RSPCA AND WSPA TRYING TO COVER THEIR ASSES!!!

digging a deeper and deeper hole for the RSPCA

WSPA and RSPCA joint statement (MUFFLED SNIGGERS)

Nov 6, 2009

Following some inaccurate media reports on a case from earlier in the year, which sadly required the RSPCA to euthanise 10 German Shepherd dogs, the RSPCA and World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) wish to make the following statement.

Reports that WSPA has been critical of the RSPCA on the use of captive bolt guns are incorrect. Both our organisations appreciate that sometimes there are sad and extremely difficult circumstances where this method of putting an animal to sleep is necessary.

Nobody said that the WSPA was critical of the RSPCA. What was said was that the RSPCA used a method of killing which is clearly stated as being unacceptable in the WSPA guidelines on euthanasia. Anyone can read these guidelines for themselves.

WSPA's views on bolt gun use

WSPA believes effective and humane use of a bolt gun requires a specialist combination of skills; knowledge of anatomical variation in dog breeds, as well as thorough training in humane slaughter and dog handling. RSPCA inspectors are incredibly well trained and should be considered specialists.

Inspectors at the RSPCA are trained to use these devices using protocols developed with the Humane Slaughter Association for a range of species. They are also trained to consider all other methods available and select the most humane and safe method depending on the situation.

The RSPCA does not use captive bolts as a matter of course. They are used only when other options are not suitable, and generally where they are used, it is mainly with farm animals.

If the captive bolt is not used as a matter of course, then how on earth can the WSPA claim that RSPCA inspectors are - ‘incredibly well trained and should be considered specialists’ – if they rarely use this method???

As the WSPA have highlighted – dogs heads are different, depending on the individual and the breed.

Captive bolts are not used for euthanasia of dogs in WSPA projects, and not listed as an acceptable method for euthanasia in the WSPA guidance (on the International Companion Animal Management - ICAM website).

This is because the bulk of WSPA's stray dog work is carried out in developing countries. As such, WSPA highlights humane slaughter methods that require less specialist knowledge in order to give the chance of a humane death to as many animals as possible.

So it’s okay to use this barbaric method to kill pets in the UK but in developing countries, more humane methods are encouraged for the control of stray dogs.

Working together for animal welfare

The RSPCA and WSPA do an enormous amount of good work for animals across the world. Examples of current campaigns include both organisations working to introduce animal welfare legislation in China, or tackling global farm animal welfare issues such as the long distance transport of live animals for meat, as well as helping stray and neglected animals whether in the UK or overseas. The RSPCA is a UK member society of the WSPA, which is the world's largest alliance of animal welfare organisations.

Because the heart beats under a covering of hair, of fur, feathers, or wings, it is, for that reason, to be of no account?

http://wspa.org.uk/latestnews/2009/WSPA_and_RSPCA_joint_statement.aspx

NAKED RSPCA MEN AND FURRY ANIMALS - THERE'S A NAME FOR THAT!!!

Prof Peter Singer - RSPCA Ruling Council

'But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty.'

HAS DESPERATION NOW SET IN AS DONATIONS DRY UP?

Something very different
John said: "We were really keen to ensure the poses were tasteful. And we also wanted to showcase the range of skills our officers have, so we have included images of rope rescue, water rescues and working at heights as well as dealing with larger and more specialist animals like horses." - and images of a bloody animal corpse shot dead with a captive bolt gun

Although some of the photographs feature animals, the aim of the calendar was to highlight the wide range of skills which RSPCA officers have, and to inform the public about the wide range of creatures and situations they deal with, including cliff and water rescues - and how to slaughter animals with a captive bolt gun

RSPCA senior regional press officer Jo Barr, who 'storyboarded' the calendar, said: "Although there are already a number of charity 'naked' calendars produced every year, we felt this would be something very different. - yes very different tasteless!!

An unusual project
"When you are a large respected organisation (not anymore), and you embark on an unusual project like this there is always a concern that it may raise a few eyebrows. We are sure the little children will like it!! But the feel of the calendar is light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek and we hope that people will understand that it is all about raising funds and awareness of animal welfare at a time when fundraising is very challenging." - especially with so much negative press directed at them.

Remember that the RSPCA removed posts from protestors from their facebook site on the grounds that children might see them yet they are using inuendo like 'tongue in cheek' about naked men?

As well as pictures - some of which include animals rescued by the RSPCA - each page of the calendar will include information about the work of the RSPCA in the South and South West (that will be very brief) and important information about common animal welfare problems and ways the public can help. They can help by donating to a no kill organisation instead.

ANOTHER DESPERATE PUBLICITY STUNT BY THE RSPCA TO TRY AND DRUM UP SUPPORT

IS THAT A BOLT GUN IN YOUR POCKET?

'Kicked' puppy died from virus

It did not have the fractured skull as the RSPCA had claimed - indeed there were apparently no signs of any injury whatsoever.

How much money did the RSPCA gain from the fund-raising exercise that they conducted in tandem with this shameful episode? Perhaps the 'charity' would consider donating this money to a proper animal welfare organisation, which spends its time looking after animals, rather than trying to prosecute non-existent hoodies on the basis of dodgy evidence from a vet. Perhaps they would consider apologising for all the remarks made by their PR department about "youth culture" in connection with the "stamping"?

An inquiry into the "kicking to death" of a 10-week-old puppy has ended after police found the animal had died from a virus and showed no sign of injury.

The Jack Russell was being walked by its owner, a 15-year-old girl, in Priory Park, St Neots, on Monday, when the RSPCA said it was attacked.

An RSPCA spokeswoman had called the attack "shocking and sickening".

But Cambridgeshire Police have now ended their investigation after veterinary tests.

'Intensive investigation'

A Cambridgeshire Police spokesman said: "A detailed veterinary medical examination revealed that it was most likely to have died suddenly from a virus and showed no sign of injury.

"Despite an intensive and thorough investigation, police have been unable to locate any other witnesses to an alleged incident in which the puppy was reportedly injured."

Police said no further action would be taken with regards to the owners of the dog.

An RSPCA spokeswoman said the charity had been informed of the ending of the investigation.

She said the first vet consulted had told the RSPCA that the dog's condition was consistent with the account given by the puppy's owners of the attack.

She said anyone with more information or any witnesses should contact the RSPCA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/8340811.stm

This case brings into focus the concerns that many sensible lawyers have about the proximity between prosecuting authorities and expert witnesses, and many welfare lawyers have about the particular proximity between the RSPCA and its experts. 33 news stories, many in national newspapers, covered the RSPCA's nationally advertised "appeal for information" about the "thugs" who "stamped on the puppy's head" and killed it - only 7 so far have covered the fact that it was an invention, supported by yet another (now nameless) dodgy expert report.