In its ‘RSPCA policies on animal welfare’ it states under its Objects of the RSPCA that ‘The charitable objects of the RSPCA are to promote kindness and to prevent or suppress cruelty to animals

The RSPCA’s vision is, ‘To work for a world in which all humans respect and live in harmony with all other members of the animal kingdom

Under its Mission Statement, the RSPCA declares ‘The RSPCA as a charity will, by all lawful means, prevent cruelty, promote kindness to and alleviate suffering.’

And under their General Principles, the RSPCA states ‘The general principles on which the RSPCA operates, derived from extensive scientific evidence, is based on the fact that vertebrates and some invertebrates are sentient, and can feel pain and distress.’

What happened to all those honorable and admirable objects, visions, statements and principles when RSPCA inspectors arrived at an address in South Wales and proceeded to slaughter ten German Shepherd dogs with a captive bolt?

Sunday, 25 October 2009


Well they missed a good opportunity to debate the issue of the 10 German Shepherds that they slaughtered in June this year. All was set for a live debate on the Stephen Nolan show on Five Live between Tim Wass from the RSPCA and Jayne Shenstone from German Shepherd Rescue. But it was a no show from the Stasi, who cried off at the last minute. Was that because they thought Mr Wass wouldn't be able to stem the flow of negative press and do a bit of damage limitation?
Maybe Mr Wass was a bit uncomfortable at having to explain why the Stasi still use captive bolts when the World Society for the Protection of Animals deems this to be an unacceptable method of euthanasia for dogs and cats.

The International Companion Animal Management Coalition (“ICAM”) deems the captive bolt to be an unacceptable method of “euthanasia” stating:

'The penetrative captive bolt pistol must be placed in contact with the animal’s skull and precise positioning is essential so that the bolt penetrates the correct area of the brain first time. Animals must be adequately restrained so that the head remains steady (Carding, 1977; Dennis et al., 1988; Beaver et al., 2001), which makes this method particularly difficult with fearful and aggressive dogs and cats (Carding, 1977). Furthermore, the conformational differences between the skulls of individuals and breeds of dogs increase the risk of a mis-stun. The principle skull types are dolichocephalic (long, narrow head), brachycephalic (short, wide heads) and mesaticephalic (medium proportions).

As there is a high risk of mis-stunning through inadequate use of the penetrating captive bolt, and hence causing pain and distress, WSPA considers this an unacceptable method for the euthanasia of dogs and cats.

Even in their own publication on Farm Animal Slaughter they state:

Captive bolt stunning is used on cattle, sheep and some pigs. With this method, a blank cartridge is used to force a metal bolt out of a gun and into the brain of the animal. The bolt does not kill the animal (stop the heart) but, if used correctly, causes the animal to lose consciousness immediately.

So a captive bolt doesn't kill it stuns and because of the shape of a dogs skull, the captive bolt is not an effective weapon!!!!!

How were these dogs finally killed after being stunned by the captive bolt? Were they left to recover consciousness in a pile and, then, die subsequently? When it became clear that this was not the right thing to do, why did the killing go on and on? How long did it take for the hearts to stop? Where were they taken after they had been stunned?

If no method of killing – as opposed to stunning – was used, did any recover consciousness beforehand? Did they recover consciousness when they were being transported? How were the bodies – alive or dead – disposed of? Did every dog have a severe skin condition? How old were these dogs (as it would have been easy for a professional to age them)?

Were any of them pups or youngsters, and therefore particularly healthy, vibrant and easy for a rescue organisation (perhaps even the RSPCA) to rehome? On what basis did the RSPCA “know” that every single dog was unsuitable for re-homing by our organisation? Why was not one of the German Shepherd rescues or other rescues based locally approached for help?

Are these the answers Mr Wass didn't want to give?

In an earlier recorded interview (no doubt read from a script) Tim Wass said ''It's far worse for the officers doing it'' when asked about the guns. How is it worse? The dogs are dead, the officers aren't!

Here is a thought to ponder, question asked on US website.

'I wondered if there is a study between people that kill animals for a living and criminal violence. Does working in an abattoir or killing moles for a living desensitize a person in the same way as killing animals for fun?Do people who want to commit acts of cruelty seek out these jobs or do the jobs change them? Is there any information available on the relationship between killing animals for a living and acts of violence and sexual assault?'

The Link: Cruelty to Animals and Violence Towards People

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.