Steve Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/negl...9-1225761146260THE RSPCA has slammed the State Government for neglecting the abuse of animals as the charity admits it is struggling to cope with an ever-growing workload. The charity yesterday took a rare swipe at a Government it says had grown so complacent in animal welfare that it regards the RSPCA a de facto department. This is despite contributing only $460,000 to the RSPCA's $36 million budget, of which $5 million goes toward enforcing the Government's own laws. Chief executive officer Steve Coleman told The Daily Telegraph he was tired of his organisation copping flak for not doing enough prosecutions when it had all of the responsibility and none of the resources. "It's one of our frustrations that as the Animal Cruelty Act has evolved - which is a good thing for animal welfare - but the responsibility of enforcing it has grown also and that's completely fallen to us," he said. "It can cost us $100,000 to prosecute someone and that's our money we're using. "It would be terribly helpful if the Government provided some funding for that." So entrenched is the Government's belief that the RSPCA handles animal welfare issues that when The Daily Telegraph asked Primary Industries Minister Ian Macdonald what the Government had done to enforce welfare issues in the cage egg industry, he referred only to the charity. "The RSPCA is the agency with responsibility for animal welfare on behalf of the NSW Government under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act," Mr Macdonald said. "The RSPCA therefore also has responsibility for checks and inspections of egg producers in NSW. This has been the case for 30 years." Mr Coleman admits his group is struggling.. "We were struggling to keep up with the (day to day animal abuse) complaints and now we're expected to be able to do random checks on egg producers," he said. "The Government is constantly increasing the scope of the Act but not putting resources in to properly enforce it," Mr Macdonald said he had not been told directly of the RSPCA's concerns but was happy to consider increased funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 It can cost us $100,000 to prosecute someone and that's our money we're using. he makes me laugh. They pick what they think are the soft targets and go after them, they make sure they aren't out of pocket. Having seen what they ask for in "costs" is laughable. Crying poor, so they can witch hunt, gotta love the RSPCA It's really time that investigation and prosecution was taken out of their hands and they can just run the shelters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Baggins Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 If they stopped wasting money by going after the wrong people they might have a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Oh BooHoo. Poor RSPCA. My heart bleeds for them. I think I'll change my will and bequeath $1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 My guess is they won't be trimming their advertising budget to fund more prosecutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin19801 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 If the R$PCA stopped seizing and killing harmless family pets I believe they would get more support from dog owners. It seems that $35 mill is not enough. I wonder what the exec. salaries are and who are supplying their legal services? That is what I believe Mr Coleman should be addressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 (edited) If the R$PCA stopped seizing and killing harmless family pets I believe they would get more support from dog owners. It seems that $35 mill is not enough. I wonder what the exec. salaries are and who are supplying their legal services? That is what I believe Mr Coleman should be addressing. The RSPCA don't seize restricted breeds dogs unless welfare issues are involved. Rangers and Animal Control Officers do that. Edited March 17, 2010 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christina Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 It would be very interesting to see a detailed breakdown of what is done with the funds they have. How much actually goes on rescue, keeping the animals & shelters in good order & finding homes compared with Salaries (remember they get lots of volunteers), TV & media advertising, administration, euthanasia & body disposal etc ? What ratio of animals do they actually find a home for compared to what is spent overall ? In dreamland, I guess. A good independant audit & some re arranging of spending & management, with the priority being on the animals, could make a big difference & help. Won't happen though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keshwar Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 For those who actually want to deal in facts rather than rumour. Each states RSPCA has their Annual report available on their websites. The annual report contains an audited financial statement. It is all there for anyone to read. Annual statistics can be found at http://www.rspca.org.au/resources.html. Again readily available for anyone to read. These stats include a break down by state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin19801 Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 For those who actually want to deal in facts rather than rumour.Each states RSPCA has their Annual report available on their websites. The annual report contains an audited financial statement. It is all there for anyone to read. Annual statistics can be found at http://www.rspca.org.au/resources.html. Again readily available for anyone to read. These stats include a break down by state. These are not independantly derived facts but self-supplied stats. We don't accept anything the PM says without checking so I wouldn't accept the R$PCA's self-generated nonsense. Even the IPCC's "stats" on global warming were found to be less than truthfull and couched in perceived self-interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spottychick Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 I would love to read the annual report for Tassie RSPCA - given the goings on over here in the past year or so with RSPCA staff resigning in a blaze of angst and publicity etc. And especially as I couldn't get them to tell me anything in person. But I can't find it on their website. Maybe I'm just stupid. If anyone can find it and point me in the right direction I'd be most grateful I did read the stats on the main RSPCA site. They are of limited help tho, because they only touch the surface of what's actually going on. For instance, stats dont tell you if "behavioural issues" is just a catch-all heading for "convenience" or if it really is based on a proven, fair, method of sorting out the rehomable lovelies from the "irredeemable" animals. Or if "health" routinely includes "old age" (and that means more than a couple of years old) or if they only PTS those dogs who have a specific, serious and painful/untreatable health problem so that it would be cruel to keep them alive. Nor does it tell you what criteria they use for any of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin19801 Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 (edited) If the R$PCA stopped seizing and killing harmless family pets I believe they would get more support from dog owners. It seems that $35 mill is not enough. I wonder what the exec. salaries are and who are supplying their legal services? That is what I believe Mr Coleman should be addressing. The RSPCA don't seize restricted breeds dogs unless welfare issues are involved. Rangers and Animal Control Officers do that. Read the WE Oz's "The Usual Suspect" and talk to people whose whole litters have been killed by the R$PCA, then comment. They called for B$L and enforce it with glee. Now they want more money to enforce it. Is anyone who is aware of the history of B$L surprised, no they're not. On reflection I suspect you are confusing the RSPCA-UK's volte-face on BSL and will only involve themselves in welfare issues regarding breeds affected by S1 of the DDA. This does not apply to the R$PCA in Australia. Edited March 18, 2010 by justin19801 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Maybe the big wigs sitting at the top should take a pay cut. I am sure that would free up a reasonable amount of money. I do not believe they are struggling becasue they don't have enough money I believe the waste money or cases that are crap and paying the top exec's far too much. The people that actually do the hard work are quite often volunteers or people paid a normal wage. It's the fatcats skimming the top. I think they need a fully disclosed independant audit to find out exactly where all their money does go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 I guess they didn't count on the little old ladies, those who they have attempted to stomp all over and the breeders fighting back. I think they are going to need a much bigger budget, as people wise up and hit back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spottychick Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 (edited) Wow - in the process of looking up "facts" about all this I'm shocked to discover how much is being charged in exhorbitant legal fees (several tiers of legal reps in court to battle unrepresented pensioners!!! and expenses such as cost of hiring private planes and costly hotel accomodation for the prosecutors witness!!!! Say what????) by the RSPCA's legal team. But even more shocked to learn that in at least one branch the legal services are provided by - (and charged for at shocking amounts) - people who are on the board of the RSPCA!!! Er..... kinda puts a whole different light on this ridiculous RSPCA funding whinge. Sometimes I wish I didn't keep running off to find out stuff...... It just makes me feel sick to my stomach. Edited March 18, 2010 by spottychick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbesotted Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 while i am not a fan of the rspca as a whole... esp the upper echelons. I do have to garee that the rspca is all too often treated as a defacto givt dept and is responsible for the animal welfare aspect of legislation.. however i too remember Clifford.... and this certainly gives me a jaundiced view of the organisation. on several occasions i have reported something to the rspca... once they came back to me to say that the responsible persons had been contected yadda yadda yadda.. and that appropriate actions had been taken ( in this case the rspca was fed a load of crap but were not in a psoition to say otherwise). the other occasions the skinny horse were not found.. i found them the next day dead on the other side of teh small dam... All that being said they do have an unenviable job.. I just wish that they were actually for all creatures great and small without making judgements based on looks H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin19801 Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Personally I feel the R$PCA have the best job in the world, bringing animal abusers to justice. Problem arises when it becomes impossible to differentiate the abusers from the enforcers. Then one knows there is a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarope Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 The R$PCA is so full of crap it's not funny the big wigs must want new cars. Why should the Government give any money to these greedy bastards. They have the hide to call themselves a charity, what a bloody joke. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Wow - in the process of looking up "facts" about all this I'm shocked to discover how much is being charged in exhorbitant legal fees (several tiers of legal reps in court to battle unrepresented pensioners!!! and expenses such as cost of hiring private planes and costly hotel accomodation for the prosecutors witness!!!! Say what????) by the RSPCA's legal team. But even more shocked to learn that in at least one branch the legal services are provided by - (and charged for at shocking amounts) - people who are on the board of the RSPCA!!!Er..... kinda puts a whole different light on this ridiculous RSPCA funding whinge. Sometimes I wish I didn't keep running off to find out stuff...... It just makes me feel sick to my stomach. Why does that not suprise me! Although I have heard about the legal represntation one before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 I think what we should also start petitioning for is an independant audit who's results are fully disclosed to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now