# The RSPCA made us feel like criminanls



## Fenris (30 June 2013)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/pets/10149908/The-RSPCA-made-US-feel-like-criminals.html

"Owning a pet has always been a normal part of childhood, and valuable companionship for the old. If some in the RSPCA get their way, that may not be the case much longer. "


----------



## Hairy Old Cob (30 June 2013)

Dont Get Me Started on rspca


----------



## Moomin1 (30 June 2013)

Ahhh, the age ol' "would have taken it to the vet but just didn't get round to it" excuse.....


----------



## MiJodsR2BlinkinTite (30 June 2013)

Yeah, right, so us horse riders are all "crims" then coz we all (or at least the majority of us) carry whips to beat our horses to death with............. we bung metal bits in their gobs and slap nasty horrible saddles on their backs - then we climb aboard the poor things, and horror-of-horrors make them jump big nasty fences and get all hot and sweaty. Blimey, some of us wear barbaric metal spurs as well. Then there are others of us who chase our poor horses into metal boxes and transport them all over the place, etc etc. The awfulness never ends 

Jeez, we better all be careful. Look out the RSPCA are watching YOU. 

I wish I was joking......but I know I'm not. Coz one day soon they'll get around to us. It already started when they started interfering with country life and came down on a certain side in the foxhunting debate. But don't let me get started on that one.


----------



## Alec Swan (30 June 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Ahhh, the age ol' "would have taken it to the vet but just didn't get round to it" excuse.....

Click to expand...

There is no compunction upon an animal owner to consult a vet,  providing that an attempt is made at adequate treatment.

Alec.


----------



## Rose Folly (30 June 2013)

They have their good and their bad points, but I have serious doubts about current RSPCA behaviour, dragging ridiculous cases to court that cost thousands of pounds of donors' money.

When possible I try to use specialist charities like The Dogs' Trust, or find associations which look after that particular species or breed. They are more knowledgeable, more realistic and often far more helpful.


----------



## Moomin1 (30 June 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			There is no compunction upon an animal owner to consult a vet,  providing that an attempt is made at adequate treatment.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, but in this case it clearly wasn't adequate was it?


----------



## webble (30 June 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Yes, but in this case it clearly wasn't adequate was it?
		
Click to expand...

Exactly and leaving an animal to suffer is a criminal offence.

It makes me so so cross that stories like these hit the headlines but all the good work that is done every single day is never mentioned. I know there is some controversy with the head honchos but it must be soul destroying for the branch staff and those out in the field who work hard hearing things like this all the time

Also flea allergies are pretty common how can a competent owner not know about it as a possibility??


----------



## Dobiegirl (30 June 2013)

This is what I dont get, yes that GSD owner was ignorant in buying stuff over the counter, the RSPCA should have told her to take it to a vet now not flaming prosecute. Then you get the flood ponies who are supposedly being monitored by the RSPCA and they are in a terrible state and they RSPCA are  doing nothing. I just dont get it.


----------



## fburton (30 June 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			There is no compunction upon an animal owner to consult a vet,  providing that an attempt is made at adequate treatment.
		
Click to expand...

Is this really true, Alec? I mean in the sense that there is legislation.


----------



## fburton (30 June 2013)

Dobiegirl said:



			This is what I dont get, yes that GSD owner was ignorant in buying stuff over the counter, the RSPCA should have told her to take it to a vet now not flaming prosecute.
		
Click to expand...

I assume they did that initially, no?? (If not, why not?)


----------



## fburton (30 June 2013)

Incidentally (okay, totally off on a tangent), does the RSPCA have any powers to prosecute foreign visitors to the UK who have committed acts of cruelty on animals here? Has that ever happened, or are the legal complexities just too daunting?


----------



## amandap (30 June 2013)

fburton said:



			Incidentally (okay, totally off on a tangent), does the RSPCA have any powers to prosecute foreign visitors to the UK who have committed acts of cruelty on animals here? Has that ever happened, or are the legal complexities just too daunting?
		
Click to expand...

Also as an aside to this point, I heard mention on TV of a performing animals act which may well cover foreign nationals in this one area.
It didn't sound very robust or up to date.

ps. My personal view is all these animal acts need bringing up to date. The basis that animals are chattels must be looked at.


----------



## Alec Swan (30 June 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			There is no compunction upon an animal owner to consult a vet,  providing that an attempt is made at adequate treatment.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...




fburton said:



			Is this really true, Alec? I mean in the sense that there is legislation. 

Click to expand...

Legislation doesn't cover failure.  Providing that a genuine attempt is made at care,  then that's viewed as good enough.  I have sheep which I treat myself,  generally;  if I fail where a vet might have succeeded,  then my attempt is considered to be enough.  Neglecting to give any sort of remedy,  be it professional or home-prepared,  is where the owner leaves themselves open to prosecution.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (30 June 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Yes, but in this case it clearly wasn't adequate was it?
		
Click to expand...

Were the question of "Adequacy" the point at which prosecution was faced,  then an attending vet who fails might also be considered inadequate.  I'll repeat myself,  _"Providing an *attempt* is made at adequate treatment".
_

amandap,  animals are as you described,  "chattels",  and whilst they can be bought and sold,  they will and should remain so,  in my view.

Alec.


----------



## ribbons (30 June 2013)

Of course animals are chattels. They cannot look after themselves in a controlled situation, i.e. stabled, fenced land, kennel or home. They cannot be allowed to roam wherever they please, eating and living a "wild" life so they have to be owned, which makes them a chattel. 
It is beyond me that this has to be pointed out. !!!!


----------



## Moomin1 (30 June 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Legislation doesn't cover failure.  Providing that a genuine attempt is made at care,  then that's viewed as good enough.  I have sheep which I treat myself,  generally;  if I fail where a vet might have succeeded,  then my attempt is considered to be enough.  Neglecting to give any sort of remedy,  be it professional or home-prepared,  is where the owner leaves themselves open to prosecution.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, legislation DOES cover failure.  Failure to provide an animal's needs.  Also failing to prevent suffering.  And the 'attempt' at doing so has to be a reasonable one.  Any normal reasonable person, whose animal is going more and more bald, despite attempts at using (what I consider shockingly poor 'treatment' which should actually be taken off the shelves, along with the cheapy worming and defleaing treatment also) shampoo off the shelf, would have sought veterinary advice. 

Also, none of us on here know exactly HOW bad this animal was.  The story the owner gives the press (and probably the RSPCA) may not be entirely true,  in the sense of time scales, or even treatment used.  It's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that someone lie in order to try and get out of a sticky situation.  The dog may well have been in a shocking state, covered in sores, completely bald, suffering.  So I think to judge from a one sided story from a biased news article is very narrow minded.


----------



## irish_only (30 June 2013)

http://rspcainjustice.blogspot.co.uk/

Interesting reading.


----------



## Alec Swan (30 June 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			.......  

Also failing to prevent suffering.  *So an animal being treated by a vet,  whilst it continues to suffer,  is ok with the rspca whilst an animal,  in a similar state of suffering,  whilst being treated by its owner,  is wrong,  is it?*

And the 'attempt' at doing so has to be a reasonable one.  *I've used the word "genuine",  you prefer "reasonable",  but it all boils down to you supporting this aspect of my argument.*

So I think to judge from a one sided story from a biased news article is very narrow minded.  *As one sided as your laudable but futile support of the rspca,  and its current stance. *

Click to expand...

Moomin,  I've asked before,  and you've yet to answer me,  _"Does the senior management of the rspca,  and Gavin Grant in particular have your unqualified support"?_  I realise that the question puts you on a spot,  and that isn't really my intention,  but you've lambasted me in the past for my views,  and I feel that I've the right to ask you to qualify yours.  If you feel unable to answer,  then most would reasonably conclude that in fact he does NOT enjoy your unquestioning support.  If you hang on his every word,  then say so.

On the subject of the blogs and movements which are attempting to bring about change within the rspca,  and get the self promoting Gavin Grant removed,  there are accusations being levelled which the rspca can easily defend,  because in part some are misleading and inaccurate,  so I see them as pointless.  The problem is serious enough and the evidence clear enough,  without offering up red-herrings which will allow for filibustering.  

Despite the denials,  it would seem evident that the rspca have reported the QC Jonathan Rich to the Bar Council,  on numerous occasions.  That's without doubt,  I'd have thought,  but to accuse the rspca for being responsible for the suicide of Dawn Ward,  when none but those professionals who dealt with her will have had any idea as to her mental state,  is resorting to highly speculative tactics.  The evidence of wrong doing is enough,  without resorting to a questionable smear campaign.

Alec.


----------



## JanetGeorge (30 June 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Yes, but in this case it clearly wasn't adequate was it?
		
Click to expand...

Thew FACT is that sometimes veterinary treatment isn't 'adequate' either!!  A girl who works for me has a youngster that has suffered terrible hair loss and scratching for months.  She has spent hundreds of pounds on treatment and diagnostics by vets - which achieved NO improvement.  She finally treated it with a herbal remedy recommended by a friend and it is now healing!

The striking thing about all the prosecutions mentioned in that article is that they were all pretty small scale cases which picked on vulnerable individuals for relatively minor cases of suffering.  So WHY aren't the RSPCA prosecuting the owner of the horses that were originally suffering on flooded land in Gloucestershire and are still suffering now in Wales???  Probably because it's a hard one - that will cost RSPCA a lot of money - and the guilty party is known NOT to have substantial assets to claim costs from??

I recall a particularly petty attempt by the RSPCA some years ago to prosecute a lady who was in a nursing home, suffering severe dementia, because the person who was MEANT to be looking after her horses hadn't (and had disappeared.)  Despite the state of the unfortunate owner, the RSPCA continued to threaten prosecution because in her rare moments of lucidity, she refused to sign the horses over to the RSPCA!  Finally the BHS Head of Welfare at the time managed to head off the RSPCA and get the old dear to sign the horses over to BHS - and got the RSPCA to drop the threats of prosecution.


----------



## amandap (30 June 2013)

Hopefully the law defines animal chattels and differentiates between them and non living chattels. I don't view my animals in the same light as my car or my sofa!


----------



## lachlanandmarcus (30 June 2013)

amandap said:



			Hopefully the law defines animal chattels and differentiates between them and non living chattels. I don't view my animals in the same light as my car or my sofa!
		
Click to expand...

Sadly the law does if your horse or dog is stolen. Until that's changed, it seems a bit rum to insist on treating it more than a chattel when in the owners possession, a bit unfair really, which is why it is time that the law was changed to recognise the special nature of companion animals and come down blinking hard both on those who neglect them (after warnings) but Also those who steal them from loving owners.


----------



## webble (30 June 2013)

lachlanandmarcus said:



			Sadly the law does if your horse or dog is stolen. Until that's changed, it seems a bit rum to insist on treating it more than a chattel when in the owners possession, a bit unfair really, which is why it is time that the law was changed to recognise the special nature of companion animals and come down blinking hard both on those who neglect them (after warnings) but Also those who steal them from loving owners.
		
Click to expand...

Loving the use of the word rum here


----------



## amandap (30 June 2013)

It's all a 'rum do' and a total mess as far as I can see. Unfair pursuit of owners and animals left for months to suffer at the other extreme.


----------



## Moomin1 (30 June 2013)

amandap said:



			It's all a 'rum do' and a total mess as far as I can see. Unfair pursuit of owners and animals left for months to suffer at the other extreme.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it's unfair to pursue owners which neglect their animals at all.  As for all these articles which include owners who 'claim' that they are innocent and 'love' their animals, but just 'didn't get time' to take them to the vet etc etc, and that it was just a 'minor injury/flea infestation', well I'm afraid I don't swallow that rubbish and see these excuses day in day out - it's THE common excuse.


----------



## amandap (30 June 2013)

Moomin1, I was talking about the law in general. However, I have read so many stories about apparent unfair persuit over recent times I have to assume some have truth in them re RSPCA.


----------



## amandap (30 June 2013)

Pursuit even. Lol


----------



## Naryafluffy (30 June 2013)

RSPCA not doing very well at the moment, between this report and the report regarding Poppet the pony who was in a terrible state and they wouldn't take in leaving the pony with someone who was a good Samaritan and had called them because they wouldn't be able to treat a pony that was at deaths door, to be told by the RSPCA because they rescued it, they were responsible for it!!!
Afraid I stopped by donations to them years ago and help the local charities that use it for helping the animals instead of publicity campaigns.


----------



## webble (30 June 2013)

amandap said:



			Moomin1, I was talking about the law in general. However, I have read so many stories about apparent unfair persuit over recent times I have to assume some have truth in them re RSPCA.
		
Click to expand...

Hmmm no one is going to put their hands up and say 'yes fair cop' though are they


----------



## amandap (30 June 2013)

Of course not webble, it leaves those of us with no exprience of welfare orgs trying to sort out agenda (on all sides) from truth.


----------



## JanetGeorge (30 June 2013)

webble said:



			Hmmm no one is going to put their hands up and say 'yes fair cop' though are they
		
Click to expand...

That IS a fair comment BUT - it is pretty obvious from some of those stories (and others that I know of) that the RSPCA choses to go for 'easy hits'!  Now if they turned up at my place and tried to kick up a stink about something (perhaps my 22 year old brood mare, due next month, who we've struggled to keep condition on) they would be ordered off the farm - and their police 'entry pass' would be told in NO uncertain terms that the mare is under the care of my vet and they should speak to him if they have any concerns.  No RSPCA retained vet will take on a horse who is under treatment by its own vet! (Or if they tried, my vet would take them to BVA and crucify them!)

But most of the people they prosecuted in that article were ignorant of the law, and of the RSPCA's 'powers'!


----------



## Moomin1 (30 June 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			That IS a fair comment BUT - it is pretty obvious from some of those stories (and others that I know of) that the RSPCA choses to go for 'easy hits'!  Now if they turned up at my place and tried to kick up a stink about something (perhaps my 22 year old brood mare, due next month, who we've struggled to keep condition on) they would be ordered off the farm - and their police 'entry pass' would be told in NO uncertain terms that the mare is under the care of my vet and they should speak to him if they have any concerns.  No RSPCA retained vet will take on a horse who is under treatment by its own vet! (Or if they tried, my vet would take them to BVA and crucify them!)

But most of the people they prosecuted in that article were ignorant of the law, and of the RSPCA's 'powers'!
		
Click to expand...

See this is where it really makes me laugh - the amount of people who ACTUALLY believe that the RSPCA prosecute people when their animals are receiving veterinary treatment, and owners are following veterinary orders to the tee.  It is so misguided it's untrue.  Where they may prosecute, is when someone has taken their animal to a vet, been given treatment, or advice, but has not then continued to provide that.

Also, it is down to each person to be aware of the law, not a charity to then not prosecute them simply because that person neglected their animal through 'ignorance' of the law.  That's like saying that if someone isn't aware of the speed limit in a particular area, they shouldn't be prosecuted if they are caught doing 90 in a 40 area.

It is also down to the OWNER of the animal to provide the needs it has, NOT the RSPCA.  Any reasonable owner, like yourself by the sounds of things, has their animals under vet treatment if their condition is poor and they require further attention.  But in most cases, people who end up going through the courts use the ever popular excuse of "oh, well I used this stuff from the pet shop, but it didn't work, so I didn't know what else to do", or "Well, I was GOING to take it to the vet, but I don't get paid until next week/haven't got transport/am not insured/thought I would see how it went (like the cat with the severely injured tail in that article - what sort of person leaves it a few days to see how it goes?!).  I'm afraid, in my world, those excuses don't cut it.  You have animals, you look after them, and do your research/save/insure/have a contingency plan for emergencies.


----------



## tamsinkb (30 June 2013)

TBH I'm not surprised by any of the examples in the article...about 17 years ago I moved into a new property and there were 2 feral cats ( maine coons) in the garden.  They were in a bad way and so scared of people, so I started feeding them and gaining their trust.  A month  later I had a note through the letterbox from the RSPCA stating they were concerned about the welfare of my cats ( I could just about touch them when they were eating at this stage) I contacted the number and got berated about the fact that the cats has matts in their fur....I attempted to explain the situation but was told to 'take more responsibility'....so I did...2 weeks later I managed to get them both to the vets for a full MOT and the vets decided (having consulted me) to shave the worst matts off...cost me ( then a student) over £300 but was the best for the cats.  I then received another visit from the RSPCA threatening court action as having shaved the cats  they were more likely to get sunburn!!  I was damned if I did and damned if I didn't.... I now support a number of different animal charities  but not the RSPCA.


----------



## Alec Swan (30 June 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Moomin,  I've asked before,  and you've yet to answer me,  _"Does the senior management of the rspca,  and Gavin Grant in particular have your unqualified support"?_  I realise that the question puts you on a spot,  and that isn't really my intention,  but you've lambasted me in the past for my views,  and I feel that I've the right to ask you to qualify yours.  If you feel unable to answer,  then most would reasonably conclude that in fact he does NOT enjoy your unquestioning support.  If you hang on his every word,  then say so.

.......

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

So are we to gather from your silence that the question's a little tricky,  and that Grant's reported bullying of underlings has you fearful?

Alec.


----------



## Fenris (30 June 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			See this is where it really makes me laugh - the amount of people who ACTUALLY believe that the RSPCA prosecute people when their animals are receiving veterinary treatment, and owners are following veterinary orders to the tee.
		
Click to expand...

Quite apart from the fact that the SHG is dealing with several current cases where the RSPCA has seized animals and is prosecuting despite the owners own vet being present at the time and stating that they were responsible for the animals, the RSPCA has done exactly this in the past.  Remember the Griffins whose own vet tried to explain to the RSPCA and their vet and was ignored?

http://the-shg.org/28th January 2008.pdf

For those interested in flea cases see

http://the-shg.org/RSPCA hit with  bill for cruelty prosecution.pdf

[   . . . ]




			Also, it is down to each person to be aware of the law, 

[ . . . ]

It is also down to the OWNER of the animal to provide the needs it has, NOT the RSPCA.

[ . . . . ]

 what sort of person leaves it a few days to see how it goes?!).  

[ . . . ]

.
		
Click to expand...

And here was me thinking that the meaning of the word charity included compassion and helping people who find themselves in difficult circumstances.

No doubt in the RSPCA's world we would prosecute third world parents for having thin children in a famine.

And no doubt each of us who gets a headache will present ourselves at A&E demanding a brain scan in case we have a tumour instead of taking a couple of aspirin and seeing how it goes.  Pity about the NHS budget -What?  Can't we afford such a level of care?  But that is what the RSPCA is demanding of animal owners/keepers.


----------



## Alec Swan (30 June 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			........  I'm afraid, in my world, those excuses don't cut it.  You have animals, you look after them, and do your research/save/insure/have a contingency plan for emergencies.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to advise you that not everyone lives in your perfect and well ordered world.  The lives of some change,  and being cyclical those who once could cope,  perhaps now can't,  and with an attitude such as yours,  is it any wonder that the charity which you support is loosing support daily,  and in droves many are seeing the incompetence,  bias and what should be an embarrassing self promoting stance,  for what it is?

Moomin,  you seem to roundly ignore,  or fail to answer my questions,  so I'll ask another,  and this is just for clarity,  "Could you explain away the weighted rebukes which High Court Judges,  amongst others of the bench,  are now handing down,  regarding the waisting of Court time,  and the justification of such expense"?  

Sadly,  I suspect that your silence is because you have no clear answer.

Alec.


----------



## Moomin1 (30 June 2013)

Fenris said:



			Quite apart from the fact that the SHG is dealing with several current cases where the RSPCA has seized animals and is prosecuting despite the owners own vet being present at the time and stating that they were responsible for the animals, the RSPCA has done exactly this in the past.  Remember the Griffins whose own vet tried to explain to the RSPCA and their vet and was ignored?

http://the-shg.org/28th January 2008.pdf

For those interested in flea cases see

http://the-shg.org/RSPCA hit with  bill for cruelty prosecution.pdf

[   . . . ]



And here was me thinking that the meaning of the word charity included compassion and helping people who find themselves in difficult circumstances.

No doubt in the RSPCA's world we would prosecute third world parents for having thin children in a famine.

And no doubt each of us who gets a headache will present ourselves at A&E demanding a brain scan in case we have a tumour instead of taking a couple of aspirin and seeing how it goes.  Pity about the NHS budget -What?  Can't we afford such a level of care?  But that is what the RSPCA is demanding of animal owners/keepers.
		
Click to expand...

The RSPCA helps people day in day out Fenris, but of course, this doesn't make good reading in the Daily Fail, which is mainly fuelled by followers of your wonderful SHG.  

I suppose this guy needed to be 'helped' by the RSPCA did he?  

http://www.winsfordguardian.co.uk/news/9723030.Cockfighting_offender_fined___50_000/

I have no doubt whatsoever that he would have recieved all the support he needed from the SHG too.


----------



## Fenris (30 June 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			The RSPCA helps people day in day out Fenris, but of course, this doesn't make good reading in the Daily Fail, which is mainly fuelled by followers of your wonderful SHG.  

I suppose this guy needed to be 'helped' by the RSPCA did he?  

http://www.winsfordguardian.co.uk/news/9723030.Cockfighting_offender_fined___50_000/

I have no doubt whatsoever that he would have recieved all the support he needed from the SHG too.
		
Click to expand...

Yes he did.  Note that he pleaded not guilty.  But of course, the RSPCA knew all about certain problems that were never aired in court.  They always seem to target the elderly and vulnerable.


----------



## be positive (30 June 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			See this is where it really makes me laugh - the amount of people who ACTUALLY believe that the RSPCA prosecute people when their animals are receiving veterinary treatment, and owners are following veterinary orders to the tee.  It is so misguided it's untrue.  Where they may prosecute, is when someone has taken their animal to a vet, been given treatment, or advice, but has not then continued to provide that.

Also, it is down to each person to be aware of the law, not a charity to then not prosecute them simply because that person neglected their animal through 'ignorance' of the law.  That's like saying that if someone isn't aware of the speed limit in a particular area, they shouldn't be prosecuted if they are caught doing 90 in a 40 area.

It is also down to the OWNER of the animal to provide the needs it has, NOT the RSPCA.  Any reasonable owner, like yourself by the sounds of things, has their animals under vet treatment if their condition is poor and they require further attention.  But in most cases, people who end up going through the courts use the ever popular excuse of "oh, well I used this stuff from the pet shop, but it didn't work, so I didn't know what else to do", or "Well, I was GOING to take it to the vet, but I don't get paid until next week/haven't got transport/am not insured/thought I would see how it went (like the cat with the severely injured tail in that article - what sort of person leaves it a few days to see how it goes?!).  I'm afraid, in my world, those excuses don't cut it.  You have animals, you look after them, and do your research/save/insure/have a contingency plan for emergencies.
		
Click to expand...

Reality is not so clear cut, the average owner will try off the shelf treatment for something such as fleas in the first instance, give it a few days to see if it works before trying something else or going to the vets.

As for injured animals, yes a vet should be involved but they are not infallible and often say give it a few days and see how it goes, even when the owner asks for further tests and xrays, is fully insured, a horse of mine went nearly 6 weeks with a fracture because of a stubborn  vet refusing to look beyond her original, incorrect diagnosis, if the RSPCA had seen him when he was stressed and in pain they may have wanted to intervene, who would have been open to prosecution me or the vet?


----------



## Moomin1 (30 June 2013)

be positive said:



			Reality is not so clear cut, the average owner will try off the shelf treatment for something such as fleas in the first instance, give it a few days to see if it works before trying something else or going to the vets.

As for injured animals, yes a vet should be involved but they are not infallible and often say give it a few days and see how it goes, even when the owner asks for further tests and xrays, is fully insured, a horse of mine went nearly 6 weeks with a fracture because of a stubborn  vet refusing to look beyond her original, incorrect diagnosis, if the RSPCA had seen him when he was stressed and in pain they may have wanted to intervene, who would have been open to prosecution me or the vet?
		
Click to expand...

I can guarantee you, in that instance, no. If the owner has sought vet attention, and are following all veterinary advice, then no owner will be prosecuted.  They may however be advised that perhaps they seek a second opinion from a different vet, if it is glaringly obvious that the vet used is making a dire mistake.  

As for the fleas - yes, you are right, a lot of people would try over the counter stuff, which is why I think it should be banned tbh.  I also agree, that most reasonable owners would try it, and if it didn't work, would then consult a vet, try a different product ie one from a vet.  I would bet every penny in my account that the person in that article in fact DID NOT do so, and that the allergy/reaction had been a long ongoing problem and they did not follow advice given.

I am finding it almost amusing the warping on these cases that the Daily Fail and such like undertake.  One thing that I don't find amusing, is the potential damaging effect on animal welfare they may cause.


----------



## moosea (30 June 2013)

Having previously worked at a local rspca branch I would never support this 'charity' again. 
During the time I worked there I witnessed animals being PTS for financial reasons.

I also witnessed the rspca refusing to attend to stray, injured animals and therefore leaving animals to suffer - strangely they never prosecuted themselves for this.


----------



## Moomin1 (30 June 2013)

moosea said:



			Having previously worked at a local rspca branch I would never support this 'charity' again. 
During the time I worked there I witnessed animals being PTS for financial reasons.

I also witnessed the rspca refusing to attend to stray, injured animals and therefore leaving animals to suffer - strangely they never prosecuted themselves for this.

Click to expand...

Can I ask who said the RSPCA wouldn't attend an injured stray animal?  Do you mean the branch you worked for?


----------



## moosea (30 June 2013)

Not only the branch I worked for but also the emergency telephone centre.


----------



## Moomin1 (30 June 2013)

moosea said:



			Not only the branch I worked for but also the emergency telephone centre.
		
Click to expand...

Well, I can guarantee that the RSPCA national society attend sick and injured strays daily.  Healthy strays, no.


----------



## moosea (30 June 2013)

Well that's not what happened with the pony Poppet is it?


----------



## moosea (30 June 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Well, I can guarantee that the RSPCA national society attend sick and injured strays daily.  Healthy strays, no.
		
Click to expand...

Well I have personally witnessed two occasions where this did not happen so your guarantee is void


----------



## Moomin1 (30 June 2013)

moosea said:



			Well I have personally witnessed two occasions where this did not happen so your guarantee is void 

Click to expand...

So you say


----------



## moosea (30 June 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			So you say
		
Click to expand...

yes I do say.


----------



## Moomin1 (30 June 2013)

Did you ring both of them in?

What information did you give, and what was said back?


----------



## moosea (30 June 2013)

I'm not prepared to go into great detail of either incident.

However, I can tell you that one incident was reported to the local branch by a member of the public while I worked there, regarding an injured cat. They were told that no help could be given as it was a stray.

The second incident was reported by myself to the telephone centre, regarding an injured dog. I was told that the rspca do not attend strays.


----------



## Moomin1 (30 June 2013)

moosea said:



			I'm not prepared to go into great detail of either incident.

However, I can tell you that one incident was reported to the local branch by a member of the public while I worked there, regarding an injured cat. They were told that no help could be given as it was a stray.

The second incident was reported by myself to the telephone centre, regarding an injured dog. I was told that the rspca do not attend strays.
		
Click to expand...

And so the local branch was at fault in first instance.  If you worked there, why didn't you do something?

Secondly, what did you say was wrong with this stray dog? What were the circumstances? Why are you reluctant to go into detail?  You are not releasing names or places, so no probs


----------



## moosea (1 July 2013)

It was not within my remit to provide a response to the first incident.

I will not go into further details because I do not wish to do so with strangers on a public forum.

The rspca, in my opinion has become a politically motivated organisation, which I suppose is better than the ' cash cow' which it became several years previously.
I see no evidence that animal welfare is at the heart of the organisation.

I realise that it is hard for you and some other supporters of the rspca to accept criticism of the organisation. While your loyalty is admirable, it is my opinion that the rspca has lost touch with the expectations of the general public and risk a funding crisis in the future. 

When independent judges are criticising the decision to prosecute vulnerable individuals the rspca should take notice and act appropriately to ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated.

In my opinion, every prosecution is a failure of 'inspectors', as it is their job to inform and assist people with animal welfare issues. And, yes I do understand that there are cases where this failure has no other option but to to lead to prosecution, but this should be a last resort.

While monies donated by the public is used to prosecute pensioners and vulnerable pet owners I will not support the rspca. Nor will I support an organisation where animals are pts for financial reasons while funds are spent on the pursuit of petty cases through the courts.


----------



## FairyBasslet (1 July 2013)

Moomin1 said:



			Also, it is down to each person to be aware of the law, not a charity to then not prosecute them simply because that person neglected their animal through 'ignorance' of the law.
		
Click to expand...

If everyone was fully aware of the l the RSPCA would be unable to operate as they rely on people not knowing that the organisation has no power over them! 

What we really need  is a police division to deal with animal welfare.
They would be accountable to the public(unlike the RSPCA) and bring prosecutions in line with the law via the CPS(unlike the RSPCA) to enforce welfare legislation without political bias (unlike the RSPCA, who are consumed  with their own agenda).






Moomin1 said:



			I am finding it almost amusing the warping on these cases that the Daily Fail and such like undertake. One thing that I don't find amusing, is the potential damaging effect on animal welfare they may cause.
		
Click to expand...

The RSPCA damage the cause for animal welfare all by themselves.
We desperately need this unregulated,uncountable organisation disbanded or at least kicked back into it's kennel.




			We ask the government to investigate the RSPCA's activities, especially where they infringe civl or legal rights.

Responsible department: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The RSPCA use "bully boy" tactics against innocent members of the public to bring prosecutions. They often infringe on citizens civil and legal rights. 
They misuse funds which have been donated by members of the public specifically for animal welfare for their own political gain in bringing these often vexatious prosecutions. This petition asks that the government investigate fully the actions of the RSPCA, ensure that they are unable to prosecute anyone as that is the remit of the CPS and ensure tighter rules are in place from the charities commission to prevent registered charities from using funds for political lobbying or bringing private prosecutions.
		
Click to expand...

The petition is at around 8,800 signatures. I and many others would very much like to put this un democratic organisation under scrutiny if it wishes to continues to exist on public money.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43807


----------



## khalswitz (1 July 2013)

This is very interesting reading! I hope you all don't mind if I put my oar in... Firstly, I'm in Scotland, so we don't have the RSPCA here, but I can input on some points compared to our SSPCA.

Firstly, Alec's point about owner's providing adequate treatment depends on what that treatment is. According to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, there's a hell of a lot of things owner's aren't allowed to do, including diagnose their own animals. Your example of sheep isn't a particularly applicable one as one of the exemptions of the Veterinary Surgeons Act is farmers medicating and treating their livestock (not including surgical intervention). General pet owners CAN'T do this with their own pets, by law. So acting to provide adequate treatment is dodgy ground, really. Even wormers and de-flea treatments are technically supposed to be controlled sale substances, and only Suitably Qualified Persons (SQPs) are allowed to sell these, so technically you are seeking a form of veterinary treatment in purchasing these.

Secondly the point about strays. I know our local SSPCA takes in stray cats and small animals, but the local council Dog Warden deals with stray dogs - therefore the SSPCA centre and inspectorate aren't allowed the deal with stray dogs. However, my auntie's local branch has the local stray dog contract with the council, so they do deal with strays in their area. Therefore, different branches may have different procedures with strays according to council contracts etc - not just because they don't want to attend strays! WRT cats, our local branch does accept stray cats, but works with Cats Protection so that CP deals with ferals, and the SSPCA doesn't. 

Not that I'm defending these organisations, because there is a huge gap between the high ups and those at ground level looking after the animals and dealing with public, which puts a lot of pressure on those just trying to do a good job. However, I think they do a lot more good than they do harm, which people do forget about...


----------



## khalswitz (1 July 2013)

This is very interesting reading! I hope you all don't mind if I put my oar in... Firstly, I'm in Scotland, so we don't have the RSPCA here, but I can input on some points compared to our SSPCA.

Firstly, Alec's point about owner's providing adequate treatment depends on what that treatment is. According to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, there's a hell of a lot of things owner's aren't allowed to do, including diagnose their own animals. Your example of sheep isn't a particularly applicable one as one of the exemptions of the Veterinary Surgeons Act is farmers medicating and treating their livestock (not including surgical intervention). General pet owners CAN'T do this with their own pets, by law. So acting to provide adequate treatment is dodgy ground, really. Even wormers and de-flea treatments are technically supposed to be controlled sale substances, and only Suitably Qualified Persons (SQPs) are allowed to sell these, so technically you are seeking a form of veterinary treatment in purchasing these.

Secondly the point about strays. I know our local SSPCA takes in stray cats and small animals, but the local council Dog Warden deals with stray dogs - therefore the SSPCA centre and inspectorate aren't allowed the deal with stray dogs. However, my auntie's local branch has the local stray dog contract with the council, so they do deal with strays in their area. Therefore, different branches may have different procedures with strays according to council contracts etc - not just because they don't want to attend strays! WRT cats, our local branch does accept stray cats, but works with Cats Protection so that CP deals with ferals, and the SSPCA doesn't. 

Not that I'm defending these organisations, because there is a huge gap between the high ups and those at ground level looking after the animals and dealing with public, which puts a lot of pressure on those just trying to do a good job. However, I think they do a lot more good than they do harm, which people do forget about...


----------



## Goldenstar (1 July 2013)

I have said it before but I will say it again the state should be taking the lead in prosecuting animal welfare causes not a charity.
The charity could then follow it own agenda at will and everyone could be 'happy' .the situation will become in time untenable on both sides.
At least the police and the CPS are accountable and monitored.
This is no longer a benign organisation I would help without question.


----------



## LittleRooketRider (1 July 2013)

Also flea allergies are pretty common how can a competent owner not know about it as a possibility??[/QUOTE]

i think this is a very unfair comment as  firstly the reaction was caused by using the shampoo which was done with the intention of helping their dog  and it doesn't matter how competent you are in any sphere you will never know everything and just because they made a mistake it does not mean they are abusing/neglecting their animal....we all make mistakes none of us are perfect not even the most 'competent owner'.


----------



## Jesstickle (1 July 2013)

Alec Swan said:



			Moomin,  you seem to roundly ignore,  or fail to answer my questions,  so I'll ask another,  and this is just for clarity,  "Could you explain away the weighted rebukes which High Court Judges,  amongst others of the bench,  are now handing down,  regarding the waisting of Court time,  and the justification of such expense"?  


.
		
Click to expand...

I too am interested in Moomin's answer to this. 

They won't answer though. They would rather ignore it and pretend it isn't happening. 

Also, no idea why they keep citing the Fail when that is a Telegraph article?


Moomin, I am sorry but I think you do the RSPCA more harm than good with your refusal to concede that there may, just possibly, be some less than perfect parts to the charity. I am realistic, I see they do lots of good, I am curious as to how they justify these cases,I suspect they can't and don't when a high court judge tells them to stop time wasting which is why they don't comment when journos ask them, and yet you are convinced they can do no wrong.  If you were more realistic then people would listen to you more. You just sound like someone with their head buried in the sand which means everyone just writes you off as a maniacal loony which does the cause you are so keen on no good what so ever.


----------



## Alec Swan (1 July 2013)

khalswitz said:



			.......

....... According to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, there's a hell of a lot of things owner's aren't allowed to do, including *diagnose* their own animals. 
....... General pet owners CAN'T do this with their own pets, by law. So acting to provide adequate treatment is dodgy ground, really. 

..........
		
Click to expand...

To diagnose is to consider,  in the case of a health or injury question,  and then form an opinion and I can assure you that there is no Law in this land to prevent an owner from forming a diagnosis.  I'm none too sure what you mean by "Dodgy ground",  but if an animal owner wishes to diagnose,  and as far as they are able,  to treat their animal,  then the choice is still there's,  for now!

There are certain medicines and drugs which are on sale to the public as over the counter requests,  and can be passed from one person to another and without licence,  and then there are what used to be known as the PMLs,  but are now known as POMs.  If you google NOAH,  it'll give you the facts.

There are still,  a great many medications which are freely available and without prescription or licence.

Alec.


----------



## doriangrey (1 July 2013)

Jesstickle said:



			I too am interested in Moomin's answer to this. 

They won't answer though. They would rather ignore it and pretend it isn't happening. 

Also, no idea why they keep citing the Fail when that is a Telegraph article?


Moomin, I am sorry but I think you do the RSPCA more harm than good with your refusal to concede that there may, just possibly, be some less than perfect parts to the charity. I am realistic, I see they do lots of good, I am curious as to how they justify these cases,I suspect they can't and don't when a high court judge tells them to stop time wasting which is why they don't comment when journos ask them, and yet you are convinced they can do no wrong.  If you were more realistic then people would listen to you more. You just sound like someone with their head buried in the sand which means everyone just writes you off as a *maniacal loony *which does the cause you are so keen on no good what so ever.
		
Click to expand...

Lol, that made me laugh!  Actually, I have no opinion on the RSPCA because I've not had any direct dealing with them, but I have been following the threads/stories - although as I live in Ireland it's not really applicable to me.  However, I will say this - that if you work for the RSPCA Moomin (although you say you don't), I would have fired you long ago for your appalling customer liaison.  And if you don't - then I would be frantically trying to stop you from acting as some sort of unofficial spokesperson.  You seem to be doing more harm than good.  For instance - why are you arguing on a forum instead of privately trying to find out why people are seemingly having problems?


----------



## 1stclassalan (2 July 2013)

As in all things - I like the Law and prosecutions to be fair. At the moment they are not because the entire edifice is base on adversarial combat - I'm 100% right and you are 100% wrong - grovel and die!!!

Unfortunately, real cases are often just as open and shut which lends authority to the opinion that the rest are too and if a prosecution fails - you've only "got away with it" rather than being maliciously persued.

If the R.S.P.C.A.  were really interested in preventing animal cruelty - fishing would be banned! It's only because it's far easier to endear cuddly fox cubs to the public than a slimey fish that they go after Hunts so much - if one form on hunting is bad - so are ALL the others! 

Foxes used to be classed as "vermin" - fish never have ( regardless of the rights and wrongs of that!) Hunts are criticized for chasing a fox till exhaustion - but fisherfolk do exactly the same and stick a damn great hook in their quarry to boot! The whole idea of Hunting was to rid the farming community of a voracious predator - fishermen hardly ever eat their catch so all their cruelty is without purpose. Furthermore, fishing pollutes the river banks with line and tackle in a way that Hunting never has - in fact Hunting has preserved the look of the countryside that most yoghurt knitters seem to prefer! Irony or what?


It is not lost on me that the majority of anglers and fishermen are not the same class as your average huntin' folk and I'm afraid the anti-Hunt brigade are dyed in the wool believers in the ole British adage that has anyone on a horse as a rich and priviledged barsteward!


----------



## fburton (2 July 2013)

The fact that fish aren't mammals also needs to be borne in mind - different standards may apply.


----------



## FairyBasslet (2 July 2013)

1stclassalan said:



			If the R.S.P.C.A.  were really interested in preventing animal cruelty - fishing would be banned! It's only because it's far easier to endear cuddly fox cubs to the public than a slimey fish that they go after Hunts so much - if one form on hunting is bad - so are ALL the others! .......................................................It is not lost on me that the majority of anglers and fishermen are not the same class as your average huntin' folk and I'm afraid the anti-Hunt brigade are dyed in the wool believers in the ole British adage that has anyone on a horse as a rich and privileged barsteward!
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you-and it is all fuel to the fire that the RSPCA are too political.



fburton said:



			The fact that fish aren't mammals also needs to be borne in mind - different standards may apply.
		
Click to expand...

Fishing is not an issue as far as the law is concerned because they are catching wild fish, it has nothing to do with their place on the tree of life.

Pet,farmed and ornamental fish ARE all protected by the law of the land.

Funny then,that the culling of wild badgers and foxes is such a crime to the RSPCA, it is only the cute and cuddly ones they give a damn about.....I have yet to find anything about their stance on the use of cyanide to catch fish but hey ho- no money to be swindled protecting the uncute fish is there?


----------



## fburton (2 July 2013)

FairyBasslet said:



			Fishing is not an issue as far as the law is concerned because they are catching wild fish, it has nothing to do with their place on the tree of life.
		
Click to expand...

I think you'd find it would matter if it were wild dolphins!


----------



## amandap (2 July 2013)

Protecting all wild life is an interesting concept. There's enough opposition from some regarding the wild life that is protected.


----------



## Jesstickle (2 July 2013)

fburton said:



			I think you'd find it would matter if it were wild dolphins!
		
Click to expand...

Dolphins aren't fish 

See your poi t though


----------



## amandap (2 July 2013)

You see, this is what I can't understand. Why is one animal given more consideration than another? Why are fish less worthy of life and respect than mammals? We humans sit there the supposed intelligent ones and we decide for all sorts of arbitrary reasons. 

Why can't we look at these issues from moral and ethical perspectives rather than solely what use an animal is to us or what a pest it us or if it is deemed worthy of ethical consideration?

Is it moral or ethical to kill and hurt animals purely for our enjoyment? Surely, with our big brains we can find enjoyment in other ways?


----------



## fburton (2 July 2013)

amandap said:



			You see, this is what I can't understand. Why is one animal given more consideration than another? Why are fish less worthy of life and respect than mammals?
		
Click to expand...

The fish versus mammals issue partly concerns their relative ability to suffer, our assumptions about which come from what we know about their behaviour and sophistication of their nervous systems. That leads to different standards of treatment. Fish and mammals probably aren't so different, but these considerations explain why many of us don't feel bad about flooding wasps nests with cyanide whereas most of us would feel rightly outraged if the same was done to chimpanzees.

Of course, ability to suffer isn't the only thing that makes lives of animals worthwhile, and there are economic and other selfish reasons. However, I think many of us would also recognize an inherent worth in animal life, quite independent of any other consideration.




			Is it moral or ethical to kill and hurt animals purely for our enjoyment? Surely, with our big brains we can find enjoyment in other ways?
		
Click to expand...

Imo, it is highly unethical to kill or hurt animals just for our entertainment. In fact, I think that is simply wrong. Even when there are biologically justifiable reasons for killing (e.g. food, ecological management, medical research), I believe it is essential to try and minimize the suffering we cause in so doing.


----------



## amandap (2 July 2013)

Thank you fburton, I do understand that reasoning, however I think that ethics should be the starting point not the perceived reasons of their physiological ability to suffer. If you get my drift. I suppose I'm talking more about a human mindset.



fburton said:



			Even when there are biologically justifiable reasons for killing (e.g. food, ecological management, medical research), I believe it is essential to try and minimize the suffering we cause in so doing.
		
Click to expand...

I 100 % agree. I also believe we should continue to strive to minimize the distress and suffering in life as well.


----------



## weebarney (2 July 2013)

doriangrey said:



			However, I will say this - that if you work for the RSPCA Moomin (although you say you don't), I would have fired you long ago for your appalling customer liaison.  And if you don't - then I would be frantically trying to stop you from acting as some sort of unofficial spokesperson.  You seem to be doing more harm than good.  For instance - why are you arguing on a forum instead of privately trying to find out why people are seemingly having problems?
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree.  Inspector, fantasist or stalker? I have no idea.


----------



## FairyBasslet (3 July 2013)

fburton said:



			I think you'd find it would matter if it were wild dolphins!
		
Click to expand...

Dolphins are not fish and are not on the catch list for recreational fishing in the UK 
Granted the way in which the Chinese catch dolphin is sickening but also a little outside the RSPCA's jurisdiction so not relevant to this topic .



fburton said:



			The fish versus mammals issue partly concerns their relative ability to suffer, our assumptions about which come from what we know about their behaviour and sophistication of their nervous systems. That leads to different standards of treatment. Fish and mammals probably aren't so different, but these considerations explain why many of us don't feel bad about flooding wasps nests with cyanide whereas most of us would feel rightly outraged if the same was done to chimpanzees.
		
Click to expand...

Hang on there! Lets get this over with once and for all.
_There is NO_ fish Vs mammal issue when it comes to welfare and if you had read the legislation you would know that.

The law is really very clear,fish kept as pets have the same protection as a cat or dog. 
Fishing (commercial and recreational) is exempted because they are catching wild animals.
The level of protection by the animal welfare Act is purely down to the absence of a duty of care to wild animals.




fburton said:



			Imo, it is highly unethical to kill or hurt animals just for our entertainment. In fact, I think that is simply wrong. Even when there are biologically justifiable reasons for killing (e.g. food, ecological management, medical research), I believe it is essential to try and minimize the suffering we cause in so doing.
		
Click to expand...

I would hope we all agree on that


----------



## fburton (3 July 2013)

FairyBasslet said:



			Dolphins are not fish and are not on the catch list for recreational fishing in the UK 

Click to expand...

Quite - the point being that, overall, mammals are given more consideration than fish. 




			Hang on there! Lets get this over with once and for all.
_There is NO_ fish Vs mammal issue when it comes to welfare and if you had read the legislation you would know that.
		
Click to expand...

Not when they are pets, but I was talking about all animals including wild ones - and the RSPCA clearly concern themselves with those too.

We do seem to be talking at cross purposes though - not sure that's really necessary!


----------



## Fellewell (3 July 2013)

Someone gave me a feral kitten from Pompey docks years ago. He settled down after a few weeks and lived to a ripe old age but at which point did he stop being wild and become domestic?

What about lobsters? Apparently they are now stunned in restaurants before being boiled. Does that work? How long do they stay in tanks before they can be classed as pets?


----------



## MerrySherryRider (3 July 2013)

Interesting that Fenris starts yet another anti RSPCA propaganda thread and then disappears.

 I'm curious as to why he's so obsessed with the RSPCA because he never posts about anything else. That's a lot of posts on a single topic.


----------



## 1life (3 July 2013)

horserider said:



			Interesting that Fenris starts yet another anti RSPCA propaganda thread and then disappears.

 I'm curious as to why he's so obsessed with the RSPCA because he never posts about anything else. That's a lot of posts on a single topic.

Click to expand...

Had just started to ponder this point myself....

As much as there appears to be some people who don't like Moomin's obvious and unswerving support for the RSPCA and the work they do, there also appears to be some posters who are actively looking to discredit ANY work they do.

It is an obvious minefield, there is so much to any one story that we do not know. Yes, it is always possible to dredge up stories that appear to discredit any charity but there are numerous untold stories of successful outcomes.

Wasn't there an attempt before to start a newspaper that only reported 'good' news, but was (unfortunately) not a success? Hardly surprising though.


----------



## FairyBasslet (3 July 2013)

Fellewell said:



			Someone gave me a feral kitten from Pompey docks years ago. He settled down after a few weeks and lived to a ripe old age but at which point did he stop being wild and become domestic?
		
Click to expand...

Morally,ethically and  philosophically when would you like?
For the purpose of the law though, the moment you took it into your care as a pet.



Fellewell said:



			What about lobsters? Apparently they are now stunned in restaurants before being boiled. Does that work? How long do they stay in tanks before they can be classed as pets?

Click to expand...

They are not being kept as pets, they are being stored before cooking.
Reef lobsters that are sold as pets are,obviously,pets to the law.
Those caught for the pot are not.





1life said:



			As much as there appears to be some people who don't like Moomin's obvious and unswerving support for the RSPCA and the work they do, there also appears to be some posters who are actively looking to discredit ANY work they do.

It is an obvious minefield, there is so much to any one story that we do not know. Yes, it is always possible to dredge up stories that appear to discredit any charity but there are numerous untold stories of successful outcomes.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think many are blind to the good the RSPCA has done and continues to do.
The volunteers on the ground do a wonderful job raising much needed funds which are then sent to head office to be misused 

It needs to sack the idiot running it and go back to it's roots- caring for animals and educating owners.
The pseudo police force it has cultivated who not only have NO legal power but know they don't and use the compliance of law abiding public who assume the RSPCA are "special" abuse the very people who donate to it and is not fit for purpose.

Roll on the enlightened times when we final have a division of our police force dedicated to policing and enforcing our animal welfare laws.........


----------



## Fenris (3 July 2013)

horserider said:



			Interesting that Fenris starts yet another anti RSPCA propaganda thread and then disappears.

 I'm curious as to why he's so obsessed with the RSPCA because he never posts about anything else. That's a lot of posts on a single topic.

Click to expand...


Disappeared?  No, just got a life off message boards - and unfortunately work to do!

Never made any secret of the fact that I am a member of the SHG.  So why wouldn't I post on that topic?


----------



## Fenris (3 July 2013)

FairyBasslet said:



			The law is really very clear,fish kept as pets have the same protection as a cat or dog. 
Fishing (commercial and recreational) is exempted because they are catching wild animals.
The level of protection by the animal welfare Act is purely down to the absence of a duty of care to wild animals.



I would hope we all agree on that 

Click to expand...

The law protects wild animals that are  temporarily under the control of man.  That is why the people who killed squirrels were able to be prosecuted.

Catch your rat or fish and you have to treat it humanely or kill it humanely.


----------



## Alec Swan (3 July 2013)

1life said:



			...........

As much as there appears to be some people who don't like Moomin's obvious and unswerving support for the RSPCA and the work they do, there also appears to be some posters who are actively looking to discredit ANY work they do.

........
		
Click to expand...

I suspect that there may be those who feel that Moomin's apparent inability to hear a wrong word said,  when the facts quite clearly point to a poorly run and functioning charity,  then there will be those who will question such blind faith.  I'm amongst them.  I have not and will not _attack_ Moomin for her beliefs,  there's a thin and subtle distinction.  Indeed,  I admire her tenacity,  however misplaced I believe her efforts to be! 

When we read well reasoned and presented journalistic support,  of those who act as Court judiciaries,  who themselves,  without any apparent bias,  marvel at and question the morality of the obscene waste of donated money,  and are irritated at the perceived waste of our Court's time,  then with such fundamental flaws within the society's current and apparent ethos and ambition,  then those who criticise the rspca are going to,  quite naturally,  paint the whole society with a one-fits-all,  brush.  No,  it isn't right,  but it's the way that it is.

I'm surprised that the question of cruelty itself,  has yet to be raised.  I've never ridden to hounds,  but am a keen follower,  in every sense.  I do shoot,  and in the process,  I run the risk of losing wounded game.  When I shoot we always have an adequate team of dog-men who are picking up,  but there's always the chance that wounded game will die a dreadful and painful death.  By any definition this must be considered to be cruel,  but yet I still shoot,  as do many others.  If we shoot,  then we have to accept that we run the risk of intentionally causing cruelty,  however we may chose to dress it up.  Is it acceptable in our brave new world to continue with such apparently barbarous behaviour?

As I've said,  I don't actually hunt,  so have no particular axe to grind,  but how any group of people can campaign to bring hunting to an end,  base their argument on "cruelty",  and whilst all the time ignoring the fact that shooting is inherently more cruel,  is beyond me.  Hunting isn't actually cruel,  but it seems to me that the question of cruelty is a mere trifling,  compared to the political agendas of some.

Alec.


----------



## 1stclassalan (4 July 2013)

As I said before - fairness under the Law.

If there is doubious distinction between what is acceptable treatment of a "wild" animal kept "stored" for food and a pet - where are we? Hundreds of cases of mistreated non-pets? 

Me abusing a dog mate? Nah - I eat dogs all the time and found this one running wild - I just stuck this one in me garden for a bit and forgot it - thought I'd keep it alive for a while 'cos the freezer's full.  

I can remember ridiculing folk who criticised me for fishing ( I did a lot when younger ) "how can you be so cruel?" they said - "nonsense! You can see they actually enjoy being hooked - they're wagging their tails!"

My pond fish - a wide selection of types - are inteligent enough to recognise the difference between my wife's footsteps ( she doesn't feed them ) and mine. They have intricate social lives and body language that all species seem to understand and I have no doubt that they feel pain very similar to us mammals - the fact that they can't go madly about screaming actually makes hurting one worse rather than better to my mind.


----------



## FairyBasslet (4 July 2013)

Fenris said:



			The law protects wild animals that are  temporarily under the control of man.  That is why the people who killed squirrels were able to be prosecuted.

Catch your rat or fish and you have to treat it humanely or kill it humanely.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but that is because of different set of rules to those that govern the treatment of animals kept as pets.




1stclassalan said:



			As I said before - fairness under the Law.

If there is dubious distinction between what is acceptable treatment of a "wild" animal kept "stored" for food and a pet - where are we? Hundreds of cases of mistreated non-pets? 

Me abusing a dog mate? Nah - I eat dogs all the time and found this one running wild - I just stuck this one in me garden for a bit and forgot it - thought I'd keep it alive for a while 'cos the freezer's full.
		
Click to expand...

It's a clear cut distinction, I see no ambiguity.
We have a long and complex labyrinth of laws regarding what can and can not be collected to keep as a pet from our coastline and from which parts, so that lobster in the restaurant was caught be a commercial fisherman with a licence.
He then sold it to the restaurant as food, they then store it in a tank until a customer requests it be cooked.
That is clearly not a pet. 

Now the ethics of the thing are a minefield since so many ignorant folk seem intent on remaining oblivious to the facts and the fact that lobsters are inverts so lack the same level of protection offered to fish caught for food in the same seas.
But they are (apparently) tasty, and clearly useful for impressing gold diggers on dates so who cares right?
I dread to think how polluted those tanks are, proper care of a marine aquarium is both expensive and time consuming, it is an art as much as a science and those who keep marine life are every bit as dedicated to their life consuming hobby as riders are.
I seriously doubt your average waiter or restaurant manager either knows or cares enough to keep the tank healthy for those pot lobsters. 

For so many reasons,if I see a tank of lobsters waiting for the pot I will walk out immediately.





1stclassalan said:



			I can remember ridiculing folk who criticised me for fishing ( I did a lot when younger ) "how can you be so cruel?" they said - "nonsense! You can see they actually enjoy being hooked - they're wagging their tails!"

My pond fish - a wide selection of types - are intelligent enough to recognise the difference between my wife's footsteps ( she doesn't feed them ) and mine. They have intricate social lives and body language that all species seem to understand and I have no doubt that they feel pain very similar to us mammals - the fact that they can't go madly about screaming actually makes hurting one worse rather than better to my mind.
		
Click to expand...

I agree.
As a new member(and so an outsider looking in) I see an admirable desire to do the best by horses who can not speak for themselves with an absurd amount of money being spent on rugs and feeding supplement for horses that would be A-OK without them because their owners are desperate to ensure every whim and need is met.
Yet those self same people think products to remove chlorine and chloramines from tap water are a rip off and test kits are a scam too-no need to look at water chemistry for our delicate pets unable to escape the pollution, the water LOOKS clear so all is well.
They refuse to educate themselves before buying fish a user who had a handful of fancy goldfish in a 60 litre Biorb for example,who thought it was genuinely FUNNY that the tank was too small by half- the fish were alive and that was all that counted!.

I hope and pray that those abusing their goldies don't take it into their heads to buy some Nemos when "Finding Dorey" hits the screens, ignorance on the part of people buying A.Ocellaris after "finding Nemo" without any research into the challenge they were taking on led to the sad demise of many thousands of those poor fish while still tiny babies


----------



## TallyHo123 (4 July 2013)

webble said:



			Exactly and leaving an animal to suffer is a criminal offence.

It makes me so so cross that stories like these hit the headlines but all the good work that is done every single day is never mentioned. I know there is some controversy with the head honchos but it must be soul destroying for the branch staff and those out in the field who work hard hearing things like this all the time

Also flea allergies are pretty common how can a competent owner not know about it as a possibility??
		
Click to expand...


I totally agree with this. Same as everything now, what the minority do end up making front page news but the majority of hard working, loyal staff who are working for the RSPCA as they are passionate about animal welfare are ignored.


----------



## Alec Swan (4 July 2013)

TallyHo123 said:



			........ Same as everything now, what the minority do end up making front page news but the majority of hard working, loyal staff who are working for the RSPCA as they are passionate about animal welfare are ignored.
		
Click to expand...

You are simply reinforcing the argument which has been made by most,  which is that the rank and file of the rspca,  are _"generally"_ shown respect,  but it's the leadership of the organisation,  the CEO and his lieutenants,  those who direct the charity,  who are responsible for the appalling standards of management and mis-direction.  Considering that it's probably those lieutenants who appointed Grant in the first place,  encouraging a return to a previous and respected ethos,  may well be hard work!!  

I suspect that if the rspca continues in the same vein,  then legislation,  or demands from the Charities Commission may well be the preferred tools.

Alec.


----------



## YorksG (4 July 2013)

TallyHo123 said:



			I totally agree with this. Same as everything now, what the minority do end up making front page news but the majority of hard working, loyal staff who are working for the RSPCA as they are passionate about animal welfare are ignored.
		
Click to expand...

It appears that along with all the other public sector/voluntary sector organisations, the majority of hard working moral employees with the RSPCA are ignored by their leadership and tainted with their political bias


----------



## Fenris (4 July 2013)

FairyBasslet said:



			Absolutely, but that is because of different set of rules to those that govern the treatment of animals kept as pets.
(
		
Click to expand...

No,it is the same Animal Welfare Act that protects both wild and pet/commercial animals once they are under the control of man.  The difference is only that pet/commercial animals are classed as always under the control of man and wild animals are only temporarily under the control of man - when they are caught in a trap etc.

I suspect it is only a matter of time before the first prosecutions of fishermen.


----------



## Fenris (4 July 2013)

For those interested in fish the RSPCA have prosecuted for cruelty to a fish in the past.  As I said only a matter of time before the first fishermen have to stand in court and justify 'playing' with the fish on a hook because it was temporarily under the control of man.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2012/dec/21/louis-cole-ate-goldfish-rspca

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-goldfish-alive-shocking-YouTube-stunt.html

You might wonder about the legality of the police arresting someone who refuses to give an interview to a private organization with no powers!


----------



## Fellewell (4 July 2013)

_Experience is something you don't get until after you need it_

This is especially true of animal ownership. We're seeing diseases in animals now that just weren't around or weren't prevalent years ago. Even the professionals are struggling to keep up. So the average owner is going to mess up now and then because experience is an ongoing thing. Save the serious stuff for those who deserve it like whoever is responsible for that coloured yearling in Bristol recently.
Seems to me the RSPCA are heading for an animal rights agenda, this to me is an emotional almost knee-jerk reaction which seeks to create an ecological heirarchy which is totally unworkable.
We are the custodians here and animal husbandry (which includes culling) is a duty, not a choice IMO.


----------



## 1life (5 July 2013)

Fenris said:



			Disappeared?  No, just got a life off message boards - and unfortunately work to do!

Never made any secret of the fact that I am a member of the SHG.  So why wouldn't I post on that topic?
		
Click to expand...

So, realistically, your opinions are going to be as biased as someone who unfalteringly supports the RSPCA. You won't look at the bigger picture and will, in fact, actively seek to discredit. I'll bear that in mind when I read your posts.

Alec - I wrote a reply to one of your responses and then my computer wiped it...what a waste of time! To try and squish it into one sentence - In my opinion, Moomin prefers to look at the front line of the RSPCA and their work (rather than internal hierarchy) as they are usually in the job for the right reason (not political, purely wanting to help animals).


----------



## Alec Swan (5 July 2013)

Fenris said:



			.......

I suspect it is only a matter of time before the first prosecutions of fishermen.
		
Click to expand...

I take it that you're including those who are deep sea fishermen in this?  I suspect that you're daydreaming! 

Alec.


----------



## JanetGeorge (5 July 2013)

1life said:



			To try and squish it into one sentence - In my opinion, Moomin prefers to look at the front line of the RSPCA and their work (rather than internal hierarchy) as they are usually in the job for the right reason (not political, purely wanting to help animals).
		
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that MOST RSPCA inspectors - and virtually ALL the people who work at local branch level - ARE there for the right reasons and are striving to improve animal welfare.  Unfortunately, their jobs are often made harder by the people at the top (who control the purse strings!!)  Animal WELFARE drives them - but the politics often makes it difficult (at least!)


----------



## Lizzie66 (5 July 2013)

Fenris said:



			You might wonder about the legality of the police arresting someone who refuses to give an interview to a private organization with no powers!
		
Click to expand...

The police wouldn't be arresting him for failure to give an interview, they wouuld presumably be arresting him in respect of the alleged breach of the Animal Welfare Act.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (5 July 2013)

I think the police arrested him for cruelty. Anyone who films themselves eating a live fish and posts it on the internet for entertainment should be arrested. 

 The RSPCA was founded by a group of men -some MP's, including William Willberforce, the anti slavery and animal welfare campaigner and Richard Martin MP who managed to get one of the first pieces of legislation passed for animal welfare, Martins Act.
 It was from their campaigning that they founded the RSPCA, when they realised that magistrates weren't enforcing the Act.

 Richard Martin brought the first prosecution against a man who was beating his donkey. He brought the donkey into the court room to show off its wounds and the owner was found guilty.  They saw one of the charities role's as increasing legislation for the protection of animals and bringing abusers to justice. 

Richard Martin was subjected to ridicule and hostility for his animal welfare work  but right from those early days, the RSPCA knew that if legislation wasn't enforced by them, no one would bother. 

Nothing's changed, nearly 200 years later. The RSPCA still attracts hostility from some for its work in bringing to justice people who think causing suffering to animals is their right.


----------



## elijahasgal (5 July 2013)

Someone sent the RSPCA out to me. Horses were all in fantastic condition, the only problem was mud on the ground in february.
I got harassed for months.
I had tried to show them the horses in full condition, and the mud was the only thing they could fault, but it didnt stop them.
They did the same to another friend of mine, at the other end of the country, out of over 40 horses in her care, they could only fault that a couple (who were booked in for a couple days and had only just arrived and were very difficult) needed their feet trimmed. 
Harassed for months.
We both agree the best answer now is to not allow them any access as they have no right to enter the land. Both we know were phoned in by people who in my case wanted my horse, and in hers, as she was suing a local stud for treatment of her horses while there, by them.
Yes they do some good work, but they have become too political, and the attacks and harassment on mistaken calls, the need to proove their worth by harassment, and not taking action on major cases like spindles farm until it was soooo bad, even though they had been having complaints for years about them have caused a lot of people to loose confidence and trust in them


----------



## Fenris (5 July 2013)

Lizzie66 said:



			The police wouldn't be arresting him for failure to give an interview, they wouuld presumably be arresting him in respect of the alleged breach of the Animal Welfare Act.
		
Click to expand...

Why?  Either the police are intending to use their powers to investigate a possible offense or they are abusing their powers.  Interestingly PACE Code C appears to state that if the police have arrested someone only the police can interview them:


PACE Code C provides that:

1.13 In this Code:
(a) designated person means a person other than a police officer, designated under the Police Reform Act 2002, Part 4 who has specified powers and duties of police officers conferred or imposed on them;
(b) reference to a police officer includes a designated person acting in the exercise or performance of the powers and duties conferred or imposed on them by their designation.

1.15 Nothing in this Code prevents the custody officer, or other officer given custody of the detainee, from allowing police staff who are not designated persons to carry out individual procedures or tasks at the police station if the law allows. However, the officer remains responsible for making sure the procedures and tasks are carried out correctly in accordance with the Codes of Practice. Any such person must be:

(a) a person employed by a police authority maintaining a police force and under the
control and direction of the Chief Officer of that force;

(b) employed by a person with whom a police authority has a contract for the
provision of services relating to persons arrested or otherwise in custody.

1.16 Designated persons and other police staff must have regard to any relevant
provisions of the Codes of Practice.

It therefore appears to be unlawful for anyone other than a police officer or person employed by the police authority and under the control and direction of the Chief Officer of that force to interview a person who has been arrested.


----------



## Fenris (5 July 2013)

1life said:



			So, realistically, your opinions are going to be as biased as someone who unfalteringly supports the RSPCA. You won't look at the bigger picture and will, in fact, actively seek to discredit. I'll bear that in mind when I read your posts.
		
Click to expand...

I hope that  I have always been able to supply sources or good reasoning to back my posts.  It has never been my aim to discredit for the sake of discrediting.  My aim is proper, professional prosecutions when necessary by an organization that is properly regulated and which has an independent complaints procedure or ombudsman.  If that is bias then so be it.


----------



## Fenris (5 July 2013)

For those with 'fishy' interests. 

http://theterramarproject.org/thedailycatch/do-fish-feel-pain-the-debate-continues/

Note that I think the issue should not be whether fish feel pain in the same way as humans feel it. 

It is very clear that every organism is supplied with a feedback mechanism designed to encourage it to avoid harmful situations. Even an amoeba moves away from adverse stimuli.  Why?  Because failing to do so is unpleasant in some way.

No-one can tell you if you and I feel pain in the same way.  Some people have a high pain threshold.  Some will yell for what appears no good reason.  The bottom line is that if it hurts you or is in some way unpleasant then you want it to stop.

Do I think that fishing should be stopped?  No.  Big fish eat little fish live.  Do fish suffer more or less if eaten by a human?   If no difference then is the welfare issue anything other than a wish to control the actions of others?


----------



## FairyBasslet (6 July 2013)

horserider said:



			Nothing's changed, nearly 200 years later. The RSPCA still attracts hostility from some for its work in bringing to justice people who think causing suffering to animals is their right.
		
Click to expand...

Aha, do you really think the only people who dislike what the organisation has become have a more sinister axe to grind?
Laughable!

The origins of the RSPCA are noble and we should thank them for being a beacon in dark times.
_However_ the task of enforcing law is for the police alone. The RSPCA should long ago have focused on working with MP's towards the creation of an "animal cops" specialist division so that those with the proper powers to arrest,investigate and prosecute were making sure the law is abided by. 
They did not. They choose to cling onto a think veil of imagined power and the ego kick of being (in their minds) the only ones who care about animal welfare.

THAT is the problem.



Fenris said:



			No-one can tell you if you and I feel pain in the same way.  Some people have a high pain threshold.  Some will yell for what appears no good reason.  The bottom line is that if it hurts you or is in some way unpleasant then you want it to stop.
		
Click to expand...

Quite so.
And of course that is why we need to give a swift end to anything we intend to eat/cull ect.- I have never understood why some people persist in thinking some animals do not feel pain, as it is clear that everything living wants to go on living and is capable of feeling pain.
It is inhumane to let pain go on for longer then then absolutely necessary.



Fenris said:



			Do I think that fishing should be stopped?  No.  Big fish eat little fish live.  Do fish suffer more or less if eaten by a human?   If no difference then is the welfare issue anything other than a wish to control the actions of others?
		
Click to expand...

You can see them poor b*ggers trying to find an escape after being eaten by a frog fish, they live for a fair bit after.
Difference is of course that if we continue to pretend we are more then simply another animal and maintain the illusion of civilisation we place upon ourselves a duty of care to the animals we have for companions,work and food.
I also would not advocate the end of fishing, but I think the how needs to change.
Shark fishing for example was leading to the near extinction of many species, until some bright spark had the genies idea of only allowing fishing IF the sharks were tagged, measured and the data returned to a welfare group to help protect them.
 The fisherman still gets the thrill of landing a whopper, but also the warm fuzzy feeling of protecting and not harming our oceans.


----------



## Fenris (6 July 2013)

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/p...tory-19481946-detail/story.html#axzz2YCr5HBK7


----------



## MerrySherryRider (6 July 2013)

FairyBasslet said:



			Aha, do you really think the only people who dislike what the organisation has become have a more sinister axe to grind?
Laughable!

The origins of the RSPCA are noble and we should thank them for being a beacon in dark times.
_However_ the task of enforcing law is for the police alone. The RSPCA should long ago have focused on working with MP's towards the creation of an "animal cops" specialist division so that those with the proper powers to arrest,investigate and prosecute were making sure the law is abided by. 
They did not. They choose to cling onto a think veil of imagined power and the ego kick of being (in their minds) the only ones who care about animal welfare.
		
Click to expand...

'Creation of animal cops' ? Good luck with that one. I'm sure the RSPCA and all the other welfare agencies that use their specialist prosecutions dept, (the RSPB, WHW and others) would love the CPS to save them money and resources so they could just care for animals in need. 

Perhaps the anti's could campaign for the creation of a state funded animal welfare prosecution service- particularly as DEFRA had to hand over their own role in legal prosecutions to the CPS as they weren't competent enough.

I guess it's easier for its critics to whinge about the RSPCA's faults than it is to do something positive. 
I have little respect for that.

Yes, I do think a large number of critics are malicious, like those who set up web sites solely to discredit and write propaganda or join forums to post only with malicious intent.


 Some critics simply aren't informed enough about the work of the RSPCA and its orgins and jump in the bandwagon. 

 Others are politically motivated and are prepared to try and destory our National welfare charity because it supports a law they disagree with. -The cock fighters, the Fox and Stag hunters and those who wish to kill birds of prey to protect game birds.
 And the last group- the abusers who think they have a right to starve and beat an animal because they own it.


----------



## 1life (7 July 2013)

JanetGeorge said:



			There is no doubt that MOST RSPCA inspectors - and virtually ALL the people who work at local branch level - ARE there for the right reasons and are striving to improve animal welfare.  Unfortunately, their jobs are often made harder by the people at the top (who control the purse strings!!)  Animal WELFARE drives them - but the politics often makes it difficult (at least!)
		
Click to expand...

Which is how it is in so many organisations...including our local pc!

The workers on the front line must find it very annoying when the only thing that gets attention is negative publicity that some people seem intent on finding. The 'good news' paper never was a success though, I suppose.


----------



## Alec Swan (8 July 2013)

1life said:



			.......

The workers on the front line must find it very annoying when the only thing that gets attention is negative publicity that some people seem intent on finding. The 'good news' paper never was a success though, I suppose.
		
Click to expand...

What intrigues me is the display of blind faith,  when the obviously disillusioned,  armed with the fact that those who direct them have lost their way,  seem incapable of revolt.  Few would contest or disagree that those on the front line are committed and caring people.

Change is better when it comes from within,  and legislation and demands (the clipping of wings) are far less effective.

The welfare of animals is a subjective topic.  It isn't a topic which has clear boundaries,  and I suppose that it isn't a question which can be easily dealt with by the Police or the CPS,  UNLESS it falls within the bounds of the breaking of,  or the disregard for clear and established statute book legislation.  For example,  those who can provide evidence of people hunting,  should present that evidence to the CPS and allow them to decide upon whether to prosecute,  or not.  It is not the place for a charitable society to decide upon who faces prosecution,  and who doesn't.  Regardless of whether an rspca prosecution is successful,  or not,  its very existence will assure the charity of a swelling of the coffers derived from donations.  

The CPS is governed by and generally follows,  guide lines.  The rspca,  having been given a freedom,  a freedom I'd add which has no support in law (they have no right of entry,  and no right to seize goods),  has and continues to behave in a fashion which has nothing to do with justice or fairness,  and everything to do with a political and a perceived class bias,  a bias which doesn't actually exist but is manufactured.  

The rspca also seem to wield a banner of a self proclaimed authority,  and one which few seem able to,  or willing to stand up against.  The said charity have their opinions sought on subjects as varied as NH jump fences,  and the welfare conditions of animals going for live export,  and the reality is that they generally seem to manage to make matters worse!! Why others listen to them,  is beyond me. 

I've still to get my head around the fact that the hunting of a fox is considered to be cruel,  whilst commercially farmed and fished,  fish,  which are drowned in oxygen to end their lives,  and the fact that animals follow one another in to a slaughter hall,  possibly aware that all is not well,  and complete with the attendant stress,  are facts which are overlooked by the charity concerned.  The charity concerned would probably argue that one case is achievable,  but the other isn't,  which would lead us to consider that the said charity are only interested in achievable targets.

I will repeat my previous thoughts;  We need an rspca,  but not as it is in its current form and with its current and apparent objectives.

Alec.


----------

