RSPCA at the Old Bailey

This post is part of the celebrations of the 10th anniversary of the online database of Old Bailey proceedings 1674-1913 online.

As happens today, most of the inspectors' cases would have been dealt with summarily in the local Magistrates Court, so would not come to the attention of the Crown Courts. This means that the Old Bailey reports would only involve RSPCA (or SPCA) inspectors when animal cruelty had escalated into crimes which were viewed more seriously (such as fraud, assaults on the inspectors themselves, or injuries to valuable animals which would be prosecuted as criminal damage). 

One of the interesting things brought out by the trial reports is the systematic way in which the inspectors give their evidence, explaining who they are, why they were present and what they saw happen. This was presumably due to the training they were given,

Being an RSPCA Inspector could be a dangerous business in the nineteenth century:

JAMES PIPER . I am a constable. I was at the Swan public-house at Hanworth on Easter Monday—I was sent there by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to prevent a cock-fight—when I got there I was assaulted—Dean and King participated in the assault, and Conquest also joined in it.
JOHN LORD. I was at the Swan on Easter Monday—Piper and I were assaulted, and severely hurt—I can point out Dean and Coxen as two of the parties, but cannot identify any of the others.
JOSEPH WILLY. I was down at Hanworth on Easter Monday. There was a riot there, and an assault in the garden—I can swear Allen followed us from the garden outside—he was among the rest who assaulted us—I saw him assault Lord—Allen took his brother away from the fight, after Lord was beaten.
(The prisoners received good characters.)
DEAN— GUILTY .
COXEN— GUILTY .
KING— GUILTY .
CONQUEST— GUILTY .
ALLEN— GUILTY .
Of an assault.

Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 7.0, 15 April 2013), May 1838, trial of JOSEPH DEAN RICHARD COXEN JOHN KING RICHARD CONQUEST JOHN ALLEN (t18380514-1209).

2728. ROBERT HEDGES was indicted for unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously assaulting James Piper, on the 16th of April, 1838, and cutting and wounding him on his head, with intent to maim and disable him.—2nd COUNT, to do him some grievous bodily harm.

MR. PHILLIPS conducted the Prosecution.
JACOB ROBERTS . I am a constable of Hanworth. I went by direction on the 16th of April, 1838, to prevent a cock-fight—there was a great crowd—Piper, a constable, accompanied me—he is dead since, I understand—I saw the prisoner when we entered a little garden adjoining the cock-pit—he was coming from the house close by, with a stick in his hand, about three feet long—he came up behind Piper in a deliberate manner, and struck him on the back of the head with the stick, and knocked him down with a blow sufficient to knock a bullock down—he made his escape, and was not taken till lately—there were about two hundred people at the cockfight—I and the officers were assaulted by different people—there was myself, the head borough of the parish, and three of the constables of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
HENRY THOMAS . I am secretary to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—I knew Piper—his christian name was James.
GUILTY of an Assault only. Aged 36.— Confined Three Months.

Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 7.0, 15 April 2013), October 1839, trial of ROBERT HEDGES (t18391021-2728).

An inspector helps in the apprehension of an armed killer

682. WALTER ALFRED HARGAN (27) was indicted for, and charged on the Coroner's inquisition with, the wilful murder of William Lambert.
MESSRS. HORACE AVORY and MUIR Prosecuted; 'MESSRS. GEOGHEGAN and
LEVER Defended.
GEORGE SUTTON (Policeman J 29) produced and proved plans of the locality in question.

WILLIAM KNIFTON . I am an officer of the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—I live at 61, Hertford Road—on 30th July I saw the prisoner in the Downham Road, running towards Islington—a crowd was running after him calling, "Stop thief!" and that he had shot somebody down the road—I followed, and got close to him—he pulled a revolver out from his inside breast pocket, and pointed it at me, and said, "I will"—the crowd began to throw stones at him—I walked with him about fifty yards, when we stopped running—I advised him to get into a cab with me or else they would kill him—he said, "All right, I will get one"—at the same time Newman sprang on to his arms—I then caught hold of Newman, and we all three fell to the ground—the three of us got hold of the revolver; Newman got it from him—the crowd began kicking him, and some jumped on him, put a rope round his neck, and all manner—we put him in a cart which was going towards the station, where we stopped.
Cross-examined. He pointed the revolver at me as he went along, not at anyone else—I first saw him about 350 yards from the corner of the Downham Road—I was going to No. 56—I saw the prisoner going towards the Southgate Road, 200 yards from where he was stopped—he turned to the right by the baker's—I was with him five minutes—I went with him to the corner of the Southgate Road, 285 yards further than No. 56, where he was stopped, and very nearly 600 yards from the Hertford Road—No. 56 is near the Culvert Road—he was coming the nearest way from the Wagon and Horses to the Southgate Road.
THOMAS GENTLEMAN . I am a labourer, living in Hertford Road, Kingsland—I searched the prisoner's pockets—I found six loaded cartridges—I handed them to the police.
JOHN COCHRANE (Policeman). At 4.30 on 30th July, in consequence of information, I went to the Hertford Road and the corner of Downham Road by the baker's shop—I saw two men lying upon the pavement dead about twelve yards from the shop—I afterwards formally charged the prisoner at the station with the wilful murder of two men by shooting them with a revolver—I cautioned him in the usual manner that anything he said might be given in evidence against him—he said, "I decline to say anything about it."

JOHN HERD GORDON . I live at 364, Kingsland Road—I am a registered medical practitioner—on the afternoon of 30th July I was fetched by a policeman to Hertford Road—I saw two bodies lying on the pavement—I examined them afterwards at the mortuary—Lambert had a bullet wound on the right side of the head—a bullet had entered to the left of Wheeler's right ear—that was the cause of death in each case—I afterwards made a post-mortem examination.
Cross-examined. Both were physically strong men—there was evidence of alcohol in both cases.
The prisoner received a good character.
GUILTY of Manslaughter. There was another indictment for the wilful murder of John Wheeler, to which he PLEADED GUILTY in the hearing of the JURY, to manslaughter, and they found that verdict. MR. AVORY, for the prosecution, offered no evidence as to murder. Twenty Years' Penal Servitude in each case, the sentences to be concurrent.

 Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 7.0, 15 April 2013), September 1890, trial of WALTER ALFRED HARGAN (27) (t18900908-682).

Cruelty to a pony resulting in her death

838. THOMAS ALFRED HEMMINGS (17) , Feloniously killing a mare, the goods of Susan Holland.
MR. NOLAN Prosecuted.
SUSAN HOLLAND . I am a widow, and keep a lodging house at 70, Vincent Street, Westminster—before April 15th the prisoner was in my employment—I have a stable at the rear of my house—I had a chestnut mare—I had had her for about fifteen years—she was pensioned off and did no work—the prisoner was with me for about three months—I gave him notice to leave on Tuesday, April 14th, because there were complaints about him from the servants, and he would not do his work—I do not know if I said anything to him about his temper, but he had a very bad one—on

WILLIAM GREEN . I am an inspector in the employment of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—on April 19th I went to Mrs. Holland's stables—I saw this mare—she was lying down and was in great agony—I examined her and found that she was badly wounded in the region of the anus—while examining her she fell down—in my opinion the injuries may have been caused by a sharp instrument like this fork; there were several hairs on it corresponding to the hairs of the mare, and it was spotted with blood all down—the stable was quite clean; no manure had been passed—next day I saw the prisoner in Rochester Row—I said, "I am an officer in the employment of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and am making inquiries in regard to injuries received by Mrs. Holland's pony"—he said, "She did not see me do it"—I said, "Mrs. Holland says she heard the pony kicking and she came round and saw you leaving the stable with the fork in your hand"'—he said, "That is a lie"—I said, "She said she saw blood under the pony's legs and pointed it out to you"—he said, "That is another of her lies"—I said, "The veterinary surgeon said he asked you if you did it"—he said, "That is another lie"—he said that the injury might have been caused by the crupper.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that when Mrs. Holland asked him about the blood on the straw he said he did not know anything about it; that he was cleaning the stable out; that the door came to: that the pony turned round and then kicked and hit some harness that was there, but that he had not injured it. GUILTY — Twenty months' hard labour.

 Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 7.0, 15 April 2013), October 1903, trial of THOMAS ALFRED HEMMINGS (17) (t19031019-838).

Although the prosecution seem to have chosen the crime of "felonious killing" as one likely to involve heavier penalties than cruelty, this pony doesn't seem to have had a significant money value and was being kept more or less as a pet.

Animals' Friend Society

Finally there's an interesting sighting of Louis Gompertz, co-founder of the RSPCA, during the period after he had left the Society to found the vegan Animals' Friend Society.

Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 7.0, 15 April 2013), September 1849, trial of JOHN PARRY HENNING HENRY ROBERTS THOMAS CROTON (t18490917-1803).

In this trial Gompertz and Henry Thomas, Secretary of the RSPCA give evidence against a defendant who was fraudulently raising funds in the name of the Animals' Friend Society using a soon to be all too familiar sales pitch:

THOMAS STEVENSON. I am a surgeon, in Upper Gloucester-street. Henning called on me about March—some one had called before, and left this book of the Animals' Friend Society (produced)—Henning gave me a second one, as well as a book of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, to compare the merits of the two, and to show how little the Royal Society had done with such large means, and how much he had done with such small means...

Feral Cats

Cats who have not been handled as kittens will generally not be willing to live in close contact with people as adults. For this reason it is usually preferable for them to be neutered and released as the alternative is keeping them permanently confined.

This is Moses, who has just been castrated and also treated for an abscess on his face and blood tested for FIV/FeLV. You can just see the wound under his right eye where the vets flushed and cleaned the abscess.

Book Signing Event at 188 Mill Road Easter Saturday

Joan Court will be signing copies of her new book, Animals Betrayed,  at the RSPCA bookshop, 188 Mill road, Cambridge on Easter Saturday March 30th between 2  and 5 pm.

Copies of the book will be available to buy at £12.50 and Joan is donating £4.50 per copy to the RSPCA Cambridge Spring Appeal.

During 2012 the RSPCA branch animal clinic provided 3,799 low cost treatments for pets whose owners could not afford a private vet and the group rehomed a total of 150 animals.

The branch aims to double RSPCA membership and regular giving as part of its plan to sustain its work of preventing cruelty and neglect. 

Joan thoroughly supports their efforts as her many years working with low-income families have made her very aware of the devastating impact it can have on children if their pets fall ill and there is no money available to get them treated:

“People who are already living on a knife-edge can’t be expected to budget — they love their animals but they can’t put money aside for pet insurance or savings. Animals may be their only comfort, so it’s impossible to lecture and say they shouldn’t have pets if they can’t afford them. Cambridge RSPCA do wonders with not enough support and I urge everyone who cares about animals to pick up a form at the charity shop and become a member.”

Did you know?

Volunteers at the RSPCA bookshop, on Mill Road, sort and shelve nearly 5 tons of donated books each year. That’s a lot of potential reading bargains!

Animal Welfare or Animal Rights?

In 1913 the RSPCA published pamphlets discussing the rights of animals and no-one seems to have thought this was anything untoward.

Today,  one of the frequent criticisms made by those who claim that the Society has "lost its way" is that we have been taken over by the supporters of animal rights and that we ought to be forced to promote animal welfare instead.

I have to say that I doubt whether many of the people who claim they no longer support the RSPCA for this reason are a great loss.

Leaving that to one side, I think it's essential that we take the initiative to reclaim the concept of "welfare" instead of letting it be used as a way to attack initiatives to make life better for animals.

"Welfare" is practical; if I look at a cat and see he has an abscess, I need to take practical steps to get him treated. If I'm caring for a rabbit I need to understand that rabbits are obligate fibre eaters and must get most of their calories from hay and grass or risk potentially distressing and fatal gut and jaw disorders. All this is based on knowledge and science, rather than abstract reasoning.

"Rights" or, if you prefer, duties toward animals, are more theoretical. How should we weigh up the conflicting needs of different kinds of animals? Is it right to give higher priority to animals who share our lives, such as cats and dogs, on the basis that "charity begins at home"? Is it better for animals to have short and happy lives rather than never to have been born at all?

It's nonsense to say we can usefully focus entirely on practical information because we still have to make choices about the way we go about applying that knowledge. Conversely, someone who can't accept that the ecological niche of some animals is in human society, because he has a romantic ideal of "nature" and despises scientific knowledge, is liable to be worse than useless.

We need both kinds of knowledge; practical and theoretical.

I'm sorry to sound rather like a stuck record, but this is exactly what the RSPCA should be for, because its size and the varied talents of its staff and volunteers make it possible to engage on all the levels needed to generate real benefits for animals.

Failed RSPCA hunt prosecution — in 1910!

I wonder if people will look back on the RSPCA prosecutions of 2012 in a hundred years time and feel the same amazement that anyone thought this kind of behaviour towards animals was acceptable as a "sport".

This seems to have been something of a test case, having been referred up to the High Court for a ruling on whether there was any case to answer; the point being that it tested how far the 1900 Act, which made cruelty to captive non-domestic animals an offence, also protected non-domestic animals kept in captivity and released for the purpose of being hunted with dogs.

Marshall Hall, the barrister defending the hunt, was something of a celebrity lawyer having led the defense in many notorious murder trials including the "Brides in the Bath" and the "Green bicycle case". 

Before and after

We don't very often have a definite demonstration of a result of what we do, so I thought these two photos made a nice change. They really are the same cat.

Much better now!

Rupert looking decidedly the worse for wear

What a day!

Pepper and his 5 brothers
are looking for a home.

Got off to a less than brilliant start by breaking the lock on my own back door so tomorrow morning's task is to unscrew it so I can get into the garden without having to walk round the side of the house from the front door.  Garden cats are not amused by this deterioration in their catering service.

Next joy was a call from Teresa at our Burleigh st shop to say the electronic lock on the safe had packed up so they couldn't retrieve the float to give change. Cycle over with change, then in to open up at the bookshop, to find we'd had a really fantastically huge donation of books the previous day, all gift aided so that we should be able to reclaim 25p in the pound on every sale we make.

By the end of the day Pat, Katie and I were nearly on our knees, but there are now only 4 more large boxes to sticker and price. Look out for lots of art, philosophy, cookery and craft books going out over the next few weeks at 188 Mill Road, also an excellent selection of paperbacks.

Possible extension of breed-specific legislation?

Gavin Grant explains why extension of breed bans to other types of dogs would be bad animal welfare and wouldn't help solve the problems with dogs in the UK.

This is a perfect illustration of the way legislation can impact on the work of the RSPCA.

External Pressures on the RSPCA

The previous diagram aimed to show how the RSPCA tries to act outwards into society to improve the way animals are treated.

This one shows the opposite: external pressures constraining what the RSPCA can do and helping or hindering its work.

The welfare diagram

If you take the time to explore the central RSPCA website www.rspca.org.uk or its companion political animal website, the predominant take-away message is possibly: "We're doing loads of stuff and we're knackered." This diagram is a first attempt at summarising how the various bits fit together and explaining why we need to get across the importance of the totality of our activities, instead of being manoeuvred into the trap of thinking we need to pick out certain core functions and concentrate on just those.

In the welfare diagram activities aimed at changing the wider society are on the outside and coloured blue. Practical welfare activities are inside: green for welfare services that directly benefit individual animals and red for enforcement of animal protection legislation. Scientific assessment and knowledge is at the centre of the diagram and underpins the other activities, while being itself continually updated by feedback from monitoring of the practical works. There's a continual two-way flow of information between the services and the activities aimed at changes in the wider world.

Update 14/2/13
Latest RSPCA Science Department Report (PDF download) is just out and documents what the scientific assessment involves.

Superpowers? What works?

The RSPCA was originally founded as a political organisation with the threefold aims of enforcing "Martin's Act"; pursuing improved legal protection for animals and altering the moral feelings of the country towards cruelty to animals.

Over time its practical welfare services developed, sometimes in a relatively strategic way; for example the roll-out of animal homes in the regions was planned as a way to work towards the goal of ending the euthanasia of healthy companion animals. Most of it "just grew" as a reaction to the needs of the time.

If owners are to be prosecuted for failing to seek treatment for sick animals, there is an obligation on the prosecuting body to make sure at least basic treatment can be accessed by owners who genuinely have no money for a private vet. Hence the requirement for branches to provide basic veterinary help for owners on state benefits.

Once legislation had incorporated provisions to deprive owners of animals who had been subjected to cruel treatment there was a need for facilities to house and care for these "case animals" until they could be rehomed.

Sometimes the practical services were intended to encourage someone else to be helpful: the RSPCA has an agreement with the BVA to pay for basic first aid and/or euthanasia of sick or injured strays and larger wild animals. In return the BVA members agree to give basic care to small wild life (smaller than a duck or rabbit) free of charge if brought in by members of the public.

RSPCA inspectors became known as animal experts and were asked to rescue animals in difficulty or danger, generating a need for training and equipment and for wildlife hospitals to care for viable wild animals not fit for immediate release.

As telephones became more common and inspectors' wives became less willing to act as unpaid receptionists there was a need for staff to take incoming calls; initially at regional centres and today at the single RSPCA National Control Centre. The change to one unified centre was partly driven by cost, but mostly by the ubiquity of mobile phones which removed the concept of a local call.

At times these practical roles shade into education, Freedom Food being the prime example of science and evidence-based technical advice and accreditation schemes intended to lead achievable improvements in the welfare of farmed animals. 

The RSPCA's welfare services are now seen by the public as its raison d'être and as the things which  validate its claims to expertise in guiding further change.  In a somewhat back-handed way the ongoing hunt saga only goes to prove the importance of campaigns AND practical work (including the prosecutions as another form of practical service) as it's become fairly clear that without the Inspectorate, the hunting ban might have been quietly ignored for high-profile people. The only way to achieve real, not just paper, improvement for animals is to combine the campaigns to change the law and alter personal behaviour with services that make it possibly to comply and enforcement to ensure the law can't be ignored because other things are seen as more important. Good services keep the public on our side and make the RSPCA message credible.

It's not an accident that opponents who object to RSPCA policies nearly always attack the services, either by claiming that they are not good enough, or by attempting to discourage the donations needed to keep them going.

Fundamentally, most politicians are not very interested in animal welfare, beyond the extent to which it affects their ability to get votes. They are not going to promote welfare changes if these are going to involve significant detriment to anything higher in their list of priorities. Animal experimentation is the prime example of this; a campaign aimed at abolition and nothing else would fail without benefiting animals, while lower-profile improvements like the establishment of the national centre for the 3Rs can be portrayed as "welfarism" but have a better chance of doing some actual good. Promoting veganism and nothing else is perhaps another (although it's a little different in that it would promote a personal change rather than a political one).

I do wonder if someone thought there was political advantage to be gained by getting public approval for taking action on the problems of irresponsible dog ownership through the relatively cheap option of microchipping using chips provided by an animal charity. The cynic in me says I would not be a bit surprised to find that the next step was to say universal chipping means there's no longer any reason why local authorities should fund 7-day boarding for stray dogs, as it should be possible to contact their owners immediately. I suspect we should be thinking about using the 3 years grace period before all dogs are supposed to be chipped to prepare for a potential demand that the RSPCA should take on all the un-chipped strays.

The RSPCA is often in a delicate position between special interest groups who need to be kept on side if progress is to be made at all. One group may resent time and effort spent on anything other than their particular concern even if that might be more fruitfully promoted at another time. Breed specific legislation is an example of this; if it's certain that politicians are not going to budge at the current time it's pointless and damaging for the RSPCA to be forced into a campaign that can't be won — and would be even more damaging if it happened at the end of a series of attacks claiming that the RSPCA doesn't care about animals. Campaigns that make us feel good without helping animals are really not much more than self-indulgence.

Bottom line: if you care about animals and have a specific concern, you can be far more effective if you work with other animal lovers, even if they may not have identical priorities. The public don't like infighting and they're much more sympathetic to campaigns if they come from groups with a track record of practical welfare work. The majority of them do love their own pets and that's the foundation on which we can build.

When the RSPCA DOESN'T prosecute

Mulling over something that happened today made me think it might be helpful to describe an actual incident where one of our inspectors investigated a complaint and resolved it without going down the route of prosecution. I've suppressed any details that might identify individuals for obvious reasons.

Early this afternoon I had a call from our inspector asking if we could help with veterinary treatment for an animal whose owner hadn't gone to a vet when they should have done. In these circumstances the National RSPCA allows inspectors a certain amount of funding which would cover the cost of a consultation, but this owner was claiming to have no money at all (so wouldn't be able to pay for medication if the inspector arranged to book her an appointment at a local vet). 

At the moment we don't normally pay for treatment at private vets (because it's so much less cost-effective than treatment at our own clinic), but in these circumstances I agreed that we'd cover the cost of medication today on the understanding that the owner would register at our clinic at the next available session. We also agreed that I'd arrange for the owner to be issued with one of the neutering vouchers which the National RSPCA gives to branches to part-pay for urgent neutering and that this would be the other condition of us giving them help with the immediate costs of first aid.

Provided the owner complies with all of this they won't need to hear any more from us. 

The RSPCA's 2011 Annual Report states:

... investigations that led to prosecutions represented around one percent of the numbers of complaints investigated in 2011. The educational and advice element represents a much larger proportion of how complaints were investigated and acted upon. For instance, the success rate for issuing welfare advice by RSPCA inspectors, either in the form of informal advice or a formal warning notice, had a success rate of 92 percent in 2011. As over 11,000 such notices and advice were issued, this had an enormous impact on preventing further welfare problems in any of the animals concerned.

If the campaign against the RSPCA was to succeed in causing a permanent fall in donations and legacies to support our work it would have a lot more impact on the 99% of animals whose owners need not be prosecuted than on the 1% whose owners really must be stopped.

Power Without Responsibility...

The National RSPCA has made an official complaint to the press regulator following a series of apparently intentionally misleading articles in the Telegraph.

No doubt this will be portrayed as an attempt to muzzle the free press and I think it's very important to be clear about why the articles were objectionable.

If the Telegraph had stated openly that they were running a campaign to repeal the Hunting Act and published the articles under that banner — i.e. as part of a series with a clear political intention that would have been one thing.

The issue is with the confusion of comment and "news" and with events being reported in what appears to be a deliberately misleading way - for example the way the original complaint about the RSPCA was reported as if it was being brought by an impartial group of MPs (rather than by ones who want to bring back hunting with dogs).

The sequence of articles

RSPCA trustees 'broke charity rules' over David Cameron hunt ...

December 21 2012 | Christopher Hope | News
Trustees of the RSPCA broke charity rules by sanctioning a £300,000 prosecution of David Cameron’s local hunt, according to a cross-party group of MPs and peers including Lord Heseltine, the former Cabinet minister.

[No indication that all the members of the group of MPs who complained are supporters of hunting and their claim that the trustees broke charity rules is reported as if it was a fact in the article heading].

Local RSPCA branch to close despite head office spending £326k ...

January 3 2013 | Christopher Hope | News
A local branch of the RSPCA is facing closure due to lack of funds, despite its head office spending hundreds of thousands of pounds successfully prosecuting Prime Minister David Cameron's local hunt.

[RSPCA Preston branch's animal home appeal used as ammunition against the National RSPCA]

Our once great RSPCA is being destroyed by a militant tendency ...

January 4 2013 | Charles Moore | Earth
The animal welfare organisation has badly lost its way under its new leadership

[More clearly identifiable as an opinion piece, rather than news, but repeats some of the false and misleading claims made in the earlier Mail article].

RSPCA 'is one of Britain's most complained about charities' ...

January 6 2013 | Christopher Hope | News
Britain’s biggest animal welfare charity is one of the country's most complained about charities, figures from charities regulator suggest.

[Logical fallacy; if you are in the middle ground you are liable to get furious complaints from both sides.]

RSPCA accused of double standards over hunt prosecutions ...

January 11 2013 | Alice Philipson | Earth
The RSPCA is more interested in social class than animal rights, it has been claimed, after the charity failed to prosecute members of the travelling community who were shown on television cock fighting and hunting deer with dogs.

[Opinion presented as fact; the real issue preventing a prosecution in the "Gypsy blood" case was the lack of access to unedited video materials. Edited videos can only be used as evidence if the perpetrator is clearly in-shot with the illegal act, otherwise you could frame people by splicing clips of them watching football into audience clips of illegal animal fighting.]

RSPCA summoned to meet head of charity watchdog after ...

January 11 2013 | Christopher Hope | Earth
Senior figures at the RSPCA have been summoned to see the charity watchdog to defend their decision to spend £326,000 on prosecuting David Cameron’s local hunt, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

[Once a group of MPs had put in a complaint the Charity Commission was pretty well bound to ask for discussions; it's not proof of any wrongdoing by the RSPCA]

Video: CA: This isn't what people give money to the RSPCA for ...

January 11 2013 | Earth
Tim Bonner from the Countryside Alliance says charity is pushing a political animal rights agenda by spending £350,000 to prosecute a foxhunting club linked to David Cameron.

[Slightly odd this; a recording via Skype with no attempt to probe the assertions made by Tim Bonner. Reminiscent of a party political broadcast or a straightforward advert.]

RSPCA warned on hunt prosecutions by charities watchdog ...

January 17 2013 | Christopher Hope | News
The RSPCA has been told by the charity watchdog that any decision to prosecute hunts must be a “reasonable and effective use of the charity's resources".

["Charity Commission repeats standard guidelines on charitable activities" is not really news.]

Figures just released by Third Sector Magazine appear to show that RSPCA general approval ratings rose slightly immediately after the successful Heythrop prosecution in early December but fell in the first week of January. This might be interpreted as a delayed reaction to the prosecution, but is at least equally likely to be the cumulative effect of the claims about destroying healthy animals in the Daily Mail (29th Dec) and the string of Telegraph pieces.

Delving more deeply into the figures given on Third Sector's brandwatch page it looks as though there was an initial increase in the RSPCA's popularity immediately after the case with dips following the hostile publications.

Interestingly there seems to have been a significant "PDSA effect" (some of the hostile news "buzz" explicitly asked donors to divert their money from the RSPCA to the PDSA or the Dogs Trust). This is a problem in its own right because the people doing it never explain that the PDSA is purely a veterinary charity for owned animals. The PDSA is an excellent charity and money donated to it will be well spent, but the propaganda writers are not the ones who will have to cope with owners who believe that PDSA cover is much more extensive than it really is.

Third Sector finishes by saying: "Only time will tell if all publicity is good publicity for the RSPCA. However, the negative stories it has generated over the past month in the aftermath of Heythrop suggests that it isn’t."

I think this misses the crucial point — it is a scandal if animal welfare laws can't be enforced because some newspapers will hold the animals in RSPCA shelters and hospitals to ransom if we do.

It's rather as if it was possible to force out local Police Commissioners by threatening to bankrupt the local NHS Trust.

I am beginning to think that the answer might be for the RSPCA to announce that it is not possible to continue to prosecute at all if we are not allowed to do it impartially and refer everything to the police and CPS. Most of the Inspectors work involves rescues or sorting out the problems of owners who can't cope and would continue.

The most obvious objections to this are a) that CPS/Police might decide there were not enough resources to fund animal cruelty prosecutions or b) that they might in fact end up prosecuting more people than the RSPCA does at present (because they would have less expertise in identifying which situations can be rectified without a prosecution) and c) that case animals might have to be kept in police kennels rather than purpose-built RSPCA animal homes or in foster homes. From a welfare point of view (c) is the most serious concern because animals may be held for very long periods of time before cases are brought to trial and it's preferable for them to be in a situation where their welfare is paramount.

Bernard Rollin: part 6

Bernard Rollin: part 5

Bernard Rollin: part 4

Bernard Rollin: part 3

Bernard Rollins: part 2

Bernard Rollin lectures

Light blogging at present due to heavy workload. In the meantime, I've just come across this series of lectures by Professor Bernard Rollin given at the Johns Hopkins Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing. Unfortunately the sound comes and goes a bit.

Not sure whether to laugh or cry...

In one corner of the Internet, furious people repeat the claim that, "The RSPCA kills HALF the animals it rescues." 

In another corner, people with apparently rather similar interests are suggesting rescues ought to kill all animals who can't be rehomed pretty much immediately and all animals needing any significant amount of veterinary treatment.

Humans aren't consistent creatures, but a bit more of an attempt at sensible perspective would go a long way towards improving the quality of life for humans and animals in this country.

The RSPCA is absolutely bedevilled by attempts to divert a general purpose animal protection organisation into single-minded focus on whatever issue happens to be the special interest of the person doing the diversion, whether it be rabbits, ragwort, ferrets, vivisection or vegetarianism. This is further complicated by those who don't particularly care what the Society concentrates on so long as it doesn't turn a reforming eye on their activities — whether their activity is dog breeding, hunting, intensive farming or whatever. This group ultimately don't care what damage they do to the practical animal welfare work which forms three-quarters of the RSPCA's activities; in fact they may welcome it because it is the practical work which gives the RSPCA much of its clout as a campaigning and educating body.

In some ways an unbiassed external investigation into the RSPCA might be no bad thing for animals because it couldn't avoid also being an investigation into the interest groups which would like to reduce the Society to an organisation which runs shelters for domestic pets and never tackles the root causes of any animal issues. 

Ironically this might not affect the hunting issue very much (although I think there are a lot of questions to be answered about the way the hunting lobby seems to have been able to manipulate several national newspapers). 

The dysfunctional state of the dog "industry" affects many more members of the general public—whether through the cost and heart-break involved in purchasing a puppy who is doomed to die young, or simply through the fact that most British dogs will be pets but most British dogs will not be bred with a view to being successful pets. 

End of year statistics for 2012

Blossom: still looking...

Hot off the calculator...

In 2012 RSPCA Cambridge rehomed 12 dogs, 93 cats, 9 rabbits and 36 miscellaneous "small furries" and domesticated birds—a grand total of 150 animals.

For comparison, we rehomed 29 dogs, 75 cats, 11 rabbits and 13 miscellaneous in 2011—the increase probably being due to us taking in a larger number of kittens in 2012, as these would tend to be rehomed more rapidly.

Two dogs and seven cats had to be put to sleep on veterinary advice that further treatment would be futile.

We provided 2,606 assisted veterinary treatments for dogs, 1,065 for cats, 79 for rabbits and 49 for miscellaneous small furries.

This was a slight decrease on 2011, due to us being forced to cut back the amount of supplementary help we were able to give via private vets.

More boring accounts stuff...

If I played my cards right it looks as if I could get our New Year clinic appeal into the national press. Sadly I don't think keeping RSPCA Preston's animal centre open is the Telegraph's main interest in this, so it might be useful to give a bit of background on the financial relationships between the central RSPCA and its branches.

This table from the 2011 accounts shows the funds spent on support of the 170 branches (amounts are thousands of pounds, meaning that the total support was £8,840,000 in 2011).

This means that (on average) the central RSPCA spends £42,000 on support of any individual branch (sales to branches can be ignored because there will be a corresponding incoming payment from branches). To put it in context: £42,00 is a bit less than half of our branch's annual spend on welfare work. 

In practice some branches will get more funding than others. There's a regular annual grant of around £12,000 per branch which all branches get and which can be used in whatever way the local committee thinks best. Discretionary grants are agreed by Council and allocated to specific branch welfare or development projects.

In addition, and probably more controversially, the central RSPCA provides support "in kind" by employing development officers to advise branches and running some administrative functions centrally  (for example I don't have to submit our VAT returns directly to HMRC, I simply send quarterly figures to Horsham and the accounts department there deal with it). This is probably the area that causes the most friction because we may sometimes feel we'd rather have cash up front than the help.

In practice I don't think many people could take on a branch absolutely from scratch and run it without any source of advice, simply because running a modern charity is just too complex. Some of the help is a bit like presents of odd socks for Christmas, but most of it is actually useful.

Where a local branch is unable to form a committee of volunteers to manage it, control reverts to the central RSPCA. The table below shows details of the branches which were in Council (central) trusteeship in 2011 and you'll see that they tend to be given a rather larger amount of financial support 

to keep them going. 

Animal Welfare Statistics for November

During November RSPCA Cambridge rehomed two dogs, fifteen cats and one rabbit. Our clinic treated 182 dogs, 90 cats 11 rabbits and 4 miscellaneous "small furries".

At the end of each year we complete a return of our animal welfare figures to the RSPCA's HQ in Horsham and staff there combine the statistics for all the RSPCA branches, animal homes, clinics and hospitals to produce the detailed report which is published on the national website before the RSPCA Annual General Meeting in June.

You can see the full report for 2011 at http://www.rspca.org.uk/in-action/aboutus/corporate/reports and staff will shortly begin to compile the figures for 2012 as branches and centres begin to send off their end of year statistics. 

So, you can see that the 2011 figures are not exactly "hot news"; however as they've been reported in the press over the weekend I think it may be useful to pull out some of the information and discuss it in a bit of detail.

This graph shows the progress so far in reducing euthanasia of rehomeable dogs, cats and rabbits. One of the first things which stands out is that the introduction of "RSPCA Generated" in 2009 appears to have checked the upward trend which was evident from 2006-2008. (The second thing is that whoever wrote the Sunday Mail article either can't add up or was using the 2008 figures instead of "last year").

Calls to the RSPCA National Control Centre increased in 2011 compared with 2010

Note that most calls are not cruelty complaints but are requests for help: for example relating to injured stray animals, and far more cruelty/neglect complaints are resolved by providing help or dispensing welfare improvement notices than by prosecutions.

  

The national RSPCA spends much more on animal shelters and hospitals and on funding the inspectorate than it does on prosecutions. In addition to this its 170 independent affiliated branches (of which RSPCA Cambridge is proud to be one) all provide locally-based animal rehoming and veterinary treatment. Without the RSPCA there would be around £50 million less spent on community-based animal welfare benefiting animals and people.

Just to reinforce this: the majority of people employed by the Society are doing direct welfare work with animals (which is not to say the back-room people are just sitting about twiddling their thumbs; someone has to do things like paying vets).

By far the most common reason for euthanasia of animals in RSPCA care is veterinary advice that it would be cruel to continue to try to keep the animal alive. In 2012 this was the case for all animals put to sleep while in the care of our own branch. 

The RSPCA is the only charity in England and Wales with a blanket agreement with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons that it will pay for initial first aid of injured unowned animals (subject to some conditions aimed at preventing people from dumping healthy animals who are not strays). Sadly a fairly high proportion of these animals have injuries which are not treatable. The "Misc" heading includes some small domestic animals such as rabbits, guinea-pigs and ferrets, but by far the largest proportion is  wild animals and these will almost always be in a very bad way before they will allow themselves to be caught. 

Most of the hard work done by RSPCA staff and volunteers is not "news", but an awful lot of animals and people would suffer if we weren't there. It would be incredibly sad if a selfish and vindictive minority was successful in its destructive aims.

Clinic Opening Times Christmas 2012

RSPCA Cambridge Animal Clinic will be closed on Thursday 27th December and Tuesday 1st January.

Open Saturday 29th December and as normal from Wednesday 2nd January.

Out of hours service running normally throughout.

Poor Rudolph spending Christmas away from home

Rudolph was reported to our control centre as an injured stray in the early hours of Thursday morning. He's a very friendly, neutered male who must have been someone's loved pet. He seems to have got away with a nose-bleed and bruising which has left him very unsteady on his back legs although x-rays haven't shown any damage to his spine or pelvis. 

As he doesn't need any further vet treatment for the moment, except rest and pain-relief, I've got him back home in a cage lined with vet-bed so that the surgery staff won't need to come in on Christmas day.

As you can see from the photo he's looking quite bright and he's also eating and using his litter tray, but his back legs are still extremely shaky. 

Emergency Christmas Menu Ideas

Alarmed at the thought of entertaining vegetarian friends this Christmas? Some helpful ideas in this Kindle book from amazon.

"RSPCA Generated"

Lola

“RSPCA Generated” is the concept that RSPCA branches and centres should give priority to animals "generated" by the work of the Society when setting admissions policies. 

This was a huge benefit to branches when it was introduced because it ended a situation whereby HQ run centres would preferentially accept very adoptable dogs, which were simply unwanted by their owners, and branches had to take a higher percentage of inspectors’ animals (because branches are responsible for animals taken in buy their local inspector or found as sick/injured strays in their area and HQ centres don't have formal responsibilities of this nature).

 

Concentrating on the more problematic animals meant higher boarding costs for branches and also made their raw rehoming statistics appear to show that they were very slow and inefficient at rehoming compared with HQ centres, because like was not being compared with like. Injured strays and neglected animals signed over to inspectors will normally take longer before they are fit enough to go to new homes and are also more likely to belong to breeds which are less popular with the general public. Freeing up space at HQ animal centres for animals signed over for welfare reasons took some of this load off branches. 

"RSPCA Generated" is also morally the right thing because if we have made a decision to take an animal out of their current situation it is our responsibility to find a suitable placement.

The downside of this is that sticking to “RSPCA Generated” absolutely strictly means our branch sometimes has to turn away easily adoptable animals whilst still being unable to take on the very expensive traffic accident cases. This probably makes it more difficult to home the animals we do admit because potential adopters who are attracted by photos of cute kittens may go on to adopt an older cat or dog. Healthy kittens and puppies cost us very little because they can usually be placed with foster homes and having them increases interest in and support for the branch.

The 12 Dog Rules of Christmas...

And please make sure you know how to contact your vet's emergency stand-in over the holiday period. Remember there may be a higher than usual charge because the vet covering has to work when most people are enjoying themselves, so make sure you have enough funds available if an emergency does happen.

"Couldn't find a vet that accepts benefit claimants"

Occasionally when you read newspaper accounts of RSPCA prosecutions you'll see that the defendant states that they did seek veterinary help for their animal but couldn't find a vet who would accept people who are on benefits.

People who call our branch helpline sometimes say this and it can occasionally be very difficult to persuade them that they must go to the private vet if their pet is suffering and they are not registered to use the out of hours emergency service attached to our clinic.

Of course the idea that vets are operating some kind of selection process and refusing to add anyone who's not in employment to their client list is nonsense, but I don't think owners who say this are simply making up a story to excuse themselves.

The original conversation with the private vet's reception probably goes something like this:

Animal Owner] My dog's not himself.

Receptionist] Oh dear! Do you want to bring him in today?

Animal Owner] How much will it cost?

Receptionist] £30 for a consultation plus the cost of treatment.

Animal Owner] I'm on benefits; what would I have to pay?

Receptionist] We're a business; we can't give a reduction to people on benefits.

Animal Owner] (puts phone down)

From the point of view of the animal's owner; they would go to a vet if only there was a vet who accepted claimants (by which they mean charging reduced rates). 

From the point of view of the vet surgery; they are not failing in their obligation to provide pain relief even if the owner cannot pay because that's not what they've said. They haven't refused to see the animal; they have simply said there won't be a reduction in price.

Animal Welfare Statistics for October

In October we rehomed 11 cats, one rabbit and nine ferrets.

Our clinic treated 220 dogs, 102 cats, 8 rabbits and 2 hamsters and chipped 14 dogs and 11 cats as well as neutering 8 dogs.

Most of the rabbit visits were for vaccination with the new 12 month vaccine which I hope is a sign that all our educational efforts about the importance of vaccination against myxomatosis is having some effect.

Please sign the petition against live exports

RSPCA at World Horse Welfare Conference

The image of RSPCA Inspectors tends to be of worthy, but rather "establishment" blokes with not a lot of sympathy for those who don't conform.

Chief Inspector John Grant may fit the stereotype if you judge by looks alone, but as a person who was brought up in the traveling community he's better placed than most people to understand the motivations that can lead to over-breeding and welfare problems and search for solutions rather than just nagging about irresponsible behaviour.

2 puppies; no money; possible broken leg

Call just now from a relation of someone who's bought two very young puppies and now suspects that one of them has a broken leg as the pup is crying and unwilling to put any weight on it. The actual owner of the pups is on benefits and doesn't even have enough funds for credit on a mobile phone to call me direct.

Dogs are very much more liable than cats to injure themselves by jumping on or off household furniture and unfortunately this kind of thing is a fairly common occurrence. I'm hoping that the leg is simply twisted or bruised and simple pain relief and rest will sort it out. If it really is broken then some kind of operation will almost certainly be needed, although the pup's age is in his favour since growing bones repair themselves much more easily than adult ones.

We may well end up taking in one or both of the pups for rehoming if the owner isn't able to contribute anything towards the cost of treatment because it just isn't fair for us to provide free treatment for owners who haven't made any effort to plan at all, but charge the responsible ones who register their animals and save up to cover the cost of treatment.

Update 10 pm

The owner still hasn't managed to get the puppy to the emergency vet because they don't have any transport or money for a taxi. The puppy seems to be resting reasonably comfortably although he's distressed when he tries to walk. The owner's going to keep trying to locate someone who may be willing to give them a lift.

Update 18th November

Puppy has been seen by a vet and has a probable hairline fracture. He's been prescribed pain relief and cage rest (to give the injury a chance to heal). Owner will have to take him to the RSPCA clinic on Tuesday for a follow-up examination, but fortunately it doesn't look as though a repair operation's going to be needed.