I thought they would as well - but not here - not unless you are going to pay full vet price - which can be really expensive

iwlass that has been my belief and my experience too, I have taken many found and injured animals to vets over the years..some I have paid for some not

I feel that the foot soldiers are doing the best that they can, but it is amazing how much quicker the response if a TV camera is present.

Stan if you read back through the thread you will find a number of people do not agree with your opinion, but obviously some anger you more than others. Everyone on here is entitled to express an opinion without being told they are wrong all the time or what they post is not constructive You say above
''I think as this thread opens up those in favour of the RSPCA will be in the minority "
well ok fine, most of us don't mind being in a minority, it is not a problem to us as it seems to be for you, this is a forum we are just expressing our views...there is no right or wrong here just different experiences.

Can we keep 'personal' stuff out of this and just look at each post on a per thread basis please.

If anyone feels they are being hounded then they can contact admin. In addition the majority of people are not daft and they will pick up upon any such behaviour themslves, making it counterproductive to those who may be doing it.

Anyone who has any personal differences in the past are asked to DROP IT and that realy does work both ways. So please let's get back to being nice.

I recently had an article published regarding the Animal Welfare Bill which is imminant. This is a part of that article which highlights some concerns re this Bill and the RSPCA.

Under these draft proposals it will also be illegal for children under the age of 16 to buy or own a pet. It will also be illegal to give animals as prizes. So out goes the fairground goldfish. Those sentenced for acts of cruelty or neglect will have the maximum sentence increased from six months or a £5,000 fine to 51 weeks imprisonment and a £20,000 fine.

If the bill is ratified It will become an offence not only to cause suffering, but also to keep an animal in such a way that "if its circumstances do not change, it is likely to suffer or not to be properly cared for". This new proposal gives the authorities powers to enter any premises without a warrant this includes all modes of transport ie cars, planes, and ships.

What does concern me is the likes of the RSPCA and similar bodies, are ****-a-hoop over this bill and especially the “duty of care” part. I think many are now aware that the RSPCA is not quite the apolitical organisation it once was. Its ideals and focus appears to have shifted from a somewhat right to centre wing to the hard left of the political spectrum.

It seems that the influence of the animal rights campaigners such as L.A.C.S (league against cruel sport) may have permeated and infiltrated this once august body, to the extent that many millions of charitable donations are being sidelined for political lobbying.

I am sure when these donations were initially given or bequeathed it was probably envisaged that in the main it would be used to alleviate animals suffering, not to fund a new head office or pay lobbyists fees etc.

Where this duty of care bill differs from existing legislation, if an animal is kept in such a way as to cause potential future suffering, the animal may not at that time be suffering but it’s circumstances means that it could suffer at some time in the future then it would become an offence under the “duty of care”. Then the police or a body charged with animal welfare could enter the house, field, barn etc without a warrant and remove the animal/s. Seems fair enough but let’s look at that in a bit more depth and get some clarity on what it really means to the man in the street.

The problem initially with the “duty of care” is it makes pet owners effectively guilty of something that has not as yet occurred. And allows the governing body or whoever they elect to govern this bill (this has yet to be announced) to be arbitrarily subjective in what they perceive as guilt and innocence. Perhaps that’s why the RSPCA are crowing? As they obviously think they will be the governing body.

This could also lead to vendettas, the neighbour with a grudge, the animal rights campaigner that knows you may have shares in Huntington Life Sciences, or just the misguided do-gooder who couldn’t understand animal welfare if he were slapped in the face with it. Or the RSPCA that is to all intents and purposes the political arm for animal rights groups.

Stan

Unfortunately every law has a down side for somebody. It appears at the moment though that Animal care groups like the RSPCA/SSPCA, local organisations, dont have enough power in some instances to remove animals - such as when someone has proved cruelty to one animal - has it removed then goes out and gets another - How many times does this occur - then this bill is a positive move for them as this way they can remove the animal b4 any cruelty is done to it. Obviously with your point of neighbours with a grudge etc - yes I agree - however I am sure with a little common sense that if the animal is well cared for and the owner can prove care etc etc then it shouldnt really be a huge issue.

To be honest if one of my neighbours thought that I wasnt caring for my animal or was concerned - I would be perfectly happy to let anyone into my home to prove otherwise - people who wouldnt IMO generally have something to hide.

I honestly think no one can have things both ways - If we dont have a stronger animal care/cruelty bill then the situation with cruelty will just get worse - Giving more power for reducing Animal cruelty is a good thing IMO..

dani

I cant believe that there so many people that have had problems with the rspca and sspca I thaought it was just in this corner I contacted them a while back abpout a goat that had its leg damaged with a piece of rope it was tied up all the time and had managed to get its leg trapped after speaking to the people who owned it and they did nothing I contacted the sspca they did come out but just said that oh goats are always a problem and he had spoken to the owner who still did nothing I know several people who have contacted them about hurt seagulls and they just say oh thanks for letting us know but do nothing I know if it was not for them an awful lot of animals would be destroyed but it does seem to be money orientated if its going to cost too much to check something out they dont seem to bother

Hi BD

I can accept that and I understand exactly what you are saying and it makes perfect sense. My concerns and the real dangers of this bill that you can be assumed guilty before any cruelty takes place.

The duty of care is wooly and is open to misinterpretation. Lets face the RSPCA arn't doing their job now, given their political agenda's then they could abuse an act that allows people to base their findings on supposition.

To have the right to put your own slant on an act is inherently dangerous to state that if animals are kept in a way that MAY cause future, not current suffering then your animals can be taken away is a nonsense.

This bill also causes problems for the small rescue centres and liveries. This act could also impose expensive and difficult legislation on animal sanctuaries, livery yards, and rescue centres. Setting down codes of practice that may be impossible to implement on the small budget these organisations have at their disposal.

These small rescue centres and sanctuaries are run on a shoestring and do exceptional and profit free work rehoming and looking after an enormous cross section of animals, from snakes to donkeys, dogs to parrots. If the rules are unworkable, that puts these volunteers at risk of criminal prosecution,

In the final analysis I do feel this proposed act has some merit, but allow it to be hijacked or controlled by the shrill and vociferous animal rights and welfare groups at your peril, for eventually their meddling will result in the animals they are supposed to be protecting suffering more than ever.

Stan

I agree Brundog with all you say and I think it is good to see the RSPCA given more powers. I have seen cases where they were not able to enter premises until the evidence has been removed, as is the case with a local farmer whose animals are kept in appalling conditions. Yesterday they came to a house nearby and removed three dogs some neighbours and myself reported some time ago. When we first reported the owner to the RSPCA they came to see us and took statement within an hour of the report going in, they went to the house and they have kept the dogs under surveillance, the lady has a psychological problem and they worked with her to help with the dogs until it seems she is now to ill to cope and they went in with the police yesterday and removed them. No organisation is perfect, that does not mean we should knock the whole organisation and the many good people wh work for them, and let's be honest they can't win , if they advertise animals in a paper they are 'wrong' if they PTS animals they are 'wrong' just what are they supposed to do with them all when more are coming in all the time. The cat my son rescued came from a house that had seventeen cats, imagine paying to spay and inoculate that lot before rehoming which they did, no wonder their costs are high.The more vociferous nasty wing of the pro hunting lobby have got it in for the RSPCA and are trying to discredit them as l which does not help. I know we can all tell of experiences either good or bad, but we would be a great deal worse off without the RSPCA