Rancho Cucamonga Statistics

One commenter said Winograd's Rancho consult was a disaster. Someone sent the Rancho and County stats. They sounded really good for Rancho, a vindication of Nathan, even though he never claimed Rancho a success.

Then Brad Jensen posted the comment below that 1,000 animals were missing from their stats! That is 20%.

Therefore, any Rancho stats are worthless and they don't prove anything one way or another.

I'll leave the comments below.


Strangeky, looking at the rabies reports submitted to the state by LAAS and their published stats, they are thousands apart also.


Anonymous said...

RC cant even provide a head count of cats and dogs they have on hand so why would anyone believe their stats are correct, or even close to been accurate?

~ BADger

Anonymous said...

Read the beginning of the County report and it says for the contract cities that they have and this is only for the Devore shelter. There are 14-16 different AC agencies and they are not under the county and they file their own reports. The City of Rialto houses at Devore but has their own ACO's is an example. But please note the Devore shelter handled about 12,000 cats and dogs while Rancho only about 5000. YET, the public surrenders (usually people turning in their own pets as strays in order to avoid a lecture and a surrender fee) for Rancho are higher than for the County on both cats and dogs. You want to explain that one???

Ed Muzika said...

So, your point?

Are you trying to distract the reader from seeing that RC had a 22% kill rate however the animals might have came in and the County, no matter what areas or shelters they covered, or why they came in, had 61%?

You just can't stand that Nathan's consult shelter, which you claimed was a bloodbath, has a 1/3 kill rate compared with any set of shelters in the immediate contiguous area.

Your are trying to twist and distort your way out of being refuted.

Anonymous said...

Ed, you are missing the point totally. The program is flawed and the public surrenders confirm that. So what that they had more adoptions? You burn staff out when you don't bring down the number of impounds and continually push for more adoptions. You saturate the foster homes so no more can be had. You wear out volunteers as well. So where does that leave you? The point being that this is a major flaw that impacts everything.

To go back in hindsight, Rancho was the shining star in the Inland Empire with an 86% save rate on dogs and the second highest save rate on cats. Everyone agreed that if a publically owned shelter could achieve the goals of no kill, it would be Rancho. But alas, the City Council refused to agree. But the term "no kill" was strickly forbidden prior to a lowly and unknown activist who had never rescued a pet from the Rancho Shelter and never did as long as the County had it. As a matter of fact, she complained 2 or 3 times at public forum and had never even been in the shelter. She insisted that feral cats and their litters should be out in the general cat room for the public to come in and see. I can go on and on. But, she was the first one to use the term "no kill"

Well, it was all down hill from there. This term did solicit attention from the council and they poured out a budget of over $6 million in three years to implement the program. We asked that they declare themselves as a humane community instead of "no kill" knowing that it deceives the public. Oh no, can't do that. We predicted the onslaught and it happened.

The point here, Ed, is that it can't work as presented, I have said time and time again. I saw the results first hand. If you saw it you wouldn't like it, I'm sure. It didn't have to be this way. Had the County been given this money, they could have reached "no kill" the first year. I have been in the budget meetings and actually saw the snickers and laughs. You will say that Winograd was able to get their attention, yes he did, but not for the betterment. There's no reason for the severe increase of surrenders other than the people thinking their animals will not be killed. Just the cities that are currently served by the County have a population just the same as Rancho does, the population is much higher when you add in the unincorporated areas that the County serves.

My Points:
1. Ups impounds from surrenders.
2. Burns out staff from increased adoptions trying to keep up with this sort of increase.
3. Saturates foster homes til no more room in the inn. www.rcpets.info shows only three cats in foster care last week. No puppies.
4. Frustrates, discourages, and burns out volunteers.

None of the above are good for the animals during their stay in the shelter. When you think only in terms of adoptions, you are forgetting about them while they are there. All of these points serve to defeat "no kill" as presented by Whine-ograd because they are the backbones of his program. It is only a matter of time and Rancho's came too early. To know what it could have become and what it is now, pleading with the public to stop bringing them in as demonstrated in the Daily Bulletin article by Wendy Leoung last November. The "public" is surrendering twice as many dogs as the ACO's bring in. This is a really big flaw in his program. This flaw is enough to defeat any shelter, no kill or high kill.

Finally I was able to lead you into something to talk about. Would you like to discuss this further or continue on about the other things? This one particular thing, in my book, is far too important to ignore. You think I enjoy cutting down Rancho when I held it in such high regard at one time, when I actually thought it could meet "no kill" goals? You think I am against "no kill". If you do, then you are wrong. I, too, want to believe but not this way.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the first comment that Rancho numbers can't be trusted even if these numbers have been submitted to the CDHS. There's over 1,000 animals unaccounted for (intakes - outcomes). What happened to them?

With regards to the 4th comment, surrendered animals typically outnumber strays picked up by field officers. Stats from LAAS rabies reports clearly show this to be true.

LAAS Rabies Reports

Brad Jensen
Cypress, CA


Ed Muzika said...

Thanks Brad. I missed that!!

Also, there is a wide disparity between the percentages of owner surrendered and public turn ins between County and Rancho.

In Rancho, owner surrenders are 17% but only 9% with County.

Public turn ins are 17% for County and 53% for Rancho.

What conclusions do you draw?

What are the impound stats on LA and County? Email your analyses and numbers and I will post. Thanks.

Anonymous said...


How come on your rabies chart the number of cat and dog adoptions has been going down yet on the Dept statistics it shows the number going up?

Anonymous said...

Curious isn't it... how cat and dog adoptions are reported to be going up based on stats published by the Department but appear to be going down according to what the Department has been reporting to the State.

I took numbers off the LAAS rabies activity reports and put them all into a spreadsheet to make it easier to see year to year numbers being reported. I also included numbers from stats published on the Department's website to compare.

LAAS Rabies Reports and Worksheet

Although I recently rec'd the 2007 Annual Rabies Activity Report for LAAS, it contains incomplete information therefore I have not incorporated into the worksheet. I should probably make it available to download with the other reports though. I'll do that later this evening.

Brad Jensen

Anonymous said...

I found this info on the City of Rancho website.

For 2006-2007 fiscal year:
19 full time employees
Budget of $2,008,660
Budget for 2007-2008 is $2,384,360
Budget for 2008-2009 is $2,557,480 and 24 full time employees and 4 part time.

For 2006-2007
Adoptions - 2233
Rescues - 632
RTO - 597
Owner surrenders - 565
Public surrenders - 4601
Euthanized - 1109
Volunteer hours - 3494 (based on this info they are only averaging about 10 hours a day in volunteer time)
The number of impounds was not listed in this report.