And here's the good news at last...!
The RSPCA has just issued this statement:
And the link to our earlier coverage of this significant issue....
We've campaigned hard on this one, so this is a huge relief.
“Following public concern expressed on this issue, the RSPCA has decided to suspend the use of the captive bolt as an approach to euthanasia on any dogs, pending a review.
“Although there is no new scientific evidence on this issue, we do understand that putting animals to sleep does upset many people, so we have also decided to put our policy forward to external consultation, including by vets and independent scientists.
“The RSPCA is sensitive to public opinion, and we hope that by doing this it will reassure people that we are as open and transparent as possible.”
And the link to our earlier coverage of this significant issue....
We've campaigned hard on this one, so this is a huge relief.
Comments
Mutthouse xx
'No new scientific evidence' What about the countless well respected vets and welfare organisations that have been calling for the abolition of this method.
Next stop, the kk admitting they're wrong, vets educating insurance companies about vaccination progresses, a shortage of rescue dogs - is that a winged porcine I see - nice idea though.
Look forward to the story unfolding.
Emma
YIPPEEEE !!
In any case, no amount of expert opinion will wash with the public, who see this as a mediaeval weapon that has no place in 2010.
This may be just a cruel way of getting joe public back on their side.
Don´t stop the campaigning everybody. New Government to be made aware and lobbied to ban the CBG.
Is it really such a good idea to try to destroy the credibility of the welfare organisation with the best chance of working to persuade governments overseas that there are alternatives?
The vast majority of dogs put down by the RSPCA were untreatably sick or injured and lethal injection was the method used. The captive bolt was used where an experienced inspector had assessed the situation and believed that it would be the method causing least distress to the animal.
I think stopping the use of the captive bolt here is the most positive thing we've heard from the RSPCA in a while. It was putting the charity in a very difficult position.
Lethal injection is the obvious method of choice - apart from cases such as traffic accidents etc where animals need to be quickly put out of their acute suffering and there's no vet nearby.
And I don't believe its a matter of training either. Dogs skulls vary so much breed to breed. What might be a clean kill on one dog might not be on another - and pithing must follow too to make sure the dog isn't just stunned.
It just is such a barbaric method for the human involved, never mind the dog.
No other species has so much variety than the dog. You'd have to kill so many dogs to be totally proficient in every head type.
Lethal injection is worth the extra money of calling a vet when there is no urgent, time-sensitive need to kill.
The RCVS Advisory Committee was asked by the RSPCA to comment on a review of its Euthanasia Rules and Guidelines. The RCVS considered the use of captive bolt guns by some RSPCA inspectors, the way in which captive bolt guns work and their effectiveness and practicality for the purpose of carrying out euthanasia on dogs. The Committee decided that captive bolt guns were not suitable for the euthanasia of dogs. The Committee also felt that it should always be possible to call upon veterinary surgeons with access to appropriate medicines to euthanase smaller animals.
I trust that the reference to smaller animals means that cats and other small companion animals will not be destroyed by captive bolt guns because I note that the RSPCA's statement only refers to a suspension on the use of CBGs on dogs.
Now that the RCVS has ratified the unsuitability of the captive bolt gun for the euthanasia of dogs, does the RSPCA still intend to take this issue to an external review process? If so, will it be because it is attempting to justify its own actions by trying to prove that the CBG is a humane method of destroying companion animals? And if they can 'scientifically' prove this, will it mean the suspension will be lifted and the RSPCA will revert back to what most right-minded people believe is an abhorent method of killing sentient creatures?
In my view, the RSPCA should not be spending publicly donated money on an external review, it should instead be abiding by its own policies, principles and mandates -the ones on which it bases its Charitable status - the ones on which it persuades members of the general public to part with their hard-earned cash.
I notice that when they try to justify the actions by stating 'the most humane way at that time' they do not go into detail. Descriptions of state of health, behaviour, perceived dangers to the dogs and inspectors. Without full disclosure it is just more cloak and dagger stuff.
So they really consider themselves a higher authority than the RCVS.
2004 - 7,025 dogs killed
1,282 were healthy
2005 - 6,716 dogs killed
1,043 were healthy
2006 - 6,998 dogs killed
1,012 were healthy
2007 - 7,506 dogs killed
1,250 were healthy
2008 - 8,313 dogs killed
1,595 were healthy
2009 - 8,116 dogs killed
no figures currenetly
available for
healthy dogs killed
Remember these are the figures for dogs alone. The numbers of cats destroyed each year are considerably higher, although the numbers of healthy cats destroyed are approx the same as for healthy dogs. As for the animals destroyed on medical grounds - how many of those were suffering from TREATABLE medical conditions?
How is it that smaller animal welfare charities, struggling to make ends meet, can operate a no-kill policy for healthy and treatable animals whilst the RSPCA, which received £119,926,000 income in 2008 and £129,251,000 in 2009 has yet to declare a similar no-kill policy?
Please note that the above £millions relate only to the RSPCA's Headquarters. The 170 branches are all independently registered charities, run mostly by hard-working volunteers who have to raise all their own funding and receive no financial assistance from HQ.
However, in 2007, the RSPCA amended their 2006 figures to show that in fact 72,042 animals had been destroyed in 2006.
This is an increase of 9,702. How many of this increased number were healthy or treatable dogs?