...& some little old pensioners pay for the legal costs without being informed prior to making a contribution

http://rspcainjustice.blogspot.com/2009/10/rspca-use-your-donations-to-supress.html

What a load of emotive, animal rights claptrap that site is! 
They would have us overrun with unwanted dogs regardless of their quality of life.  Now there's hypocricy!
Here's one person who will continue to support the RSPCA even when she is a "little old pensioner". 
By the way, got any links to sites supported less patronisation of pensioners? :)

I've never been a fan of the RSPCA. I think that site is pretty much filled with propaganda, though.

I dont intend to let the RSPCA have a single penny of my money!!

I agree. I have never donated to them. There are far too many reasons to go into *why* I don't like them- but a good start would be to say that they don't do anything unless there are cameras there!

> but a good start would be to say that they don't do anything unless there are cameras there!

That's clearly an exageration as they were doing masses of work before we ever had the movie camera :) and I rather think they still are.

That's clearly an exageration as they were doing masses of work before we ever had the movie camera :-) and I rather think they still are.

Well they certainly are doing a lot of lobbying and I believe they have built a nice new building for the head office but have to report that they have never responded to my requests for help although to be fair that is probably only about four, perhaps the only four they have failed to react to.

Their role is lobbying :) and wasn't it some considerable time ago they built new offices.   
There are often threads on here that they have not done this, that and the rest but it is sometimes quite surprising what people seem to regard as their responsibility.

Quite the opposite of only working in front of the cameras it seems to me that very often they don't do the very visible things such as acting as some sort of animal ambulance service rather than getting on with their role of lobbying politicians, meeting with bodies involved with animals in sport and farming, investigating and prosecuting countryside crime etc etc.  These things are getting done and no other body is doing them.

getting on with their role of lobbying politicians

That was my point, I don't think people who give them their hard earned cash would do so if they realised how it was being used, they, the donating, think the are helping in a much more direct way and have no idea they are helping fund the political organisation the RSPCA is.

I don't understand how they can possibly look after the interest of animals if they don't lobby politicians.  They are the law makers not the RSPCA.  I don't think the RSPCA are political in themselves.  Whatever the Government of the day is they are always there to lobby them in the interest of animals.

It seems to me I have seen many threads bemoaning the fact that the RSPCA do not do more when, infact, they often don't have any powers to as no law is being broken.  Yet others complain when they take on the role of trying to have those laws amended or new ones created to give better protection to animals.  They can't win can they? :)
If the RSPCA were not lobbying for such legislation who do we think would?

Don't you sometimes wonder where all this "briefing against" the RSPCA comes from?  I wonder sometimes if it may come from particular groups with their own interest to look out for.  The use of Electric Collars, just as an example :)

Can you tell me what their lobbying has achieved?

Well it's pretty easy to look up the laws they have had a hand in.  Just about anything to do with animals.
The Cruelty to Animals Act 1835 amended Martin's Act and outlawed baiting.
The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 passed to control animal experimentation.
The Animal Protection Act 1911.
I'm sure there are more.
They played a part in the banning of tail docking.  I can't say I agree with it but they had a right to lobby for it.
And, of course, more recently the  Animal Welfare Act 2006.

RSPCA are worse than useless !!! hate them with a passion and i will give just 2 of the many reasons why ;
i do work for a independant cat rescue we get no funding at all we run solely on the donation from cats we adopt out

reason 1 : last year i personally collected a severely underweight male when we got him back to the house he was covered in sores , fleas and earmites he had infections in both eyes and a internal infection , vets estimated he was 1 week away from death he weighed just 1.7kg !! it took 7 months to get him back to full health and we thought he wasnt gonna make it a few times ..... when we called rspca to try and get a conviction for cruelty our calls were never returned so we rang daily after 2 weeks we were told the reason our calls wernt returned is because we wanted them to take the cat and treat it , we only wanted them to come and take pictures !... he recovered well and now weighs just under five kg (he was a big tom )!

reason 2; last week a female was picked up and brought in she had to be put to sleep she was severely malnourished had a tumour on her ear and her claws had twisted and were digging into her pads so she could barely walk leading us to believe she was a house cat someone got bored of RSPCA wouldnt come and pick her up because she was a stray if it wasnt for us she would of died a slow painful death .... and thats just 2 of many stories i could tell you

i will NEVER give that so called charity a penny !! rant over lol x

Well have to agree I have never found that on balance they do any good at all.

Case 1.  I think they would have a very hard job persuading the CPS to take on the case as the animal was not in the possesion of who they wished to prosecute.  How would you get the evidence that your organisation had not caused the suffering?

Case 2.  Can't see at all why this would become the RSPCAs responsibility if you, a cat rescue, had already picked her up. Donations for cats placed is not no funding at all :)

So, you honestly think the animals of this country would be just as well off if they had never been created?
Well, I suppose some other body might have taken up the necessary work but I very much doubt they would have escaped the same criticisms. There will always be some that see them as curtailing their activities and some that say they don't do enough. :)

I can only speak of my experience with the RSPCA. I'm 20, so in my life time, they have certainly been very 'public' and very much on camera. What I meant by that comment is that they seem to do a lot of work in front of the camera, which in my opinion means that people feel they are giving their money to a charity which takes animals away from pain and suffering on the 'front line' if you will. When actually, it is very much a political organisation.

In situations where I have requested help from the RSPCA, instead of simply explaining why they couldn't help or even recommended someone who *could* help, they have implied that they were going to help and not done anything.

I can think of more cases than I can count on both hands where they have been a hinderance rather than a help. Not to mention an RSPCA officer who told me I was illegally breeding tortoises and showed me various times he had absolutely no knowledge of the law surrounding breeding reptiles at least.

I understand it is a somewhat specialist area and they are not broadly trained, however I feel when an organisation actively lobbies for a blanket ban on the keeping of reptiles, I would imagine their officers should at least be trained in the laws surrounding them in order for them to effectively educate people on what they are lobbying for!

no case 1 : he had an owner who was a alcoholic and just didnt feed the cat he admitted that to me , letting him get in such a state is clearly neglect

case 2 : we picked her up because RSPCA refused "they dont take strays anymore" even though they were told how critically ill she was , the person who had taken her in was then put onto us via a friend

maybe i should of explained a bit better

Personally, I think lobbying for laws to protect animals does just as much if not more to prevent suffering and I think you are perhaps doing an injustice to people that they will not understand that when they donate money for their efforts.

As to your tortoise issues.  I think the problem is that they are broadly trained in that they have many species and areas of animal husbandry from pet keeping to highly commercialised farming to deal with.  No doubt he went back to his seniors and found out you were not breaking the law and it will not be his decision to lobby for any change to those laws.

> I can think of more cases than I can count on both hands where they have been a hinderance rather than a help.

Goodness, that is a lot of calls on them for someone who is only 20.  I am almost three times as old as you and yet I can easily count the times I have felt the need to ask assistance or information from them.

> no case 1 : he had an owner who was a alcoholic and just didnt feed the cat he admitted that to me , letting him get in such a state is clearly neglect
>
> case 2 : we picked her up because RSPCA refused "they dont take strays anymore" even though they were told how critically ill she was , the person who had taken her in was then put onto us via a friend
>

I'm not sure how that changes things they still would not be able to prove it was the first owner that caused the neglect when it was already in the posession of someone else.

Second case.  Have you listened to the Gavin Grant interview on Dog World?
http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/67500 in which he explains their position on strays etc. 
It is a very interesting interview all round.
I think it is questionable that this cat was a stray as it had been taken in.

we picked her up because RSPCA refused "they dont take strays anymore"

I have had this with them too, I used to work at a vets so had quite a bit to do with the RSPCA. We had a lady bring in a cat who was very thin, bad coat and fleas. It used to belong to her neighbours who had up'd and left leaving the cat behind, it was micro-chipped in their name and address so could be proved that they didn't live there any more and had indeed just abandoned the poor animal, who wasn't coping living as a stray. I phone the RSPCA and spoke to the rudest call centre person ever only to be told they don't take strays and just to put it back, although she was told that the cat was in very poor health and technically wasn't a stray it was abandoned she still insisted it had to be left on the streets.

Another time I called them about a 5 week old puppy that was dumped behind a wheelie bin with breathing problems only to be told, take it to the local council stray kennels as we don't deal with stray dogs, oh ok so this poor little mite wandered away from home did it I think not, it was dumped so not really a stray as such.

I have reported an old horse that was in a terrible state just left out on common land very underweight and every rib and hip bones visible, awful hooves, weeping eyes that was so bad it had taken off the fur halfway down its face and it was covered in scurf. They refused to come out until I gave them the name and address of its owner, I did actually know it and gave it to them but what if I didn't? When they did visit after 3 further calls to them before they would I just got told it was old and that was an end to it. Age was no excuse for the state that poor horse was in.

Working in a vets we had a lot of stray/injured cats brought in quite often the first question from the RSPCA was 'what colour is it' all I can say is, the poor cat just had to hope it wasn't plain black as all the poor cat had to look forward too was the needle :( (Although this wasn't always the case but it did happen on more than one occasion)

Injured wildlife is another thing, I did have to smile to myself when watching a programme on RSPCA inspectors when they were called out to and injured wood pigeon. Honestly I bet if I called them tomorrow and said I had an injured pigeon they would not come out, (might try that next time I find one, used to dispatching them myself.) I have a feeling it was done for the camera that was following them round.

I also remember when a friend of mine had a litter of Rotties and had their tails docked (still legal then, good few years ago) and someone reported it to the RSPCA for what reason I have no idea other than spite as they were very well cared for dogs and all he kept saying was he didn't agree with people who dock dogs. In the end my friend said well I don't agree with people coming into my home and telling me what I should be doing when until they ban it, I'm doing nothing wrong now unless there is anything else please leave. He couldn't find anything wrong and that was the last she heard from them.

In saying all of this I am sure that they do do SOME good and when I found some Labrador puppies that had been drowned they did make a big deal about it, it ended up in all the local papers, news and radio. I hope they scared the living daylights out of the people who did it as even though they had next to no chance of finding out who done it, if it were me I would be very worried that with all the media attention they might catch me. So that is my one and only good dealing with the RSPCA.

Stooge I am very please to hear that you have only ever had good dealings with them and understand why you feel so strongly in defending them but for those of us who haven't that's why we feel so strongly against supporting them.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I had this with them too".  Are you questioning that they do not take in stray or simply saying that they ought to.  They would be swamped if they took all the strays and would have no resources to do all the things that rescues and councils would or could not.  Again I would suggest you listen to the interview in which Gavin explains it very well.
I have to say, if they suggest it is better to put a black cat down due to lack of homing opportunities they probably know best sad though it may be.

>I also remember when a friend of mine had a litter of Rotties and had their tails docked (still legal then, good few years ago) and someone reported it to the RSPCA

Again it seems they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
And as for the old horse, some old animals do look jolly ropey but it does not necessarily mean they are suffering.  They do not seem to hesitate to advise destruction when they think it necessary as you found out with your black cats.

>why we feel so strongly against supporting them.

Who would you like to see doing their work?

Lobbying for new laws is simply not enough though, if they fail to bring people to justice in all but the worst most extreme (and most public) cases. I am involved in the rescue of many reptiles- particularly tortoises- and the things that you hear say it all.

If they are going to be a political organisation, then I think they need to make this clear as to me, the first thing I think of when I see the name RSPCA, is what you see on TV where they act almost like police officers banging on doors and demanding animals from people. However, when they're called on for this type of activity, for example an abandoned animal, we're either told they'll help and they don't, or they deny the help completely.

One that sticks out in particular is a pair of horses that were absolutely emaciated and left abandoned in a field. When it was reported by various people, the RSPCA advised that they couldn't help, but perhaps 'throwing them some grass over the field' would give them a bit of food. This is dangerous advice for start. It wasn't until a local equine centre became involved because they knew the owner of the field, was the issue resolved. Of course, in the papers the RSPCA gave quotes that didn't explicitly say- but were implied they had a major part to play in the case.

Officers refuse help from species specific rescues who will have a greater knowledge and understanding of the species they are trying to find homes for.

Not to mention the methods of euthanasia they use..

Josh, you appear to be talking about second hand accounts.
Don't forget once those laws are enacted anyone can bring a case not just the RSPCA.  They are not the police or the CPS.  All they can do is bring about a private prosecution and the evidence has to be strong enough otherwise they are wasting their funds if it is even accepted by the CPS.

>for example an abandoned animal, we're either told they'll help and they don't, or they deny the help completely

Who are we?  The tortoise rescue?  Why would they need the RSPCAs help if you are a rescue. 

I don't think the RSPCA make any secret at all regarding their remit.  Its all there on their website and all their other publicity that I have seen.  Have you listened to the interview?  It also explains why they do not always work with other rescues.

Are you questioning that they do not take in stray or simply saying that they ought to. 

No I am not saying that they should take in all strays at all. But when they are called The royal society for the prevention of CRUELTY to animals and one has clearly been abandoned and is thin and not coping with being dumped by its owner then yes I do expect them to take it. In this case there was proof the animal had belonged to the previous owners of the house.

Again it seems they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I appreciate that they came out on a call from the public BUT instead of just saying all is well here pups in good health along with mum and other dogs in the household thank you for your time and in allowing me into your home to check on the concerns made to us, NO they had to give her a lecture on something that was still perfectly legal at the time, what was the point in that?? I cannot remember seeing any show bred rotties in the ring at that time with tails it was not like she was in the minority by having her pups docked. He made my friend quite upset really.

And as for the old horse, some old animals do look jolly ropey but it does not necessarily mean they are suffering.

This one looked more than ropey trust me, and I should have said only the summer before it looked in good health but when it came out the next spring it looked like that, and seeing that I saw it with my own eyes I think I will trust my own judgement on this one.

Who would you like to see doing their work?

This isn't really this issue, there is not any other organisation (that I personally know off) that have the powers that the RSPCA  ie able to knock on people's doors and ask to inspect their premisis so I can't say who I would like to see doing it as they don't exist (that I am aware) But what I will say is that I would have more respect for the RSPCA if they actually do what they advertise they do. Like the advert with the kittens that are dumped in a box in an ally how come in the advert they rescue them, but technically they are a stray! Another advert they say they are the voice for animals in distress So I ask what was the poor puppy that was dumped behind a bin with breathing problems, it looked very distressed to me.

Like I said, this is just my dealings with them and like I said I'm sure that they do good work but for me they have let me down too many times for me to give them my money. I am not trying to change anyone's opinion (as mine won't be changed) the bottom line is peoples opinions are based on their experiences, mine haven't been good and yours have and that is great. I am genuinely please :)

>And, of course, more recently the  Animal Welfare Act 2006.

How were the RSPCA involved in that one?

>But when they are called The royal society for the prevention of CRUELTY to animals and one has clearly been abandoned

When you remember it's called The Royal Society for the PREVENTION of Cruelty to Animals you see where their political activism stems from. they're not meant to pick up the pieces after the cruelty or law-breaking has taken place; they're supposed to educate and advise, within the law, to prevent it.

> the powers that the RSPCA  ie able to knock on people's doors and ask to inspect their premisis

You could go to someones door and ask to inspect their premises :)  The RSPCA has no special powers.
I do think it was resonable for the inspector to say he did not approve of docking.  This was the party line with the RSPCA and something they were campaigning on at the time.  As I said, I was a supported of docking but we live in a democratic country and the issue went through the democratic process and I can't really argue with that.

>> And, of course, more recently the  Animal Welfare Act 2006.
> How were the RSPCA involved in that one?

They campaigned for it.  I doubt there has ever been animal legislation or even policy decisions that the Government has not consulted the RSPCA on.

not meant to pick up the pieces after the cruelty or law-breaking has taken place; they're supposed to educate and advise, within the law, to prevent it.

If this is the case why do they rescue any animal as I should imagine that a good number of the animals they do have in their re-homing centres have been cruelty cases and have already been suffering at the hands of someone.

I do realise that the RSPCA cannot rescue every single animal in the country, but with the bad experiences I have had and how I think their adverts asking for public money can be mis-leading I for one won't give them any money.

I do think it was resonable for the inspector to say he did not approve of docking. 

Maybe reasonable to say he didn't agree with it but not to give her a lecture and make her feel uncomfortable in her own home.

This was the party line with the RSPCA and something they were campaigning on at the time.



Oh right so if we are campaigning something that we believe is wrong that's ok then. In another thread regarding the Mastiff Judge, the poster feels very strongly about him judging but you have said You may not agree with their decision but it is what it is well the rspca might not have agreed with it but the law is the law and at the time it was perfectly legal. But looking at it your way if Mrsmatiffs feels strongly against it, like the rspca did about docking then why shouldn't she campaign against it? If its ok for the rspca then it should be ok for every one else, seeing's that an rspca inspector is not any different from the next person, you cannot say its ok for one but not another.

seeing's that an rspca inspector is not any different from the next person, you cannot say its ok for one but not another.

Although I agree with the sentiments there is a difference, the RSPCA inspector is doing it with someone else's money probably given with the idea it was to be used to assist sick or abandoned animals as their adverts suggest, the Mrs disgruntled do it because they misguidedly think it will make a difference but the effort and cost is not being born by those who think they have donated to help feed Mrs disgruntled's children or pay their medical fees.

I have mixed view's on them ( SSPCA up here ) I have phoned them only 3 times in my life, first one they refused to come out to check on sickly kittens ( crusty eyes and lethargic ) on sale in a pet shop, despite myself and my mother both phoning over a three day period, in the end we got in touch with Advocates For Animals who did act straight away.
The other two times they did come out, one was for a young dog who was being regularly beaten and one for a stranded Gannet which ended up on our local pond, both times they got those animals out of bad situations.

I have heard some horror stories though, one of my friends runs a cat rescue, but she'll come out for anything, she rescued a young GSD who was in a shocking state and had lived most of it's life in the coal bunker under the stairs.
She removed this dog from the owners house herself as the SSPCA officer wouldn't act, when she got in touch with him so he could come to inspect the dog and hopefully get some sort of justice, he simply said " you've got the dog, what do you want me to do about it ?".
Well those same people went on to own 2 more dogs who they treated equally as badly as the GSD, my friend got those too, but with no help or prosecution there was little else she could do.
The people eventually moved house, they're quite possibly still getting dogs and keeping them in shocking conditions today.

I do think part of the problem is individual inspectors, it's like any job, some will be excellent and go the extra mile, some unfortunately, will be like the chap my friend ran into, and seemingly unconcerned.

What does bother me about them is that the branches receive no funding from the main organisation and have to do their own fund raising, I think that's wrong and the main reason I wouldn't support them. 

>" you've got the dog, what do you want me to do about it ?".

What did she want him to do about it?  If evidence could now be gathered to prove mistreated it could not be proved it had not occured in her hands. 
I think people believe the RSPCA have the power to try, find guilty and punish all on their own. 
Equally, it is apparent that when it comes to entering the property of someone that we feel is not doing something right we want they to just go right ahead but if it is a case of entering our property, or someone we know, it would be an outrage :)

> I do realise that the RSPCA cannot rescue every single animal in the country, but with the bad experiences I have had and how I think their adverts asking for public money can be mis-leading I for one won't give them any money.
>

Then you are restricting them even more in what they can do.  There are many, many agencies that rescue animals and all are strapped for cash and pushed to the limits so how much better is it that there is an agency that devotes themselves to campaigns with the aim of reducing the need for such work for all these agencies?

well im sorry but my opinion will not change ! they get god knows how much donated through public appeals every year and the donation money they get for adopting out animals , yes they should take strays if they are in desperate need after all isnt that what there there for to stop animals suffering ? but because they wont smaller independant rescue have no choice but to take them and its us who have to somehow find the hundreds of pounds in vet bills !!!

> but because they wont smaller independant rescue have no choice but to take them and its us who have to somehow find the hundreds of pounds in vet bills !!!

Isn't that the purpose of your charity? 
The purpose of of the RSPCA is to reduce the need for yours and other rescue charities to be called upon. 
It's straight forward economics.  Every charity has a finite amount of money and the RSPCA is no exception.  If they simply gave their money to other charities, who should have their own sources of income, they have less to spend on reducing the demand on those charities.  What use would that be?

we have picked up everything from emaciated severley matted cats with open wounds all over because there mats were that tight to half dead abandoned cats , kittens in carrier bags , a "pregnant female" (as described by a rspca officer) that turned out to be a un neutered male in the later stages of kidney and liver failure his abdomen was full of pussy fluid they refused to take it and said leave her to give birth outside , luckily we were informed or this male would of died a very slow and agonising death god knows how long hed suffered already ! weve taken cats and kittens from hoarders who were in horrific condition all because rspca refused !

our rescue is full of black and black and whites how is it right to refuse to help a cat because its a undesirable colour ?

well from my experience they reduce nothing if anything they INCREASE what we take in because they dont act when given information on neglected animals so it is US who pick up the pieces 9 times out of 10

and i never said i expect them to give us their money but id like to know what the hell they do with the millions they recieve ! for my rescue to get charity status we must have £3000 coming in a year it dosnt sound like alot but we get nowhere near that much yet we still continue clear up the mess left by the rspca

> our rescue is full of black and black and whites how is it right to refuse to help a cat because its a undesirable colour ?

Because there are not enough homes so it makes sense to concentrate on those that have a chance otherwise you end up unable to help any.

they have every chance and all get adopted out it just takes slightly longer most come looking for a specific colour i.e torti , grey ect but leave with a black cat because of its personality if a cat isnt going to be easy to adopt out because of personality or temprement thats what they should look at not what colour it is and even then some can be neutered and live happy healthy lives on farms ect ,... how boring the world would be if we all had the same opinion eh ;)

> and i never said i expect them to give us their money but id like to know what the hell they do with the millions they recieve !

Well, we have already detailed the legislation they have driven forward and a quick look at their website and you have their current campaigns : -

Against long distance live transportation
Buying a puppy
Improving pet rabbit welfare
Choosing cage free eggs

and their general stated aims are :
Improving the welfare of farmed animals, at every stage of their lives
Campaigning to raise awareness of the welfare needs of our nation's pets
Protecting the rights of all wildlife, whether in captivity or in the wild.
Working with government, industry and science to improve the welfare of lab animals.

So quite a lot to cover on the budget :)

There are other agencies set up to be animal rescues who cannot do this work.  I suggest you listen to the interview I gave a link to in which Gavin explains it rather better than I have.

What did she want him to do about it?  If evidence could now be gathered to prove mistreated it could not be proved it had not occured in her hands. 

His job, would have been a start.
If he'd acted promptly, or even accompanied my friend to pick up the dog ( the owners willingly handed it over to her ) then there would have been plenty of evidence. He was given many chances to act, but chose not to.

I have to say Stooge, I do admire your calm debating skills.

> His job, would have been a start.
>

Actually it is not his job.  If a crime has been committed it is actually the job of the police.
The RSPCA will often take on this role but they do not have anything approaching the number of inspectors to cover the country as the police might so there is not really any prospect of them having the resources to investigate and prosecute every crime against animals.  Their role really it to try to prevent them happening in the first place.

Actually, if they are guilty of anything it is perhaps failing to help everybody understand just what there role is.....and isn't.  On the other hand all the money spent on doing would just need to come from something else. 

> I have to say Stooge, I do admire your calm debating skills.

Thank you, same to you :) 

Nothing will ever make me change my mind about the RSPCA, I have some sympathy with local officers who get none of the thousands left to the organisation and probable do their inadequate best. As far as I am concerned their principals do not fit with mine and not a penny will I ever donate, my will specifies a dog rescue organisation but it is not the RSPCA.

> His job, would have been a start.
>>
>

> Actually it is not his job

Can I ask what exactly IS an inspectors job?

Part of their role is to investigate cases of cruelty and neglect but they do not have the powers or resources of the police. 

We pay taxes to the police to deal with crime it is just that they have traditionally left it to the RSPCA when the crime involves animals but that does not make them responsible for that.  I am sure they do what they can.  I can't imagine there are many inspectors happy to let these crimes go unchallenged where ever they can be but with only a few hundred inspectors to cover the entire country they are never going to be an emergency service responding to every call as people may wish. 

However they do appear to be very effective when they do.  The most recent statistics I can find is 2,441 convictions in 2010.  I also noted that their success rate in securing a conviction for the three years leading up to that was never less than 97%.

I think that is pretty impression for less than 300 inspectors along side their other roles of advising, educating, inspecting premises etc etc etc.

So what does the RSPCA do with all that money ?
My understanding is that they are very wealthy, one of the big ones right up there with the NSPCA. Why not use some of that money to provide more inspectors ?, which I'm sure, most, if not all, of their contributors would be happy with.

The may receive lots of money but their costs must be huge as their remit is so wide.  Not just dogs but every domestic animal, together with farming and wildlife.  I wonder if some involved with breed rescue compare their budgets and goggle at the amount but to cover the breadth of what they do nationally must take vast amounts of money.  Private prosecutions cannot be cheap, the hospitals, the wildlife centres.
Some two hundred and seventy odd inspectors is not a lot to cover the country but it still makes for a hefty wage bill, plus all the ancilliary staff together with the ever increasing pension weight that all businesses have to cope with these days. 
According to the interview that I posted, that nobody seems bothered enough to listen to :), the RSPCA has run on a deficit for several years.
Meanwhile, people will not donate because they don't feel they do enough or quickly enough!  I wonder how that works :)

I would be interested to know why the RSPCA will bring prosecutions against private breeders but have an agreement that Local Authorities (which arguably have a financial motivation for reissuing licenses) are responsible for investigating and prosecuting commercial breeders. This despite video evidence showing clearly unacceptable conditions in same commercial establishments. I will listen to the interview by Gavin Grant when I have more time - thanks for the link Stooge - and I hope he explains why the charity is not applying its considerable resources into lobbying against puppy farming and importing puppies from abroad in horrific conditions for sale in pet shops and over the internet. The Australian RSPCA has been running a prolonged and intensive campaign against puppy mills but ours seems to only be intent on demonising show breeders.

Based on the literature I recieve from the RSPCA asking for donations, I would assume it was a 'rescue' organisation as the leaflets show emotive pictures of animals they have 'saved' and inspectors cuddling cute kittens, rather than plaquards being waved of views of the House of Commons. The TV programmes also show inspectors rescuing and saving animals and this is the image people have of the organisation when they donate money. They are therefore understandably confused and angry when they report an animal that they consider is being mistreated to the dedicated RSPCA 'cruelty line', only to be met with indifference. If the RSPCA is intending to be mainly a political organisation this should be made clearer as the impression most people have of it as a rescue charity appears to be incorrect.

I will not donate money to the RSPCA as I disagree with many of their political viewpoints. The organisation appears to have a narrow and inflexible viewpoint on many issues. I do also have to wonder that of all the prominent well known charities in the UK, the RSPCA seems to attract the most venement opponents and critics. Other charities also lobby for change and this isn't always uncontraversial yet only the RSPCA seems to antagonise so many people....

> I would be interested to know why the RSPCA will bring prosecutions against private breeders but have an agreement that Local Authorities (which arguably have a financial motivation for reissuing licenses) are responsible for investigating and prosecuting commercial breeders.

That is one way of looking at it but the other is the LA are in receipt of those fees, presumably to cover their expenditure on inspections etc. so clearly their responsibility to police in that area. 

As far as I can see they have run several anti puppy farming campaigns and they continually provide advise on where you should be getting a puppy.

I don't think it is wrong to assume they are also a rescue organisation, the latest published figures are for 2010 when they collected/signed over/seized over 130,000 animals.  You could say they "rescue" many more with their campaigns to prevent cruelty happening in the first place.

As I have already said it would be impossible for them to provide an emergency service such as the police and ambulance as many people seem to expect but I don't think it is fair to say that is down to indifference.  You only have to consider the roles they undertake to see that abattoirs would never be inspected, cattle auctions etc and never a presence at the likes of Appleby Fair if they had to drop everything to attend such calls.  Well, they could not attend somewhere like Appleby because it is in an area of the country where you would have to cover very large distances per head of population.  It simply could not work as an emergency service, nothing short of the NHS could provide that level of response.
 
Of course they must have a narrow and inflexible viewpoint.  They must decide on policy and stick to it.  Not sure what their politics are though.  Left wing?  Right wing? I don't know :)  It seems to me they lobby whatever the Government of the day is regardless.

Of course we will not all agree with all their policies.  That is never going to happen in a country of 60 odd million people.

I think the RSPCA attracts so much attention because animals are so much apart of our lives.  As pets, food, the environment.  Few charities will have so much involvement with so many aspects of so many peoples lives.