RSPCA - what is the point?

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Louise Buckley — Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:47:04 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

It's still dishonest to use money given by the public to treat strays, Pets at Home should factor a certain % requiring veterinary treatment into their sale prices. Quite frankly, I'm totally disgusted at charity money being stolen to subsidise a commercial undertaking.

You may think my use of the word stolen a little harsh, but one thing no-one has ever accused me of is an unwillingness to call a spade a spade.

Wynne

[/quote]

I work part time in a Companion Care within a Pets @ Home store. The P@H store, through their support adoption scheme, has helped us to rehome clients animals that have come in to be PTS for whatever reason (e.g. snuffles in a recently rescued rabbit - owner had other rabbits an didn't want to risk it getting into her colony) - obviously with the client's permission. I haven't been able to fault them for this - they even arranged for the rabbits to be neutered - despite the fact that the adoption donations are often only about £10. I am also heavily involved with my local dog rescue centre - who have several rabbits they cannot rehome after several months of trying. Support Adoption are going to take these to rehome as well. I am not aware of our local centre using Support Adoption funds to support vet treatment of their own animals. It is possible I guess but I am not aware this happens as we have a separate account at our CC for both sides of things.

In terms of fundraising for the fund, one of the fundraisers they have is a pay day staff lottery - with about 50% (possibly more) of money raised going to the charity and the rest to the winners of the lottery. The Pets @ Home staff at my store seem to be really proactive about trying to fundraise - doing cake bakes, etc. I don't think they would be quite so proactive (given they must pay for the cake ingredients, etc out of their own pocket) if they thought it was just a scam that enabled P@H to shed its costs in a charitable guise.

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Bob Russell — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:18:43 GMT

I am not trying to explain away the situation but the unbelievable weather conditions (remember flooded Fields) have taken their toll. Was it possible to get a vehicle to the body to remove it?

A professional that was there decided there was insufficient evidence of unnecessary suffering (to prosecution standard). If the weather was a factor the suffering may not have been avoided.

A horse died two fields along from us during the storm on Friday night.

Rushing to judgement is what Facebook is for and perhaps we should be more cautious before a colleague gets hanged, drawn and quartered.

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Wren — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:13:43 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

. Animals up to their fetlocks in mud so owner had obviously failed to protect against disease - mud fever.

[/quote]

My two eventers are currently stood in mud well up their cannon bones. Neither have ever had mud fever, nor have I taken any particular steps to prevent it.

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:06:58 GMT

1 horse dead and another too weak to stand !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember there were even 2 veterinary surgeons prepared to defend Jamie Grey.

Wynne

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Bob Russell — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:49:56 GMT

The RSPCA spokesman said the horses had dry land to walk on and were provided with hay to eat.

He said: “We are in touch with the owner regularly and we will continue to monitor these horses and the public can be assured we will attend any calls made to the RSPCA.

and:

A police spokeswoman said: “We have spoken to the owner of the horses and are satisfied no criminal offences were committed.”

So you have acted as judge and jury to convict and strike off a vet despite these assurances?

There are flooded fields everywhere and conditions are difficult for many horse owners. Perhaps you should get in your car, go and inspect the horses and report the vet to the RCVS yourself. The video I have seen shows a pretty typical group of pony's in a muddy field. We have three pretty pissed off horses in our fields and a lot of mud.

I think I would be a little reluctant to accuse one of my colleagues of being a disgrace to the profession without a lot of proof!

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:29:54 GMT

Headline: 21,000 join a Facebook campaign to save horses left to die in muddy field.

Horses owned by traveller who breeds them for meat. Photo of unburied carcass posted to start the petition. RSPCA visited, 2nd animal in such poor condition it had to be put down. This animalcouldn't get up, and it took 6 firemen to pull it free of the mud. Animals up to their fetlocks in mud so owner had obviously failed to protect against disease - mud fever.

Horses were on derelict land near Leicester's Fosse Park retailpark so not an area badly affected by flooding

RSPCA said they couldn't prosecute because a veterinary surgeon (disgrace to the profession !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) had ruled there was no clear evidence the horses were suffering unnecessarily.

The decision disappointed farrier Mark Johnson not exactly an ignoramous about horses, so he launched the petition.

I'd love Royal College to get involved, go out to see these poor horses, and if they agree with Mark Johnson, then strike off the veterinary surgeon - permanently.

I'm dreadfully disappointed at both the veterinary surgeon, who's ruling flies in the face of all evidence, and also the RSPCA who should have gone for a 2nd opinion, and then prosecuted the evil owner,who deserves a £20k fine per horse,51 weeks imprisonment, and a lifetime ban on keeping animals.

Wynne

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:42:29 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] Some evil evil people were only breeding horses in the 1st place for meat- how evil to the core some people are.[/quote]

I can't see anything intrinsically evil in that.

But

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]The poor poor horses have now been abandoned to die in a muddy field. Some have already died, yet the RSPCA claim they can't do anything as the law hasn't been broken !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

Can you tell us what the article actually said (confining your précis to the facts)? Because on the face of it there is a clear offence against the Animal Welfare Act:................."likely to cause unnecessary suffering".............. and the RSPCA are generally very keen to prosecute on those grounds.

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:14:48 GMT

As a rule (see above ) I'm supportive of the RSPCA, but I'm totally disgusted by an article on today's Daily Mail. Some evil evil people were only breeding horses in the 1st place for meat- how evil to the core some people are. The poor poor horses have now been abandoned to die in a muddy field. Some have already died, yet the RSPCA claim they can't do anything as the law hasn't been broken !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quite frankly, that beggars belief. It's more likely that the horse owners are highly dangerous, unpleasant people,and the RSPCA are scared. That's how the evil Prices ( notorious travelling family) have got away with it for so long.

Wynne

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:37:42 GMT

Total agreement David.

Wynne

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

David Mills — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:16:20 GMT

Not going to enter into a debate on this really because it's been said before but just to point out some facts:

- Local councils have a statutory duty to deal with stray dogs, injured or otherwise

- Dog wardens have to have a 24h provision for strays dogs, injured or otherwise - this often takes the form of a tame vets for injured dogs and a 'drop off point' for non-injured out of working hours.

- RSPCA inspectors/collection officers will, and often do, pick up injured dogs reported by a member of the public and take them to a vets for treatment

A bit of opinion on the selcouth logic banded about by the OP:

- under the code it is your duty to provide pain relief or euthanasia FOC. Why should the RSPCA pay for that?

- funny, isn't it, a profitable private enterprise relying on a charity to pay for a bit of (marked up) morphine for a being we are supposed to be oath-bound to ensure the welfare of?

- peculiar turn of logic to flip this onto the RSPCA when the policy has been around for so long. How many stray dogs do you get?

- Is your gripe ethical or financial? Be honest now.

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Niall Taylor — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 16:33:20 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]It's pretty old: http://www.bva.co.uk/public/documents/RSPCA_MoU_BVA_chart_071207.pdf (member access needed) is dated Dec 2007[/quote]

"INJURED PETS – OWNER UNKNOWN

"During the working day contact should be made with the local RSPCA branch to seek authorisation."

This dog was paraplegic though - completely off its back legs and in considerable pain. The RSPCA had paid a minimum amount in such cases up to the week before without a problem - I wonder if this is just some over-zealous numpty on the phone, but really, their whole attitude to such cases is totally chaotic and contradictory. It should not depend on which individual you talk to, or what mood they happen to be in, whether an animal in pain gets treatment or not, they should be able to do it properly.

Still fizzin',

Niall

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Mark Holmes — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 22:24:41 GMT

SSPCA brilliant, absolutely brilliant. We have clients with health and learning disabilities who they will collect for their appointment if they cannot get a taxi. They are totally different to the RSPCA who I wouldn't donate an old button. They are sensible and pragmatic - I cannot see a situation where they would raid a pensioner and leave her sat in the garden whilst killing her pets. They tend to work with and support those in difficulty rather than prosecute. I would describe them as firm and fair where as I would describe the RSPCA as extremist (amongst other adjectives)

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Michael Woodhouse — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:59:30 GMT

The MOU states they will treat injured pets, but uninjured dogs are the local councils responsibility.

We are short of kennels and flatly refuse to accept an uninjured dog. Will scan FOC in working hours.

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 20:16:26 GMT

I too have nothing but praise for RSPCA I nspectors. They do an exremely difficult job very very well. I know if I tried to do it, I'd just lose my temper, and would probably end up on a murder charge, having throttled a bad owner on my first morning.

The current national council are (imho) taking the organisation in an overly political direction, and in the process squandering badly needed funds on causes of dubious (that's me being diplomatic) scientific justification but they still do far more good than harm.

Wynne

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Julie Innes — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 20:01:44 GMT

I know it's a different organisation, but I've found the SSPCA up here pretty good. I have a pretty good working relationship with them, which works to both our advantages at times. They have their own vets, but when their vets are not available they bring animals to me (and other vets) and I always get paid (obviously I charge them much reduced consultations etc). I have gone to court on their behalf for animals they have seized for neglect/ mistreatment, and the inspectors are hard-working and concientious- I have seen some really shocking cases via them, and they are very professional, despite the abuse they often get from owners. I have also in the past had a quiet off-the-record word with them about certain clients, and they have handled things really well- eg. house visity to Old man with collapsed GSD, urine scalding, faecal scalding etc. Really sad case, as old man just refusing euthanasia for the dog, not through any malice but just because he was so upset and in denial. I couldn't leave him and the dog in that situation, so had a quiet word with one of the inspectors who went round and gently persuaded the old guy to let the dog go, even brought him and the dog to the surgery in his van, and stayed with him through the process before taking him home . I think they (the SCOTTISH SPCA!) do a pretty good job

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 19:20:24 GMT

You may think my use of the word stolen a little harsh, but one thing no-one has ever accused me of is an unwillingness to call a spade a spade.

Wynne

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Rob Loxley — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 18:45:51 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

We seriously considered doing this, but struggled with the logistics. How do you prove 'stray' ??? I could envisage some clients seeing the collection box, and suddenly developing a stray cat problem. Also, to what extent do you treat strays?

I'd genuinely love to know how practices make this work.... as I think most of my clients would be happy to donate!

[/quote]

We have a wildlife/stray account that gets topped up by the charity box on reception. It mostly get used to pay for ongoing care of strays beyond the IET amount available (our local RSPCA branch has other committments running its own clinic).
Strays are strays - they never go back to owners.

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Neil Wheadon — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 18:14:11 GMT

I almost put a disclaimer in after this comment as I knew........

Consider the maths over Christmas (a busy time for small furries) Hundreds of rats, mice, guinea pigs and rabbits. What's the chance...

I come from a dairy farm and the expression was 'Where theirs livestock there's dead stock' With 1400 lambing ewes in a shed our shepherd had a pen he called 'The dead pen' well you know what sheep are like.

Options

1) Quietly euthanase them before they enter the store

2) Treat them by taking them to the vet.

They use there own staff to treat and I don't know the exact breakdown of where the finances comes from, but there must be a degree of company subsidy (heating, staff etc) Consider the rabbit, £140 of treatment, that's a lot of tin rattling for a single store

Neil

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 18:00:18 GMT

Donations being used to treat animals too sick to sell !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Neil. Those animals, until they're sold are the legal property of the company, who are legally liable for their veterinary treatment, in exactly the same way as any other owner.

Using the fund to treat dumped animals is praiseworthy. Using it to treat animals which are company property is distasteful, and possibly dishonest.

Wynne

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Neil Wheadon — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:53:02 GMT

[quote user="emma o'connor"][quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]

I worked in a Vets4Pets recently that had a stray fund.

Basically clients could pay into an account that was kept for treating stray animals

[/quote]

I'd genuinely love to know how practices make this work.... as I think most of my clients would be happy to donate!

[/quote] We have a welfare fund at work, not advertised to clients in general, mostly staff donate to it and fund raise for it. This is used to cover the costs of blood tests, drugs, any consumables used when treating strays. We have stray cats on a regular basis in our kennels as our local rescues are full, and we have found the RSPCA to be useless. Any stray brought in that is not identichipped is health checked and given any medical attention required. They are then looked after in our kennels for seven days to see if any owner comes forwards, we use social network pages to try and locate owners. If after seven days no one has contacted us we look to re-home them. Many end up with staff but we also have a waiting list of clients looking to take on cats as well. The welfare fund is then used to microchip them before they go and neuter them if they are still entire. The new owners are asked to make a donation back to the fund which they all do. It works really well for us.

[/quote]

Yes this is how the Vets4pets scheme broadly works too. There isn't a collection tin, just an account which surplus money is moved into.

I've also encountered a Pets at Home scheme (we're not the only profession to have animals dumped) They have an adopted account where donations to the store are used to treat either those dumped or those animals that are too sick to sell and those that are returned a few days later by clients. The fund is used to nurse these back to health and they are then 'sold' to clients and the funds put back in the adoption fund. Apparently 3 legged hamsters find homes easily.

I've just 'cured' a dumped rabbit with ear mites and have now spayed it ready for re-homing, all done with the generosity of the company.

Neil

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:49:31 GMT

Gerry I agree with you on that one - especially as (imho) hunting is a more humane way of controlling foxes than poisoning (also ilegal, but more difficult to detect) snaring, or shooting. I'm not saying the RSPCA are perfect, I disagree with aspects of their policy, and in recent years they have become considerably more political, but animals would be much much worse off without them.

Emma. Veterinary treatment of stray animals (beyond absolute basics - euthanasia really ) would be up to the local branch, not central RSPCA. I v'e come across local branches that are excellent, local branches that are useless, and those in-between. It all depends on the local committee.

Wynne

Re: RSPCA - what is the point?

Gerry Henry — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:38:04 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

We've just had an elderly, paraplegic, painful, stray Labrador brought in by a local junior school.

As is our usual practice we phoned the RSPCA to obtain a log number and some funding to cover pain relief and first aid only to be told, by two seperate people, that the RSPCA no longer issues any funding for dogs and in future all requests for such will have to go through the dog warden.

Pathetic - and they didn't even have the decency to let us know in advance of this massive change of policy.