Forums Forums Local News RSPCA at it Again

I see the RSPCA are at it again...pushing a sob story to try an extricate money from either Joe Public or by taking any offender to court..

RSPCA appeal after pigeon dies from gunshot wound in Moreton.

Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, anyone who injures or kills a wild bird can face a fine of up to £5,000 and six months in prison. (doesnt apply to pigeons)


http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/1...shot_wound_in_Moreton/?ref=mr&lp=15.

Should people be able to harm animals and not get prosecuted??? Is it ok to maim any form of wildlife and leave it to suffer?

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 DOES apply to pigeons, they are classed as a "Wild Bird" as per the act. Only a licensed person is allowed to perform pest control on pigeons and even then the licensed person and the person who contracted them have to ensure the complicated provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act have been obeyed.

I'm amazed how the media have managed to create this anti-RSPCA hysteria, the RSPCA do an amazing job at very low cost, suing newspapers is too expensive for them to even attempt, the newspapers know this and use them as easy prey to fill pages cheaply.

The appeal is for information, not money!!!!!

Well said Digging, the country needs organisations like the RSPCA .Its very worrying that some idiot is lose in Moreton with a gun .Hope he/she is caught & prosecuted.

Would not describe a living creature shot in the chest a 'sob story'. Hope they find the evil person who did this to that poor bird.

Pigeons (feral and wood) are allowed to be killed (which also includes accidental wounding) under a Government General Licence (that is free and doesnt need to be applied for) and can be carried out by any "Authorised Person" (includes any landowner, homeowner..you dont need to be specifically licensed). Rules about discharging fire arms inc air rifles would apply.

Unfortunately animals will get maimed and suffer if they escape capture and dispatch.

Have the rspca ever convicted anyone of shooting a pigeon ?.....heres one they could start with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I3ncXZ4Ogs.

Why do they want information....its publicity for them.

Look at the language used by the RSPCA person “I went to collect the bird’s body and there was a clear, severe injury in his chest.

“This poor bird must have been in a huge amount of pain and suffered a slow and agonising death.

“I made some enquiries in the local area and am keen to find out if anyone knows who may have been responsible for this awful act."

They are making it out to be an "awful act" , without information, when it may be a "lawful act" "a slow and agonising death".....do they do anything about kosher and halal throat slitting....


Ive just applied for a licence to trap red signal crayfish for food. Why..because they are overunning are waterways and destroying habitats. They will be dropped into a pan of boiling water. Is it cruel to eat meat???

The person clearly hadn't operated under the terms of a Government General Licence, therefore it comes back to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as the licence is not in place.

The person shooting pigeons with air rifles are the same calibre as idiots that have been shooting cats and people.

As long as you realise how slowly crayfish die in boiling water (over two minutes?), it is currently down your conscience how humane you think that is.

Here's the latest thoughts on killing Lobsters and Crayfish and the like. Dropping things into boiling water and watching them thrash around from the pain , doesnt appeal to me at all l!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42647341

Nowhere near enough restrictions and checks on people obtaining air rifles . I dont believe they should be freely available to buy and sell on any ordinary sites including this one. Its all too easy for irresponsible idiots to get them and shoot how and what they want to. Should be far harder to buy them , and ownership notifiable to the police or something.

Here's the latest thoughts on killing Lobsters and Crayfish and the like. Dropping things into boiling water and watching them thrash around from the pain , doesnt appeal to me at all l!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42647341

Sounds to me that plunging them quickly into boiling water is probably the kindest way to do it. It would appear that thrashing around as you and I might is precisely what they DON'T do.

They have a decentralised nervous system, so killing them with a bolt through the brain is impossible anyway.

It strikes me that the RSPCA has money coming out of its ears, and has far too little to do with it. It is extremely badly run and is the only organisation that can bring private criminal prosecutions instead of simply gathering evidence for the police. Its inspectors are frequently overzealous, and can simply take your pet off you if they decide to although I believe this has recently been changed so that a vet has to be involved. I wonder how rational such an organisation can be when at least one of its trustees routinely likens farming to the Holocaust.

They could be stunned before killing them as is done with many mammals.




That is a myth spread by the media. The RSPCA is short of funds hence having to put more animals down than they would wish. They have less than 12 months worth of realisable assets which considering the sources of income and the work they do, for a 200 year old organisation is not at all untoward. They near enough spend all that they earn.



That is a myth spread by the media, what they achieve for the amount of money they use is incredible, check the stats not the malicious words spread by the media.



That is a myth spread by the media, the RSPCA have no extra powers compared to anybody else to bring private prosecutions.



That is a myth spread by the media, where is the evidence?



That is a myth spread by the media, similar to the police they have to have evidence.



I can see the parallels.

That's the problem with distributed nervous systems. You can't 'stun' them like a mammal with a brain. And who is to say this is significantly different from sudden heating of the nervous system anyway? Another alternative of freezing them seems to be equally ill-advised. They are cold-blooded and this causes them to slow down and appear 'stunned' in a way resembling stunned mammals, but again who is to say that the cold doesn't cause them to suffer more than heat?

The RSPCA seems deluded from top to bottom. It believes, for instance, it should be given the right to enter your property without the presence of the police if it believes an animal is suffering and approached parliament recently (with the aid of expensive lobbying companies) asking for this. Hopefully, it will be ignored.

It has an income of about £150 million a year from animal lovers fed a steady diet of lovable rescued puppies and kittens and doesn't hesitate to use this money to secure prosecutions for criminal behaviour. The police, by contrast, are required to submit evidence to the CPS before such a case can be pursued, which means they have to assemble and submit evidence for the charge. The RSPCA doesn't bother. There are many instances where the charge is unjustified and is lost, and some where the animal - having been taken by the RSPCA - has been 'lost'.

If you can't see the difference between a farm and a concentration camp, then you are well beyond my help, and I suspect anyone else's too.

You can stun them with electricity if done properly.

Putting them in boiling water can take over two minutes to kill them, because they are cold blooded they can survive very high temperatures (but not boiling), for the boiling temperatures to travel to their nervous system takes time. We die of shock etc long before our nervous system gets boiled, many cold blooded creatures don't.



Originally this function was done by the police, the Government decided to pass this function onto the RSPCA, the RSPCA are left with the responsibility but not the powers. Generally there is a good working relationship between the police and the RSPCA so its not an issue but on occasions the police are not available to assist with entry.

Normally anybody can burst into any property to stop a harm crime, if the RSPCA did this they would be lambasted even more, they are well and truly hamstrung and the media take full advantage for cheap press.



Most work of the RSPCA is with wild animals.

The RSPCA only prosecute a very small amount of incidents, only in severe cases or where people have ignored previous advice are prosecutions attempted. They issue around 85,000 improvement notices a year, 98% of those require no further action.



The RSPCA follow the prosecution procedure that the Chief Inspector of HM Prosecution Service recommended, do you think they should do the opposite? They are hamstrung in one aspect that the Government recommendation is that RSPCA inspectors become statutory inspectors, this is obviously beyond the control of the RSPCA.

The RSPCA only have 15 staff working on prosecutions and process about 1500 cases a year. I think you will find the success rate is pretty high at 92.5% which is significantly higher than the CPS at 83%. When you consider that the majority of RSPCA cases are subjective (the court has to decide if a crime has been committed as well as if the defendant is guilty) this shows they are probably erring on the safe side, most CPS cases do not have the subjective decision of whether a crime has been committed.



I didn't say there weren't any differences, I said there were parallels, in fact I would say there are many parallels.

"I didn't say there weren't any differences, I said there were parallels, in fact I would say there are many parallels."

I would say there are none.

There is no intention of extermination from farmers, unlike concentration camps.
Animals are treated well by good farmers, but very badly by 'good' concentration camp guards.
Animals are neither starved nor left untreated if ill - both the norm in concentration camps
Animals are bred in farms. Concentration camps sterilised their charges.
Animals are farmed for money. Concentration camps cost money to run.
In farms, the intention is to maximise profit, and that means the animals have to be treated well. The exact reverse of what goes on in concentration camps.

Any 'parallels' stem from a delusion that animals have (or should have) human rights which is total nonsense. Right are given in exchange for obligations and often need t be defended which animals cannot comprehend or fulfill.

None of this means ill-treatment should be allowed. It shouldn't of course, but establishing laws to prevent it (which I strongly support) doesn't involve conferring any 'rights' in the human sense.

I referred to concentration camps, I made no reference to the holocaust.

Farms are concentration camps for animals by definition, some worse than others.

Not all Myth...Charity commission wouldnt get involved if "myth spread by media"

RSPCA plunged into fresh turmoil after charity watchdog threatens action

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...rmoil-charity-watchdog-threatens-action/