Concerns Over Conditions In Rescues\boarding Kenels\other Establishments

[owl]

There is no excuse for rescues in Wales not neutering as we have a special Dogs Trust scheme. All other rescues I know round here have them. The reason this rescue does not get these any more is that DT have stopped giving them, as the rescue rarely bothered to use them and kept sending entire dogs and bitches out into homes.

[Red Rotties]

There is no excuse for rescues in Wales not neutering as we have a special Dogs Trust scheme. All other rescues I know round here have them. The reason this rescue does not get these any more is that DT have stopped giving them, as the rescue rarely bothered to use them and kept sending entire dogs and bitches out into homes.

 

 

So that would set alarm bells ringing in my ears if in an area of the dt scheme that a "rescue" couldnt come up to the standards they set

[Maria]

If it were conditions of buildings etc then I would go to the authorities, and pester, pester, pester.

 

However, if I felt , that it wasn't just about conditions (which can be improved), but about an 'attitude' towards animals which may be a trait, then I might do something in addition to going to the authorities.

 

For example, if I adopted an animal that had not been given basic / appropriate treatment, was neglected, and my vet was also appalled at the condition, then regardless of physical conditions of buildings etc -(which might be pristine and 'perfect;)-, then I would probably shout it from the rooftops. Especially if I discovered I wasn't the only one who had had this experience

 

What would you do if someone presented you with their 'evidence' on neglect, but conditions seemed OK? A tricky one for forum and newspaper owners I think.....

[Ian]

A bit OT but just to point out Ian, local branches are totally independent (other than the constitution that they promote) from HQ and Inspectors are employed by HQ not the local branches and thus cruelty is dealt with by them. In effect the local RSPCAs that you see have absolutely no financial link to the funds that you highlight there and are charities in their own right with their own fundraising budgets. Of course the HQ could pass down some of their funds to the local ones but they have no obligation to do so nor do the local ones have the right to demand it.

 

 

I wonder whether you've understood me correctly as I am aware of this & was not suggesting otherwise (although I personally do believe that Head Office should help their branches more with some of that cash).

 

In fact I stated at the outset that some local branches may genuinely need more support.

 

The branches should not however be making statements that they will pursue prosecutions for cruelty when they cannot do so. Documents which are available on line and filed with The Charity Commission by the branch I referred to specifically state that they do do so, hence my complaint to The Charity Commission, Trustee and Head Office.

 

Nor do I feel it is right that branch efforts (animals rehomed, neutered etc) should appear in the RSPCA National reports without reference to the fact this work is funded entirely seperately, not from the accounts they are reported with.

 

Red Rotties comments appeared to me to be about cruelty (my apologies if I have misunderstood) and lack of resources / powers. That is, as you say down to their Head Office & I therefore feel that the millions invested are relevant in reply.

[Ian]

If it were conditions of buildings etc then I would go to the authorities, and pester, pester, pester.

 

However, if I felt , that it wasn't just about conditions (which can be improved), but about an 'attitude' towards animals which may be a trait, then I might do something in addition to going to the authorities.

 

For example, if I adopted an animal that had not been given basic / appropriate treatment, was neglected, and my vet was also appalled at the condition, then regardless of physical conditions of buildings etc -(which might be pristine and 'perfect;)-, then I would probably shout it from the rooftops. Especially if I discovered I wasn't the only one who had had this experience

 

What would you do if someone presented you with their 'evidence' on neglect, but conditions seemed OK? A tricky one for forum and newspaper owners I think.....

 

I think I've followed the thread you probably allude too and would probably have presented all evidence - without so much comment / speculation - to the authorities. Without full knowledge of what has been done and what responses were received it's difficult for me to comment further than that.

 

I do however have concern about some of the statements made, photographs provided etc and whether, assuming that they are proven true, they could ever be improved. As you say there is a difference between conditions and attitude.

[Ian]

if you have a concern about an establishment regarding the conditions etc then what should you do?

 

Post about it on an Internet forum or contact the RSPCA or local licencing authority etc?

 

personally I would contact the relevant authority (and have done in the past). All the discussions in the world on the Internet will make no difference whatsoever if the powers that be are not informed.

 

As I've read the various threads & forums along this and related topics one thing strikes me - the story given as to the position of the RSPCA, Dogs, Trust, Mp's etc is reported markedly differently according to which forum you read. Why this is so is difficult to know but highlights an issue to me

 

If you complain about a Charity and The Charity commission decides to invetigate you will ultimately be able to read their findings on line - there is no room for misunderstandings or distortion.

 

As far as I'm aware if the RSPCA investigates something you will only ever see details of prosecutions in the media. It may be that there are different data protection rules to The Charity Commission of course but nevertheless I find myself wondering whether the RSPCA etc should (be able to?) publish publicly details of any complaint they do find to be unfounded?

Edited August 11, 2007 by Ian

[Fiona711]

Although i can understand people talking about places that they think are not up to scratch , what gets up my nose is the amount of people who have never set foot anywhere near and still think it is their god given right to jump on the bandwagon on somebody elses say so , i find it very sad indeed that people like that instead of stopping for a moment and asking themselves , "what could i do to help ? " Post all over the internet about how bad a cetain place is when they have probably never been within a few hundred miles of the place .

 

Maybe some places started out with all good intentions but just happened to bite off more than they could chew so to speak ? maybe they could not turn away an animal that they knew would either be dumped , PTS or worse ? Not all places that find themselves in difficulties are uncaring unfeeling money grabbing so and so's , maybe their hearts were in the right place but they just got swamped by too many animals needing their help ?

 

Personally i would like to see first hand and if alarm bells started ringing then would be the time to see what could be done to help , any kind of practical help that could be draughted in short term to ease the burden could surely only help the dogs or other animals in the long run , if a few more people offered some kind of practical help no matter how small maybe these places that find them selves in difficulties could change the way things are done for the better ? How much more rewarding would that be than sitting in a pc being vindictive and downright judgemental without knowing the full facts ir bothering to think of the animals ?

 

I have never got this driving need some people have to be nasty about these kinds of issues , some people do make genuine mistakes and as i said find them selves in difficulties through trying to do far too much because of their love of animals . We all know that puppy farmers and some byb's dont give a toss about the animals all they see is £ signs and if they can cut corners ie not pay for vet treatments worming tablets vaccines etc all the more cash for them at the end of the day . But what about the genuine people who do care and just cannot turn an animal away ? Surely a bit of help and support could go a lot further than critisism and scandle mongering ever could ?

 

Sadly mud sticks in the society we live in and some people seem to enjoy being nasty instead of offerring any kind of solutions or help , it is a sad day indeed for the animals when people who are supposed to care about them can only find the time to carry on spreading rumours and causing grief not just for the people involved but for the animals these people are supposed to care about .

 

I think in some cases , when people find themselves in difficulties and there are geuine concerns raised then it is only fair that they get the chance to rectify the situation within reasonable time limits , but i do agree that at some point if changes are not made and animals are suffering then the relevant authorities need to be involved .

 

Fiona xx

[Fee]

I totally agree with Fiona711's post - very well said.

 

Looking at the bigger picture rather than specific events, it is very sad that there are actually no codes of practice, agreed standards or legal recourse that can be applied to rescues other than RSPCA investigation, which can only take action in the case of proven abuse or serious neglect. Our rescue animals deserve much more than that very basic protection.

[tegk68]

100% agree with you Fiona too. Something very similar I have wanted to write for days but just could'nt find the right words. So, thank you

 

I also think Ian's idea about the RSPCA being able to publish publicly details complaints and the outcomes an excellent one.

Edited August 12, 2007 by tegk68

[sproggie14]

Very well said Fiona

[owl]

Yes indeed

[Trallwm farm]

I think both the above ideas are good ones

[Trallwm farm]

I think both the above ideas are good ones

 

 

Part of my mistrust on the persecution of MR is that two people I know involved in the hate discussions were accused of being dog hoarders by a sanctuary trusted on another board. I was horrified to be told recently how these two allowed thier dogs to run riot through woods chasing other dogs in a pack mentality.When the chased dog tried to run away it went accross a road and its back was broken by a car and it was PTS. It was only a young dog. I told the known sanctuary but nothing has been mentioned in public.

 

How can I trust these "rescue police" when thier right hand henchmen are untrustworthy and condemned by thier own.

 

By the RSPCA and other authorities publishing thier findings it will either clear or condemn people according to what is found to be there. Then those with axes to grind can simply be ignored and less animals will suffer that way.

Edited August 12, 2007 by Trallwm farm

[Mrs Mop]

Very well said Fiona

 

 

Me to

 

I have been trying to find the words but failed so thank you for saying it for me.

[elricc]

My problem with this is very emotive:

having had a dog from a very dodgy rescue (now defunct hopefully) who weighed a fraction of the correct bodyweight, had fleas, lungworm, first vacc and when I bathed him the water was dark green. My vet said he was very close to permamnent organ damage from starvation. (he was neutered though to give them there due)

I told many people organisations, who weren't interested, I had a serious amount of grief from the rescue owner and sidekicks/ henchmen. A lot of people had got dogs from them and there was a real get a ****** dog club, no one belived me. I contacted the forum and they investigated when no one else would, what came out was awful, even the people who had been abusive to me later admitted that they had had problems with their dogs from there.

So if that forum hadn't of intervened a lot of dogs would have been continually neglected and they would have carried on. I applaud the effect that that forum had in shutting down that rescue, if I don't agree with how it was done.

I have also been in the situation where I have waded in and helped as much as I can with a rescue having difficulties, in the end I decided I wasn't having enough of an effect for the effort I was making. There are points when you have to admit defeat and distance yourself.

To be frank if dogs are suffering for any reason (overstretched or deliberate) I feel that there should be a duty to cry as loud as you can to stop it.

What I found disgusting is people who put their social lives etc from being within a rescue in front of the ethics of caring for rescue dogs.

Rescue means dogs being safe and cared for.

 

Also if I believed all that I heard about this person and that person doing this or that I would be ringing RSPCA weekly and at times daily. I trust a few people who I know don't have a hidden agenda and if they tell me there are problems etc then I know there are.