Rspca

[HeelerLove]

Nothing in that article to say he was euthanised, so how do they know he was? There isn't anything to say he was the 'face' of the MPW or even an RSPCA dog, though this is implied.

A woman on the facebook page is claiming to have been with him half an hour before he was put to sleep. "I witnessed this photo being taken. This is at rspca burwood. I knew this dog well. He was healthy. He did not die of parvo. He did not have behavioural issues. He was not aggressive. He was a sweet, gentle boy who should not have been killed."

I'm guessing she knows the creator/s of the page or was a 'liker' of the page which was already against RSPCA and she gave them this as another story to use.

Nothing to say he is an RSPCA dog or the 'face' of MPW but his picture was definitely used for RSPCA MPW advertising.

Now apparently RSPCA Vic have come back with details on the dog.. "we had thought from the limited information provided that Charlie was from NSW but we apologise if that is not the case. The information states that Charlie failed his temperament test in 2010 so that would mean he was still in quarantine and we never take pictures and use them publicly unless that pooch has already been adopted or is awaiting adoption. In both cases he would have already passed his health and temperament test."

[minimax]

Nothing in that article to say he was euthanised, so how do they know he was? There isn't anything to say he was the 'face' of the MPW or even an RSPCA dog, though this is implied.

A woman on the facebook page is claiming to have been with him half an hour before he was put to sleep. "I witnessed this photo being taken. This is at rspca burwood. I knew this dog well. He was healthy. He did not die of parvo. He did not have behavioural issues. He was not aggressive. He was a sweet, gentle boy who should not have been killed."

I'm guessing she knows the creator/s of the page or was a 'liker' of the page which was already against RSPCA and she gave them this as another story to use.

Nothing to say he is an RSPCA dog or the 'face' of MPW but his picture was definitely used for RSPCA MPW advertising.

Now apparently RSPCA Vic have come back with details on the dog.. "we had thought from the limited information provided that Charlie was from NSW but we apologise if that is not the case. The information states that Charlie failed his temperament test in 2010 so that would mean he was still in quarantine and we never take pictures and use them publicly unless that pooch has already been adopted or is awaiting adoption. In both cases he would have already passed his health and temperament test."

He wasn't used by the RSPCA for advertising. If a camera came and put a dog's picture in a paper, like they often do for charity events, it's different than the charity intentionally pimping out that dog as "the face of the event". It was one article in a local paper. I've had my photo in the local paper, hardly makes me the face of the event!

Interesting about how the dog wouldn't have been out of quarantine if he hadn't passed health and temp test. Does anyone know the truth in that?

[Sheridan]

Nothing in that article to say he was euthanised, so how do they know he was? There isn't anything to say he was the 'face' of the MPW or even an RSPCA dog, though this is implied.

A woman on the facebook page is claiming to have been with him half an hour before he was put to sleep. "I witnessed this photo being taken. This is at rspca burwood. I knew this dog well. He was healthy. He did not die of parvo. He did not have behavioural issues. He was not aggressive. He was a sweet, gentle boy who should not have been killed."

I'm guessing she knows the creator/s of the page or was a 'liker' of the page which was already against RSPCA and she gave them this as another story to use.

Nothing to say he is an RSPCA dog or the 'face' of MPW but his picture was definitely used for RSPCA MPW advertising.

Now apparently RSPCA Vic have come back with details on the dog.. "we had thought from the limited information provided that Charlie was from NSW but we apologise if that is not the case. The information states that Charlie failed his temperament test in 2010 so that would mean he was still in quarantine and we never take pictures and use them publicly unless that pooch has already been adopted or is awaiting adoption. In both cases he would have already passed his health and temperament test."

Well, it becomes even more confusing. If the dog wasn't pts, then why didn't they add 'and he was adopted on ...' and if he was pts, why haven't they said so?

I agree with Minimax on the advertising, though. It's become quite hazy, though I am glad some clarity is appearing at last.

[casowner]

Dogs that have not yet been made available do not go to public events or photo ops, why would they when they have plenty that are available and awaiting adoption. It makes no sense to even think they would bring out an unassessed, unvetted dog just to do a photo op. My own kitten was used for media advertising for the RSPCA adoption a few years ago and he never went there

[HeelerLove]

Nothing in that article to say he was euthanised, so how do they know he was? There isn't anything to say he was the 'face' of the MPW or even an RSPCA dog, though this is implied.

A woman on the facebook page is claiming to have been with him half an hour before he was put to sleep. "I witnessed this photo being taken. This is at rspca burwood. I knew this dog well. He was healthy. He did not die of parvo. He did not have behavioural issues. He was not aggressive. He was a sweet, gentle boy who should not have been killed."

I'm guessing she knows the creator/s of the page or was a 'liker' of the page which was already against RSPCA and she gave them this as another story to use.

Nothing to say he is an RSPCA dog or the 'face' of MPW but his picture was definitely used for RSPCA MPW advertising.

Now apparently RSPCA Vic have come back with details on the dog.. "we had thought from the limited information provided that Charlie was from NSW but we apologise if that is not the case. The information states that Charlie failed his temperament test in 2010 so that would mean he was still in quarantine and we never take pictures and use them publicly unless that pooch has already been adopted or is awaiting adoption. In both cases he would have already passed his health and temperament test."

He wasn't used by the RSPCA for advertising. If a camera came and put a dog's picture in a paper, like they often do for charity events, it's different than the charity intentionally pimping out that dog as "the face of the event". It was one article in a local paper. I've had my photo in the local paper, hardly makes me the face of the event!

Interesting about how the dog wouldn't have been out of quarantine if he hadn't passed health and temp test. Does anyone know the truth in that?

I wasn't saying the RSPCA themselves used him, just that he was used to advertise an RSPCA event.

[minimax]

It's all just chinese whispers. They heard it from someone who "knows" *eye roll*

[mantis]

Dogs that have not yet been made available do not go to public events or photo ops, why would they when they have plenty that are available and awaiting adoption. It makes no sense to even think they would bring out an unassessed, unvetted dog just to do a photo op. My own kitten was used for media advertising for the RSPCA adoption a few years ago and he never went there

Really? Strange that Clifford's pics were plastered all over the media.

[Sheridan]

Dogs that have not yet been made available do not go to public events or photo ops, why would they when they have plenty that are available and awaiting adoption. It makes no sense to even think they would bring out an unassessed, unvetted dog just to do a photo op. My own kitten was used for media advertising for the RSPCA adoption a few years ago and he never went there

Really? Strange that Clifford's pics were plastered all over the media.

Are you saying Clifford was unassessed and unvetted?

[mantis]

Dogs that have not yet been made available do not go to public events or photo ops, why would they when they have plenty that are available and awaiting adoption. It makes no sense to even think they would bring out an unassessed, unvetted dog just to do a photo op. My own kitten was used for media advertising for the RSPCA adoption a few years ago and he never went there

Really? Strange that Clifford's pics were plastered all over the media.

Are you saying Clifford was unassessed and unvetted?

Yes, when they first started using him as a money making machine, he was still seriously injured & getting treatment.

I don't understand why you are always defending them, unless you have some connection with them.

[Sheridan]

Dogs that have not yet been made available do not go to public events or photo ops, why would they when they have plenty that are available and awaiting adoption. It makes no sense to even think they would bring out an unassessed, unvetted dog just to do a photo op. My own kitten was used for media advertising for the RSPCA adoption a few years ago and he never went there

Really? Strange that Clifford's pics were plastered all over the media.

Are you saying Clifford was unassessed and unvetted?

Yes, when they first started using him as a money making machine, he was still seriously injured & getting treatment.

I don't understand why you are always defending them, unless you have some connection with them.

Where have I defended them, mantis? How is asking questions a defence? Please be rational.

[tdierikx]

I think you will find that Sheridan is NOT affiliated with the RSPCA in any way, shape, or form... but she does like having facts before making up her mind about things posted on the internet...

Definitely not a bandwagon-jumper our Sheridan... lol!

T.

[Sheridan]

I think you will find that Sheridan is NOT affiliated with the RSPCA in any way, shape, or form... but she does like having facts before making up her mind about things posted on the internet...

Definitely not a bandwagon-jumper our Sheridan... lol!

T.

Snopes and Hoaxslayer - my favourites!

[Are You Serious Jo]

I hate the rspca as much as most here but if you jump up and down about things that aren't true you'll quickly get written off and when you do have something factual no one will listen. The truth about them is bad enough so you don't need to cling to things that are fake it just undermines the fight.

[redangel]

Jed I was asking the same thing here...My link

[minimax]

I think you will find that Sheridan is NOT affiliated with the RSPCA in any way, shape, or form... but she does like having facts before making up her mind about things posted on the internet...

Definitely not a bandwagon-jumper our Sheridan... lol!

T.

Scary these days that those who prefer to use facts rather than leap to conclusions based on mere rumours are the ones that get accused of things. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

People should be more suspicious of things they they "hear from someone" or "see on facebook". Asking for facts or proof doesn't mean someone is affiliated with, or even supports the organisation, it's common sense (or as it's known these days - "EXTREMELY RARE sense")

[redangel]

Question as a general member of the public can one just approach the RSPCA and ask for a confirmation and not only ask but get a reply?

[Sheridan]

Question as a general member of the public can one just approach the RSPCA and ask for a confirmation and not only ask but get a reply?

I imagine people can ask. Whether or not you get an answer and if you do, whether it actually does provide you any useful information is another matter.

[tarope]

There is historical evidence of Clifford in the wayback machine - the internet historical archive [screen snaps of the RSPCA pages for 2004/2005]

http://web.archive.org/web/20041024000335/http://www.rspcansw.org.au/rspca-clifford-mickey.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20041207081747/http://www.rspcansw.org.au/rspca-clifford-mickey.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20050208053434/http://www.rspcansw.org.au/rspca-clifford-mickey.htm

Does Clifford look aggressive in any of the photos even with all his injuries...NO !!! R$PCA policy is they do not re-home pitbulls, this vile organization prayed on the emotions of the general public using this poor dog to get as much money as possible then released a statement saying poor Clifford had suddenly became aggressive and was killed... yeah right...SHAME...SHAME...SHAME R$PCA :mad

ps. not having a go at you Noishe, thanks for the links.

What an absolutely ridiculous statement. It is completely impossible to determine whether a dog is aggressive from photos. I'm not saying he was aggressive or that he should have been killed as I don't know the full story but when people make crazy statements like "you can tell from the photo the dog wasn't aggressive" or "you can tell from the photo the dog wasn't sick" (as is happening on Moorook's page), all you do is undermine any credibility the rest of your comments may have.

You think my statement was absolutely ridiculous do you, well what about these R$PCA statements.

"Clifford shows his joy and appreciation to every caring person he meets. He is very much loved by RSPCA staff and enjoys spending time in the Inspectorate office. He was even ‘blessed’ at this week’s Blessing of the Animals Ceremony at the shelter. We give thanks for the ways that animals like Clifford enrich our lives here at the RSPCA".

Then this...

"The RSPCA announced today (31 January 2005) that an expert veterinary and shelter team has had to make the extremely sad and difficult decision to humanely euthanase a severely abused dog, for the safety of animals and people.

RSPCA Chief Executive Officer Bernie Murphy said ‘Clifford’ who was emaciated and covered in ulcers when he thrown from a vehicle onto a roadway at Ramsgate last September, had displayed increasingly aggressive behaviour to staff, despite four and a half months of intensive rehabilitation and training at the RSPCA’s Yagoona shelter".

I wonder if poor Clifford had gone to a rescue group instead of the dog killers, would he have suffered the same fate...I think not even a person with a 6th grade education would smell a Rat here. Poor Clifford was murdered 8 years ago, but his memory lives on...RIP poor Clifford you will never be forgotten.

Your response doesn't even make sense. My point was that stating a dog is not aggressive on the basis of a few photos is ridiculous. Whether right or wrong, the RSPCA's statements were based on actual time spent with the dog and not a photo. I was not supporting the RSPCA, I was saying it is stupid to say a dog isn't aggressive because of a photo just as it is stupid to say a dog is aggressive because of a photo. My point was also that if people get so hysterical that they make wild claims that are not founded upon actual facts they discredit anything else they may have to say that is actually valid.

I followed poor Cliffords story when it happened and didn't read about it on DOL like you,so no wild claims here... what the R$PCA did outraged many people who had never owned a pitbull either just like me. How do you know the R$PCA's statements were based on actual time spent with the dog, they lie and I'm not hysterical as you put it...I just have a compassion for all dogs of all breeds who's only crime is to fall into the hands of the R$PCA. Do you really think they spent four and a half months of intensive rehabilitation and training on one dog...in a pig's eye. RIP Clifford, Charlie, Max and all the other dogs murdered by the R$PCA.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Where is the evidence that Charlie was PTS? There isn't any so far. Clifford yes, we agree that happened.

[Ringo]

If you have a complaint about the RSPCA in NSW then the only recourse you have is lodge a written complaint with the minister concerned who is responsible for them. He is the one that gives them their power to do what they do.