# The RSPCA's latest



## Rou (Dec 23, 2007)

Guys i'm finding it difficult to fully understand the RSPCA's latest decisions about taking on unwanted animals, they call this scheme "Prioritizing Animals in need" stating that they are introducing this scheme to ensure that cruelty cases and wildlife cases are priority to the other cases such as "I didn't know it would live that long so I dont want my tortoise" etc.

I understand the whole putting the endangered animals at the top of the list but come on! If unwanted animals aren't taken care of there is bound to be a massive increase in abandonment issues and also cruelty cases where animals are mstreated because the owners simply cannot be bothered etc.

I'm normally pretty smart when it comes to seeing both sides to these kind of points yet this one I am struggling to get my head around. I know that the RSPCA and many other organisations are working hard to prevent unwanted animals, animal cruelty and abandonment but I feel personally that this is a fair old easy way out and its just prolonging the future rather than dealing with it now.

The RSPCA is a well established and generally fair organisation but after taking on an abandoned and mistreated young bearded dragon after being told it would be put to sleep because the RSPCA didnt have the money to rehabilitate it I feel there are some deeper issues that should be tackled before they start changing policies. 

Apparently this prioritising scheme has been in action since the beginnig of this year, 2010 in many RSPCA centers yet it is only now that they are releasing this information to the press as they see it as being successful....

I'm seriously not looking forward to the backlash this could create. I just hope the boffins on the bank books of the RSPCA that most probably put this idea across seeing as it is primarily down to money and not the animals know what they are talking about!!!

Okay, I think I'm finished for one post....

What does everyone else think?! Please give me another side of the picture if you think I'm wrong in saying this as I would love to get a better understanding of the whole scheme.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

What is it you're asking?

The RSPCA is a charity with more money than they need but it doesn't go back into animal care. The head men have decided that they're not going to be used as a dumping ground for unwanted animals.

Seeing as they happily put animals down it's not exactly a bad thing that they're not taking them on


----------



## Rou (Dec 23, 2007)

Meko said:


> What is it you're asking?
> 
> Seeing as they happily put animals down it's not exactly a bad thing that they're not taking them on


I'm asking if I am just misunderstanding it as I can't actually believe its going to happen.

I know the RSPCA aren't a dumping ground for animals as their initials stand for cruelty but technically the careless, cold hearted percentage of the human race that are happy to just give their animal away wont exactly be too bothered about where they leave their animals when they decide they don't match the furnature anymore.

As for the lethal injection to animals because they dont have the effort or so say money to rehab them... well thats beyond mebecause like you said. The head men are in control.


----------



## Natrix (Dec 9, 2006)

Rou

I could at this point write a lengthy book on all the reasons that the RSPCA are not what you think they are and that if you are an animal keeper and lover you should avoid them at all costs.
However I suspect it may be simpler to direct you too, RSPCA Animadversion and suggest you have a good read of all the things the RSPCA have been getting up to over the last decade or so. You can then make your own mind up about them.

Natrix


----------



## Rou (Dec 23, 2007)

Natrix, that's fine by me that you have linked me to that site and i will read it when i get the chance.

I know full well of all of the good that the RSPCA have done over the years but just hold a high level of concern for those unwanted animals.


----------



## Athravan (Dec 28, 2006)

It's a sad fact but we are a throwaway society. To some animals are seen as objects to be treated how they want & discarded when they're not wanted, with not much second thought to their welfare.

Those who are told the RSPCA will not take an animal due it being merely unwanted, are of course likely to simply dump it instead, where it will be duly collected by the animal warden and put down after 7 days if not claimed by one of the independant rescues.

I'm sure many people who work for the RSPCA care, many rescues are run by private individuals who aren't receiving the funding from the organisation that they need to take on the amount of animals they are now getting. Overall as an organisation as already stated, the RSPCA leaves a lot to be desired which is mostly dictated by the people in charge who probably never go anywhere near any animals, and certainly not the people working in the rescues cleaning up dog poop every day.

The only thing to understand is that the RSPCA is profit-driven and not welfare driven at the top end.

I wish that all the people in the UK who donate the millions to the RSPCA would donate to independant rescues where the money goes DIRECT to the animals. I doubt many people who donate realise how little - if any - of their donation ever filters down to the dogs & cats shown on the adverts.

But ultimately we cannot blame the RSPCA that people are throwing away their animals cruelly, at some point something will have to be done about either toughening up on breeding, selling, or buying of animals, or something - anything - to ensure that animals aren't such a disposable thing. I don't like the RSPCA, but I can't blame them that dogs & cats & reptiles are being abandoned and dying, we can only blame the people responsible.


----------



## Natrix (Dec 9, 2006)

Rou said:


> Natrix, that's fine by me that you have linked me to that site and i will read it when i get the chance.
> 
> I know full well of all of the good that the RSPCA have done over the years but just hold a high level of concern for those unwanted animals.


Rou

I'm sure that some members of the RSPCA have indeed done some good over the years but in recent times the organisation has become over run with Animal Rights extremists who far from doing good have set out to destroy all animal related hobbies, refused to work with knowledgable keepers, spent fortunes on a new fancy head office while letting rescue centres close and become very political in their attempts to get what they want.
Sadly the RSPCA have lost interest in unwanted animals and are putting most of their efforts into trying to undermine hobbies like this one. My personal feelings are that any one wanting to help animals should look at groups such as the PDSA or the more local privatly run rescue centres. 

Natrix


----------



## red foot marg (Feb 19, 2008)

don't get me started on the rspca,if an animal does not tick all there boxes its just put down,i even know of cases where they refused to come out because it was to far????,there to busy sticking there noses in to other areas instead of consentrating on animal welfare,i had an owl, a long eared owl that had hit a car, which i took in, i took it to the vets afte an exam the only thing wrong with it was that it was blind in one eye,anyway i took it home and looked after it for about a month in my garage, meantime i was ringing round to find a suitable home,i contacted the RSPCA and a girl seemed more interested in me keeping a wild bird than the animal itself,i told her i was looking for a home for it at a zoo,wildlife park etc, did they know of anywhere that would take it,the lady asked if it had seen a vet to which i replied that it had and that its only problem was one eye,no point in us coming to collect it to put it to sleep was the reply,anyway no thanks to theRSPCA its now found a home and produced eggs with another long eard owl, The only thing the rspca are good at is keeping a high profile to get more money donated to keep all the white collar workers going in the flash company cars.


----------



## Rou (Dec 23, 2007)

Natrix said:


> Rou
> 
> I'm sure that some members of the RSPCA have indeed done some good over the years but in recent times the organisation has become over run with Animal Rights extremists who far from doing good have set out to destroy all animal related hobbies, refused to work with knowledgable keepers, spent fortunes on a new fancy head office while letting rescue centres close and become very political in their attempts to get what they want.
> Sadly the RSPCA have lost interest in unwanted animals and are putting most of their efforts into trying to undermine hobbies like this one. My personal feelings are that any one wanting to help animals should look at groups such as the PDSA or the more local privatly run rescue centres.
> ...


This is exactly what I was trying to get at but in my normal rambling state my point most probably got a bit muddled in the guff.

I'm glad I am not the only one who has taken of their rose tinted glasses when it comes to issues like this!


----------



## Rou (Dec 23, 2007)

red foot marg said:


> don't get me started on the rspca,if an animal does not tick all there boxes its just put down,i even know of cases where they refused to come out because it was to far????,there to busy sticking there noses in to other areas instead of consentrating on animal welfare,i had an owl, a long eared owl that had hit a car, which i took in, i took it to the vets afte an exam the only thing wrong with it was that it was blind in one eye,anyway i took it home and looked after it for about a month in my garage, meantime i was ringing round to find a suitable home,i contacted the RSPCA and a girl seemed more interested in me keeping a wild bird than the animal itself,i told her i was looking for a home for it at a zoo,wildlife park etc, did they know of anywhere that would take it,the lady asked if it had seen a vet to which i replied that it had and that its only problem was one eye,no point in us coming to collect it to put it to sleep was the reply,anyway no thanks to theRSPCA its now found a home and produced eggs with another long eard owl, The only thing the rspca are good at is keeping a high profile to get more money donated to keep all the white collar workers going in the flash company cars.


Amen to that Marg!


----------



## HappyCrazyBunny (Mar 15, 2010)

I can see the RSPCA becoming too big for its boots eventually... I worry about this shift in their stance.. it just makes me wonder what they've got in the pipeline :devil: But I guess I'm just being paranoid and I hate being told what I can and can't do with my pets by people who don't really know anything..

I worry also about the affects on this. People will offload their pets anywhere if they want rid.. especially if the RSPCA won't take them in. Its going to have a knock on effect on a lot of small rescues which aren't as well financed as the RSPCA

Helen xx


----------



## STReptiles (Feb 6, 2009)

Go George, you make very good points.:notworthy:


----------



## Rou (Dec 23, 2007)

Haha Sam, Join on the wagon bro!


----------



## essexchondro (Apr 9, 2007)

The RSPCA is a business dressed-up as a charity (for business purposes). By prioritising the relatively small number of high-profile cases relating to animal cruelty and wildlife issues they get more publicity (which equates to more donations) and spend less compared to dealing with the much more widespread and not so glamorous work of re-homing animals that owners have just got fed up with. Think of it in terms of a company stream-lining its business in order to maximise profitability.


----------



## STReptiles (Feb 6, 2009)

Rou said:


> Haha Sam, Join on the wagon bro!


 I would but im not to 'up' on the RSPCA, ill just sit back eat my tea and watch the debate lol


----------



## Rou (Dec 23, 2007)

essexchondro said:


> The RSPCA is a business dressed-up as a charity (for business purposes). By prioritising the relatively small number of high-profile cases relating to animal cruelty and wildlife issues they get more publicity (which equates to more donations) and spend less compared to dealing with the much more widespread and not so glamorous work of re-homing animals that owners have just got fed up with. Think of it in terms of a company stream-lining its business in order to maximise profitability.


I have a perfect example of a knock on effect of this!

I know an ex inspector who left the RSPCA because he couldn't hack having to go by the book. He came across a farmer who once before the inspector X (i'll call him inspector X) was sent to the property had burnt his barn down full of cattle to get the insurance money. 

Inspector X knew of the blokes history and when he saw the disgustingly malnourished cattle and sheep in the barn without any level of clean bedding, food or water, he didn't think twice about booking him. Unfortunately because the farmer had expressed such a keen interest and insisted that he was going around to do the morning rounds and played uneducated inspector X had to caution him and watch him closely. A couple of weeks later inspector X revisited the property after being told the farmer had been overheard saying he was going to "create a fair amount of smoke" (said in a worrying manner). 

The inspector arrived in time to see smoke pouring from the barn and hearing the animals panic inside. He decked the farmer flat out when he told inspector X to mind his own business and ran the fire department. He arranged (off of the books) to have the alive animals moved to another farm which was reputable for rehabilitation and he left the RSPCA shortly after due to being severly told off for going about it the way he had.

I say bloody good on inspector X!


----------



## Shell195 (May 31, 2007)

Athravan said:


> It's a sad fact but we are a throwaway society. To some animals are seen as objects to be treated how they want & discarded when they're not wanted, with not much second thought to their welfare.
> 
> Those who are told the RSPCA will not take an animal due it being merely unwanted, are of course likely to simply dump it instead, where it will be duly collected by the animal warden and put down after 7 days if not claimed by one of the independant rescues.
> 
> ...


Excellent post:no1:


----------



## Lord Monty (Jul 1, 2009)

to be honest i think when people buy a pet they should have the intention of keeping it for its god given life.
whenever a animal is bought i think they shoudl have to sign a form records be kept etc!
its a disgrace when someone gets bored of a pet and thinks ooo ill throw it at the RSPCA..
dont get me wrong i have no problem with someone who did have the fund to keep the pet and had the intention of keeping the pet forever but for some reason they cannot possibly do it anymore my simpathly goes to them....
but people who just get bored with a pet ... its not good enough
and i think things like the classified and preloved have helped MASSIVLY in the decrease in reptiles being thrown to zoos..people get bored they can sell them..but they shouldnt be able to go and buy ANOTHER repitile....rant over.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

HappyCrazyBunny said:


> Its going to have a knock on effect on a lot of small rescues which aren't as well financed as the RSPCA
> 
> Helen xx


 
that's also the RSPCA, the small local places don't see much of the money from head office.


----------



## pigglywiggly (Jul 19, 2008)

i thought they had to finance themselves from their `rehoming fees` ?


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

they do as far as i know..
National charity collections go to head office to spend on desks and local collections and rehoming fees go to the running of the local centres (i think)


----------



## Natrix (Dec 9, 2006)

Meko said:


> they do as far as i know..
> National charity collections go to head office to spend on desks and local collections and rehoming fees go to the running of the local centres (i think)


Remember that the local centres also have to pay subs out of the income from rehoming and their own local collections to Horsham. This allows them to work under the RSPCA name. 

Natrix


----------



## Rou (Dec 23, 2007)

Meko said:


> they do as far as i know..
> National charity collections go to head office to spend on desks and local collections and rehoming fees go to the running of the local centres (i think)


Still this is wrong don't you think?!

If anything the rehoming fees money is the stuff that should go to head office not the massive charity donations which people donate to the RSPCA to care for the animals after absorbing the false propaganda those people put out.

The propaganda like adverts and flyers etc all say donate to help the animals but i am pretty sure the head office are comfier than some of the animals.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

course it's wrong... we're not saying it because we want everybody to run out and donate to the RSPCA, it's because they're a shower of shite and don't give any money to the ones who need it.


----------



## Rou (Dec 23, 2007)

Meko said:


> shower of shite


:notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:


----------



## purplekitten (Feb 24, 2010)

and they have the cheek to moan about so many animals being dumped, thought they was there to help


----------

