There is an audio interview on Dog World with the RSPCA New Chief Executive Gavin Grant, he answers questions on RSPCA policies. Quite interesting although very long at 63 mins. Apparently he was banned for life by the KC in 1989 from attending Crufts or any other KC events.
I thought at times he was quite rude to the interviewer. Particularly when he was pressed about why the RSPCA do not work closer with breed rescue. Sorry I couldn't do a link, but if you click on news on the Dog World home page a link should come up.

He was banned and the RSPCA kicked out of Crufts for a really vile campaign they were running, and the pile of dead dogs photograph he had on display was made up, using the same dogs repositioned in a number different ways then through a photo shop style system available to the RSPCA they made the poster (which was huge). It upset a lot of dog lovers and they wanted it removed. The RSPCA were allowed back years later (I think Grant had retired by then), so many people think they have always been out for pay back on the KC and PDE gave it to them.

I wonder if that is why the RSPCA have brought him back after 21 years, perhaps it is because he has an axe to grind and it's pay back time.

> He was banned and the RSPCA kicked out of Crufts for a really vile campaign they were running, and the pile of dead dogs photograph he had on display was made up,

dear god, what the hell were they trying to do with the campaign?

>dear god, what the hell were they trying to do with the campaign?

They were trying to spotlight the horrifying numbers of healthy dogs that were abandoned or otherwise given up, couldn't find new homes and were put to sleep. I never could understand the outcry - after all, it's still going on.

Think it was the shocking poster and the fact that the information given was incorrect and known to be incorrect.

Posters about shocking situations sometimes need to be shocking. The fact that people still remember the poster shows that it was an effective image. How many people remember the poster of the campaign that was running at the same time?

>the fact that the information given was incorrect and known to be incorrect

How was it incorrect? Dogs were and are killed in their hundreds. That's the truth.

When it comes to the RSPCA, I personally think that everything they do is over-emotional, I also think that what they like to do is to distort the truth to suit their own concept of reality.
I have not seen any real hard facts and figures that relate the rescue related statistics to the overal numbers of animals in this country.
I also don't understand WHY animals MUST be PTS, there are plenty of no-kill shelters in the US who seem to manage to not PTS everything.
If we take just the figures I could find from a brief look online:
There are 7 - 8 million dogs in the country
The Dogs trust says that it had 15,323 dogs come through its doors in 2010
  7,344 were from a local authority or other rescue
  301 were born in the rescue
  7,678 were handed in
The RSPCA says that it rescued or collected 130,033 animals in 2010 - incidentally I can't find any actual numbers for dogs particularly
  Of those 130 thousand animals 64,086 were rehomed
  So 65,947 are unaccounted for
The figures for dogs coming into local authorities in 2011 according to the dogs trust are:
  107,228 dogs across the country
  Around 39% were reunited with their owners, so something like 41,000 were given back to owners
  6% were PTS, which is 7,121 dogs
If we take 100,000 dogs and 7.3 million dogs (as the lowest estimate), that is 1.821% of the overall dog population
If we take 200,000 dogs and 7.3 million dogs (as the lowest estimate), that is 2.739% of the overall dog population
So where is this rehoming problem coming from?

Incidentally the RSPCA got 2,441 convictions last year against people accused of cruelty - which considering our population size means that 0.003% of people are cruel enough to be convicted of animal cruelty

It is off the back of these sorts of figures that we are being told that all dog breeders are evil and that we face a tidal wave of animals looking for home!
If this sort of guff isn't true in America, why is it true over here?
http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/shelter-reform/

Probably be shot down in flames by many but I believe there are far worse things than releasing an animal from a life that has no quality to it. I see on some of the rescue sites dogs that have been in their kennels for years - what sort of a life is that for them? As loving and caring as some rescues are, to live for years in a kennel is not the life I would want for a dog - many of those dogs advertised as "Really needs to find a home - very stressed in kennels" or " We really can't understand why this dog has been here for 4 years" make me wonder why it is deemed that to live a life like that is seen as preferable to a gentle end to a life of little or no quality.

I have two rescue dogs myself so am not anti-rescue but there are not, and never will be, enough homes available for all the dogs that pass through rescue and I do believe that quality of life is far more important that quantity. In an ideal world there would be a home out there for every dog but that isn't the case and in reality it will never be.. so IMHO a long hard look is needed  at the type of life a long term rescue dog is living and more consideration as to whether it is a life of quality or not.

A no-kill policy is not necessarily the kindest option for all dogs - and human sentiments can  get in the way of doing what is right for the dogs    :-(

>6% were PTS, which is 7,121 dogs

Now if the RSPCA poster (from 30+ years ago - it was a powerful image!) showed all of those, how big would the poster have to be? In fact it showed just a tiny fraction of the reality, yet people were up in arms, thinking it 'disgusting'.

How was it incorrect? Dogs were and are killed in their hundreds. That's the truth.

That campaign was incorrect, which was proved after it. The RSPCA said something along the lines of 1000 dogs being put to sleep every day of the year and their own figures actually proved they had been lying. People who visited Crufts who had recently lost a much loved dog were upset and complained, and that's how the whole business came about. The poster was a campaign to get the dog licence back.

Obviously a dog spending it's life in kennels isn't a good thing, but no-kill does not mean that it has to.
The whole no-kill movement is about helping dogs to find homes, because the statistics say, in America at least, that there are considerably MORE homes available than dogs needing them.
The reason dogs sit in kennels is not down to lack of demand, but down to the rescues not approaching the problem effectively.
We have seen on here that rescues are turning people away, or putting them off, how does making it difficult to adopt actually help?
There are 7 - 8 million dog homes - owned by only 43% of the population, how can we not find homes for a few 100k of dogs or to put it more effectively 2 - 5% of the entire dog population.
It is sad that dogs are lost or abandoned, but I can't see how these figures constitute an overpopulation problem, or how they indicate that homes can't be found?
Maybe rescues need to rethink how they market themselves and their dogs, because there is definitely homes out there, they're just not using rescues to get their dogs.

> They were trying to spotlight the horrifying numbers of healthy dogs that were abandoned or otherwise given up, couldn't find new homes and were put to sleep. I never could understand the outcry - after all, it's still going on.

needlessly hideous way to do it :O

When the "softly softly, excuse me but did you know this happened?" approach is ignored you need to start hitting harder. And when you're the ones actually coping with the reality of holding dogs whilst their euthanased, or the one giving the injections, you'll do whatever it takes to wake people up and try to make it stop. So people didn't like to see it. Big deal. For some people it's their daily task, and they don't like it much either.

JG it was not the poster, although that was inappropriate viewing for the general public particularity young children, it was the fact that the poster had totally misleading information and it was known what was stated as fact was a figment of someone's imagination. And like most things that are over the top it was counter productive.

>it was not the poster, although that was inappropriate viewing for the general public particularity young children

I agree it was inappropriate for children, but not for adults. No way. Adults are the ones who're legally responsible for animals, so it's entirely appropriate that they're aware of reality and don't live in a rosy-pink airy-fairy land.

The complaints at the time were mainly that 'it wasn't nice to see'. Yes. Exactly. It isn't.

he complaints at the time were mainly that 'it wasn't nice to see'. Yes. Exactly. It isn't.
Quote selected text

No it wasn't nice to see, it was shocking, but anything that is just too much to take is blanked and that is what happened with most people they just did not look so it was counter productive, people can be led but not driven.

There were actually 3 things. 1. The poster. 2. The incorrect figures. 3. On their stand they had  a binliner stuffed with something and on it it said "This bag contains a dead doggy". None of it was appropriate for a dog show where children attended. BTW the year was 1989 so not 30 + years ago.

>The poster was a campaign to get the dog licence back.

No, it was a campaign to get registration for all dogs, so that owners and breeders could be more traceable and accountable. If it had happened the authorities might not have felt the need for the DDA.

The Crufts hoohah was in 89 but the poster was about before that, and it had been passed by the Advertising Standards Authority.

Having had a bad day at work and dealt with our own small pile of dead dogs, I feel very strongly that sometimes people need a reality check.

> When the "softly softly, excuse me but did you know this happened?" approach is ignored you need to start hitting harder. And when you're the ones actually coping with the reality of holding dogs whilst their euthanased, or the one giving the injections, you'll do whatever it takes to wake people up and try to make it stop. So people didn't like to see it. Big deal. For some people it's their daily task, and they don't like it much either.

that is a fair point, but I really don't feel that it is the right route to take. people who are reckless about this either don't care or don't face up to the reality of what they have done, even if you do slap them in the face with things like this. On the other hand it makes responsible people upset.

This article from the time says the ad campaign was launched earlier the same week.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/rspca-and-crufts-clash-on-poster-ban-1.640741

And here is the poster itself: http://www.sofii.org/node/167

Might be the language but as far as I am aware there is no difference between licence and registration, just two words for the same thing.

Having had a bad day at work and dealt with our own small pile of dead dogs, I feel very strongly that sometimes people need a reality check.

And why would preaching to the converted (i.e. the visitors and exhibitors at Crufts) do that? They are not the main people needing to be reached. I was at that Crufts in 89 and like somebody else mentioned, this sort of campaign makes you turn your head away as it's TOO hard hitting. They could have got a better effect by using a softer imagine, a cute puppy with vet and a syringe would have shown the message clearly and people would have been more likely to take note.

>the ad campaign was launched earlier the same week.

A friend of mine was working on it three or four years before that.

>And why would preaching to the converted (i.e. the visitors and exhibitors at Crufts) do that? They are not the main people needing to be reached.

The visitors aren't always the most dog-aware people. We've all joked about the visitors who grumble about the amount of dogs there! They're very much the pnes who need to be made aware that not all dog owners are as enlightened as the exhibitors.

>a cute puppy with vet and a syringe would have shown the message clearly

No, it's not cute little puppies that are being euthanased - it's adults. It's not really fair to complain about one advert being 'false' and replace it with another equally so! ;-)

In 1989 the licence had only just been done away with, and something was badly needed to take its place (and no, the RSPCA didn't receive any of the licence money, even if it had made a profit). You can have registration without a licence; births are all registered, but you don't get a baby-licence!

> Having had a bad day at work and dealt with our own small pile of dead dogs, I feel very strongly that sometimes people need a reality check.

really sorry to hear about your day JG, that must have been horrible and I see why you feel strongly about this. I hope that you are ok.

That being said, I am fundraising for a cancer charity, it doesn't mean people need to see graphic images of people dying of cancer. in fact i would think that would put people off of supporting it.

> That being said, I am fundraising for a cancer charity, it doesn't mean people need to see graphic images of people dying of cancer. in fact i would think that would put people off of supporting it.

Yes I agree with you. I support the British Heart Foundation and even I cannot stand to watch their awful heart adverts they put out in February around Valentines day.

The RSPCA would probably not have to put so many dogs to sleep if they actually worked with breed rescues. Of the ones they deem suitable to rehome, some with definitely bad temperament issues (including one with rage syndrome!), I live near Blackberry Farm and I have had a few dogs from there come to my dog training classes, so know what they get up to.

>I support the British Heart Foundation and even I cannot stand to watch their awful heart adverts they put out in February around Valentines day.

You see, I'm the opposite. Having lost my father to heart disease, I feel that showing the reality might have given him the kick up the backside that would have saved his life.

I recently attended a think tank  run by a company near Oxford . to see what photos were suitable on the front of lung cancer leaflet for doctors surgeries. The firm already realised that shocking pictures and dire warnings on cigarette packets have little effect. So a choice of diseased lungs was decided against for the front of the leaflet because people will not pick them up , they shy away from the worst portrayals.

My family has an inherited heart problem and like Fabrice Muamba any of us could simply drop dead, for me the advert at Valentines day is simply depressing and dreadful. There is nothing we can do about and it is upsetting to think nothing can be done. Muamba will be fitted with an ICD and they are not reliable, unlike a pacemaker.

The same applies to the pile of dead dogs poster, it is depressing, sad and makes me angry for the poor dogs whose irresponsible owners have abandoned them, but I go to Crufts to enjoy my day and not have the RSPCA pointing a finger at me and fellow dog owners when it is highly unlikely that most dogs in rescue come from good breeders and caring owners like myself.

If they had really wanted to deal with this, they would have spent the money not on some expensive advertising and a fake poster, but would have ploughed it into education or dog welfare. When I was at school one of my earliest memories of school is the annual RSPCA inspectors visit to talk to us children about responsible pet ownership. I learnt a lot from it and have as a result never been an irresponsible pet owner. We also had a set up by the RSPCA a pet owners club and we got the RSPCA magazine. Of course that was a long time ago now, but the lessons stuck with me and I am sure many of my class mates.

> You see, I'm the opposite. Having lost my father to heart disease, I feel that showing the reality might have given him the kick up the backside that would have saved his life.

I'm very sorry for your loss. again, i can see why you feel that way. for me it's different, for example as polly said her family cannot help it, neither can a friend of mine with a similar condition or my MIL who passed away without us even knowing that there was a problem. My father is living with the daily pain and problems caused by his diabetes and intellectually he knows he is supposed to eat healthily- does he hell! I watched on screen as my own diseased innards were examined, didn't make it any more real for me and that is something i experience the pain of each day, you shut yourself off from that kind of image as a coping mechanism.

I don't think the kind of image presented in that poster impacts on puppy farming etc as BYB's dont think that they are doing it wrong and full on puppy farmers just don't care.