Monday, 12 April 2010

Can I ask you a few questions?

Can you imagine you are being asked these questions by someone in the street with a clip board - that you haven't got time to look the answers up or cross the road!

1 What sort of work do the RSPCA do?
2 Roughly how big a part of their work (both nationally and at branch level) is the rehoming of unwanted dogs and other pets? Are they a significant rehoming charity?
3 If people are in serious trouble (about to lose their house, having mental health issues, about to enter prison for eg) and are aware they are not able to look after their pets and want to give them up, where can they go for help?
4 Do you donate to the RSPCA or are you planning to? If so, what are your reasons for choosing this charity?

Please email beverley@dogstodaymagazine.co.uk ASAP. More interested to know what the public perception is of the above rather than the reality!

26 comments:

ScotchEgg said...

How about, ''You live in Scotland and leave a large portion of ££££ to the RSPCA in your will.......how much of it stays in Scotland?''

kate price said...

Scotch Egg, there is a better chance of you leave it to the SSPCA

Anonymous said...

well if they spend over £1,000,000 on the top 12 employees salary, I think it shows who they care about more, animals ....or their own "Fat Cats"

In the pink said...

The quality of service is not consistent and regional resources seem to differ greatly. The RSPCA also seems remote and impersonal.

Anonymous said...

With my experience not much help with animals only they like to hound you for monies. They are not a rehoming charity and I would NEVER donate to them. If anyone every came to be for advice I would tell them to stay well clear of the RSPCA and tell them about others that will help them. I prefer to donate to charities that actually do rehome, train and offer aftercare help.

kate price said...

What many people do not realise is that "the RSPCA" can be divided into; "headquarter run" practices (inspectorate, ACO's, animal hospitals, wildlife centres, and many rehoming centres and many more departments, AND branch run establishments. The latter pay to call themselves the RSPCA, but have their own rules and regulations and decide what to do with their money. That could be why there are inconsistencies.

Anonymous said...

are you THE katie price?

Anonymous said...

I think the RSPCA has a poor reputation, from what I have read on other, more general forums. People contact them hoping for help for individual animals - whether injured wild animals, strays, cases of neglect or ill-treatment, or pets in need of rehoming - and often seem to get an unhelpful response. They also have a reputation for being too quick to euthanise pets in their care. I think the whole question of who is responsible for what is one that we the public now find very confusing - and the lack of communication between dog wardens, police, RSPCA and other charities in some areas is a big issue. I am sure that staff working for the RSPCA feel they are working flat out to improve the life of animals - and volunteers even more so. Without more clarity about roles and responsibilities, however, I suspect the RSPCA is going to see its income decrease in the future, as the number of its supporters diminishes.

cambstreasurer said...

I've blogged about this from what one might call the "other side"

http://rspca-cambridge.blogspot.com/2010/04/millennium-volunteers-big-society-et-al.html

Anonymous said...

On an average day the rescue I work with recieves in excess of 20 phonecalls a day from people forwarded to us from the rspca. To my knowlege I do not know of anyone who has been helped by the rspca. I have also left many many messages on their Pet Retreat number about women and their animals in crisis. I have never recieved a call back not even to day a polite no we cant help:(

Jemima Harrison said...

The RSPCA actually rehomes more animals in the UK (all animals that is, not just dogs) in the UK than any other charity - so for all their faults, they most definitely are a rehoming charity.

Anonymous said...

Mrs Harrison the RSPCA also destroy more animals, and more dogs than any other Animal Welfare Charity in the country yet they have far more funds just sat idle on reserve than any other charity, which keep those dogs safe until a new home is available, and if not in fact for the rest of their natural lives (which is the practice for most other canine charities). They also shoot dogs with inhumane bolts, REFUSE to work with any other canine rescue, spend over 15 million on a new Head Office that was not needed, and have NEVER contributed to ANY canine health research.

Anonymous said...

Mrs Harrison the RSPCA also destroy more animals, and more dogs than any other Animal Welfare Charity in the country yet they have far more funds just sat idle on reserve than any other charity, which could keep those dogs safe until a new home is available, and if not in fact for the rest of their natural lives (which is the practice for most other canine charities). They also shoot dogs with inhumane bolts, REFUSE to work with any other canine rescue, spend over 15 million on a new Head Office that was not needed BUT have NEVER contributed to ANY canine health research.

Anonymous said...

"The RSPCA actually rehomes more animals in the UK (all animals that is, not just dogs) in the UK than any other charity " no they dont! they include in their "Rehoming" figures those dogs that are CLAIMED BACK BY THEIR OWNERS, they infact rehome less than 30% of the dogs.

ScotchEgg said...

The RSPCA sucks

cambstreasurer said...

The figures for RSPCA euthanasia include owned animals put down in clinics and hospitals because they're terminally ill - these are well-loved animals whose owners are using our facilities because they can't afford private vets and they are not strays.

I've NEVER included animals taken in as injured strays and reclaimed in my rehoming returns, and if I was fiddling returns by treating every hospital patient as an abandonment followed by an adoption my apparent rehoming figures would be staggeringly huge.

The original reason why RSPCA clinics were required to keep records of euthanasia was precisely to avoid the possibility of "hiding" euthanasia of healthy animals brought in by owners who didn't want them any longer.

Anonymous said...

Cambstreasurer answer me this......As the RSPCA organisation as a whole has over £150,000,0000.00 in reserve why do they A) need to appeal under their "if you dont donate this puppy/kitten will die" style of adverts campaign and B)with such fund NO healthy animal ever need be destroyed but the RSPCA over the past few years have destroyed hundreds of thousand HEALTHY animals.....Why?

kate price said...

1.5 billion?

cambstreasurer said...

The RSPCA as a whole has just one year's operating reserves (actually I suspect this year's annual report will probably show that it's dropped below this figure).

The figures which keep being bandied about include the value of buildings - we cannot run our animal clinic from a tent!

The claim that we are putting down thousands of healthy animals is just not true - as I said earlier the figures which are repeatedly quoted are for all animals, including animals put to sleep in clinics and hospitals. Would you attack the PDSA because it puts down animals which cannot be saved?

f we doubled annual spending there would be no reserves at all in two years time. This means that spending can't be demand-led, which is why we have to prioritise requests for help and why it's not possible to say yes to everyone who phones asking for their pet to be taken in for rehoming or for help with the cost of veterinary treatment.

And that is where we came in, of course.

Anonymous said...

RSPCA report for 2008 dogs rehomed/RELEASED 15,872, Dogs Humane euthanasia (Ie destroyed or don’t they include the BOLT KILLINGS?)8,313. It has £84,000,0000 fixed assets and £70,700,000.00 of free reserves )ie not tied up in fixed assets. In 2008 it had a total income of £119,926,000.00 and a total expenditure of £124,000,000 of which only 6.5% went to the local branches that do the actual work with the animals, so yes If they cut out all the waste of the HO and the media and political campaigns (and yes why did they waste so much money on a new HO that wasn’t needed .or even liked by the staff? Or on Mark Evans a chief vet so does not actually veterinary work but most of his time outside the work of the society...a cost saving if ever there was!!) So yes with all the fund available I don’t think the RDPCA should ever put a healthy dog (regardless of age) down yet they do, yet the Dogs Trust, Woodgreen don’t so why not the RSPCA?!? Its about time the tin rattlers they send out actually told the truth.....but if they did perhaps they wouldn’t be rattling the tins!!

Anonymous said...

Cambtreasurer said "This means that spending can't be demand-led, which is why we have to prioritise requests for help and why it's not possible to say yes to everyone who phones asking for their pet to be taken in for rehoming or for help with the cost of veterinary treatment." would prioritise = as much TV coverage as possible and forget actually helping peopel who if given advice education and guidence in the first place would not need any help in the future?

Anonymous said...

In my experience the help, advice and general attitude you get from the RSPCA differs between shelters. We have two within reach, one with a fantastic reputation, the other not (this from many stories and personal experience). Unfortunately this does put a taint on the organisation as a whole.

Do they rehome - yes. Do they rescue - yes. Are they perfect - far from it. The top brass get large pay packets just as those in private business. Yet those who do the mucking out and public work, get low wages. Do I support them - no.

I would rather give what I can to a local shelter who do sterling work and get very little press or recognition. By the same token I would not give to the recent Pedigree adoption drive - not once I read the small print that stated only minimal pence goes from each tin, with how much on advertising!

It's the fantastic that shelters are predominantly non destruction these days, but I fear the ratio is not stacking up, more needing homes with less available. Many more dogs are doomed to spend years in kennels.

cambstreasurer said...

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, the figure in the 2008 report "Dogs Humane euthanasia 8,313" INCLUDES terminally ill, owned dogs put down to prevent further suffering.

Just ONE example from last year of what this actually means at the sharp end - a bitch who had been in labour so long that her uterus ruptured. If her idiotic owner had sought help earlier she could probably have had a caesarian and survived (at our expense as the owner couldn't pay anything).

Should we have told the vet we wouldn't pay for her to be put out of her pain that so our euthanasia figures could be reduced by one?

kate price said...

Well said Cambstreasurer
and I guess the RSPCA could have chosen to euthanase my mums little crossbreed, found 10 years ago under a bush, a small stray puppy with two badly broken legs. Did they? NO!
They fixed both her legs with hundreds of pounds worth of metal work and my mum gave her a loving home. Example 2 of how the RSPCA could have chosen to save money, reduce figures.

Anonymous said...

Cambstreasure....so is it cheaper for the RSPCA to shoot the dogs with bolts then....or just humane?

Anonymous said...

If the RSPCA want to save money why do teh refuse to work with ANY breed club rescue? perhaps Cambtreasure can say, aas they seem to be the only one from the RSPCA willing to say anything