Offcial rspca statement re: GSD's out

This is really wrecking my head at the moment.

How do people think this level of critiscm is going to help. I don't know anyone who works for the RSPCA and I've had my fair share of ding dongs with them but the people on the front line - the inspectors, kennel staff, volunteers etc do this job because they love animals and want to make a difference in animal cruelty and most of the time they do, but people don't care about that do they? People just want to get on their high horses when things seemingly go wrong. What about all of the animals the RSPCA have helped and all of those wasters who have been successfully convicted. I bet half the time RSPCA staff feel like banging their heads against a brick wall and feel like taking the law into their own hands when the aren't getting the result they need....they don't have super powers, they have to operate within the law for crying out loud.

If I were a front line worker for the RSPCA and I came on here and read some of the vitriolic comments I'd be feeling pretty much suicidal by now.

I just wish people would lay off them.
 
I am in agreement with you Indy. sadly we only see the occasional bad desisicon but these organisations deal with this stufff hundreds of times each week. Bound to be a few wrong choices along the lines. on the whole they do their best, and i wouldnt want to do it.
 
Thing is, they advertise themselves as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and boundaries of their operations should either be more clear or they should change their name.

How about Really Serious Prosectuors of Cruelty to Animals. At least we'd know what they do for sure.
 
maybe the people who criticised them for this case, should be made to take in an aggressive, unsocialised big dog that also requires regular treatment for a skin complaint (if it wasnt unfair on the dog, which it would be).
 
<font color="blue">the inspectors, kennel staff, volunteers etc do this job because they love animals and want to make a difference in animal cruelty and most of the time they do, but people don't care about that do they </font>

Not disagreeing AT ALL. It's those at the top who want sorting and allow those at the sharp end to get on with the actual urgent, vital, immediate-action-required stuff.

If you are promoting yourself as an animal action charity, then you need to act like one. It just feels like a faceless corporation to me now.

I found a young cat with what appeared to be a broken pelvis crawling round my yard one morning. I tried for ages to get through to the RSPCA, got told they would allow £5 for a vet's diagnosis and left it to me to sort. No fancy van to come and collect it and had I been a pensioner with no means of getting the cat to the vet's, it would have been left to suffer - and might I add the angst caused to anyone unable to help. Even the local RSPCA 'rescue' homes were curt with me, as if it was my fault for 'finding' it. All I wanted to know was what to do with it! Sorry no system at all that I can see to help with the emergencies.
 
it was the law that changed, not their mission, when they started they actually had more power if you like than thy do now.
and i have no opinion on their involvement with the hunting ban, because as you all keep pointing out it is the prevention of cruelty to animals and there are a great many people, currently the majority, who believe hunting is cruel to foxes. although i personally think that it is the best way of controlling them and also ensures the survival of the fittest foxes which is ultimately good for the species, I can understand and apprieciate that which ever way the RSPCA went they would be critised and moreover would lose funds from supporters of the other side. That was one they couldnt win what ever thay did.
clearly you are another today who wants to pick a fight about something. I would suggest that there would not be half the animal rights laws we have today were it not for the RSPCA, I drive past one of their re homing centers every day and it is hardly their fault that political correctness prevents them from doing their jobs. twenty years ago, jamie gret would have been unlucky if had got a slapped wrist and a £50 fine, we have these laws now much +due to the work of the RSPCA and others. it is hardly their fault that we have allowed the rights of the offenders (or alleged offenders) to exceed those being offended against which goes for peole as well as animals.
 
<font color="blue"> when they started they actually had more power if you like than thy do now. </font> Yes definitely. ETA It has taken me a long time to admit to myself they are not the Animal 999 they used to be.

I'm not picking a fight and see completely they are trying to operate with their hands tied. They need to reassess their public profile and, if they aren't already, work out how to make the conditions outlined in new welfare act instantly enforceable.

I really do want to know why the Stamford horses were left even ONE more night in that condition.

If it had been a child...?
 
Fair enough brighteyes and sadly if it had been a child as has been too often demonstrated in recent years, chances are we would be talking about another death because of similar 'hand tying' and errors of judgement often caused by the same politically correct legislation.
the trouble with the Stamford horses is that the definaition of suffering is usually decided by some pen pusher in an office as it is with abused children and therefore certain crieria ALL have to be met before this can be offically classified and action taken.
perhaps there are a few things that need to be addresses here.
 
[ QUOTE ]
maybe the people who criticised them for this case, should be made to take in an aggressive, unsocialised big dog that also requires regular treatment for a skin complaint (if it wasnt unfair on the dog, which it would be).

[/ QUOTE ]

Have done and will do again.

And now for QR -
My comments still stand - I refuse to believe that none of these dogs were worth saving.
If anyone wants to follow the timeline on the GSD Rescue site, this was not their official line all along.
If it is the truth then they should have stated the exact position, very clearly, on the same day as the first questions were being asked.

Also, there is freedom of speech in this country.
If people decide to question the actions and motives of any sort of organisation in the UK - without being libellous - then we are free to do so.
I have not 'bashed' anyone, I have not gotten hysterical on any of these posts, I have not withdrawn my support for an organisation that never got a penny of my money anyway, but if I did, it would take a bit more than a few posts on an internet forum to change my mind, and, finally I will not be told what to think, on this matter or any other.

Criticism - ie being a critic - and asking questions is not wrong and is not illegal.
 
The GSDs were in Pontardawe, 10 mins from me. The owner died and the RSPCAs stance is that : 8 RSPCA Inspectors decided that a bolt gun would be more humane in this instance due to the fact that the dogs were not socialised and it would be less stressful for them. Ten GSds, without food for a period of time, home turf - arrrhhhhhhh.

I took a call tonight from the RSPCA who had my number logged from March when I enquired about a horse. The canvasser began her written speech (asking for a donation) when I stopped her in her tracks and queried their organisations role in Spindles Farm, the 10 GSDs and most recently Carrot and Spud. She knew nothing of Spindles Farm or Carrot and Spud but had a written reply regarding the GSDs. I explained that I didnt believe that 8 Inspectors were on site as there is only one in this area and asked a genuine question regarding the bolt gun, was it deemed too costly to uthinase by lethal injection, she couldnt answer. I also told her that if this had been made public beforehand, I would have been able to help.
She then had a lecture from me about the RSPCA's PR machine. I explained that if they were prepared to put their hands up and accept their mistakes then perhaps people would be more forgiving.
HHO, BHS, etc moved the Stamford Two in less than 24 hours and she couldnt comprehend why RSPCA took so long.
Lee himself came online to thank us all and update us, perhaps RSPCA can learn something from this, its called 'the personal touch'.
I asked that someone in their PR should call me back regarding this, she said that she didnt know if anyone would.
Case dismissed.
 
What I meant about the child reference is, if it was discovered in a pitifully thin condition in an empty house, would they leave it there overnight while people got organised 'by the book'.

I think there are many issues to be addressed, yes, but if a hue and cry is made as HHO did for Carrot and Spud, and things got done in less than 24 hours, so now they are at least safe and being assessed, why can't this happen every time without endless box-ticking at every stage?

It's the delays involved, pussyfooting about meanwhile and 'advising' owners over extended periods of time which really frustrate me. The good owners will appreciate help and concern/advice, and be appalled at any failure to provide the correct care. Animal neglecters have gone beyond caring and why they are allowed to keep the animals until it is obvious to anyone their lives are in danger just doesn't make sense!
 
Additional question - what about the legions of westies, boxers, staffs, schnauzers and other breeds rescued from puppy farms in the past, by the RSPCA and others?

I'll bet they were unsocialised, I bet lots of them had skin conditions, especially the westies, and I bet some of them even displayed aggressive behaviour due to being exposed suddenly to new and frightening situations.

I also bet they weren't all automatically despatched.
 
that is exactly what happens with children. my mother was a socialworker before the legislation got so bad and even then you had to fill in about four films in triplicate now yu go see the child then you fill in the form then report it to your superior who has to consult with a doctor/child phycholgist or both who of course cannot see the child immediately and if not all the conditions on the original social workers assessment form as per requested by the pencil pushing office worker in the first place they probably have to start the process again, in the meantime Baby P or whoever dies.
we have made a society who is terrified of further litigation if they dont get it right the first time to the point where they get it badly wrong while deperately trying to do things right.
 
I'm with cavecanem on this one sorry. I have too many disappointments involving the RSPCA and I too woulf be willing to take a dog that needed rehabillitating as I am sure many would. I am not sure why an animals life has to be sacrificed as a result of human misgivings.

As stated I am sure they 'rescue' plenty of unsocialised dogs all the time so why did all these ones warrant being destroyed? Sorry, something does not seem to fit there.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The GSDs were in Pontardawe, 10 mins from me. The owner died and the RSPCAs stance is that : 8 RSPCA Inspectors decided that a bolt gun would be more humane in this instance due to the fact that the dogs were not socialised and it would be less stressful for them. Ten GSds, without food for a period of time, home turf - arrrhhhhhhh.

I took a call tonight from the RSPCA who had my number logged from March when I enquired about a horse. The canvasser began her written speech (asking for a donation) when I stopped her in her tracks and queried their organisations role in Spindles Farm, the 10 GSDs and most recently Carrot and Spud. She knew nothing of Spindles Farm or Carrot and Spud but had a written reply regarding the GSDs. I explained that I didnt believe that 8 Inspectors were on site as there is only one in this area and asked a genuine question regarding the bolt gun, was it deemed too costly to uthinase by lethal injection, she couldnt answer. I also told her that if this had been made public beforehand, I would have been able to help.
She then had a lecture from me about the RSPCA's PR machine. I explained that if they were prepared to put their hands up and accept their mistakes then perhaps people would be more forgiving.
HHO, BHS, etc moved the Stamford Two in less than 24 hours and she couldnt comprehend why RSPCA took so long.
Lee himself came online to thank us all and update us, perhaps RSPCA can learn something from this, its called 'the personal touch'.
I asked that someone in their PR should call me back regarding this, she said that she didnt know if anyone would.
Case dismissed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, captive bolt.... I agree, with dogs that were hard to handle, to hold down and inject would be more stressful than being bolted... So I think they made the right call there.

Spindles farm.... What the!!! It was the rspca who had the police and vets out and seized the horses, it was the rspca who paid for most of the boarding, vets bills, feeding etc etc, it was the rspca who took the prosecution and got a successful verdict! It's the rspca who's still paying out on these horses until the appeal is heard getting on for 2 years after initially seized.

Stamford horses... I haven't followed that thread much but from what I understand the whw were monitoring the situation, the bhs took the horses but with the rspca there with the police for seizure so the bhs were effectively transportation, its the rspca doing the investigation into a possible case...

I agree on one point and that is the personal touch, the bhs/whw only have to deal with very few situations and therefore on a smaller scale can offer a more personal touch, the rspca have hundreds of cases on at any one time and have to be careful of what is said during active cases, so are therefore not as personal.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Any thoughts about my point about puppy farm refugees, CD?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same policies apply I would imagine, if a dog shows signs of aggression then no matter what the breed the rspca will not rehome a dog that has or is likely to bite If the dog added to this requires daily bathing for a skin condition then is it reasonable to put an unhandleable animal through that daily?

The same would apply to a feral cat if it had a broken leg would it be fair to put it's leg in an external fixator until fixed keeping the wild cat on cage rest, in close proximity and daily handling with humans when it is scared stiff?

If your question was aimed towards the the kenneling space, then whether your talking GSD's or westies, any kennel space is a rarity!! The only difference is how many westies you can put in a kennel space to how many GSD size dogs.
 
QR I share the same opinion as Brighteyes, Cavecanem, Lady T and Llwyncwn.
My own opinion of the RSPCA is not a very good one. My judgement is based on personal experiences as well as what I have read or seen elsewhere.
With regard to the captive bolt being used because it could be construed as less stressful than an injection. Poppycock!
There is such a thing as sedative drugs you know. The ones that can be administered into the neck and not necessarily a vein in a leg/neck or the heart.
Why if these dogs so had to be destroyed could they not have been given an injection to sedate them and then whilst asleep given the fatal one?
I tell you why because of money and supplies.
It would be very interesting to see the cost of using sedative and/or lethal injections versus the use of bolt guns and similar?
I am supposing of course but I would guess that the gun is far cheaper and quicker, ie quicker for the person who is doing the killing and not for the animal being pts. I am talking small/medium animals here so please nobody start bringing horses or other large animals into the equation.
As already stated by others. I don't believe that 8 inspectors were consulted over this decision. Christ you never even see that many mulling over decisions in Animal Cops, even when they have very large animal collections to deal with, often involving unsocialised/very unhealthy animals.
I do not think enough was done for these dogs and I am also of the opinion that at least one or more could have been saved with time and effort.
I think all too often animals that are so call rescues are not given the time they deserve because their overall return to fitness for rehoming could be a lengthy process.
I just wonder that if this were people we were talking about would they be taking it in turns choosing straws?
I am of the belief that some (not all) rescue/welfare groups or individuals working for such organisations cannot be bothered with cases that are less than straightforward unless the words media or tv programmes are included in the same sentence.
Animals that are going to need time and therefore a strain on resources, whether that is drugs, staff, hospitalisation, time or kennel/cage space are more likely in my opinion to be pts at the nearest opportunity than a rescued animal that is as straightforward as they come.
I am sorry but in my book that is not how a rescue/welfare organisation should be run. Life is life, in my book, whether human or animal. Each deserves their chance.
I think all too often when an organisation is not willing to take on board the care and rehabilitation themselves that they do not afford enough time and care in trying to find someone else who may be able to.
In the case of the GSD's I don't believe any of the propaganda perpetuated by the RSPCA following the outcry about the slaughter of these dogs.
I do not think enough was done to help them. I have experience of these dogs and do know a little about them to understand their behaviour at the residence they were found. I do know from my own experience they are very protective of their owner and associated family and home. At least that has been my experience of them.
They had lost their master and pack leader and therefore would have been affected by his death. Strangers entered the property and they would therefore be greeted by apprehension, fear and protectiveness of the property and grounds itself by the dogs. If they were also hungry this would have affected their behaviour too.
Removing the dogs from the situation, separating them and then re-assessing them following a 'cooling off' period would have given a more accurate result than any assessment which occurred at the house due to the number of contributing factors that would have affected the dogs behaviour.
This is also true of the skin condition. Were skin scrapings taken and analysed? Were any of the dogs given the chance to respond to treatment? The answer is certainly no to the latter. They were not given any chance.
The ending for those dogs that resulted in their deaths was far quicker and cheaper to process both in time and paperwork.
Treating, housing and assessing those dogs would have taken too much time and money for whoever it was who made that overall decision.
I certainly think that with either public help or more time spent on trying to get another charity/group to take on the dogs if the RSPCA were so unwilling would have resulted in a more befitting outcome for at least one of the dogs.
I do understand that not all can be saved. But I do believe in this case the outcome for those dogs was wrong.
 
Great post, Fantasma.


Lots of dogs here, unsocialised, terrified, with skincare and other problems...scroll down to dogs like Mindy, Quincie, Benji, Florrie, Tequila and Tiscali, Serran, multiple schnauzers and yorkies with health problems, Nell....

http://www.freewebs.com/manytearsrescue/dogslookingforhomes.htm

Still can't help feeling that this was a breedist decision taken for all the wrong reasons.

TEN WESTIES KILLED WITH BOLT PISTOL
They were unsocialised, appeared aggressive and had a skin condition.

Doesn't read quite the same for me.
 
Competitiondiva- No-one contacted the breed rescue. That is why the breed rescue are so angry about this. The family may not have known the breed rescue existed but the RSPCA would have known. The RSPCA left it to the family to contact the rescue organisations so we are to believe. Why didnt the RSPCA do this? Why didnt the RSPCA contact the breed rescue?
confused.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Competitiondiva- No-one contacted the breed rescue. That is why the breed rescue are so angry about this. The family may not have known the breed rescue existed but the RSPCA would have known. The RSPCA left it to the family to contact the rescue organisations so we are to believe. Why didnt the RSPCA do this? Why didnt the RSPCA contact the breed rescue?
confused.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
And it would have cost them what? An hour of someone on the phone?
smirk.gif

yes,they get it right a lot,but when they get it wrong it is SO wrong it cant be ignored
mad.gif

Even if they diddnt have a list of contacts,it would not have taken long to google breed rescue.
 
My late Mum was involved with a GSD rescue kennel. Things may have changed now but at that time the RSPCA were very reluctant to work with breed rescue. On more than one occasion they took in GSDs and had them put to sleep despite the rescue having a home waiting for them.
There was a multi breed "puppy farm" in this area, which was churning out dogs often with health problems, the RSPCA did not want to know, it was the local dog warden who kept a constant eye on them and in the end the council did not renew their breeding licence. I know the RSPCA do some good work, and they are possibly tied by bureaucracy, but over the years I have seen more poor examples of what they do than good ones.
frown.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I know the RSPCA do some good work, and they are possibly tied by bureaucracy, but over the years I have seen more poor examples of what they do than good ones.
frown.gif


[/ QUOTE ]


That is only because of the likes of fenris (sorry to single you out fenris but you openly admit to being anit rspca!) who jump to publise the job that wasn't done possibly in the best way, but no one spreads good news and the vast majority of the work they do is good, you look at all the animals they have rescued over those they haven't and your talking about a hell of a difference. There will always be a difference of opinion, look at the varying posts on this forum with regard to a captive bolt!! I'd say its about 50/50 split, I know that not everyone is going to be pleased with a decision that is made, but as long as that decision is made with the right principals in mind, and welfare at the foremost then they should't be witch-hunted...

Of course in an ideal world the police would investigate all animal welfare complaints, but the realisation of this would mean a hell of a hike in council tax to pay for all the new officers and training, that would be needed to go door knocking, all the expense of vets, transport, etc etc, this will not be happening anytime soon, so rather than let the JG's of this world get away with it why shouldn't the rspca take private prosecutions, with a success rate of over 97% they are very good at it (better than the cps!)??? Why do you think the police pass all calls to the rspca? Because they do not have the resources to cope with these calls.

With regard to what cases are brought, I agree some sound very silly, take for instance the fenris channel 4 post, but if you have someone refusing to give up their animal(s), refusing to admit there's even a problem with the health of those animals (which there obviously was because a court of law found him guilty)! What else can you do but to chase a prosecution to get those animals away! and hopefully a disqualification to stop them owning more! the rspca would be hauled over the coals if they left the animals!
 
[ QUOTE ]
why shouldn't the rspca take private prosecutions, with a success rate of over 97% they are very good at it (better than the cps!)???

[/ QUOTE ]
As you're using the 2008 figures, the RSPCA also state "As well as indicating a possible increase in cruelty, the increase in prosecutions can also be explained by the introduction of the Animal Welfare Act a year ago. The legislation has so far proved effective as a preventative measure, with the RSPCA reporting that in 92 per cent of cases where they had advised pet owners to alter their behaviour, no further action was necessary.
In those 92% of pet owners being 'advised', on what legal grounds have the RSPCA to 'advise' anyone.
They have no legal rights whatsoever - but will not mention this, they wear a uniform with ranks similar to the police, have no power of arrest, have no power of entry, appear to believe they can offer a 'Caution'.
They do not offer apologies when they get it wrong, they have no right to examine horseboxes or trailers unless they make a request, which can be refused and there is nothing they can do about it other than seek out a police officer and provide a bloody good reason!
The RSPCA appears to be gaining a lot of interest for all the wrong reasons at the moment, even Channel 5 News is requesting negative experiences, and the RSPCA's FaceBook page is inundated with people asking questions, which don't get answered, questions being deleted and numerous people being banned simply for asking a question!
If you'd had personal experience of RSPCA negativity, you might not be so quick to offer them your support!
 
OK, we are going around in circles here.

Some of us think that the RSPCA is a fantastic organisation which can do no wrong, others think it is seriously flawed and that questions need to be asked and reorganisation needs to take place (that would be me).

All the points have been well laid out here and the rest of the people reading can draw their own conclusions.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top