Rspca Act On Stateline

[Are You Serious Jo]

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."

This is my biggest beef with the no kill movement, it just seems the dogs are taken elsewhere to die in most cases, they have to be honest that the same number of dogs are dying, just in different places.

[justin19801]

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."

This is my biggest beef with the no kill movement, it just seems the dogs are taken elsewhere to die in most cases, they have to be honest that the same number of dogs are dying, just in different places.

What you are referring to is not the no kill movement but people trying to cash in on it's philosophy. Nathan Winograds Redemption is worth a read. I haven't read the updated book or his new one but they have received positive reviews. It's not the organisations name that counts, but it's philosophy.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Regardless of whether there are no kill wannabes or not, the RSPCA needs to be honest with the public otherwise they remain ignorant to the fact that the same number of dogs are still being PTS. The public are the ones who help shape policy, you don't want them falsely assuming the problem has been solved because of some slick marketing.

[Diva]

I think in this case less dogs are dying. The truth I suspect lies somewhere between the RSPCA's too rosey (but very professional) PR and the previous staus quo. I congratulate the RSPCA for the good work, it's a major, major improvement. But dog geek is right I think to raise the issue of the transfers, they are the first thing that leapt to mind when I saw the stateline program as well.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Diva

[justin19801]

Regardless of whether there are no kill wannabes or not, the RSPCA needs to be honest with the public otherwise they remain ignorant to the fact that the same number of dogs are still being PTS. The public are the ones who help shape policy, you don't want them falsely assuming the problem has been solved because of some slick marketing.

Couldn't agree more.

[Cosmolo]

Given DAS's rehoming rate- while i completely understand the frustration that there is no mention of the transferring of dogs- it doesn't seem there are that many rehomable dogs transferred from RSPCA to DAS that are pts?

Personally, given my experiences with pounds, shelters and rescue groups in various states- i think Canberra does it better than anyone at the moment. Perfect? No- but better than other states for the most part.

[Diva]

Personally, given my experiences with pounds, shelters and rescue groups in various states- i think Canberra does it better than anyone at the moment. Perfect? No- but better than other states for the most part.

Yes, definitely better than most. Including the regulatory regime - higher registration fees for undesexed dogs (with allowance made for show dogs), lifetime registration, and no BSL.

Petsearch mentions in the other thread on this that they have encountered a problem with microchip registries here, but I hadn't previously heard that.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Diva

[Alyosha]

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."

This is my biggest beef with the no kill movement, it just seems the dogs are taken elsewhere to die in most cases, they have to be honest that the same number of dogs are dying, just in different places.

You guys seem to have overlooked the equally high rehoming rate from DAS...?? It's easy to presume that dogs are just transferred eleswhere to be killed and this put on a back shelf while a rosy public picture is painted. But with DAS's rehoming rate that opinion simply can't be justified.

Such a presumption also belittles the amazing work that DAS and ACT rescue groups do to rehome the dogs from there.

Sometimes the tall poppy syndrome runs rife...

[Are You Serious Jo]

So DAS is able to cope with the extra dogs without turning any away? If the RSPCA are running at capacity and they have to send their overflow to DAS, what happens when DAS is at capacity because of the extras?

A high rehoming rate is great, no doubt about that, but until the public catch on and stop dumping their dogs and more people buy from shelters the dogs need to go somewhere.

Dog geek has made some excellent points, which raise some relevant questions.

[Alyosha]

Are they really relevant when the dogs being transferred to DAS have the same opportunities for rehoming? Of the dogs that are pts at DAS how many are classed as rehomable? I do have some knowledge on the topic but not of that. Are the figures you have gone through DG compiled of ALL dogs pts at DAS? Including sick and unhomable (for temp reasons) dogs? Or is it just pts figures of healthy rehomeable dogs?

As far as I know DAS also take responsibility for aggressive problem dogs - as a government control and enforcement matter. I would imagine that those sort of dogs are often pts. Are they part of the figures?

[Sheridan]

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."

This is my biggest beef with the no kill movement, it just seems the dogs are taken elsewhere to die in most cases, they have to be honest that the same number of dogs are dying, just in different places.

I don't believe the RSPCA has claimed to be no kill, not even in this. Certainly, there are questions to be asked if the ACT RSPCA is just transferring responsibility elsewhere but riding in on your regular anti no kill hobby horse just obsfucates things

[Curlybert]

Thirteen of DAS's 33 current dogs are RSPCA transferees. Two of them are among those that will be out down this morning because they have done their time.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Curlybert

[dog geek]

Are they really relevant when the dogs being transferred to DAS have the same opportunities for rehoming? Of the dogs that are pts at DAS how many are classed as rehomable? I do have some knowledge on the topic but not of that. Are the figures you have gone through DG compiled of ALL dogs pts at DAS? Including sick and unhomable (for temp reasons) dogs? Or is it just pts figures of healthy rehomeable dogs?

As far as I know DAS also take responsibility for aggressive problem dogs - as a government control and enforcement matter. I would imagine that those sort of dogs are often pts. Are they part of the figures?

I specifically followed the dogs pictured on the DAS website that were listed as from the RSPCA at Weston; I saved their pics and stats.

When these dogs, from the RSPCA, were then posted in the DOL rescue forum after being temp-tested by the rescue volunteers (who do a wonderful, thorough job and are consistently successful with rehoming many of the dogs they put up on DOL) I saved their pics and stats.

When any of these dogs, from the RSPCA, were subsequently unable to be saved, and euthenased, I saved their pics and stats.

Over the period I was beginning to notice the trend, there would have been 7-8 of these dogs over a two month period euthanased.

I began saving the data in the lead-up to Christmas, which resulted in stats out of line with the rest of the year - but which are standard for that particular period over the years. This was not deliberate timing. Five dogs that were transferred from the RSPCA to the pound were euthanased on Christmas Eve.

If I could not identify positively a dog on the DOL rescue thread as being the exact same dog that came from the RSPCA - due to different camera angles and lighting, usually, although there were a couple of mixed breeds that I hesitated over because they were so similar - then I Flat Out rejected using those dogs in my little study, because it would call into question the credibility of my methods.

Want to know WHY I bothered??

Because the RSPCA, when I approached them for comment on the transfer of dogs to the RSPCA, were dismissive of my query, and in fact point blank told me once again that the RSPCA no longer has to euthanase dogs surrendered to them.

Which to me, was a waste of an opportunity to emphasise to Joe Public that despite their best efforts, the RSPCA will not be able to re-home all suitable dogs dropped off to them.

Which further strengthened my suspicions that there is a growing culture of ... blind faith is sadly the best fit I can come up with, I am not able to come with a more appropriate phrase.

Which alarms me, because when you have 'true believers' all worshipping at the altar of RSPCA, you have (in common with every other established religion) the risk of people unshouldering their burden of personal responsiblilty and personal agency, and allowing their critical faculties to be fogged with the warmth of 'belonging' and 'doing right'.

Which is where dogma steps in, inflexibility takes hold, might becomes right, the individual suffers, and the truth is gilded because You Are Not To Question the established clergy, sorry, beauracracy.

In case you think I have now overstepped the limits of credibility... I stand and point to my little survey, and the responses to my initial post in this thread the pro-RSPCA devotees are posting.

[Kissindra]

blind faith works both ways, it is a sad thing for people to believe blindly that there is not a need for constant improvement be it minor or major changes -and just as perversely illogical to believe there is no good work being done and no accomplishments to be proud of.

I don't see the questions I asked as being testament to blind faith, I'm still yet to get clear answers. Your study means nothing unless you put it in context with more information. Was the RSPCA full when they transfered animals over? What of the number of dogs the pound transfers TO the RSPCA - what were the outcomes for those? Breaking down all the figures is there any reason to believe the RSPCA in the ACT is not using the funds they recieve to further their programs and help more animals and that their policy change has led to worse outcomes for more animals in the area?

I don't chose blind faith - give me solid facts in context and I'll act on them. The "established clergy" here for many is that the RSPCA can do NO right, and is that not just as "true believer" as anyone trying to say they do no wrong - which, incidently, I don't recall anyone commenting did?

[Diva]

It would greatly help me understand if I knew if the dogs transferred had ever formally entered into the RSPCA shelter. I didn't phrase that very well, but were they ever in the shelter as such?

The RSPCA ACT web site has a statement of philosophy that reads:

'At RSPCA ACT every healthy companion animal stays with us for as long as it takes to find a home. There are no time limits and no animal is ever put to sleep because they have been with us too long or we have no space.' (my bolding of course)

I love that, but it confused me re the transfers. Did they never make into the shelter in the first place? Or were they not considered healthy? I can understand if they literally had to turn them away at the door.

[dog geek]

I have to apologise for being somewhat snarky in the phrasing of the last of my previous post.

However, as on objective observer of the RSPCA's PR over the last few years, it does concern me that there seems to be a growing cult of 'heroism' in the RSPCA. I distrust the constant, agressive marketing of the RSPCA as 'The Saviour Of The Animals' for the reasons I stated above.

Sure, you may be a balanced and emotionally stable supporter of the charity, able to take criticism on board and look for improvements in matters of concern.

But there is no 'can do and will do better' in the responses I have had from the RSPCA so far, just dismissals of the information presented as incorrect and/or irrelevant.

... and 'Tall Poppy Syndrome' presupposes a jealousy and lack of charity that I don't think I suffer from. I am attempting to highlight the dangers of falling into the trap of self-congratulation and of believing one's own PR.

I have had a personal experience of the attitude of the policy makers at the RSPCA that leaves me concerned that there is too narrow a focus on saving animals according to rigid formulas.

I have watched with concern some of the actions that other regional RSPCAs have taken, and believe that unless concerns such as those I raised in my first post are raised, then the policy-makers at the RSPCAs will have inadequate checks and balances.

Whilst there are solid, admirable achievements that the RSPCA can be justifiably proud of, it demeans and undermines those same achievements when wordplay, shellgames, and bullying are used to puff up statistics presented as gospel to an uncritical and uninformed Joe Public.

So - woe, woe is me, I wring my hands and badly imitate Cassandra... however, with the greatest respect, the fact remains that the RSPCA are involved in a practise that ends in euthanaesia for around fifty of the dogs surrendered to it each year.

Why not utilise this sad statistic to prick Joe Public's conscience, it may make people think twice before blithely dumping their dog at the pound because 'the RPSCA has a no-kill plicy'.

[Alyosha]

Dogs that fit the criteria to be transferred to DAS are not admitted to the RSPCA shelter. They are transferred upon arrival.

I see three dogs pts at DAS this week. One that should have been - beyond question (the old blind deaf senile one). Much as he should have been cared for to his end by his owners, I cannot accept that rehoming him would not have been in his best interests at all. One that would have been a potentially dangerous dog if rehomed and very likely would not have been rehomed no matter where she was held. The last one is the only one I would question, and more information would be needed to make a decision on that anyway.

I think the main point needs to be that attention needs to be given for any shelter that is aiming in the right direction. Even if they reduce their euthanasia by one dog a year, that is a positive and a start to a better way of doing things. If things go on quietly as they have for so long, people continue to presume that they are the same. Public attention garnering increases awareness, donations and funding. This money contributes to continuing the efforts. That means more animals saved, not less. If an organisation has a moral standpoint to save animals then they should be supported, as things are heading the way they should.

I find some people's (and by that I don't mean you DG ) doomsday attitude of damned if you do and damned if you don't fairly frustrating. I can't comprehend the agenda of people that are determined to oppose no kill efforts.

Nothing is perfect overnight. It took a long time for RSPCA-type groups worldwide to go from independent animal welfare charities to funded animal control agencies. Trying to reverse that trend takes time. Without applauding efforts publicly how do you drive public and internal culture change?

[Are You Serious Jo]

They should be praised for what they are doing, it is great they are putting in such a huge effort. But at the same time they need to be honest with the public. If you were the average person and just read the surface information you might think it was a-ok to drop your problem doggie off to find a new home, after all none get killed now. But the overflow get directed away and are still being PTS. So just give the public the full story, just feels like they are being a bit misleading in order to big themselves up.

[sterlingsilver]

Sorry if this seems like silly question.

But, why do the RSPCA transfer the dogs they are not going to keep until they get a home.Why do they not put them to sleep themselves?

If they are able to be rehomed from DAS why then were they rejected by RSPCA?

I am not from Canberra so I am not familiar with the protocol in this region.

[darlingdog]

Dogs that fit the criteria to be transferred to DAS are not admitted to the RSPCA shelter. They are transferred upon arrival.

I see three dogs pts at DAS this week. One that should have been - beyond question (the old blind deaf senile one). Much as he should have been cared for to his end by his owners, I cannot accept that rehoming him would not have been in his best interests at all. One that would have been a potentially dangerous dog if rehomed and very likely would not have been rehomed no matter where she was held. The last one is the only one I would question, and more information would be needed to make a decision on that anyway.

I think the main point needs to be that attention needs to be given for any shelter that is aiming in the right direction. Even if they reduce their euthanasia by one dog a year, that is a positive and a start to a better way of doing things. If things go on quietly as they have for so long, people continue to presume that they are the same. Public attention garnering increases awareness, donations and funding. This money contributes to continuing the efforts. That means more animals saved, not less. If an organisation has a moral standpoint to save animals then they should be supported, as things are heading the way they should.

I find some people's (and by that I don't mean you DG ) doomsday attitude of damned if you do and damned if you don't fairly frustrating. I can't comprehend the agenda of people that are determined to oppose no kill efforts.

Nothing is perfect overnight. It took a long time for RSPCA-type groups worldwide to go from independent animal welfare charities to funded animal control agencies. Trying to reverse that trend takes time. Without applauding efforts publicly how do you drive public and internal culture change?

Here here, well said.