wildlife - memorandum of understanding

Re: wildlife - memorandum of understanding

Rob Loxley — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:23:41 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]alleviate suffering of all animals[/quote]

and in furtherance of this aim the RSPCA must work with vets to treat stray/injured animals (be it pets, wildlife etc.). A large amount of money is donated to this end and are vets being unreasonable to ask the RSPCA to come to and operate a sensible working agreement with the veterinary profession?

Re: wildlife - memorandum of understanding

J G Wray — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:03:52 GMT

[quote user="Lorna McHardy"]Never had a high opinion of them... priorities skewed, misleading advertising, failure to do what they're supposed to be about. [/quote]

Dear Ms McHardy and everyone else,

The RSPCA is a charity. It has Trustees which oversee the activities of the charity. Their role is also to check that those activites meet their "charitable aims" expressed in their mission statement "The RSPCA as a charity will, by all lawful means, prevent cruelty, promote kindness to and alleviate suffering of all animals."

Explicitly it does not exist to benefit its members or, frankly, veterinary surgeons and hasn't since 1824. I believe the RCVS Charter is dated 1844 so we're the juniors in some respects in this equation.

Vets cannot change the RSPCA. They can however emphasise their own efforts and where they coincide with the RSPCA or are contracted to work for the RSPCA charge for them and take what recompense is negotiated in any MoU. That's what the BVA/BSAVA survey is about. Once this is in place vets socially responsible actions as a corporate will be evidenced and the MoU strengthened. Isn't that what everyone wants or is there an agenda to reform the RSPCA here?

JGW

Re: wildlife - memorandum of understanding

plantagenet — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:25:27 GMT

I did and must again and follow it up - but slipped down a bit in my mental in tray, till this reminded me.

Re: wildlife - memorandum of understanding

Rob Loxley — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:14:31 GMT

[quote user="plantagenet"]I also suspect they are not registered for data protection so should not, so aggressively, be obtaining and storing the names and addresses of people who call them or are random finders of injured strays/wildlife[/quote]

If you are sufficiently interested, you should be able to look up their data protection register entry online

Re: wildlife - memorandum of understanding

plantagenet — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 08:51:28 GMT

We recently managed to screw some money (or rather promise of money) out of the RSPCA for a stray cat, but they tried to withdraw the offer because we phoned them >48h after the member of the public. The 48h was a busy weekend and I'm on my own. I managed to get through to someone senior and pointed out that since I was treating a malicious injury, their refusal to pay would look great in the local paper. Stranglely the offer of some minute sum was refreshed, although we haven't got it yet.

What I object to is why I should subsidise wildlife and stray treatment, no one has left me money to do so.

I wouldn't put an old button in an RSPCA collection box.

I also suspect they are not registered for data protection so should not, so aggressively, be obtaining and storing the names and addresses of people who call them or are random finders of injured strays/wildlife

Re: wildlife - memorandum of understanding

Sally Everitt — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:59:43 GMT

The consultation is looking at all aspects of the Memorandum of Understanding, not just wildlife and can be accessed at http://www.bsava.com/Advice/Consultations/tabid/196/Default.aspx

Sally

Re: wildlife - memorandum of understanding

Bob Russell — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:26:14 GMT

There are two similar threads running side by side and things are getting a bit blurred! The MOU is not working because vets treat wildlife FOC and RSPCA fund emergency treatment for 'strays'. They expect us to do our bit but are getting a bit forgetful about their side of the bargain!

Re: wildlife - memorandum of understanding

Utlendigur — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:41:13 GMT

Just going back to the title - is it just about wildlife? (link doesn't seem to work/is incomplete) I was under the impression the existing MOU expected vets to treat/euthanase wildlife for free when it was brought to the surgery during normal hours (the only payments were if it was a large species such as deer)

Re: wildlife - memorandum of understanding

Clive Ansell — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:11:06 GMT

£50 is ridiculous and doesn't even touch the sides! most consult fees are £25-£30. They shouldn't receive any discount and should be charged a reasonable market rate for the work, otherwise they are effectively being subsidised by full fee paying clients.

I have had a recent case; stray cat brought in by RSPCA inspectorate, un-neutered male with terrible flu signs and terrible mouth. not really handleable so used convenia initially and advised revisit for euga, felv/fiv test and dental once it was decided who was paying. RSPCA refused to pay for convenia injection as one of their bean counters decided it did not constitute "emergency treatment" . The local branch eventually paid for it along with the dental work, but we had to argue for it.

Pain in the a*** and better off without it in my view.

Re: wildlife - memorandum of understanding

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:37:39 GMT

Back to OP £50 won'tcover an OOH consult fee,let alone any treatment I've had problems when the treatment was done in normalhours,and the totalbill was less than £60 they've only paid for drugs, not the consult fee

Wynne

Re: wildlife - memorandum of understanding

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:34:34 GMT

Inspectors-I have great admiration for them there's < 350 to cover the whole of England and Wales, the police refuse to investigate animal crime because the Inspectors do their statutory duty for them I couldn't do their job-they have to remain polite with the most horrible evil people

Headquarters-waste of very expensive space

Local branches-good and bad depending on the branch committee-I have come across some which are very good-others treat the veterinary profession as enemies-so surprise surprise we're reluctant to co-operate with them To be fair, this insane "only rehome if someone home all day " policy I believe is imposed by headquarters-are they still living in 1952 not 2012 like the rest of us ?

Wynne

Re: wildlife - memorandum of understanding

Bob Russell — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:15:57 GMT

Unsolicited package from the RSPCA, envelopes for people to use for recycling mobile phones and ink cartridges. Straight into the bin! I support better charities!

Re: wildlife - memorandum of understanding

Judith Joyce — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:00:54 GMT

We are having huge problems with RSPCA. Their regional manager chap is an offensive and quite unpleasant character.

Problems seem to centre around their propensity to use cheap practices during the day but come nights, weekends or bank holidays, they come to us because their cheap day-time practices have closed and the RSPCA is reluctant to use the deputising services. Consequently, we get a disproportionate amount of OOH cases and numerous "dumped" wildlife cases.

We are more than willing to enter into sensible discussions but in this day and age, £60=00 doesn't buy much veterinary treatment, especially in the middle of the night.

Malcolm N

Re: wildlife - memorandum of understanding

Lorna McHardy — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:39:04 GMT

Never had a high opinion of them... priorities skewed, misleading advertising, failure to do what they're supposed to be about. Somebody should write out the definition of 'prevention' and stick it to their collective foreheads. And at branch level, the one I had most to do with over many years was run by a capable, caring, indefatigable woman who had the unfortunate policy of re-homing only to people at home all day. Yep... all day. Thus actively selecting for owners unable to afford to look after their 'rescued' animals.

Since living in Scotland, I'm also more than a little irritated by the RSPCAs habit of advertising here although they do nothing for animals in Scotland, and making a tidy sum out of it because people think they do. Meanwhile, the SSPCA, without the RSPCAs humungous budget, is unable to compete in terms of fundraising.

Bah.

Re: wildlife - memorandum of understanding

Bob Russell — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:02:26 GMT

We don't deal with the RSPCA unless the thumbscrews are applied. It is often a disgrace to the word charity. It is a business through and through and will do anything to keep outgoings down and income up.

It is amazing how many clients also seem to have a healthy contempt for the RSPCA as an organisation.

The reason vets charge an average of £50 is because we subsidise the work we do or are unable to do much because the RSPCA would not pay enough towards the work to even cover costs.

Dogs Trust seem to have gone the same way.

Disgraceful!

Mr Angry (New Forest)

Re: wildlife - memorandum of understanding

Mark Holmes — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:23:08 GMT

Thankfully I work with the SSPCA who I have always found to be excellent and whereas I would be lothe to pay for an RSPCA postage stamp I would wholeheartedly support the SSPCA in full. That said I have friends sound of the border who labour in enforced slavery, shackled by their bonds to the RCVS and whipped by the RSPCA.

My advice has always been the same. Offer nothing more than euthanasia.