The Best Friends Cult
In other news: Riverside taxpayers to fund bureaucracy dedicated to killing animals. Remembering Little Bowie. Waymo hits a dog weeks after killing a cat. Do you have what it takes to save lives? Communities are looking for someone to run or help run their animal shelters. Where have all the vegans gone? Sheriff’s Office may be local county’s biggest abuser. County Board criminalizes compassion. A country commits to killing all community cats. All dogs have a bit of the wolf in them.
These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:
City funding to the Riverside County pound doubles
Over the next three years, the cost to Riverside, CA, taxpayers for contracting with the Riverside County Department of Animal Services (RCDAS) will roughly double. Under the new deal, the City will pay about $16.8 million over three years to cover animal control and sheltering services provided by the County. Fees will rise by 17% in year one, 44% in year two, and 20% in year three. County officials pushing the increase argue that the rising costs are necessary to achieve No Kill. City officials who opposed the increase warned that the price jump — compounded by billing for staff meeting time — may mask deeper structural issues with how animal services is run. Opponents are correct.
While I would never want to deny additional funding for the animals, throwing money at people with a regressive mindset will not achieve No Kill; replacing those people will. This is especially true in Riverside County, a pound rife with corruption.
As reported previously, a lawsuit against the Riverside County pound alleged that,
The photographs above were taken by a community member visiting the San Jacinto facility of [Riverside County Department of Animal Services] RCDAS. What she saw was appalling — the dog in the picture on the left had been dead for some period of time and the dog pictured on right was laying on an excrement-covered floor with more excrement on the dog’s body…
The lawsuit alleges that “these disturbing photographs of animal cruelty are emblematic of the fundamental failings and pervasive deficiencies, the inertia and inaction, of RCDAS,” representing “a shocking, callous, and ongoing failure to follow California law by RCDAS.” Given these allegations, it is hardly surprising that the Riverside County pound “killed more animals than any other reporting shelter in the United States.”
The lawsuit also alleges that the pound releases unspayed and unneutered animals, in violation of a law prohibiting it. It also asserts that taxpayer funds were wasted on the nepotistic hiring of an incompetent, unskilled pound director and on a $2.45 million contract with a consultant with a track record of abject failure and animal harm.
In court, Riverside County officials didn’t dispute that they neglect, abuse, and kill animals. They do. They did not dispute that they released unspayed and unneutered animals in violation of the law. They do. And they didn’t dispute that they spent and continue to spend what will ultimately be millions of taxpayer dollars on the hiring of a consultant who should not have been hired, given her lack of ability or desire to achieve No Kill. Instead, they asked the Court to dismiss the case by arguing that no one should be able to hold them accountable for it.
The animals of Riverside County deserve adequate funding. And when it comes to funding, more may be necessary, and more is better, because that money could go to the animals: for medical care, for enrichment, for hygiene, for sterilization, for compassionate, capable staff — all things that provide alternatives to killing. But Riverside County officials want to continue killing and neglecting animals with impunity. They want to be able to make hiring decisions based on nepotism rather than merit. And they do not want to spend money on prompt and necessary veterinary care and other animal needs, such as spay/neuter. Instead, they want to give millions to a consultant who promotes closing the door to animals and leaving them on the street, who defended animal abuse and abusers, and even promoted the notion that shelters should breed dogs.
For more information, click here.
Remembering Little Bowie
This week marked the solemn anniversary of the killing of Bowie, a 10-pound puppy, by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care & Control.
After Bowie was surrendered because of a landlord’s no-pet policy, he sat at the pound for over three weeks, locked away from public view, in a cage by himself. Although scared, no one on staff socialized him. No staff member tried to get him out of his shell. No one showed him the compassion and kindness that studies prove make a life-and-death difference for shy little dogs.
Still, Bowie had an out. A rescue group came forward to give Bowie what staff at LACDACC would not: safety, love, and a loving home. It would be of no use. The same day that rescuers expressed interest in Bowie, the pound killed him without warning.
Instead of a new beginning, the little dog, who should have had his whole life ahead of him and posed no threat to anyone, was injected with an overdose of poison and turned to ash. He was barely 15 weeks old.
To make sure that never happened again, Bowie’s Law was introduced to require California “shelters” to notify rescuers before killing an animal. And given that such notifications are possible through shelter software already used by these facilities or available for free, complying would have required nothing more than a stroke on a keyboard: one click to notify rescuers that a life needs saving.
It was such a simple, commonsense law, it is astonishing that anyone would oppose it. But it was opposed by most pounds in the state and their enablers, such as Best Friends, the National Animal Control Association, and the California Animal Welfare Association, even if it meant killing puppies. And because of that opposition, it failed to pass.
Bowie; gone but not forgotten.
Waymo hits a dog in San Francisco
