RSPCA Exposed.

geri1965_2

CookieMonsta wrote: »

I am not ignorant of the situation. I've had to put down beloved family pets before. I've been to many RSPCA facilities and see how they're struggling, even with 18 million in the bank.

Local branches don't get any funding from the central RSPCA, they have to raise their own money. This is why I changed my direct debit a few years ago so my money now goes to the Bristol Dogs & Cats Home.

Air_Cooled_75

olias wrote: »

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

pleasedelete wrote: »

I think it's a scandal that they stop animals being adopted. We wanted a cat. My son was 4.5 and the RSPCA refused as they wouldn't let pets go to homes with children under 5. We had previously had cats. We went to he blue cross. We adopted 2 instantly- we took them home the next day. One died earlier this year (11 years later) at about 18 and the other is still going strong (about 16 now).

We see the concern about the adoption of children bring held up by bureaucracy but is it any better for pets?

We got 2 cats from the RSPCA in April last year (different areas) our son wasn't even 2 at the time and we have a dog. The home visit lady was more than happy. When we got our first RSPCA cats in 1996 and 1997 we lived in a flat, no home visits in those days though!

Air_Cooled_75

Olias, didn't mean to quote you but I agree with you completely.

kiss_me_now9

pleasedelete wrote: »

I think it's a scandal that they stop animals being adopted. We wanted a cat. My son was 4.5 and the RSPCA refused as they wouldn't let pets go to homes with children under 5. We had previously had cats. We went to he blue cross. We adopted 2 instantly- we took them home the next day. One died earlier this year (11 years later) at about 18 and the other is still going strong (about 16 now).

We see the concern about the adoption of children bring held up by bureaucracy but is it any better for pets?

We were refused cats from there too, on the basis that no-one was home between 9am and 3pm. Cos you know... cats need someone around 24/7.

bugslet

I think that perhaps the RSPCA should stick to the remit of shpaing law and preventing cruelty and leave re-homing to the charities that specifically deal with re-homing animals.

Of course that would mean even more put down because quite simply there are too many animals for too few potential owners and that is the problem. If the RSPCA never put any pet animals down, then less would be taken in...... either way, animals die. As I say, perhaps they should concentrate on educating people and shaping the law concerning the breeding of pet animals ( though heavens knows how it would be policed).

encoderX

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

.

Own research? there has been plenty written about this over the years.What own research, like posing as a dog or cat or something:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:.

Yeah! Good idea Nah! seriously you post a link to a newspaper article but, suggest people should avoid the rspca in favour of local animal shelters but, hypothetically if the rspca didn't exist would this be better for animals in your opinion?

You still haven't answered what happens to animals when local animal shelters are full & the rspca isn't an option. What's your advice?

Thanks

MAYAN65

Its a very idealist veiw that all shelters have a no kill policy. if animals werent so easily bread bought and sold and so eaily dumped then maybe less animals would be destroyed. my friend has a dog that came from a no kill shelter. she was able to walk in pick a dog pay and walk out with said dog after handing over £100 and her details. The dog is lovely but unsafe and should not of been rehomed full stop. He is aggressive towards strangers (men especially) hates all other dogs/cats etc.

my friend has never owed a dog but was allowed to leave with a staffie/german shephard/ ridgeback cross "stray" he weighs about 70lbs hes massive she said he looked cute and sat at the bars when she said "sit"!

they give a voucher for castration and he was microchipped and given the paper work to register him herself. no follow up to check she did have him done and registered.

All credit to my friend she only ever walks him muzzled and with a headcollar so she has control. she has taken him to train classes.
she cant have people over unless hes locked away there are very few of us that will look after him if she wants to go away .she cant have her nephew over to stay.
He has had a bad start in life and who ever dumped him the first time has a lot to answer for he wasnt born bad (he hides when she hovers or drys the pots and has a real fobia of cardboard boxes he shakes if she takes one in the house)

in the wrong hands he could/would cause a lot of damage to a child/pet or adult. they have temprament test for a very good reason.

CFC

mountainofdebt wrote: »

Well when MIL died, my FIL struggled to look after the family dog (as he worked away) and even though the family rallied around as much as we could (bearing in mind we all worked and had families) it soon became obvious that the dog would need to be rehomed.

He went to the RSPCA kennels where the dog had come from and told them that he would pay them for the dog's keep whilst they were trying to rehome it - and they refused to help.

Luckily a good home was found and he kept in touch with the owners unitl the dog died of a good old age.

I must admit if it was a choice between giving money to them and the local dog rehoming charity (even if they won't let me have a dog because I don't tick all their boxes) then the local rehoming charity would get my pound every time

The central RSPCA will never get a penny from me. I donate to local homes, but my preference is to donate to homes that have a stricter criteria for PTS than the RSPCA.

Indeed, on occasion animals will need to be euthanised, but I'd like to see pretty robust criteria in that situation.

I also am not against fox hunting, although I have never attended a hunt. I am also not for compulsoury microchipping.

I was a great supporter in my youth, indeed a tin rattler. No more. I disagree with RSPCA attitudes and policies on too many subjects.

Treevo

CFC wrote: »

The central RSPCA will never get a penny from me. I donate to local homes, but my preference is to donate to homes that have a stricter criteria for PTS than the RSPCA.

Indeed, on occasion animals will need to be euthanised, but I'd like to see pretty robust criteria in that situation.

I also am not against fox hunting, although I have never attended a hunt. I am also not for compulsoury microchipping.

I was a great supporter in my youth, indeed a tin rattler. No more. I disagree with RSPCA attitudes and policies on too many subjects.

So you think nearly all stray cats and dogs, most of whom are never going to be rehomed, should be kept alive at great expense, but you're fine with a fox being chased for miles, until it collapses from exhaustion and then is ripped to pieces by hounds all for the amusement of some sad little psychopaths on horseback?

zebra12

This expose has been a long time coming, and for once the DM have it right. People heavily involved in animal welfare have seen the RSPCA for what they are a very long time ago. Even other rescue centres recommend NOT leaving stray/ found animals in the care of the RSPCA. I'm involved in animal welfare and a priority for me is keeping animals out of the clutches of the RSPCA.

This story unfolded before my eyes: (had to remove link - site won't let me post them yet)
They broke the law in that case, and have gotten away with it unpunished.

Donations that people set up via DD, leave in a will etc go straight to head office rather than into the rescue centres. Not many people know this, and it's convenient for the RSPCA to keep it quiet. The rescue centres are left to struggle by themselves with no funding from head office. As a charity they are incredibly rich and there's simply no excuse for their flippant attitude to euthanasia. Poorer charities operate a no kill policy, it can be done if there is a want to do it.

The RSPCA will put an animal to sleep simply if it's deemed unhomable because it hasn't been snapped up by someone immediately. One of my cats was at a local rehoming centre for 6 months before I adopted her, if she was with the RSPCA then she as a young, healthy animal wouldn't be here with me today. The RSPCA will also PTS for disability or old age, both of which can be lived with and managed. Neither are satisfactory excuses to PTS.

The truth is very much out there if you look for it, and I would urge anyone to ask other charities what their view is on the RSPCA. I donate to my local charities who can't afford big domineering media campaigns but who do manage not to PTS animals unless they are suffering.

Seek and you shall find
(had to remove links, feel free to PM me for them)