# anyone seen the news about the rspca no longer taking unwanted pets?!



## Exotic Mad (Jul 11, 2009)

whats the bloody point of the rspca :bash:


----------



## Myth (May 22, 2009)

Nope - is news to me. 

Any links ? *goes to ask the all knowing google*


----------



## andy159 (Apr 15, 2008)

they are going to be concentrating on policing animal cruelty and not looking after unwanted animals so are less of actually caring for animals more of setting and enforcing the rules of how animals are supposed to be cared and looked after. The tag line is that they are turning more into an unoficial police force rather than an animal care.


----------



## andy159 (Apr 15, 2008)

Myth said:


> Nope - is news to me.
> 
> Any links ? *goes to ask the all knowing google*



check out channel four news for some decent info on it


----------



## Myth (May 22, 2009)

will do... : victory:

ETA: found it.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/exclusive+rspca+to+turn+away+unwanted+animals/3620087

Um.


----------



## BecciBoo (Aug 31, 2007)

Exotic Mad said:


> whats the bloody point of the rspca :bash:


This sums it up basically :whistling2:


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Exotic Mad said:


> whats the bloody point of the rspca :bash:


They are a charity not a public service, I never get these threads bashing them.


----------



## Exotic Mad (Jul 11, 2009)

KathyM said:


> They are a charity not a public service, I never get these threads bashing them.


a charity that makes a hell of a lot of money but yet can't put it into helping unwanted animals like they have always proffessed to do. they even have loads of campaigns about making donations to help them hel them unwanted animals they are going to be turning away.

on a plusnote it is of general opinion that donations will plummet so hopefully those who donate will give to the rescues who actually help


----------



## Exotic Mad (Jul 11, 2009)

basically despite making tons of money they are going to overload all other charitys because of them turning them down meaning those who make a lot less money are going to have to find loads more room for animals


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

Oooooh great, so now we will have even more people killing, abandoning and turning out their animals until somebody has to rescue them.


----------



## Shell195 (May 31, 2007)

Im actually horrified by this news, sanctuaries like ours cant cope at the minute without the RSPCA shutting its doors to unwanted pets:bash:


----------



## Exotic Mad (Jul 11, 2009)

Shell195 said:


> Im actually horrified by this news, sanctuaries like ours cant cope at the minute without the RSPCA shutting its doors to unwanted pets:bash:


its going to put so much pressure on so many charity's. it disgusting how they do so much campaining for donations which should be going to these smaller charitys who actually do it for the animals and not the profit


----------



## Freakinfreak (May 13, 2009)

Exotic Mad said:


> its going to put so much pressure on so many charity's. it disgusting how they do so much campaining for donations which should be going to these smaller charitys who actually do it for the animals and not the profit


It is reported that they were spending more money campaining and advertising than actually helping the animals, AND, what is more is that they were still asking the general public for old sheets, towels and bowls even though they had all that money... :bash:


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Exotic Mad said:


> a charity that makes a hell of a lot of money but yet can't put it into helping unwanted animals like they have always proffessed to do. they even have loads of campaigns about making donations to help them hel them unwanted animals they are going to be turning away.
> 
> on a plusnote it is of general opinion that donations will plummet so hopefully those who donate will give to the rescues who actually help


I have exactly the same concerns as them but I still don't understand the view of the RSPCA being *obliged* to take in animals like they're a national public service. They are not obliged to do anything, I don't believe they would last two minutes if they were as frankly you've highlighted their failings, but it still doesn't mean they're *obliged* to pick up after this country's rubbish owners.


----------



## Exotic Mad (Jul 11, 2009)

KathyM said:


> I have exactly the same concerns as them but I still don't understand the view of the RSPCA being *obliged* to take in animals like they're a national public service. They are not obliged to do anything, I don't believe they would last two minutes if they were as frankly you've highlighted their failings, but it still doesn't mean they're *obliged* to pick up after this country's rubbish owners.


i'm sorry but i disagree. when you campaign under the pretence that that is what you are doing and receive donations to do exactly that then you become obliged to do it.

its like me going round with a cancer care bucket collecting money then spending it on new shoes for myself. as a charity no they aren't obliged. but when you are getting donations to do just that then yes you are then obliged.

agreed on the fact that its shit owners making these animals need to be taken in but this isn't going to change anytime soon


----------



## Exotic Mad (Jul 11, 2009)

Freakinfreak said:


> It is reported that they were spending more money campaining and advertising than actually helping the animals, AND, what is more is that they were still asking the general public for old sheets, towels and bowls even though they had all that money... :bash:


hats off to the good ole RSPCA :whip:


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Exotic Mad said:


> i'm sorry but i disagree. when you campaign under the pretence that that is what you are doing and receive donations to do exactly that then you become obliged to do it.
> 
> its like me going round with a cancer care bucket collecting money then spending it on new shoes for myself. as a charity no they aren't obliged. but when you are getting donations to do just that then yes you are then obliged.
> 
> agreed on the fact that its shit owners making these animals need to be taken in but this isn't going to change anytime soon


They are not obliged to do it at all, it's one thing saying you'll try and it's another being expected to pick up everything. Surely you could say the same about the Dog's Trust or any of the small charities even then? Shall we say Joe Blogs up the road said he'd do his bit to rescue animals is responsible for every stray or hurt animal? No we don't. I do understand where you're coming from, and in some ways the RSPCA have brought this on themselves through their sheer size and mismanagement, but they are not obliged to solve the stray or homeless animal problem - owners are.

ETA: I know of local CPL branches that refuse to take in some colours of cat, and refused me help when I had a pregnant and badly injured stray visiting. I know another branch that claimed to test and vaccinate cats and yet homed a cat dying of leukaemia out to die in its new home who were unaware of its status. People don't go round slagging them off for that though....


----------



## Erinaceinae (Mar 26, 2007)

Surely this will just lead to most strays being put down? If there is no room, and they can't just throw them back out?


----------



## cazcolecarter (Jan 11, 2010)

How will this affect the animals currently residing in RSPCA centres? What will become of them?


----------



## Exotic Mad (Jul 11, 2009)

KathyM said:


> They are not obliged to do it at all, it's one thing saying you'll try and it's another being expected to pick up everything. Surely you could say the same about the Dog's Trust or any of the small charities even then? Shall we say Joe Blogs up the road said he'd do his bit to rescue animals is responsible for every stray or hurt animal? No we don't. I do understand where you're coming from, and in some ways the RSPCA have brought this on themselves through their sheer size and mismanagement, but they are not obliged to solve the stray or homeless animal problem - owners are.
> 
> ETA: I know of local CPL branches that refuse to take in some colours of cat, and refused me help when I had a pregnant and badly injured stray visiting. I know another branch that claimed to test and vaccinate cats and yet homed a cat dying of leukaemia out to die in its new home who were unaware of its status. People don't go round slagging them off for that though....


i'm not saying they are obliged due to being a rescue. or that joe bloggs down the road is obliged because he said he'd try. but if joe bloggs down the road had a sick cat and asked you for money to treat it which you gave him then he would be abliged to treat it. you'd be mightily annoyed if he then spent it down the pub. 

noone exects that they can save everything but if you take money from people on terms of being an animal charity then just decide to stop taking in unwanted animals i feel this is haing taken money by deception. i.e they aren't advertising this themselves and i'm guessing they won't be informing all those who have monthly direct debits set up for donations that they are doing this. given that it was leaked i am assuming it wasn't meant to be made public


----------



## sammy1989 (Feb 2, 2010)

i would love to take on pets from the rspca but they sooo hard on rehoming it got to be 100% correct soo i havnt bothered contact coz i would of resuced some female pigs to go with my group but they will say my garden is too small or somthing.

i think it shouldnt matter what a house is like as long as it safe for them and i dont think people would live in a non safe house anyway i think if the owner should they care and time spent on they animals that should be inportant too coz i have seen people rehoming rspca dog coz they dont have the time no longer for them.


----------



## _jake_ (Jul 3, 2008)

It's sad now becuase all the smaller home run rescues will be even more rushed off their feets


----------



## fern (May 25, 2008)

KathyM said:


> They are not obliged to do it at all, it's one thing saying you'll try and it's another being expected to pick up everything. Surely you could say the same about the Dog's Trust or any of the small charities even then? Shall we say Joe Blogs up the road said he'd do his bit to rescue animals is responsible for every stray or hurt animal? No we don't. I do understand where you're coming from, and in some ways the RSPCA have brought this on themselves through their sheer size and mismanagement, but they are not obliged to solve the stray or homeless animal problem - owners are.
> 
> ETA: I know of local CPL branches that refuse to take in some colours of cat, and refused me help when I had a pregnant and badly injured stray visiting. I know another branch that claimed to test and vaccinate cats and yet homed a cat dying of leukaemia out to die in its new home who were unaware of its status. People don't go round slagging them off for that though....



CP have weekly vets visits, they also do a health check and all blood testing as an animal comes in, its possible the cat coontracted it after leaving the centre, especially if on the notes it said the cat had already been treated.
they dont like to interfear with strays too much as generally they still belong to people whereas others just think they are strays.. 
and as for the colour thing i dont believe that.. during my time in CP i have seen pretty much every colour moggy aswell as a few unusual, expensive breeds.. 
not saying that all CP centres are as good as this one but thats my experiences 

and i think its awful about this! in some areas i would believe they are starting to turn away the smaller animals, at CP last week we had a phone call from someone about 3 rats!! (guys daughter brought them home.. they where fighting he didnt want them rspca wouldnt take them, they needed vet treatment could we do anything?) so i lent the manager a cage and she took them on.. now they are cats protection not rats protection but couldnt turn it away! i thibk it is unfair..
what about the ferret rescue place in cornwall then? because they are run by the rspca? and there arnt small animal rescue centres down here, except [email protected]


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

fern said:


> CP have weekly vets visits, they also do a health check and all blood testing as an animal comes in, its possible the cat coontracted it after leaving the centre, especially if on the notes it said the cat had already been treated.
> they dont like to interfear with strays too much as generally they still belong to people whereas others just think they are strays..
> and as for the colour thing i dont believe that.. during my time in CP i have seen pretty much every colour moggy aswell as a few unusual, expensive breeds..
> not saying that all CP centres are as good as this one but thats my experiences


YOUR CPL does that, not every branch does.  Yes the cat contracted leukaemia before homing, it was in a veterinary hospital within days of being homed and they ended up admitting they lied about the test and vaccs to up the donation. As for colour discrimination, it is sadly common with some rescues, luckily another local independent cat rescue is absolutely wonderful. The stray was let down by the RSPCA (they turned up 4 weeks after I reported her for the 2nd time) and the CPL, who wouldn't even lend me a cat trap. Luckily the good cat rescue stepped in immediately with a trap, and took her and got her fixed up and homed her and her two kittens who were born soon after. 

I don't make wild statements without first hand experience, I can assure you. It doesn't stop me supporting good branches, just as I continue to support certain RSPCA branches that are not responsible for the RSPCA's headquarters decisions.


----------



## fern (May 25, 2008)

sammy1989 said:


> i would love to take on pets from the rspca but they sooo hard on rehoming it got to be 100% correct soo i havnt bothered contact coz i would of resuced some female pigs to go with my group but they will say my garden is too small or somthing.
> 
> i think it shouldnt matter what a house is like as long as it safe for them and i dont think people would live in a non safe house anyway i think if the owner should they care and time spent on they animals that should be inportant too coz i have seen people rehoming rspca dog coz they dont have the time no longer for them.


i know about this one too!! my friend wasnt aloud to take on a rabbit as she didnt have a 6foot hutch, despite the fact that her rabits are 'freerange' except at night.. 
we wernt aloud to take on ferrets because my dad works his catching rabbits.


----------



## fern (May 25, 2008)

KathyM said:


> YOUR CPL does that, not every branch does.  Yes the cat contracted leukaemia before homing, it was in a veterinary hospital within days of being homed and they ended up admitting they lied about the test and vaccs to up the donation. As for colour discrimination, it is sadly common with some rescues, luckily another local independent cat rescue is absolutely wonderful. The stray was let down by the RSPCA (they turned up 4 weeks after I reported her for the 2nd time) and the CPL, who wouldn't even lend me a cat trap. Luckily the good cat rescue stepped in immediately with a trap, and took her and got her fixed up and homed her and her two kittens who were born soon after.
> 
> I don't make wild statements without first hand experience, I can assure you. It doesn't stop me supporting good branches, just as I continue to support certain RSPCA branches that are not responsible for the RSPCA's headquarters decisions.


there is no L now they are just cats protection  and i didnt accuse you just pointed out what may have happened as i observed all the correct practices being carried out, we even set up crates in our staff room to take on extras which we didnt have room for  come live with me, CP here is ace


----------



## Shell195 (May 31, 2007)

What really annoys me is first the police stop taking stray dogs in and the dog wardens dont run a 24 hour service now the RSPCA are closing their doors to unwanted pets, what next? There are to many unwanted pets in the uk what is going to become of them all? Abandonment has already increased by 100% this year and the RSPCA are at present collecting the animals and trying to place in various rescues including their own shelters. If they close the doors to unwanted pets so many more are going to have to be euthanised:bash: They already refuse to deal with strays.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

fern said:


> there is no L now they are just cats protection  and i didnt accuse you just pointed out what may have happened as i observed all the correct practices being carried out, we even set up crates in our staff room to take on extras which we didnt have room for  come live with me, CP here is ace


Sounds like a great branch, and for them I have a lot of respect. I truly wouldn't make accusations about a branch without genuine justification, and it was many moons ago so doubt it will have any repercussion (other than to have put the person that homed the cat off the CP as a whole as they didn't even get an apology).


----------



## Shell195 (May 31, 2007)

With reference to the CP, the shelters use snap tests to test the cats for FELV/FIV these carry the risk of false negatives as well as false positives. If the cat tested negative and showed no symptoms of disease then this wouldnt be followed up by an ELISA test so basically the cat could still be positive, if the cat tested positive and showed no symptoms then bloods would be sent away for further testing.
Blood testing isnt 100% reliable unless its sent to the lab for testing but rescues cant afford to do this with every cat so use the snap tests.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

He wasn't tested or vaccinated as they said he was, otherwise I would fully agree.


----------



## fern (May 25, 2008)

Shell195 said:


> With reference to the CP, the shelters use snap tests to test the cats for FELV/FIV these carry the risk of false negatives as well as false positives. If the cat tested negative and showed no symptoms of disease then this wouldnt be followed up by an ELISA test so basically the cat could still be positive, if the cat tested positive and showed no symptoms then bloods would be sent away for further testing.
> Blood testing isnt 100% reliable unless its sent to the lab for testing but rescues cant afford to do this with every cat so use the snap tests.



yeah snap tests that what they are called! i had pages on the things but couldnt remember it lol. it was funny cats with bald patches where they had been tested and where females had been spayed. i cant fault my local cp and would happily go back there to help out again


----------



## marthaMoo (May 4, 2007)

_jake_ said:


> It's sad now becuase all the smaller home run rescues will be even more rushed off their feets


 
The thing is, most smaller rescues have always had to deal with the huge over spill anyway. Which includes allot of dogs these large rescue centres will not take in. Like dog aggressive dogs any type of behaviourl issue, dogs with ongoing health issues or old dogs, and of course there are certain breeds certain rescues wont touch (they have a lists) 

When you work in rescue you learn how it works.

My local RSPCA will not take in stray dogs or hand ins from the public. They will only take in dogs directly from the inspector. Or dogs moved down from the RSPCA in Blackpool.
They wont even take in the stray dogs that are collected in there area by the dog warden after they have done there seven days. And its not like we are talking huge numbers, maybe a handfull a week, if that.


----------



## Nebbz (Jan 27, 2008)

lmao they have taken on more than they can chew. I guess all the staffs and staff x's will be PTS in no time then  poor things. what a waste of life. Never had a penny off me and never will cant stand the RSPCA


----------



## Shell195 (May 31, 2007)

The RSPCA branch in our area always take in unwanted pets I guess things are going to change


----------



## Skunk (Apr 11, 2010)

Kudos to charities like Cat Protection League then. Hate the RSPCA anyway. Was considering becoming an Inspector, and I was told that if I wanted to be able to get on to the training course I should be prepared to euthanise a healthy animal. Er, no way.


----------



## bbav (Oct 17, 2007)

Shell195 said:


> Im actually horrified by this news, sanctuaries like ours cant cope at the minute without the RSPCA shutting its doors to unwanted pets:bash:


That is probably why they are doing it.They know that this will make most of the smaller shelters shut so they get more donations when they are back to being the only animal charity!


----------



## Luxy (Mar 31, 2010)

Exotic Mad said:


> whats the bloody point of the rspca :bash:


I'm sorry, but I can't believe no one has pointed this out yet - the RSPCA stands for the Royal Society for the Prevention of *Cruelty *to Animals. They were set up to do just that, prevent cruelty to animals. But now they've come out and said that they can't handle the excess demands being made of them, everyone's tearing strips off them.

I can see why people are upset about this. But you have to see it from their point of view too, they've been hit by a double whammy. The recession has led to not only a decrease in donations, but to an increase in the numbers of animals being turned in. How can they be expected to continue operating they way they were? They were already going above and beyond what they were set up to do. This goes for all privately run animal rescues and charities too.

I know loads of people who have lost their jobs in the recession and others who have been hit very hard. That includes me. They've tightened their belts in terms of grocery shopping, they've cut out cigarettes and alcohol, they're not taking hoildays, etc. etc. Not one of them has decided that the first thing to do was to get rid of the family pet. In most cases that step is just not necessary. _Most cases_, not all, so don't attack me for saying that. In my eyes, this is what the RSPCA are trying to stamp out - people turning in pets without giving it proper thought. Maybe if the kind of people who buy a pet on a whim realise that they won't have anywhere to bring it when they tire of it, some of them might reconsider getting one in the first place. Maybe if the kind of people who let their pets roam free and get pregnant realise that they'll have nowhere to bring the babies, they might get them neutered. Wishful thinking I know, but it might have some small effect.

And by the way, the end of the article states;

“I think what the national society is doing with this policy is trying to reduce the number of just animals people don't want any more, for various reasons, coming in to us in order to make sure we've got spaces for the other at-risk animals. 

*"But I think, when it comes to the branches, they will do what they've always done which is take in as many animals as they can.”*

Meaning they won't turn pets away wherever possible.


----------



## sammy1969 (Jul 21, 2007)

Why am I not surprised that the RSPCA have taken this course and yet still they put out adverts asking for money to help with pets that are becoming homeless due to the recession and have no intention of stopping these ads. 
It is really frustrating when you consider the amount of millions they have in their reserves and yet even if a person has died or is taken into care or hospitalised they will no longer take on these pets as they have done for the past 100 years. And for those who say they are not going to do this it is on the news report that they are. So if you have a loved one pass away etc and they have a pet it is going to be a case of you rehome it as they no longer want to know, but dont abandon it coz they will prosecute you even if you are unable to give it a home yourself and they will class it as you being cruel so if you live in a place that wont allow pets you are basically up the creek without a paddle so to speak.
Yet still they expect us to donate to what is basically becoming a police force for animals and they will still continue to harrass and terrorise those of us tat keep pets that they feel we shouldn't. And I know what I am talking about on this as I have had to deal with them trying to tell me that I am unfit to keep pets just becoz I am disabled and have to have a carer,even after they had brought me numerous reptiles int he past as they had no idea how to deal with them and had the officer admit she was petrified of snakes and wouldnt even come into the room where they were.


I can only hope that the local rescue centres that have the RSPCA banner but are not run by them completely ignore this policy as most of the money that is given to the RSPCA does not get passed on to these shelters and rescues and they have to raise the money they need for themselves


----------



## *steph* (Feb 8, 2010)

*i was going to suppot this charity as i love all animals, but since seeing that they wont get a penny from me now!! what next cats protection - pdsa????*


----------



## bobo1 (Jan 2, 2010)

if they cut back on the wages that they pay to there fat cats(no pun intended) at the top who are on a fortune and put the money back into helping animals it would help:whistling2:


----------



## Marinam2 (Sep 4, 2007)

People who breed willy nilly need to take a long hard think infact i think responcible breeders ought to take a stand and lay off for a few years!!


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Luxy said:


> I'm sorry, but I can't believe no one has pointed this out yet - the RSPCA stands for the Royal Society for the Prevention of *Cruelty *to Animals. They were set up to do just that, prevent cruelty to animals. But now they've come out and said that they can't handle the excess demands being made of them, everyone's tearing strips off them.
> 
> I can see why people are upset about this. But you have to see it from their point of view too, they've been hit by a double whammy. The recession has led to not only a decrease in donations, but to an increase in the numbers of animals being turned in. How can they be expected to continue operating they way they were? They were already going above and beyond what they were set up to do. This goes for all privately run animal rescues and charities too.
> 
> ...


Very well said! :no1:


----------



## Shell195 (May 31, 2007)

Our local RSPCA have stopped taking in unwanted pets their excuse is they are full but I bet its not that at all


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

I would never use an RSPCA centre - they will destroy perfectly healthy animals within a few weeks if they cannot be rehomed. I found this when I phoned the RSPCA when I had to rehome 2 cats. In the end I found a private rehomer who took both together to be rehomed together.

It is also worrying how the RSPCA are beginning to try and prtray themselves as "enforcers" of animal legislation. The legislation is the Animal Welfare Act which makes it explicitly clear that the RSPCA cannot enforce the legislation as they have no powers of entry or seizure, they can only use the Act for private prosecutions.

I am aware of at least one incident in which an RSPCA "inspector" tried to tell a police officer that they had a power of entry after being instructed by their superior to look in a book - this was an RSPCA produced book that was full of inaccuracies.


----------



## Exotic Mad (Jul 11, 2009)

Luxy said:


> I'm sorry, but I can't believe no one has pointed this out yet - the RSPCA stands for the Royal Society for the Prevention of *Cruelty *to Animals. They were set up to do just that, prevent cruelty to animals. But now they've come out and said that they can't handle the excess demands being made of them, everyone's tearing strips off them.
> 
> I can see why people are upset about this. But you have to see it from their point of view too, they've been hit by a double whammy. The recession has led to not only a decrease in donations, but to an increase in the numbers of animals being turned in. How can they be expected to continue operating they way they were? They were already going above and beyond what they were set up to do. This goes for all privately run animal rescues and charities too.
> 
> ...


last time i checked prevention meant stopping it before it happened not just going after people after the event. i.e. taking in unwanted animals before they are abandoned


----------



## NaomiR (Jan 26, 2009)

Shell195 said:


> Im actually horrified by this news, sanctuaries like ours cant cope at the minute without the RSPCA shutting its doors to unwanted pets:bash:


my first thought too mate - now what???


----------



## Luxy (Mar 31, 2010)

Exotic Mad said:


> last time i checked prevention meant stopping it before it happened not just going after people after the event. i.e. taking in unwanted animals before they are abandoned


Fair enough.

But I can't understand why people seem to be taking the view that it's their entitlement to use the society as a drop off for unwanted animals who are _not_ in danger of cruelty. Expecting them to take in abandoned animals before they're subjected to cruelty is one thing. Viewing the RSPCA with this sense of entitlement, thinking that it's their responsibility to pick up the pieces because you just don't feel like walking the dog anymore is something else entirely. If you don't want your dog (or other pet), take responsibility for it yourself. Find a new home for it yourself. Advertise it. Rehome it with a family member. At least try to help the animal yourself. Don't expect a group with the already enormous task at hand of caring for abused animals to do all the work for you. It's not fair to take advantage of the services of places like this for your convenience. As I said, this goes for private run rescues too.

And yes, I know that cases may occur where someone dies, develops a disability, loses their job, etc. I know it is not the intention of these people to abandon their pets. But most of these people adore their animals anyway, and wouldn't turn to the RSPCA unless it was as a last resort. This new move is not targeting those people. It's targeting irresponsible owners who see pets as disposable.

And I'll reiterate - some unwanted animal cases will result in the possibility of cruelty, in which case they will step in to prevent it. That is their job. But they can't expect that every unwanted animal case will come to that. Unless someone comes in and literally threatens to throw their pet into the river, that is.

And again they've stated that _where possible_, they will help in regular unwanted animal cases.


----------



## sammy1969 (Jul 21, 2007)

Luxy said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> But I can't understand why people seem to be taking the view that it's their entitlement to use the society as a drop off for unwanted animals who are _not_ in danger of cruelty. Expecting them to take in abandoned animals before they're subjected to cruelty is one thing. Viewing the RSPCA with this sense of entitlement, thinking that it's their responsibility to pick up the pieces because you just don't feel like walking the dog anymore is something else entirely. If you don't want your dog (or other pet), take responsibility for it yourself. Find a new home for it yourself. Advertise it. Rehome it with a family member. At least try to help the animal yourself. Don't expect a group with the already enormous task at hand of caring for abused animals to do all the work for you. It's not fair to take advantage of the services of places like this for your convenience. As I said, this goes for private run rescues too.
> 
> ...


 
I am sorry Luxy but i have to disagree with your statement that they are still going to take on those pets that people have to rehome due to a death or hospitalisation etc. I read through the whole statement that the RSPCA made regarding the change in their proceedures and they have stated that they will be refering people to the police and local authorities to deal with pets found to be in this situation instead of taking them in as they have in the past so the RSPCA will no longer be takng on these cases and those left to deal with the pet in question will have to make alternative arrangements for the pet left behind so anyone who dies and leaves a pet behind that pet will become the responsibility of the bereaved family. And the same goes for those going into hospital or carehomes yes admittedly these people love their pets and would hate to have to give them to the RSPCA as most know what happens to pets they cannot find homes for (ie death wednesdays where healthy dogs are put to sleep if they have been in a rescue for a long length of time) and yes I do have issues with the RSPCA but I still think that a charity that asks for donations to continue to give help to those affected by the recession and find themselves abandoned are morally and ethically obliged to continue to take on these cases or they sould stop asking for donations for these purposes and state they want you to pay for them to police cruelty to animals


----------



## tarantulabarn (Apr 21, 2005)

if this is in fact true and they do stop taking in animals does this mean that they will be selling off all the properties they own, (RSPCA properties limited 4044654) once they are empty, and put the monies back into the millions they have on their declared company reports at companies house, or will they just plough it into the private pension funds for the directors ( R.S.P.C.A.PENSION SCHEME LIMITED 01056719) Or put it into the RSPCA Trading limited 1072608 or just sit on it and still plead poverty when theire are REAL animal rescue centres that realy are a bit strapt


----------



## bampoisongirl (Mar 28, 2008)

sammy1989 said:


> i would love to take on pets from the rspca but they sooo hard on rehoming it got to be 100% correct soo i havnt bothered contact coz i would of resuced some female pigs to go with my group *but they will say my garden is too small or somthing*.
> 
> i think it shouldnt matter what a house is like as long as it safe for them and i dont think people would live in a non safe house anyway i think if the owner should they care and time spent on they animals that should be inportant too coz i have seen people rehoming rspca dog coz they dont have the time no longer for them.


its worth trying rather than assuming what they will say. they were fine when i rehomed a cat.

its really concerning that they are thinking of doing this.

I'd really like to set up my own shelter/fostering thing when I get a job, but I have no idea how to go about it and if it would be worth it. :hmm: I may start a 'set up your own shelter' thread :lol2: but on a serious note its something i would love to do, atm all i do is foster cats every so often x


----------



## tarantulabarn (Apr 21, 2005)

Anyone can set up a "rescue centre" just so long as you have the time and space, also fundraising is inportant to keep things going, its inportant to keep proper records both animal and finantial too.


----------



## bampoisongirl (Mar 28, 2008)

tarantulabarn said:


> Anyone can set up a "rescue centre" just so long as you have the time and space, also fundraising is inportant to keep things going, *its inportant to keep proper records both animal and finantial too.*


im hopeless at stuff like this


----------



## Shell195 (May 31, 2007)

My friend used to be a co-ordinator of cats protection and I was the welfare officer we ended up with a proper shelter and after many years decided to part company after a difference of opinion. We had already set up our present sanctuary and registered it. Cats protection were going to remove our pens and burn them but wouldnt let us keep them so with the aid of another charity we bought the pens from them. We have now been up and running for about 4 years as our present sanctuary and what a headache it is. My friend,her daughter and myself are co-founders and 3 of the trustees. Not a day goes by without some kind of worry and money has to be raised or donated. In the present credit crisis things are extremely tough and we have had to close our doors to new admissions and concentrate on the 250 animals in our care. Not a day goes by without the phone ringing with more sad cases, it is really stressful.
The sanctuary is on my friends land so when everyone has gone home at 5.30pm she is still there with all the animals to check on before bedtime. 
The dream of running a sanctuary can quickly turn into a nightmare when you realise you cant help all of the animals in need.We get many people who get abusive when we say we cant help and it certainly doesnt stop them dumping unwanted pets at the end of the drive.


----------



## NaomiR (Jan 26, 2009)

I've been doing "rescue" work for years now and every year I tell myself (and my long suffering family) that THIS year I'll not take in any more animals but then one comes along and I seriously worry what will happen to it if I don't take it in and bam, I'm back rescuing.

So now I've given up giving up, I just have to remember to re-home so I still have room to take in.

The "main" problem I have is that people don't *want* a year old syrian (however friendly) when they can get a brand new baby one for about £5 - and the £5 re-homing fee they would give me (sometimes!) wouldn't even cover petrol to the vets :Na_Na_Na_Na: let alone food and shelter for the duration of its stay.


----------



## SilverSteno (Feb 12, 2006)

sammy1969 said:


> I am sorry Luxy but i have to disagree with your statement that they are still going to take on those pets that people have to rehome due to a death or hospitalisation etc. I read through the whole statement that the RSPCA made regarding the change in their proceedures and they have stated that they will be refering people to the police and local authorities to deal with pets found to be in this situation instead of taking them in as they have in the past so the RSPCA* will no longer be takng on these cases and those left to deal with the pet in question will have to make alternative arrangements for the pet left behind so anyone who dies and leaves a pet behind that pet will become the responsibility of the bereaved family. *And the same goes for those going into hospital or carehomes yes admittedly these people love their pets and would hate to have to give them to the RSPCA as most know what happens to pets they cannot find homes for (ie death wednesdays where healthy dogs are put to sleep if they have been in a rescue for a long length of time) and yes I do have issues with the RSPCA but I still think that a charity that asks for donations to continue to give help to those affected by the recession and find themselves abandoned are morally and ethically obliged to continue to take on these cases or they sould stop asking for donations for these purposes and state they want you to pay for them to police cruelty to animals


In all honesty, I think people should be considering what will happen to their pets in such such circumstances rather than just expecting someone else to deal with it. It may not be pleasent but it is far better to ensure the animals will be cared for than leave their lives up in the air because you're no longer around. I'm only 25 and I have arrangements should anything happen so that my animals will be cared for.


----------



## Exotic Mad (Jul 11, 2009)

so whats happening to that scheme the rspca have been running about registering your pets in case you die??


----------



## tarantulabarn (Apr 21, 2005)

Exotic Mad said:


> so whats happening to that scheme the rspca have been running about registering your pets in case you die??


I(n the hope you will also leave them some of your estate as well!!


----------



## raven2uk (Jun 16, 2009)

i have rescued for years and to be honest they haven't been any different. they have been about money and selective to what they take in.


----------

