RSPCA SLAUGHTER TEN GERMAN SHEPHERD DOGS AFTER THEIR OWNER DIES
Added: (Sun Aug 23 2009)
Pressbox (Press Release) -
RSPCA MASSACRE TEN GERMAN SHEPHERD DOGS AFTER THEIR OWNER DIES
In June 2009 the RSPCA’s ‘hit squad’ slaughtered 10 German Shepherd dogs after their owner had died and a relative had contacted the RSPCA for assistance. The RSPCA have admitted the atrocity
Instead of sedating these poor dogs and removing them to a place of safety, prior to contacting German Shepherd Dog rescues which would have been willing to help, the RSPCA chose instead to shoot all 10 dogs with a captive bolt. Their excuse was that this was kinder to the animals and safer for the inspectors. This begs the question – if it was safe enough to get as close as it is necessary for the use of a captive bolt, then why was it not safe enough to get equally near to these dogs and sedate them?
This is not the first time the RSPCA have killed companion animals unnecessarily, and it will not be the last. In 2008, they killed 8,313 dogs and 12,329 cats. An unacceptable number of these animals were perfectly healthy. By their own admission, the RSPCA admit they ‘reluctantly’ euthanize healthy animals because they (RSPCA) believe it is cruel to keep dogs and cats confined for too long in kennels. How long is too long? The local (franchised) branches of the RSPCA usually have policies which enable animals to fund the care of animals for several months. However, the National Policy is very different, particularly in the case of animals of ‘unknown origin’. With the latter, the RSPCA shows no compunction when declaring that these will be euthanized after 7 days.
Why is it that small, underfunded animal charities and other rescue centres have a policy of not euthanizing a healthy animal or a sick animal that can be nursed back to health, yet the RSPCA needlessly kills so many healthy or treatable animals whilst stashing away millions of pounds of OUR money donated by US the gullible GENERAL PUBLIC in the mistaken belief that all animals will not only be safe in their care but will always be treated with compassion??
It is all about cost. It is much cheaper to euthanize a cat or a dog than it is to spend time and money on boarding costs or rehabilitation. As for the 10 tragic German Shepherds, it was definitely cheaper to shoot these terrified animals than to spend time and money on calming or sedating them before euthanizing them properly and allowing them a dignified death. And it was infinitely cheaper than spending even more time and money in sedating and removing the dogs to a safe place prior to contacting the appropriate German Shepherd rescues for assistance from people who have experience of the breed and who have indicated they would have been more than happy to have taken all of the dogs.
Nothing in fact has changed. In 1984 the RSPCA ‘hit squad’ went in to the Gwent RSPCA branch and killed many dogs because they decreed that this particular branch had broken the rules on how many dogs should be kept. (Please see second attachment) This was during the time of the miners’ strikes when more animals were being abandoned or signed over to the branch which found itself in the unenviable position of having to take in an increased number of dogs or turn them away to an uncertain fate. The branch chose to help as many dogs as it could. There were no offers of help to alleviate the situation from the RSPCA’s Central Office. Instead, after initial letters, they sent in the ‘hit squad’ who arrived unannounced one day and proceeded to cull the surplus dogs. The staff were distraught as they pleaded for these animals lives. Some of them felt they had to make sure the animals were truly dead by checking their still-warm bodies in the black bin bags. Bernice Jones posted the whole story on the internet. She has since died, but I have personally spoken to a man who confirmed that this terrible incident took place.
When challenged about these and other similar cases, the RSPCA will have a ready answer. When asked about poor response times or, in many cases, no response times at all, the RSPCA will plead their case that, as a charity which relies on public donations, there is a limit to what they can achieve. It will also explain that it only has 325 inspectors covering the whole of England and Wales (a figure that has not changed in at least ten years despite annual increases in income) and it is therefore difficult if not impossible to attend to every report of alleged cruelty. In other words, their constant excuses revolve around a lack of sufficient funding.
The following figures show the RSPCA’s income for the last four years:
The bulk of that income came from the general public apart from investment income as follows:
Their balance sheets for the last two years show:
Total Fixed assets
Total Current Assets including cash on deposit, cash in bank and in hand
(Including £9,509, 000 on deposit and £10,179,000 cash at bank and in hand)
(Including £3,056,000 on deposit and £13,444,000 cash at bank and in hand)
Net Current Assets
The above figures are not complete but give an indication of the vast wealth accumulated by the RSPCA as a result of donations made by the general public. It can be seen that, despite the current financial climate, and apart from their fixed asset figures, this wealth has continued to increase annually. However, the RSPCA have not used any of this publicly donated wealth to increase the numbers of inspectors they employ in the field but in fact have suspended further recruitment of inspectors for 12 months. This is in spite of their vigorous TV campaign earlier this year in which they pleaded with the general public to dig even deeper into pockets to enable the RSPCA to employ more inspectors because of an increase in animal cruelty. In other words, they conned the general public into giving even more money for this specific cause and then blatantly breached the Trades Description Act by suspending further recruitment.
Finally, none of the RSPCA’s vast wealth goes to any of the 174 RSPCA branches which are all separately registered charities run mostly by volunteers who have to raise all their own funding and (as I understand it) have to pay a sum of money each year to the RSPCA’s Central Office towards the costs of inspectors. It is the local (franchised) branches, who struggle financially, but which do the bulk of the good work normally associated with the RSPCA.
The above information is just the tip of the iceberg. We hope you will agree that, as a matter of public interest, it is time for the Charities Commission and government to investigate.