Rspca Shelters In Uk To Turn Away Unwanted Pets And Strays

[Chocolatelover]

Lets hope they are turning their attention to REAL cruelty cases, not pursuing ethical breeders to ride the media wave after Crufts.

And the money would be better spent on subsidised desexing programmes and closing down puppy farms.

fifi

I see you too are a fellow cynic

YEP !!!

I wonder if all those dear little old rich ladies who have left them massive bequests over the years, ever thought their money would be used to hunt down good people while strays and needy animals are left to fend for themselves.

fifi

And those families of the newly departed who say "no flowers, envelopes for RSPCA donations will be at the church" also need to be told too.

*nods*. That's my job

I steer people elsewhere too - a dog saved is a dog saved, and if it is saved from an ethical rescue, so much better. Support what you believe in, don't support what you don't.

Chocolatelover

And apparently you know of many cases where the RSPCA have been in the wrong - but no one will let me know where I can learn about them. There is just this mysterious DOL cloud that surrounds them and "what they have done'.

I believe you asked the question some time ago and were referred to various threads via the search engine. If you didn't read them, that's fine, but don't complain about a "mysterious DOL cloud" because you didn't put in the effort to satisfy your question.

Sorry obviously missed it. Could you just highlight the post that referred me to various threads via the search engine. I think I missed it and would live to read them

[Souff]

And I'm sure that is a wonderful opportunity to bash the RSPCA Jed - get 'em while they're grieving at their loved ones funeral

Tacky, CL, very tacky.

Trick is for people to make sure WHAT nominated charity or cause they want to be collected for at the church ...... BEFORE THEY BECOME the "newly departed".

Sometimes the grieving family haven't been given any prior instructions and because the ND liked animals it goes this way, when in fact the "newly departed" may have preferred it to go elsewhere.

Souff

[Chocolatelover]

I'm am not the tacky one.

Would still like see the all enlightening post that is going to set me on the straight and narrow.

[mita]

The RSPCA is a large organisation (to state the obvious ) With different attitudes across the various states (like Qld RSPCA is the opposite to Victoria on BSL). And different 'takes' on policy, within each state.

At the national level this shows up, too:

With the national RSPCA sending out an excellent media report about dog bites (in line with the US Vet Assoc's findings in their task force).

But it also sets out highly debatable 'information' that disses purebred dogs & seemingly warns potential pet buyers against them.

While RSPCA Qld, based on their field experience & the evidence coming from u of q research, says the opposite....they tell people in their latest news report, to go to a good breeder when they want a purebred.

The RSPCA has been historically given a poisoned chalice in that it's the body charged with enforcing cruelty laws & also act as a welfare agency, and lobby re law and goverance on animal matters. All, too much & too conflicting. The CEO RSPCA Qld has gone public saying this shouldn't be so & that the law enforcement role should taken away. To a public service with adequate resources, entirely funded from a parliamentary budget.

If this was changed, it'd show up that it's what the law says, which counts. So to improve things, start lobbying for law reform. After the experience with looking at the Victorian animal cruelty law, re the move against a breeder for debarking her dogs....I think there's one law which badly needs reform in its language.

So I'll take the RSPCA, issue by issue, & will help where I can. I've always contacted them directly, in my state, when I think an issue needs looking at. Every time, I've got a satisfactory response. I'm a Life Member of both the RSPCA Qld & AWL Qld. And would have no problem leaving them money....especially as the RSPCA Qld & a U of Q Veterinary facility will be sharing the same campus & working together. (But I'm not planning to leave this earth soon )

Edited April 23, 2010 by mita

[Jed]

And I'm sure that is a wonderful opportunity to bash the RSPCA Jed - get 'em while they're grieving at their loved ones funeral

The politics involved in this is just mind boggling.

Fairly tasteless, I thought. Oh, and uncalled for.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Jed

[mita]

Wow to recommend someone not to adopt from there is sad from my point of view. It's not the dogs fault

Agree, RSPCA Qld has a sense of fairness to all dogs by pointing people to options in adopting from the RSPCA, or rescues....or purebreds from the responsible breeders.

From their Feb 2010 newsletter:

If you are considering adoption, why not visit the RSPCA or another reputable rescue organisation first. If you are seeking a specific breed then we recommend you find a responsible breeder.

[Chocolatelover]

And I'm sure that is a wonderful opportunity to bash the RSPCA Jed - get 'em while they're grieving at their loved ones funeral

Tacky, CL, very tacky.

Trick is for people to make sure WHAT nominated charity or cause they want to be collected for at the church ...... BEFORE THEY BECOME the "newly departed".

Sometimes the grieving family haven't been given any prior instructions and because the ND liked animals it goes this way, when in fact the "newly departed" may have preferred it to go elsewhere.

Oh and still no sign of the post that

Souff

I am still finding it difficult to comprehend you are calling me tacky after you instigated and continued the jokes about "telling the families where the money should go". And on top of that, you now claim that you know better than the family where the "newly departed" would have wanted their money to go!!! I will ensure my will is iron clad.

Some people need to take a good look in the mirror before they start name calling.

Thanks mita for a great post It was informative and unbiased and has really got me thinking. I admire your dedication to changing the status quo and your committment to improving certain aspects of the RSPCA. I recently read a great report commissioned by RSPCA Australia from the U of Q CAWE. Very inspiring and made me feel more hopeful for the future of animals.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Chocolatelover

[mita]

I admire your dedication to changing the status quo and your committment to improving certain aspects of the RSPCA. I recently read a great report commissioned by RSPCA Australia from the U of Q CAWE. Very inspiring and made me feel more hopeful for the future of animals.

The reality is that most of the people posting in this thread are also committed to wanting change. It's a theme that's come up constantly on DOL.

In the meantime, we've got things as they are now.

My brain is still bruised from the odd things in the Victorian cruelty law that led to a breeder's bark-reduced dogs being seized by RSPCA Victoria, even tho' they were not in distress or danger. It came down to that law allowing 'things' to be taken for evidence & 'things' could be animals. And more!.

Many of the people posting in this thread immediately helped that breeder who'd been placed in a distressing situation by the law that the RSPCA in Victoria acts on.

And I've soundly critiqued the 'information' coming from the national RSPCA re the status of purebred dogs. Alongside many of the people posting in this thread.

Yes, good stuff is coming from UQ. And other Australian sources. But the real challenge is to get the ideas off the page of reports & papers....& into real life.

Edited April 23, 2010 by mita

[tarope]

R$PCA NSW don't take in strays, but they won't say no to a donation.

Doesn't take in strays ?? So the stray pointer I adopted from them 5 weeks ago , what is he then, temporarily homeless ? between homes ? He was a stray taken in by them !!

They don't take strays, a couple of years back I found a stray dog rang the R$PCA and was told we don't take strays ring the council. Is that simple enough for you. The council said ring the R$PCA.

Here's another little gem, some years back the R$PCA had a magazine called "animals" and in it was "letters to the editor" when the letters began to be critical of the R$PCA guess what no more letters to the editor. they don't like people telling them off, because they can do no wrong.

[tarope]

http://www.careaware.info/index.html

I found this and it makes very good reading.

Edited April 23, 2010 by tarope

[Souff]

I am still finding it difficult to comprehend you are calling me tacky after you instigated and continued the jokes about "telling the families where the money should go". And on top of that, you now claim that you know better than the family where the "newly departed" would have wanted their money to go!!! I will ensure my will is iron clad.

It was not a joke. And I did not suggest that grieving relatives be harassed either.

People do need to plan as to what happens at their funeral sadly. When the arrangements are made by others there is quite a bit of guesswork if you don't leave explicit instructions. My brother attended the funeral of a mate who loved animals and family members (who lived a long way from him) thought they were doing the right thing by having envelopes for the RSPCA at the door. They found out later that he was totally down on them because they shot the lady's cows at Pilliga. His neighbours knew how he felt, but the family members learned later. His mates thought that would have preferred the envelopes be for the local Rotary or Lions clubs, but he didnt leave instructions to that effect.

Souff

[Steve]

Quote Anne

The bigger hilarity is that clearly, many take my posts as supporting the RSPCA, so they have to keep refuting my arguments. Hence it seems to me anyway. Otherwise, why is it that I can't put an opinion forward on what a fellow DOLer thinks (in this case Chocolatelover) and explain to them why I think that people don't like the RSPCA on this forum without being continually questioned, and my arguments refuted?

People don't refute your posts because they take them as supporting the RSPCA. They refute them because they don't agree with what you say. You made statements to explain to a fellow doler what you thought was an explanation to them about where the angst was primarily coming from and why. I don't agree and its certainly not the case for me personally.

I don't refute or question anyone because I think they do or do not support an org or an idea. I question and refute and debate when I don't agree with what they say.

Sometimes I agree with what you say but sometimes I don't agree and this was one of them. I don't care one little bit who does or does not support the RSPCA.

You have accused people of refuting your comments and continually questioning you because you think they are anti RSPCA yet you have discounted anything said because you have assumed it was only said because people think you are pro RSPCA. I would have questioned and refuted what you said by way of explanation to chocolatelover about the angst re the RSPCA on this forum regardless of whether I thought you were pro or anti anything because I don't agree with it and its not just chocolatelover thats reading it.

And for the record - I said what I did in that thread about the homeless lady because I felt sorry for her and I would have been anti anything or anyone that added to what I saw was her misery whether that be someone who refused her and her animals help without punishment - the police, the courts or the RSPCA welfare orgs etc - It had nothing to do with whether I'm pro or anti RSPCA and I took note of the comments made against what I felt and decided I still felt it was sad. Surely you can feel sad for a persons welfare situation as reported in that story without having to defend that the reason you feel that way is because you are anti RSPCA. I feel that way because its who I am and I would hope that if anyone else is in that spot that the animals could be helped with more compassion for the human as it was reported. I get thats not the RSPCA job but thats why we started MDBA Pacers because we thought it was someone's job. We like to get there before the RSPCA

because we know their focus is only the animals - ours is also primarily the animals but we also focus on the humanity. Its the same result for the animals just different for the humans involved.

It is pro pacers rather than anti RSPCA .

[Chocolatelover]

There is a lot of focus on humanity. There is welfare (and plenty of it), government agencies and many organisations people can go when they are in need. Animals are not so lucky. I do not believe that humans should be given the benefit of the doubt while cases are being investigated - it is good that the animals is removed until it is deemed there is no risk. Why should a dog have to endure many more months of cruelty or neglect just so that no humans are upset in the process.

I realise what this forum is now. It is not for people who love dogs. It is a "registered" breeders forum and people will support them no matter what. They stick by their own right or wrong, even it is at the expense of an animals well-being. Even when you lock your animals in a cage and deprive them of the basic necessities of life, as long as they are a breeder god help anyone who tries to bring them down. Doesn't matter about trying to find out any other facts or information - of course it's not their fault, they are a breeder.

Why does someone need to debark so many of their dogs anyway? Should she be breeding dogs that have such a predispostion to barking that they need surgery? Did she try exercise? Training? Mental stimulation? How does she afford to have her dogs debarked when she has is broke? Totally agree that the vet should be punished as well. Some people argued on a blog I read that debarking is no different to desexing. I am "sterilised", I put myself through the same thing I did my dog. Would I debark myself, my children - I don't think so. But it's OK for a dog because it suits our purpose. So many unanswered questions for me that I would need more detail for before I could have an opinion. Oh, but she was a breeder - so she is absolved from all wrong doing.

Thirteen dogs is a lot. A lot to feed, a lot to walk, train and socialise. Especially when you're broke. Many breeders on this DOL have litter after litter after litter - are they keeping a dog from every litter since each generation is supposedly an improvement on the breed? Doubtful. Do they carefully screen each and every home. Doubtful since many fly interstate. But hey, as long as you are registered that's OK. Do what you want and have as many litters as you want.

Oh and the hypocrisy doesn't end there. If you read a BSL thread then you come out with the idea then it's the deed not the breed. So it is the irresponsible owners that are making their dogs act like this, nothing to do with the breed. BUT, read a thread where a person is being rejected for a pup because she has children and all of a sudden it's because the temperament and genetics of the dog are the most important. So which is it? And if it is nurture then why do people have to wait three years to a dog that is picked out for their family??? Raise it right, do the hard work and the research and reap the rewards. I grew up in a third world country where our family dog was a stray pup picked of the streets. (In fact I grew up surrounded by all sorts of dogs - although I have been accused on this forum of having limited life experience.) Her temperament was very similar to the dogs I have now. So personally I probably side with the nurture side of the debate. But that is my opinion which counts for little since I am not a "breeder" and just a lowly average "joe blow".

Oh remember when trying to get a dog through rescue you will be judged if you don't let your dogs inside. So I hope some of the breeders that defend their reasons for not letting their dogs inside don't ever want a dog from rescue. Apparently you are not a good enough home.

I have no interest in breeding. I am a pet/dog lover and represent the general public. So I wonder how many people you turn away becasue of your biased morales and judgements and self righteousness. Many I would guess.

I won't be back. Obviously. Not really interested anymore in reading what you think of me either. And I certainly won't be recommending this site again. Not even sure I will even go down the registered breeder path again. I have no doubt that means little to you and life will go on but at least I know where I stand and what I believe in.

Animals have no voice. They have no choices. Humans have a voice. And many choices. They are responsible for the choices they make and the situation the end up in. The animals are innocent pawns and deserve every opportunity at the best possible life.

Thank you for helping me to see the light

[Christina]

It seems everyone has forgot that this is about the RSPCA in the UK.

It is not run the same as here in Australia. Cultural differences on animal keeping & welfare are different.

Maybe this topic needs posting on the UK DOL forum, just for a comparison of responses.

[mita]

I realise what this forum is now. It is not for people who love dogs. It is a "registered" breeders forum and people will support them no matter what. They stick by their own right or wrong, even it is at the expense of an animals well-being. Even when you lock your animals in a cage and deprive them of the basic necessities of life, as long as they are a breeder god help anyone who tries to bring them down. Doesn't matter about trying to find out any other facts or information - of course it's not their fault, they are a breeder.

Why does someone need to debark so many of their dogs anyway? Should she be breeding dogs that have such a predispostion to barking that they need surgery? Did she try exercise? Training? Mental stimulation? How does she afford to have her dogs debarked when she has is broke? Totally agree that the vet should be punished as well. Some people argued on a blog I read that debarking is no different to desexing. I am "sterilised", I put myself through the same thing I did my dog. Would I debark myself, my children - I don't think so. But it's OK for a dog because it suits our purpose. So many unanswered questions for me that I would need more detail for before I could have an opinion. Oh, but she was a breeder - so she is absolved from all wrong doing.

Chocolatelover, I'm sorry you mightn't be around to hear some answers.

Re the debarking of dogs.....it doesn't take away their bark, it takes away the high pitch tones. First time I came across 2 tibbies that had been bark- reduced, I just thought they had the sexiest voices. They made the same noises as any other dog, but without the high pitch registers. U ntil I came upon those tibbies, I'd thought debarking must be some monstrous operation that robbed dogs of their voices. Finished up wishing I could have a sexy voice myself, like those tibs.

You might be surprised to know that the same thing is undertaken by humans....but not thro' surgery, because people can have speech therapy.

Often women working in the media or in the public eye, have intensive speech therapy to lower the pitch of their voices. A famous example was Maggie Thatcher. One of her colleagues remarked that, before she undertook therapy, her excessively high-pitched voice could kill a passing sparrow.

This is why bark-lowering (not accurately called debarking) is a regulated procedure in Qld. The law allows that barking which is not remediable by other means....& which threatens the dog's ongoing existence....can be treated to surgery by a vet qualified to do so. And who has to work thro' a list of alternatives first.

In Victoria, where this particular breeder lived, bark-lowering is also allowed under a regulated procedure. But they don't have the sense to call it a regulated procedure. They call it a prohibited procedure. This breeder, living near the NSW border, took her dogs over to qualified NSW vet to have the procedure done. But the Victorian law says a prohibited procedure can't be done on a Victorian dog....in another state.

So that's where the legal problem was for that breeder. Her dogs had had their barks lowered....via a regulated procedure. But not in her own state. So the RSPCA Vic seized those dogs....even tho' they were in no danger or distress. But, by seizing them, they were then subjected to distress.

It was not a case of the breeder must always be right. The breeder acknowledged she'd not followed the Victorian procedure.....& did not quibble or ask for mercy. But what was not right.....was that her dogs were seized by the RPSCA when they even acknowledged they were in perfect condition. Later they were returned.....but only after it was made clear a boarding fee would be charged.

The problem was not just because that lady was a breeder.....the same would have applied if she were a pet owner.

In all honesty, breeders posting on DOL have been open when they do not approve how other breeders keep or treat their dogs. There's no rule of thumb here that says a breeder must always be right. The RSPCA Qld acknowledges that, too, in how they tell people to seek out a good, responsible breeder. Not just a breeder.

Edited April 24, 2010 by mita

[asal]

And the courts allow them to do this without any evidence?? I genuinely do not understand how this can happen. As I understand it, the RSPCA cannot convict anyone of anything - they can only take people to court and the rest is left to the legal system.

they are put in the position of either plead guilty or we will bankrupt you, trouble is they then do so anyway, i saw what they did to marion alcorn.

once your pleaded guilty its all downhill anyway.

check out the megalong story, now where is that link, plead guilty or...... so plead guilty n end up with paying think it was $50,000?

http://www.megalong.cc/RSPCA/The%20RSPCA%20EXperience1.htm

http://www.megalong.cc/RSPCA/

http://www.youtube.com/user/BlueMountains4Horses

http://www.megalong.cc/RSPCA/The%20RSPCA%2...e-Jellybean.htm

found this one one ruth downey. the inspector sent the truck laden with feed back to the produce then proceed to shoot her cattle leaving her the calves to raise?

http://www.sosnews.org/pdf/The-Ruth-Downey-Inquisition.pdf

Edited April 24, 2010 by asal

[Crisovar]

There is a lot of focus on humanity. There is welfare (and plenty of it), government agencies and many organisations people can go when they are in need. Animals are not so lucky. I do not believe that humans should be given the benefit of the doubt while cases are being investigated - it is good that the animals is removed until it is deemed there is no risk. Why should a dog have to endure many more months of cruelty or neglect just so that no humans are upset in the process.

I realise what this forum is now. It is not for people who love dogs. It is a "registered" breeders forum and people will support them no matter what. They stick by their own right or wrong, even it is at the expense of an animals well-being. Even when you lock your animals in a cage and deprive them of the basic necessities of life, as long as they are a breeder god help anyone who tries to bring them down. Doesn't matter about trying to find out any other facts or information - of course it's not their fault, they are a breeder.

Why does someone need to debark so many of their dogs anyway? Should she be breeding dogs that have such a predispostion to barking that they need surgery? Did she try exercise? Training? Mental stimulation? How does she afford to have her dogs debarked when she has is broke? Totally agree that the vet should be punished as well. Some people argued on a blog I read that debarking is no different to desexing. I am "sterilised", I put myself through the same thing I did my dog. Would I debark myself, my children - I don't think so. But it's OK for a dog because it suits our purpose. So many unanswered questions for me that I would need more detail for before I could have an opinion. Oh, but she was a breeder - so she is absolved from all wrong doing.

Thirteen dogs is a lot. A lot to feed, a lot to walk, train and socialise. Especially when you're broke. Many breeders on this DOL have litter after litter after litter - are they keeping a dog from every litter since each generation is supposedly an improvement on the breed? Doubtful. Do they carefully screen each and every home. Doubtful since many fly interstate. But hey, as long as you are registered that's OK. Do what you want and have as many litters as you want.

Oh and the hypocrisy doesn't end there. If you read a BSL thread then you come out with the idea then it's the deed not the breed. So it is the irresponsible owners that are making their dogs act like this, nothing to do with the breed. BUT, read a thread where a person is being rejected for a pup because she has children and all of a sudden it's because the temperament and genetics of the dog are the most important. So which is it? And if it is nurture then why do people have to wait three years to a dog that is picked out for their family??? Raise it right, do the hard work and the research and reap the rewards. I grew up in a third world country where our family dog was a stray pup picked of the streets. (In fact I grew up surrounded by all sorts of dogs - although I have been accused on this forum of having limited life experience.) Her temperament was very similar to the dogs I have now. So personally I probably side with the nurture side of the debate. But that is my opinion which counts for little since I am not a "breeder" and just a lowly average "joe blow".

Oh remember when trying to get a dog through rescue you will be judged if you don't let your dogs inside. So I hope some of the breeders that defend their reasons for not letting their dogs inside don't ever want a dog from rescue. Apparently you are not a good enough home.

I have no interest in breeding. I am a pet/dog lover and represent the general public. So I wonder how many people you turn away becasue of your biased morales and judgements and self righteousness. Many I would guess.

I won't be back. Obviously. Not really interested anymore in reading what you think of me either. And I certainly won't be recommending this site again. Not even sure I will even go down the registered breeder path again. I have no doubt that means little to you and life will go on but at least I know where I stand and what I believe in.

Animals have no voice. They have no choices. Humans have a voice. And many choices. They are responsible for the choices they make and the situation the end up in. The animals are innocent pawns and deserve every opportunity at the best possible life.

Thank you for helping me to see the light

It would take more than a forum to help you see the light me thinks.

You haven't read much of this forum or if you have have taken only you own narrow view from it.

Cheers

[Steve]

There is a lot of focus on humanity. There is welfare (and plenty of it), government agencies and many organisations people can go when they are in need. Animals are not so lucky. I do not believe that humans should be given the benefit of the doubt while cases are being investigated - it is good that the animals is removed until it is deemed there is no risk. Why should a dog have to endure many more months of cruelty or neglect just so that no humans are upset in the process.

I realise what this forum is now. It is not for people who love dogs. It is a "registered" breeders forum and people will support them no matter what. They stick by their own right or wrong, even it is at the expense of an animals well-being. Even when you lock your animals in a cage and deprive them of the basic necessities of life, as long as they are a breeder god help anyone who tries to bring them down. Doesn't matter about trying to find out any other facts or information - of course it's not their fault, they are a breeder.

Why does someone need to debark so many of their dogs anyway? Should she be breeding dogs that have such a predispostion to barking that they need surgery? Did she try exercise? Training? Mental stimulation? How does she afford to have her dogs debarked when she has is broke? Totally agree that the vet should be punished as well. Some people argued on a blog I read that debarking is no different to desexing. I am "sterilised", I put myself through the same thing I did my dog. Would I debark myself, my children - I don't think so. But it's OK for a dog because it suits our purpose. So many unanswered questions for me that I would need more detail for before I could have an opinion. Oh, but she was a breeder - so she is absolved from all wrong doing.

Thirteen dogs is a lot. A lot to feed, a lot to walk, train and socialise. Especially when you're broke. Many breeders on this DOL have litter after litter after litter - are they keeping a dog from every litter since each generation is supposedly an improvement on the breed? Doubtful. Do they carefully screen each and every home. Doubtful since many fly interstate. But hey, as long as you are registered that's OK. Do what you want and have as many litters as you want.

Oh and the hypocrisy doesn't end there. If you read a BSL thread then you come out with the idea then it's the deed not the breed. So it is the irresponsible owners that are making their dogs act like this, nothing to do with the breed. BUT, read a thread where a person is being rejected for a pup because she has children and all of a sudden it's because the temperament and genetics of the dog are the most important. So which is it? And if it is nurture then why do people have to wait three years to a dog that is picked out for their family??? Raise it right, do the hard work and the research and reap the rewards. I grew up in a third world country where our family dog was a stray pup picked of the streets. (In fact I grew up surrounded by all sorts of dogs - although I have been accused on this forum of having limited life experience.) Her temperament was very similar to the dogs I have now. So personally I probably side with the nurture side of the debate. But that is my opinion which counts for little since I am not a "breeder" and just a lowly average "joe blow".

Oh remember when trying to get a dog through rescue you will be judged if you don't let your dogs inside. So I hope some of the breeders that defend their reasons for not letting their dogs inside don't ever want a dog from rescue. Apparently you are not a good enough home.

I have no interest in breeding. I am a pet/dog lover and represent the general public. So I wonder how many people you turn away becasue of your biased morales and judgements and self righteousness. Many I would guess.

I won't be back. Obviously. Not really interested anymore in reading what you think of me either. And I certainly won't be recommending this site again. Not even sure I will even go down the registered breeder path again. I have no doubt that means little to you and life will go on but at least I know where I stand and what I believe in.

Animals have no voice. They have no choices. Humans have a voice. And many choices. They are responsible for the choices they make and the situation the end up in. The animals are innocent pawns and deserve every opportunity at the best possible life.

Thank you for helping me to see the light

Good grief of course the animals should be removed until there is no risk! How on earth could you possibly get that anyone here was suggesting otherwise?

Before you make the statements you do about registered breeders and this forum you had better take a better look at who the people are who made the comments you so much object to - few of them were registered breeders. And much of the angst is in fact because several non breeders were involved in a case with someone who is still a member of this forum who is a non breeder and they have first hand experience of what happened.

I absolutely agree that animals deserve every opportunity at the best possible life and I doubt very much if anyone here would disagree with you. Just because after I read a news article I felt sorry for the woman involved and was saddened by the fact she had to go through a court process and be fined when she was so destitute already doesn't equate to me saying leave the bloody animals were they were and let them suffer so the lady didn't get upset!

Perhaps if you hadn't decided what anyone says is because they are registered breeders or people who support them you would be able to have a reasonable discussion but instead of sticking to the topic you have to constantly tell us about how you care about animals more than we do and what a bad bunch we are because we disagree on some things. If you are going to play here you had better learn how to play the game. Play the ball not the man.

[Souff]

Thank you for helping me to see the light

No worries. If you care to switch that light on, you will see that this was a thread about RSPCA Shelters in the UK Turning Away Unwanted Pets and Strays.

Are you still representing the pet owners?

Souff

[spottychick]

Now your statement is clearly irrational. I have never said everyone who has issues with the way the RSPCA does things is irrational, emotional (or invalid), ranting or jumping on bandwagons. You are responding and quoting my posts so I assume you are aiming these points at me.[/b]

........

You take debates to personally Spotty. I have not called you irrational or even suggested you are incapable of irrational thought.

... I don't want to argue you with you Spotty and if you think I have dissed you then I am sorry for making you think that.

Hi Anne - You are correct, you have not said those things and no I wan't aiming those points at you The insults did not come from you.

And yes I do take personal insults personally - what can I say? I must be wierd.

ETA Your apology is appreciated but not needed!!

Edited April 24, 2010 by spottychick