http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254729/RSPCA-destroys-HALF-animals-rescues--thousands-completely-healthy.html

I haven't donated to them for years, certainly won't ever again :(

I've not been a fan since the 70s but having spent time in rescue kennels, whilst not a popular point of view, sometimes it's a better option than being shut in impersonal kennels for years with little hope of a new home. :(

Before we had all these rescue kennels, people thought more carefully about taking on a dog as if they didn't want it, they had to face the Vet and ask him to put it to sleep, a thing that many can't face - but handing it to a rescue kennel and pass on the responsibility is an easy thing to do. :(

Have to agree with Westcoat here, there are worse things than death.  Rescues are between a rock and a hard place, as if they PTS then they can loose support. 

I know of a dog (whose owner had a terminal illness), now 12 years who has been in kennels paid for by a small breed rescue who just can't seem to adapt to a family life now (has been tried), so could end up being kennelled for another 4 years.

The healthy cats taken and put to sleep so they could prosecute the old lady, they dropped 11 of the 13 charges against her. The RVC did the post mortem and found nothing wrong :(

No surprises the Daily Mail's lazy journalism is just re-hashing an old Story....

We had long discussion threads on here a couple of years back when the RSPCA announced it was going to (and its new mission statement) was to go more for prosecutions than rescue... So that part of the story is hardly anything new.

And we all know several horror stories that reached the press of premature and questionable shootings of dogs to the extent one of the German Shepherd breed rescue clubs successfully brought in a Welsh police force who investigated for conviction.

But there were many others and many more we don't hear about.

I suppose the 'new' part of the story is that the Countryside Alliance is now campaigning to have the 'Royal' taken from the RSPCA.
Personally I'm surprised that didn't happen when the RSPCA called for Princess Anne's dog to be put down when it went for one of the Corgis ;-)

Much as I loathe the Daily Mail, I suppose begrudgingly I'm all for any exposure of malpractice by any governing body especially those working within the law.

There is much wrong with the RSPCA but there is still some right... They really need to get their house in order because the good and needed convictions they secure are so very much needed ~ but they continue to haemorrhage money and public trust/ respect in all the wrong areas.

I applaud the whistleblower from within the RSPCA and really feel for those who are genuine, compassionate and passionate that still work for the RSPCA ~ it's bloomin lucky to have them!

The Kent vet who said "'The RSPCA seems to have lost sight of its role as a charity that was set up to help people and animals.' " doesn't know his facts. The RSPCA was never set up to help people and their pets; it was set up to change the law and prosecute people who were cruel to their animals in Victorian England, when starving and over-worked horses dying in the streets wasn't uncommon. The law they brought in enabled parents to be prosecuted for cruelty to children (under the pretext that children were animals) and so enabled the NSPCC to be created.

Though let's remember JG, it is Daily Mail journalism! I shouldn't be surprised if the Vet was paraphrased or just had the journo's own spin printed down as the Vets words!
    I would imagine ( as I've seen in previous interviews ) that the Grass roots staff's frustrations are that *the public perception* is one of 'set up to help people and pets' because as we all know that is what the RSPCA use as their emotional hook in TV and Media ad campaigns to raise revenue.

Most folk think their money is going to looking after abandoned or mistreated pets and not to expensive legal proceedings.

True. People forget that they always were set up as a political body to bring in welfare laws and then help uphold them, and not as a dumping-ground for the pets that owners no longer accept responsibility for.

> Most folk think their money is going to looking after abandoned or mistreated pets and not to expensive legal proceedings.

Ah, but those expensive legal proceedings go some way to deter the abandonment and mistreatment of animals.  Not just pets of course - the RSPCA is responsible for all animals, domestic, farm and wild and that is the RSPCAs purpose.
I agree with WestCoast the real story here is not so much the RSPCA doing what it has to do but one of irresponsible breeding and ownership. 

> the real story here is not so much the RSPCA doing what it has to do but one of irresponsible breeding and ownership. 

Actually it is 'irresponsible ownership' and a throw away attitude to animals, that fuels irresponsible and commercial level breeding.  No market, or only a well educated market that would only buy from responsible breeders would reduce the problem to almost nothing.

I think the RSPCA needs to be much more transparent about what its priorities really are. In addition to the Daily Mail story, The Guardian ran this story earlier this year regarding the RSPCA's 'Homes for Life' campaign.

The RSPCA attracts a lot of criticism about their increasing politicisation. I'm not impressed with them and haven't supported them for quite some time now.

>Ah, but those expensive legal proceedings go some way to deter the abandonment and mistreatment of animals.  Not just pets of course - the RSPCA is responsible for all animals, domestic, farm and wild and that is the RSPCAs purpose.

Oh, I wasn't denying that, hadn't meant to imply that at all!
I'm in full support of this main body of the RSPCA's work. I was merely highlighting what is the most common public misconception, and quoting what the Vet had (allegedly) said.

But also that the 'money men' of the RSPCA are happy to perpetuate this to garner the coffers.. A sticky wicket for them.

> The Guardian ran [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/22/rspca-home-for-life-ads-escape-ban" rel=nofollow]this story[/url] earlier this year regarding the RSPCA's 'Homes for Life' campaign.

The ASA found in their favour.

>I think the RSPCA needs to be much more transparent about what its priorities really are.

It is very simple:
If you want to support rescue,rehabilitation and rehoming ~ you donate to your local branch.
If you want to support enforcement ~ you donate to the central RSPCA.

Local rescue branches have to pay the RSPCA to use their name and have to source their own funding.

If central RSPCA made this abundantly clear in its Media campaigns the balance sheets would, I think we all know, swing against the central coffers.

There's the rub.

Problem is the RSPCA suggest through adverts and TV programmes that they are a welfare organisation because it brings in more money that telling the public that they are a political organisation that may have done good things but are prone to get carried away by their own political beliefs which at times verge on the extreme.

> The ASA found in their favour.

Only just!!

Go to their website and the details of their work is there for all to see.
Although it is a nice idea for more donations to flow to pet rescue in reality the less "political" and prevention work, the more work these rescues may actually find themselves needing to meet.  I suspect it would unfairly slant towards pets too, leaving wildlife and, probably more so, farm animals with much less in the way of any assistance.
And lets not forget, many people will be donating precisely for their political work against hunting, factory farming et.

> Only just!!

Indeed, very just :)

> And lets not forget, many people will be donating precisely for their political work against hunting, factory farming et.

That's fine, as long as the rest of their donations aren't coming from people who didn't know what their money was being spent on!!

> Indeed, very just :-)

Only if you think that putting down over 17% of animals left in their care under the 'Homes for Life' fundraising scheme is fair or just.

> That's fine, as long as the rest of their donations aren't coming from people who didn't know what their money was being spent on!!

 
It would appear sometimes, from previous threads on this subject, that people sometimes go no further than assume things about the RSPCAs remit based rather on what they wished they did :)  The information is there if people care to look but their remit is, necessarily, rather vast. I doubt there is anybody that is totally happy with everything that they do.

> Only if you think that putting down over 17% of animals left in their care under the 'Homes for Life' fundraising scheme is fair or just.

Given that time will have, inevitably, passed since the commitment of these animals I think that seems a reasonable percentage that will have become too old or unwell or simply could not cope with change or the wait for a suitable home and would benefit from a merciful release.
However, what we were talking about was whether the ASA was just in absolving the RSPCA as providing enough information about the scheme.  They believed it was reasonable.

I gave up supporting the RSPCA many years ago and I DO think they lost their way. They behave very differently now to say 20years ago. Maybe it is  case of buyer beware in as much as people donating tend to have an expectation that it will be used to rescue dogs and cats in the main and prevent cruelty. This is perpetuated by their own advertising /fundraising. Very misleading IMO.
When it comez to light that in fact this is not the caseand huge amounts of money is wasted that could actually be invested to provide further housing for animals to prevent needless destruction, people realise what is happening and withdraw their support. Their are organisations like the Dogs Trust that manage to operate rescue centres without wholesale slaughter, to suggest that it cant be done is ridiculous, given how rich this charity is.  If they wish to operate as a political organisation they should say so, not kid the public otherwise.

>If they wish to operate as a political organisation they should say so

"We......................campaign to change laws that will protect them, which we will enforce through prosecution." - from the first page of their website.

> that could actually be invested to provide further housing for animals to prevent needless destruction

Is that seriously what people want?  What would be the point?  There are far more dogs and cats than are actually wanted or could possible find suitable homes.

> Their are organisations like the Dogs Trust that manage to operate rescue centres without wholesale slaughter,

By keeping them for years in kennels?  Is that really better? Besides, the logistics do not work.  If you are putting down 6/7000 unwanted dogs each year because this is in excess of what is wanted, most of those will live several years so you have to build accomodation for several thousand year on year.  When do you stop? 

>people sometimes go no further than assume things about the RSPCAs remit based rather on what they wished they did :-)

Perhaps they have been taken in by the RSPCA's, shall we say, less than transparent adverts. The 'Homes for Life' ad crops up in daily newspapers very regularly. Yes of course people should take the time to research the deal, in other words 'read the small print'. But for the large organisation that is the RSPCA to appear to set out to mislead folks into believing their pets will have a, yes, 'Home for Life' is duplicitous in my view.

You know, there is much to be said for reading round the subject. This Our Dogs interview is most informative.

> ut for the large organisation that is the RSPCA to appear to set out to mislead folks into believing their pets will have a, yes, 'Home for Life' is duplicitous in my view.

The ASA did not think so.  Even if that was not the case they do not immediately enter the scheme via the advertisement but will receive further information, the RSPCA even advise the use of a solicitor so it seems they make very little attempt to hoodwink people.
I think you do not give people enough credit.  I am sure most people understand that "taking care" of animals is just that.  Doing the right thing whether that is finding a home or whatever is more appropriate for that animal.

> You know, there is much to be said for reading round the subject. [url=http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/2009/July2009/News310709/rspca.htm" rel=nofollow]This Our Dogs interview[/url] is most informative.

Informative? Or more politics?

> I am sure most people understand that "taking care" of animals is just that.  Doing the right thing whether that is finding a home or whatever is more appropriate for that animal.

'Home for Life' sounds pretty unambiguous to me.

>'Home for Life' sounds pretty unambiguous to me.

Are you assuming it means 'natural life'? Only one of my dogs has ever come close to living out her 'natural life' because the vet was delayed on his way to put her to sleep. The others have had their lives ended unnaturally because survival involved too much suffering. I didn't want them being forced to linger.

> Informative? Or more politics?

Definitely informative, though anyone interested should read it and make up their own mind. If I've learnt one thing in all my years it has to be to never blindly trust those seeking to relieve me of my money without doing some research first.

But not everyone has access to google etc so we do need to have some protection in place for those people, and if that involves large organisations like the RSPCA being taken to task to account for themselves, all well and good.

Hhmm I've been fortunate to have 2 animals who's lives have ended suddenly in old  age quite peacefully, I would be very unhappy to think I'd signed up to a service that I thought meant they would go on to a lovely home only to discover that was not the case.

> The others have had their lives ended unnaturally because survival involved too much suffering. I didn't want them being forced to linger.

Of course not, neither would I. But I think the thrust of the 'Home for Life' fundraising campaign was for people to assume that their beloved pets would be cared for and rehomed after they had gone. And over 17% of animals being PTS under the scheme sounds more than one might expect.

> Definitely informative, though anyone interested should read it and make up their own mind.

They should.  This is the testimony of someone who makes a living from defending people that the RSPCA prosecute.  Of course they will make capital of any cases lost, however, the RSPCA bring thousands of prosecutions and most are won.

> But not everyone has access to google etc so we do need to have some protection in place for those people, and if that involves large organisations like the RSPCA being taken to task to account for themselves, all well and good.

:-D If they are reading this forum they probably do have access to Google!
Seriously, I don't think there is any danger of the RSPCA escaping scrutiny in everything they do.

I'd assume that most of the animals that come to them under this scheme are elderly pets from elderly owners who've gone into a Home and who have no relatives willing to take them on. Senior animals are gernerally very difficult to home because adopters don't want to get fond of an animal only to lose it in a few years. So rather than spend those remaining years in a quite sterile kennel situation instead of the home environment they've always known it's actually more humane to put them to sleep.

> So rather than spend those remaining years in a quite sterile kennel situation instead of the home environment they've always known it's actually more humane to put them to sleep.

You may be right in some cases. But why name the fundraising campaign 'Home for Life'? Surely that is leading people to expect the RSPCA to honour the implicit promise in that name. I think it is sharp practice to call this scheme 'Home for Life' and then do something else.

> And over 17% of animals being PTS under the scheme sounds more than one might expect.

It has been my experience that people in the later years of their lives tend also have older pets who, even if reasonably healthy may not take well to the loss of their owner or adapt to new homes or kennel living. 
In addition I think it quite possible that in the last months of their owners lives when, perhaps health and vigour is failing, a percentage of those pets will have been subject to a certain amount of neglect in terms of care, exercise etc., so no it does not surprise me in the least.

> But I think the thrust of the 'Home for Life' fundraising campaign was for people to assume that their beloved pets would be cared for and rehomed after they had gone.

Like I said I don't think you are giving people credit but even if that was the case they will have a clearer idea when they actually receive the paperwork and if not I am sure their solicitor will.

> But why name the fundraising campaign 'Home for Life'?

Because, if they are fit for it, and it would appear from your figures 83% are, that is what they get.

> the RSPCA bring thousands of prosecutions

Yes it does, and what an enormous amount of people's donated money it spends on doing so! Which is why it attracted such criticism in court recently.  I think this is where we came in ...

I'm sure plenty of people get hoodwinked by the campaign, just the same as door scammers prey on the elderly. Whether you agree or not with the idea of pts the animals, the fact it's misleading is enough to put me off.

It received criticism from one judge.  I actually think that a great deal of people who donate will be very pleased at that prosecution and I say that as someone not in least against fox hunting and this being my least favourite of the RSPCAs activities but I don't have any difficulty understanding that the RSPCA cannot meet everyones wishes when it comes the enormous breadth of animal welfare.

> I'm sure plenty of people get hoodwinked by the campaign

I guess the owners of the 83% will not feel too hoodwinked :)

Actually according to the Daily Mail article:

"RSPCA destroys HALF of the animals that it rescues - yet thousands are completely healthy
Shock figures reveal 3,400 animals put down for 'non-medical reasons'
Whistleblower claims she shot healthy dogs 'because there was no room'

Statistics show 10,000 fewer animals were rehomed in 2011
But charity's prosecutions of rogue pet owners leap 20 per cent
Countryside Alliance says charity should lose right to call itself Royal

The RSPCA destroys nearly half the animals it 'rescues' each year, with thousands being put down for non-medical reasons, shocking figures obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal.

The animal-welfare charity destroyed 53,000 animals last year - 44 per cent of those it took in - leading critics to claim that the organisation spends too much time on prosecuting cases of neglect and cruelty and not enough on finding new homes for animals.

The charity insists the vast majority of the animals were put down to end their suffering, but it admits that last year alone 3,400 animals were destroyed for 'non-medical' reasons, such as the lack of space in kennels and catteries."

I think this is where we came in. And a very sad tale it is too.

The others would though so just because it's a minority who do does not make it acceptable.

>Actually according to the Daily Mail article:
> "RSPCA destroys HALF of the animals that it rescues - yet thousands are completely healthy

These are not the pets on this scheme though, these are unwanted animals.
As I said before, I do not know of any way to make the logistics work for keeping all those unwanted pets, year on year, do you?

>"RSPCA destroys HALF of the animals that it rescues - yet thousands are completely healthy
>Shock figures reveal 3,400 animals put down for 'non-medical reasons'
>Whistleblower claims she shot healthy dogs 'because there was no room'

And where are they to go if there's no room? Surely the sensible answer is for the ones who've had a chance at being rehomed but have been continually rejected (pets passed on by relatives who don't want Granny's smelly incontinent old dog in their home any more than they want smelly incontinent old Granny) to be humanely put to sleep to give the new ones their fair go? New kennels can't be produced to order.

> The others would though so just because it's a minority who do does not make it acceptable.

We do not know how many, if any, of the owners of that minority did not understand that the RSPCA may consider it kinder to euthanase.
As I have said to Esme, the advertisement just leads to further information being sent to any interested person and they are advised to use a solicitor so I doubt many will not be fully informed.

Well new kennels could be produced if the RSPCA chose to spend the money on this aspect rather than on the pointless and obscenely expensive prosecutions.  I also strongly disagree about the rehoming of older dogs, in our local rescue we find that the oldies invariably do get rehomed, whereas the boisterous young larger dogs can be sticky. The Oldies club also has fantastic success with rehoming older dogs, and lists them for all rescues free.
I truly never get the sense these days that animal welfare is what the RSPCA are about anymore.   They are quick to hand off rescues to otner independent organisations, but do love to get their faces in there for the publicity. I will give my money to the rescue organisations who do just that, but meanwhile we have animals in bad situatuons that are left hanging in the wind because no other organisation has the powers that they have unfortunately.

> Well new kennels could be produced if the RSPCA chose to spend the money on this aspect

Of course they could but they would need to do it year on year to meet the annual excess of animals produced in relation to the homes available, they would not be able to do it just once otherwise what is the point, 12 months later they would be facing the same excess again.  Reserves would eventually be totally exhausted and then what?

> rather than on the pointless and obscenely expensive prosecutions.

I guess they are neither pointless or obscenely expensive if that is your particular hobby horse and their are many people in this country more than happy for the RSPCA to prosecute hunts.  I'm guessing less people on here will begrudge any monies spent prosecuting puppy farmers for instance.

>but meanwhile we have animals in bad situatuons that are left hanging in the wind because no other organisation has the powers that they have unfortunately.

No organisation has the power, except perhaps the Government if they passed breeding laws, to prevent the annual over breeding of dogs.

> to meet the annual excess of animals produced

and yet commercial breeders in Ireland claim there is a shortfall of a 1/4 of a million puppies that are exported from Ireland to UK to make up the shortfall from UK breeders????