Rancho Cucamonga Shelter

[One Who Knows]

Forgot to mention some interesting info along the lines of your post, its a no brainer. Rancho had more "public" surrenders than the Devore shelter. Rancho only handled about 5000 animals in 2007 while the Devore shelter handled about 12,000. Yet Rancho had more turn ins by people. Why is this? Because people think Rancho is a "no kill" shelter. Most of the "public" surrenders are owners who want to avoid hard looks from staff, a lecture, or surrender fees. So they go to the "no kill" shelter because that relieves them of the guilt and turns in their own pet without a history or a name. Rancho has been the perfect example of what we lectured the Rancho council about for years. Don't proclaim "no kill", proclaim "humane community" instead. You can't be the only open door admission "no kill" shelter without expecting the world to beat a path to your door. Washoe Nevada has three times the national average of owner turn ins because they are a "no kill" open door shelter. They are in the midst of trying to "figure" this out. So, blame, if you will, the public, but they are only doing what you would do in their position, take the pet to the closest open door "no kill" shelter. It's a vicious cycle created when the term "no kill" comes into play.

[simply watching]

To date 13 staff members have left good paying jobs which have great benefits and an excellent retirement plan. This is since rancho took over..not everything can be blamed on the staff. Maybe it is time for the cititzens to ask why the manager is still there.
As for the volunteers many come and few stay after the poor treatment by the manager.

If the tax payers knew how much money they were spending to keep one kitten alive, they would be very shocked. FInd out how much it costs to treat a kitten for ringworm, along with the day to day costs of that one kitten take that figure to the citizens and I promise most will want to re-think what is "Really" happening there. Many would quite appalled

[One Who Knows]

And are these 13 good ex-staff voicing themselves on this? Rancho's council turns a deaf ear and why? Because they can't afford to admit they have made a big mistake that has cost the taxpayers. Taxpayers in Rancho are paying $12+ per person per year for animal control. No other place in the country is doing that. HSUS says to spend that much is a waste of good money, money that could be given out in the form of free spay/neuter, etc. Yet, people are afraid of speaking against "No Kill" in fear of reprisals and retaliation. Rancho has made a big mistake and the animals in the shelter are paying for it.

[simply watching]

I'm not so sure it is the direct fault of the council and more of an issue with the way that place is managed. To have lost that many staffers in such a short time points more to management that anyone else. Three of those people were Animal Control Supervisors. I think Rancho Cumamonga has the right idea, good staff and the wrong management. And what about the director messing up the budget because of an error in math. Who is paying for that? It appears that it is the staff keeping that place afloat. At a recent council meeting I heard the manager thank one staff member for help on a fundraiser. That one staff member must be the managers only friend. The citizens must stand up for the animals and the staff and demand for management to be replaced.

[One Who Knows]

My insiders tell me that the ACO's left because they felt the city was promising too much and it was falling on their backs. And also that the staff that left felt that it was too much to deal with, little in the way of qualified volunteers to help, and had trouble dealing with all the surrenders. That's what I hear from the Rancho Shelter. If you will look at the other failures of the "No Kill" equation, the management always gets blamed. Even those hand picked directors. It may appear to be management but it is the program they are trying to manage. On the Rancho city website, you can see that Rancho is only averaging 10 hours a day with volunteers and the backbone of this program is volunteers. Also there is no accounting for what and how many animals go to what rescues and there are reports of hoarders getting animals out of there. A request for public records of the groups and how many animals was not possible to obtain due to a lack of reporting. So one cannot check to see if the hoarders are there or not. Public surrenders are seven times what the ACO's bring in. Shelter population is not going down even with the ACO's at short staff (meaning fewer animals being picked up) and surrenders are thru the roof. Whereas public surrenders prior to the "No Kill" program were about 50-100 per year, now they are over 4000 a year, yes that is 4000. These are not good people picking up strays off the side of the road, these are owners surrendering their own pets claiming them to be strays in order to avoid the hard looks, rude staff, lectures, and fees. Since the "No Kill" program says the public is not responsible for the problem, the guilt is taken away and these people are leaving their own pets at the shelter without a history or a name. How cruel.

[duh]

The aco's left because the manager, the director and a nameless person at city hall cover for one another and won't allow any one in who has a set of balls to stand up and demand changes. It had nothing to do with unrealistic goals,. It has to do with who is covering for whom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If anyone says differently then they are lying. Ask Jason, Alfred and MIss Kelly why they left. Ask why so mny people are leaving? If the staff could meet with city council alone many people would be very surprised by what they hear. The Mayor would fall off his chair, Jack would run back to Africa, and every council member except for Mr. Spagnolo woud run and hide. The public should demand an oversite committee as well as a question and answer meeting with the public and council. It will obly be then that the truth be told.......

[One Who Knows]

I would say that expecting too much as a director or manager of the ACO's makes sense why they left. The point is that the program they bought into does expect too much. With the influx not going down as it was doing prior to the City taking over, staff is pushed even more to adopt. Can't adopt your way out of this overload. Staff gets burned out, volunteers get burned out. Rancho made a big mistake by adopting the program they adopted and losing burned out staff is just one of the reasons why this program is not sustainable.

[duh]

Oct 1, 2008 13:43:47 GMT -5 @One Who Knows said:

I would say that expecting too much as a director or manager of the ACO's makes sense why they left. The point is that the program they bought into does expect too much. With the influx not going down as it was doing prior to the City taking over, staff is pushed even more to adopt. Can't adopt your way out of this overload. Staff gets burned out, volunteers get burned out. Rancho made a big mistake by adopting the program they adopted and losing burned out staff is just one of the reasons why this program is not sustainable.

[duh]

The problem is Not the staff. The problem is the management. The taxpayers voted for the city to run the shelter, nathan got in the mix, and he is partially to blame for the shelter being over-populated. He sold a bill of goods took his money and happily walked away. An open door municipal shelter can never go NO-Kill, Never. The shelter is not big enough to handle all the animls that people say are found in rancho. People walk in there and treat the staff like they are nuts, and when they don't get what they want they call the mayor and complain. i feel bad for hte staff there, i have been in there watching and listening to how they are treated. its a shame those people are not given more consideration for the job they do. the director, the manager and the woman at city hall are the blame for hte continuing problems. City hall covers for the shortcomings of the manager and director, who by the way fight all the time. Go to the council meetings if your dont like what is happening there.

[One Who Knows]

Of course it is management, it always is in the shelters that adopt the Winograd program. But that is only an excuse. I know it is not the staff that is the problem, they are the victims. The City Council knows, don't kid yourself. But for them to admit they made a mistake buying Winograd's program first and then continuing to support it, is not gonna happen without a loud public outcry. Rancho has fallen victim to Winograd and his program designed to destroy rather than help. He wants to fill the shelters with purebreds from his buddies in the breeding industry. Ask yourself, who stands to gain with shelters being in chaos? It is in Winograd's favor for shelters to be less than perfect, no one else's. Remember that one misguided, ignorant, inexperienced activist brought all this to bear by running her mouth at council meetings. Take a lesson from that and make yourselves heard. Winograd has made victims of the Rancho shelter and the Rancho taxpayer. This needs to be known.

[One Who Knows]

A further bit of info. I have met in private with Spagnola and I am here to tell you that he is not to be trusted. He doesn't care about what is happening at the shelter, he says all is well. Again he doesn't want to be known as a fool for adopting all this so he is in denial as well. He's not as he appears, believe me.

[watching]

Everything is not right at Rancho. They continue to lose the precious volunteers. If the city council had a meeting with the staff only they would know exactly what is happening there. Maybe someone can arrange it.

[One Who Knows]

I don't think even a meeting would help. Understand that the City Council made a huge mistake when they decided to go it on their own. And the same council members are still seated. They are not going to admit their mistake and run the risk of not getting re-elected. Taxpayers would love to boot them out of office for wasting money on animals. So don't expect changes until you vote in new council members.

[watchingg]

Get rid of the manager and most of the problemswill be corrected. A new manager will lead that staff to success. A new manager will also clean house of those who don't carry their weight. Something shocking is going to happen there very soon.

[fishy]

Please retire PAT DUNAWAY, "one who knows". You really know nothing. You have no formal education. You've been fired from every job you've had. You tell people you own property, you don't. You secretly kill innocent dogs and cats to end overpopulation. That is your true belief. You want to kill animals as opposed to taking them out of a shelter and finding them a home. That would be too much real work for you and would distract from your only real goal: to get your name published anywhere, on a website, in a forum, on a park bench, on a bathroom wall....A lot of us know who you are across this and other nearby counties. You are known as a crazy character, not someone with credibility. You are a joke because you mouth off and say nothing and accomplish nothing. You have spent your whole life promoting yourself. You've never done anything good for animals. But bad, you've done a whole lot of that, haven't you Pat? How about the abuse you were accused of by law officials? What ever happened to that prosecution against you? Why is it that all those you claim to be your 'friends' say behind your back that you are "nuts" and they want you to stay far away from them. None of the organzations you say you are a part of will admit any affilliation with you. You have not achieved anything. Just go away and the animal world will be so much better without you.