RANCHO CUCAMONGA - THE SHELTER NATHAN WINOGRAD WANTS TO FORGET

Well, well, well, I get to say this, "I TOLD YOU SO", not that it brings pleasure to do so either. In fact, I hate saying this to shelters because it means that animals had to suffer in order to prove me right. So it is bittersweet at best.
http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_19088681
Six years ago, the city took control of the animal center from San Bernardino County. At the time, it was one of the most disputed issues in the city and on Monday, some of those disputes resurfaced.


As soon as the minutes from that meeting are online I will update you.

I started this fight in Rancho Cucamonga against Nathan J. Winograd. I confronted him at public forum in Rancho and of course, he didn't respond to any of my questions. However, he was asked about the deficit he left in Tompkins County, a deficit that he denies even to this day, by the City Council members.
http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2009/01/infamous-tompkins-county-spca-deficit.html
http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2010/10/tompkins-county-deficit.html

This is not the first article to be written saying Rancho is not "No Kill". When they opened their doors, they were overrun with owner surrenders, turning them away. Other local shelters reported that these Rancho owners were showing up at their shelters with the tale that Rancho refused them. Rancho denies this but we know the truth.

If you look at the original 2008 Annual Report of Local Rabies Control Activities, you will see that more animals died in their kennels/cages than at the County shelter which handles twice the number of animals. When a humane officer questioned them on this signed report, immediately they issued another report with the excuse that they still had not figured out how to use their Chameleon system AFTER TWO YEARS!! Another report was issued.

Someone once said that all these people who tried to relinquish their pets to Rancho just shows how people want to use a "No Kill" shelters. I bet to differ. It shows that "No Kill" just gives people an excuse to "get rid of" a troublesome pet. "No Kill" has taken the guilt away from the public and now they come running. Then "No Kill" wants to turn them away, can't have it both ways.

So the taxpayers of Rancho are spending over $12 each person each year to maintain a shelter that absolutely can't be "No Kill". Rancho is an affluent community too, and that means more spay/neuter usually. But with the advent of "No Kill", why not let your pet have a litter to show your kids the miracle of birth. With "No Kill", we'll take the litter, when it becomes too much trouble, to the no kill shelter, won't have to explain to the kids, and it is a happily ever after story.

Yep, that's right, a fairy tale that is destroying open door shelters all over. Don't throw up Austin, that is a failure just waiting to be recognized. Don't throw up Reno, nothing but lies. Charlottesville is non profit, can't get the truth via public records. Winograd, you have nothing left, you are a miserable failure and your puppets are deserting in droves. Get a job.

This is Pat Dunaway