A Reply to Nathan Winograd…

Standard

bignewyorkerbookofdogs2Written by:  Amanda Katz (Guestblogger Extraordinaire)

After a lengthy discussion that centered around my support for HSUS and the ASPCA,  I asked Nathan Winograd via Facebook whether he supported Caboodle Ranch a failed hoarding/rescue of 700 cats.   He responded that he had made no statement about the ranch, then asked me a number of questions that seemed to be sparked by my cover pic of the HSUS baby seal campaign.  Here is my response to him, which came after a long series of back and forth between Winograd, myself and several other people.

Mr. Winograd – You have asked posters on your Facebook page not to put words in your mouth, yet your latest reply to me certainly puts words into mine.  You seem to have made all kinds of assumptions and accusations about what I think and believe, when all I did was ask if I could post openly on your page!   I am going to go ahead and share my thoughts openly, even though you removed my civil comments and banned me.

First regarding Caboodle Ranch.  I am glad to see you say you would condemn a place that is causing prolonged suffering and death to animals, even if that place calls itself No Kill.  That is exactly what Caboodle Ranch did.

You seem to be questioning the evidence against Caboodle Ranch solely because some of it came from PETA and ASPCA, which you claim lie about the facts.  However, it is hard to see where the evidence that PETA and ASPCA got about Caboodle was a lie.  Photos and video don’t lie, which is exactly why Big Ag. interests in several states are trying to pass Ag-Gag laws banning undercover investigations — and why the Caboodle defenders sound exactly like factory farmers talking about Mercy for Animals when they claim the photos and videos were doctored, staged, etc.

In the Caboodle Ranch case, PETA sent an undercover investigator at the request of several former volunteers to document the cruelty and neglect that caused the death of hundreds of cats.  PETA’s investigation provided local authorities with the evidence required to shut down the ranch.  At that point, local authorities asked the ASPCA to remove all 700 cats.  The ASPCA housed the cats for months while the legal proceedings were sorted out, provided extensive rehabilitation and medical treatment, and eventually adopted all but the very sickest of cats into new homes.

Even if you don’t believe PETA or the ASPCA about Caboodle Ranch, there is plenty of other evidence available. Before PETA and ASPCA were ever involved, the owner sued a former volunteer turned whistleblower for defamation and lost — it is this court case that provides much of the evidence against Caboodle Ranch, such as the financial records showing that Caboodle took in much more in donations than it paid in care for the cats, and that its owner used donations for the cats to pay for trips and clothing.

That evidence, combined with evidence from PETA and the ASPCA was certainly convincing to the courts, as the judge cited it in his order awarding custody of the cats to the local sheriff.  If all you do is read this court order, you will get a good idea of conditions for the animals at Caboodle Ranch.

Yes, I support the HSUS — and Other Organizations

You have also asked several questions of me.  I will do my best to answer them, though you may not like the answers.

I do support the HSUS, as well as ASPCA and PETA.  I also support Best Friends, and believe it or not, I support some of what you do as well.  You may not think that is possible, as you have made a concerted effort to draw a line in the sand between yourself and every other national animal welfare organization.  But I do not take such a black-and-white view of these issues.

First, regarding HSUS, you have presented a number of allegations on your Facebook page.  I can’t answer all of those, but I can answer some, and I believe you are misconstruing their actual work and position on the issues. For example, bignewyorkerbookofdogs5regarding dogs rescued from fighting operations, your description of the HSUS position does not include the fact that they changed their position on this issue back in April 2009 — almost four years ago.  At the time of the Vick case and the Wilkes County case, when asked, they did advise the court to euthanize the dogs.  That is not the same thing as “lobbying” — the court asked, and they provided an answer.  Moreover, at the time euthanasia was the standard recommendation for all dogs removed from fighting operations — most humane organizations made the same recommendation.

Fortunately the HSUS was mature enough to reconsider this position and change its recommendations to advocate for individual evaluations.  Again, that happened almost four years ago now, yet you continue to write about HSUS as if euthanasia is their current position when it is not.  Moreover, the HSUS remained true to its word with the rescue of 200 dogs from a fighting operation in Ohio in 2010.  All but the sickest of dogs were rescued and placed into new homes.

One of those homes belongs to an HSUS employee I know personally who slept with him in the living room every night for weeks so she could be there when he woke up with nightmares.  This is hardly the hard-hearted pro-killing organization that you make HSUS out to be.  For more, see “HSUS Steps Up and Seeks Help for 200 Dogs Seized from Fighting Operation” by Ledy van Kavage first published on change.org.

Why do you not present this crucial part of the story when discussing the HSUS’s recommendations on fighting dogs?

bignewyorkerbookofdogs1Gas chamber and Michael Vick

Regarding the allegations that HSUS has lobbied against laws banning the gas chamber, I have a very difficult time believing the HSUS did that. On the contrary, the HSUS has given grants to shelters to transition them off of the gas chamber.  The HSUS also actively supports the proposed Congressional resolution by Jim Moran (D-Va.) to condemn use of the gas chamber and encourage states to ban it.

You told someone farther up this thread that the Moran resolution makes an exception for shelters, but again, I think that is a misconstrual of the facts.  It is a proposed resolution, not a law, so it is not binding on anyone.  The national Congress is not going to pass a law regarding shelter practices because animal shelters are regulated by state and local governments, and are not a federal matter.

However, if Congress passed a resolution condemning the gas chamber, that would be an important tool in pushing states like North Carolina to ban the practice.  This would be a win for the animals that we are all trying to help.  That’s why resolutions like this should be supported regardless of feelings about HSUS.

Moreover, the HSUS position on the gas chamber is clear: “The HSUS considers use of the gas chamber in a shelter setting to be unacceptable under any circumstances.”  The reasons are that “Gas chambers cannot provide humane euthanasia for shelter populations,” and “Gas chambers pose grave dangers to staff.”

As for Vick, I can see why the HSUS worked with him, but it is not something I actively supported.  As was pointed out to you, Vick can reach inner-city kids in African American neighborhoods in a way that you, I, or Wayne Pacelle cannot. He spoke to tens of thousands of them, and if he got even one kid to reconsider going into dogfighting, that is a good thing.  Unfortunately, the Vick partnership sparked a strong backlash in the animal welfare community.  For that reason, I do not think it has been a success.

However, regardless of whether the Vick program was successful, it was not done as a quid pro quo to get $50,000 out of the Philadelphia Eagles.  That money did not go to line anyone’s pockets but to the End Dogfighting program in Philadelphia.  The Eagles also gave $50,000 grants to two other humane organizations at the same time — the Philadelphia Animal Welfare Society to build a spay-neuter clinic, and Berks County Humane Society to fund a mobile veterinary clinic.

Why do you not mention those grants in your discussion of the Eagles money?  Is it possible the Eagles were simply trying to improve animal welfare in their community?  All three of their grants went to animal welfare programs in Philadelphia, and with a $50,000 grant, each program could help a lot more animals.

herding catsOther National Groups

Regarding the ASPCA, I do not know as much about them as I do HSUS, but they stepped up to save 700 cats from Caboodle Ranch, as well as 350 dogs from a failed rescue in Ohio in 2011. In both cases they were asked to help by local authorities because local shelters simply do not have the capacity to handle so many animals. And in both cases almost every animal was saved, and these were very sick animals removed from horrible hoarding situations.

This demonstrates one reason why we need the national groups.  What other groups have the capacity to conduct large-scale rescues from hoarding situations, fighting rings, puppy mills, natural disasters, and other cases when hundreds of animals are in need?  I don’t see that any of your No Kill shelters, as wonderful as they are, have the capacity to do that.

Furthermore, in many cases in which animals were removed from so-called rescues that were really situations of great cruelty, the rescue group had a 501c3.  In fact, all the national animal welfare groups have been asked to handle major removals from 501c3 rescue organizations that were actually horrible hoarding situations.  Besides the ASPCA’s involvement in Caboodle Ranch in Florida and One More Chance Rescue in Ohio, the HSUS rescued, rehabilitated and rehomed 700 cats from Haven Acres in Florida, while Best Friends rescued 800 cats from For the Love of Cats and Kittens in Nevada, 150 of which still live at the Best Friends sanctuary in Utah.

All of these so-called rescue groups had a 501c3, yet they all involved extreme animal suffering.  Perhaps this is why the national groups have not testified in favor of CAPA laws that would require local shelters to turn over animals to any rescue group that asks.  While most rescues are wonderful organizations, clearly some of them are not — to send an animal to one of these places would condemn it to prolonged suffering and death.

A 501c3 alone is simply not enough to ensure that a place calling itself a rescue is not a death camp.  Again I think you have misconstrued the position of the national organizations on this issue.  While you say they have lobbied against the CAPA bills, that is not the case in the instances I have read about, such as Best Friends which remained neutral on the CAPA proposal in New York.

Personally, I think shelters should work more with rescue groups and would support a version of CAPA that provided some kind of standards for rescue groups to meet before shelters were legally required to send animals to them.  I am not sure what those standards would be, but would support, for example, formation of an accrediting body for shelters and rescues similar to the organizations that accredit top zoos (Association of Zoos and Aquariums), and quality exotic animal sanctuaries (Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries).  Shelters and rescues would have an incentive to achieve accreditation because accredited organizations are more likely to draw donations and be awarded grants.

We All Want to End Shelter Euthanasiadogsandblogsnewyorker

As I said earlier, while I don’t agree with some of your positions, I do support other things you do.  The No Kill Equation is a list of best practices that every shelter should be striving to accomplish, and many shelters are already incorporating some, most or all of its elements into their operations.  Others are not.

There is no doubt that some shelters are in dire need of reform, and I am glad your group is there to demand that they do it.  But there is a difference between criticism meant to reform bad practices and a scorched earth campaign meant to destroy the very infrastructure we need to help animals.  I think that your rhetoric often crosses the line into destruction rather than criticism.

Moreover, I cannot agree that there is no such thing as pet overpopulation, or that adoption alone can end shelter euthanasia.  Increased adoption is certainly an essential part of what must be done, including concerted efforts at better marketing and placement of animals.  Other tactics to  help save large groups of animals should be supported, such as a creating a Parvo ward for puppies and a bottle baby ward for kittens, provided they are properly staffed to avoid suffering.

But we also must reduce the number of animals flowing into shelters, particularly from puppy mills and unaltered street cats.  Low-cost spay-neuter for low-income areas is vital, as is legislation regulating high-volume dog breeders.  Why endorse one tactic to end shelter euthanasia (increasing demand) but not another (decreasing supply)?  Surely there is room for a variety of tactics to achieve this important goal.

You say that no one can provide numbers showing there are fewer homes than animals needing to be placed.  That is because such national numbers do not exist.  We have an idea how many animals are in shelters, but we have no idea how many are being advertised on Craig’s List and other online forums, how many stray cats are on the streets, how many people get cats from accidental litters that a friend had, etc.

The actual number of homeless animals is much, much higher than what is in shelters.  For every person who gets a cat at a shelter, many more get cats from friends or the streets.  That is direct competition for shelter animals and must be considered in these calculations of supply and demand. Furthermore, the animals who are in shelters do not always match what people are looking for.  Most people don’t want pit bulls, yet half of dogs in shelters are pits or pit mixes.  People want kittens, not adult cats, yet shelters are overflowing with adult cats.  People don’t want black animals.

I’m not saying that’s right.  I think it’s terrible.  But regardless of what I think, someone who comes to a shelter looking for a kitten or a Pomeranian is not going to walk away with an adult black cat or a pit bull.  So it’s not a matter solely of numbers.  It is also a matter of preferences.  Shelter director Karel Minor makes this point eloquently.

Herblock Fire June 17, 1949We Need to Work Together

To say that people who disagree with your interpretation of these complex issues are “pro-killing” is simply not accurate.  On this page I have seen you tell people who spend their entire life outside of work rescuing animals that they are pro-killing.  I believe that is a misrepresentation of their hard work and counter-productive. With so many animals suffering, we need ALL tactics, ALL groups working together.

You have noted that the number of no kill communities is rising.  They achieve no kill by working with others in their communities to constructively solve problems, not through vicious attacks and infighting.

I look forward to the day when all animal advocates can work together to help animals in need, when there is room for all tactics and programs to end shelter euthanasia, and when we can end this vicious infighting that is a much larger threat to the animal welfare movement than any external enemy ever could be.

About these ads

About heatherclemenceau

Hopefully as I've grown older I've also grown wiser, but one thing I've definitely become cognizant of is the difference between making a living and making a life. Frequently outraged by some of life's cruelties, and respect diversity. But.....I don't suffer fools gladly, and occasionally, this does get me into some trouble! I have the distinction of being the world's worst golfer - no wait, I do believe that there is a gypsy in Moldavia who is a worse golfer than I. Nor am I much of a dancer - you won't see a booty-shakin' flygirl routine from me! I'm also not the kind of cook who can whip up a five-course meal on a radiator either! And I've never figured out how to get an orchid to bloom a second time. I love to discuss literature, science, philosophy, and sci-fi , or even why Seinfeld is funny on so many levels. Words move me. I'm very soft-hearted about most things, especially animals, but I have a stoicism about me that is sometimes interpreted incorrectly. I do have a definite edge and an often "retro-adolescent" sense of humour at times. I'm a big advocate of distributed computing projects to advance science. Check out http://boinc.berkeley.edu/ if you want to find out more. I'm an eclectic (but not crazy) vegetarian, and as such, it's a personal practice of mine to seduce innocent meat-eaters into cruising the (salad) bars at every opportunity. You would be powerless to resist. I was recently surprised to find that a computer algorithm concluded that I write like Dan Brown, which is funny because I didn't think Dan Brown could actually write. Check out your own style - http://iwl.me/ Oh, and I love impractical shoes and funky hats.

18 responses »

  1. Heather – what a breath of fresh air your article is on this frosty Canadian morning. Thank you for your exceptional arguments to points made by Mr. Winograd. I concur 100%! Well said you!

  2. Excellent article as usual Heather. I would just like to add that many no kill shelters refuse animals that are presented to them. They often have a waiting list for people who want to surrender their animals. My thought is what happens to those animals while the people are waiting for the call to bring their pet in for surrender? I personally feel this is part of why we are seeing so many abandoned cats, people cannot wait for the call and out of desperation feel that they are “at least giving the cat a chance” by taking it to a farm or other such area in hopes that it will survive. I just rescued a cat that was released on a local ranch, that was spayed and obviously was a indoor cat. She is now safe under the care of AlleyCATS Alliance but the feral cat problem is growing every day in almost all communities.As you mention in your article our area rescues are all working at full capacity and still the calls keep coming.
    I feel the high rates that Veterinarians charge for spay and neuter is also part of the problem, in this economy 2-3 hundred dollars for a spay is just out of many people’s financial reach.
    Thank you Heather for all you do to help protect animals.

    • Thank you Theresa, Amanda Katz is my guestblogger for this article, and she has a lot of experience refuting the “logic” of the basic tenets of Winograd’s philosophy. I’ve only been reading about No-kill for a couple of months, but wondered what possible takeaways there might be for horse advocates, especially since, as you know, we are facing a withdrawal of the EU market this year and slaughter is likely to be severely curtailed. How can we help unwanted horses and the owners of these horses who would have sent them to slaughter?

      I’m planning to write about what I’ve gleaned from conversations, articles, etc. and apply them to horse rescue, which has occasionally suffered from some of the same problems as shelter animals – namely hoarding and substandard care. While anti-slaughter advocates have worked with pro-slaughters in the past, there is an animosity in the No-Kill community which far surpasses almost anything I’ve seen in the debate for/against horse slaughter. My main critique against No-kill, which applies to horses as well is the downplaying or denial of overpopulation. One No-Kill supporter replied to a post I made on Facebook explaining that there was no overpopulation of horses, only a shortage of people! That’s the very definition of overpopulation, but a brand new spin……

  3. millions and millions in their bank accounts and local shelters turn pets away for lack of money?????I love Nathan Winograd for going after these bloated so-called humane organizations.I would not have extra money laying around knowing that a pet would suffer because I couldn’t figure out how to live a little leaner and save those pets!

    • Thanks for your comment, Lisa. The mission of the national organizations is not to pay the operating costs of local shelters and rescues. No single group could do this, as there are 5000 local shelters across the country and who knows how many rescues. For example, if the HSUS gave out its entire budget to local shelters, it would amount to a one-time payment of something like $12 per animal — and more animals would keep streaming into shelters.

      Instead, the HSUS works on the root of the problem, trying to prevent more animals from entering shelters in the first place. It does that through backing sensible regulations on high-volume breeders, supporting spay-neuter initiatives, paying for the Shelter Pet Project ad campaign to promote shelter adoption, providing training and resources to shelter employees, and other initiatives. These things do have a positive effect for pets.

      All of the national orgs also carry out large-scale rescues of pets in natural disasters and cruelty situations such as puppy mills, dog fighting or cat hoarding. This involves removal of the animals, veterinary treatment, and housing sometimes for months while a court case is being worked out. All of this is beyond the capacity of any local shelter; in fact, it is usually the local shelters that ask the national groups to assist in these cases.

      Plus the HSUS doesn’t just work on behalf of cats and dogs, but all animals, including wildlife, lab animals, and farm animals — which at 10 billion killed for food each year is the largest use of animals by humans than all the other uses combined. If the HSUS were not spending its donations on improving conditions for farm animals, it would not be doing its job.

      You can see exactly what the HSUS mission is on its About Us page – http://www.humanesociety.org/about/

      You can see more about the HSUS’s work with shelters here – http://www.humanesociety.org/animal_community/working_shelters.html

      And here – http://www.humanesociety.org/animal_community/resources/facts/HSUS_local_shelters.html

  4. “Moreover, I cannot agree that there is no such thing as pet overpopulation, or that adoption alone can end shelter euthanasia. Increased adoption is certainly an essential part of what must be done, including concerted efforts at better marketing and placement of animals. Other tactics to help save large groups of animals should be supported, such as a creating a Parvo ward for puppies and a bottle baby ward for kittens, provided they are properly staffed to avoid suffering.

    But we also must reduce the number of animals flowing into shelters, particularly from puppy mills and unaltered street cats. Low-cost spay-neuter for low-income areas is vital, as is legislation regulating high-volume dog breeders. Why endorse one tactic to end shelter euthanasia (increasing demand) but not another (decreasing supply)? Surely there is room for a variety of tactics to achieve this important goal.”

    You failed to mention that along with a comprehensive adoption program, the No-Kill Equation according to Nathan Winograd includes a compassionate shelter director, rescue partnerships, volunteers, foster care, trap/neuter/release, public relations/community involvement, medical & behavior prevention & rehabilitation, high volume/low cost spay & neuter, and proactive redemption. Please research and educate yourself!!!

    • Tanja, perhaps you didn’t read the part where I said the No Kill Equation is a good list of best practices for shelters. Many shelters have been practicing some or all of the NKE since long before Winograd came along and branded it for himself.

      The fact is, Winograd claims you can adopt your way out of shelter euthanasia, and that simply is not the case. If you do not control the flow of animals coming into the shelter, you will never adopt your way out. The number of animals euthanized in shelters is directly proportional to the number coming in — even if you adopt out more. You must address BOTH ends of pet homelessness — animals coming in AND animals going out — to make a difference.

      In contrast to Winograd, here is someone who gets it – Rick du Charme of First Coast No More Homeless Pets in Jacksonville, Florida. He started out with targeting low-cost spay-neuter to low income areas. By controlling the population before they even get to shelters, shelter euthanasia dropped precipitously, and the community is well on its way to no kill. He’s not as flashy as Winograd, but this approach works. I suggest you look into it. http://www.maddiesfund.org/Maddies_Institute/Articles/How_to_Work_with_Municipalities_to_Save_Community_Cats.html

      • High Volume/Low Cost Spay and Neuter is also a program of the No-Kill Equation. The problem is that most shelters do not want to implement these programs because they require more effort and work for the staff and board members. I volunteer at a kill shelter whose board members are rejecting most of the programs that have been successful in saving lives in progressive shelters. We don’t even have a foster program. Nothing has been done yet. The few volunteers that we have either never come to the shelter or quit coming because most outcomes are too heartbreaking. This is what Nathan Winograd and many volunteers/advocates are up against. This is what is really going on! Excuses, excuses, excuses…and no results!!!

      • I think everyone agrees that shelter reform must happen. However, Marsh and DuCharme achieve the same results without divisiveness and they DO acknowledge that there is indeed a pet overpopulation problem. http://www.shelteroverpopulation.org/ Winograd however, is an “issue-entrepreneur” who saw an opportunity to make money, IMO somewhat similarly to what L. Ron Hubbard did in creating his own religion.

      • “I think everyone agrees that shelter reform must happen. However, Marsh and DuCharme achieve the same results without divisiveness and they DO acknowledge that there is indeed a pet overpopulation problem. http://www.shelteroverpopulation.org/ Winograd however, is an “issue-entrepreneur” who saw an opportunity to make money, IMO somewhat similarly to what L. Ron Hubbard did in creating his own religion. ”

        ^^in response to this: Not everyone is going to speak out against the poor practices of the Humane Society/ASPCA/PETA, etc. People are going to promote change and create awareness in their own ways. If Marsh and Ducharme are making effective change that is great. But to dismiss Nathan Winograd as someone who saw an opportunity to make money is just silly. He saw through the bullshit some large scale organizations are putting out there, spoke out, ruffled feathers and people are angry because he exposed or brought to light some things that seem contrary to what these organizations supposedly stand for. I agree the animal advocates and welfare organizations should get along, but it goes both ways. The same organizations you are defending speak poorly of Nathan Winograd as well, attempt to debunk No Kill as though it is not attainable. Just as you agree with some of his proposals, so should some of these organizations.

      • I can’t speak on behalf of the HSUS or PETA, so I’ve no idea whether they agree with much of what he’s doing, however Winograd has created his own bullshit – he very destructively places the blame on shelter workers themselves which is utterly wrong IMO. Rather like blaming hospitals for disease. I find it odd that he will attack other vegans, a philosophy apparently so important to him, even if they “like” dissenting posts on his page – that’s what happened to me. I consider him an “issue entrepreneur” since his Facebook page is all about promoting his books with little emphasis on vegan philosophy – he’d actually prefer to attack vegans who share this commonality with him when they disagree with him on any other level. I guess that’s because you can’t brand veganism, but you can brand No-Kill. Quite frankly, I think calling people “killers” is divisive – http://stewietotherescue.org/hav-nathan-winograd-and-his-cohorts-lost-it-and-us-part-two/.

        This type of obsessive rigidity drives people away. He will not place the blame for pet overpopulation, which he maintains does not exist, squarely where it belongs – on excess breeding and people who do not spay/neuter. As a horse person, I’m stunned whenever I read about this “lack of pet overpopulation” – Canada slaughters approximately 140,000 horses per year because there’s just too many horses, or as one of his readers told me – “there aren’t too many animals, only a shortage of people.” If this is the kind of logic espoused by Winograd and his followers, you can count me out.

        I support open admission shelters, even though it’s true that ‘No-Kill’ shelters don’t euthanize animals, but by turning animals away, they sometimes condemn these same animals to terrifying, painful, and violent deaths – or the people turned away simply drive to the nearest shelter that will accept them. I’m also extremely disturbed that some Winogradians tried to harass the Waggin Train rescue into releasing a dog that did not appear to be behaviourally sound, and as a dog bite victim myself, I think this is completely irresponsible. I support Marsh and Ducharme’s model of “not killing,” rather than No-Kill.

      • @Dianne – Actually the national groups do NOT dismiss no kill as something that is not attainable. The HSUS has stated publicly that it would like to see the end of euthanasia of healthy adoptable animals by 2020. It’s in Wayne Pacelle’s book, The Bond – Look it up – http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2012/07/saving-pets.html

        I support that too. However, we will not get there the Winograd way of denying there is such a thing as pet overpopulation and vilifying shelter management. Yes, some shelters do need to be reformed, and where that is the case it should be done. But Winograd’s scorched earth campaign causes nothing but destruction.

  5. Tanja, Amanda was originally responding to a very specific conversation with Winograd on his Facebook page and highlighting his vitriol towards people who do not agree with him. Many animal advocates will not be looking forward to working with the most extreme members of a “cabal” that refers to them as “killers.” You may wish to read and educate yourself on how one of Winograd’s most staunch followers chose to take out an Adwords campaign against a hardworking shelter which places large, difficult to place breeds of dogs. Would I want to get behind THIS? Hell no………..http://delawarecapa.blogspot.ca/2013/01/no-kill-is-waggin-dog.html

  6. This article recently came to my attention and I want to thank you for your balanced approach and request for working together. All organizations can impact more change if they levy their strengths.

  7. Wish you guys would do a bit more research into the facade called “NK” – and then you would get an idea of just who and what are behind this massive “agenda”. Think dog breeders and other assorted animal use venues.
    Extra i.e. – ever hear of Naia? Akc? Cfa?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s