The RSPCA made us feel like criminanls

[1stclassalan]

As in all things - I like the Law and prosecutions to be fair. At the moment they are not because the entire edifice is base on adversarial combat - I'm 100% right and you are 100% wrong - grovel and die!!!

Unfortunately, real cases are often just as open and shut which lends authority to the opinion that the rest are too and if a prosecution fails - you've only "got away with it" rather than being maliciously persued.

If the R.S.P.C.A. were really interested in preventing animal cruelty - fishing would be banned! It's only because it's far easier to endear cuddly fox cubs to the public than a slimey fish that they go after Hunts so much - if one form on hunting is bad - so are ALL the others!

Foxes used to be classed as "vermin" - fish never have ( regardless of the rights and wrongs of that!) Hunts are criticized for chasing a fox till exhaustion - but fisherfolk do exactly the same and stick a damn great hook in their quarry to boot! The whole idea of Hunting was to rid the farming community of a voracious predator - fishermen hardly ever eat their catch so all their cruelty is without purpose. Furthermore, fishing pollutes the river banks with line and tackle in a way that Hunting never has - in fact Hunting has preserved the look of the countryside that most yoghurt knitters seem to prefer! Irony or what?


It is not lost on me that the majority of anglers and fishermen are not the same class as your average huntin' folk and I'm afraid the anti-Hunt brigade are dyed in the wool believers in the ole British adage that has anyone on a horse as a rich and priviledged barsteward!

 

[fburton]

The fact that fish aren't mammals also needs to be borne in mind - different standards may apply.

 

[FairyBasslet]

If the R.S.P.C.A. were really interested in preventing animal cruelty - fishing would be banned! It's only because it's far easier to endear cuddly fox cubs to the public than a slimey fish that they go after Hunts so much - if one form on hunting is bad - so are ALL the others! .......................................................It is not lost on me that the majority of anglers and fishermen are not the same class as your average huntin' folk and I'm afraid the anti-Hunt brigade are dyed in the wool believers in the ole British adage that has anyone on a horse as a rich and privileged barsteward!

I agree with you-and it is all fuel to the fire that the RSPCA are too political.

The fact that fish aren't mammals also needs to be borne in mind - different standards may apply.

Fishing is not an issue as far as the law is concerned because they are catching wild fish, it has nothing to do with their place on the tree of life.

Pet,farmed and ornamental fish ARE all protected by the law of the land.

Funny then,that the culling of wild badgers and foxes is such a crime to the RSPCA, it is only the cute and cuddly ones they give a damn about.....I have yet to find anything about their stance on the use of cyanide to catch fish but hey ho- no money to be swindled protecting the uncute fish is there?

 

[fburton]

Fishing is not an issue as far as the law is concerned because they are catching wild fish, it has nothing to do with their place on the tree of life.

I think you'd find it would matter if it were wild dolphins!

 

[amandap]

Protecting all wild life is an interesting concept. There's enough opposition from some regarding the wild life that is protected.

 

[Jesstickle]

I think you'd find it would matter if it were wild dolphins!

Dolphins aren't fish

See your poi t though

 

[amandap]

You see, this is what I can't understand. Why is one animal given more consideration than another? Why are fish less worthy of life and respect than mammals? We humans sit there the supposed intelligent ones and we decide for all sorts of arbitrary reasons.

Why can't we look at these issues from moral and ethical perspectives rather than solely what use an animal is to us or what a pest it us or if it is deemed worthy of ethical consideration?

Is it moral or ethical to kill and hurt animals purely for our enjoyment? Surely, with our big brains we can find enjoyment in other ways?

 

[fburton]

You see, this is what I can't understand. Why is one animal given more consideration than another? Why are fish less worthy of life and respect than mammals?

The fish versus mammals issue partly concerns their relative ability to suffer, our assumptions about which come from what we know about their behaviour and sophistication of their nervous systems. That leads to different standards of treatment. Fish and mammals probably aren't so different, but these considerations explain why many of us don't feel bad about flooding wasps nests with cyanide whereas most of us would feel rightly outraged if the same was done to chimpanzees.

Of course, ability to suffer isn't the only thing that makes lives of animals worthwhile, and there are economic and other selfish reasons. However, I think many of us would also recognize an inherent worth in animal life, quite independent of any other consideration.

Is it moral or ethical to kill and hurt animals purely for our enjoyment? Surely, with our big brains we can find enjoyment in other ways?

Imo, it is highly unethical to kill or hurt animals just for our entertainment. In fact, I think that is simply wrong. Even when there are biologically justifiable reasons for killing (e.g. food, ecological management, medical research), I believe it is essential to try and minimize the suffering we cause in so doing.

 

[amandap]

Thank you fburton, I do understand that reasoning, however I think that ethics should be the starting point not the perceived reasons of their physiological ability to suffer. If you get my drift. I suppose I'm talking more about a human mindset.

Even when there are biologically justifiable reasons for killing (e.g. food, ecological management, medical research), I believe it is essential to try and minimize the suffering we cause in so doing.

I 100 % agree. I also believe we should continue to strive to minimize the distress and suffering in life as well.

 

[weebarney]

However, I will say this - that if you work for the RSPCA Moomin (although you say you don't), I would have fired you long ago for your appalling customer liaison. And if you don't - then I would be frantically trying to stop you from acting as some sort of unofficial spokesperson. You seem to be doing more harm than good. For instance - why are you arguing on a forum instead of privately trying to find out why people are seemingly having problems?

Totally agree. Inspector, fantasist or stalker? I have no idea.

 

[FairyBasslet]

I think you'd find it would matter if it were wild dolphins!

Dolphins are not fish and are not on the catch list for recreational fishing in the UK
Granted the way in which the Chinese catch dolphin is sickening but also a little outside the RSPCA's jurisdiction so not relevant to this topic .

The fish versus mammals issue partly concerns their relative ability to suffer, our assumptions about which come from what we know about their behaviour and sophistication of their nervous systems. That leads to different standards of treatment. Fish and mammals probably aren't so different, but these considerations explain why many of us don't feel bad about flooding wasps nests with cyanide whereas most of us would feel rightly outraged if the same was done to chimpanzees.

Hang on there! Lets get this over with once and for all.
There is NO fish Vs mammal issue when it comes to welfare and if you had read the legislation you would know that.

The law is really very clear,fish kept as pets have the same protection as a cat or dog.
Fishing (commercial and recreational) is exempted because they are catching wild animals.
The level of protection by the animal welfare Act is purely down to the absence of a duty of care to wild animals.

Imo, it is highly unethical to kill or hurt animals just for our entertainment. In fact, I think that is simply wrong. Even when there are biologically justifiable reasons for killing (e.g. food, ecological management, medical research), I believe it is essential to try and minimize the suffering we cause in so doing.

I would hope we all agree on that

 

[fburton]

Dolphins are not fish and are not on the catch list for recreational fishing in the UK

Quite - the point being that, overall, mammals are given more consideration than fish.

Hang on there! Lets get this over with once and for all.
There is NO fish Vs mammal issue when it comes to welfare and if you had read the legislation you would know that.

Not when they are pets, but I was talking about all animals including wild ones - and the RSPCA clearly concern themselves with those too.

We do seem to be talking at cross purposes though - not sure that's really necessary!

 

[Fellewell]

Someone gave me a feral kitten from Pompey docks years ago. He settled down after a few weeks and lived to a ripe old age but at which point did he stop being wild and become domestic?

What about lobsters? Apparently they are now stunned in restaurants before being boiled. Does that work? How long do they stay in tanks before they can be classed as pets?

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Interesting that Fenris starts yet another anti RSPCA propaganda thread and then disappears.

I'm curious as to why he's so obsessed with the RSPCA because he never posts about anything else. That's a lot of posts on a single topic.

 

[1life]

Interesting that Fenris starts yet another anti RSPCA propaganda thread and then disappears.

I'm curious as to why he's so obsessed with the RSPCA because he never posts about anything else. That's a lot of posts on a single topic.

Had just started to ponder this point myself....

As much as there appears to be some people who don't like Moomin's obvious and unswerving support for the RSPCA and the work they do, there also appears to be some posters who are actively looking to discredit ANY work they do.

It is an obvious minefield, there is so much to any one story that we do not know. Yes, it is always possible to dredge up stories that appear to discredit any charity but there are numerous untold stories of successful outcomes.

Wasn't there an attempt before to start a newspaper that only reported 'good' news, but was (unfortunately) not a success? Hardly surprising though.

 

[FairyBasslet]

Someone gave me a feral kitten from Pompey docks years ago. He settled down after a few weeks and lived to a ripe old age but at which point did he stop being wild and become domestic?

Morally,ethically and philosophically when would you like?
For the purpose of the law though, the moment you took it into your care as a pet.

What about lobsters? Apparently they are now stunned in restaurants before being boiled. Does that work? How long do they stay in tanks before they can be classed as pets?

They are not being kept as pets, they are being stored before cooking.
Reef lobsters that are sold as pets are,obviously,pets to the law.
Those caught for the pot are not.

As much as there appears to be some people who don't like Moomin's obvious and unswerving support for the RSPCA and the work they do, there also appears to be some posters who are actively looking to discredit ANY work they do.

It is an obvious minefield, there is so much to any one story that we do not know. Yes, it is always possible to dredge up stories that appear to discredit any charity but there are numerous untold stories of successful outcomes.

I don't think many are blind to the good the RSPCA has done and continues to do.
The volunteers on the ground do a wonderful job raising much needed funds which are then sent to head office to be misused

It needs to sack the idiot running it and go back to it's roots- caring for animals and educating owners.
The pseudo police force it has cultivated who not only have NO legal power but know they don't and use the compliance of law abiding public who assume the RSPCA are "special" abuse the very people who donate to it and is not fit for purpose.

Roll on the enlightened times when we final have a division of our police force dedicated to policing and enforcing our animal welfare laws.........

 

[Fenris]

Interesting that Fenris starts yet another anti RSPCA propaganda thread and then disappears.

I'm curious as to why he's so obsessed with the RSPCA because he never posts about anything else. That's a lot of posts on a single topic.

Disappeared? No, just got a life off message boards - and unfortunately work to do!

Never made any secret of the fact that I am a member of the SHG. So why wouldn't I post on that topic?

 

[Fenris]

The law is really very clear,fish kept as pets have the same protection as a cat or dog.
Fishing (commercial and recreational) is exempted because they are catching wild animals.
The level of protection by the animal welfare Act is purely down to the absence of a duty of care to wild animals.



I would hope we all agree on that

The law protects wild animals that are temporarily under the control of man. That is why the people who killed squirrels were able to be prosecuted.

Catch your rat or fish and you have to treat it humanely or kill it humanely.

 

[Alec Swan]

...........

As much as there appears to be some people who don't like Moomin's obvious and unswerving support for the RSPCA and the work they do, there also appears to be some posters who are actively looking to discredit ANY work they do.

........

I suspect that there may be those who feel that Moomin's apparent inability to hear a wrong word said, when the facts quite clearly point to a poorly run and functioning charity, then there will be those who will question such blind faith. I'm amongst them. I have not and will not attack Moomin for her beliefs, there's a thin and subtle distinction. Indeed, I admire her tenacity, however misplaced I believe her efforts to be!

When we read well reasoned and presented journalistic support, of those who act as Court judiciaries, who themselves, without any apparent bias, marvel at and question the morality of the obscene waste of donated money, and are irritated at the perceived waste of our Court's time, then with such fundamental flaws within the society's current and apparent ethos and ambition, then those who criticise the rspca are going to, quite naturally, paint the whole society with a one-fits-all, brush. No, it isn't right, but it's the way that it is.

I'm surprised that the question of cruelty itself, has yet to be raised. I've never ridden to hounds, but am a keen follower, in every sense. I do shoot, and in the process, I run the risk of losing wounded game. When I shoot we always have an adequate team of dog-men who are picking up, but there's always the chance that wounded game will die a dreadful and painful death. By any definition this must be considered to be cruel, but yet I still shoot, as do many others. If we shoot, then we have to accept that we run the risk of intentionally causing cruelty, however we may chose to dress it up. Is it acceptable in our brave new world to continue with such apparently barbarous behaviour?

As I've said, I don't actually hunt, so have no particular axe to grind, but how any group of people can campaign to bring hunting to an end, base their argument on "cruelty", and whilst all the time ignoring the fact that shooting is inherently more cruel, is beyond me. Hunting isn't actually cruel, but it seems to me that the question of cruelty is a mere trifling, compared to the political agendas of some.

Alec.

 

[1stclassalan]

As I said before - fairness under the Law.

If there is doubious distinction between what is acceptable treatment of a "wild" animal kept "stored" for food and a pet - where are we? Hundreds of cases of mistreated non-pets?

Me abusing a dog mate? Nah - I eat dogs all the time and found this one running wild - I just stuck this one in me garden for a bit and forgot it - thought I'd keep it alive for a while 'cos the freezer's full.

I can remember ridiculing folk who criticised me for fishing ( I did a lot when younger ) "how can you be so cruel?" they said - "nonsense! You can see they actually enjoy being hooked - they're wagging their tails!"

My pond fish - a wide selection of types - are inteligent enough to recognise the difference between my wife's footsteps ( she doesn't feed them ) and mine. They have intricate social lives and body language that all species seem to understand and I have no doubt that they feel pain very similar to us mammals - the fact that they can't go madly about screaming actually makes hurting one worse rather than better to my mind.

 

[FairyBasslet]

The law protects wild animals that are temporarily under the control of man. That is why the people who killed squirrels were able to be prosecuted.

Catch your rat or fish and you have to treat it humanely or kill it humanely.

Absolutely, but that is because of different set of rules to those that govern the treatment of animals kept as pets.

As I said before - fairness under the Law.

If there is dubious distinction between what is acceptable treatment of a "wild" animal kept "stored" for food and a pet - where are we? Hundreds of cases of mistreated non-pets?

Me abusing a dog mate? Nah - I eat dogs all the time and found this one running wild - I just stuck this one in me garden for a bit and forgot it - thought I'd keep it alive for a while 'cos the freezer's full.

It's a clear cut distinction, I see no ambiguity.
We have a long and complex labyrinth of laws regarding what can and can not be collected to keep as a pet from our coastline and from which parts, so that lobster in the restaurant was caught be a commercial fisherman with a licence.
He then sold it to the restaurant as food, they then store it in a tank until a customer requests it be cooked.
That is clearly not a pet.

Now the ethics of the thing are a minefield since so many ignorant folk seem intent on remaining oblivious to the facts and the fact that lobsters are inverts so lack the same level of protection offered to fish caught for food in the same seas.
But they are (apparently) tasty, and clearly useful for impressing gold diggers on dates so who cares right?
I dread to think how polluted those tanks are, proper care of a marine aquarium is both expensive and time consuming, it is an art as much as a science and those who keep marine life are every bit as dedicated to their life consuming hobby as riders are.
I seriously doubt your average waiter or restaurant manager either knows or cares enough to keep the tank healthy for those pot lobsters.

For so many reasons,if I see a tank of lobsters waiting for the pot I will walk out immediately.

I can remember ridiculing folk who criticised me for fishing ( I did a lot when younger ) "how can you be so cruel?" they said - "nonsense! You can see they actually enjoy being hooked - they're wagging their tails!"

My pond fish - a wide selection of types - are intelligent enough to recognise the difference between my wife's footsteps ( she doesn't feed them ) and mine. They have intricate social lives and body language that all species seem to understand and I have no doubt that they feel pain very similar to us mammals - the fact that they can't go madly about screaming actually makes hurting one worse rather than better to my mind.

I agree.
As a new member(and so an outsider looking in) I see an admirable desire to do the best by horses who can not speak for themselves with an absurd amount of money being spent on rugs and feeding supplement for horses that would be A-OK without them because their owners are desperate to ensure every whim and need is met.
Yet those self same people think products to remove chlorine and chloramines from tap water are a rip off and test kits are a scam too-no need to look at water chemistry for our delicate pets unable to escape the pollution, the water LOOKS clear so all is well.
They refuse to educate themselves before buying fish a user who had a handful of fancy goldfish in a 60 litre Biorb for example,who thought it was genuinely FUNNY that the tank was too small by half- the fish were alive and that was all that counted!.

I hope and pray that those abusing their goldies don't take it into their heads to buy some Nemos when "Finding Dorey" hits the screens, ignorance on the part of people buying A.Ocellaris after "finding Nemo" without any research into the challenge they were taking on led to the sad demise of many thousands of those poor fish while still tiny babies

 

[TallyHo123]

Exactly and leaving an animal to suffer is a criminal offence.

It makes me so so cross that stories like these hit the headlines but all the good work that is done every single day is never mentioned. I know there is some controversy with the head honchos but it must be soul destroying for the branch staff and those out in the field who work hard hearing things like this all the time

Also flea allergies are pretty common how can a competent owner not know about it as a possibility??

I totally agree with this. Same as everything now, what the minority do end up making front page news but the majority of hard working, loyal staff who are working for the RSPCA as they are passionate about animal welfare are ignored.

 

[Alec Swan]

........ Same as everything now, what the minority do end up making front page news but the majority of hard working, loyal staff who are working for the RSPCA as they are passionate about animal welfare are ignored.

You are simply reinforcing the argument which has been made by most, which is that the rank and file of the rspca, are "generally" shown respect, but it's the leadership of the organisation, the CEO and his lieutenants, those who direct the charity, who are responsible for the appalling standards of management and mis-direction. Considering that it's probably those lieutenants who appointed Grant in the first place, encouraging a return to a previous and respected ethos, may well be hard work!!

I suspect that if the rspca continues in the same vein, then legislation, or demands from the Charities Commission may well be the preferred tools.

Alec.

 

[YorksG]

I totally agree with this. Same as everything now, what the minority do end up making front page news but the majority of hard working, loyal staff who are working for the RSPCA as they are passionate about animal welfare are ignored.

It appears that along with all the other public sector/voluntary sector organisations, the majority of hard working moral employees with the RSPCA are ignored by their leadership and tainted with their political bias

 

[Fenris]

Absolutely, but that is because of different set of rules to those that govern the treatment of animals kept as pets.
(

No,it is the same Animal Welfare Act that protects both wild and pet/commercial animals once they are under the control of man. The difference is only that pet/commercial animals are classed as always under the control of man and wild animals are only temporarily under the control of man - when they are caught in a trap etc.

I suspect it is only a matter of time before the first prosecutions of fishermen.

 

[Fenris]

For those interested in fish the RSPCA have prosecuted for cruelty to a fish in the past. As I said only a matter of time before the first fishermen have to stand in court and justify 'playing' with the fish on a hook because it was temporarily under the control of man.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2012/dec/21/louis-cole-ate-goldfish-rspca

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-goldfish-alive-shocking-YouTube-stunt.html

You might wonder about the legality of the police arresting someone who refuses to give an interview to a private organization with no powers!

 

[Fellewell]

Experience is something you don't get until after you need it

This is especially true of animal ownership. We're seeing diseases in animals now that just weren't around or weren't prevalent years ago. Even the professionals are struggling to keep up. So the average owner is going to mess up now and then because experience is an ongoing thing. Save the serious stuff for those who deserve it like whoever is responsible for that coloured yearling in Bristol recently.
Seems to me the RSPCA are heading for an animal rights agenda, this to me is an emotional almost knee-jerk reaction which seeks to create an ecological heirarchy which is totally unworkable.
We are the custodians here and animal husbandry (which includes culling) is a duty, not a choice IMO.

 

[1life]

Disappeared? No, just got a life off message boards - and unfortunately work to do!

Never made any secret of the fact that I am a member of the SHG. So why wouldn't I post on that topic?

So, realistically, your opinions are going to be as biased as someone who unfalteringly supports the RSPCA. You won't look at the bigger picture and will, in fact, actively seek to discredit. I'll bear that in mind when I read your posts.

Alec - I wrote a reply to one of your responses and then my computer wiped it...what a waste of time! To try and squish it into one sentence - In my opinion, Moomin prefers to look at the front line of the RSPCA and their work (rather than internal hierarchy) as they are usually in the job for the right reason (not political, purely wanting to help animals).

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

I suspect it is only a matter of time before the first prosecutions of fishermen.

I take it that you're including those who are deep sea fishermen in this? I suspect that you're daydreaming!

Alec.

 

[JanetGeorge]

To try and squish it into one sentence - In my opinion, Moomin prefers to look at the front line of the RSPCA and their work (rather than internal hierarchy) as they are usually in the job for the right reason (not political, purely wanting to help animals).

There is no doubt that MOST RSPCA inspectors - and virtually ALL the people who work at local branch level - ARE there for the right reasons and are striving to improve animal welfare. Unfortunately, their jobs are often made harder by the people at the top (who control the purse strings!!) Animal WELFARE drives them - but the politics often makes it difficult (at least!)