Rspca Copping Some Flack Here

[Jingle Bells]

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/416781/opinion-poor-rescue-groups-shame-rich-rspca/

EVERY year thousands of companion animal rescue volunteers save thousands of dogs and cats from pounds and shelters across the state.

See your ad here

These community-based rescue groups don't have any of the resources or financial backing that the RSPCA enjoys, yet when they can co-ordinate with a council-run pound the results are magnificent.

In our region alone, Wyong Council Animal Care Facility has a kill ratio of 12 per cent, while Muswellbrook's facility has one of 4 per cent for dogs.

Meanwhile the RSPCA NSW, with an overall kill rate of over 50 per cent, continues to make excuses for ignoring the community's expectations.

The rescue groups re-home thousands of cats and dogs every year, akin to the numbers of the RSPCA. These groups are major players in the companion animal field and have a significant part to play.

So it was extremely disappointing that not one rescue group or representative was accepted on the government's companion animal taskforce.

This taskforce was formed, in part, to try to reduce the number of animals euthanised in this state every year. The organisation that destroys more animals than any other single institution is the RSPCA. Yet it was on this taskforce, whereas rescue groups, the major player in the saving and re-homing of animals, were not.

Vet and member of state parliament, Andrew Cornwell, the taskforce chairman, was lobbied by a large number of the rescue groups, to no effect.

Lobbying the responsible government ministers was likewise fruitless.

In the circumstance I am not surprised by the comments of Mr Cornwell in supporting the RSPCA, even though some feel it has outdated practices, including the objectionable behavioural test, while rescue groups expert in modern practices were marginalised.

With an overall kill rate exceeding 50 per cent, it is disconcerting to know that the RSPCA made more than $10 million profit last year, received a $7.5 million government grant, and holds more than $30 million in shares and other investments.

Council-run pounds, which have small budgets, and rescue groups that are constantly broke can achieve far greater results.

They deal with exactly the same type of animals under the same conditions as the RSPCA.

Yet the contrasting results couldn't be more alarming.

We believe the RSPCA NSW must review and reform its practices and policies voluntarily, especially considering it can well afford it - before calls for governmental intervention become commonplace.

This becomes even more evident when we compare the NSW RSPCA branch with its ACT counterpart.

The RSPCA ACT has reported a kill ratio of a mere 6.5 per cent.

See your ad here

Clearly something is wrong in NSW.

None of our criticism is aimed at RSPCA volunteers and workers - our criticisms are aimed at the leadership by RSPCA senior management and board, who seem to think everything is fine.

We argue that it is not.

David Atwell is the vice-president of the Society of Companion Animal Rescuers.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Jingle Bells

[Jingle Bells]

And I found this one as well

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/402233/point-score-how-to-test-pet-temper/?cs=311

A TEMPERAMENT test for dogs was provided to the Newcastle Herald yesterday.

See your ad here

It consists of 25 assessments with each having between four and 11 response levels.

Each level of the test comes with a score of between 0 and 20 points, or a "fail".

In any assessment if the dog barks, jumps, becomes excited or appears scared it can be given points.

The scorecard is marked out of 500, with dogs scoring more than 100 labelled as unsuitable for adoption.

A dog that barks when exposed to a cat will be marked 10 points and if it chases the cat it will score 20.

If a dog playing with provided toys holds on to the object and does not let go it will receive 20 points.

See your ad here

When the assessor makes a sudden noise and the dog becomes startled it can score 10 points.

NSW RSPCA chief executive Steve Coleman said he wanted to dispel rumours that dogs scoring more than 100 were automatically euthanised.

"There's a mythical number of 100 going around," he said.

"There are examples where a dog scores over 100 but still passes."

Edited October 27, 2012 by Jingle Bells

[Jingle Bells]

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/413532/letter-the-kill-rate-must-drop/?cs=315

IT is clear there is community concern, as expressed in recent letters and articles in the Herald, about the killing of animals (let’s not call it “euthanasia”, which is mercy killing) in pounds and shelters in our region.

That many of these animals are in RSPCA facilities and have been subject to temperament testing alarms many people.

Of course dangerous animals should not be re-homed. That goes without saying.

But with overwhelming numbers entering the shelters, how much staff time and expertise can be devoted to each animal?

In the view of Hunter Animal Watch, the nub of the problem is over-supply of animals.

So why doesn’t the RSPCA spearhead desexing across the state? And why do Lake Macquarie, Newcastle, Cessnock and Maitland councils hand over ratepayers’ money to contract the RSPCA to deal with this over-supply?

Why don’t these councils insist that public education and cheap desexing should be part of the RSPCA contract?

We look forward to the recommendations of the Companion Animal Taskforce, chaired by the member for Charlestown, Andrew Cornwell, because, as an animal welfare group that has given financial help to about 25,000 pensioners in the Lower Hunter to desex their pets, we want to be assured that the kill rate is going to come right down and that we are not wasting our time raising money with little hope of an acceptable outcome for animals.

Olga Parkes, Hunter Animal Watch

[asal]

Considering this was submitted to Parliment and and enquiry on the subject is even in the Hansard. Nothing has been done to implement this mans recommendations....why on earth not?

3rd June 2010

The Honorable Members

General Purpose Standing Committee No.5

Inquiry into the R S P C A raid on the Waterways Wildlife Park

Dear Members,

My full name is Leon Andrew Mills and I have resided in Gunnedah since 1982, I moved to Gunnedah as a result of my applying for the Police Prosecutors position for the Gunnedah Local Court Circuit. I continued in that position until my retirement in 2006. In 2008 I stood in the Local Government elections and was successful in gaining office as a Gunnedah Shire Councillor. I am still in that position today.

The two submission I would like the Honorable Committee to consider are that the compliance section of the RSPCA 9RSPCA Inspectors) be disbanded and that all the duties that they try to perform in relation to the investigation and brief preparation for alleged offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (the Act), be given to sworn Constables of the NSW Police Force in particular the Rural Crime Unit. My second submission is that all prosecutions under the Act by done by Police Prosecutors in the Local Court jurisdiction.

RSPCA Inspectors obtain their powers s a result of being issued an Authority under .section 4D(2) of the Act. In relation to this Inquiry it is clear that Inspectors Prowse and French have no idea of their powers. I say that on this basis, the Act is clear in relation to what an inspector can do and is set out in Division 2 of the Act. On the Friday following the taking of the Koalas a report was broadcast on the 6.30am local A B C News that Officer Prowse said the reason for taking the Koalas was that they were “stressed”. There is no power under the Act to take an animal that is stressed. It alledging distress, as referred to in Section 24H subsection (5) of the Act, there is no evidence at all that any of these animals were suffering debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury. To support what I am submitting, the Honorable Committee would note that the Officers examined the Koalas at about 10.30-11am. They gave no treatment to these Koalas from that time until after 4.30pm, why? There was nothing wrong with them, and of course we are talking about Officers that would be expected to take immediate action if an animal was suffering debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury. These two Officers had to do something and they illegally removed these Koala for the sole purpose of the T V show R S P C A Animal Rescue. To further support this submission the head of the R S P C A Mr Steve Coleman said no proceedings would be taken against Nancy Small as a result of community outrage. I completely reject this statement. As a former Police Prosecutor of 28 years both in the city and country on rare occasions there is community outrage when some proceedings are taken. I have never before heard of proceedings for a criminal matter being abandoned or not brought because of community outrage. The reason there were no proceedings brought was that there was nothing wrong with these animals.

Offences under the act are Criminal. Officers French and Prowse were supposed to be “investigating” this matter. It is interesting to note the quality of this so called investigation. No interview with Nancy Small or any other carers of these Koalas. No exhibits such as, stool samples, feed provided in the Koala enclosure, photos for identifications of each Koala, no tagging for identification. When one looks at the R S P C A Seizure Notice re this matter S N 010 16 the Officers have not even identified the Koalas to the extent of their sex. This so called investigation is absolutely pathetic and shows the quality of how RSPCA inspectors carry out their duties.

The N S W police have a branch now called the Rural Crime Unit these branches operated both in the city and country. They are staffed by sworn Police who have been fully trained in investigation techniques. Many of these Officers are fully trained Detectives. It would be my respectful submission that these officers should take over the compliance section of the R S P C A. Of course it would require extra staff and resources. It would be my suggestion that appropriate funding could be transferred from the funding the State Government gives to the R S P C A to the Police Budget.

Another benefit of a transfer to Police is that all Police investigations are subject to review by independent authorities such as the Ombudsman or I C A C. This is not the case with R S P C A inspectors, they answer to no one other than themselves. On the 18th of February last I attended the local branch meeting of the R S P C A as the head of the organization Mr Steve Coleman was attending. During the course of the meeting he answered a number of questions re the Waterways incident. Mrs. Dodd asked him a question being, “who can I complain to”, Mr Coleman’s response was “the Chief Inspector of the RS S P C A”. From a community point of view in this day and age it is totally unacceptable that we have an organization such as this that when a complaint comes in they investigate themselves.

The subject Koalas were living in a happy well cared for environment when they were illegally removed by Inspectors French and Prowse. One of the females had a baby Koala in her pouch that Mrs Small was aware of. I have been told that the R S P C A Inspectors became aware of this fact over the 48 hours following their removal. One of the other Koalas was an elderly female that Mrs Small has described as the “Old Lady”. Mrs Small has never denied that this Koala was elderly and whilst ever in good health could live out her days in the Koala Enclosure. Both these Koalas that were supposed to being cared for by Inspectors French and Prowse are now dead so I ask this question what investigation has the RSPCA done in relation to the deaths of these Koala or am I correct in assuming that when an animal dies because of the ignorance or lack of care by that inspector no investigation takes place. This is another example as to why the Police should take over these responsibilities so that when this type of incident occurs it can be properly investigated or reviewed by an appropriate authority.

I referred earlier in this document to the fact that prior to my retirement I was the police Prosecutor for the Gunnedah Court Circuit. During the 1980’s and 1990’s and in some cases still to this day besides representing Police informants in Court Police prosecutors represent many other entities, for example, Probation and Parole, National Parks and Wildlife, D O C S, Roads and Traffic Authority and the RSPCA. Over the years until about 2000, every so often I would receive a brief from an RSPCA Inspector who would be the informant usually in more than one information. If the matter was a “not guilty” plea I would present the case on behalf of the informant. If the offence or offences were proved some costs would be sought by the Informant that would usually be for witness expenses and any fodder that may have been required to give to the animals in question. No Legal professional costs were ever sought. In addition a fact I feel is relevant is that Police Prosecutors DPP Prosecutors and Crown Prosecutors have a duty to place all the evidence before the Court. Each carries a custodial penalty of 2 years imprisonment. True there is a difference in the monetary penalty but goal is the most severe penalty for a Criminal Offence. A common assault is one where the victim suffers no serious injury. For some reason the Parliament does not view aggravated cruelty as a serious offence at law.

The RSPCA since about 2000, to my knowledge, have been engaging private solicitors to conduct their prosecutions and one might ask why did they move to this system.

It is my submission that this practice should cease and that Police Prosecutors should conduct the prosecutions for the RSPCA. I say that on this basis. By engaging private Solicitors or barristers there is no obligation on them to place before the Court evidence that may disadvantage their case. Legal and Professional Costs come into play. If their prosecution is successful they would ask for these costs. It seems unbelievable that recently in one of their prosecutions at Narrabri an amount in excess of a quarter of a million dollars was sought for costs in a matter heard in the Local Court, and as I said before, an offence not serious at law.

In conclusion it is my humble opinion that inspectors French and Prowse have no knowledge in respect to their obligations under the Act and it is clear they see their careers more in the field of TV and to add insult to injury when asked a question by myself about the TV show RSPCA Animal Rescue and their role in this incident when he attended Gunnedah on the 18th February last, Mr Coleman’s explanation was and I quote, “the Officers had been on another job with them and when they said they were going to Gunnedah the crew said we might just tag along” end quote. I informed him that I did not accept that explanation at all. It’s a sad situation when the head of such an organization is trying to assist the coverup.

Yours faithfully

Leon Mills

Councilor

Gunnedah Shire Council

[Salukifan]

Asal, that letter has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Frankly I'm a little tired of reading Mr Mill's letter about Koalas.

[minimax]

Asal, that letter has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Frankly I'm a little tired of reading Mr Mill's letter about Koalas.

+1

I'm finding it hard to understand a lot of asal's posts lately

[asal]

The thread is about the failure of a charity to do the job they advertise is founded for "all creatures , great and small"

Also the failure of the people we elect to parliment to formulate laws to not only make this runaway accountable or held to account or even consider let alone implement the very sensible suggestions made in that letter.

Do you not wonder, just a little, why our politicions are so hands OFF, this charity? With multi millions invested yet not usable?

Yet had no trouble creating the ICCC to investigate so many other places and departments, one of which many of the inspectorate are ex employee's of?

These employee's could be subject to investigation in their former employment in the Police force, yet now in positions of far greater powers even over their former bosses now, with no such accountabilty whatever?

Why?

Why not? Is this employer so good they never make a mistake in recruitment? Yet the previous employer had found occasionaly problems occurred that brought in the ICCC to investigate?

Edited October 29, 2012 by asal

[asal]

does that make any? sense?

Edited October 29, 2012 by asal

[yellowgirl]

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/416781/opinion-poor-rescue-groups-shame-rich-rspca/

That's a good article, lots of comments on it too. It's a damn shame that rescue groups have been pushed aside here. Personally I just don't get it.

I've been in contact with the Chief Inspector of the RSPCA here in SA for over 2 years, trying to get them to work with rescue groups. Been pretty much ignored for the last few months now. I know of many little seniors that could have had a second chance here

[asal]

this is an interesting website

http://naiaonline.org/blog/animal-rights/the-world-is-petless-if-you-want-it/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NaiaOfficialBlog+%28NAIA+Official+Blog%29#.UJTNt2fa-rs

The world is petless! If you want it.

Gary Francione is something of an elder statesman for the modern animal rights movement. A legal scholar and one of the first abolitionists, he has taught animal rights theory since 1985 and written several books on the subject.

His abolitionist views place him at odds with the more incremental (and more successful) protectionist wing of the animal rights movement, but they also afford him the rare privilege of honesty when it comes to expressing his beliefs. You see, Francione doesn’t view animal rights as a series of goalposts where activists continuously pull on emotionally-charged, low-hanging fruit in order to gradually lull the public into adopting their code of behavior — a foie gras ban here, a ban of circus animals or guardian language there — and as such, there is no need for manipulation and obfuscation on his part. He’s not trying to trick anybody; he’ll let you know exactly where he is coming from, and what his goals are:

If, as a hypothetical matter, we changed the legal status of dogs and cats so that they were no longer property and they had a legal status closer to that of human children, would our continued production of dogs and cats (or other nonhumans) and our keeping of ‘pets’ be morally justified?”

My answer to this purely hypothetical question is “no.” We cannot justify the perpetuation of domestication for the purpose of keeping “pets.”

There it is in a nutshell. Of course, many animal rightists who are against the concept of pet ownership will assuage concerns by supporting the rescue of homeless animals, allowing adherents and uninformed supporters to fund and fuel the agenda while still keeping pets in all but name… but they almost inevitably leave out the part about what happens when all domestic animals are spayed and neutered, when all those homeless, needy pets finally find homes. Fortunately, Gary’s here to fill us in on the end game:

But if there were two dogs left in the universe and it were up to us as to whether they were allowed to breed so that we could continue to live with dogs, and even if we could guarantee that all dogs would have homes as loving as the one that we provide, we would not hesitate for a second to bring the whole institution of “pet” ownership to an end.

Well, it’s definitely quoteworthy — and at least he’s honest! But it’s also not the most effective form of advertising, and case in point as to why the abolitionists have gained so little traction while the incrementalists have succeeded far beyond their earliest goals. After all, it is unusual to find somebody who doesn’t at least love the idea of sharing their home with a pet, even if the responsibilities are another story. To most people, a petless world would simply be inhuman.

RayRay • 3 months ago

Why is the domesticated dog viewed as being not as important as say, dogs in the wild? I don't comprehend this view point in the slightest. Regardless of whether they were genetically altered, they are still living, breathing, UNIQUE animals - attempting to kill them all of, to technically, discriminate against them - seems unjust. I know my lovely little cat has a grand life with me, constant companionship, adventures outside, all the food she could want, an environment which is consistently regulated; all of the playing she desires - I doubt the outdoor life would appeal more to her. Domesticated pets are often treated like kings/queens.

[tarope]

If my new Rescue GSD puppy had been surrendered to the R$PCA, she'd be dead now because this vile organization thinks that play biting, hyper activity etc are undesirable and can't be re-homed. :mad

I say let Rescue groups do the Rescuing and re-homing and the R$PCA can go to Hell.

[Leema]

Do you want some more RSPCA articles, highlighting the organisations disservice in regard to dogs and cats?

RSPCA cops serve over two dead dogs

http://www.southcoastregister.com.au/story/572739/rspca-cops-a-serve-over-two-dead-dogs/

Is RSPCA NSW's 'Drives for Lives' killing pets?

http://www.savingpets.com.au/2012/11/is-rspca-nsws-drives-for-lives-killing-pets/

RSPCA collections rile local rescue group

RSPCA NSW - working with rescue groups or not???

http://deathrowpets.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/rspca-nsw-working-with-rescue-groups-or-not/

The craft of spin (re: RSPCA NSW)

http://www.savingpets.com.au/2012/10/the-craft-of-spin/

The RSPCA & puppy farmers get cozy

http://www.savingpets.com.au/2012/03/the-rspca-puppy-farmers-get-cozy/

And on other animal welfare:

Consumers duped by RSPCA, farmers claim

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/consumers-duped-by-rspca-farmers-claim-20120108-1pq77.html

[mantis]

Gawd, when are they going to be brought to account for their disgusting actions?

If only the volunteers ran the RSPCA, instead of the money hungry idiots at the top.