Why Do Everyone Hate The Rspca?

[Erny]

The only thing vile here is the organisation that is being discussed.

There is nothing vile about Canberra's RSPCA and it is wrong to tar all branches with the one brush.

And that's a fair enough statement to make, Curlybert. Except that each branch should be applying pressure to the ones who are creating a bad reputation for the other good ones, rather than telling people that they shouldn't speak about the RSPCA in general.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Erny

[KKDD]

Quote Erny

The RSPCA are just as free to post here as anyone else.

In fact, if the RSPCA want to know where people are not happy with them; what areas of complaint need attention ...... this would be a good thread to come to. end quote.

Oh yeah. Always a smart move to face a lynch mob. Especially where the lynchers enjoy as much anonymity as they want.

Edited April 2, 2011 by KKDD

[Erny]

Quote Erny

The RSPCA are just as free to post here as anyone else.

In fact, if the RSPCA want to know where people are not happy with them; what areas of complaint need attention ...... this would be a good thread to come to. end quote.

Oh yeah. Always a smart move to face a lynch mob. Especially where the lynchers enjoy as much anonymity as they want.

Telling the truth is not "lynching".

And I am not anonymous like you are.

And the RSPCA are hardly shy about going public.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Erny

[Kissindra]

I dont hate the RSPCA, I just don't feel that they are infalible. There is something increadibly wrong with the state of things if questioning simple practises and issues of accountability, non-action and conflict of interest (ect.) are held up as some kind of outrageous action.

National policy seems to have no bearing on what state bodies can hold up as best practise and best policy and that is extremely concerning in an organisation which promotes itself as THE most knowledgable group on such matters and has such a huge stake in relevant legistlation and policing of that legistlation.

I absolutely feel the RSPCA can significantly address the issues which cause concern and can rectify many of them, I do not hold a doom and gloom view of the entire organisation or everyone in it - but I will state quite plainly that they are NOT infalible and it is quite worrysome that they do not wish to address these reasonable concerns.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Quote Erny

The RSPCA are just as free to post here as anyone else.

In fact, if the RSPCA want to know where people are not happy with them; what areas of complaint need attention ...... this would be a good thread to come to. end quote.

Oh yeah. Always a smart move to face a lynch mob. Especially where the lynchers enjoy as much anonymity as they want.

I've tried to lodge complaints under my real name but on no rspca website anywhere could I find a way to do so. So you are wrong

[Erny]

I dont hate the RSPCA, I just don't feel that they are infalible. There is something increadibly wrong with the state of things if questioning simple practises and issues of accountability, non-action and conflict of interest (ect.) are held up as some kind of outrageous action.

National policy seems to have no bearing on what state bodies can hold up as best practise and best policy and that is extremely concerning in an organisation which promotes itself as THE most knowledgable group on such matters and has such a huge stake in relevant legistlation and policing of that legistlation.

I absolutely feel the RSPCA can significantly address the issues which cause concern and can rectify many of them, I do not hold a doom and gloom view of the entire organisation or everyone in it - but I will state quite plainly that they are NOT infalible and it is quite worrysome that they do not wish to address these reasonable concerns.

Well said, Kissindra.

[john.davey.1960]

Also, regarding their 'support of BSL'; While a previous national leader of RSPCA was vocal in support of BSL, he hasnt held that position for several years. RSPCA shelters are obliged to act in accordance with the laws of the state they are in - and most states have BSL. In the ACT the RSPCA shelter regularly has pitbulls available for adoption, because ACT has no BSL.

Unfortunately they still support BSL which was introduced at there behest. They have never spoken out about repealing it and so continue to kill on looks and anot behaviour. Semantics have changed but end result is the same, DEAD DOGS.

I think you'll find you're wrong there, JD.

This quote from Michael Linke, RSPCA (ACT) CEO, made on 10 July 2010 under his DOL moniker of RextheRunt:

"Hi. Its Michael Linke here, CEO RSPCA ACT.

My comments were meant generically to point out breed and colour confusion, one reason (of many) why BSL fails. I am, as is current RSPCA national policy, opposed to BSL."

I think that proves my point. Not one word about repealing BSL. Just claims they don't want it extended (for now) despite harassing governments to introduce it. Perhaps it affected their donations? Who knows.

[john.davey.1960]

Quote Erny

The RSPCA are just as free to post here as anyone else.

In fact, if the RSPCA want to know where people are not happy with them; what areas of complaint need attention ...... this would be a good thread to come to. end quote.

Oh yeah. Always a smart move to face a lynch mob. Especially where the lynchers enjoy as much anonymity as they want.

At least the so-called lynchers are not seizing and killing harmless family pets. Their supporters are also anonymous on such sites as well

[Bilbo Baggins]

I do not hate them as such but have been involved with out due assistance. They did come but said the dog had water and looked fed. Despite being told by me that it barked all day and I could not sleep. On my nights off it barked most of the time then as well.

Luckily the people moved so the problem disappeared.

The treatment of Judy Gard was appalling and she is still emotionally recovering, we where talking about today.

A branch euthanized a dog we where to rescue because it cowered in a corner. It had been assessed by one of their own as suitable for rehoming.

From other experiences I have heard of on DOL I believe that they should be more accountable for public money.

[yarracully]

The fact that they play a significant role in creating legislation which they also enforce.Thereby a conflict of interest. No other body (either government, charitable or civil) is involved in the creation of legislation and then also participates in the enforcement of the same legislation. Police do not create legislation and government do not enforce it.

As a charitable organisation they tend to have more power than other law enforcement agencies. No other enforcement body can enter premises and seize animals or property simply because they fell a crime or act of cruelty is about to happen. Police cannot arrest until after a crime has been committed. RSPCA inspectors can enforce a law before it is even broken. And they do not need to have a warrant.

They are able to dictate conditions under which I can enjoy my companion animals. Due to their interference certain practices of many people have been outlawed and yet they do not have to supply any form of substantial eveidence to outlaw a practice.

They always ask for donations yet most of the money recieved goes to empire and ego building. Simply look at their balance sheets. With the money they have recorded as recieved they don't need to ask for donations as much as they do.

They can always find a reason to enter your property almost on a whim but then you need to fight like hell to get your animals back. Many on here would be aware of quite a few examples of this.

They always claim hugely overinfalted court costs. Again recent examples on DOL

The management of the organisation seems to have lost its sense of purpose and being

They persecute innocent people over small trivial matters yet turn a blind eye to outright cases of abuse

On a personal matter they once many years ago were boarding a dog of mine which they left tied to a fence in direct sun with no shade or water. Yet if you or I did it that would be cruelty. When the matter was raised we were brushed off with "no harm done". Maybe not but the fact remains they would prosecute you if you did the same thing.

Apart from the above I simply don't support any organisation that simply rings up and asks. If they want anything from me they come to my front door and ask. But prepared to be shocked when I refuse.

[Steve]

On the surface there is a system and in an ideal world where no one ever got it woriong and no one ever got a ego problem or power hungry all would be fine.

[Steve]

On the surface there is a system and in an ideal world where no one ever got it woriong and no one ever got a ego problem or power hungry all would be fine.

However, when someone can come onto your property and decide to take your animal, it is taken to a place you are not able to be informed of, it is examined by the rangers mate - the RSPCA vet. No second opinion is required and you dont get any in put - nor does your vet - because that would be a conflict of interest before they decide your dog is suffering and is put to sleep. They then destroy the evidence - cremate the body and have you charged with cruelty. While you are waiting trial you are accused and if you try to complain you will be told the courts will decide after all you are an accused animal abuser.

But when it gets to court its not a police prosecutor that comes after you which means that they dont have to place all of the evidence to the court and they can hold back any which may not go well for them. They can also charge a truck load of fees because they are private solicitors and barrasters and not Police prosecutors.

Now they are asking for laws which would see you having to pay a bond toward looking after your animals while the court case is coming up - or they can sell them or give them away.- so if you are broke and found not guilty you would lose your animals anyway.

It doesnt take a Rhodes scholar to work out that there is a potential for collusion and corruption in this system. No point in saying it doesnt happen because history with other agencies has shown us it can and does - even now when the anti corruption and ombusdman are in place there is still lots of work for them to do and people are most definitely being found guilty of corruption. It may not ever happen with the RSPCA but ordinary every day pet owners have the right to feel they have a system in place which allows them to be able to tell their story to and be heard by someone who has no vested interest in keeping a lid on it.

However, at the end of the day it is the governments who give them this power without external accountability and it is governments which need to be pressured and made to realise that its time to re think it all.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Steve

[Erny]

they decide your dog is suffering and is put to sleep. They then destroy the evidence - cremate the body and have you charged with cruelty. While you are waiting trial you are accused and if you try to complain you will be told the courts will decide after all you are an accused animal abuser. ... so if you are broke and found not guilty you would lose your animals anyway.

And although I am found not guilty and have righteousness on my side, what's the point going on ...... with anything. Because they've killed my best mate and possibly the only thing in my life I feel worth living for.

Over sentimental? Not for some nor for many.

How dare they.

How dare 'the system' permit this.

[shortstep]

deleated double post

Edited April 2, 2011 by shortstep

[shortstep]

Saw this morning

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/

Free Speech or Subsidized Speech?

It is about the Humane Society in the US (sort of like the RSPCA) and very interestingly it talks about some new laws in Canada about animal rights groups vs animal welfare groups and receiving public money. About time!

Edited April 2, 2011 by shortstep

[Steve]

However, the RSPCA are considered to be an animal welfare group.

It is because of this that they can advise governments and be given instant credibility when they push for more laws. Laws which have no basis in science or fact.Laws which are now against what is known to be best practice for the species. Laws which make the public and even breeders believe that we are being cruel if we managed our dogs according to what canine reproductive specialists tell us we should do for the best thing for the species. Laws which condemn dogs to death because they are judged a particular breed. Breed specific legislation.

It is against the law for you to take your dog to a dog show if it has been debarked by your vet without the evidence that before it was done someone from your local council could testify that the dog was barking and would have to be put down if it doesnt shut up yet I can take my dog to a vet and have fake testicles implanted and take it anywhere I want even put it onthe telly to show it off or have it put to death because I dont like the colour of its coat.

No debarking unless you can prove you have tried everything else to keep the dog quiet - consequences of debarking if done by a qualified vet - softer voice and no more recovery or long term issues than a simple tonsil op for humans. It should be my dog, my property my choice in consultaion with my vet

In some places mandatory desexing - consequences of desexing if done by a qualified vet - higher incidence of cancer, joint disease and a whole list of others. It should be my dog, my property, my choice in consultation with my vet.I shouldnt have to own a recognised breed of dog or belong to an approved organisation in order to be able to make that choice. I shouldnt have to be a domestic animal business if I own more than 3 fertile dogs and never intend to breed them.

In most places mandatory microchipping - consequences - huge increased risk for cancer and immune related disorders. It should be my dog, my property, my choice to make in consultation with my vet.

Then we look at mandatory codes - very little in any of them which take into account what the best is for the species.I can just see them making laws to ensure a dingo sanctuary has concreted pens, how often they can mate or whelp, where they can whelp etc.

Bring in laws to help every one know where every one is who breeds a dog, which are not condusive to survival of breeders or the species, give them power to walk in and inspect your paper work, your home and your dogs at will, given them the power to police the laws and have no outside accountability all the time knowing they dont breed dogs, they have no experience or knowledge of the very things they are agitating for and that they have been infiltrated by people who are anti breeding.

Then tickle the Canine Councils and make em think if they go along with them they will be rewarded and they will have exemptions for their members.

The fault in the system is that as a welfare agency they have been given to much credibility with government and too much money to make public an occassional breach and use them to make their case. It is government which should be targeted.

Just which part of all of this is for the dogs?

[Steve]

Re the article link.

How do we fight them when they are able to use any amount of money they want to advocate and wage wars with tax payers money and donations intended for charity work. How do we fight them when they can afford to have legal teams, media teams and promotional people to push their point?

Who - which group in this country has the backing to even send out more than a whisper that we dont agree with something they decide to target especially when part of the plan is to divide us.

TheIR ability to advocate for one thing or another is enhanced by our money - what a joke free speech for everyone but give one group a louder voice by making the peopel who may oppose them pay for their resources.

[shortstep]

Re the article link.

How do we fight them when they are able to use any amount of money they want to advocate and wage wars with tax payers money and donations intended for charity work. How do we fight them when they can afford to have legal teams, media teams and promotional people to push their point?

Who - which group in this country has the backing to even send out more than a whisper that we dont agree with something they decide to target especially when part of the plan is to divide us.

TheIR ability to advocate for one thing or another is enhanced by our money - what a joke free speech for everyone but give one group a louder voice by making the peopel who may oppose them pay for their resources.

I do not know, it almost seems impossible to resolve under the current system, for starters they should hoave tow ork within the law and should not have the power to act as police.

However if the tax payer money could only be spent on direct care activities to help animals such as shelters, it might help a little bit. I suppose they would just ues all the donation money to pay for their politics with. But at least the doners could see exactly where their money is going and that it is not to pay for the care for animals.

[klink]

In my opinion this organisation has become far far to political for me. It gathers monies from many misinformed people particularly in the form of bequests. To the best of my knowledge none of this money is accountable as to the amounts or how it is spent. I am not aware of any public reporting system as to where to money is spent and on what. I too have had experience with this mob re the use of spiked collars on dogs, which was reported and they did not respond. Complaints re this matter continued and finally I was told that they were unable to pusue those involved because six months had passed. You only have to see who represents them in the media , that says' it all. Never RSPCA for me.

If there is bad news about ,there they are!! another breed banned.

It is also a major worry just how much Dogs' NSW is in bed with them, members beware.

[Diva]

I am not aware of any public reporting system as to where to money is spent and on what.

Annual reports list the major revenue and expenditure items. I know the ACT one is on-line for anyone to see.