Just heard about this on C4 news

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7102322.ece

Well I hope that if it becomes more difficult to dump unwanted dogs, then perhaps it will make some people think harder before buying so easily. :(

I don't think it will make people think harder though.

My guess is more animals will be dumped in the middle of no where, either left to starve or god knows what if they end up in the wrong hands.

My local rescue told me how bad it was at the moment they said due to the recession with people throwing there dogs out on to the street.

Plus surely an abandoned animal is a case of cruelty?

Figures in article said they had income of £118 million in 2008 and spent £11 million on prosecutions in 2008. = £107 million surplus, even taking off the HUGE amount they pay for MPs to lobby for them in parliament and wages etc HOW can they say they cannot afford it. They are also still listing this 'home for life' **** on their site.
GGGrrrrrr talk about boiling blood etc

I wonder if they now regret alianating the show world in the way they did - after all we were the folks that ran dog shows to raise money for them , made donations and left bequests -

Yvonne

Well that doesn't surprise me one little bit!!!!
If they can kill dogs with a dead bolt gun to save money , they can can surely turn away needy dogs!!!
I feel for all the small local rescue's that are going to end up taking the extra strain.

The Small rescue that used a block of my kennel had to close because they ran out of money.
The donations are not there at the moment.
With the Bid Rescues taking the pick from the pounds the smal Rescues are finding it hard to rehome as well.
It is a big circle.
Heart Breaking

Lobbying to have statutory powers is where the money will/is going not to animal welfare they are gearing up and have been for many yrs to be the animal police not a charity at central level.

It serves the RSPCA right after alienating the pedigree dog people like that, but alas it is the animals who will suffer. :-(

I don't think it's only the pedigree dog owners who they have alienated. All animal owners have come to realise that the RSPCA prefer to get publicity from TV programs showing them 'saving' wild animals and birds (think pidgeons - seagulls - squirrels etc which are classed as vermin in cities) and spend the money donated by the public on other campaigns, rather the than proper animal rescue that they were set up for in the past. I think they will get even less money donated to them now. Support your local rescue centres and Breed  rescue instead. I do.

Will much change any way?

The RSPCA were never really a rescue, although I suspect they do 'cherry pick' animals likely to make them money,  they turn most away by pointing owners to other rescues or telling them their full, I've lost count of the number of people who have phoned me to re home their springer who have been told that a 6 or 7 dog should be put to sleep because it is unlikely to find a home, and this with out even assessing the dog, around half of all dogs going through their doors are killed any way so maybe it's not such a bad thing for the dog unfortunate enough to end up in their hands.

I read it as just another PR stunt to bring more donations in, much like the RSPCA centre closing up north because of lack of money, the one where BNP chipped in to keep it open, there's certainly not a lack of money in the bank for issues that the RSPCA consider important, sadly actually helping re home animals isn't really in the RSPCA remit any more.

When I heard this on the news last night, I think I am right in saying that the RSPCA made around about £20 million profit last year??!! (I think that is what they said, I might be wrong)!

And the KC helps them by donating thousands of pounds each year too!

I have no issue with them targeting dog fighting if they want to be animal police, BUT I do not think they should be allowed to think of themselves as the Animal Police, and be a charity. Personally I think the RSPCA needs sorting out from the top down, as they seem less and less concerned about animals and more concerned with image and making money.

just a thought to put in the pot A)Should they as a consequence of there shift from rescue/welfare to a legislation seeking body have there charitable status reviewed ? B) As they have drastically changed there remit since its granting should there right to prefix there title with "royal"
be removed ?

Historically they were set up to prosecute people for animal cruelty (the NSPCC was founded on their success by prosecuting a parent for cruelty to 'an animal' - a child), not as a taker-in of strays.

Hi Polly, With regards the RSPCA policing dog fights/dangerous dogs they were useless when I was involved in DDA contract to police.
The first instance, that led to us having to (reluctantly) get involved in the contract was as a result of a young schoolgirl on a work placement at RSPCA being given a stack of dog bowls to feed a kennel block, no one thought of the fact that one of kennels contained a siezed pit-bull,
she entered kennel/run (not locked) with food bowl and was attacked. RSPCA re-acted by stating they would only accept D.Ds. if they could be put down within 7 days as this was not possible due to time taken for cases to be brought to court we were asked to take over the responsibility. At times RSPCA would turn up with animals that had not been involved in incidents! that "THEY"  decided were "DANGEROUS"
The classic example of this was a staffie mated to a doberman bitch and the resultant litter of aprox 5 weeks of age, neither sire or dam showed any agresive traits, indeed within half an hour of there arrival several of the k/maids were in the kennels with dam and litter reassuring her as she was confused and fretting, neither of these dogs had been involved in any incidents, just RSPCA deciding this was not a suitable mating and using  (at that time) a grey area in the legislation, all of these animals were later rehomed sucessfully.
To this day I  have seen/heard nothing to make me believe they have improved since those days (late 80s early 90s)
Stan Berry

"Not as a taker in of strays"
I agree it was not there initial remit, but it was one that they took on of there own choice, no one forced it upon them.
How many dogs are now either going to be dumped or inhumanely put down by uncaring owners as a result of this decission ?
A lot of funding comes from "old Mrs Goodbody" sticking her 10 pences in there tins to help the poor little dogs in the kennels,
She/they are not trying to support the RSPCA financially in there political agendas, perhaps they RSPCA should consider a more
straightforward approach and split its objectives between its rescue and its aspirations then the public could choose what areas it
wishes its money to go towards supporting. personally I feel it would be the rescue side that attracted the majority of donations
Stan Berry

Historically they were set up to prosecute people for animal cruelty (the NSPCC was founded on their success by prosecuting a parent for cruelty to 'an animal' - a child), not as a taker-in of strays.

I don't think they were JG ;)

At the very first meeting on June 16 1824 of what was to become the RSPCA, Richard Martin, one of the Founders is quoted as saying:-

    'The Society would not primarily exist to prosecute offenders. It would be ill judged for it to become known as a prosecuting Society. The prime aim should be to alter the moral feelings of the country.'

Given that quote from one of their founders I think they've lost their way and become a prosecuting animal, and by appointing lawyers and ex police chiefs to their committee they make their intentions very clear.

> Hi Polly, With regards the RSPCA policing dog fights/dangerous dogs they were useless when I was involved in DDA contract to police.
>

Hi Stan,

I was not clear. I meant that their undercover people working at targetting the dog fighting circles do a good job and it is fighting a form of cruelty, but not dogs listed under the DDA which I think they were and still are major players in and should not be, as like you I don't think a lot of them could tell the a*** from their elbow much less what dogs constitute a danger to the public.

Hi Polly, Sorry rereading my post I wasnt too clear either by putting fighting/DDs together. I support anything that helps combat the fighting of dogs (or any other animal) I saw more injured dogs after fights than I ever wished to see, I cant even watch acted fights shown on tv without a bad taste in my mouth. But I dont believe the RSPCA are the ones to be deciding if a dog is dangerous or not as a lot of there staff base there assumptions on the physical appearance of the dog and not its temperament. e.g. my post re staffie x doberman litter, at that time there thinking was that litter would grow to be larger than a standard staffie therefore = A pitbull type = dangerous dog
Stan Berry