Someone at work has decides she wants to donate to an animal charity......and has chosen the obvious one; RSPCA.:rolleyes: Have tried to to tactfully tell her there are plenty of other animal charities, who look after dogs for life, unlike the the RSPCA.
Can anyone give me some figures and information on the above mentioned, which I can pass on to her so she can make a more enlightened decision??

Do you mean on the RSPCA, you can find all the fact and figures on their own site you can also check what each branch receives and spends on the Charities Commission's site

Don't know about statistics, but you could try pointing out that there are MANY independent little charities out there who spend the bulk of their money in actually looking after animals and rehoming them rather than on TV advertising and sending people door to door to emotionally blackmail you into a Direct Debit.

Thanks, but I was trying to find the numbers of healthy dogs etc who passed thru RSPCA and onto the 'bridge'.

Id be very very surprised if that information was available.

You can get hold of stats that will be a couple of years old, about how many dogs over all they put down. Statistics are a funny thing though.

Your best bet if she is hell bent on supporting them and no other, is to point her in the direction of supporting the LOCAL branch and not sending funds to the main headquarters. Each local branch not only has to pay to carry the RSPCA name, but then has to be self funding from there on. They dont GET anything from the 'RSPCA' at all (although they must abide by their rules on various things).

So, money going to HQ wont generally benefit animals directly - indirectly theoretically it should.... sent to the local branch though and it WILL be spent on the animals.

Em

in australia the rspca post their statistics on their website if your rspca have a website try looking on there

i know that the rspca do put animals to sleep but that does not mean that they dont need assistance in caring for the ones that will be rehomed those independent shelters dont usually have a lot of room for many dogs where as the rspca do have more room so if people stop giving to the rspca then those independent shelter will be all that is left and then they will also have to start putting dogs/ cats ect to sleep too. In australia there is a Lab that has been at one of the many rspca shelter for 5 years and they still have not put him to sleep. They also try hard to rehome the ones that are on death row before they show people the pups basically to get where the pups are you have to walk through the death row first. You cant say that they dont try and that they dont deserve any type of funding

I think that is a little unfair.  I certainly don't agree with all the political work the RSPCA get involved in but it is clearly an exageration to say they spend the bulk of their money on advertising and door to door work.  Apart from their rescue work they do a tremendous amount of educational and welfare work not to mention the work going into evidence gathering and prosecution in cases of animal cruelty.  I think it is all very well pointing out their shortcomings incase a donor may regard these as important, personally I would not regard PTS animals that have no prospect of a home in the near future an necessarily a bad policy, but if we are looking for an enlightened decision shouldn't information be fair and balanced and include all the plus points too.

Um, who said they spend the bulk of their money on advertisign??

Money donated to HQ goes on that, and on political wotsits, on sending people round to yourhouse askign for direct debits and loads of other stuff (paying inspectors and the rest).

I was pointing out two things.

1/ The RSPCA are NOT going to publish how many dogs are put down that shouldnt have been (and they do, dogs for instance who have kennel cough - dogs that just happen to be the 50th dog in a 49 dog kennels.... both those situations HAVE happened).

2/ Local branches must fundraise for themselves, adn a large number of people mistakenly donate to HQ not realising it DOESNT go to their local branch at all.

Em

I didn't respond to your post :)

>who spend the bulk of their money in actually looking after animals and rehoming them rather than on TV advertising and sending people door to door to emotionally blackmail you into a Direct Debit.

oops, missed that bit then!

Em

I think that is a little unfair.  I certainly don't agree with all the political work the RSPCA get involved in but it is clearly an exageration to say they spend the bulk of their money on advertising and door to door work.

Okay - me bad - I've looked and it's actually around £12 million they spend on 'generating funds'. It's actually around 15% of their expenditure, but still, most small charities don't even have that amount of money coming in per annum. PErsonally, I'd rather support a small one as the RSPCA is coining it in.

As for the how many animals are rehomed or PTS, the RSPCA, in their own words, are against long term confinement - I don't know how long they give them to find a home. But in 2004, they rehomed 19,089 dogs and put to sleep 7,025. That seems high - I can't believe that just short of 25% of dogs that end up in the RSPCA's hands for rehoming needs to be put to sleep. Over all, the total animals rehomed was 68,040 and euthanized 61,789.

Since the advent of the lottery all charities have had to invest a lot more in fundraising.
Personally I don't have issues with euthanasing unwanted animals, it beats a prolonged life in kennels and if that is a reflection of the shortage of homes it is very sad but the arithmatics remains :(

>Over all, the total animals rehomed was 68,040 and euthanized 61,789.

I don't understand what this is referring to?  Not just dogs obviously because you have given the statistics for them and they are very different is this all animals, injured animals, wild animals?

I don't understand what this is referring to?  Not just dogs obviously because you have given the statistics for them and they are very different is this all animals, injured animals, wild animals?

That was the total for all animals. About 12,000 were cats and the bulk at around 45,000 were Misc. I'd presume a lot of those were wild animals as they are usually very sick if they can be caught in the first place.

Well, quite, so a high level of euthanasia might be expected in the interest of welfare.  Of course it is donations that allow them to put inspectors out to do this important work, welfare isn't all about finding new homes.

We found some baby ducks abandoned and stuck down a cattle grid.  Brought home and rang rspca.  it was a cold night and they were without mother, we were told to put them back behind a wall and leave them, even though we protested they would die.

We kept them a few days and rehomed them to a farm.

I don't think you would have had any different advise from any other welfare group, the mother would most likely have come back once you left. I suppose at least it was ducks that can be reared and domesticated easily.

The advice was right - the mother would have been nearby and would have returned to them after you'd gone.

Perhaps something had hapened to the mother tho :( I think I would probably have done the samething and taken them in. JMO

Unfortunately loads of baby birds die each year because well-meaning people 'help' them, thinking they're abandoned. Fawns are also taken to rescue centres by people who come across them where their mother's hidden them while she feeds, and think they've been abandoned. :(

Perhaps, but the advise is the best you can do for wildlife on the whole because the greater probability and the best outcome for the young is to be reunited with the parent and be reared in the wild where they below.  As I say maybe not so bad with ducks.

I consider myself suitably 'reprimanded' ;)

LOL! :D

I would be very very surprised if ANY rescue/animal welfare put any healthy animal to sleep without a very good reason.

I agree with Isabel in that there is a need to weigh up the real dilemma of how long should an animal be kept in a rescue centre - with limited funds it would be impossible for all rescued animals to be kept indefinately.
I often wonder about the aggressive dogs kept in rescue centres that can NEVER be rehomed due to their problems - what happens when the kennels are full and they are unable to accept anymore animals that do have the potential to be rehomed.

I do not agree with putting a healthy animal down but then I do not agree with keeping animals in kennels in rehoming centres indefinately where their quality of life is not as it should be.

The RSPCA do more good than harm so if your freind wants to give them money, why not.

As I understand it, neither the Blue Cross, Dogs Trust (NCDL) ever pts a healthy animal. The lady in question can donate to Jack n the beanstalk if she wants, am trying to give her as much info as possible, esp the RSPCA are one of the richest animal charities, and many smaller ones could do more with her donation, than pay Rolf Harris and his camera crews

If the RSPCA put down 7000 dogs a year that tells us that there is x amount of homes available and x amount + 7000 dogs looking for one.  Nobody has ever found a dearth of dogs to choose when they set out to rescue so we know the arithmatic must work out at least something like that.  If some charities make a point of always keep a dog that they cannot home the only way the maths work is if they don't take in another one and leave it to the RSPCA to do the hard, dirty side of the job on all those they won't have a place for.  I believe the BBC pay Rolf and the film crew.  Yes, give you friend all the information but keep it fair and balanced.

>  Yes, give you friend all the information but keep it fair and balanced.

Yes Isabel, I shall, but as she believes the RSPCA never euthanise  healthy dogs or other animals then perhaps this information may enlighten her,

Edited to add..The Blue Cross and NCDL seem to cope

Yes, but just today you accepted that what people think, on first hearing, is the kindest course of action, is not always so when the whole picture is explained ;).  Therefore, if you plan to let her know that they do euthanase animals you should perhaps also explain to her that there is simply not a home available in the country for every unwanted dog.  If you keep the 7,000 surplus each year by the end of 10 years, which is a reasonable life span to suppose for what is very often young dogs you have 70,000.  Would you give up then and start to euthanse or just keep building tower blocks for them and the 7000 surplus that just keep adding every year?  So what is the answer to preventing those 7000 surplus being born in the first place?  How about educational campaigns about responsible ownership, neutering and adopting, the sort of work that the RSPCA spend their funds on :)

Wish they would tackle the puppy farming issue much more proactively.  We know it is leagal, but surely they shoudl be shouting much louder about finding pups from reputable breeders and getting a dog from rescue if they want a crossbreed or older dog.

Ahh now Brainless, didn't you read their reply to my letter on just that subject in our dogs about 2 weeks ago?   They claim they have been working behind the scenes since January (2006) :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No, I didn't Dill.  Can you expand?  You roll your eyes :), does this mean you don't believe them or you don't think that is useful or they should have started before January or what?

If you'd read my letter you'd understand ;)  - briefly, I was questioning the fact that certain 'groups' including them have spent a lot of time, money and public discussion to ban the docking of pups while puppy farming isn't even in the public awareness, their reply was that they've been working behind the scenes since jan 2006.  Hardly bringing it into the public awareness ;) which is what needs to happen if puppy farming is to become unprofitable (which is about the only thing which will stop it IMHO ;) )  and its been going on for as long as docking, so its not as if its a new thing.

Well I agree with you about the docking issues :)  However as regards puppy farmer we have had discussions on Champdogs many times about the nebulus nature of what exactly is puppy farming. I am not sure how you think the market can be made unprofitable within the law?  I certainly don't think any amount of bringing it to public awareness will close the market because, sadly, there are people who really can't offer a decent life to a dog but who do not accept this fact when turned down by responsible breeders and who will then turn to whoever is prepared to let them have a puppy regardless of their circumstances.

You may well be right, but I have lost count of the number of people I know of who have unwittingly lined the pockets of a puppy farmer and would never have done so had they known in advance what to look for.  They actually thought all pups were wormy, lice ridden and filthy and kept in dark dirty sheds :(  so education and awareness would certainly help, not everyone is feckless and unwilling to give a dog a good lifelong home.  In order to find responsible caring breeders, first of all you have to know that they exist, for many people who are not 'in dogs' this is where public awareness comes in.  I have even helped a vet find a responsible breeder of their chosen breed, someone I thought would be in a prime position for 'knowing' where to find a healthy pup.  This person had been to plenty of people who fit the description of puppy farmer but had been unable to find a caring responsible breeder.

The 'market' cannot be 'closed' as you put it, but if enough puppy farmers find it difficult to shift their stock then they won't turn a profit and will find more lucrative ways to make money ;)

So what do the RSPCA say?  Buy from a breed club member?  We have posters on here that say they are not breed club member because the breed club are not good enough.  You see how hard it is to define?  From their point of view, with the unpleasant task of having to destroy 7000 dogs a year, promoting adoption of rescues is surely all we can ask.  Responsible breeding within the pedigree world is, perhaps, something the pedigree world should be promoting.

Many of the 7000 dogs in rescue will sadly have come from puppy farmers so it would be sensible to remove/reduce the source of these rescues.  One way would be through education of the public who often have absolutely no idea of where to start looking for a puppy and no idea of how pups need to be reared to make happy healthy pets.  Information on how to find a good breeder, health testing and certificates, what to expect of the conditions the pups are in, health of the mother, etc would go a long way towards educating the public about the wefare of breeding bitches and pups.

If you read the RSPCA website you will find that their original purpose was to educate the public about animal welfare issues and effect change through government legislation, animal rescue came much much later.

I guess the person who said the breed club is not good enough is me. Well, that comment i stand by if a club is happy to allow a bitch to have lots of puppies, and to have puppies at 8 and 9 years old. I would find under those circumstances i couldnt give them my support. I wouldn't blindly say that so long as the breed club said it was ok then it must be. Surely a bitch dosn't really want to be bred from after 7 years, if she can't have enough puppies by then .....well. It seems like double standards to me. Who would want to breed off an old bitch? What possible, justifiable reasons could there be for it?

What we need to remember is that, in many breeds, 8 years of age isn't old - in fact, that's when my breed start to settle down, and are considered in to be their prime! Of course it's far, far too old for a first litter (three or four years old would be fine), but for a subsequent litter shouldn't be a problem. The KC's 8-year rule was brought in quite recently to protect bitches from people who would breed from a bitch until she drops, and is an age plucked from the air as an average. A healthy, fit bitch of a long-living breed would have no physical problems having a litter at even nine - after all, she could well live to be 15, and the bitch puppy kept to make sure the household wasn't dogless when the bitch died would herself be 6 years old when the time came! The KC's blanket rule needs to be considered in the context of the breed, the gene pool, the quality of the bitch, etc. Automatically assuming that an 8-year bitch is geriatric is a mistake! I've never bred from an 8-year old bitch, but I've seen very many for whom it'd be no hardship at all. :)

I take your point, but to me breeding off a middleaged bitch who has already produced her quota of puppies is unfair to her, regardless of if the owner suddenly decides they now want to keep one back. If keeping one from her was in their breeding plan, they could have arranged to keep back from a previous litter.

I would think, though, putting my personal feelings aside, if someone is going to have a litter so late in the bitches life, they will be putting her health first. i know some dogs in the same breed can be younger in health and vitality than one the same age or even younger! Bit like us humans really. So, hopefully they will only do it with an exceptional lady. I just can't understand why anyone would want to put the bitch through it though.

No, I wasn't particularly referring to you, Calmstorm :)  Several people have said in the past that they didn't join breed clubs because their stand regarding breeding or health screening was not enough in their opinion but I have never understood why they don't join, supporting at least the minimum standard and then doing more testing, or whatever, themselves if that is what they feel is right.  The other aspect is, breed clubs are run along democratic lines, if you join then at least you have the opportunity to persuade people to your view and vote for change but sometimes we just have to accept the fact that the majority support a different view.  JeanGenie has already answered your other point.

I take your point Isabel, but i couldnt join an organisation if I didnt believe in their principles and codes. I, personally, wouldn't wish to be part of it, or put my name to it.

Good grief, we are not talking about organisations that practice skinning dogs alive ;)  All clubs have codes of ethics that go a good way to seperate the members from the casual, thoughtless breeder.  Any minor differences such as not agreeing that the breed is appropriate to appeal to the KC for a late litter or not deeming it necessary to subject a dog to an aneasthetic for a test that is not though to be of great value to the breed can be treated with your own individual bent.  The benefits of club membership in terms of access to health information etc and supporting the promotion of general good standards surely outweighs these shortcoming and like I said if you love a breed and feel strongly these things should be adopted you should feel even more motivated to join :)

Yes Isabel, I shall, but as she believes the RSPCA never euthanise  healthy dogs or other animals then perhaps this information may enlighten her,

Edited to add..The Blue Cross and NCDL seem to cope

The RSPCA have started to put LESS animals down than they used to. But like with the NCDL etc, what happens when they are full up? Because they don't put healthy animals down (and "healthy" doesn't always mean it is an animal that ever can be re-homed) they have to say no, we are full, and so these animals that cannot be taken in end up dumped wherever. I remember one year when the RSPCA here was full up and as they had stopped putting healthy animals to sleep, they told everyone they could not take anything else in. It een said so in the local paper. That was the year when I had monthly visits to my door with people dumping animals on me -everything from gerbils to puppies, because they'd tried the RSPCA and they'd refused to take them in.

Also others of course ended up in the local council stray kennels, where the rule is 7 days only -either the owner found OR a new home in that short space of time, or PTS. The dogs re-homed from there can go to anyone as NO homes are vetted. :(

Like it or not, it's a simple fact that at least homeless animals put to sleep WILL NOT suffer.

So it's a two edged sword.

Having said that, I DO think the RSPCA is NOT an organisation I personally would like to donate to, largely due to their actions, views and politics, however I'll happily donate to the local RSPCA shelter as that will go straight to the animals there.

>however I'll happily donate to the local RSPCA shelter as that will go straight to the animals there.

Yes, I think that is a perfectly reasonable decision.
I missed your edit about other charities coping Liberty, I thought I had already explained the arithmatic that demonstrates there is no way they can operate like that without just passing the dirty job of destroying the unwanted onto someone else to do the job, even when someone kind like Goldmali picks up their slack it just means any home she finds for them (or even space in her own home ;)) just means one less space possible for the rest of that 7000.  I think all charities should deal with everything that turns up to the best of their abilities but face reality and do the kindest thing, if it doesn't you wonder if that just might be a campaigning ploy ;)

a fair point Isabel 'touche'