Good old days? The RSPCA in 1972

In 1972 Liverpool branch alone had to put down 7,240 stray cats out of a total of 8,000 taken in

30 years later only 812 cats were put down for lack of homes over the whole of the RSPCA including all the branches.

New homes found	1972	2012
Cats	28,156	30,202
Dogs	45,997	11,356
Miscellaneous	7,062	29,192

Cruelty complaints	1972	2012
Complaints investigated	23,864	150,833
Cautions/improvement notices	4,028	78,090
Convictions	960	4,186

The ratio of convictions to cruelty complaints has actually gone down over the 30 years between 1972 and the present day. The most striking difference is the proportion of complaints which were resolved by issuing improvement notices in the 2012 figures.

Many aspects of life in the 1972 RSPCA are very familiar. The Society was engaged in a very active (and for a time successful) campaign to stop the export of live food animals. The British Field Sports Society (forerunner of today's Countryside Alliance) was threatening to challenge the RSPCA's charitable status if it proceeded with a campaign against coursing of hares. And everyone was desperately promoting neutering to reduce euthanasia of healthy animals.

(Source: Anthony Brown, Who Cares for Animals: 150 years of the RSPCA, (London: Heinemann, 1974)

Enquiry into the RSPCA? - Part 10: Rights or Welfare?

"Who can dispute the inhumanity of the sport of hunting, of pursuing a poor, defenceless creature for mere amusement, till it becomes exhausted by terror and fatigue...?"

Lewis Gompertz, co-founder of the SPCA.

"Nothing is more notorious than that it is not only useless, but dangerous, to poor suffering animals, to reprove their oppressors, or to threaten them with punishment. The general answer, with the addition of bitter oaths and increased cruelty, is, What is that to you?—If the offender be a servant, he curses you, and asks if you are his master? and if he be the master himself, he tells you that the animal is his own. Every one of your lordships must have witnessed scenes like this. A noble duke, whom I do not see in his place, told me only two days ago, that he had lately received this very answer. The validity of this most infamous and stupid defence arises from that defect in the law which I seek to remedy. Animals are considered as property only: to destroy or to abuse them, from malice to the proprietor, or with an intention injurious to his interest in them, is criminal; but the animals themselves are without protection; the law regards them not substantively; they have no rights!

... their rights, subservient as they are, ought to be as sacred as our own. And although certainly, my lords, there can be no law for man in that respect, but such as he makes for himself, yet I cannot conceive any thing more sublime, or interesting, more grateful to heaven, or more beneficial to the world, than to see such a spontaneous restraint imposed by man upon himself." 

... even in struggles for human rights and privileges, sincere and laudable as they occasionally may have been, all human rights and privileges have been trampled upon, by barbarities far more shocking than those of the most barbarous nations, because they have not merely extinguished natural unconnected life, but have destroyed (I trust only for a season) the social happiness and independence of mankind, raising up tyrants to oppress them all in the end, by beginning with the oppression of each other. All this, my lords, has arisen from neglecting the cultivation of the moral sense, the best security of states, and the greatest consolation of the world." 

Thomas, Lord Erskine, CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.

HL Deb 15 May 1809 vol 14 cc553-71 553

§ On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill,

§ Lord Erskine

Erskine's original bill extended protection to all domestic animals (with an expressed hope that wild animals would also benefit from increased awareness of animal suffering). He further amended it to limit protection to working horses and oxen following objections at the committee stage but the amended bill also failed and animals did not receive legal protection until the success of Richard Martin's Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle Act in 1822. The infant SPCA which later became the RSPCA was founded by a group of men gathered together by the reverend Arthur Broome for the purpose of enforcing Martin's Act (just as today the Hunting Act serves no purpose without enforcement).

At its inception the RSPCA was primarily about securing rights for animals—something that was probably more straightforward at a time when there was fairly universal agreement that all humans have rights but that all humans do not have the same rights. Erskine is quite clear that rights are things which are conferred by legal agreements, not truths that can somehow be discovered and he doesn't find any difficulty in believing that animals should have some rights but not identical ones to the rights which ought to be given to humans.

Many of the activities of the early society are familiar from the work of today's RSPCA—for example the training of magistrates.

Welfare work came later; initially mainly educational, for example publication of advice for horse owners and drivers and promotion of quick-release harness that would enable a fallen horse to be disengaged from a vehicle and allowed to stand.

Campaigning activities continued throughout the period which is sometimes held up as a golden age in which the RSPCA confined its activities to practical welfare work and prosecutions (or, depending on your point of view, a disgracefully stagnant period in which the Society hindered the work of more progressive organisations.)

Examples of this include the introduction of humane stunning in abattoirs, restrictions on the use of stray dogs in experimentation and greater protection for sea-birds.

What an enquiry might comment

The RSPCA has been involved in lobbying Parliament for animal protection measures and in enforcing protection legislation since its inception, and before charitable bodies were regulated by the Charity Commission. Under current Charity Commission rules, charities may take part in lobbying and provision of advice to MPs provided this is done for the promotion of their charitable objects and provided lobbying and campaigning is not party political and does not involve expressing an opinion of the relative merits of the different parties.

There appears to be a confusion which has caused animal welfare and animal rights to be discussed as though these were opposites (with further confusion because Singer, the most prominent advocate of philosophical interest in the moral status of animals does not believe in rights at all as he is a utilitarian.) This is rather as though someone were to argue that it is incorrect for a country to possess a judiciary or a police force as well as a health service and there can be no possible objection to the RSPCA continuing to promote scholarly discussion about the correct principles on which we should make decisions about animals as well as promoting enforcement of existing laws, improvement of these laws where needed and practical welfare provision such as animal homes and hospitals.

It may be that the lobby in favour of repeal of the hunting act is sufficiently powerful to threaten the RSPCA's ability to provide the practical welfare services which are by far the  most expensive element of its work. 

Updating our Burleigh Street shop

Jenny Eden and Teresa spent most of today working on the new layout at Burleigh Street. I joined them after work and it was nearly 10 pm when we finished. We were nearly crippled by then, but as you can see, the final result is very pleasing and hopefully it will help us to raise more funds for local animals. 

We also shipped across a van-load of excellent donated stock collected at our Mill Road shop so we'll be opening again tomorrow with lots of fresh bargains and more will be going out over the next few weeks.

Enquiry into the RSPCA? - Part 9: other rescues

"The owner of an animal sanctuary was warned yesterday that she could be jailed after pleading guilty to 24 charges of animal cruelty, after one of the biggest investigations ever taken on by the RSPCA.

Anne Stott, 56, admitted causing unnecessary suffering after inspectors from the RSPCA found 140 dead dogs, cats, ferrets and a fox at her Crewe Animal Rescue Centre in Cheshire and in two lock-up garages.

They found another 20 animals alive but suffering from dehydration.

Magistrates in Crewe were told that some of the animals were pets taken to the centre by people who thought they would be looked after with care.

It appeared that Stott had put down animals entrusted to the sanctuary and stored their bodies in bin liners.

Inspectors went to the centre in Edleston Road - two flats over the charity shop which Stott used for fund-raising - last May after a caller said a dog was trapped inside in temperatures of up to 37C (99F).

A veterinary surgeon who examined the animal corpses said some were so decomposed that it was impossible to identify the exact cause of death."

David Ward The Guardian, Tuesday 27 April 1999 

One situation in which the RSPCA has to act is where rescues have "gone bad"—usually because the people running them have become so overwhelmed that they cease to have any appreciation of the animals' needs.

When this happens it is a tragedy for the sanctuary owners and puts a great strain on RSPCA resources because of the sheer numbers of animals who may need to be taken in.

What an enquiry might comment

Rescues (including the RSPCA's own branches) are under constant pressure to accept more animals, putting them at risk of entering a downward spiral in which the owners are so exhausted that it becomes easier to agree to take animals than to refuse, in spite of being unable to care for the ones they already have. The existence of the RSPCA inspectorate as an external body which can enforce acceptable standards provides an essential safeguard of the welfare of rescued animals but is understandably resented by many rescue owners who are at the end of their tether.

This situation has not been helped by some organisations using RSPCA prosecutions of failing rescues as another opportunity to attack the society and to create fear that there is an intentional policy to "take out the competition".

It might be beneficial for the RSPCA to attempt some outreach to small rescues firstly to reassure them that there is no intent to force them out and secondly to educate them about the potential risks of becoming overwhelmed (and indeed the value of being able to tell anyone who complains when they  refuse to take in more animals that they are acting on RSPCA advice to limit numbers to a level that they can cope with).

Enquiry into the RSPCA? - Part 8: prosecution?

Unlike Australian RSPCA inspectors who are sworn as special constables and have powers equivalent to police officers, the RSPCA in England and Wales makes use only of legal powers which are available to any citizen.

There is little controversy over RSPCA prosecutions of acts of sadistic cruelty but much more disagreement over cases of neglect and the enforcement of the Hunting Act. 

In neglect cases the main cause for concern is that many people reported to the RSPCA for suspected cruelty are not deliberately cruel but have a mental abnormality which means they are unable to provide proper care for their animals.

The vast majority of neglect reports are dealt with by the RSPCA providing advice and support, including practical help such as neutering vouchers and veterinary treatment. In 2012 (most recent figures available) the RSPCA provided welfare improvement advice in 78,090 cases but only sent forward 2,093 cases for possible prosecution (2.6% of the 80,183 cases where any action was felt needed). 

The main point of prosecutions from an animal welfare point of view is firstly to obtain a court's instructions that the animals in question are relinquished for rehoming and secondly to ensure that people who are likely to re-offend are disqualified from keeping animals. This second function means that animals can be removed immediately if they are acquired by someone who is the subject of a disqualification order.

Currently the RSPCA forwards details of successful welfare prosecutions for inclusion in the Police National Computer records and has a service agreement with PNC to receive details of past convictions (which might be by other agencies such as Trading Standards) when court cases are commenced. This does not at any stage involve direct RSPCA access to the PNC.

What an enquiry might comment

Animal welfare is an emotive subject and there are legitimate concerns about high profile cases where individuals with mental disabilities are exposed to public hatred. Unless there were to be a policy of not prosecuting such people at all, this concern would not be addressed by transferring prosecutions from the RSPCA to the police as cases would remain of great interest to the media. 

Allowing animals to be removed without any legal scrutiny if an owner has a disability, is potentially much more discriminatory than the current situation.  As the major concern is the publicity surrounding neglect cases rather than the prosecutions themselves, a better solution might be to tackle this by introducing protection against naming of disabled defendants similar to the protection given to child defendants.

It might be helpful if the RSPCA were to record statistics showing the proportion of disabled people in the advice/support and prosecution categories respectively.

It has been estimated that around 90% of the prison population have some kind of mental impairment and that around 40% of those with a learning difficulty are unable to have their children living with them. It would be unreasonable to expect the RSPCA to reverse these trends in the case of dependent animals. However it would be a cause for concern if the RSPCA was less successful than the police in resolving neglect cases without the need for prosecution.

Once an RSPCA investigation has reached a point at which the police need to be involved there may be a feeling that the situation is now on a "conveyor-belt" to prosecution and can no longer be resolved by negotiation. It might be helpful to have discussions between the local police and inspectorate team to agree working practices which would leave the individual inspectors more lee-way to give animal owners another chance to rectify the situation without feeling they were wasting police time.

Preventing collation of criminal records  in the PNC would make it more difficult for the police to identify breaches of animal keeper disqualifications when visiting properties for non-RSPCA related reasons.

If, at some future date, the RSPCA were to announce that its prosecution role had become untenable due to organised campaigns by certain sectors, it is difficult to predict the likely outcome. However one possibility is that the police and CPS might feel under pressure to bring cases which the RSPCA would not in fact have prosecuted, rather than risk creating an impression that some people are above the law.

Enquiry into the RSPCA? - Part 7: the branches

Originally the link between the National (or Central) RSPCA and its branches was simple: each branch raised the funds needed to pay the wages of an inspector who would be trained centrally (to ensure consistency) and deployed to cover the branch area. Branches were required to raise at least 2 years funds and transfer them to the National RSPCA before they could affiliate and be given an inspector. This ensured that there would be a reasonably steady cash flow so an inspector could be confident of being paid.

As life moved on and the National Society built up more funding, the link between a branch's "quota" payment and employment of the inspectors gradually became more tenuous. The RSPCA gradually took on extra functions beyond campaigns and prosecutions, such as animal rehoming, veterinary treatment, pet neutering and so on. 

In the very early days, much of this extra activity was done by the inspectors (or their wives!) in their own homes and branch activity moved forward with the concept of their rôle of supporting the inspectorate being expanded to the provision of local welfare services which would reduce the workload of the inspector. 

Some branches took a very active part in driving forward change — for example Bath and District Branch was the first branch to adopt a policy that they would not put down healthy animals and would take in all unclaimed dogs from their local pound for rehoming (in 1955).

This additional workload gradually became a higher proportion of branch activity and the relationship between branches and employment of the inspectors weakened because it was more efficient to organise inspectorate work without reference to artificial geographical boundaries. As a consequence, branches who were struggling to meet all the calls on their resources began to resent the "quota" payment. At this time the Society as a whole was becoming more and more under pressure in relation to the hunting question and branch volunteers were sometimes very aggressively challenged to explain why they were unable to fund unlimited local services, often by people who assumed these services were all funded by the Central RSPCA and that the volunteers were themselves being paid and benefiting personally from money raised by a branch.

It gradually became obvious that a payment sufficient to cover the salary of two inspectors per branch area would leave most branches with little scope to handle their other responsibilities in respect of animals taken into RSPCA care by the inspector and that the issue was damaging relations between branch committees and the Society. The problem was finally solved by de-linking the quota payment from the inspectorate and introducing a sliding scale so that branches were required to contribute based on the levels of their uncommitted reserves. Funds raised from branch contributions are now ploughed back into regional funds to be spent on joint projects agreed between branches in a region and are no longer part of the general revenue of the Central RSPCA.

At present, branches receive a yearly grant of around £20,000 from the Central RSPCA in addition to a share of the subscriptions paid by RSPCA members living within the branch area.

Once telephone ownership became virtually universal the volume of phone calls to the society became such that it was not longer reasonable to expect them to be handled by a combination of branch volunteers and inspectors' spouses. First local, then regional and finally a national call centre was set up by the Central RSPCA to receive and triage calls about animals in distress.

A side effect of this was that larger numbers of injured strays and wildlife could be brought to the attention of the Society. Initially the Central Society assumed that this would fall under the existing remit of the branches to provide care for animals within their areas. However this proved to be impossible and the current position is that the Central RSPCA has an agreement with vets that it will provide up to £60 towards first aid so that branch volunteers do not need to be contactable 24/7 and can have uninterrupted rest at night.



What an enquiry might comment

The RSPCA is almost unique in the scale of its volunteer involvement. This is probably a major reason why it is able to achieve such low euthanasia rates but the negative side of this is some degree of inefficiency as a result of committees knowing their own patch but sometimes being unaware of the wider picture.

Branches are independent charities although they are governed by general society rules and some of them have turnovers approaching a million pounds p.a. This means the individual branch committees have a daunting task and a considerable amount of support is needed from the parent society when a committee consists mainly of newly recruited individuals. Consequently the amount actually spent by the society on support to branches is in fact considerably greater than the funds spent on grant aid.

Support is primarily given by the Branch Support Specialists whose rôles are subject to a degree of tension in that they are employed by the National society to support trustees of the independent affiliated charities and this may involve a degree of conflict if the interests of the National Society, a branch as a legal entity, the branch trustees as individuals and the local animals as beneficiaries are not fully aligned.

It may not be ideal if trained volunteer managers are recruited as Branch Support Specialists because of the importance of branch trustees being able to debate and act with some degree of independence from the National Society. This is less likely if their relationship with the link person "feels" like that between a manager and the group of volunteers who are to be managed.

It would make sense for the Central RSPCA and the branches to produce an agreed statement of the true financial relationship between them. Currently this is used as a weapon against the RSPCA, with claims  in the media that the branches have to pay large sums to the Central RSPCA while getting no funding from it for practical animal welfare work (and also that the Central RSPCA itself does no practical work). Branches may feel under pressure because they are accused of making a personal profit from their volunteer work and unintentionally contribute to the media attacks by issuing statements saying that their work is not funded by the Central RSPCA.

Enquiry into the RSPCA? - Part 6: equines

The desire to improve the lives of horses was at the core of the RSPCA's original foundation, with all of the founders being passionately concerned for their welfare in spite of differing views on how this might be achieved.

As large, charismatic mammals who are highly visible, horses are responsible for a large number of complaints about the RSPCA's inaction in the face of conditions which are not quite bad enough to be illegal.  Animals who are not in fact suffering any welfare issues may be the subject of complaints if members of the public do not appreciate that native ponies are adapted to life outside during the winter (and may indeed be more likely to have problems in very hot weather or when unnaturally rich grass pasture is available).

Horses are also the subject of high-profile debate about acceptable working conditions and sporting events with a high degree of risk.

At one end of the scale there are native moorland ponies and ponies grazed by travellers on pieces of rough ground. The RSPCA may be pressed to take action when they are at risk in adverse weather conditions and also if pony owners dispose of surplus animals to the horsemeat trade.

At the other extreme are high-value sport horses who may be at risk of fatal accidents (e.g. in jump racing) and may be kept in restrictive conditions which do not satisfy their behavioural needs. If they cease to be valuable because of age or injury they may also be disposed of to the meat trade or may enter a downward spiral of less and less competent owners.

They are extremely expensive to care for and raise the ethical dilemma of what to do with animals who have been rescued but may never be fit enough to be placed in a normal working home.

The RSPCA attempts to place unrideable horses as companions, thereby incurring some criticism that this is a sentimental waste of funds.

What an enquiry might comment

In many ways the RSPCA's difficulties in coping with the current equine welfare situation mirror its problems with dogs in that there is a high demand for it to take action in situations where it has limited ability to do so, either because there are no legal powers to act or because it is limited by resource constraints.

If the legal position on horses left on grazing land without the owner's permission and horses straying on the highways is changed to permit landowners to dispose of animals there will probably be pressure for the RSPCA to take them in to prevent them from being euthanised. It is difficult to see how the society will cope unless more people are prepared to give practical or financial support.

Enquiry into the RSPCA? - Part 5: Laboratory animals

During most of its existence the Society has taken a relatively pragmatic view of animal experimentation, accepting that most people will put human health above animal suffering and pressing for reform rather than abolition. It accepts the general scientific consensus on the validity of animal experiments and promotes the moral imperative to reduce animal use to the minimum compatible with medical progress.

In the past this has sometimes brought it into conflict with scientists unwilling to accept any legal limits on science. However the question of experiments has been significant as yet another position on which the Society's "gatekeeper" position has made it a target for campaigners who will accept nothing less than the abolition of animal use.

What an enquiry might comment

The RSPCA's comparatively modest position on experiments has probably enabled it to be more effective than other organisations who cannot engage with the political process because it is plain that no reform will be enough to satisfy them.

It is a pity that recent changes in the society, intended to reduce "back office" costs which will appear as administration on the balance sheet, have diminished the strength of the Science Group. Donors should be encouraged to understand the importance of this apparently unexciting area of the Society's work and give it more support.

The RSPCA's work to reduce animal suffering in experiments rarely hits the headlines, but its research animals department plays an influential role in many bodies.

Enquiry into the RSPCA? - Part 4: Wild animals

Wild animals have been a source of contention for the RSPCA ever since it was founded in 1824. It is known that two of the major original founders (Arthur Broome and Lewis Gompertz) were opponents of fox-hunting and two (Richard Martin and Thomas Erskine) were themselves hunters, although Martin seems to have had some doubts about its legitimacy towards the end of his life.

During the RSPCA's first hundred years the hunting question does not seem to have caused serious difficulties because there were other animal welfare concerns which were clearly more urgent. However during the 20th century opposition to hunting became progressively more insistent. Both sides viewed the RSPCA as the gatekeeper to legislation; provided the RSPCA remained neutral or opposed a ban no government would give parliamentary time to a hunting bill.

Thus, the anti-hunt lobby came to view the RSPCA with nearly hysterical loathing, and it was extremely tempting for the pro-hunt faction to try to push the Society beyond a view that, although hunting was cruel, there were worse abuses, into positive opposition to a hunt ban. Once opposition to hunting with dogs had become RSPCA policy the pro-hunters became equally hysterical in their hatred of the Society. Unfortunately there was often no corresponding change in the views of many anti-hunters, who still saw the RSPCA as an obstacle to radical change in the way animals are treated.

Wildlife Hospitals

Parallel to the issue of legal protection for wild animals there was the question of rescue of injured or sick wild animals. As individuals viewed as animal welfare experts the inspectors were commonly asked to help. This might be relatively straightforward if an uninjured animal could simply be freed and released or if one was clearly so ill that mercy killing was the only option (for example in the case of rabbits with myxomatosis). However it was more difficult if a wild animal was potentially salvageable (for example oiled seabirds) but only if longer-term treatment and care was available.

Currently the RSPCA has four specialist wildlife centres (fully funded by the Central RSPCA not the local branches) and wild animals are included in their national agreement with vets. This states that vets should examine and give first aid to small wildife and birds free of charge during normal working hours while the RSPCA will include larger birds and mammals in its general scheme for provision of funding to cover first aid and will also pay for emergency treatment of small wildlife outside normal hours.

Treatment of sick/injured wildlife remains contentious to an extent as it is RSPCA policy that wild animals should be euthanased if they cannot be rehabilitated sufficiently to be returned to the wild.

What an enquiry might say

A relatively short period of time has elapsed since the passing of the Hunting Act and it may be that passions will eventually die down as those who were mainly interested in hunting in order to ride or watch hounds track find alternative ways to enjoy the outdoors.

Anti-RSPCA feeling has been sparked off again by a number of enforcement cases brought by the Society after a lull during which it seems that some people in the hunting camp were content to assume the law would not be strictly applied.

This has potentially serious implications for the much larger number of people who depend on the RSPCA's practical welfare services (which represent by far the largest part of its activities).

It might be helpful if the RSPCA were to re-examine whether some disabled (or simply too tame) wildlife could have a meaningful life in semi-natural conditions - for example in an enclosed deer park.

Enquiry into the RSPCA? - Part 3: Farm animals

Animals who are kept to produce food or other products (wool, milk, eggs etc) for people or for other animals

Reform or abolition?

The RSPCA's Inspectorate will act to enforce animal protection law if farm animals are mistreated just as they do when the victims are companion animals, although they may refer complaints to the local Trading Standards or to DEFRA where they believe this is more appropriate.

As well as this law enforcement role, the RSPCA campaigns to change the law to provide more protection for farm animals and it operates a sophisticated farm assurance scheme, Freedom Food, which is designed to drive up welfare standards by providing a route by which farmers can get a premium for voluntary improvements.

The Society has commissioned an audit of the impact of the Freedom Food scheme by external scientific experts with a view to determining which aspects of the scheme have been effective in improving welfare in terms of the lifetime experiences of individual animals. The panel's report has now been published.

In addition to Freedom Food, the Society operates a "Good Business Awards" scheme to reward welfare innovation by individual businesses. This is able to be more adventurous than Freedom Food which is very much geared to what can be attainable in normal food producing activities rather than niche markets.

The RSPCA does not specifically promote a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle although many of its staff and supporters are themselves either vegetarian or vegan.

What an enquiry might comment

There is a segment of the animal protection movement which finds it utterly abhorrent that an animal welfare charity should involve itself in farming and would like the RSPCA to withdraw from Freedom Food and all similar activities. Some individuals with these views have devoted considerable effort to seeking out malpractice on Freedom Food farms and this may have been unintentionally useful to the scheme as it must leave farmers in no doubt that they will be found out if they only pay lip-service to welfare.

Publicity for "bad apples" in the scheme has been embarrassing for the RSPCA and they should probably look at extending unannounced checks on farms as well as the planned audits which are key to Freedom Food's function as a method of improving standard farming practice.

There is a fundamental tension between those who believe that killing and eating animals can never be compatible with welfare and those who accept that the wider society are probably always going to eat meat and wish to ensure that animals kept to produce food are treated as humanely as possible. Realistically this source of strife is not likely to disappear.

Any assessment of the value of the RSPCA to society at large needs to make allowances for the tendency for criticisms to come from those who believe it is not radical enough as well as those who think it has moved too far towards the arena of animal rights.

Enquiry into the RSPCA? - Part 2: Companion animals

Our pets - the animals who share our homes.

Rehoming and euthanasia

The RSPCA gives priority to animals taken in as a result of cruelty investigations or found as injured strays and it puts no time-limit on the length of time rehomeable animals may be cared for until they can be placed in a new permanent home. This means that centres are always full and need to be supplemented by paying for space in private boarding kennels and catteries or placing animals with volunteer foster carers.

In 2012 (most recent year for which figures are available) the RSPCA took in 18,355 dogs of which 11,356 were rehomed, and  6,817 were put to sleep because they were incurably ill, dangerous or belonged to breeds which it is illegal to rehome.  182 potentially rehomeable dogs were put to sleep.

The RSPCA does not normally taken in stray dogs as these are legally the responsibility of the Local Authority. However few Local Authorities provide a 24 hour 7 day per week collection service for stray dogs or pay for treatment of injured dogs whose owner is not known.

It is debatable whether the RSPCA can legally spend funds to provide a service which should by statute be the responsibility of a public body. It would probably not be treated as misuse of charity funds if the RSPCA were to collect stray dogs at times when no LA collection service is provided or if it were to pay for treatment of injured dogs where no LA funding is available. However this would be a significant drain on the Society's resources, even if activity by the Central Society was restricted to collecting dogs and providing funds for initial first aid treatment. 

If the process for continuing treatment of injured stray dogs was dealt with in the same way as the current handling of injured stray cats it would mean imposing a considerable strain on the local branches, many of whom are already struggling to remain solvent.

In 2012 the RSPCA took in 43,621 cats of which 30,202 were rehomed (or released after neutering if feral) and 12,607 were put to sleep because they were untreatably ill or injured. 812 potentially rehomeable cats were put to sleep.

In 2013 the Society began a revolutionary initiative to locate rehoming centres within Pets at Home stores in order to encourage adoption of rescue animals instead of commercial purchase. Selling animals is a very small element of the revenue of a pet store so there is excellent potential to drive down over-breeding while maintaining the stores' income from pet food and accessories.

What an enquiry might comment

The RSPCA have very low rates of euthanasia of healthy domestic pets—better than most comparable SPCAs in other countries. These rates could very probably be reduced to zero by spending relatively small amounts of money to increase available accommodation in private boarding kennels.

Vociferous claims that the RSPCA has extremely high euthanasia rates probably contribute to inefficiencies in transferring animals between locations in order to speed up rehoming. Each branch knows that it is saving every animal it possibly can and the emotional investment in those animals who have already been admitted makes it difficult to "let go" and send them elsewhere without guarantees that the centre receiving them will be equally dedicated.

Some newly recruited branch volunteers and national staff may be unsure about branch obligations to accept inspectors' intake other than prosecution cases and be unaware that by refusing animals they might be forcing an inspector to arrange euthanasia.

One option might be for the Central RSPCA to pay for short-term boarding to provide a breathing space in which options for transfer to other branches or to National rehoming centres could be investigated. A potential problem is that this would inevitably be misrepresented as the RSPCA having a policy of killing animals after 3 days (or whatever the breathing space was) even if these animals were always successfully transferred to other accommodation.

Sick and injured strays

The RSPCA is unique among animal charities in England and Wales in having a blanket agreement with private vets to pay £60 towards first aid for sick or injured animals whose owners cannot be traced.

Dogs are not normally included in this as the Local Authority is legally responsible for paying for immediate treatment of stray dogs but in practice the RSPCA will pay if it is impossible to contact the local council, a dog needs immediate treatment to prevent suffering and the veterinary practice absolutely refuses to provide treatment unless payment is guaranteed. This £60 is paid by the Central RSPCA and local branches will then cover the cost of further treatment if they are able.

What an enquiry might comment

Many of the complaints about the RSPCA relate to not collecting/treating stray dogs and dissatisfaction that the £60 payment for initial first aid treatment is not larger. There might be scope for a national arrangement with local authorities for the RSPCA to take over part of their statutory responsibility for stray dogs in return for payment as the RSPCA already has a 24 hour control centre taking calls from the public and personnel available during the night to collect animals. As the Society is already over-stretched this would only be possible if the arrangement provided full cost recovery to enable extra people to be employed.

Increasing the veterinary treatment payment per animal by £100 would be likely to cost in the order of £4 million and would only become possible if the Society significantly increased its income.


It is very unfortunate that the RSPCA has recently become the target of political campaigns which aim to force the RSPCA to change its campaigning policies by hitting the funding of its practical welfare work.

Digression on phones

Because our branch runs an animal clinic we have an obligation to be contactable in case one of our registered patients needs emergency treatment outside normal working hours. This can be a bit of a curse, witness a few nights ago when a gentleman who I think has some kind of learning difficulties, called me at 2 am to ask how long he should wait between applications of Stronghold (a flea treatment) and again at 3 to ask whether bathing his dog 48 hours after the first lot of Stronghold would have washed it off.

Fortunately most people want to sleep through the night themselves and consequently only phone when something really is  urgent. 

The reason why we have to take the out of hours calls rather than simply routing the phone to our veterinary provider is the percentage that are really nothing to do with the clinic—not only baby birds, but also people whose dogs have suddenly taken a hatred to one another; ones whose neighbours have barking dogs and so on.

It does give us an insight into what a really horrible job the operators at the RSPCA National Control Centre have. I wouldn't want to sit for eight hours being shouted at by strangers for all the tea in China. 

Inevitably, even with the relatively low number of calls we take here, there are people who take offence and people who are furiously dissatisfied that we can't offer more, or different help to solve their problems. When someone does complain it can be remarkably difficult to trace exactly who said what to whom and why, or whether someone completely misunderstood what they were being told. 

Enquiry into the RSPCA? - Part 1: Governance

The boring bit:

Who decides what the Society does?

The RSPCA is effectively a "family" of charities.

Firstly, there is the central RSPCA which determines major policy directions, runs the inspectorate, initiates prosecutions and provides facilities which are intended for use on a regional/national basis.

Secondly, there are 166 local branches (together covering England and Wales) which provide welfare services to their local area. This number varies from year to year as branches may split or merge.

When the RSPCA originally grew up, the purpose of a branch was to raise funds to pay the salary of their own local inspector.

Today the inspectors are paid for by the central RSPCA, but the branches are still expected to provide support services to enable the inspectors to function. Usually this consists of a combination of rehoming (for animals taken in by inspectors) and veterinary provision (to prevent some of the neglect which makes cruelty prosecutions necessary). They receive a yearly grant from the central RSPCA, currently about £20,000.

Branches are run by committees composed of unpaid RSPCA members who have been elected by other branch members at an Annual General Meeting. Committee members usually do a substantial amount of practical work keeping the branch going as well as coming together to make decisions about activities such as fundraising. They may employ some paid staff, especially if the branch has an animal home which needs full-time workers on the spot all day.

The Central RSPCA is governed by a Council of 25 unpaid trustees who meet together to decide policy directions and are responsible for decisions about employment of the most senior staff.

Collectively, the branches elect Regional Representatives to the Central RSPCA's governing Council. There are ten Regional Representatives, each elected by a group of branches.

The RSPCA membership as a whole elect the other 15 Council members by postal vote, with 5 council members retiring and standing for re-election each year.

What an enquiry might comment

The division between Council members elected by the whole membership and those elected by the branches introduces checks and balances which are probably useful because it means at least 10 of the 25 members are returned by people who know them personally and who are directly involved in the practical animal welfare work of the Society.

The RSPCA's membership is only a relatively small proportion of the individuals who make regular donations towards its work or regularly give practical support as a volunteer. It would strengthen the democratic structure if more of the the regular donors and volunteers became members and one option might be to explore with the Charity Commission whether the Society could be given permission to confer branch membership on regular branch volunteers to enable them to vote at the branch AGMs and stand as branch trustees.

Enquiry into the RSPCA?

Suppose there was to be an enquiry into the RSPCA, what would it find?

First of all it needs to be pointed out that the RSPCA is a charity, not a government body, so it's not exactly clear on what basis an enquiry would be set up: to paraphrase a famous saying of Thomas Erskine, one of our founders: "We can do what we decide with money we raised ourselves."

Provided the Charity Commission is satisfied that the Society is being properly run in the sense that the Trustees are not pocketing the funds or spending them on terrorism and the law on party political campaigns is not being broken there are no grounds for them opening an inquiry into the RSPCA on the basis of the normal regulation of charities.

It would be possible to have a parliamentary enquiry into the RSPCA to "look into" the way we work but (barring extraordinary changes to the way the law works) it couldn't (for example) order all the staff to work for the minimum wage or force the Society to take in all stray dogs.

It's hard to see how it would be possible to justify holding an enquiry into the influence of the RSPCA in our society without a complementary one into the influence of the Countryside Alliance and other animal-industry bodies.

An enquiry into the Tasmanian RSPCA by the Public Accounts Committee of the Tasmanian Parliament is currently in progress and if you follow the link you'll see that the terms of reference are: "the capacity of the RSPCA to receive and expend public monies in accordance with public expectations."

The vital difference between the Tasmanian RSPCA and the RSPCA in England and Wales is that we receive no direct state funding other than the usual charitable tax reliefs while the Tasmanian RSPCA inspectors are paid for by their government. The English government is getting a free service that the Tasmanian government pays quite a lot of money for.

Incidentally if our HQ was suddenly required to produce financial records for money spent on the inspectorate I have absolute confidence they could do it within a matter of hours.

Reading between the lines it looks as if RSPCA Tasmania's difficulties were partly because they were being paid for the inspectorate but not being given anything towards the costs of looking after animals seized in the course of investigations. So although they were being paid to provide an animal welfare enforcement service they were still subsidizing this from their own funds. It also looks as though they weren't spending enough money on administration (one of their kennel staff was keeping their accounts in her free time) so they couldn't easily produce exact figures for the amount spent on the inspectorate, kennels, legal fees etc. They seem to have been struggling to fund their shelter and some of the associated complaints (for example that their inspectors were reluctant to seize animals because they had no-where to put them) appear to relate to this.

As it looks as though the idea of a public enquiry into the RSPCA isn't going to go away I'm planning a series of entries on what the findings of an enquiry might be.

Just to put things in perspective, here is a chart showing prosecutions as a proportion of the work done by the RSPCA (using phone calls to the NCC as a baseline for the number of requests for help).

Is it right that a small clique of very influential people can jeopardise all the rescues of injured animals, provision of veterinary treatment and kind but firm help for people who cannot cope with the numbers of animals they have taken on?

Weekend worries

Quite a lot of calls from owners with pets registered at our clinic needing urgent treatment, but this is why we're here and these could be passed on to our veterinary provider for (hopefully) a good outcome for the animals concerned.

More worrying were several late-night calls over the weekend from owners outside our area. These have to be referred to our National Control Centre as it would be absolutely impossible for us to take on financial support for the rest of the country on top of our existing load.

One of these involved a cat who had been badly attacked by a pair of dogs her owners had recently acquired. This isn't really the dogs' fault as from their point of view, unless they've been brought up with cats, a cat isn't really any different from a wild rabbit. The owner's own vet wasn't answering their out of hours contact number and they were in dispute with the only other vet in their location (I think again about finance).

The National Control Centre did the absolute best they could within their own financial limits, and offered to pay for an out of hours consultation fee at a third vet. This vet refused (which was within their rights as the cat was not their patient). Last I heard, the owner was going to drive to Colchester to the only vet NCC had managed to persuade to see the cat.

This is all hideously unsatisfactory, to put it mildly, when an animal is seriously injured and in pain.

Another call concerned a puppy who had broken his leg nearly a week ago and only got treatment because one of the owner's neighbours realised how serious the situation was and more or less forced her to bring him to our clinic.

The major welfare problem we see (as a branch) is not really cruel owners, but irresponsible, and sometimes frankly stupid ones. Their animals are probably more likely to have accidents because they don't foresee possible dangers, and they don't make sensible plans to deal with illness or injury when it does happen.

I have no idea what the real solution is, because draconian limits on who can have animals, and how many, would almost certainly just mean healthy animals dying because they don't have homes.

We need to raise more funds so that animals like these can be helped—none of this is their fault—but we also need some degree of sanctions so that help we give doesn't just mean irresponsible people get more animals to the point at which we (and they) are not coping again.

We also need to drive out the breeders who don't care where their "products" go so long as the purchaser is able to pay.

If I ruled the world...

(Or at least had unlimited powers to remodel the RSPCA as I thought fit, and unlimited money to do it.)

This summer has been a grouchy time with lots of complaints on social media on the lines of: "RSPCA, you should do X, that's what we pay you for!" (Occasionally: "RSPCA, you should stop doing X!" but that's life).

Much of this is just lack of realism about what's possible, but what could we do to improve?

First of all, most of the things people demand would need a LOT of extra funds—the RSPCA would need to be 2 or three times larger overall to do everything that's expected of us.

Secondly, people want contradictory things: nothing is going to satisfy both the person who wants no RSPCA prosecutions and the one who wants lots more of them.

If money was no object

1.  Stray Dogs

People expect us to deal with them; local authorities usually don't provide anything approaching a satisfactory service—they usually won't pick up at weekends when more people are about and likely to find strays, for example.

Why don't we do this already?

To some extent we do—several branches have arrangements with their local authority either to take over strays and rehome them after their 7 days in LA care is up or to take in strays directly with the LA paying for the first 7 days care.

Local Authorities are legally obliged to provide a stray dogs service and all strays taken in must, by law, be notified to them. They are not obliged to provide a collection service outside office hours and this is the major practical issue for members of the public who have found a stray dog because of the potential problems involved in having a strange dog loose in your car.

The RSPCA already has a control centre and trained staff with suitable vehicles available 24/7 which could be scaled up to provide a collection service.

That's not the whole solution, though, because the inspector who picks up a dog then has to find somewhere to leave him. Animal home staff would need to be re-organised to make someone available during the night, or kennel units would need to be arranged so that the inspector could get in to drop dogs off and set them up with food and water.

£30 million additional annual spend would probably make it possible to collect strays, provide veterinary treatment where needed and board dogs until rehomed (assuming an average dog stays in kennels 30 days before finding a home).

2.  Injured Wildlife

The RSPCA has an arrangement with the British Veterinary Association (BVA) which theoretically ensures that veterinary surgeries will provide first aid for small injured wildlife free of charge if they are brought in during normal working hours, and the RSPCA will fund treatment of larger wild animals, such as deer, and pay an out of hours fee if an animal needs treatment out of normal working hours. The RSPCA will also collect wildlife if the finder doesn't have transport.

The public don't like this; they expect to be able to phone the RSPCA and have an inspector turning up to collect the animal within  minutes, or, slightly more realistically, to have an RSPCA animal centre capable of treating wildlife within a few minutes drive.

Actually I don't think I'd want to solve this by a huge increase in the numbers of RSPCA drivers going round picking up animals because this is such an inefficient way of providing help—if there is a vet available within a 10 minute journey and the finder is able to move the animal it is much better all round for the finder to transport to the vet rather than for the RSPCA driver to do a 20 minute journey, followed by the same 10 minute one.

A more effective solution would be for the RSPCA to pay vets a realistic amount for all injured wildlife; many vets really don't see why the BVA agreement exists and it makes their reception staff grumpy with the helpful members of the public who do try to transport animals themselves. Vets are businesses after all, and if wildlife was an opportunity for them, instead of a rather grudging duty, it would make things pleasanter all round and stop the ghastly circular phone chases in which we tell the MOP to contact a vet, vet says, "No, I'm not a charity," and the poor MOP is back in our telephone queue once more.

Another £20 million would probably fund that.

3. Stray domestic animals other than dogs

Mostly cats.

Collecting and locking up healthy, uninjured adult cats is not the way to go, and we should resist doing it however much flak this causes. Cats are not funny-looking dogs and living in varying degrees of attachment to human beings is natural for them. Australia and the USA have truly dreadful levels of killing of healthy cats purely because so much of their welfare and animal control organisation is focussed on collecting cats who don't need to be collected.

There is a genuine problem of cat year-on-year over-production (more kittens than there are homes—or more precisely, so many kittens that adult cats struggle to find good homes). 

The best way to solve this is more cat neutering and more people and resources available to catch, neuter and release cats who are living semi-, or entirely-independently of people.

Say another £10 million for more cat neutering, concentrating on the hard-to-get cases. 

Stray animals of other species usually do need collection, as their chances of unaided survival are minimal. This includes various small animals such as ferrets, rabbits, hamsters etc. Most of these do get collected at present and can generally be placed in foster care of some kind.

Injured and sick strays are a much bigger problem — probably around 30,000 cats each year. The majority of those reported to the RSPCA will be taken in and given at least basic treatment. Survival rates could almost certainly be increased if more funds were available to treat severe injuries.

It would need to be around £500 for each badly injured cat, so about another £5 million on top of what the RSPCA and its branches already spend.

4. Veterinary treatment for owned animals

Because I answer the branch helpline at night, I'm painfully aware of the amount of untouched need which exists out there.

The RSPCA is in a cleft stick because helping irresponsible owners has the potential to enable them to acquire more and more animals until they end up with welfare issues that are nothing to do with needing veterinary treatment. However it is the ONLY organisation which is available to be contacted in the small hours when an animal desperately needs treatment and the owner has no funds at all.

I'm leaning more and more towards a view that we should help the animal but impose some sanctions on the owner—possibly require that the animal is signed over for rehoming, or at least make it a condition of help that the owner should subsequently register at an RSPCA clinic  or receive a follow-up visit from an Inspector.

At present, most owners are likely to get at best some financial help to cover a vet's consultation fee, which may in some cases mean the animal won't be seen at all.

So, add another £5 million.

5. Horses

It's difficult to know where to start.

A large and complex equine case can, at worst, result in literally thousands of horses being handed over to welfare charities. Until now, the large equine charities and the RSPCA have managed to share the burden, using private livery stables to accommodate the overspill.

The thought of so many lives at stake must keep equine field officers awake at night.

On top of that are all the hundreds of calls about horses in less than ideal, but not illegal conditions.

Free or low-cost neutering may not be a concept that's normally applied to equines, but providing substantial amounts of free castration for colts would make them more valuable as riding horses and reduce some of the accidental breeding of unwanted foals which are then neglected.

Probably another £5 million

Bear in mind that all of this would have to be EXTRA money, because these are extra things on top of what's already being done—you can't look at the existing funds and say: "Aha! there's plenty of money, we'll just take the amount spent on dogs and that will fund the cats and then take the money spent on cats and use it to fund the dogs".

  

Hot!

The RSPCA is the only animal charity in England and Wales which operates a comprehensive rescue service round the clock with phones answered 24/7 and frontline staff available to go out at any time. 

Summer always brings a surge of extra calls due to a combination of young wild animals getting into trouble; the fact that more people are outside and able to notice animal problems, and incidents due to the heat itself.

Extra phone-line staff are put in to manage this call peak, but there are limits on what is possible (there's no point spending so much money on taking calls that there's none left to pay staff to do the actual rescues). 

In a lot of situations all an inspector would do would be to take the animal to the closest available vet for treatment, which is why we ask people finding animals in distress to do this if they have transport and are able to contain the animal safely. It takes much longer for an inspector to drive to their location and then to a vet than it would to take the animal direct to the vet.

The RSPCA has an agreement with the British Veterinary Association (BVA) which aims to ensure that stray animals and wildlife can receive at least basic treatment to relieve suffering. Vets agree to provide treatment for small wild mammals and birds brought to the practice in normal working hours and the RSPCA agrees to fund treatment of larger animals, treatment outside normal hours, and treatment of domestic stray animals (dogs are legally the responsibility of the local authority but the RSPCA will help if it is impossible to contact the LA).

You can read the current agreement in full on the BVA website and also some information on current negotiations to update the agreement. 

For comparison, you might also like to take a look at the current arrangements between the BVA and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. 

If you find an injured animal and you can safely transport it to a vet yourself, please phone the surgery in advance to check that they are open. All vets should have details of the number they need to call in order to get an RSPCA log number which will ensure that they are paid by the RSPCA for the treatment they provide.

And, please, don't listen to the people who say the fact that we ask the public to take animals directly to vets means you shouldn't donate to the RSPCA—donations are much more usefully spent on treating animals than on buying petrol.

The real story about the RSPCA?

To make any sense of all this, you first need to get it clear that England and Wales is covered by RSPCA branches, which are independently registered as individual charities but share a single governing document (the branch rules). RSPCA branches (in this sense) are organisations which cover a particular territory (in our case the South of Cambridgeshire and a few extra bits). 

Branches may divide up (if the area is too big to manage) or amalgamate (if the areas are too small to make sense) but they can't take their "pot" of funds and leave the RSPCA and they don't close, although they may become short of volunteers or cash and have to reduce the amount of welfare work they do or fail to recruit enough volunteer trustees and be temporarily held in the trusteeship of the national RSPCA.

Branches may operate facilities such as an animal centre or clinic, and the national RSPCA also runs animal centres and hospitals—for example Putney animal hospital, East Winch Wildlife centre and Block Fen animal centre are all run by the national RSPCA, while our clinic in Cambridge is run by the branch.

Occasionally the individual centres are referred to as "branches" (as you might refer to a branch of WH Smiths), but the distinction is important to get straight because of all the bad temper surrounding claims that donations given to the RSPCA don't go towards running animal homes. 

Centres like Block Fen which are directly run by the national RSPCA are fully funded by them. The independent branches get an annual grant (currently £12,000-£18,000) but are expected to fundraise to raise any money needed over and above this to keep their own local services going.

This inevitably means that centres owned and run by branches have a somewhat more precarious existence than the national centres because they have a smaller cushion of reserves for hard times and because they're more dependent on having a team of voluntary workers which manages to recruit new members when old ones leave or become too old to do as much as they were.

Unfortunately, the branches are also the first casualties of political campaigns to reduce support for the RSPCA in order to make enforcement of the Hunting Act impossible and of the general public perception that the RSPCA doesn't need support because it has huge resources. 

Animal Welfare Statistics for May and June

In May we rehomed 1 dog, 2 cats and 2 miscellaneous "small furries". We provided 215 low-cost treatments for dogs, 72 for cats, 9 for rabbits and 8 for miscellaneous.

In June, we rehomed 1 dog, 9 cats and 18 of the small furries. We provided 195 low cost treatments for dogs, 73 for cats, 5 for rabbits and 6 for miscellaneous.

On average the number of treatments is roughly twice the number of individual animals as most will visit the clinic more than once in any given year.

What can you do to help?

If you are not a member of the RSPCA, do consider joining.

RSPCA members are eligible to vote to elect the committees who run local branches and in the election of the national RSPCA's governing council. They can attend local and national Annual General Meetings and speak and propose resolutions. 

Also consider whether you would have time to join the committee of your local branch. Most branches have a need for extra people and would welcome your help. New committee members can be elected at the branch AGM (they need to have been RSPCA members for at least 3 months at the time the AGM is held) or they can be co-opted by the existing elected committee members during the year. Co-option is often used as a way to give potential new committee members some experience before they decide whether to take the step of standing for election.

Virtually everyone has useful skills that they could bring to the task of running a branch, but please don't go in on the basis that all the existing people are useless idiots and you are going to put them right and save the animals from them. 

First, it probably isn't true and you will be wasting everyone's time and putting people's backs up. 

Secondly, even if there are many things about the branch which are less efficient than they could be, the point isn't to swap your blind spots for those of the current people—the aim should be to improve without creating a state of constant upheaval where nothing ever gets finished.

Most branches need a combination of people with specific "technical" skills, such as animal behaviour, legal, management,  or finance skills and people willing to get involved with organising fundraising events and practical animal care. You may not think you have any special skills to offer, but one of the most urgent needs is for people willing to organise quite small scale events (such as one sponsored dog walk each year) to build up a calendar of regular fundraising.

There's nearly always a need for volunteers able to foster dogs, particularly the larger breeds. Kennel environments are not good for dogs on a long term basis and many dogs behave quite differently in the frightening, noisy atmosphere than in quiet domestic surroundings. There's an ongoing initiative to get more of the "case dogs" (dogs who are the subject of a current prosecution) into foster homes for the period before their case comes to court so that these dogs no longer have to stay in kennels for protracted periods before they can be offered for rehoming.

One of the key qualities that is required by fosterers is the ability to hand the animal back. This is particularly key for case animals where there is the possibility that we lose the case and the animal has to be returned to the owner.