Whilst no doubt they do a good job it seems too often they are getting power mad.
2 Globe stories this week showing both sides of the RSPCA plus a main stream article about removing their powers.

Local lady who had done voluntary work with animals had own dog take ill (ear tumour). Dutifully she took it vets to get treatment which obviously didn't work. Not wanting to have the dog put down (financial concerns) she let the problem take its natural course trying to treat it herself. Someone (probably the Vet-as the ear tumour was not visible to public) contacted the RSPCA. Judge said if you don't have pet insurance you shouldn't have a pet. Our vet said it wasn't worth us getting insurance and we might not get it because our kitten already had cat flu.

The other story I agree with the RSPCA. A dog owner tried to euthanize his own dog in a horrible way. Had he been able to shoot it through the head it might have been considered humane.

Main Stream Media...RSPCA should be stripped of prosecution powers, say MPs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37987213

I guess you haven't seen the picture of the state the dog was in, she had been "treating" it with water, it suffered for a long period of time. The whole ear canal was affected, it was full of pus and stinking.

This is not a nice picture ....

No excuses ! No finances! Not good enough,the PDSA will always help an animal in pain. There are just to many sad cases of neglect & cruelty. Can someone out there tell me who is going to ensure that these heartless people stick to the ban or are the courts & RSPCA just fighting a losing battle. I do agree though that unless you have a date of birth for your pet,not easily done with rescues or your pet has an ongoing condition then its almost impossible to get insurance.

Morning DD I have seen the picture--ive got 650 of them sitting on my driveway which unfortunately I cant deliver. The treatment from the vet didn't clear it--what else is she supposed to do. Spend hundreds/thousands of pounds more in vet fees with no guarantees of clearing it.I know how difficult it is to decide to put your pet down and its a matter of opinion to let nature takes it course. Who decides if pets should live or die. Of course the RSPCA man will say what he said because they have taken her to court. Did they get the dog treated no--they put it down.
I could show you an equally nasty picture of my big toe --was painful and full of stinking pus been hospital been docs had some treatment (antibiotics) but not clearing--last advice from GP leave it open to the air and wash in sterile (salt) water. Been like that for 2 months. Hopefully the wife wont have me put down. Joking apart there,s too many stories coming out of over zealous RSPCA just seeking prosecutions. Perhaps all the funding the RSPCA get should be redirected to the PDSA who actually treat animals.

This one highlights the bad press

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...r-Pig-and-the-truth-about-the-RSPCA.html

Selected incidents like these are not a good basis on which to make decisions.

The RSPCA has money coming out of its ears, and in my opinion should restrict itself to its animal work. It can, like anyone else, refer cases of cruelty to the police and the CPS will do the prosecution if there is a good chance of securing a conviction.

I worry that in a case of Bloggs v the RSPCA, that Bloggs doesn't stand a chance, such is its wealth and reputation. That is manifestly unjust and should be stopped.

Quote fish "what else is she supposed to do. Spend hundreds/thousands of pounds more in vet fees with no guarantees of clearing it ?"

Lack of money doesnt excuse someone from allowing obvious suffering to continue, ( animals' ears are exceptionally sensitive so that dog must have been hurting a lot) You make your choice - you find beg or borrow the money to continue a treatment, or you find beg or borrow the money to have it put to sleep humanely.

When insurance isnt available , you can minimize cost impact by putting money regularly into a 'pet vet' account till needed. Still a problem though if you havent been saving long.

I do think we need the RSPCA to be able to prosecute, but
agree some of the prosecutions now seem to be badly prepared and over the top - that needs sorting out .It loses them credibility.

As for the article wanting to let supporters know that the RSPCA pts a lot of dogs every year ..... Well people must be living in cloud cuckooland if they think animal rescue funds can stretch to supporting every stray animal for ever and ever. Yes there are no kill shelters, but they couldnt all be like that or there would be too many stray and cruelty cases left with no-where to go for their chance of a new life.

(Since only a relatively small number of unwanted animals are adopted, I bet that to save and support every unwanted one, ,youd soon need many aircraft hanger size blocks of kennels/cat rooms, in every county - the need really is that big)

Ex - do we have proof that RSPCA still has money coming out of its ears -

Quote fish

" I could show you an equally nasty picture of my big toe --was painful and full of stinking pus Been like that for 2 months. *Hopefully the wife wont have me put down

*should we take a poll on it ? - (some of his jokes are painful too! )

Why should an animal be put down just because its suffering

Do we put children down when they are born with conditions that will cause them to suffer to some degree for the rest of their life.
In the pet world unlike our own there is the option to euthanize--it should be an option not compulsory on fear of fine and prosecution and being stigmatized with "cruelty".
I am not talking about the idiot in the other story who tried to kill his dog with a spade.
When our little kitten was suffering in its last days. We didn't know how long he would last and agreed amongst ourselves we would not have him put down. If some RSPCA officer had called round in their pseudo police uniform and try and take it away to be put down I doubt they would have got out the house without a struggle (and I am not an aggressive person).
There are grey areas of subjective suffering. Did they say to the woman we feel you dog is suffering and think it should be put down or was it right lets take this dog and prosecute.
Would the RSPCA prosecute this friend of mine for catching and releasing this fish and then catching and releasing the same fish the following week when the ulcer whatever had burst. ? Its subjective.

From what I've read and watched on TV (Animal Rescuers) I think they do a good job. These animals have no voice so they speak for them. How anybody can think it OK to batter a dog to death with a spade they deserve all that can be thrown at them.Venice is right if there is no hope for the poor animal do the decent thing and let the vet put it out of its misery, you have to find the money for this.

"To some degree" -- thats important . I wasnt having a go about your mog,fish some sick animals do just slip away with minimum degree of discomfort - he didnt look particulary distressed just almost out of it. I do think its very different when observation and commonsense tells you that an animal is in acute and chronic pain like the dog with the ear.

As for comparing with sick children with severe disabilities - the courts dont allow parents to insist on letting a severly handicapped child live child live if doctors agree the condition is too cruel to bear and theres nothing more that can be done. For children in pain, they wouldnt be allowed home to suffer without continued treatment.

The fish is not really comparable as its not owned by your mate - but if it was me , Id have been telling the fisheries owner about it to find out more about whatever was wrong with the fish and in the light of what he found out, consider destroying it if it was a nasty that would just worsen with time.

Certainly dont think the RSPCA should just 'take' animals without due discussion with the owners first , but should overide owners wishes if considered veterinary advice advocated it.

No, the RSPCA are an easy target for cheap news, the full and truthful story is very rarely given. The RSPCA usually only prosecute for gross negligence or when the owner is non-cooperative, they do not prosecute every time they find an animal needing treatment (but the press would lead you to believe otherwise).

In this case the vet had said the dog should be put down and the owner agreed, she just never did it nor attempted to do it.

If she had contacted the RSPCA, PDSA or even her own vets a solution would definitely have been found (I'll PM you details of this) but she chose to let the dog suffer.

We don't know if their was "no hope" for this ladies dog. see those fish photos swimming around and still eating away.
My arguement is who is deciding if the animal is going through deliberate undue suffering. RSPCA make a decision which is tested in the courts and present there "expert" evidence to a judge who sees a nasty picture of a dogs ear..job done. Defendants cant afford legal representation and just take the fine. Now and again judges/cps see the ridiculous ness of the case and throw it out of court.
The lady had taken in to be treated but the treatment didn't work--(bet she didn't get her money back of the vet)

The vet had stated that if the treatment didn't work the dog should be put down, the treatment clearly didn't work.

The owner said the reason she didn't have the animal put down was financial.

Therefore both the vet and the owner were in agreement that the dog should be put down.

Fish are cold blooded creatures and are a different case to mammals. That would have been a clever double entendre if I had intended it that way

The RSPCA are useless. There's a large long haired Alsatian on my street that lives in a tiny back yard. Its never taken out for a walk, it lives outdoors all the time and shelters under some plastic sheeting. The yard is full of dog crap, but gets a tin of dog food every day.

Because it gets food and has "shelter" (I use the term very loosely) the RSPCA won't act against the ignorant owners who don't care about the animal's wellbeing.

The matter is not one of whether people who are cruel to animals should be prosecuted - they undoubtedly should - but rather one of who should do the prosecution.

The reason that the police do not do prosecutions, but rather the job is passed on to the CPS, is that the police - as pursuers of miscreants - are not seen as being impartial in bringing prosecutions.

Exactly the same is true of the RSPCA, and if they have found a case of animal cruelty, they are able to do exactly what you and I can do, and bring it to the attention of the police. They will investigate and collect evidence and pass it to the CPS to decide whether a prosecution is appropriate. There is no need for the RSPCA - as a special case - to be allowed to short-circuit police and CPS and prosecute themselves.

I suspect most people who support the RSPCA do so in the hope of rescuing animals, not prosecuting cruel owners. That is the job of the police and the CPS, not the RSPCA.

But in these days of police priorities (they don't even show for burglaries in some cases), there is little hope of the police doing anything unless a person is injured.

Despite what the media say, the RSPCA don't have any special powers, so they can't be stripped of them.

As far as people complaining about RSPCA uniforms copying the police, its actually the other way round, the RSPCA uniforms existed before police uniforms.

There is also confusion about inspectors being RSPCA, they aren't, the inspectors are local authority representatives.

Loads of disinformation from the media stirring things up.

If the RSPCA didn't do the prosections, who would?

I don't understand why the RSPCA can't step in here. If they were domestic animals they would.

Mary Chipperfield was done on 12 convictions of cruelty a number of years ago. Now we have another family member guilty in a different way, but nothing can be done !

[youtube]9UsJ-oc93HQ[/youtube]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/263864.stm

There are a number of questions related to this:-

Have ADI reported their findings to the local council?
Have ADI reported their findings to the Secretary of State?
Have ADI reported their findings to the RSPCA?
Why do ADI never put dates (even rough ones) on their videos.
Why don't ADI prosecute? (they have exactly the same powers as the RSPCA).

A)They report their findings to every authority, including DEFRA and Government on a regular basis and many members of the public write to their MP's in an effort to bring about support for a ban on wild animals performing and being kept in circuses.
B)They won't put exact dates on videos because it would be detrimental to the undercover surveillance.
C) I think ADI have to abide by DEFRA's ruling. The RSPCA and various other animal welfare groups are lobbying Westminster for a change in legislation on performing animals and want to see animal circuses banned completely. This has been announced that it will be put back to 2020. 3 Minister's blocked it on the last two occasions. One of which wants to bring back the death penalty, so we can see how his mind works.

Thomas Chipperfield has gone to Italy and to the circuses there for the winter season, having left these animals behind for the next 4 months, here in the UK. They are not licensed at the moment,so I assume they willnot be inspected by DEFRA, but will be licensed as soon as the season starts next year, unless something stops it.

I was not having a 'go' at the RSPCA, I was merely asking why they can't intervene in such cases, but obviously no one has the answers. Looking at the updated Animal Welfare Act it seems nothing moves. Defra are duped every time they do an inspection of these circuses.

p.s. Just found out that this treatment as you see on the video is apparently legal.

Its an annual licence, it would be strange for them have let it lapse.

Also ....

"Appeal judgment into the case of South Kesteven District Council v. Mackie & Others on 12 October 1999, circus winter quarters were held to be within the definition of a circus"

Which would imply they still need a circus licence even for their winter quarters?

This is from ADI " they are not currently licensed but will need to be if touring England next year. Please help us secure the promised ban - contact your MP today. Thank you."

Also they don't need a license to travel in Wales at the moment.

I've just watched 'Lion Ark' What they achieve is incredibly stressful but incredibly successful too with so much hard work and dedication to these animals. Interestingly, Bolivia (a poor country which is what Lion Ark is about) has led the world in being the first to ban animal circuses. Here are the rest of them so far. No UK yet, the nation of animal lovers! Even Iran has banned them.

There's a list of countries on here and their varying types of bans.
http://www.stopcircussuffering.com/circus-bans/

RSPCA also campaigning. https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/wildlife/captivity/circuses

When you've got zoos you don't need a circus. We've got politics to replace the clowns.

Just read a report by RSPCA 2016,on animals in circuses with a link to the Welfare of Wild Animals in Circuses.

https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/wildlife/captivity/circuses

"
In the UK, many more wild animals are used in a variety of other mobile entertainments (collectively referred to as “mobile zoos” for this report). A survey in 2016 found that there were around 188 mobile zoos, plus 7 mobile ‘farms’, with around 3570 wild animals between them. These are minimum estimates. The animals are used for a variety of purposes, including display, handling and performing tricks at a wide range of venues. The number of calls to the RSPCA’s Cruelty and Advice Line in 2015 suggests that there is public concern about these shows. "

Pretty impossible for the RSPCA to rescue so many animals and because it's 'legal' the EFRA inspectors have the last say. I bet many of these circuses are foreigners and they are more than likely to let the animals loose, rather than be caught if they were banned. Trouble is they go into hiding and keep selling the young animals on from one circus to another. Big money. Goodness knows what happened to the elephants in Ireland. There has to be a complete ban, to stop it all.

a lot of vets will give advice and treat your pet with drugs for as long as you will let them and at about £70 a visit it is just not on when they that the animal is unlikely to recover. iwas told that i could get kemo-therapy for my dogs Lymph cacer. the vet said he could possibly live longer and when i asked "how much longer,months or years?" she said "maybe weeks. Money

Agree in a lot of cases it might well be money. Ive had friends who have been made to feel guilty because theyve chosen to to have a terminally ill dog put to sleep, rather than have it treated for uncertain improvement and uncertain length of time. I know some people would want every last minute with their dog if the extra time is quality , and they are willing to try anything to that end. Thats fine for them and I suppose the vet must suggest it to give them the option, but others declining treatment of that nature , shouldnt be made to feel bad.