# A brief statement from the staff at Tropical Inc



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

A brief statement from the staff at Tropical Inc

As some of you may already be aware, the RSPCA visited our developing site yesterday 3rd January 2013 at 6.30am, which unfortunately resulted in some of our rescued animals being removed from the site. 

As we had recently received planning permission to build our new education centre, some of the existing buildings had to be demolished in the process of constructing the new premises. Some of our animals had been moved from their enclosures to temporary indoor enclosures and the RSPCA have deemed some of these temporary enclosures to be unfit. 

We would like to make everyone aware that these enclosures were temporary and it was never our intention to keep animals in them for any prolonged amount of time. The extreme wet weather we have been experiencing which has, however, caused significant problems for us and as a result some animals had been in these enclosures for longer than we had anticipated. 

We wholeheartedly agree that animal welfare is a priority and we will be working with the RSPCA to make sure our temporary enclosures are more suitable for our animals. We will keep you all updated when we can.

We would like to thank everyone for their support.


----------



## elmthesofties (Aug 24, 2012)

Do the RSPCA have any intention of giving the animals back when you get the enclosures sorted out?
I hope things can be sorted out for both you and the animals.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Have to agree - if this is the case, then they should get their animals back.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

feorag said:


> Have to agree - if this is the case, then they should get their animals back.


Watch this space eh!


----------



## Moony14 (Aug 20, 2011)

Would like to see these temporary enclosures..


----------



## Exzhal (Jul 13, 2012)

Moony14 said:


> Would like to see these temporary enclosures..


^ same here


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

To be honest, it sounds like they are working with the rspca during a tough period and weve no reason to expect anything bad will come of it.

Hopefully, they will get thier enclosures sorted soon and all will be well.

To be honest, to me it seems the papers jumped on a non story, but either way. I wish tropical inc all the best in sorting this issue.


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

Its amazing how the RSPCA jumped on it though. If it had been a neighbour phoning about some cats in small cages i doubt they would of bothered


----------



## jaykickboxer (Feb 11, 2008)

Exzhal said:


> ^ same here


And here


----------



## BMo1979 (Feb 13, 2012)

selina20 said:


> Its amazing how the RSPCA jumped on it though. If it had been a neighbour phoning about some cats in small cages i doubt they would of bothered


A cynic might say, that it draws more press attention to "rescue" exotics than the average cat and dog...


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

I do not believe for one moment that the rspca will house for free all those animals until permanent enclosures are built,which would take months.


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)




----------



## duffey1 (Aug 24, 2012)

Why did the RSPCA take such a heavy-handed approach?

The animals 'seized' will not ne returned intact - it can be guaranteed that some will die due to the ignorance of the RSPCA and their adherents, and some will 'disappear' - the RSPCA records are works of fiction!

Pure publicity seeking on the part of the RSPCA!


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

duffey1 said:


> Why did the RSPCA take such a heavy-handed approach?
> 
> The animals 'seized' will not ne returned intact - it can be guaranteed that some will die due to the ignorance of the RSPCA and their adherents, and some will 'disappear' - the RSPCA records are works of fiction!
> 
> Pure publicity seeking on the part of the RSPCA!













you don't know heavy handedness....:lol2::lol2:


just kidding... as you were..: victory:


----------



## Gryffindor (Jun 24, 2012)

RSPCA are definitely in the wrong. They had no right to seize the animals. No doubt the poor animals will suffer now. The animals are now being housed in temp housing due to the RSPCA seizing them so how is it any different?

In other cases of neglect they're helpless but they jumped on this just because they're exotics and just for the publicity. 

The RSPCA seems to be just as bad as the HSUS. Why are animal rescue organizations always against exotics and corrupt?


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

How do you know the RSPCA where wrong ,we have no idea how these animals where kept ,these might of been kept in the most appaulling cages and condition ,until the facts are known nobody knows whether the RSPCA where correct or wrong to take these animals


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

Whilst im also of the opinion that I dont agree I total with the RSPCA and think there is definite room for improvement, the owner of the exotics I question has stated that he handed the animals over the the rspca due to his animals being in unsuitable temporary enclosures longer than he had anticipated.
Yes, it may have taken a complaint to get him to realise this, and its quite possible the RSPCA over reacted, maybe for publicity. However, we know nothing about this except what we've been told.
Hopefully, the owner will be working with the RSPCA and knows where his animals are. I believe he should be in contact with them throughout, but dont know if it works lile that.
Im sure once he weather permits, he will double his efforts to get his permanent enclosures finished and return his animals to their proper home.

However, some people do seem to be going hell for leather against the RSPCA based on the newspaper headlines, which could be over exaggerated them selves, and so not the RSPCAs fault.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

animalsbeebee said:


> How do you know the RSPCA where wrong ,we have no idea how these animals where kept ,these might of been kept in the most appaulling cages and condition ,until the facts are known nobody knows whether the RSPCA where correct or wrong to take these animals


I think the problem is in the general distrust keepers, including myself, have with the RSPCA!! And that is a very sad state of affairs!! However, you are right we should not to conclusions until all the facts are know, and that will be some time. My main concern is why did the RSPCA see fit to inform the media at this stage? 

This is my absolutely fundamental issue with the RSPCA, they turn everything into a media circus and that is thoroughly unacceptable. You would not see the same situation arise in Scotland!

For now I can assure everyone that everything that can be done to assist Tropical Inc in this difficult time is being done.


----------



## elmthesofties (Aug 24, 2012)

Chris Newman said:


> This is my absolutely fundamental issue with the RSPCA, *they* turn everything into a media circus and that is thoroughly unacceptable. You would not see the same situation arise in Scotland!


You are generalizing a lot here.
Let's supposing 5 people were involved in the situation to 'rescue' these animals. It only takes one annoying little volounteer to talk to the press for a bit of money for the story to get published. In fact, it could have even been a neighbor or somebody who was looking after the animals once they were seized and was told the basics about the situation. I very much doubt the people that run the RSPCA agreed to sell the story or anything like that.

I feel it's unfair to sum up the WHOLE charity as being horrible because a few people have done bad things. There have been errors, yes, and there have been major problems. That's the same with most of these big charities, companies, etc, because if you hire thousands of people, chances are one of them will be bad in one way or another.
I know this isn't going to be a popular example, but nobody cared about Baby P until his death, even though the police, social workers, and hospital staff were involved before then. But I wouldn't say that the police force/social workers/doctors are all awful. Maybe some people need more training, but that doesn't make them useless and awful people. The country would be a lot worse off without them, even though in this particular case something did go horribly, horribly wrong.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

elmthesofties said:


> You are generalizing a lot here.
> Let's supposing 5 people were involved in the situation to 'rescue' these animals. It only takes one annoying little volounteer to talk to the press for a bit of money for the story to get published. In fact, it could have even been a neighbor or somebody who was looking after the animals once they were seized and was told the basics about the situation. I very much doubt the people that run the RSPCA agreed to sell the story or anything like that.
> 
> I feel it's unfair to sum up the WHOLE charity as being horrible because a few people have done bad things. There have been errors, yes, and there have been major problems. That's the same with most of these big charities, companies, etc, because if you hire thousands of people, chances are one of them will be bad in one way or another.
> ...


In the news stories, both papers wise and televised/Internet based, the RSPCA are quoted directly...
So I guess in this case they did involve the media.


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Here, I found a bit...
An RSPCA spokesman said: "Five RSPCA inspectors, two police, five other specialists and a specialist zoo vet attended an address in Worcester early Thursday morning and removed around 70 animals under suspicion of offences under the Animal Welfare Act.

"Among those taken were coatis, genets, an armadillo, owls, parrots, snapping turtles, tortoises, snakes, a porcupine, Harris hawks, meerkats and cotton-top tamarins.

"The police had applied for a warrant which was issued by the magistrate court. All of the animals have now been taken to specialist establishments pending the outcome of the investigation."

With all due respect, if the person being quoted is a 'volunteer' with a loose tongue then I suggest the RSPCA sorts it out, as people's jobs and livelihoods are at stake, as well as their pets/animals.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

elmthesofties said:


> You are generalizing a lot here.
> Let's supposing 5 people were involved in the situation to 'rescue' these animals. It only takes one annoying little volounteer to talk to the press for a bit of money for the story to get published. In fact, it could have even been a neighbor or somebody who was looking after the animals once they were seized and was told the basics about the situation. I very much doubt the people that run the RSPCA agreed to sell the story or anything like that.
> 
> I feel it's unfair to sum up the WHOLE charity as being horrible because a few people have done bad things. There have been errors, yes, and there have been major problems. That's the same with most of these big charities, companies, etc, because if you hire thousands of people, chances are one of them will be bad in one way or another.
> I know this isn't going to be a popular example, but nobody cared about Baby P until his death, even though the police, social workers, and hospital staff were involved before then. But I wouldn't say that the police force/social workers/doctors are all awful. Maybe some people need more training, but that doesn't make them useless and awful people. The country would be a lot worse off without them, even though in this particular case something did go horribly, horribly wrong.


I am the first to concede that I have a jaundice view of the RSPCA; this has been acquired thought years of hands on experience of dealing with such matters….. If I am interpreting correctly what you are suggesting: i.e. that it was someone other than the RSPCA who informed the media then I would indeed owe them [RSPCA] an apology, which I would give if this, was proven to be the case. However, in my defense what has happened is absolutely typical of how the RSPCA operate, so I would require some convincing that I am wrong! The fundamental problem I have is the RSPCA take such actions for political and financial objectives, in my view they override any concerns for welfare of animals!


----------



## elmthesofties (Aug 24, 2012)

Rach1 said:


> In the news stories, both papers wise and televised/Internet based, the RSPCA are quoted directly...
> So I guess in this case they did involve the media.


Ah. I was still looking at the links which were incredibly vague. My apologies. I hope some of my post could still be relevant in some way, though.


----------



## duffey1 (Aug 24, 2012)

The RSPCA Publicity office is geared to obtain maximum publicity - every paper, tv channel and radio station in the vicinity of the 'alleged' offence is e-mailed - and some will take the bait.

The RSPCA rely on the publicity to generate funds - and they are very good at self-publicity and twisting the facts to present the RSPCA in the best light possible.

As Chris Newman stated - political and financial objectives of the RSPCA override any concern for animal welfare!


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

The only thing I'd like to know tho, and I'm sure others on here too, is how come you know so much?
What's your background in all this... Or dealing with the RSPCA in general.
I know technically it's none of our business but, tbf, you make some pretty big suggestions and remarks.
So, why all the anger towards them?


----------



## Rach1 (May 18, 2010)

Thanks....


----------



## Trinketts (Jan 30, 2007)

All of the animals have now been taken to specialist establishments pending the outcome of the investigation." Cough, excuse me, BOLLOXS:gasp:

the RSPCA dont have a clue about exotics, and ask people like us for help!! they are fools and most of the seized animals will end up dead in there care because they dont know what they are doing. They are very quick to criticise and conviscate animals, when even they do not know what they are doing!!

Cats,dogs, yeah far do's but when it comes to the more how shal i put it, exotic pets, there knowledge falls well short.

Good luck to the people being penalised and i hope and pray all the animals are returned in good health.:2thumb:


----------



## em_40 (Sep 29, 2010)

I think when it comes to exotics their pledge of 'we aim aim to reduce the numbers of exotic pets in captivity' probably comes before the welfare of the animal (sometimes)

They have been known to leave dogs, cats, horses, starving and in horrendous conditions and say they are 'powerless' but if it's an exotic they seem to be straight 'round to confiscate it. 

That could be due to individuals and location though... then again, it could not


----------



## Kare (Mar 9, 2010)

Trinketts said:


> Cats,dogs, yeah far do's but when it comes to the more how shal i put it, exotic pets, there knowledge falls well short.


Think they were far from knowing what they were doing when it came to taking a captive bolt gun to the heads of those German shepherds a few years back to be fair...or maybe they did, the previous owner was dead so no way to get money out of him in a court case so no need to waste money on the animals involved.


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

animalsbeebee said:


> I do not believe for one moment that the rspca will house for free all those animals until permanent enclosures are built,which would take months.


That's what I thought...I think Tropical inc. will be landed with a rather large bill!!



Chris Newman said:


> My main concern is why did the RSPCA see fit to inform the media at this stage?
> 
> This is my absolutely fundamental issue with the RSPCA, they turn everything into a media circus and that is thoroughly unacceptable.


Totally agree. Whilst the RSPCA are probably careful not to be slanderous, this will no doubt be very harmful to the company's reputation. Unless the RSPCA publish pictures of the conditions which were so bad that they felt the need to remove animals, I personally shall remain sceptical.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Following a visit from the police and RSPCA, during the course of which a number of animals were removed, I was asked by Mr Steven Rowlands to attend his premises, Tropical Inc. on 8th January. The primary purpose of my visit was to ensure that the authorities involved had behaved appropriately and any actions taken were both reasonable and proportionate.

I have never visited the premises whilst the animals were on site and I cannot, therefore, comment on the condition of the livestock or the manner in which animals had been maintained but I would stress that animal welfare should always be the priority consideration in any such case. I am not personally involved in the matter, or any potential litigation surrounding it, and it would also be entirely inappropriate to publicly enter further communications on the case as this could prejudice any ongoing investigation and adversely affect Mr Rowlands right to a fair trial should the matter come to court.


----------



## Moony14 (Aug 20, 2011)

Can you tell us if you were happy with the enclosures? I understand it's a delicate issue so I fully understand if you can't.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Moony14 said:


> Can you tell us if you were happy with the enclosures? I understand it's a delicate issue so I fully understand if you can't.


I am really sorry but I cannot say any more then I have…..


----------



## joe190 (Jun 28, 2008)

Gryffindor said:


> RSPCA are definitely in the wrong. They had no right to seize the animals. No doubt the poor animals will suffer now. The animals are now being housed in temp housing due to the RSPCA seizing them so how is it any different?
> 
> In other cases of neglect they're helpless but they jumped on this just because they're exotics and just for the publicity.
> 
> The RSPCA seems to be just as bad as the HSUS. Why are animal rescue organizations always against exotics and corrupt?


and you kn ow these animals were kept in good enclosures do you? well how about you and try to back up your point with some pictures f your that certain that the animals were kept in good conditions! 
im sure they were probably helping tropical inc. out with housing these animals more suitably whilst enclosures are built.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

ah the irony...


----------



## Horsfield (Oct 1, 2008)

Just thought I would add this link now that Tropicalinc are getting there animals back YouTube


----------

