Another Rspca Cock Up!

[WreckitWhippet]

If you want to go Federal the DAFF, animal welfare and animal health come under their umbrella.

[Are You Serious Jo]

The federal government should administer this law, isn't it obvious what the solution should be, why does it have to be said? I can't think of any other area where law is enforced by a charity, it should never have been set up this way. The salvos don't go around shaking down drug addicts and carting them off to jail do they. Amnesty don't deal with illegal immigrants either.

Of course the government is reluctant to take this role, it will be expensive to set up but doesn't mean it isn't their responsibility and should have been all along.

[~Anne~]

In fact, they would possibly be the logical ones. Don't they handle some dog/cat welfare things laready such as importation or am I getting their role confused?

In my personal opinion, it must be Federal or at least Australia wide. The State vs State thing already causes too many issues.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Another issue with DPI is that it is State, not Federal. Each State would be adminsitered differently.

Interesting that no-one has offered anything else. I guess it is easier to criticise than to think about the implications of the cristicisms perhaps?

i have offered several suggestins

[WoofnHoof]

DAFF deals with animal welfare policy and research, trouble with animal welfare regs at the moment is that some stuff comes under RSPCA jurisdiction, some comes under DPI and some comes under the police and there are several areas of overlap.

[Jed]

In Qld, Biosecurity (aka DPI) already handles cruelty cases outside the metropolitan area, and has done for quite some time. The recent raid on the puppy farm at Murgon was handled by Biosecurity and the RSPCA.

[Steve]

Another issue with DPI is that it is State, not Federal. Each State would be adminsitered differently.

Interesting that no-one has offered anything else. I guess it is easier to criticise than to think about the implications of the cristicisms perhaps?

I doubt that people who have been critical haven't considered the implications to their criticism and at a guess in the main Id say that what they are hoping for is an implication which at the very least instigates a review of the system and some kind of natural justice and accountability procedure to ensure that ordinary everyday animal owners feel they have the ability to protect their animals and protect themselves.

The Independent Commission against corruption didn't herald the end of the Police force or other government departments but it ensured that people at least felt they had rights and an ability to be heard if they felt they had been treated unfairly.The media, and the public accepted that there was a need to introduce something to make these kind of processes more accountable and those in charge to be more open to the possibility that there may be some shonky stuff in the mix. It took exposure and criticism to have that bought about

If they are to operate as a police force then they should be the police force or be given the same accountability processes a police force has.

Having said that in this case what happened here on the surface could have happened to any rescue group - in fact I had a call about one which was very similar with a person asking what they could do about making the rescue group pay and there have been at least 4 similar cases over the past year or so.

In many cases the foster carer is given the animal to look after and they have no rights to determine what treatments, what homes the animal may be placed in, or special privileges as far as first dibs

if they want to keep it .Its not their animal and there is no obligation on the rescue group to liaise with , explain to or advise the foster carer about what comes next.when the animal is removed from the foster carer they have no instant rights to keep in the loop or informed.

It should be a written apart of the policies of the group so that before a foster carer ever gets near accepting an animal both sides know exactly what is or is not O.K. or expected.

These policies have to be in consideration of the fact that some foster carers will not understand if hard decisions have to be implemented . For example a foster carer takes a dog, falls in love with it but there is something wrong with it which will cost thousands of dollars to fix which may not fix it and the rescue vet advice is to put it to sleep or not to go with an op but rather look at management.

The foster carer doesn't agree and begins to cause a whole lot of problems thinking they know better what is best for the dog. They want to keep the dog but they also want the rescue group to pay the money to do the treatment they have decided they would like for the dog. When they are told No they get upset .

Then you also sometimes get foster carers who turn out to be complete nuts which make you decide they should not be fostering etc.

Sometimes of course it matters little what you do or how you do it. If someone is nasty enough or upset enough they will seek media and other methods of spreading the word the rescue group sucks.

So back to this case - the reality is that based on what info we have no one can know what really happened and this is a welfare case and not a police issue but its come to a point in society and the animal welfare world where this sort of thing is going to happen and unless the people and the group is conscious of the human aspect and the need to take the human emotions into account when they

work through them they are going to be in the firing line and lose public support and foster carers. The main basis of the problem in this case if we assume the horse was ill and did need to be put down to prevent it from suffering stems around the lack of communication and compassion shown to the foster carer. However , based on a myriad of other reported examples which show there is at least a potential for the horse to be put down because it was easier to do that than deal with others issues surrounding the horse and the carer people are suspicious. Be honest - based on the time lines and the report of what happened - as it is reported - most people would consider the horse and the foster carer had been badly treated even if they had never heard a bad thing about them. Because they are not lawfully made to show cause or evidence as to what they say - they can potentially say anything just as any rescue group can.

BUT OTHER RESCUE GROUPS ARE NOT ACTING AS A QUASI POLICE FORCE and not accepting billions of dollars in donations to save animals so its only fitting that these should come under more NOT LESS public scrutiny.

[~Anne~]

I doubt that people who have been critical haven't considered the implications to their criticism and at a guess in the main Id say that what they are hoping for is an implication which at the very least instigates a review of the system and some kind of natural justice and accountability procedure to ensure that ordinary everyday animal owners feel they have the ability to protect their animals and protect themselves.

All I see is zest and spit and not much else.

[spottychick]

Another issue with DPI is that it is State, not Federal. Each State would be adminsitered differently.

Interesting that no-one has offered anything else. I guess it is easier to criticise than to think about the implications of the cristicisms perhaps?

BUT OTHER RESCUE GROUPS ARE NOT ACTING AS A QUASI POLICE FORCE and not accepting billions of dollars in donations to save animals so its only fitting that these should come under more NOT LESS public scrutiny.

Good point Steve!

Anne - I just want to say - just because people don't have answers doesn't mean they can't see the "implications" of their criticisms, whether they're talking about the RSPCA or any other issue.

Actually I've seen plenty of suggestions as to how improve the way the RSPCA run things, in this and other threads - they are ideas that people are throwing around and may not all be brilliant or completely worked out or provide a full report on a total re-structuring of the RSPCA etc but hey.... what do you expect? This is how developments and improvements become a reality, people start questioning what's going on, not accepting propoganda and looking beneath the surface. They throw around ideas, brainstorm, reject some ideas, try to develop others.

For the most part they are not experts in this stuff, just concerned ordinary people. You can't expect everyone to have all the answers to life, the universe and the woes of RSPCA administration. At least they are interested enough in the welfare of animals to be giving a damn and trying to identify the issues etc. To me that's enough and if something positive comes out of their thoughts then that's all to the better. I'd prefer that to having everyone just blindly accept everything the RSPCA does or simply ignore all the problems because they can't single-handedly figure out a cunning plan to fix everything.

Others may simply express their dismay, distress or disgust at what they see happening. They're entitled to do that too. They are not obliged to come up with solutions, or even considered opinions, just because they are upset by what they read or see happening.

Meanwhile, since the RSPCA have bucketloads of money at their disposal and are specifically funded to provide welfare to animals I would expect THEY should be coming up with ideas as to how they can improve their organisation and stop making bad decisions, wasting money etc. THey can even hire someone to do it for them if it's too hard for them to work it out by themselves. And just maybe threads like this and forums like DOL can provide them with some pointers.

Edited April 28, 2010 by spottychick

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Another issue with DPI is that it is State, not Federal. Each State would be adminsitered differently.

Interesting that no-one has offered anything else. I guess it is easier to criticise than to think about the implications of the cristicisms perhaps?

BUT OTHER RESCUE GROUPS ARE NOT ACTING AS A QUASI POLICE FORCE and not accepting billions of dollars in donations to save animals so its only fitting that these should come under more NOT LESS public scrutiny.

Good point Steve!

Anne - I just want to say - just because people don't have answers doesn't mean they can't see the "implications" of their criticisms, whether they're talking about the RSPCA or any other issue.

Actually I've seen plenty of suggestions as to how improve the way the RSPCA run things, in this and other threads - they are ideas that people are throwing around and may not all be brilliant or completely worked out or provide a full report on a total re-structuring of the RSPCA etc but hey.... what do you expect? This is how developments and improvements become a reality, people start questioning what's going on, not accepting propoganda and looking beneath the surface. They throw around ideas, brainstorm, reject some ideas, try to develop others.

For the most part they are not experts in this stuff, just concerned ordinary people. You can't expect everyone to have all the answers to life, the universe and the woes of RSPCA administration. At least they are interested enough in the welfare of animals to be giving a damn and trying to identify the issues etc. To me that's enough and if something positive comes out of their thoughts then that's all to the better. I'd prefer that to having everyone just blindly accept everything the RSPCA does or simply ignore all the problems because they can't single-handedly figure out a cunning plan to fix everything.

Others may simply express their dismay, distress or disgust at what they see happening. They're entitled to do that too. They are not obliged to come up with solutions, or even considered opinions, just because they are upset by what they read or see happening.

Meanwhile, since the RSPCA have bucketloads of money at their disposal and are specifically funded to provide welfare to animals I would expect THEY should be coming up with ideas as to how they can improve their organisation and stop making bad decisions, wasting money etc. THey can even hire someone to do it for them if it's too hard for them to work it out by themselves. And just maybe threads like this and forums like DOL can provide them with some pointers.

well said, i agree. the first step in fixing anything is stepping out of denial and identifying there is a problem which is what has been happening for some people in this thread.

[Jed]

And, in the end, the RSPCA have done nothing wrong.

RSPCA took back a horse from a foster carer, as they are entitled to do. She could not afford to pay for it. RSPCA Townsville wouldn't give it back to her, despite the newspaper offering the $500. Mark Townend, wonderful chap that he is, mediated, and it was decided that the horse would be returned to the foster carer, as an adoption.

Unfortunately, during the period allocated to health tests, quarantine etc, the horse developed colic, a problem from which it had previously suffered, and which can be life theatening. The colic was very serious, and the horse was euthanased to save further suffering.

The carer was not notified. Perhaps there was not time, or she didn't answer the phone.

RSPCA told her the horse had been buried, when it fact it was taken to the dump. So ??? Someone at the RSPCA had wrong information which they passed on by accident.

They shouldn't have, but errors happen, and a lot of the people who help at the RSPCA are volunteers, so mistakes do happen.

RSPCA is interested in the welfare of animals, and if they hire staff to man the phones 24/7 that's less money to spend on the welfare of animals.

What's the problem? Really, there is no problem. I am sure that someone has or will apologise for giving the carer incorrect information, so that solves the only small problem involved with this situation. And misunderstandings between the shelter manager and the foster carer were mediated to a successful conclusion by Mark Townend.

He might even apologise by personal letter to the foster carer? Perhaps he will.

Who would want another organisation to do the work of the RSPCA? Why would anyone want to change anything?

End of story.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Jed

[spottychick]

Who would want another organisation to do the work of the RSPCA? Why would anyone want to change anything?

End of story.

Whether or not they did something wrong in this instance, people are clearly finding problems with at least in some branches.

So why change the RSPCA? Oh I don't know. Perhaps you're quite right and they're doing perfectly well just as they are.

But let's ask the millionaire lady in Tassie who recently withdrew her considerable long-term support for the RSPCA after people in the organisation blew the whistle on what the Tassie branch were up to. Or how about you ask the RSPCA themselves if they're pleased with the fact that their administration was so horrendously bad that they lost her vital support along with many other regulars due to money being wasted and consequently too many perfectly fine animals being PTS.

To me there seems to be good reason to look at making changes in the RSPCA but what would I know? I'm just a blonde dally owner ;)

[Skitch]

That poor horse.. I find it very disturbing that the horse was thrown in a dump when the previous owner was told it was buried.. why would they want to lie like that.. ? They're obviously ashamed.. :/.

[Jed]

That poor horse.. I find it very disturbing that the horse was thrown in a dump when the previous owner was told it was buried.. why would they want to lie like that.. ? They're obviously ashamed.. :/.

I have no idea why they told the owner something which wasn't true. See my post above for possible explanation.

I imagine that all animals which pass through the RSPCA are sent to the dead animal dump, as the horse was. That would be standard practice, so the horse was sent there as standard practice.

[RAH]

Mita,

How can you and some others support this vile organization when things like this happen every day and are just covered up. Do you think the R$PCA is going to show anyone proof of what really happened, no bloody way as all the evidence is long gone which doesn't surprise anyone.

RIP Brandy, Clifford and all the animals who fall into the hands of the R$PCA ;)

Maybe you might want to take a look at this link, you may change your mind about them.

http://www.careaware.info/index.html

OMG i cried when i read those stories, so sad & makes you so mad bugger the rspca, i never new they were that bad before but now thanks to you i do. http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?g...8211&ref=ts this a a facebook site about Brandy

Gina

Edited April 28, 2010 by RAH

[Are You Serious Jo]

I guess we can be grateful Brandy wasn't sold to the doggers like some of the other rspca rescue horses have been.

[Jed]

Yep, lots have gone to the doggers, Jdavis. Lots and lots.

I think the big lesson here is NOT to be a foster carer for the RSPCA, particularly of large animals, unless you can take a bucketfull of hurt.

If you don't do it, it can't happen to you. As Steve rightly points out, as a fosterer, you have no control, and the 'rescuer' or RSPCA can remove the animal from your care at any point, and do what they will with it.

So sad, too bad

[Skitch]

That poor horse.. I find it very disturbing that the horse was thrown in a dump when the previous owner was told it was buried.. why would they want to lie like that.. ? They're obviously ashamed.. :/.

I imagine that all animals which pass through the RSPCA are sent to the dead animal dump, as the horse was. That would be standard practice, so the horse was sent there as standard practice.

That was exactly my thoughts.. why lie about it? I'm sure the lady would have been much less offended if she was just told the horse was euthanized and disposed of.. even better they could have given her the opportunity to dispose if it herself since she seems particularly sensitive about it and saved themselves the trouble! It just seems so silly that they lied about it and I think it proves that they are running scared and trying to patch things up.. silly silly.

[kamuzz]

Why did they move the horse in the first place - Brandy was not in any trouble at the foster carer's site.

We will always wonder - would Brandy have succumbed to colic if she had not been moved.

[WoofnHoof]

That poor horse.. I find it very disturbing that the horse was thrown in a dump when the previous owner was told it was buried.. why would they want to lie like that.. ? They're obviously ashamed.. :/.

I imagine that all animals which pass through the RSPCA are sent to the dead animal dump, as the horse was. That would be standard practice, so the horse was sent there as standard practice.

That was exactly my thoughts.. why lie about it? I'm sure the lady would have been much less offended if she was just told the horse was euthanized and disposed of.. even better they could have given her the opportunity to dispose if it herself since she seems particularly sensitive about it and saved themselves the trouble! It just seems so silly that they lied about it and I think it proves that they are running scared and trying to patch things up.. silly silly.

Maybe they didn't lie, maybe whoever she spoke to genuinely didn't know. I enquired about a horse at the council animal management centre once the woman at the desk said when the time for reclaiming is up the horses go to the sales. I said "oh so they get dogged", she said "no they go to the sale", turns out she genuinely didn't know that an unknown, unridden horse at the sales has a snowballs chance in hell of not being dogged, a ridden horse is generally better off but still not necessarily safe. I rode a horse in a sale a while back because the chicken s*** owner wouldn't even give the poor bugger that chance and I still had to specify to the auctioneer he wasn't to be dogged because the first bidder was a dogger!

Combine that with the fact that most non-horsey people (and even some horsey people) are unaware of the regulations surrounding the burial of horses and it's entirely possible that many of the people without this knowledge assume that horses are generally buried. I've known people who've had horses die and they've just dragged them down to the back of the property - out of sight out of mind for some, well except for the poor buggers on neighbouring properties downstream