RSPCA Exposed.

dandelionclock30

I remember being shot don in flames for saying the RSPCA put down a lot of healthy animals for nothing and was even told I was slandering them.Here you doubters go then more proof.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254729/RSPCA-destroys-HALF-animals-rescues--thousands-completely-healthy.html.

If you love animals and want to help them do not give to the RSPCA give to local shelters with a no kill policy.

encoderX

Thanks for your post but, extreme. You have to look at the whole picture as it's not as clean cut as you're trying to portray the rspca in a deliberate bad light.

The rspca don't simply just put any random animal(s) down. They have criteria for doing so which could include but, not limited too ... chance of re-homing, any possible behavioral problems ... obviously loads more.

The rspca also have many other parts to the organisation eg: awareness, call outs to major & or minor animal cruelty, court proceedings against animal abusers ...

So basically whoppee-dooo you proved rspca do put healthy animals down, hope you're smiling but, it's old news & they have strict criteria for doing so.

I worked for the rspca inc. animal home(s). I do not speak for the rspca the above is my personal observations & or comments :-)

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

encoderX wrote: »

Thanks for your post but, extreme. You have to look at the whole picture as it's not as clean cut as you're trying to portray the rspca in a deliberate bad light.

The rspca don't simply just put any random animal(s) down. They have criteria for doing so which could include but, not limited too ... chance of re-homing, any possible behavioral problems ... obviously loads more.

The rspca also have many other parts to the organisation eg: awareness, call outs to major & or minor animal cruelty, court proceedings against animal abusers ...

So basically whoppee-dooo you proved rspca do put healthy animals down, hope you're smiling but, it's old news & they have strict criteria for doing so.

I worked for the rspca inc. animal home(s). I do not speak for the rspca the above is my personal observations & or comments :-)

So why do they solicit donations from the elderly on the basis that they'll take care of Tiddles and the little yappy dog when the owner shuffles off this mortal coil?

Very little mention in those adverts of any small print saying that if Tiddles and the dog aren't too photogenic, they'll be clinical waste before the van reaches the end of the street.

dandelionclock30

Strict criteria for putting animals down? right I dont believe over 50% of the ainmals it gets have behaviour problems or are too ill etc. The strict criteria may just be walking, breathing and is an animal.
Im not smiling, I think its very sad and very shamefull for an organiztion that is supposed to be at the forefront of animal welfare to behave like this.Its downright hypocracy.

encoderX

The animals given to the rspca to be specifically cared for are quite obviously it's different for strays ...

If you run an animal home how long do you think you'd last with not putting animals down before you run out of money, space & or manpower to keep it up.

RSPCA have strict criteria for humanely destroying animals in their care.

No need for panic & sensationalism!!!

Local animal homes have a different take which is good. What happens when these run out of space? That's right hope somewhere else can take the animal(s) if not refuse! The 'owner' will quite likely dump it so pick your option. RSPCA is a whole lot better than been refused & dumped & or abused.

CookieMonsta

encoderX wrote: »

The animals given to the rspca to be specifically cared for are quite obviously it's different for strays ...

If you run an animal home how long do you think you'd last with not putting animals down before you run out of money, space & or manpower to keep it up.

RSPCA have strict criteria for humanely destroying animals in their care.

No need for panic & sensationalism!!!

Local animal homes have a different take which is good. What happens when these run out of space? That's right hope somewhere else can take the animal(s) if not refuse! The 'owner' will quite likely dump it so pick your option. RSPCA is a whole lot better than been refused & dumped & or abused.

I totally agree. This is how the RSPCA should be operating. It's very sad that healthy animals are put down but the culprits are the puppy farmers and people like my neighbour who refuses to neuter her cat (even though she could get it done for free) who has had 5 litters at last count.

The RSPCA are doing the best they can with the space and manpower they have. If they didn't put any animals down they would be overrun and ALL of the animals in their care would suffer.

CookieMonsta

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

Strict criteria for putting animals down? right I dont believe over 50% of the ainmals it gets have behaviour problems or are too ill etc. The strict criteria may just be walking, breathing and is an animal.
Im not smiling, I think its very sad and very shamefull for an organiztion that is supposed to be at the forefront of animal welfare to behave like this.Its downright hypocracy.

Sometimes the most caring thing is to put an animal down.

rising_from_the_ashes

There's already a thread running on this .... http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4363951

dandelionclock30

CookieMonsta wrote: »

I totally agree. This is how the RSPCA should be operating. It's very sad that healthy animals are put down but the culprits are the puppy farmers and people like my neighbour who refuses to neuter her cat (even though she could get it done for free) who has had 5 litters at last count.

The RSPCA are doing the best they can with the space and manpower they have. If they didn't put any animals down they would be overrun and ALL of the animals in their care would suffer.

.

No they have got millions in the bank which the animals see nothing of instead they are killed. So you think its o.k for an organization which has a very carefully crafted public image to be the antithesis of what it stands for?
Perhaps you need to reflect on your ignorance and what you are saying.

olias

I make no apologies for this being a duplicate post from the other thread, but seen as its this thread that seems to be current...

The RSPCA stands for the Royal Society for the prevention of CRUELTY to animals. Hence the hunting prosecution - chasing a terrified animal with dozens of predators, then ripping it to pieces alive is CRUEL do to the suffering. Euthanasing an animal if no home can be readily, speedily or easily found for it, involves no cruelty as there is no suffering. Similarly if you reported someone for killing their dog by smashing over the head with a sledgehammer, then it would be unlikely there would be any action taken, however abhorrent the act, as the death was instant - therefore no cruelty or suffering ensued and none could be proved in court.

The RSPCA was set up to prevent cruelty and to promote welfare of animals, not to protect them from death, to rehome, or to look after them in kennels etc. THAT is the primary purpose of the RSPCA, hence their work with legislation, animal husbandry, hunting etc etc.

Olias

fluffnutter

Do people really believe anything the Mail prints?