released a follow-up statement shortly thereafter, apparently explaining why they actually opposed the bill (Huh? I thought they had said they were "Neutral"?) In this later statement they wrote, in part: response.
"The Hayden Bill in California is often cited as a shining example of shelter access legislation, but it does nothing to address these kinds of situations and they are more prevalent in California than proponents of the bill are either aware of or willing to admit. In the last 2 years alone Best Friends has been asked to intervene in 267 hoarding situations affecting over 19,000 animals. Of those, 49 have been in California, 7 more incidents than the next three states combined."
From this link....
On Oreo's Law: Why The "Hoarding" Argument is a Red Herring - the Animal Ark Online Community
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a reminder, Best Friends opposition seems to be centered around the argument that rescues can be hoarders, which has been shown to be untrue.