Just noticed this on another forum - now it is the Mail but would be interested in your thoughts http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136714/Nature-lover-leaves-wildlife-haven-RSPCA--sell-bulldozed-built-on.html

Know it could be said that money is of more use to them but it is hardly in the spirit of things and just think what the area has lost.

Totally agree, tbh I blame the solicitor for not making sure the wording was correct and could be taken advantage of as it were, a layperson can not be expected to understand how to word a contract properly especially with something so important.

It is a shame that he did not leave it to a wildlife sanctuary, instead of the RSPCA. :-(

> Know it could be said that money is of more use to them

Very true and, of course, being a charity they have to make the most of their assets under the terms of their registration.

have to make the most of their assets

Pity they did not consider the wild life in the area an asset in its own right, to read there propaganda you would have expected them to. Well no, I would not have expected them to but then I have been following their activities for far to long to expect that.

What a shame :-(  I agree with Carrington though, the blame has to lie with the chaps solicitor. It's unrealistic to expect the RSPCA to simply keep the land, which would cost them money in maintenance, that's not what they do. With hindsight a local trustee, group or even the local school might have been a better choice of caretaker.

On a similar note an area where I've enjoyed walking for years has recently changed hands. Scottish Wildlife Trust have sold a bit of land to a local farmer. I guess while he just has cattle on there there is no loss to the wildlife but I hope they have a contract stopping him ploughing it up. It was a wonderful place to walk, every day I would see deer, rabbits, sometimes hares, small animals, a wide range of birds right up to buzzards. The farmer has put in dog friendly stiles but I won't risk the dogs safety by walking there again :-(

> Pity they did not consider the wild life in the area

I have only the report in the Daily Mail, not sure if you have any more information, and from that I would not like to judge if this land was remotely viable for continuing management.  One mans wild life area may be anothers wasteland with dangerously unmanaged trees etc.  The RSPCA may be chosing to spend the money on much more viable projects that will afford much more benefit to animals.  I really don't feel qualified to advise them on these things :)

I certainly don't approve but I'm definitely not surprised. I suppose there are many aspects to the issue that the report hasn't covered and other factors to consider when judging whether they did the right thing is a bit more complicated than just not liking the fact the land has been given up.

On the other hand.. it did lead me to a really good story about a beautiful GSD (So it stuck out like a sore thumb to me!) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136616/Thats-welcome-home-Adorable-video-shows-gleeful-reunion-lovesick-dog-soldier-owner-returns-combat-Afghanistan.html?ICO=most_read_module

> I suppose there are many aspects to the issue that the report hasn't covered and other factors to consider when judging whether they did the right thing is a bit more complicated than just not liking the fact the land has been given up.

Indeed :)  The RSPCA have issued a statement which may help a little
http://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/statement/270412

Will give it a read, thanks.

> I blame the solicitor for not making sure the wording was correct

It is interesting that people assume the wording was incorrect and the man could not have actually been expressing a wish whilst leaving the ultimate decision to the the RSPCA.

It is interesting that people assume the wording was incorrect and the man could not have actually been expressing a wish whilst leaving the ultimate decision to the the RSPCA.

He may have done, too many people seem unaware that the RSPCA is a lobbing group and apart from local offices (which I understand are local funded) the money goes to lobbing and not directly to the care of animals as individuals. He did, I would think, expect the RSPCA to continue the work he had begun.

I too have an area of land devoted to wild life and my dogs and I will not be leaving it to the RSPCA.

> too many people seem unaware that the RSPCA is a lobbing group and apart from local offices (which I understand are local funded) the money goes to lobbing and not directly to the care of animals as individuals.

I think you underestimate people :)  I think most people do understand the purpose of the RSPCA and their role in helping prevent those animals requiring assistance.

I agree Nova, I think most people believe that the RSPCA are out rescuing animals and saving them from cruelty. I think that is what you would find if you canvassed the average man in the street. The truth is very far removed from that.

I would not give the RSPCA a penny any more and it is no surprise to me that they just want to swell their coffers. It seems to have become their main goal, along with jumping on popular bandwagons.  

> they just want to swell their coffers.

The RSPCA has run at a deficit for several years.

>along with jumping on popular bandwagons

Of course they have to consider what the majority of the population consider an issue in animal welfare not just a few dog breeders.  I disagreed with their take on docking and fox huntering but I accept we live in a democracy.

Perhaps there is some consolation in the report that the proceeds from the sale went into local wildlife centres

Its not just the RSPCA that will do this I personally know of another case where someone left their land to  the RSPB with the intention it should be managed as a sanctuary but again it was bulldozed and built on. I think it is shameful. Even if the wording isn't exactly legally right in the will the charity obviously know what the persons intentions was and should  honour that. Not just grab the money.

> Even if the wording isn't exactly legally right in the will the charity obviously know what the persons intentions was and should  honour that.

As I said before, we have no idea what the person intentions were other than what was was written. 
They could well having intended to only express a wish.  The may never have wanted these charities wasting money on this land if it was not viable to do so and were happy to leave it to their discretion.

Then surely that 'wish' should have been granted.

Only if it was feasable.  The fact he expressed it only as a wish could very well mean he understood that other factors needed to be considered and that he did not wish them to spend money managing and insuring land when the money can be much better spent elsewhere.  
Isn't it is a little patronising to assume he did not understand that?

No

You think he must have been ignorant of the correct use of english language?

No

Please yourself but my guess is the gentleman came from a era when the English language and grammar was taught to a far higher level than it is today so I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Smashing I am so pleased for you.

> As I said before, we have no idea what the person intentions were other than what was was written. 
> They could well having intended to only express a wish.  The may never have wanted these charities wasting money on this land if it was not viable to do so and were happy to leave it to their discretion.

Well as I said in the case I know the person DID want the land to be used as a sanctuary and would have been very upset about what happened. She definitely was given bad legal advise but there didn't seem to be any recourse after death and the RSPB took full advantage of the situation and made a killing on the land. :(

Yes, she was given bad advise then but at least the RSPB were able to make money that could be spent on other projects. 
Perhaps the best thing people can take away from this is to discuss with these charities the suitability of their bequest as surely they would wish to help them in the best way they can.

my guess is the gentleman came from a era when the English language and grammar was taught to a far higher level than it is today so I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Knowing correct grammar wouldn't necessarily mean he was aware of the correct legal use of grammar, which could be quite different in law, the term "loop hole " springs to mind.

All that aside though, I can appreciate the RSPCA were looking to make the best use of the land, and to give them credit, the money did go to another wildlife project. Unfortunately, the way the whole things been reported in the press may mean the RSPCA losing out on other bequests.

the money did go to another wildlife project.

I may be wrong but I am told the money from the bungalow has been given to another wildlife project as agreed with the donor what has happened to the money from the land sold for building is, I understand, a different matter.

Other projects according to their statement.
I think the moral of this tale is, if you are leaving something to a charity that amounts to a liability you should really be leaving them the assets to support it if you want it to remain as you wish.
Otherwise you are taking money out of their coffers and that cannot be right. That is the same as taking from their collection tins.
If you cannot leave the assets to maintain it in perpetuity you have to accept that they may not wish to spend their money maintaining it.  The choice has to be theirs or don't leave it to them in the first place.

The RSPCA has run at a deficit for several years.

That may be how they choose to show their running costs, although it seems closer to a 'break even' situation showing in their balance sheets for the last few years, however, their investments at last reporting were £80.9million and free reserves £70 million. Not exactly on their uppers. (That doesn't take into account any fixed assets of course). 

> Not exactly on their uppers.

Well, clearly if they continue running at a deficit they will be eventually.  Not quite breaking even is not quite breaking even. :)
What would like them to do with those investments, sell them off and reduce their income even further? 
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery." - Wilkins Micawber 

No, what I am saying is that they are very well off, and will continue to be. What they do and are doing to reduce their costs are taking action such as deciding not to take 'handed in' dogs that people can no longer care for. God forbid they actually use any money they have 'in the bank' to provide the service for which they purport to exist when economic situations require it.  Far better to reduce the 'service' and keep their hands on their purse. 

They took a big hit with donations following the 10 GSDs destroyed with a bolt gun, and the negative press which followed. They had to put more money into actively seeking donations to make up that shortfall. It looks like they are making progress with it and donations are increasing again.

Their annual statements make interesting reading.

> They took a big hit with donations following the 10 GSDs destroyed with a bolt gun, and the negative press which followed.

What a pity that so many people appear to have a continuing agenda to brief against them in this way but, of course, all charities are suffering just now so not at all sure how you can attribute the decline to any one story. 

I disagree with you that selling off assets is a good idea when the economic situation is bad.  Quite the opposite.  Interest rates are low enough, why would you reduce your income at the same time that the recession is unlikely to help with increasing donations?  Of course if they continue to run at a loss they may have to.

> Their annual statements make interesting reading.

They do indeed.  When you read of the hundreds of thousands of activities reported the huge budget numbers becomes understandable.

Stooge - Not selling off assets, using the funds that have been raised and subsequently invested (for the purpose). Haven't even included assets, and not talking of dipping into reserves either.

Indeed all charities are suffering, I don't attribute the decline to any one 'story', just mention one that did have a massive negative impact for them. I also said that the situation is resolving.........but I am sure that the man in the street expects his donation to be put to use and actually be spent on helping the animals, not allowing millions to sit in the bank whilst they turn away animals in need. Let's see, the 0.9 million just leaving a round 80 million should see them OK for a few years.

Gotta go, but look deeper at the activities!

If you use those funds they are no longer invested and can no longer bring in a return.
I do not imagine, with such huge sums involved, they do not take advise on the best way to manage their assets and funds :)

>I also said that the situation is resolving.........

Not sure what you mean, a double dip recession has been confirmed in the last day or so.

> Gotta go, but look deeper at the activities!

And you :)

a round 80 million should see them OK for a few years.

Is that before or after they acquired their nice new head quarters.

Someone said the public know the RSPCA is a politic animal, I really have my doubts just watched an advert and you would thing they did nothing but rescue dogs and cat and give them a happy ever after home, no mention what so ever about their political activities just loads of fluffy appealing dogs and a hard sell request for you money.

> Is that before or after they acquired their nice new head quarters.
>

Obviously after, as the "nice new" head quarters is now several years old. 
Were would you like them to house their staff?  An organisation of this size is obviously going to need premises to enable it to function properly and economically which a newer building is more likely to afford them, not to mention their obligation to their staff which will probably included access requirements due to their size. 
The building remains theirs though and therefore remains an asset that can be liquidised again if their requirements change so not sure why people think this is money they gave away, far from it if the running costs are a lot less than some draughty old barn or Victorian heap.

Stooge, the donation situation is resolving if you read their financial statements, ie donations are increasing, no doubt due to the hard sell request for money that Nova refers to. Yep, had them on the phone for mine. Felt sorry for the agency guy employed to take the flak he got (very politely I may add, but very clearly) from me.

Nova, I said just using the 0.9 million should see them OK for a few years and that LEAVES the 80 million still invested bringing in a return.  Of course the public don't know the RSPCA are a political animal, they buy into the fluffy rescue image. That's what I mean when I say that they jump on bandwagons too, they don't often start any worthwhile campaigns, but they will jump on the bandwagon if someone else does (and they think it might do their image good). Try getting them to actually come out and rescue a fluffy animal really in need and see what happens. I go back to my argument that the man in the street actually thinks that his hard earned £ is going to be spent on the animals and not squirreled away.

BTW of course they needed their new headquarters, to be more efficient LOL. They couldn't possibly continue to work out of the old buildings and still rescue the fluffies!

Stooge - before you jump on me again (LOL) I am entitled to my opinion of the RSPCA, and I think you might be getting some clue as to what it might be.  Yes, I do look at their financial statements and what they are spending (and not spending their fortune on) very closely.  IMO they lost their way years and years ago. More often than not they will hand off a rescue situation to a local independent rescue group if they can (But they will be there for the camera's if it's being filmed) but of course these little rescues are just rolling in cash and can certainly afford it more than the RSPCA. They have more expertise and compassion that's for sure. Rant over.

BTW of course they needed their new headquarters,

They really could manage out of their original offices then I would have thought up grading some of the local sheds would have been a better expenditure, they would not need a plush London property if they were in fact doing what they advertise and not, as you say, jumping on political bandwagons.

>ie donations are increasing

But not enough, so far, to take them out of their annual deficit.  Perhaps due to the fact that costs are also rising.  Fuel costs must be a big factor and look at what they have done.

>Nova, I said just using the 0.9 million should see them OK for a few years and that LEAVES the 80 million still invested bringing in a return

If their investments are not dealing with their deficit at the moment how could reducing their returns improve matters?

> They couldn't possibly continue to work out of the old buildings and still rescue the fluffies!

They would have less to spend on animal welfare if the running costs are higher. 
I wonder how many of those that bring out the old chestnut of this building they moved into over 10 years ago know what the running costs were or indeed what the difference was between what was spent and what was gained from selling off the old assets.

> More often than not they will hand off a rescue situation to a local independent rescue group if they can

Perhaps because their core being is about preventing cruelty and a rescue group is for......rescue :)
The other side of this coin is the number of other charities who think they can dib into the RSPCAs coffers for their wishes and requirements and feel it is an afront not to always be able to.

Have you listened to the Gavin Grant Dog World interview in which he patiently explains that if they operated as a rescue they would be swamped leaving them no resources to work towards preventing animal cruelty, bearing in mind they are not just here for dogs and cats. There are other organisations set up to rescue. 

> I am entitled to my opinion of the RSPCA, and I think you might be getting some clue as to what it might be.&nbsp

Oh, yes :)  which is fine and nobody has to support them but I do think it is a shame, and I don't quite see why people do it, that people appear to campaign to bring them down or reduce their ability to help anyone as nobody else is going to do half of what they do.  Certainly not the Government.

> then I would have thought up grading some of the local sheds would have been a better expenditure

I think the days of housing staff in sheds are long gone :)
Which political bandwagon have they jumped on?  It seems to me politicians are more likely to follow their lead on what the public are looking for in animal welfare.
What are the politics by the way?  Left? Right?  I have no idea myself.

>They really could manage out of their original offices then I would have thought up grading some of the local sheds would have been a better expenditure, they would not need a plush London property

Having worked at the old HQ in Horsham way back in the late 70s I can confirm that the offices had become very impractical; the outbuildings were already being used, with portacabins in the grounds and, being in a listed building in the conservation area of the town, there was no way of extending further. A new purpose-built building a few miles away (not in London!) was a sensible move.

Yes, you are right about the location JG, age I am afraid. I have seen what some of the local inspectors have to work from and they are the ones who are at the grass roots but then I do not think they are really considered of any importance these days.

What are the politics by the way?  Left? Right?

Politics was what I was talking about not political parties, political lobbing groups will butter anyone's bread to get things the way they want them, which party they are is of no  consequence.

> which party they are is of no  consequence.

Good, very democratic :)
Still not convinced that their lobbying is political :) but in what way do you think it is wrong for them to do this? 
Do you think the Government would put animal welfare into their agenda anyway?

Perhaps because their core being is about preventing cruelty and a rescue group is for......rescue
The other side of this coin is the number of other charities who think they can dib into the RSPCAs coffers for their wishes and requirements and feel it is an afront not to always be able to.
Then why oh why do they persist in showing themselves on TV in boats 'rescuing' swans? Just for the public image? To part the gullible from their hard earned cash?   I wouldn't even mind if when presented with clear animal cruelty cases they actually did something about it, but most of the time they don't or won't. They do reference that one of their potential threats is a damaged public image. They need to ask why?   I see that they are increasingly moving away from 'doing' into 'talking' and 'educating' with a view to prevention and reduced prosecutions (it costs less). I see they have also revised how they prioritise their 'goals' one of the criteria is on the basis of what they 'project' will have the best chance of success at. Therefore for example if they don't think they have much chance of being successful against puppy farming, they wont put resources into it. Not political? Sorry that is just not an organisational approach I want on tough animal welfare issues.

No they don't have to cut back on animal welfare if their costs are higher, they need to utilise some of the money they have. As I say the 0.9 million alone (the small change) on their investments will cover the excess until the recession is over, or even another million. But then they would be down to only 79million plus 47 odd million in reserve and that will never do. Oh and yes, they could sell some of their assets to cover some shortfall in the short term. This is how businesses have to operate NOT reduce their 'service' to animals. 

It is a shame that they don't come up to the mark, they have the resources, the clout but apparently not the will, they did once, but not any longer. If they want to prevent cruelty then let them focus on that and actually prevent it, get out there and prevent it when it's happening. Go to each and every puppy farm and prosecute them, be on their backs all the time. Not hand out flyers and talk to school teachers. If they showed me they really meant business I would support them as I once did.

Do you know that in 2010 they withdrew the euthanasia drug for use by field inspectors (can't remember the name p. sodium?), and gave them 'an alternative' for euthanasia in the field. Any ideas what the alternative was? (Genuine question).

The TV production team show them in boats because these are the most exciting rescues to watch but rescue animals they do.
They cannot "go to each and every puppy farm and prosecute them" because they have no right in law to do that and this is exactly why we need them to campaign for changes.  They, will however I am sure be aware that changes can only happen within what the limits of peoples rights though and unfortunately I doubt there will ever be a law that will stop people farming dogs for profit.
Channelling resources at the best chances of success at the right time makes total sense and I am sure they are very experienced in this. 

The RSPCA do an important job: lobbying at a political level is the only way changes in legislation happen, and that is the framework in which all the charities, rescue groups etc have to operate. However I do agree that the RSPCA fundraise from the public under the pretense that they are set up primarily to 'rescue' and mop up after abandoned and troubled pets and wildlife. Many of us who have tried to enlist RSPCA help for a troubled animal have found out that this is not the case and this job is being undertaken by local outfits. The RSPCA's fundraising literature is therefore found to be misleading and frustrating and incites a lot of anti RSPCA feeling.

Now in the spirit of getting the balance right between pontificating on policy and concern for the well being of the individual animal would any of you who who use a dremel be so kind as to spend some of your typing energies on my dremel post? It will directly impact on a dogs quality of life and so might be a better use of your energy ;-)

Interesting that not so long ago the RSPCA fought a case to get a farm on the basis that the the deceased owner 'wished' them to have it, now they are saying 'wish' carries no weight in law.

Typical RSPCA, haven't had dealings with them as one rescue to another, I wouldn't give them the hole in my sock.

And on the subject of their headquarters, who knew it has a swimming pool, free bus service in to town at lunch times for staff and staff were put up at the Hilton for a conference, something I witnessed at a conference in Dublin, all the other rescues were in B&Bs and getting value for their rescues, the RSPCA and another large rescue lorded it across the road in a swanky hotel.

And as for the RSPCA being in deficit *cough* how about cutting back on the number of people paid £100,000  a year, or the £500.00 an hour lawyers.