Rspca Act On Stateline

[Alyosha]

[Kissindra]

what a wonderful thing to see change in action, well done to RSPCA ACT for being progressive in their thinking and showing how it is possible to significantly improve rehome rates and take a far more possitive approach to animal management.

[newfsie]

:laugh: Yeah Michael.....now lets hope it catches on to all the others

[Mila's Mum]

Thank you SO much for posting - I sent this on to someone who is heavily involved behind the scenes in trying to make changes at a major Sydney pound - she was beside herself with delight after watching it, and has forwarded the link on to "people in high places" showing how things can be done - very inspiring - thank you again

To Michael Linke

And to Stateline for running the story

[MissMolly]

It brings back a little faith.. Well done the way it should be..

[Daisy]

[brightonrock]

:D

HOORAY

[dog geek]

I firmly believe that the RSPCA should be emphasising that even they are not able to cope with the flood of dogs looking for homes - and so have to send dogs almost weekly to Domestic Animal Services (aka the Pound).

The people who rescue from the pound then have to temp assess these dogs, advertise them, work their butts off trying to find homes for them - and mourn them when they are put down.

So: the RSPCA is ommitting to mention that YES they do indeed put some dogs down... by default, sending dogs to the pound when they have no space.

Which is reasonable; but neglecting to acknowledge this comes off as ego-stroking at the worst, shifty at the best.

If the RSPCA were sending FUNDS over with the dogs they surrender to the pound, I wouldn't have a beef. As it is, the RSPCA are raking in money by playing on people's sympathy, without ensuring there is a flow-on to the rescue people who are dealing with the RSCPA's overflow.

[darlingdog]

Amazing, a feel good story about a shelter That man is a wonderful human being and his blood's worth bottling as my old mum used to say !

[darlingdog]

I firmly believe that the RSPCA should be emphasising that even they are not able to cope with the flood of dogs looking for homes - and so have to send dogs almost weekly to Domestic Animal Services (aka the Pound).

The people who rescue from the pound then have to temp assess these dogs, advertise them, work their butts off trying to find homes for them - and mourn them when they are put down.

So: the RSPCA is ommitting to mention that YES they do indeed put some dogs down... by default, sending dogs to the pound when they have no space.

Which is reasonable; but neglecting to acknowledge this comes off as ego-stroking at the worst, shifty at the best.

If the RSPCA were sending FUNDS over with the dogs they surrender to the pound, I wouldn't have a beef. As it is, the RSPCA are raking in money by playing on people's sympathy, without ensuring there is a flow-on to the rescue people who are dealing with the RSCPA's overflow.

So lets at least celebrate what is going right in this particular instance instead of immediately jumping on to what is still going wrong behind the scenes. I'm sure you are heavily involved in rescue and that weighs on your mind in that you are so overwhelmed that it's hard to see the glass half full. Think how much better things might be if more men like him stood up to be counted in the running of things. I know that this shelter is not the norm so lets applaud them for the change of culture and support the staff there in the pride they now feel for the job they do.

[Sheridan]

So lets at least celebrate what is going right in this particular instance instead of immediately jumping on to what is still going wrong behind the scenes. I'm sure you are heavily involved in rescue and that weighs on your mind in that you are so overwhelmed that it's hard to see the glass half full. Think how much better things might be if more men like him stood up to be counted in the running of things. I know that this shelter is not the norm so lets applaud them for the change of culture and support the staff there in the pride they now feel for the job they do.

I think the point of dog geek's post is that if they're shunting dogs off to DAS then things haven't changed other than which facility puts them to sleep.

[Kissindra]

I firmly believe that the RSPCA should be emphasising that even they are not able to cope with the flood of dogs looking for homes - and so have to send dogs almost weekly to Domestic Animal Services (aka the Pound).

The people who rescue from the pound then have to temp assess these dogs, advertise them, work their butts off trying to find homes for them - and mourn them when they are put down.

So: the RSPCA is ommitting to mention that YES they do indeed put some dogs down... by default, sending dogs to the pound when they have no space.

Which is reasonable; but neglecting to acknowledge this comes off as ego-stroking at the worst, shifty at the best.

If the RSPCA were sending FUNDS over with the dogs they surrender to the pound, I wouldn't have a beef. As it is, the RSPCA are raking in money by playing on people's sympathy, without ensuring there is a flow-on to the rescue people who are dealing with the RSCPA's overflow.

I'd assumed the RSPCA were acting as a pound facility, is this not the case?

It is not uncommon for animals to be moved to different facilities when space is not available, the pertinent information is what the percentage outcomes for animals in the area are and have these improved, stayed the same or gotten worse since the RSPCA adopted these procedures and is there any other variables in animal management practises in the area that could have contributed?

I don't actually think funds should be sent to the pound with dogs unless there is a glut of funds raised by the RSPCA and it is shown that their new methods are a CAUSE of an increase overall in the amount of animals euthed. The pound should be budgeted to cope with whatever the normal rates of animals incoming is - reguardless of whether they come direct from the public or via another facility. In essence this RSPCA shelter - if not contracted as a pound, is just like any other animal rescue facility who help to increase the number of dogs rehomed and reduce the burden on the pound, much like the AWL shelters in QLD. The report suggests that the RSPCA have had to step up fundraising and community involvement in order to maintain the operational methods they have adopted and does not suggest there are lots of extra funds floating about at all. Do you have information on the facfilities financial state that suggests they have spare funds which could/should be directed towards outgoing animals or that could/should be used to increase the RSPCA capacity to house more animals?

What management practises are used at the pound to maximise rehoming? you've mentioned they work with rescues, do you know what their percentages are for rehoming and how these have changed or been maintained in the last five years and any other factors that might have influenced these figures?

[Sheridan]

I believe the DAS rehoming rate has been cited at something like 90+ per cent.

[grabit]

I would be concerned about the fact that there is a waiting list for people to surender their animals....I know if it where me I would have exhausted every other option before even contacting the RSPCA to take any of my animals....what is happening to the animals whose owners don't have time to "wait" as they are homeless.... or the person caring for the dog has passed away..are they seeing an increased dumpage rate? This in my oppinion would be worse than having to euth the animals (and i have to assist with it every day).

[justin19801]

If you don't have funds to act as a shelter, then don't. There's nothing worse for animals than organisations that profess to do one thing but in reality do the complete opposite. My understanding is that is known as fraud.

[Alyosha]

I firmly believe that the RSPCA should be emphasising that even they are not able to cope with the flood of dogs looking for homes - and so have to send dogs almost weekly to Domestic Animal Services (aka the Pound).

The people who rescue from the pound then have to temp assess these dogs, advertise them, work their butts off trying to find homes for them - and mourn them when they are put down.

So: the RSPCA is ommitting to mention that YES they do indeed put some dogs down... by default, sending dogs to the pound when they have no space.

Which is reasonable; but neglecting to acknowledge this comes off as ego-stroking at the worst, shifty at the best.

If the RSPCA were sending FUNDS over with the dogs they surrender to the pound, I wouldn't have a beef. As it is, the RSPCA are raking in money by playing on people's sympathy, without ensuring there is a flow-on to the rescue people who are dealing with the RSCPA's overflow.

DAS does indeed have a homing rate right up there with the RSPCA - over 90%. So the complaint about RSPCA fobbing dogs off there is a moot point. Dogs have just as much chance of being adopted from DAS as they do from RSPCA.

Dogs are transferred to DAS for a variety of reasons. They are sometimes transferred back the other way, and RSPCA ACT also transfers in animals from other pounds as well.

DAS have authority to enforce animal control measures like dealing with the owners of of repeat offending strays etc which RSPCA does not. So these sort of dogs are sent to DAS for their follow up.

If you browse the rescue threads on here for DAS you'll see very few dogs who need rescue assistance. This allows rescue groups to also provide time and assistance to many dogs from pounds outside the ACT.

From what I've heard surrender wait list are monitored and advice and training is offered in the hope that people change their minds and work to keep their pets. The shelter at RSPCA does have drop off kennels. So anyone absolutely unable to keep dog for whatever reason can leave them there like other pounds and shelters.

As for funding, RSPCA are an animal welfare organisation and are focussed on that. DAS are the Government funded animal control agency so their work encompasses that role. Welfare and Control are two separate issues. As far as I see it, the Government has an obligation to provide animal control. The RSPCA should not. In fact many here are keen to see less enforcement and control from RSPCA, and more hands on caring... am I right?

The original model for this system was founded in San Fransisco years ago. DG if you want a good read I'd suggest Nathan Winograd's book "Redemption".

[Alyosha]

If you don't have funds to act as a shelter, then don't. There's nothing worse for animals than organisations that profess to do one thing but in reality do the complete opposite. My understanding is that is known as fraud.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what point you're trying to make here?

[Kissindra]

I would be concerned about the fact that there is a waiting list for people to surender their animals....I know if it where me I would have exhausted every other option before even contacting the RSPCA to take any of my animals....what is happening to the animals whose owners don't have time to "wait" as they are homeless.... or the person caring for the dog has passed away..are they seeing an increased dumpage rate? This in my oppinion would be worse than having to euth the animals (and i have to assist with it every day).

I would imagine they surrender them to the pound rather than the RSPCA - hence nobody who is unable to wait HAS to. Does anyone have details of the waiting list or are we just assuming no thought is given to setting helpful priorities and variable timeframes? I can think of plenty of situations where owners have a timeframe available and can be encouraged to rehome responsibly themselves or hold off for a few weeks/months rather than adding a cost burden to a shelter or pound for that timeframe.

ETA - I see Alyosha has answer with known details, good to hear!

Edited March 8, 2010 by Kissindra

[dog geek]

Thanking you for the extra info, it is reassuring. And I should reveal that I have no - other than having provided temp care for an Afghan Hound from Hawkesbury over the New Year - affiliation with any rescue groups. I have neither the emotional, nor the financial, resources to support dog rescue.

But.

End of 2009, I was carefully compiling cross-referenced lists of dogs transferred from the RSPCA to the pound, against dogs at the pound that were not rehomed but instead euthanased.

Why?

Because I had noticed over several months there were dogs transferred from the RSPCA to the pound that were then euthanased; yet the RSPCA were proudly and loudly declaiming that they no longer euthanase.

Now, I have respect for people who work at the RSPCA as volunteers. I have respect for people who work at the RSPCA in a paid capacity.

What I object to is the RSPCA hierarchy making claims that are based on less than the whole truth - fudging stats like that, when they could use them to highlight that not even the holy RSPCA can save all the dogs surrendered to them, is a tactic that calls into question the credibility of all their statistics.

If there was a gracious acknowledgement of the efforts of the DAS crew; and the rescuers who organise temp testing, foster care, medical care, and fundraising for the dogs on death row - then I would be quite satisfied that justice was being done.

In finishing; I had already begun correlating the RSPCA:Pound:death data months before I began keeping records. And had already confirmed that there were dogs that were euthanased at the pound (despite the best efforts of some very dedicated, organised volunteers) that had come from the RSPCA.

It therefore irked me that the 'powers that be' at the RSPCA are glorifying their own efforts, so I feel justified in bringing this to the attention of others, so that they may then take all the information available into account.

[Curlybert]

Agree 100 per cent, Dog Geek. I sent an email to Stateline after the program. My final remark was:

"While the RSPCA does good work with rehoming, its constant refrain about its virtually non-existent euthanasia rate is disingenuous when it merely transfers responsibility elsewhere."

Edited March 8, 2010 by Curlybert