Another Rspca Cock Up!

[WoofnHoof]

Jed maybe they were waiting for her to fix her fences?

btw regular worming does not mean the horse didn't have a burden of encysted strongyles which are implicated in severe colic cases in horses which do not look remotely wormy.

[mantis]

Jed maybe they were waiting for her to fix her fences?

btw regular worming does not mean the horse didn't have a burden of encysted strongyles which are implicated in severe colic cases in horses which do not look remotely wormy.

She looked after the horse for 7 months & had monthly Vet checks, there is NO reason for that scum organisation to take her away for Vet evaluation, they just had to ask the treating Vet. I can't believe people still defend them.

[Jed]

Yep, I realise that, and it is possible, but not probable. I also think it may have been picked up earlier by previous vet inspections.

If that was the case, the RSPCA would have been trumpeting that, not making lame excuses.

I doubt that the leg injury was life threatening - and it it was, the RSPCA would have been on to it like a rat onto cheese. Maybe they'll get to that when they commence the cover up?

And if it was not simply wilful spite because she went public, they could have advised her that the horse had colic, needed to be put down, and asked her if she wanted to bury it. I don't have a problem with the dad - except that they lied to her about the disposal of the remains of the horse, which was her friend.

A complete lack of respect and human decency.

The RSPCA - in all states - has a long and terrible history of threatening people, menancing people, seizing dogs and doing terrible things to those who disagree with them, or go public. There are many many people who are silent because they have been warned that their animals will be seized, and they will be prosecuted if they speak out or criticise. If the RSPCA takes your animals, it could be months or years until the case comes to court, in that time, anything could have happened to the animals. And owners usually don't have any proof of the condition they were in when seized.

Additionally, true animal lovers abhor the thought of their beloved animals going to a shelter.

I don't think I need to justify my stand anyhow, the news articles are sufficient.

This whole story is abhorrent to true animal lovers. I find it totally disgusting, and the behaviour of the RSPCA amoral and extremely distressing.

I feel so dreadfully sorry for that poor horse, saved from starvation, and given a good home, but I find the suffering of the poor girl heartrending. She will regret and suffer from this probably for all her life. The horse, at least, knows no more.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Jed

[WoofnHoof]

Jed maybe they were waiting for her to fix her fences?

btw regular worming does not mean the horse didn't have a burden of encysted strongyles which are implicated in severe colic cases in horses which do not look remotely wormy.

She looked after the horse for 7 months & had monthly Vet checks, there is NO reason for that scum organisation to take her away for Vet evaluation, they just had to ask the treating Vet. I can't believe people still defend them.

I'm not defending them I'm looking at possibilities. I haven't seen pics of the horse when it was originally fostered out so I can't comment on whether it's condition is good or not in comparison, I do know that fencing is inappropriate though. Lots of vets miss encysted strongyles too so getting a second opinion about the health of the horse could be a perfectly reasonable expectation.

[WoofnHoof]

This whole story is abhorrent to true animal lovers.

I agree with you - assuming this is in fact the whole story.

[Jed]

Jed maybe they were waiting for her to fix her fences?

btw regular worming does not mean the horse didn't have a burden of encysted strongyles which are implicated in severe colic cases in horses which do not look remotely wormy.

She looked after the horse for 7 months & had monthly Vet checks, there is NO reason for that scum organisation to take her away for Vet evaluation, they just had to ask the treating Vet. I can't believe people still defend them.

I'm not defending them I'm looking at possibilities. I haven't seen pics of the horse when it was originally fostered out so I can't comment on whether it's condition is good or not in comparison, I do know that fencing is inappropriate though. Lots of vets miss encysted strongyles too so getting a second opinion about the health of the horse could be a perfectly reasonable expectation.

To be seized by the RSPCA, it would have had to be in very poor condition, much much worse than that. I thought that horse was in reasonable condition.

ANY vet would suspect encysted strongyles with a horse with intermittant colic. Particularly a horse in an emaciated condition. It is possible that the vet missed it, but very few would. It's a well known cause of colic, and given the history of the horse, the vet would have been onto it.

But, on the KISS principle, the colic was most likely caused by the windsucking. It is well known that windsuckers are prone to colic. Lots of racing tbs windsuck, and they are carefully watched for colic.

Also, I believe the fosterer had 64ha - and I very much doubt that there would be any problem burying a horse on there. Additionally, the fosterer stated she wanted to bury the horse.

Apart from anything else, there is a dire shortage of large animal fosterers, and a direr shortage of homes for useless horses. The RSPCA has effectively driven off a fosterer who was prepared to give the horse a lifetime home. No doubt they have effectively driven off many other fosterers, so many more horses will be sent to the meatworks, or knocked off.

Fencing is in the mind of the horse ... I have no back fence ... my horses know when they are on a good thing, so they see a four rail white fence when they look there. If they wandered too far, they might miss dinner. And I think that fence, although a injury nightmare to me, was probably adequate for a horse which was happy.

[Jed]

This whole story is abhorrent to true animal lovers.

I agree with you - assuming this is in fact the whole story.

It may not be, but if you precis the story, taking into account the newspaper would be careful about legal liability, the salient facts don't paint a pretty picture.

Rozzie springs to mind. Immediately and painfully. Seized the dogs, managed to kill some of them in the dog trailer, put down her own dog, which was not suffering, put her throught months of agony and tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses, and produced a charge of "worms" on a dog which was in a shelter the previous day.

Or Ruth Downey, where the RSPCA inspector turned away a truck load of feed, and gut shot cattle, leaving them in agony, and leaving their calves to starve. RSPCA should have been prosecuted for that.

but there is no one to prosecute them.

[WoofnHoof]

I have a horse here who was inspected by several vets (I lost count of exactly how many) none of whom suspected encysted strongyles, the research I did at the time suggests it is missed a lot.

From what I can tell the RSPCA still owned the horse since the adoption hadn't been finalised so it wasn't a typical seizure just a return to the shelter for pre-adoption vet check. She stated she wanted to bury the horse on her property but who was going to get it there? It's easy to say she wanted to bury it afterwards but if she was struggling with the adoption fee I doubt she would have found the money to transport the deceased animal and have it buried on her property - granted it would have been appropriate to have given her the option but since the horse technically wasn't hers at that point it's all dependent on whoever was in charge knowing the situation in full and some aspects of the reports suggests that turnover of staff resulted in miscommunication about the situation with this horse.

It's difficult to know for sure but if the RSPCA willingly adopts out an ill animal even with full disclosure it's not beyond the realms of possiblity that it could bite them in the ass big time, what if the woman had suddenly decided she wanted the RSPCA to reimburse her veterinary costs? I'm sure that people involved in rescue here would be iffy about rehoming an animal with ongoing and unresolved health issues, not saying they wouldn't do it but they would have to tread with extreme caution when doing so.

I'm glad your horses are good with fences, my experience with red headed TBs suggests they don't know when they are on a good thing they see a fence and look for new and interesting ways to injure themselves on it!

At the end of the day it is a very sad situation for the horse and the fosterer, but I'd rather judge on a case by case basis rather than on the basis of other cases in other areas. This happened in Townsville, if there are other issues with the Townsville RSPCA by all means share them and perhaps there is a systemic issue at play but I don't necessarily believe that every RSPCA shelter is staffed by animal rights loonies getting their orders directly from the mother ship.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

i am going to be really unemotional and boring but this is not about the horse nor the foster carer, it is about processes that either arent there or are being ignored, or not understood.

in no business would the absolute failure of process as outlined in the article here be acceptable practise.

when dealing with living beings, it behoves any organisation to strive for "best practise" in their work to make sure that they are doing the best they possibly can.

it appears to me that there is a systematic, systemic, catastrophic failure of process within this RSPCA office.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[OSoSwift]

Unforgivable

[Jed]

The RSPCA will have right of justification. But, like Clifford who suddenly turned savage,(when they couldn't milk him for more donations), I have no doubt that they will produce some explanations for their actions.

I have no knowledge of the townsville RSPCA, but I've seen XXXXX RSPCAs act with extreme malice on more than one occasion, and I know of many more in Q where the goings on would have this entire forum up in arms. Deservedly so.

And there are many individual cases in which the behaviour is reprehensible.

So my leaning is toward believing what was printed in the paper. On the basis of past cases, and past actions by the rSPCA, most of which never make the papers.

I don't think shelters are staffed by loonies. I think most shelter staff work wholeheartedly for the animals. However, management and boards hold another place in my opinions, and my opinions are formed by cold hard facts gathered over time, not from rays beamed down by the mother ship.

I always wear my foil hat to prevent that happening.

Check the turnover of staff in RSPCAs. Particularly check turnover of vets.

Surely it would have been simpler for the RSPCA vet to visit the property were the horse was domiciled than to spend money on transport back to the shelter, particularly in view of the fact that the RSPCA is always hitting the public up for food and blankets, coz they don't have enough money for food?

It's not like the shelter had any diagnostic tools which they couldn't take to the property. And if the horse passed the test - and she did - why was she not returned immediately? Particularly as the paper had offered the $500 which was rejected. The fosterer had been coping with colic for the 7 months she had the horse, it obviously wasn't a big deal, or life threatening, (I think the paper beat it up a bit) she wanted the horse returned, they could have had her sign a disclaimer. They do it with dogs which people want. Legally, a horse is the same.

have a horse here who was inspected by several vets (I lost count of exactly how many) none of whom suspected encysted strongyles, the research I did at the time suggests it is missed a lot

Get another vet, there are 3 or 4 excellent ones in your area. With cases of colic, it's practically been the first thing every vet has suggested. That's never been the reason, but questions were asked, and a couple were treated.

BTW, what's the current treatment? Just curious. I mentioned what it was last time I did it to someone a couple of years ago, and they scratched their head. It worked. Something with ivermectin now, I guess.

Horses only exist to rip themselves to pieces on fences, run sticks into themselves, get colic (because they are badly plumbed) poke their eyes out on blades of grass, slice their legs open on zillion dollar fences, and generally only live to cost their owners an inordinate amount of money.

However, even tb horses which are quiet can be contained in moderate fences ... and this horse obviously was, if she hadn't pulled her fetlock joint out, or broken her leg on those fences in 7 months, she wasn't going to. I've had a lot of tb horses. Some were loonies, only safe in the stable (sometimes) and some were safe anywhere.

If you listen to the RSPCA spin, they look great. When you scratch the surface, you believe stuff like this. A friend of mine was an RSPCA vet, and was appalled. Other vet friends act as the shelter in country towns. What has happened to this girl and the horse has happened, in different ways, in dozens of RSPCA strongholds in various places. Those cases simply never made the papers.

Mita likes Mark Townend. I have a low opinion of him. My experience is that he talks the talk, but I have never seen him walk the walk. He always is able to slide out of walking the walk - it could not be fixed, he was not listened to, the story is untrue.

I respect Mita's opinion of him as an all round good guy, my experience is different, so she respects my right to hold that opinion.

I see corollaries to every point you raised, and the newspaper articles obviously read differently to both of us. I admit my view of the RSPCA is extremely cynical and jaded, which yours is not. My experience is honed by both first hand and anecdotal cold, hard, heartbreaking experience.

My only interest in byb, puppy farms, designer dogs, BSL and the RSPCA is to alleviate or end suffering, to have natural justice for all, and morally correct decisions made for the welfare of animals.

My ethos does not agree with the demonstrated ethos of the RSPCA, and as my ethos is not about to change, I will continue to work to change the ethos of the RSPCA. They fail to demonstrate the level of care and desire to make a difference in the lives of animals, which an organisation which is viewed by the public as a premier welfare organisation should be capable of making.

The view of every member of this forum who has some inside knowledge of the RSPCA, no matter how it was gathered, is similar to mine. We have disgruntled ex staff - too many to write off as simply angry because they were dismissed. We have people who have first hand knowledge of owners and animals which were seized for paltry reasons and the unhappy outcomes, we have people who attempted to have the RSPCA provide assistance, and failed miserably.

So don't think the loony rays are beamed to me alone.

This case has nothing to do with animal rights, it has to do with spite and vindication. Which no one in that position should be exercising.

They have done themselves so much damage, I don't even know why I am posting!! Nothing I would say could make it worse, they have done that themselves.

I hope the fosterer takes it to ACA or TT.

And apart from that, if the horse had colic, it would have been a simple matter to phone the carer ( who thought she was getting the horse back ) explain the situation, and ask her if she would like to attend. She'd had the horse for 7 months, she could have been invited. Then when the horse was PTS, she would have been on hand.

But, of course, that presumes it did have colic.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Jed

[spottychick]

This is just too awful. Words fail me here - what a stupid stupid senseless thing to do.

[kyliegirl]

oh my god how sickening and selfless.. for an organization who claims they "help animals" they sure didn't do that here.. Money was more important than the welfare of this gorgeous animal.

[centitout]

I was involved with TB'S for 15 + years,and most of the really bad(and i mean BAD) accidents occured in the million dollar post and rail top notch fenced paddocks.So all horses now have to be in million dollar fences to meet rspca standards of fencing???

Oh,and some really bad injuries occured while the horses were stabled,maybe we need to provide them with padded stalls now too?

Also,all the cases of colic i have seen over the years(hundreds) the vets ALWAYS suspect encysted worms i f other obvious causes can be immediately ruled out and treated accordingly.So that makes those particular vets up there either incompetent,or just plain ignorant.Was the vets involved large animal vets,cause most small animal vets do not know one end of a horse from the other,other than the basics taught at school.And i agree with Jed-IF the horse was that bad it had to be pts-she should of been afforded the decency of being asked to attend,or at least told.

But we will never know,will we?

[Souff]

There has to be a better way.

Full marks to the newspaper that gave the story some coverage.

Souff

[WoofnHoof]

I did get other vets, none of them suggested encysted strongyles they simply asked if the horse had been wormed (which he had). What many people don't know is that there are only two wormers available (equest and panacur) which can kill the encysted stage, the rest only target the other life stages once they form cysts they can't touch them.

I suggested the fencing may have been an issue - if you were a responsible rescuer would you rehome a TB to a place with fences like that? It's akin to rehoming a husky to a place with 2 foot fences

I also suggested that the recurring illness may have been an issue with finalising the adoption, again I ask would you rehome an animal with a potentially fatal recurring condition? Whether the colic was 'mild' is a matter of opinion and since it warranted a monthly vet visit I'd be more inclined to think it was fairly serious.

[HollyMilo]

I suggested the fencing may have been an issue - if you were a responsible rescuer would you rehome a TB to a place with fences like that? It's akin to rehoming a husky to a place with 2 foot fences

If inadequate fencing had been an issue, why would the RSPCA allow the woman to foster the horse in the first place.....for 7 months? Perhaps the RSPCA are not responsible rescuers? hmmmmm

Edited April 26, 2010 by HollyMilo

[Are You Serious Jo]

Are the vets that hopeless at doing a vet check that they required the horse to be held for three weeks off the property? There is no excuse for that, it doesn't actually take three weeks to assess a horse's health, there was something else going on. Since you can examine a horse and take bloods at the property it lives on then the only other reason for removing the horse was spite for going to the papers.

[Dogawne]

Whatever can be done to stop this sort of disgusting treatment of animals? It seems they are a power under themselves and are unstoppable really.

They get the $ from people, bequests, adoptions etc.

It seems more of a big business than anything else

[Robbi]

That's how a lot of horse's bodies are disposed of Robbi unless someone is willing and able to either bury it in a way that complies with council regs (on a property well away from residences and with due consideration for water table levels etc) or pay for cremation that's the only other method of disposal that is legal for a large animal that has been euthed.

Say the horse did get colic again (which is likely since it was a recurring issue) and had to be put down or rack up more huge bills which the RSPCA would have been liable for since the adoption had not been finalised, who was going to pay for the transport of the body to the foster carer's property for burial? Who was going to pay for the backhoe to dig the hole? It's entirely likely the carer was told the horse was buried by someone in admin who just assumes that horses are buried like any other animal when in fact they often aren't.

I agree that the RSPCA handled it badly and shouldn't have taken the horse (although the leg injury in later photos suggests a further injury had been sustained which may have prompted the seizure - perhaps fencing was an issue???) and they should have contacted the carer when the colic recurred to see if she would be willing to go ahead with treatment, but given the recurring nature of the illness it's presumptuous to suggest the animal would have lived a long and happy life had it remained with the carer.

I have had horses and cattle for over 20 years, never have I left an animal to rot in a dump(which I am sure isn't legal, the EPA is pretty red hot about dead bodies left around)

There were plenty of options to dispose of Brandy with a bit of dignity and compassion, we have donated cattle and horses to the zoo over the years, they come and humanely euthanase the animal and take away the body, we have had them buried-not expensive at all, local papers have bobcat hire numbers. We have given their bodies after humane euthanasia(bolt gun not lethal injection) to local greyhound kennels.

If the rspca cant find a better method of disposal than dumping that is a huge problem.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Robbi