Stop RSPCA euthanasing animals in care

Person_one

madrhino wrote: »

I heard about this happening to someone's old cat, in the van, outside their home. The RSPCA didn't even scan for a microchip, which it had.

Really, you do need to be able to back up that kind of thing. 'I heard' isn't enough when you're making serious accusations.

pineapple

It's not just cats though. A baby jackdaw fell down my chimey and got trapped above the register plate. I got it free but the parents didn't want to know. I ended up rearing it and eventually a bird rescue charity took it in.
They told me that if I had taken it to the RSPCA they simply kill any birds not falling into a special category and that they even get RSPCA Officers creeping in by the back door incognito bringing them birds that would otherwise get the chop :eek:

Florence27

It sounds like there was more going on, why would the vet go to the trouble of advertising the cat but then decide to send him to the RSPCA to be put to sleep instead? And if, for whatever reason, there was no other option then why didn't the vet put him to sleep?

The RSPCA’s euthanasia figures are available on their website:

“In 2011 the number of rehomeable dogs euthanased dropped by 13 percent to 625 animals. The number of rehomeable cats euthanased dropped by 51 percent to 667. The number of rabbits euthanased increased slightly to 91.”

That’s nearly 1400 animals but you need to see the bigger picture:

“During 2011 the RSPCA found new homes for 60,551 animals.”

“We pledge to end the euthanasia of any rehomeable animal. Because there are too many animals and too few good homes available, sometimes we just cannot rehome animals that should be given another chance. Although we hate having to do it, we have no option but to put them to sleep.”

It’s all too easy to criticize the animal charities when they are doing their best. People have made the problem, not the RSPCA or other charities.

The RSPCA, along with all the other charities, are left to pick up the pieces.

madrhino

Person_one wrote: »

Really, you do need to be able to back up that kind of thing. 'I heard' isn't enough when you're making serious accusations.

It was a friend of a friend, and I do trust the friend who told me not to make it up.

Roz_V

Florence27 wrote: »

It sounds like there was more going on, why would the vet go to the trouble of advertising the cat but then decide to send him to the RSPCA to be put to sleep instead? And if, for whatever reason, there was no other option then why didn't the vet put him to sleep?

The RSPCA’s euthanasia figures are available on their website:

“In 2011 the number of rehomeable dogs euthanased dropped by 13 percent to 625 animals. The number of rehomeable cats euthanased dropped by 51 percent to 667. The number of rabbits euthanased increased slightly to 91.”

That’s nearly 1400 animals but you need to see the bigger picture:

“During 2011 the RSPCA found new homes for 60,551 animals.”

“We pledge to end the euthanasia of any rehomeable animal. Because there are too many animals and too few good homes available, sometimes we just cannot rehome animals that should be given another chance. Although we hate having to do it, we have no option but to put them to sleep.”

It’s all too easy to criticize the animal charities when they are doing their best. People have made the problem, not the RSPCA or other charities.

The RSPCA, along with all the other charities, are left to pick up the pieces.

Helpful post, thanks Florence.

I wish I could take in more cats but my current one just wouldn't allow it... Especially not 667 others :rotfl:

adouglasmhor

What about non rehomeable animals - what is the criteria for them?

sinar

Florence27 wrote: »

It sounds like there was more going on, why would the vet go to the trouble of advertising the cat but then decide to send him to the RSPCA to be put to sleep instead? And if, for whatever reason, there was no other option then why didn't the vet put him to sleep?

The RSPCA’s euthanasia figures are available on their website:

“In 2011 the number of rehomeable dogs euthanased dropped by 13 percent to 625 animals. The number of rehomeable cats euthanased dropped by 51 percent to 667. The number of rabbits euthanased increased slightly to 91.”

That’s nearly 1400 animals but you need to see the bigger picture:

“During 2011 the RSPCA found new homes for 60,551 animals.”

“We pledge to end the euthanasia of any rehomeable animal. Because there are too many animals and too few good homes available, sometimes we just cannot rehome animals that should be given another chance. Although we hate having to do it, we have no option but to put them to sleep.”

It’s all too easy to criticize the animal charities when they are doing their best. People have made the problem, not the RSPCA or other charities.

The RSPCA, along with all the other charities, are left to pick up the pieces.

The RSPCA don't euthanise rehomeable animals, it kills then. Ethanasia is mercy killing of sick or injured animals, rehomeable animals are not sick or injured.


Euthanasia:


: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy

terra_ferma

paddypaws101 wrote: »

Many of us will already know the appalling reputation that the RSPCA has for euthanasing any cat that they deem to be slightly difficult to re-home. This sad case below was recently brought to light over on Petforums and has sparked a petition to publicise this situation, and maybe persuade people to give their donations more wisely to smaller local charities with a more caring approach.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/185/739/632/justice-for-buzzer/

I agree.

lizzie157

maybe if they weren't so picky about who they rehomed to more cats and dogs could be rehomed. I kn ow there needs to be checks but sometimes theirs seem to go too far. A old chap near us who has had dogs most of his life ( some of them strays), had to pay out to put in place RSPCA requirements before they'd let him take home the small dog he'd chosen to rehome despite the fact he'd had his last dog from there with no problems. I've heard countless others turned down for different reasons, and they just go and get a dog/cat elsewhere.

Razamabaz

Person_one wrote: »

Really, you do need to be able to back up that kind of thing. 'I heard' isn't enough when you're making serious accusations.

Really? Why? The poster isn't making an accusation. The poster is saying he heard which isn't an accusation. An accusation would be for him to say "They put an old lady's cat down" Big difference between hearsay and accusation.