RSPCA DAY - Part II

Throughout the day, again and again, the issue came up of there being not enough room for animals and, linked to this, the RSPCAs bad relations with other charities who could possibly help them with regards to finding a place for an animal in a rescue centre. In my mind, if there is an animal that needs a home, then shouldn’t all the charities work together to find that animal a placement? My Inspector believed that just because the RSPCA may have different views and aims to other charities, it should not necessarily mean they couldn’t work together in this respect. I definitely believe that this is one of the main issues the RSPCA should be working out. Building bridges with other charities so that they can all help each other out in times of need. Obviously there are going to be issues that may need to be worked on but wouldn’t it be advantageous to the animals if the charities could put their differences aside for the good of those animals? Surely “the good of the animals” is what they are all working towards after all?

I was told that it was Head Quarters who make decisions as to who to prosecute, not the “field officer” as such. The field officer can make recommendations etc. but ultimately it is not their decision.

I asked why there were sometimes differences in regulations for rehoming animals from the RSPCA between the different branches and was told that branches of the RSPCA are run as independent charities and do their own fundraising etc. they also have some of their own policies with regards to rehoming etc even though they are obviously affiliated with the RSPCA Head Quarters. This may explain why rehoming regulations vary from branch to branch.

I asked about lifetime bans and how these were enforced etc and was told that the RSPCA do and could not go and check on every person given a ban from keeping an animal, it just wasn’t practical. She said that they mainly rely on the public to inform them if a person who has been banned from keeping an animal, is now doing so. If the KNOW a person is likely to re-offend then they will go and have a quick check on them from time to time. She confirmed that a ban issued in the UK would stand throughout the whole of the UK as if a person had received a ban it would be the outcome of them being committed of a crime and if you are committed of a crime in the UK then it is on your record no matter where you go. She said that where the problem arose is that if people moved, they could not possibly keep a track of them and so there were cases of people moving to say, Scotland, to avoid a ban on keeping animals from being enforced.

I asked whether she often felt bogged down with “red tape” and admin etc. She said that that was not really an issue in her job other than in the respect that there are some things which hinder her ability to help animals, ie nowhere to “put” them once the Inspector has collected them. She said that with regard to the Animal Welfare Act, this does help. It means they can now intervene BEFORE suffering occurs, if it is likely to occur, rather than having to wait for an animal to actually be suffering before they can get involved. However, even with the AWA they still rely heavily on assistance from the police and they usually require concrete evidence that entrance is required to a property before they will help out. Some police officers / forces are quite obstructive and not very helpful at all. Also, they still require a vet to approve and confirm that suffering may occur and a lot of vets are unwilling to get involved in RSPCA issues. I asked why she thought this might be and she said that a lot of private practices did not want to be associated with the RSPCA as often clients would be worried that their animals would be taken away from them if the vet considered them to be neglected etc and the vet was associated with the RSPCA! This would obviously result in a loss of money for the vet.