I suppose finding the similarities between San Bernardino County and the city of Rancho Mirage would be easier than listing the differences as the list would be much shorter. There are the obvious differences, such as San Bernardino County is a "county" and Rancho Mirage is a "city." One is big; one is small. One is known for its affluence while the other is known for its welfare rolls. However, in the world of animal care and rescue, none of these things is what set these two governments apart. The important difference is not size or money; it’s attitude.
Yesterday I had occasion to contact Rancho Mirage Mayor Dana Hobart to request a comment from him for an article I am writing about an unrelated issue. As I tried to track down his email address, one thing stood out on the Rancho Mirage website and that was an icon that included a picture of a young, white Boxer.
I have been involved in Boxer rescue for over 36 years, and for many of those years I specialized in white Boxers. For decades, Boxer breeders would breed what is known as "flashy" Boxers (Boxers with a good deal of white on their chests and paws) for the purpose of have a litter of "flashy" pups, which are favored in the show ring. Breeding two plain Boxers will not usually result in the desired "flash." However, breeding two "flashy" Boxers will produce at least one puppy that is too "flashy," or in other words almost all white. White Boxers were considered substandard by the American Kennel Club, not allowed in the show ring, and often destroyed at birth. Although the AKC has lightened up their standards a bit, many white Boxers are culled, and they should never be bred.
What does all of this have to do with governments and politics? Perhaps a bit of unprofessional behavior on my part, but when I sent Mayor Hobart the email requesting a quote from him on a piece of legislation awaiting Governor Jerry Brown's signature, I could not help myself but to comment on the white Boxer on the city's website. In reference to that comment, Mayor Hobart wrote, "We have been very proactive in our efforts to motivate greater adoption of pet rates. We pay all costs (approximately $100) for adoptions at the local shelter by RM residents. We have contributed to the hiring of a full time 'out reach' person who goes after adoptions wherever the opportunity exists. Pet Lovers Unite! I think was the cry of Karl Marx, wasn't it?"
And that folks is the difference between the "we don't want to be bothered" attitude of San Bernardino County Animal Control officials and cities and counties where elected officials look at the overall health and wellbeing of their community. Mayor Hobart and the Rancho Mirage City Council obviously understand the difference.
As some read this, they will quickly cry foul and point to the fact that Rancho Mirage is among California's most affluent cities and can more easily afford such a program. Again, the real issue is not money; it is attitude.
San Bernardino County's Devore Animal Shelter routinely turns down offers of assistance by rescue groups and regularly makes "mistakes" by euthanizing animals that have families ready to pay to adopt them. It costs the county far more money to euthanize an animal than to adopt it out but the preferred outcome seems to be destruction of perfectly healthy animals.
A number of rescue groups have sprung up to assist the dogs of Devore and chip-ins and donation requests routinely raise sufficient funds to rescue many needy animals. The obstacle at Devore and so many other government-run shelters continues to be an attitude of contempt for rescue organizations and pet owners.
In the case of Devore, rescuers, having had their help refused repeatedly, finally appeared before a stone-faced, cold-hearted San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. Of the five supervisors who listened to their pleas, only one, Third District Supervisor Neil Derry, offered an open mind. The remaining four, Supervisors Brad Mitzelfelt, Janice Rutherford, Gary Ovitt, and especially Chairman Josie Gonzales have defended the high euthanasia rates and have refused to address the issue or assist rescuers in working with shelter employees who have made it clear they do not want the light to shine in on what is going on behind the steel doors of their high-kill facility.
It is too bad that San Bernardino County elected leaders are so much less enlightened about what such primeval attitudes toward killing helpless creatures does to the fabric of a community. It is shameful but residents have come to expect no less from "California's Most Corrupt County."
Riverside County officials, on the other hand, have worked with Rancho Mirage in developing their program. Rancho Mirage’s elected leaders and their counterparts at Riverside County are to be congratulated for their forward-thinking approach to animal control in this instance.
Comments