Call to RSPCA cruelty line results in marketing calls

PILES

spike7451 wrote: »

Hardly any of it,from what I understand,only money raised by the individual shelters goes to their upkeep.The money made from TV donations ect goes 'elsewhere'.

I myself am involved as a volunteer at a local animal charity,a few weeks ago they nearly ran out of dog & cat food & had to put out a plea for donations so they could continue to feed the animals.
The center is fit to burst with animals literally & the thing that annoys me is people surrender their animals & think that's it.They do not appreciate that the center then has to financially support their new charges.I would like to see anyone who surrenders an animal voluntarily contribute a MINIMUM of £25 towards their upkeep.
Rant over....

About half, I understand, goes on animal welfare. Not a big percentage when the annual contributions amount to about £115m. Shame the RSPCA didn't see fit to give you some of their millions to help.

ThumbRemote

PILES wrote: »

Thats your opinion of course. I do though find it odd that a charity would prefer to spend a significant chunk of its donations on private prosecutions rather than the care of animals. Would people donate so readily if they were aware of the real beast that is the RSPCA?

Would you be happier if the RSPCA didn't prosecute, and more animals were harmed because one of the deterrent factors had gone?

PILES

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Would you be happier if the RSPCA didn't prosecute, and more animals were harmed because one of the deterrent factors had gone?

A bit of an odd argument given that every pound spent on prosecution is a pound that is not spent on animal welfare. In answer to your question I would expect all of the donation (less essential costs) to be spent on animal welfare. I dont believe the deterrent factor is all that effective, given that a lot of RSPCA prosecutions appear to be as much about PR and vendettas.
Taking your statement to the extreme would you prefer it if all donations were spent on prosecutions and none on animals?

jimbo24168

pmduk wrote: »

The only time I've called their cruelty line they did nothing about the problem.

Same here. I rang them a short while ago about a dog that I knew was locked in a small caravan for 12 hours or more each day no matter what the weather of the day.
They said that as long as the animal was attended to at least once in every 24 hours they were not interested. Not the response I was expecting.

I,_Geek

Just an update because I got a response from the RSPCA.

They responded quicky - in 2 days - and the e-mail wasn't a cut-and-paste job.

The response said that when I called the cruelty line a recorded message was played at the start saying I could opt out of fundraising calls by mentioning it to the operator once they picked up. Of course, once the phone was answered my main concern was to describe the animal I'd seen and answer their questions. By the end of the call I'd forgotten about needing to say to opt me out. Now that's my fault, but the tactic is clearly employed to make sure they get to keep as many details as possible even if not all those details belong to people who would have opted in.

They apologised, confirmed my details were removed, and said they would take my comments into consideration when they do their review at the end of the year.