What's So Bad About The Rspca?

[asal]

U know its funny, a gynacologist killed my twins with a lethal dose of a drug banned from administration to pregnant women, and covered his tracks to the best of his ability, ie, your version of events does not match that of the hospital staff and records, as well as cancelling twice our requests for an autopsy until 13 weeks after their deaths. only after their death did we learn he had been under investigation for months yet still practicing??????

BUT constatant and continual correspondance with medical and govt departments did get accountability put into law.

how many of u remember the headlines that if the law was passed gynacologists would retire?

we called it the twins law. we lost our boys but at least other parents who suffered the same heartbreak could know that now they could be held accountable.

but no such luck for victums like stringy is available for those rolled over by the rspca yet? will it ever be is the question.

keep my richard amery letter framed. its a classic of lied to and wont believe it

Edited October 29, 2010 by asal

[Guest Ams]

I volunteer at my local shelter and support them in every way I can BUT I do agree there should be separation of powers. Any organisation who is able to operate indepently of checks and balances leaves itself open for abuse and misuse of powers, either by individuals or the collective. The inspectorate needs to be run as a separate entity, there needs to be the right for independent vets to view animals before euthanasia and they need overviewing (like police, policticians and every other organisation has).

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The majority of people working and volunteering for the RSPCA are wonderful caring people but as in any organisation none will agree wholeheartedly with every aspect or tenet of that organisation's hierachy and because of their structure if you voice concerns or disagree with management your contract is cancelled. This is extremely disappointing as opposing views have a purpose and can lead to better management and operating instructions.

I will continue to support my RSPCA but that does not mean I agree wholeheartedly with everything the organisation stands for, nor some of the beliefs of the organisation as a whole.

[Roguedog]

RSPCA - here for creatures great and small (when it suits them - where were they when pitbulls and brumbies needed them??) crock of shite, I wont support them! each to their own however....

[Erny]

... there needs to be the right for independent vets to view animals before euthanasia and they need overviewing (like police, policticians and every other organisation has).

However, it is unlikely this will happen. In my small involvement in trying to stop the recent Victorian laws (which now empower Council Officers to destroy on the spot; pounds to destroy after only 48 hour impoundment; etc) I asked (as merely one of my questions) what difference to the community if an impounded dog was held for just 48 hours instead of the usual 8 days. The answer I was given was that it is less likely that an owner of (what the pound/council determine to be) a dangerous dog would be able to mount a legal defence inside the 48 day period and this will alleviate much of the legal expense, time and trouble that places such as the RSPCA incurr.

So, taking into account the above and given that the Labor Government pushed that Bill through and given that the Liberal and National Parties declared the laws within the Bill to be faulty but would not object to the Bill being passed, there is next to zero hope of any one of the Governments or the likes of RSPCA opening up and saying "ok guys ..... I think we [the RSPCA] needs to play fair and we will now make it so you are entitled to an independent second opinion for the sake of your dog and that *cough* we may even get it wrong sometimes".

[poochiemama]

WOW - didn't realise this issue was so fraught...

I am thinking about donating to another organisation ... will read the other threads and come to a decision.

But i certainly was not aware of all these issues with the rspca. They advertise themselves very well and i guess it's easy to buy into that if you don't know any better. I was also thinking of doing volunteer work with them but keep hearing stories of how awful it is to be a volunteer with them.

[mita]

I volunteer at my local shelter and support them in every way I can BUT I do agree there should be separation of powers.

It's been said numerous times on DOL forums that the law enforcement role of the RSPCA should be a separate entity from the advocacy/rescue role.

Under Qld law, the police will sometimes accompany RSPCA inspectors to a 'hairy' situation, because police officers and DPI (has a new name, now) inspectors have the same responsibility to take action in cases of abuse/neglect of animals. So there's already a 'place' from which a 'public service' animal law enforcement force could have its genesis.

Not long back, the CEO RSPCA Qld, made the same proposal, publicly, re governments' separating out of law enforcement from the RSPCA.

But, it's unlikely to be picked up by those who frame the laws... our state parliaments. Because picking up the total tab for animal law enforcement, would require a substantial & full budget for such a public service. The number of 'enforcers' (inspectors) would have to be increased substantially to match the numbers of animals that the law covers....companion, native, pastoral & farming, working etc. Count the heads of all these animals & you'd have more than the total number of humans. (Yet, compare the current number of RSPCA inspectors with the numbers of police officers.) Then there'd be the costs associated with public prosecution.

We live in the age of out-sourcing as much government 'services' as possible....to charities & private providers. Cheaper. It suits government to have animal law enforcement delegated to the RSPCA charity, while only passing over a modest sum from the parliamentary budget each year. (Yet that actually has some significance.)

It's also interesting to look hard at the present laws about policing animal law in each state. Each one has significantly different 'flavours'....the Victorian one was a big surprise to me. But all share one thing in common. The person ultimately responsible for the actions re animal cruelty law enforcement is the relevant government minister. So there's a good case for lobbying by the public to have the role & process of animal law enforcement reviewed.

We support our state's RSPCA, just as we also support our state's AWL.

Christina, you wrote 'I would donate your money elsewhere'. No, you don't donate my money. I make my decisions... & leave others to do the same. I agree decision-making is based on a person's checking thro' pros & cons. To each their own summary.

Edited October 30, 2010 by mita