Rspca

[Little Gifts]

I want to ask an honest question. Why would you work for the RSPCA if you didn't have an affinity for animals? The pay can't be great and the working conditions are not necessarily temperature controlled or always hygienic. You would be dealing with some unpleasant and some emotional people. You would also be seeing some ugly things (injured, neglected and dumped animals and ones being pts). Based on this you'd have to think the staff were animal lovers and passionate about the wellbeing of animals or they wouldn't stay in the job long. So is the issue really with the 'organisation' and how it operates rather than the staff? It's policies, the amount of money it raises and how it raises it? How it spends it perhaps? What exactly are people unhappy about because when we lump it all in together I don't think it helps those staff who are trying to make a difference and do the right thing.

I'm only asking this because nothing will change if we aren't specific about our concerns.

I stopped volunteering with them because the staff at the centre back then were not as responsive to the animals needs as I was happy with. I felt I was there to provide back up support to staff but ended up with my hands tied by stupid rules about what we could and couldn't do and the staff didn't seem to care that those rules impacted on the animals. For instance I could arrive at daybreak and clean cages, change bedding and change water but someone office based decided volunteers could no longer be trusted to feed the animals (despite a fairly easy to follow guide in the runs). So I was supposed to socialise young, very hungry puppies or walk rabidly hungry older dogs, all who would not have had food for 17 hours. They hardly put their best face on to prospective adopters in that condition. Things may well have changed so I'm not going to hold that against them unless I have personal experience again that it still occurs.

But I am also unhappy about their very high euthanasia rates and don't accept that they are the only rescue body that takes on the worst cases. Anyone working in rescue has seen what they have seen.

I am unhappy about their use of dogs they have euthanized in advertising material unless they also note that the dog has not survived its abuse. Do not mislead to make money.

And I am not happy that as our key body there to protect animal abuse for all creatures great and small, with their millions of dollars of incoming funds each year they still don't seem to be fulfilling their main purpose - following up complaints, identifying animals at risk and prosecuting offenders. The other stuff they dabble their fingers in which dilute their mandated role should be outsourced. If they are our peak body then I want them to stop being a toothless tiger. I also think they have become too top heavy as the organisation has grown, same as what happens with federal, state and local govt bodies as they broaden their business scope.

As individuals I'd like to think they try but as an organisation if they have money to put ads on prime time tv then they also have money to do something practical about our two biggest problems - the crime against dogs that is BSL in Vic and puppy farming throughout this country. Companion animals being bred in farm environments is abuse on a mass scale. It costs the RSPCA a fortune in vet and rehabilitation work (without even considering what it does to the dogs) so how can that not be a priority to stamp out? BSL is abusive to innocent dogs in so many ways I can't even go into it. Why are they not being the voice for those seized dogs with no history of aggression? Why are they not ensuring they are being cared for adequately while they await their fate?

Where is that informed voice that is needed for animals in this country?

[mantis]

I want to ask an honest question. Why would you work for the RSPCA if you didn't have an affinity for animals? The pay can't be great and the working conditions are not necessarily temperature controlled or always hygienic. You would be dealing with some unpleasant and some emotional people. You would also be seeing some ugly things (injured, neglected and dumped animals and ones being pts). Based on this you'd have to think the staff were animal lovers and passionate about the wellbeing of animals or they wouldn't stay in the job long. So is the issue really with the 'organisation' and how it operates rather than the staff? It's policies, the amount of money it raises and how it raises it? How it spends it perhaps? What exactly are people unhappy about because when we lump it all in together I don't think it helps those staff who are trying to make a difference and do the right thing.

I'm only asking this because nothing will change if we aren't specific about our concerns.

I stopped volunteering with them because the staff at the centre back then were not as responsive to the animals needs as I was happy with. I felt I was there to provide back up support to staff but ended up with my hands tied by stupid rules about what we could and couldn't do and the staff didn't seem to care that those rules impacted on the animals. For instance I could arrive at daybreak and clean cages, change bedding and change water but someone office based decided volunteers could no longer be trusted to feed the animals (despite a fairly easy to follow guide in the runs). So I was supposed to socialise young, very hungry puppies or walk rabidly hungry older dogs, all who would not have had food for 17 hours. They hardly put their best face on to prospective adopters in that condition. Things may well have changed so I'm not going to hold that against them unless I have personal experience again that it still occurs.

But I am also unhappy about their very high euthanasia rates and don't accept that they are the only rescue body that takes on the worst cases. Anyone working in rescue has seen what they have seen.

I am unhappy about their use of dogs they have euthanized in advertising material unless they also note that the dog has not survived its abuse. Do not mislead to make money.

And I am not happy that as our key body there to protect animal abuse for all creatures great and small, with their millions of dollars of incoming funds each year they still don't seem to be fulfilling their main purpose - following up complaints, identifying animals at risk and prosecuting offenders. The other stuff they dabble their fingers in which dilute their mandated role should be outsourced. If they are our peak body then I want them to stop being a toothless tiger. I also think they have become too top heavy as the organisation has grown, same as what happens with federal, state and local govt bodies as they broaden their business scope.

As individuals I'd like to think they try but as an organisation if they have money to put ads on prime time tv then they also have money to do something practical about our two biggest problems - the crime against dogs that is BSL in Vic and puppy farming throughout this country. Companion animals being bred in farm environments is abuse on a mass scale. It costs the RSPCA a fortune in vet and rehabilitation work (without even considering what it does to the dogs) so how can that not be a priority to stamp out? BSL is abusive to innocent dogs in so many ways I can't even go into it. Why are they not being the voice for those seized dogs with no history of aggression? Why are they not ensuring they are being cared for adequately while they await their fate?

Where is that informed voice that is needed for animals in this country?

:clap: :clap:

[Erny]

Excellent post, Little Gifts.

[WoofnHoof]

Animal welfare regulation and enforcement should be the responsibility of government, not charities. But this will not be achieved by attacking the RSPCA or arguing over the culpability of the various levels within that organisation, it will be achieved by pressuring government into taking on the role rather than fobbing it off to charities. It is far better to present reasoned, rational arguments to this effect to the relevant bodies than go berserk about the RSPCA on a forum.

[Tempus Fugit]

I'm not sure I fully understand what the government should be doing. Laws and regulations regarding animal welfare are already done by governments. However it is quite common for governments to subsidise charities to perform certain functions, e.g. job placements, looking after orphans in childrens' homes etc. where the government believes the charity can do the task better and cheaper. In some cases the charities don't do the tasks society expects of them, which is one reason why there all the child abuse cases coming to light. Why would animal welfare be different?

Animal welfare regulation and enforcement should be the responsibility of government, not charities. But this will not be achieved by attacking the RSPCA or arguing over the culpability of the various levels within that organisation, it will be achieved by pressuring government into taking on the role rather than fobbing it off to charities. It is far better to present reasoned, rational arguments to this effect to the relevant bodies than go berserk about the RSPCA on a forum.

[Scarlet]

I'm not sure I fully understand what the government should be doing. Laws and regulations regarding animal welfare are already done by governments. However it is quite common for governments to subsidise charities to perform certain functions, e.g. job placements, looking after orphans in childrens' homes etc. where the government believes the charity can do the task better and cheaper. In some cases the charities don't do the tasks society expects of them, which is one reason why there all the child abuse cases coming to light. Why would animal welfare be different?

Animal welfare regulation and enforcement should be the responsibility of government, not charities. But this will not be achieved by attacking the RSPCA or arguing over the culpability of the various levels within that organisation, it will be achieved by pressuring government into taking on the role rather than fobbing it off to charities. It is far better to present reasoned, rational arguments to this effect to the relevant bodies than go berserk about the RSPCA on a forum.

Exactly. Animal welfare shouldn't be different but it is. Other charitable organisations funded by Govt have many forms of accountability, which they should. But the RSPCA doesn't answer to anyone. They receive Govt funding and appear to be able to do exactly what they want to do. And yes I have written to my MPs and it is from conversations (including on forums like this) that I have become aware of the concerns I have.

[WoofnHoof]

I'm not sure I fully understand what the government should be doing. Laws and regulations regarding animal welfare are already done by governments. However it is quite common for governments to subsidise charities to perform certain functions, e.g. job placements, looking after orphans in childrens' homes etc. where the government believes the charity can do the task better and cheaper. In some cases the charities don't do the tasks society expects of them, which is one reason why there all the child abuse cases coming to light. Why would animal welfare be different?

Animal welfare regulation and enforcement should be the responsibility of government, not charities. But this will not be achieved by attacking the RSPCA or arguing over the culpability of the various levels within that organisation, it will be achieved by pressuring government into taking on the role rather than fobbing it off to charities. It is far better to present reasoned, rational arguments to this effect to the relevant bodies than go berserk about the RSPCA on a forum.

It's a charity with private interests and no accountability. It also has the power to prosecute people, this power should only ever be in public hands, the fact that it is in private hands is hugely concerning.

The other areas of which you speak outsource certain responsibilities but when push comes to shove the department dedicated to the area (child welfare, employment etc) has the final say and the buck tops with them. This line is so blurred as to be non existent when it comes to animal welfare, RSPCA inspectors enforce the laws but are not bound by any of the accountabilities that public servants are, the organisation performs lobbying and activism as well as performing government responsibilities, and when there are conflicts of interest there is no control over it, you can report to the ombudsman but he has no one to go back to about it because there is no government agency enforcing compliance!

The government doesn't even have a department of animal welfare it's just a sub branch of primary industries which is conflicting enough, and they have no governing power to prevent conflict of interest from the RSPCA or any questionable practices they may engage in.

Edited April 28, 2013 by WoofnHoof

[minimax]

Sorry to take this thread back on topic, but RSPCA VIC have said they apparently have no record of having this dog in their care, nor RSPCA NSW (someone asked, and posted their response on the original post of this image on the Justice4Max fb page).

Take it as you wish, but I'd put that as another check in the "no this isn't legit" box.

[Sheridan]

Sorry to take this thread back on topic, but RSPCA VIC have said they apparently have no record of having this dog in their care, nor RSPCA NSW (someone asked, and posted their response on the original post of this image on the Justice4Max fb page).

Take it as you wish, but I'd put that as another check in the "no this isn't legit" box.

I thought it was a FB photo that someone has pinched.

[HeelerLove]

The photo does look a bit wierd like maybe it could have been shopped but maybe it is because it is a photo of a picture in a magazine or something? The backgroud is definitely the RSPCA building at Burwood - if you look up a picture of the building it is definitely the same one in the background.

Sounds like when RSPCA NSW were contacted they said they had no records and told them to speak to RSPCA Vic, and when Vic were contacted they said the same thing and said to contact NSW.

[Erny]

I'm not sure I fully understand what the government should be doing. Laws and regulations regarding animal welfare are already done by governments. However it is quite common for governments to subsidise charities to perform certain functions, e.g. job placements, looking after orphans in childrens' homes etc. where the government believes the charity can do the task better and cheaper. In some cases the charities don't do the tasks society expects of them, which is one reason why there all the child abuse cases coming to light. Why would animal welfare be different?

Animal welfare regulation and enforcement should be the responsibility of government, not charities. But this will not be achieved by attacking the RSPCA or arguing over the culpability of the various levels within that organisation, it will be achieved by pressuring government into taking on the role rather than fobbing it off to charities. It is far better to present reasoned, rational arguments to this effect to the relevant bodies than go berserk about the RSPCA on a forum.

It's a charity with private interests and no accountability. It also has the power to prosecute people, this power should only ever be in public hands, the fact that it is in private hands is hugely concerning.

The other areas of which you speak outsource certain responsibilities but when push comes to shove the department dedicated to the area (child welfare, employment etc) has the final say and the buck tops with them. This line is so blurred as to be non existent when it comes to animal welfare, RSPCA inspectors enforce the laws but are not bound by any of the accountabilities that public servants are, the organisation performs lobbying and activism as well as performing government responsibilities, and when there are conflicts of interest there is no control over it, you can report to the ombudsman but he has no one to go back to about it because there is no government agency enforcing compliance!

The government doesn't even have a department of animal welfare it's just a sub branch of primary industries which is conflicting enough, and they have no governing power to prevent conflict of interest from the RSPCA or any questionable practices they may engage in.

This ^ is the root of the problem. Non-existant accountability has things getting out of hand and off the rails. It needs to be reined in. And if the RSPCA has nothing to be ashamed or frightened of, it should applaud, welcome and encourage the thought of a formal channel of accountability being established by law.

[minimax]

The photo does look a bit wierd like maybe it could have been shopped but maybe it is because it is a photo of a picture in a magazine or something? The backgroud is definitely the RSPCA building at Burwood - if you look up a picture of the building it is definitely the same one in the background.

Sounds like when RSPCA NSW were contacted they said they had no records and told them to speak to RSPCA Vic, and when Vic were contacted they said the same thing and said to contact NSW.

They have finally posted an article which shows the full picture. Apparently being the "Face of MPW" now means having an article in the Heidelberg Weekly :laugh:

[mantis]

The photo does look a bit wierd like maybe it could have been shopped but maybe it is because it is a photo of a picture in a magazine or something? The backgroud is definitely the RSPCA building at Burwood - if you look up a picture of the building it is definitely the same one in the background.

Sounds like when RSPCA NSW were contacted they said they had no records and told them to speak to RSPCA Vic, and when Vic were contacted they said the same thing and said to contact NSW.

They have finally posted an article which shows the full picture. Apparently being the "Face of MPW" now means having an article in the Heidelberg Weekly :laugh:

So it's legit then? Can you please post a link to the article.

[HeelerLove]

The photo does look a bit wierd like maybe it could have been shopped but maybe it is because it is a photo of a picture in a magazine or something? The backgroud is definitely the RSPCA building at Burwood - if you look up a picture of the building it is definitely the same one in the background.

Sounds like when RSPCA NSW were contacted they said they had no records and told them to speak to RSPCA Vic, and when Vic were contacted they said the same thing and said to contact NSW.

They have finally posted an article which shows the full picture. Apparently being the "Face of MPW" now means having an article in the Heidelberg Weekly :laugh:

So it's legit then? Can you please post a link to the article.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=495762657156599&set=a.401040649962134.87772.401037836629082&type=1&theater

[minimax]

The photo does look a bit wierd like maybe it could have been shopped but maybe it is because it is a photo of a picture in a magazine or something? The backgroud is definitely the RSPCA building at Burwood - if you look up a picture of the building it is definitely the same one in the background.

Sounds like when RSPCA NSW were contacted they said they had no records and told them to speak to RSPCA Vic, and when Vic were contacted they said the same thing and said to contact NSW.

They have finally posted an article which shows the full picture. Apparently being the "Face of MPW" now means having an article in the Heidelberg Weekly :laugh:

So it's legit then? Can you please post a link to the article.

Sorry, can't link from my phone, but as said a billion times, it's on the Justice4Max FB page.

And no I didn't say it was legit, I said he was in an article. There is nothing about him being "killed".

Edited April 29, 2013 by minimax

[The Spotted Devil]

May 16th is quoted in the article as being the day of the MPW. I believe that's a Thursday in 2013. Last time May 16th fell on a Saturday is 2009. Sunday in 2010.

ETA: Just noticed the newspaper publishing date is listed as 2010.

Edited April 29, 2013 by The Spotted Devil

[minimax]

May 16th is quoted in the article as being the day of the MPW. I believe that's a Thursday in 2013. Last time May 16th fell on a Saturday is 2009. Sunday in 2010.

Well, the paper clearly shows it's from 2010, so it wouldn't surprise me that it's the 2010 MPW.

And I've been banned from commenting on the Justice4Max page because I questioned the validity and asked for facts. To me that says a lot...

Edited April 29, 2013 by minimax

[The Spotted Devil]

May 16th is quoted in the article as being the day of the MPW. I believe that's a Thursday in 2013. Last time May 16th fell on a Saturday is 2009. Sunday in 2010.

Well, the paper clearly shows it's from 2010, so it wouldn't surprise me that it's the 2010 MPW.

Beat me to it :)

I just assumed they were talking about this year so was surprised.

[Sheridan]

Nothing in that article to say he was euthanised, so how do they know he was? There isn't anything to say he was the 'face' of the MPW or even an RSPCA dog, though this is implied.

What is interesting is the Media Monitors logo.

[minimax]

Nothing in that article to say he was euthanised, so how do they know he was? There isn't anything to say he was the 'face' of the MPW or even an RSPCA dog, though this is implied.

What is interesting is the Media Monitors logo.

Why? We get Media Monitor stuff at work, you can subscribe and they send you stuff specifically related to your company or industry. It just means someone in the industry probably sent them the article.