anti RSPCA?

T

Tai.Ni.Po.Ni

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 August 2012
Messages
215
Visit site
just wondering why the sudden outrage of the RSPCA?
i understnad they arnt perfect but they have helped alot of animals.

having lived in the middle east where there are is no such thing as animal protection organsisations i find it a bit sad that they are being attacked. i lived in a place where horses would stand in the 50 degree sun with no food or water, covered in ticks and what would be done? nothing....when dogs were drivin out to the desert and dumped, left to fry in the heat and nobody cares. even animals such as tigers, lions and cheetahs and kept in peoples gardens suffering from malnutrition and going mental and again nothing is done.

also i kind of feel sorry for the people who volunteer their time with the best intentions of helping these animals. it is after all the people in the more authoritive positions making the wrong decisions, it must be a bit dishearting seeing all this rspca bashing going on.

anyway please dont attack me :D just wanted to say it could be ALOT worse without the RSPCA than with.
 
I am not against the organisation per se. I think like many others, it gets things wrong sometimes, and when it does, (as in the recent 'please condition score this horse' thread) then I will say so. What I don't like are people using every possible opportunity to have a dig at them. Treat each case as it comes I say. Like all organisations, there are poorly performing individuals and excellent individuals.
 
I think the sad fact of the matter is OP that it is human nature to want to jump on bandwagons and form opinions based on hear say and with very little direct fact or knowledge of matters.

Of course there will be issues with any organisation, but similarly to the NHS, when press and media become involved to any great extent, people are bound to automatically believe it is true and then you get the likes of public forums, where nobody really knows who anybody else is, yet are willing to take their say so on matters, without actually establishing the facts first. A wave of hysteria then follows, which again is human nature.

The sad fact also is that a large amount of stuff which I see posted on here is vastly misinformed about the RSPCA - ie a lot of people believe that the government have afforded them powers, and you can tell these people over and over that they actually haven't, and they don't have powers, but they won't believe you, because they naturally believe the majority and the hype. People also don't have much of an idea of how the law works and how things need to be done in order to stay within the law, so they truly believe that the RSPCA have a free rein to be able to do as they wish in certain circumstances, but that simply isn't true.

Then of course, you get those on forums and in the press who are scorned and very bitter about the RSPCA due to 'personal experiences' they may have had of a close encounter involving their own animals. ;)
 
Wagtail, did you see the end result of that thread? It appears RSPCA did not get it wrong, when whw and TS went afterwards they found the horse to have food, water and be under vet care...
 
thanks for those replies ! nice to know im not the only one jumping on the bandwagon :)
i totally agree that they have made mistakes however collectively they have done more good than bad in my opinion.

but just thought i was maybe missing somethig as i have seen alot of posts where people are adiment we would be better off without them.
 
I thought it only had the food as a result of the TS and WHW getting involved, and that it was the OP that said it had the food AFTER their involvement. The quote by the RSPCA that the horse was not in a worrying state and that it was just due to old age and they were not concerned was WRONG, no doubt about that. The horse did not have food which is why it was so thin. So the RSPCA got that wrong IMO.
 
i have also seen a kitten with one leg due to the other 3 being hacked off with a knife by a group of teenagers and the kitten was left for a member of the public to rescue it. really in comparison it is night and day what the rspca does for animals.
 
Tai.Ni.Po.Ni said:
thanks for those replies ! nice to know im not the only one jumping on the bandwagon :)
i totally agree that they have made mistakes however collectively they have done more good than bad in my opinion.

but just thought i was maybe missing somethig as i have seen alot of posts where people are adiment we would be better off without them.
Click to expand...

No we certainly wouldn't be better off without them, well the animals wouldn't in any case. That does not mean that they don't get it wrong, quite often it seems. But I am all for them entering property etc against the owners consent. Better that and find nothing of concern, than miss some real cases of cruelty. I would have no objections whatsoever to inspectors coming on my land and checking my animals. I have nothing to hide and they are just doing their jobs. But I also think the organisation probably does need a good overhaul.
 
There are lots of big organizations without which we would be a lot worse. Nevertheless, all of them should be open to scrutiny from outside, and none should operate without full accountability (not singling out the RSPCA here).
 
Wagtail said:
No we certainly wouldn't be better off without them, well the animals wouldn't in any case. That does not mean that they don't get it wrong, quite often it seems. But I am all for them entering property etc against the owners consent. Better that and find nothing of concern, than miss some real cases of cruelty. I would have no objections whatsoever to inspectors coming on my land and checking my animals. I have nothing to hide and they are just doing their jobs. But I also think the organisation probably does need a good overhaul.
Click to expand...

I like that answer. It comes across as unbiased and of balanced thinking and reasoning.:)
 
I think people are concerned with their lack of consistency and how that lack of consistency does not appear to be random. They appear to have strong political views which seem to influence their decisions regarding welfare.
I'm sure there are some wonderful people doing wonderful work but equally some overstep the line and the senior direction/ strategy seem to be heading in an odd direction.

If they have nothing to hide as an organisation they should not fear investigation/ scrutiny in exactly the same way an individual who provides for their animals should not fear the RSPCA.
 
Wagtail said:
I thought it only had the food as a result of the TS and WHW getting involved, and that it was the OP that said it had the food AFTER their involvement. The quote by the RSPCA that the horse was not in a worrying state and that it was just due to old age and they were not concerned was WRONG, no doubt about that. The horse did not have food which is why it was so thin. So the RSPCA got that wrong IMO.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right.

People are also under the misconception that it was the RSPCA who called WHW and TS, they did not.
 
Amaranta said:
Absolutely right.

People are also under the misconception that it was the RSPCA who called WHW and TS, they did not.
Click to expand...

Why would they? They had already confirmed the facts. Why would they need to ring WHW and TS. People said that SOMEBODY called WHW and TS, and that THEY then established that the horse was under vet care, and that they were then going to continue monitoring.
 
Wagtail said:
No we certainly wouldn't be better off without them, well the animals wouldn't in any case. That does not mean that they don't get it wrong, quite often it seems. But I am all for them entering property etc against the owners consent. Better that and find nothing of concern, than miss some real cases of cruelty. I would have no objections whatsoever to inspectors coming on my land and checking my animals. I have nothing to hide and they are just doing their jobs. But I also think the organisation probably does need a good overhaul.
Click to expand...

Again, I agree.

We do need the RSPCA but they do indeed need an overhaul.

I too would have no problem with them coming onto my yard, like you, I have nothing to hide.

A friend of mine had an elderly cushinoid mare who also had other issues, she was receiving treatment from a vet. A member of the public reported her to RSPCA and whilst she was quite naturally upset that someone could think she would neglect her horses, she did understand that the RSPCA were only doing their job. They visited, she explained the situation, they accepted it and the job was done - no problem.
 
Moomin1 said:
Why would they? They had already confirmed the facts. Why would they need to ring WHW and TS. People said that SOMEBODY called WHW and TS, and that THEY then established that the horse was under vet care, and that they were then going to continue monitoring.
Click to expand...

No you know that the RSPCA deemed the horse NOTHING to worry about, please don't start again. IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE THE RSPCA WERE WRONG this is a fact you are unable to accept, stop being so damned blinkered.
 
My opinions aren't formed from heresay or hype, but from personal experiences of the RSPCA on at least five separate occasions. Not from me being embittered by being the one on the receiving end as Moomin seems to be implying, but of their utter uselessness.

I have also adopted animals from the RSPCA, but their approach when many animals have needed desperate help has been woefully inadequate in my experience, it was a local charity that proved most effective in one instance.

I prefer to donate to separate horse/dog/cat charities than the RSPCA and firmly believe that they need to focus far more on animal welfare.
 
I don't think anyone would think the RSPCA gets it right all the time, but then what organisation does ?
The NHS failed to care for my elderly mother and left her without food and water but I can see that we are incredibly lucky to have an NHS.

The RSPCA is a charity and the demand on it is a bottomless pit, (like the NHS who have to limit resources despite being state funded.)

All our human emergency services are stretched to the limit, police, fire and ambulance services constantly struggle to meet demand with limited resources.

I think its pretty incredible that a charity for animal welfare achieves as much as it does.

If you were in charge, where would you spend the money ? Would you increase field officers tenfold and increase shelter capacity a thousand fold for equines and small animals so that all animals could be taken in and have vet treatment ? What would you cut to pay for this ? Would you stop all prosecutions, knowing that those guilty of appalling cruelty would never be banned from keeping animals and could keep their abused animals ? Would you stop work with government departments to campaign for better legislation allowing animals to be transported without any compassion ?

No. The RSPCA is not perfect, but for an organisation funded by public donation, it's quite impressive.
Instead of criticising, offer to walk dogs in shelters, foster, or help with some admin. Offer to help someone who is struggling to care for their horses or donate some old rugs. That way we might have a better chance of getting the service we want.
 
Amaranta said:
No you know that the RSPCA deemed the horse NOTHING to worry about, please don't start again. IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE THE RSPCA WERE WRONG this is a fact you are unable to accept, stop being so damned blinkered.
Click to expand...

No, I don't know that that is what the RSPCA officer said. That is what the OP said they said.

I don't automatically believe everything a stranger on a forum says, particularly at a time when there is so much 'fashionable' RSPCA bashing going on, on a hunting forum, just after the Heythrop have been prosecuted.

Sorry about that.

Of course, as I said all along, the OP may well have been right, in which case, yes, a mistake. However, unless I was told whereabouts this horse was, and I was able to find out the facts myself, I am not willing to make judgement either way.
 
Amaranta said:
No you know that the RSPCA deemed the horse NOTHING to worry about, please don't start again. IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE THE RSPCA WERE WRONG this is a fact you are unable to accept, stop being so damned blinkered.
Click to expand...

So why then did the horse suddenly have food and water and was already recieving vet treatment before the WHW and TS had even seen the horse ?
Was it by magic ?
 
I believe that there is a place for a national animal welfare charity. One which is open and transparent, both about its aims and its powers (anyone read the Telegraph article where they were not happy about their lack or powers of entry being published?). One which is not overtly political and which does not use public donations to make political donations. When the RSPCA meets those few, hardly difficult to achieve, aspirations, along with adequate training on the welfare of large animals, then I will have no argument with them.
With regard to allowing entry to your land (often we hear the argument, if you have nothing to hide you have no reason to fear) the law is as it stands to protect individuals from a variety or harms.
A totally different scenario, but worth a look IMO, the ex-partner of a woman who had fled domestic violence (allegedly) requested a Mental Health Act assessment of his 'wife'. He insisted that she was ill and believed that he had the right to request (demand) that she be assessed and detained. In theory that could have resulted in someone going out to see her and request an interview with her, should she have let us in? To 'proove' that her ex was wrong? Or should she have maintained her legal right and insist that we go to court to get a warrant to gain entry, if we could convince a District Judge that the word of a disgruntled ex was sufficient evidence? I see very little difference between the two scenarios, the law is there to offer protection.
 
It dosnt matter a jot about my opinion or anyone elses on the forum its the public perception that matters and they no longer have faith in the RSPCA. Their membership is down way below the RSPBB and the donations will gradually dwindle, I think it would be sad to see it go but they do need a major rethink and overhaul.
 
Some very interesting things in that article

" if the RSPCA brings a case and loses it, the costs of the defendants are usually borne by the taxpayer. So the RSPCA can prosecute almost without thinking. It can go to law as a marketing tool or to make a political point"
Also
"Despite its policy of never killing a “rehousable” animal, it admits to putting down 3,400 animals for non-medical reasons in 2011"

I do just have to wonder how many of those animals could have been helps to be rehomed for the cost of the hunt prosecition (£326,000, plus the cost of tracking the hunt and obtaining the footage in the first place)
I'm not questioning whether hunting is illegal or not, just the proportionality of the cost given what else could have been done with the money.

Speeding is illegal but if the government closed the NHS to spend all the money catching people on the motorway going over 70 mph there would be outcry.
 
Moomin1 said:
No, I don't know that that is what the RSPCA officer said. That is what the OP said they said.

I don't automatically believe everything a stranger on a forum says, particularly at a time when there is so much 'fashionable' RSPCA bashing going on, on a hunting forum, just after the Heythrop have been prosecuted.

Sorry about that.

Of course, as I said all along, the OP may well have been right, in which case, yes, a mistake. However, unless I was told whereabouts this horse was, and I was able to find out the facts myself, I am not willing to make judgement either way.
Click to expand...


Well you will not change my mind and I will not change yours, there is little point in any more debate on this.

Would just like to add that it was strangers on a forum who gave Carrot and Spud a chance and stopped them starving to death.
 
Wagtail said:
No we certainly wouldn't be better off without them, well the animals wouldn't in any case. That does not mean that they don't get it wrong, quite often it seems. But I am all for them entering property etc against the owners consent. Better that and find nothing of concern, than miss some real cases of cruelty. I would have no objections whatsoever to inspectors coming on my land and checking my animals. I have nothing to hide and they are just doing their jobs. But I also think the organisation probably does need a good overhaul.
Click to expand...

This.

My objection isn't the work they do with animals its the way in which they do it.
I've had my horses field entered without consent and damage to property. They have not once managed to come up with a valid reason for being there - or as to why they damaged a fence and climbed at least one gate to get into a field and leave a note on a fence line in the centre of 35 acres, rather than entering through the entrance (which they know is there and have been walked through it previously) and not causing criminal damage.
I've had to call the police after they created a very nasty situation.
I've taken on a litter of kittens which the rspca said had no fleas and simply had a little mange. Vet I took them too was fantastic and laughed then I mentioned RSPCA response. They were crawling in fleas (visible from a distance) and wouldn't have survived (they think were about a week/two old) with no mother around left outside in a very cold winter.

I think that the rspca should work with other specialised organisations and get better training. Someone who knows nothing about the basic care of a type/breed of animal, shouldn't be judging it's welfare.
 
Recently a member of the public reported my horse to the SPCA because she seemed to have trouble breathing. She was lying down sound asleep snoring!

Unfortunately because SPCA has so little power it can't do much without a great deal of pressure.

We had a case here a few years ago concerning two horses that were severely neglected. The SPCA growled at the owners who didn't do a damn thing. Finally people intervened and lifted the horses and they went to a rescue centre - many people - members of a forum in NZ gifted feed and covers to these horses which with care recovered.

The trouble is that there aren't many 'equine experts' working for SPCA.
 
horserider said:
I don't think anyone would think the RSPCA gets it right all the time, but then what organisation does ?
The NHS failed to care for my elderly mother and left her without food and water but I can see that we are incredibly lucky to have an NHS.

The RSPCA is a charity and the demand on it is a bottomless pit, (like the NHS who have to limit resources despite being state funded.)

All our human emergency services are stretched to the limit, police, fire and ambulance services constantly struggle to meet demand with limited resources.

I think its pretty incredible that a charity for animal welfare achieves as much as it does.

If you were in charge, where would you spend the money ? Would you increase field officers tenfold and increase shelter capacity a thousand fold for equines and small animals so that all animals could be taken in and have vet treatment ? What would you cut to pay for this ? Would you stop all prosecutions, knowing that those guilty of appalling cruelty would never be banned from keeping animals and could keep their abused animals ? Would you stop work with government departments to campaign for better legislation allowing animals to be transported without any compassion ?

No. The RSPCA is not perfect, but for an organisation funded by public donation, it's quite impressive.
Instead of criticising, offer to walk dogs in shelters, foster, or help with some admin. Offer to help someone who is struggling to care for their horses or donate some old rugs. That way we might have a better chance of getting the service we want.
Click to expand...


Again there is the assumption that we are just nitpicking and do nothing supportive for charity. :rolleyes:
I agree that the RSPCA is an impressive organisation, and so it should be with all the money it has. A quick google shows how much money goes on things I would consider unnecessary and through my personal dealings with them I prefer my money to go where I can see a direct impact on the animal suffering, not wasted away.
Funnily enough in todays local paper in my area there is a comment about the RSPCA over a current case which I think sums things up:-

"Once again this highlights the failings of the rspca acting as a prosecutor.
All criminal cases should be passed through the CPS and the relevant Government Department deal with the legal side. DEFRA is the governing body in regard to animal welfare and should act in animal cruelty cases and not leave the costs and responsibility to an animal rights charity funded totally by public handouts. Too much accountability and responsibility is given out by the Government to the charity sector."
 
Polos Mum said:
I think people are concerned with their lack of consistency and how that lack of consistency does not appear to be random. They appear to have strong political views which seem to influence their decisions regarding welfare.
I'm sure there are some wonderful people doing wonderful work but equally some overstep the line and the senior direction/ strategy seem to be heading in an odd direction.

If they have nothing to hide as an organisation they should not fear investigation/ scrutiny in exactly the same way an individual who provides for their animals should not fear the RSPCA.
Click to expand...

This ^^^

The attitude that the RSPCA is some sacred organisation above criticism has got to end. I began to have my doubts about the activities and structure of the RSPCA several years ago when the local branch was begging for donations of food, towels and cash. This is one of the wealthiest charities in the UK and yet it never seems to have funds in the bank for urgent cases until there is a political headline in the offing. I also strongly disagree with their use of chugging to pressure people into direct debit donations. I do not like their pseudo police uniforms and the way they try to trick people into believing they have official legal powers to serve notices and enter properties.

After the legal wranglings over the Gill Farmily will that ended up with the RSPCA forking out 1.3 million I vowed never to donate to them ever again.

However it seems that barely a week goes by without another story in the press that causes them to sink ever lower in my estimations

Then there was the debacle with the bequest of land at Alderley Edge in Cheshire. Mr Brown left his land to the RSPCA with the specific but not legally binding instruction that it should be utilised as a wildlife reserve. The RSPCA promptly sold it - the trees were bulldozed and the land developed.

With the arrival of Gavin Grant as Chief Executive things began going downhill faster than a ferret on the skateboard. First there was the statement saying that milk from areas where badger culls were undertaken should be boycotted.

40 sheep were shot by RSPCA inspectors at Ramsgate after being deemed unfit to travel. In the ensuing melee where sheep were held in unsuitable pens, A further two drowned and 2 broke legs and had to be put down. Gavin Grant defended the actions of the Inspectors involved as being entirely reasonable.

It was then revealed that its latest prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt had cost in excess of £330,000 because instead of using their own legal team they hired a London QC, Jeremy Carter-Manning to look through hundreds of hours of footage. Whilst the defendent was forced to plead guilty as he had no resources to fund his defence case. Further revelations followed hot on its heels that money gathered for a specific puppy farming campaign had been diverted to be used in the hunting prosecution (I donate to Crisis' Christmas dinner campaign and I would be might annoyed if I then received a letter informing me my donation had been used to sterilise homeless people or for a showboating legal case!)

As if things couldn't get any worse it then came to light that despite its policy of never killing a “rehousable” animal, it admits to putting down 3,400 animals for non-medical reasons in 2011.

The icing on the cake came in a Channel 4 documentary that aired this week. In the Horse Hoarder, footage shows the persecution of Clywd Davies by the RSPCA. Incompetent inspectors were also shown chasing the unfortunate creatures round and round the field before finally resorting to a dart gun, which took 2 hours to take effect.

That OP is why people despise and distrust the RSPCA. The sooner it is subject to a rigorous Charity Commission investigation and/or loses its Royal Charter the better.
 
I must say i am on the fence on this subject :)

I think as a charity they are stretched beyond belief, much like smaller charities i have worked for 3 years for a small animal charity and have seen the vet bills,lighting,heating,feeding etc. It really isn't easy.

I think it has got to the point where the RSPCA will only attend certain calls if they are on deaths door or there is strong evidence of animal abuse going on. Mainly due to the lack of funding i cannot imagine how much they spend daily on food etc. The small charity i worked for would struggle through daily on donations and kindness of people, they were not even a quarter the size of the RSPCA.

I believe there is a lot of room for improvement, it's not perfect and there are cases when officers are not well informed and perhaps have not made the right decision. I think as well you must take into consideration as listed above by someone about their horse being asleep the amount of silly calls they get :)

I am not a Num1 fan of the RSPCA but if they were not here people would moan about them not being there. I am much more a fan of smaller charaties as they are under a little less pressure
 
YorksG said:
I believe that there is a place for a national animal welfare charity. One which is open and transparent, both about its aims and its powers (anyone read the Telegraph article where they were not happy about their lack or powers of entry being published?).
Click to expand...
Is that really correct though, or was it something the Telegraph made up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top