Beau Beau Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 (edited) What is your opinion of the RSPCA? I have heard many rumours, some not very pleasant. I've googled RSPCA corruptions and was shocked to discover that all that glistens isn't gold. Edited December 30, 2013 by Beau Beau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuralPug Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Differs from state to state AND from branch to branch within state. Right now, the new head of RSPCA(SA) is making fantastic innovations that help make SA much more 'rescue' than 'bank balance'. RSPCA(NSW) is possibly the worst behaved one ATM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staff'n'Toller Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 There are plenty of threads on RSPCA, but I have to wonder what your motive is given it's only your second post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellz Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Dunno...I think Tassie is a bit "out there" too......they cannot get on amongst themselves within the organisation at the moment, let alone do much else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavNrott Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 There are plenty of threads on RSPCA, but I have to wonder what your motive is given it's only your second post? Agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beau Beau Posted December 30, 2013 Author Share Posted December 30, 2013 (edited) There are plenty of threads on RSPCA, but I have to wonder what your motive is given it's only your second post? A friend had her 3 elderly dogs seized by the RPSCA. Reason? They had ear mites; one also had cherry eye, the other had cataracts. My friend was issued with a compliance notice and was given one week to "fix" these problems. She had no idea the RSPCA were going to confiscate her much loved dogs. The ear mite issue had already been addressed before the RSPCA came into the picture. In relation to the cherry eye issue, my friend had sought advice from the vet, either have the glands sewn back in place but risk them popping out again or remove them and risk dry eye....my friend decided not to proceed with surgery besides which she was also concerned in putting her 12yo dog through general anaesthetic. The other dog is a 14 yo toy poodle with a cataract in one eye and once again my friend did not want to risk losing her little girl via general anaesthetic. All 3 were part of the family and much loved. It has caused her a lot of anguish to the point she is now on antidepressants. RSPCA have told her they will be prosecuting her for animal cruelty. Edited December 30, 2013 by Beau Beau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ams Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 (edited) There are plenty of threads on RSPCA, but I have to wonder what your motive is given it's only your second post? A friend had her 3 elderly dogs seized by the RPSCA. Reason? They had ear mites; one also had cherry eye, the other had cataracts. My friend was issued with a compliance notice and was given one week to "fix" these problems. She had no idea the RSPCA were going to confiscate her much loved dogs. The ear mite issue had already been addressed before the RSPCA came into the picture. In relation to the cherry eye issue, my friend had sought advice from the vet, either have the glands sewn back in place but risk them popping out again or remove them and risk dry eye....my friend decided not to proceed with surgery besides which she was also concerned in putting her 12yo dog through general anaesthetic. The other dog is a 14 yo toy poodle with a cataract in one eye and once again my friend did not want to risk losing her little girl via general anaesthetic. All 3 were part of the family and much loved. It has caused her a lot of anguish to the point she is now on antidepressants. RSPCA have told her they will be prosecuting her for animal cruelty. I am sorry your friend has had this experience however I am sure there is more to the story than this. Spomeone had to make a complaint for your friend to come to their attention in the first place. Cherry Eye usually occurs in dogs under the age of two so how long did your friend's 12 yr old dog have prolapsed glands? Uncorrected cherry eye can actually lead to dry eye. With regard to your original question. RSPCA is like any other large corporation. It depends on who is in charge of each shelter/State as to how they are managed. I'm sure anyone who has had their dogs seized would have a negative view on the organisation. Yes there is a concern that the RSPCA is not answerable to any other body with regard to abuse of powers, but then I've seen plenty of abuse cases come through shelters and rescue that warrant prosecution. I'm going to sit squarely on the fence on this one. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Edit cause I typed "dry eye" instead of "cherry eye" in my second sentence which causes confusion. (sorry). Edited December 30, 2013 by Ams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 If they are going to prosecute try and persuade her to get legal advice. You can beat them, a guy in WA did not long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogsfevr Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 I am not a supporter at all & have strong opinions BUT i agree with the other poster there has to be more to this story than you have posted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 In my experience it isnt easy to get the RSPCA to attend to an alleged case of animal cruelty. I would imagine there would need to be quite serious complaints for them to attend and seize her dogs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Her Majesty Dogmad Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 I've had dogs with dry eye and cataracts and I sincerely doubt the RSPCA would prosecute me for that. Ear infections - mites or other kinds - should NEVER be left. I'm wondering if they also had bad teeth, flea problems and were matted etc etc, some people see nothing wrong with those things. I believe there is more to this story as well. Someone must have reported your friend or why would the RSPCA be around there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Anne~ Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Ulterior motive was obvious. If you want to be taken seriously, then perhaps be more upfront. It makes people suspicious and not in liens to engage when you know there is more to the story. It's great you came clean pretty quickly. As for your friend's case, I don't know them, nor do I know any of the facts, so I wouldn't be prepared to comment one way or the other. The RSPCA are not perfect. They've made errors but they've also saved a lot of animals from ongoing abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beau Beau Posted December 30, 2013 Author Share Posted December 30, 2013 (edited) I've had dogs with dry eye and cataracts and I sincerely doubt the RSPCA would prosecute me for that. Ear infections - mites or other kinds - should NEVER be left. I'm wondering if they also had bad teeth, flea problems and were matted etc etc, some people see nothing wrong with those things. I believe there is more to this story as well. Someone must have reported your friend or why would the RSPCA be around there? This friend happens to also be a neighbour. I have seen her dogs and I can vouch they were not ridden with fleas, in fact they had no fleas, they were not matted, they had been clipped as per usual; I believe their teeth may have needed cleaning but I also know she had made arrangements with a vet to attend to this but they were seized before she had a chance. Someone did report my friend, sour grapes due to an online disagreement which was had nothing to do with animals. This person is vindictive and was out to hurt my friend and did so via her much loved pets. She is not certain as to what the RSPCA were told but due to a disagreement she had with this particular inspector in relation to different views on a blind dog my friend owned 3 years ago and which has since passed away. The dog had glaucoma and was seen by an animal eye specialist, the specialist diagnosed glaucoma and supplied my friend with eye drops to delay the onset but did say that this was only going to delay it not cure it. As time passed the dog became blind; my friend then had her dog's eyes removed as this condition is painful. This inspector thought it was cruel to keep the dog alive, said that blind dogs should be put down. My friend was appalled at this suggestion and explained to the inspector that the dog was happy to be alive, was healthy in every other way and that she was going to let it live out its life. The inspector was not happy. The local ranger was of the same opinion as the RSPCA inspector and it was due to the local ranger that the RSPCA inspector was first brought into the equation. Edited December 30, 2013 by Beau Beau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubiton Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 (edited) I don't think much of them firstly because of what they did to me over something unrelated to their actual work with the animals - had they be up front with me it would have saved a lot of time etc. And more recently their stance as an activist organisation against horse racing (and other things but racing is what I know). Apparently they can do little about horses starving to death in paddocks but campaign against horse racing where the animals receive the best care possible (happy fit healthy horses perform at their best) - they've lost my support when they waste money over such advertising and then plead for donations to look after the animals in their care. Animals in their care & the staff that look after them SHOULD be the first and foremost priority for their funding. But that's just my opinion. Edited December 30, 2013 by rubiton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beau Beau Posted December 30, 2013 Author Share Posted December 30, 2013 I don't think much of them firstly because of what they did to me over something unrelated to their actual work with the animals - had they be up front with me it would have saved a lot of time etc. And more recently their stance as an activist organisation against horse racing (and other things but racing is what I know). Apparently they can do little about horses starving to death in paddocks but campaign against horse racing where the animals receive the best care possible (happy fit healthy horses perform at their best) - they've lost my support when they waste money over such advertising and then plead for donations to look after the animals in their care. Animals in their care & the staff that look after them SHOULD be the first and foremost priority for their funding. But that's just my opinion. To be perfectly honest I'm a bit dubious about the racing industry, be it horse racing or greyhound racing due to hearing too many negative and heart breaking stories but I must say I totally agree with you in that the RSPCA is very hypocritical, whining about certain issues whilst totally disregarding other more important situations. I will never forget the story about a knackery in Laverton Victoria which was guilty of inhumane slaughter, video footage of the callous treatment of horses was provided to the RSPCA, what more could you ask for??? The end result was that a Senior Inspector by the name of Daniel Bode concluded there was "insufficient evidence to support animal cruelty" yet they seize 3 elderly dogs who were treated like royalty and shared their owner's pillow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Your friend should be seeking legal advice from someone who is au fait with legal cases involving dogs. There is a group of solicitors with dog interests, but I do not know what they are called. The will help. Second, the vet needs to declare in writing that the had seen the dogs, and state what you have written here about the various problems. A veterinary opinion will always over-rule an inspectors. And your friend does need to go to court. They do tend to target older people (particularly woman) as an easy target. Don't let it happen to you. Ams Dry eye usually occurs in dogs under the age of two so how long did your friend's 12 yr old dog have prolapsed glands? Uncorrected cherry eye can actually lead to dry eye. There is also age related dry eye which is not hereditary but part of the aging process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ams Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 (edited) . Edited December 31, 2013 by Ams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 The entire system enables this type of discussion to occur and its why it should be changed. If the system allowed the person who has lost their dogs to feel they have had the opportunity to speak and have some control, if it wasn't so easy for some power hungry ranger backed up by a dodgy quasi police force system to be corrupt if they want to be - things would be different. If in fact the ranger has used their power inappropriately an ordinary owner remains powerless to be able to defend themselves. They can determine whether to seize the animals - and every step in the chain is capable of being corrupt because there is not enough accountability. They can take your animals, take it to their vet , say whatever they want without the requirement of a second opinion and if determined the dog needs to be PTS - destroy the evidence with the owner having no input . They wont take notice of your vet opinion as it is deemed to be biased. They could see the dog has a cherry eye and decide it needs surgery in their opinion and order her to have the op done after they have heard her argument and followed up on what her own vet has advised her. Why seize a dog with a cherry eye? Even if it is a situation where she had been directed to get the eye done and for what ever reason hasn't done so why not offer her the ability for them to do it and for her to pay back the money for the op? I dont know anything about this case and Im certainly not accusing anyone or any body of corruption but seriously - lets be honest - there is a huge amount of power handed to them with no third party accountability and if they wanted to stitch someone up it would be pretty easy to do. In the mean time you take away someone's family and put them into legal situations they have never experienced before and probably have no money to defend and leave them with living the rest of their lives without the company of animals. Its a hard punishment and often leaves the humans in a hell of a mess. Some will say they deserve it and definitely some do but you have to give the ability for some voice and some control for their defence in the hands of the owners or there will be threads such as this where the RSPCA can be accused of corruption and the community fears them rather than respects them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Her Majesty Dogmad Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Your friend should contact her vet for a statement and contact the animal lawyers urgently. If the RSPCA inspector and ranger have ganged up on your friend then she needs to take urgent action. I hope this can be resolved asap. Imagine how scared those poor little old dogs would be .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosetta Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Your friend should contact her vet for a statement and contact the animal lawyers urgently. If the RSPCA inspector and ranger have ganged up on your friend then she needs to take urgent action. I hope this can be resolved asap. Imagine how scared those poor little old dogs would be .. That was my first thought also Dogmad. Taken from their home and put into a shelter - poor dogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now