Stop Donating To The Rspca

[SkySoaringMagpie]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/10257255/Stop-donating-to-the-RSPCA-says-Clarissa-Dickson-Wright.html

The charity has “lost its way” and now “leaves a bitter taste in the mouth” as it pursues prosecutions against people they suspect of animal cruelty, the star of Two Fat Ladies said.

Her comments follow the refusal of the Archbishop of Canterbury to take up the role of vice-patron and add to the deepening row over whether the charity, which is funded by donations, has become too politicised.

People should stop donating until the charity returns to helping domestic animals, she said, adding: “They have got plenty of money.

“I think that it would do them no harm if people stopped donating and told them why they had stopped to see if they changed their threatening policies.”

There have been calls for the RSPCA to be stripped of its prosecutor role following allegations, which it denies, that it has increased the number of cases brought to court in order to boost fundraising.

In the past two years the number of convictions has almost doubled, despite no rise in complaints to the charity's animal cruelty telephone hotline.

Dickson Wright, a former barrister who in 2009 was convicted of attending an illegal hare-coursing after a private prosecution by an animal charity, said that money given in good faith to the RSPCA was being spent in the wrong way.

“The charity was set up, and very well set up, for the protection of domestic animals,” she said.

“Now they spend money that comes from people who in many cases are hard pushed to come up with it, old ladies and things like that, in prosecuting hunts, prosecuting people who they think are trapping foxes, people who are keeping out rabbits.

“They are not concentrating on what they should be doing, on what they do well. It has been taken over by the politicos at the top.”

Dickson Wright, who said that foxes are “essentially vermin” and rabbits are responsible for the majority of landslides, added: “I think they set out to do good and they should get back to what they are supposed to be doing.”

A champion of country sports, she knows people who have been refused rescue animals because they support hunting, and respectable men who have had their doors knocked down by the police at 4am on the say so of the charity, she claims.

The cook, who once received death threats from animal rights campaigners, added that former donors have written to her expressing their disillusion with the RSPCA.

“I got endless correspondence from little old ladies,” she said. "They told me that they had known idea that this is what they were using their money for, rather than rescuing donkeys or saving dogs, and they wouldn’t have wanted them to use it in this way.”

The RSPCA deny that they are becoming politicised, and say that they have been prosecuting people for cruelty to animals since they were established in 1824.

"On a daily basis, our inspectors see unimaginable cruelty to animals across the country. In the vast majority of cases they provide advice and guidance but in a tiny minority of cases - less than 2 per cent of the complaints of cruelty dealt with by them - legal action is necessary," a spokesperson said.

"Our inspectors receive the overwhelming support of the public for this work. To suggest these hard-working officers are pursuing a political agenda is frankly offensive to the work they are undertaking."

Dickson Wright's comments were supported by the Countryside Alliance, who claim that the animal welfare organisation has become, under its current leadership, "a political campaigning organisation with a militant animal rights agenda which is using the prosecuting system as a weapon to promote its political campaigns"

Executive chairman Barney White-Spunner added: “It is wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds a year on political prosecutions and campaigns which do little, if anything, to improve animal welfare. I am sure those people who donate or leave legacies to the RSPCA don’t expect their money to be wasted on playing political games.

“People should consider whether their money would be better used by other animal charities or even the RSPCA’s local branches which are self-funding, separate charities that continue to focus on their role in rescuing neglected and abandoned animals.”

[WreckitWhippet]

There have been calls for the RSPCA to be stripped of its prosecutor role following allegations, which it denies, that it has increased the number of cases brought to court in order to boost fundraising.

This says it all for me in one line

[Little Gifts]

And we need to stop believing the shite that they are funded by donations! They apply for and are successful in receiving state govt grant after govt grant! I know this for a fact in QLD and assume the same in other states where govt funding sources are available.

And if they were funded on donations then how would they have money for tv ads during prime time? And who pays for the tv show? I wish they'd focus on their core business of protecting and prosecuting and stop all the other stuff they do that can be done by other rescue groups or animal related businesses.

I would also like to be clear that I'm sure the staff working with animals on the ground have the animal's best interests at heart and are exposed to some horrific cases but it is the corporate operations, decision making, planning and PR that have lost me.

Peiradise still gets pei from them and one of my besties still fosters with them but this is all down to maintaining working relationships and benefitting actual animals in need. That's what there needs to be more of.

[Guest Wildthing]

Research I did some time ago revealed the RSPCA UK were the 8th richest charity in the UK.

In the ACT, RSPCA are paid by the government to accept all stray and surrendered felines from the ACT as the government does not have a government run cat pound. I also believe they receive government funding over and above that.

[mita]

Dickson Wright, a former barrister who in 2009 was convicted of attending an illegal hare-coursing after a private prosecution by an animal charity, said that money given in good faith to the RSPCA was being spent in the wrong way.

Says it all.

RSPCA UK's position on hare-coursing in the jurisdiction Clarissa Dickson Wright lives in.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved/campaigns/wildlife/huntingact

I notice support for Clarissa's comments comes from the Countryside Alliance... which is also in the UK & supports lure-coursing.

Edited August 23, 2013 by mita

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Dickson Wright, a former barrister who in 2009 was convicted of attending an illegal hare-coursing after a private prosecution by an animal charity, said that money given in good faith to the RSPCA was being spent in the wrong way.

Says it all.

RSPCA UK's position on hare-coursing in the jurisdiction Clarissa Dickson Wright lives in.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved/campaigns/wildlife/huntingact

Whatever your personal views on hare coursing, it is a little weird for a regulator to be openly calling for support from the public to lobby the Government on laws it enforces.

Also find it interesting that they don't distinguish between coursing and hunting. I don't think it's very sporting to release a captive animal for the purposes of coursing it, but I have no problem with hunting and open field events on the hare's own turf.

Edited August 23, 2013 by SkySoaringMagpie

[mita]

Dickson Wright, a former barrister who in 2009 was convicted of attending an illegal hare-coursing after a private prosecution by an animal charity, said that money given in good faith to the RSPCA was being spent in the wrong way.

Says it all.

RSPCA UK's position on hare-coursing in the jurisdiction Clarissa Dickson Wright lives in.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved/campaigns/wildlife/huntingact

Whatever your personal views on hare coursing, it is a little weird for a regulator to be openly calling for support from the public to lobby the Government on laws it enforces.

Also find it interesting that they don't distinguish between coursing and hunting. I don't think it's very sporting to release a captive animal for the purposes of coursing it, but I have no problem with hunting and open field events on the hare's own turf.

I don't have any views on hare coursing or hunting in the UK. But it seems that the UK legislators passed laws about whatever they are. Clarissa Dickson Wright was prosecuted in relation to those laws. I looked it up, she pleaded guilty. If she wants those laws changed, then she and others who don't agree, should lobby their parliamentary representatives. Which, likely, she & they do.

There's nothing new about attention drawn to the fact that the RSPCA has both lobbying for welfare & a policing of cruelty laws, roles. The CEO, RSPCA Qld gave his personal view, publicly, that the policing role should go elsewhere... & their work remain in welfare.

In an ideal world, I think that policing animal cruelty laws should be the full responsibility of a Government Department.

The original RSPCA in the UK was private/charity work, same as the police, schooling, health, child welfare, at that time. All the others then evolved into public services ... except the RSPCA. Government has never shown the interest to take on, totally, the policing role re cruelty to animals. Never will .... especially as the current trend is going backwards to outsourcing & privatization.

As to the RSPCA UK changing from its original purpose. So have all those other services.... like child welfare... with evolving community attitudes. And the UK laws reflect that... in relation to both farm animals & wildlife. So I'd suggest the direction should be towards....'Who is to do the policing of existing laws?'

Clarissa's position appears to be there's no need to have those laws which impact on her interests or definitions, re animals. Which she has the democratic right to speak to.

Edited August 23, 2013 by mita

[melzawelza]

In the USA Animal Control Officers deal with cruelty investigations as well as all the things that ACO's deal with here - so it's looked after by a Government department. Seems like a much better system to me.

[WreckitWhippet]

In the USA Animal Control Officers deal with cruelty investigations as well as all the things that ACO's deal with here - so it's looked after by a Government department. Seems like a much better system to me.

Agreed and I'll add to that, any organisation that has powers such as the RSPCA should be answerable to someone. The RSPCA in Australia can do what it likes to whom it likes and there's stuff all you can do about it.

I'm yet to get an answer on just who you complain to when you have a grievance.

[melzawelza]

In the USA Animal Control Officers deal with cruelty investigations as well as all the things that ACO's deal with here - so it's looked after by a Government department. Seems like a much better system to me.

Agreed and I'll add to that, any organisation that has powers such as the RSPCA should be answerable to someone. The RSPCA in Australia can do what it likes to whom it likes and there's stuff all you can do about it.

I'm yet to get an answer on just who you complain to when you have a grievance.

Agree totally. Corruption can exist everywhere but especially when people have positions of power.

[mita]

In the USA Animal Control Officers deal with cruelty investigations as well as all the things that ACO's deal with here - so it's looked after by a Government department. Seems like a much better system to me.

I saw a US TV program of 2 raids to seize animals being badly treated. One a dog-fighting breeder, the other a puppy farmer. The local law enforcement.... both animal control & police...played the central role.

The local branch of the community/animal welfare organization, SPCA, came along in a welfare support role. They then did the caring, rehabilitating & rehoming (& any necessary PTS). Don't know how the funding was sorted... if there was some public money to the SPCA?

But the UK cruelty law (& ours, too) extends to farm animals & wildlife as well. I agree with that extension.... seems the first case prosecuted in the UK was a beaten donkey. The US seems to have differences there??? Maybe differing community attitudes???

Clarissa's beef sheets home to UK wildlife cruelty prosecution..

Edited August 23, 2013 by mita

[mita]

[i'll add to that, any organisation that has powers such as the RSPCA should be answerable to someone. The RSPCA in Australia can do what it likes to whom it likes and there's stuff all you can do about it.

I'm yet to get an answer on just who you complain to when you have a grievance.

In your state...

The relatively recent Qld animal cruelty law has complaint/appeal processes written into it. Because the Minister is responsible for those laws... first option is an appeal to the relevant Director of that government department. If that proves unsatisfactory, the whole matter (including how that department responded to the appeal/grievance), can be taken by the person to the Qld Civil & Administrative Tribunal. QCAT'S job is to independently review such matters. Interestingly, on their website where they explain their work, animal management matters is at the head of their list of examples.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Clarissa's beef sheets home to UK wildlife cruelty prosecution..

She's been a public voice against those laws for a long time. There is a wider discussion in the UK about the role of the RPSCA (people have posted some articles in this forum on that) so I'd expect her to use her voice when the opportunity presents itself. I suppose the flip side view is Bryan May of Queen referring to anyone who doesn't support the laws as akin to pedophiles. Clearly the debate there has been pretty nasty for a while, given the number of criminal prosecutions and drama between the two sides.

However, one person's "wildlife cruelty" is another person's hunting. If my dogs put up a rabbit or a hare in a paddock here is it less cruel because they are exotic pests and the hare hasn't been deliberately walked up?

The issues people raise with the RSPCA have been raised before, sure. And usually raised within the context of a wider respect for the work that the welfare officers do on the ground. But I agree with Dickson Wright that people need to understand exactly what they are contributing money for.

[WreckitWhippet]

Clarissa's beef sheets home to UK wildlife cruelty prosecution..

She's been a public voice against those laws for a long time. There is a wider discussion in the UK about the role of the RPSCA (people have posted some articles in this forum on that) so I'd expect her to use her voice when the opportunity presents itself. I suppose the flip side view is Bryan May of Queen referring to anyone who doesn't support the laws as akin to pedophiles. Clearly the debate there has been pretty nasty for a while, given the number of criminal prosecutions and drama between the two sides.

However, one person's "wildlife cruelty" is another person's hunting. If my dogs put up a rabbit or a hare in a paddock here is it less cruel because they are exotic pests and the hare hasn't been deliberately walked up?

The issues people raise with the RSPCA have been raised before, sure. And usually raised within the context of a wider respect for the work that the welfare officers do on the ground. But I agree with Dickson Wright that people need to understand exactly what they are contributing money for.

In the UK it seems to be so they can prosecute those who dare let a dog chase a rabbit or hare and here, they like to use the money to go after nice folk who give old dogs somewhere to live out there last days, someone who exhibits a debarked dog or an owner who was feeding her cattle.

[mita]

Clarissa's beef sheets home to UK wildlife cruelty prosecution..

She's been a public voice against those laws for a long time. There is a wider discussion in the UK about the role of the RPSCA (people have posted some articles in this forum on that) so I'd expect her to use her voice when the opportunity presents itself. I suppose the flip side view is Bryan May of Queen referring to anyone who doesn't support the laws as akin to pedophiles. Clearly the debate there has been pretty nasty for a while, given the number of criminal prosecutions and drama between the two sides.

However, one person's "wildlife cruelty" is another person's hunting. If my dogs put up a rabbit or a hare in a paddock here is it less cruel because they are exotic pests and the hare hasn't been deliberately walked up?

The issues people raise with the RSPCA have been raised before, sure. And usually raised within the context of a wider respect for the work that the welfare officers do on the ground. But I agree with Dickson Wright that people need to understand exactly what they are contributing money for.

Yes, Clarissa Dickson Wright is a long-time advocate for what's called 'country sports'. You're right these are part of passionate debate on both sides.... in the UK. But there's been enough community support to get things like fox-hunting & hare coursing into actual legislation.

Which has made Clarissa not a happy camper.... as she has every democratic right not to be. And to campaign to have those laws changed. She doesn't like the lobbying role played by the RSPCA. UK... who has directed opposition to hare coursing & fox-hunting as organized spectator sports. And she's interested in hare coursing. I have no idea what RSPCA UK's position is re purposeful hunting, involving wildlife as pests. Nor what UK law says.

People contributing money to any cause, need to be satisfied with its purposes/activities. You're right, there will be differences of opinions about what constitutes 'cruelty'. Specially so, it seems, when it comes to farm animals & wildlife. The laws will reflect the weighting of community attitudes. Hence those passionate debates!

As I'm not a UK citizen, my opinion wouldn't matter.

Edited August 23, 2013 by mita