longspoon Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 To my mind they are a politically motivated organisation now and have lost their true ethos.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted July 4, 2014 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted July 5, 2014 Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 Seen on the London Underground. I can't help but think there is an ulterior motive here. Of all the animal cruelty - why choose the one-off example and call it a 'crisis'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evo Posted July 5, 2014 Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 the RSPCA have certainly changed, what I cant understand is why they are wasting so much money, they should certainly lose the ROYAL from their name that's for sure people obviously work for them in the higher ranks for the big wedge they earn so lets be honest about this would the top brass work as a volunteer no they wouldn,t its all about money now just like every other politically based organisation, atb Evo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bb Posted July 5, 2014 Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 people obviously work for them in the higher ranks for the big wedge they earn so lets be honest about this would the top brass work as a volunteer no they wouldn,t I worked both as a "worker" and a member of the executive management committee for a local charity which handled millions of pounds per annum. Not one member of that charity took a penny in remuneration and there was a wealth of (largely retired) management experience apart from the lower skilled workers whose input was just as vital. It can (and should) be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalahari Posted July 5, 2014 Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 One of the real problems is the fact that "the evidence gatherers" shouldn't be "the prosecutors" ther is no balance or is it in the public interest there. David. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnFreeman1310 Posted July 5, 2014 Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 (edited) I do and will continue to support them they do great work just because they prosecute people who do wrong doings in the country sports ect and show bad press for it which they should if people are in the wrong game keepers especially for killing raptors. A lot of people who dislike them on here for the fact the make shooters and hunter look bad need to think how lug good they do and the volunteers who help out. Would you not ring them if you knew of sombody using puppy's as bait for fighting dogs? Edited July 5, 2014 by JohnFreeman1310 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted July 5, 2014 Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 Would you not ring them if you knew of sombody using puppy's as bait for fighting dogs? No, I'd ring the police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3vert Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 No, I'd ring the police. The Police uphold the law not an animal charity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 + 1 BUT knowing how the police are stretched to deal with "more serious" crime, I would call the RSPCA, Blue Cross or even my elderly Welsh Aunty if I though it would help..... The fact is that few police officers are able to deal with situations involving animals. I had to stop to help one catch a horse that was loose on a main road as their tactic seemed to be to chase it in a police car. I don't think anyone here disagrees that something needs to be done to protect animals from abuse - it is who brings a prosecution that is in question. If the police/CPS regard it as "not in the public interest" or are simply too busy to devote the time and money needed, should the a abusers be allowed to get away with it? Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 That's the problem - the RSPCA have lost many people's trust through their lack of impartiality. Hopefully they will address this, but much damage to their reputation as already been done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnFreeman1310 Posted July 6, 2014 Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 He police will not respond to dog fighting without the RSPCA. The same way if you ring the police about your dog being attacked they will not even bother coming to take a report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie10 Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 He police will not respond to dog fighting without the RSPCA. The same way if you ring the police about your dog being attacked they will not even bother coming to take a report. Why would they make a report? Why would you phone anyone because 2 dogs didn't get along? Don't say 'it could have been a child'....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 (edited) So you are still supporting them when they want fishing, shooting etc banned? Sorry not had time to respond to your post..... answer is Yes. I don't believe the RSPCA want legitimate fishing or shooting banned. They have in fact joined forces with the Angling Trust and the EA to educate anglers in preventing tackle loss and littering that are responsible for 2000 plus wildlife injuries a year which in itself is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of gunshot wounded birds and animals that arrive in wildlife rescue centres each year. Only Anglers and Shooters will be responsible for any ban in the same way that the hunting fraternity contributed to their own downfall. Only by interaction between relevant administrative bodies will a mutual solution be found. Imagine the good it would do for example, if a small proportion of revenues raised from Angling and Shooting were donated to the RSPCA, BTO or RSPB Anyway this old chestnut has been roasted plenty of times in the past and I don't suppose anything will ever change until someone at the top in each organisation shows a bit of vision. Edited July 7, 2014 by Fisherman Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 Their revenue is dropping - they need to change. If they don't change policy and they really start to struggle - would that be a good thing for animals who suffer? They should get back to basics, before they pass the point of no return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 (edited) I browsed a few sites plus search engines but couldn't find any info' regarding numbers of gunshot birds and animals submitted to the RSPCA so unless you can provide such I'll take your word for it. I can agree the hunting fraternity contributed in part to their own downfall but I was under the impression the over-riding factor was that the general public believed the hunting of foxes was undertaken for sport, which also applies to shooting. I can't 'imagine' any 'good it would do' if any contributions were made to the RSPCA, RSPB etc from the shooting fraternity, but I'm open to persuasion, but would also add that I would be very miffed if any shooting organisation I had contributed funds to had in turn contributed funds to any of the aforementioned charities. Just found some info' regarding raptors, but none of which were gunshot wounded, but suspected poisonings and still not anywhere near the 2000 you claim is a drop in the ocean compared to gunshot animals and birds. Edited July 7, 2014 by Scully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.