I haven't posted on here for what seems like an age but I found myself needing to get this out after reading a few things which disturbed me greatly. Possibly not for the reasons you might expect.
Firstly there is a group on facebook about some Shire horses Hope's Cause. The story is heart wrenching and it is easy to see and understand why this group is now furious with the RSPCA. I am not part of the RSPCA nor do I know how and why they do what they do but I have a theory which I will outline later.
From this group though I found another where they are trying to take the RSPCA to court saying that they aren't doing their job and from that I found this special link. Now I have an issue with this blog, a huge one. Firstly it seems most of their 'evidence' has been taken from newspapers and everyone is more then aware that you shouldn't believe everything you read. Secondly they don't seem to know much about running a business which the RSPCA is, they might be a charity but they run like a business, they have to being as big as they are.
Now I might be seen as a big bad wolf here and I don't want to be but from my course and the business module and my boyfriend doing an advertising course I have learnt a lot about how to survive and how to make money. It's not easy and you have to be ruthless.
Now, these people are moaning about the RSPCA, how they aren't helping those horses or how they are being 'too rough' or other things. Have they stopped and taken note of how many inspectors there are in the RSPCA? Notice that actually there is a really small amount compared to the size of the country, ??? inspectors for the whole country really isn't a lot.
Now don't get me wrong, I think the RSPCA should have done more about those horses, however I can think of several reasons as to why they haven't and most of it is wrapped up in legislation.
The problem is with the horse case in particular is the fact that each time the RSPCA ask the owner to do something, he is in fact doing what they ask. Now I don't know if the RSPCA are aware that all he does is move the horses and leave them to die, if they are then yes they should have done something about this earlier, if they have 'heard' but have no proof then again I see why they haven't. Now I am aware that an RSPCA inspector can not just go in and take an animal away. The owners have to have warnings and time to change things, which can lead to more warnings. I believe from what I have learnt that it is rare they can just seize an animal as there are laws around doing so.
If this is the case then I think people should be more understanding. The RSPCA are expected to do a lot and aren't that big of an organisation, not when it comes to it and really for everyone who wants to see them shut down, what happens then?
What would have happened to all of my cats and our old dog if the RSPCA hadn't been about? We got them from the RSPCA shelter near here, like many people do each year. What happens to them?
People are calling for the RSPCA to be closed down/to sue them... but in all honesty is that helping at all? Does it really matter that much to sue them over money when that money you are sueing them with you could then go and help animals with? Yes they may possibly be slightly corrupt, what large organisation isn't but they do help animals. They rehome thousands of animals each year and it is a known fact that there are a shortage of good, healthy, safe rescue centres around so you take the RSPCA out, what happens then?
I can understand peoples anger at what the RSPCA may or may not have done but in the end sometimes the larger picture needs to be looked at. I am certain, in fact I know that the RSPCA spend a lot of money on advertising, I also know that the Dogs Trust do the same and I know both societies help a lot of animals. They also pay people to work with them, to carry out research, to work in shelters, work as inspectors, work as fundraisers. In fact a lot of money has to go back into the charity before the animals can be helped. How many rescue centres that don't advertise/don't have a website/don't have helpers survive? You have to put the money into the centre before you can help the animals, it's just a fact. For a centre to grow it needs the money put in and really the RSPCA just do that, yes they probably put too much money in some areas and not enough in others, as do the NSPCC and OXFAM are well known for it but how many people are suing them and trying to close them down? Sometimes you need to think about what would happen if they weren't there.
The RSPCA might not be perfect. No one and nothing is, however causing them trouble, taking them to court, trying to use the media to make them look bad hinders them even more and would you like it on your head to know that you stopped them saving that dog from a life fighting? Or closing down that puppy farm? It's something people need to think about.
I want to work for the RSPCA because it's a position where I know I can help animals. I know that in that position I can help animals I also know that in that position I will come across animals I can't help. It's just a fact of life, no one can help everyone.
As for those horses, I do agree the RSPCA should do something, however no where does it say they have contacted other welfare agencies such as the World Horse Welfare (previously the ILPH). If they have then good, if not then maybe they have neglected all options as well?
I am assuming a lot writing this, i don't know the facts completely but it angers me that people who want to see justice for animals want a charity that helps so many animals a year closed down. It isn't logical and it doesn't make sense and thats why it annoys me so much.
Sunday 4 December 2011
Thursday 28 July 2011
Pet Shops - Should they sell animals?
This blog entry is also a letter that I am emailing out to various groups - to find out the opinions and whether there is anything that can be done to help the animals that end up in these pet shops where you can often find people who don't know what they are talking about when it comes to individual animals.
Each pet shop that sells animals are different with the people who work in them and their knowledge of the animals but generally the cages they are kept in even though they are 'temporary' are just too small for the animals that live in them. Also keeping animals in cages this small is telling the public that they can do the same.
I have thought for years that the animals have been kept in small cages but until I first got my degu's I never realised quite how small the cages are kept in.
Using Pets at Home as an example - I have adopted two degu's from them and bought two degus before mostly because I couldn't bear the thought of them living in those small cages. I have on both occasions been able to sex them and know more about them then the people selling them to me. In fact when I bought Arthur and Merlin I sexed them both as the shop assistant didn't seem to know how to. After speaking to other people it seems that Pets at Home are too good at sexing animals wrong from the small ones like degus and rats up to rabbits. This of course ends up leaving the customers with pregnant animals and then Pets at Home get the babies back to sell. I got two girls from them and I can say they warned me at this particular branch that the girls were pregnant and that I could take any babies back and they would sell them on. I adopted the girls because they cage they were in would have given them bumble foot and there was no way I was taking the babies back to that shop. As it were both females were pregnant - one had six babies the other had three and I have kept them all.
I have been in a couple of pet shops that have sold kittens. I have issues with pet shops selling small animals but kittens are something else. Both pet shops around the Brighton-Lewes area I have been in had kittens (up to four) in small cages that they were keeping the guinea pigs in. They didn't have room to move about and I left the shops horrified. Of course all the kittens had sold very quickly and I didn't know what to do about it anyway.
I feel the animals bred and kept in pet shops are the animals that are being looked over most of the time. There doesn't seem to be any way of helping them. I have contacted my local MP who has passed my concerns onto the animal welfare minister but I don't hold much hope there. I know there is a lot about to stop puppy farming because of the breeding and there being so many dogs - shouldn't the same be happening for the smaller animals that are harder to neuter and so pregnancies are more likely to happen. It seems where pet shops can't house or sex animals properly they shouldn't be sold at all.
Would it be right to ban all pet stores from selling animals? Most likely. There are enough of these small animals in rescue centers already that don't get homed because people but their small animals from pet shops. If animals are to be sold in pet shops there should be tighter regulations regarding both the sexing and housing of the animals.
Each pet shop that sells animals are different with the people who work in them and their knowledge of the animals but generally the cages they are kept in even though they are 'temporary' are just too small for the animals that live in them. Also keeping animals in cages this small is telling the public that they can do the same.
I have thought for years that the animals have been kept in small cages but until I first got my degu's I never realised quite how small the cages are kept in.
Using Pets at Home as an example - I have adopted two degu's from them and bought two degus before mostly because I couldn't bear the thought of them living in those small cages. I have on both occasions been able to sex them and know more about them then the people selling them to me. In fact when I bought Arthur and Merlin I sexed them both as the shop assistant didn't seem to know how to. After speaking to other people it seems that Pets at Home are too good at sexing animals wrong from the small ones like degus and rats up to rabbits. This of course ends up leaving the customers with pregnant animals and then Pets at Home get the babies back to sell. I got two girls from them and I can say they warned me at this particular branch that the girls were pregnant and that I could take any babies back and they would sell them on. I adopted the girls because they cage they were in would have given them bumble foot and there was no way I was taking the babies back to that shop. As it were both females were pregnant - one had six babies the other had three and I have kept them all.
I have been in a couple of pet shops that have sold kittens. I have issues with pet shops selling small animals but kittens are something else. Both pet shops around the Brighton-Lewes area I have been in had kittens (up to four) in small cages that they were keeping the guinea pigs in. They didn't have room to move about and I left the shops horrified. Of course all the kittens had sold very quickly and I didn't know what to do about it anyway.
I feel the animals bred and kept in pet shops are the animals that are being looked over most of the time. There doesn't seem to be any way of helping them. I have contacted my local MP who has passed my concerns onto the animal welfare minister but I don't hold much hope there. I know there is a lot about to stop puppy farming because of the breeding and there being so many dogs - shouldn't the same be happening for the smaller animals that are harder to neuter and so pregnancies are more likely to happen. It seems where pet shops can't house or sex animals properly they shouldn't be sold at all.
Would it be right to ban all pet stores from selling animals? Most likely. There are enough of these small animals in rescue centers already that don't get homed because people but their small animals from pet shops. If animals are to be sold in pet shops there should be tighter regulations regarding both the sexing and housing of the animals.
Thursday 10 February 2011
Meerkats as pets
It seems to be becoming a worrying trend of meerkats being seen as a cute pet. They are without doubt gorgeous animals and they look very cute and cuddly! Now there have been a few things in the news about meerkats being stolen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-12174847
It was later found as shown in the news report by the BBC. The poor thing had been killed. The metro linked the stolen meerkat to the increase in popularity of the compare the market advert.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/852455-zoo-keepers-fear-meerkat-stolen-by-aleksander-orlov-fan
The video shows a meerkat all dressed up and there have been various ones following. The meerkat in the advert has become quite something, children wanting cuddly toys of him is it really that surprising they now want them as pets? Is it right that they should be pets? It happened before with a penguin that was believed to have been stolen after the film "March of the Penguins."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4547722.stm
Should parents be giving into their children and stealing and importing animals that really shouldn't be kept as pets?
The RSPCA are becoming concerned at the number of exotic animals being kept as pets. The BBC even posted an article yesterday with the concerns and the dangers of keeping these animals as pets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/lincolnshire/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9391000/9391589.stm
They are not suppose to be kept in the environment they would be kept in while in a house, some argue that these animals shouldn't even be kept in zoo's so is it really fair for someone to then take them into their homes? All because of an animated animal on the television?
It's hard not to wonder sometimes what goes through a parents head when they steal these animals or import them into the country. Are they really caring about their children giving them an animal which can be potentially dangerous. Meerkats have sharp teeth and aren't afraid to use them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-12174847
It was later found as shown in the news report by the BBC. The poor thing had been killed. The metro linked the stolen meerkat to the increase in popularity of the compare the market advert.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/852455-zoo-keepers-fear-meerkat-stolen-by-aleksander-orlov-fan
The video shows a meerkat all dressed up and there have been various ones following. The meerkat in the advert has become quite something, children wanting cuddly toys of him is it really that surprising they now want them as pets? Is it right that they should be pets? It happened before with a penguin that was believed to have been stolen after the film "March of the Penguins."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4547722.stm
Should parents be giving into their children and stealing and importing animals that really shouldn't be kept as pets?
The RSPCA are becoming concerned at the number of exotic animals being kept as pets. The BBC even posted an article yesterday with the concerns and the dangers of keeping these animals as pets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/lincolnshire/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9391000/9391589.stm
They are not suppose to be kept in the environment they would be kept in while in a house, some argue that these animals shouldn't even be kept in zoo's so is it really fair for someone to then take them into their homes? All because of an animated animal on the television?
It's hard not to wonder sometimes what goes through a parents head when they steal these animals or import them into the country. Are they really caring about their children giving them an animal which can be potentially dangerous. Meerkats have sharp teeth and aren't afraid to use them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)