April 21, 2010Comments are closed.resistance
The most crucial step forward in protecting our pets and animals for 100 years
April 9, 2007The Animal Welfare Act sets out new legal requirements that all pet owners must ensure five essential criteria are met.
It places emphasis on cruelty prevention, and gives RSPCA (UK) inspectors more powers to prevent animals suffering by taking action earlier.
Under the Act, animals will be removed from owners sooner if there is sufficient concern, before any prosecution is started.
Before this Act was brought in, animals could be taken away only once a prosecution had commenced.
And RSPCA (UK) officers will now be able to launch prosecution cases without the need for a vets report proving neglect.
The Act, which has been billed as one of the most important achievements in animal welfare for almost a century, also carries tougher penalties for offenders.
Offenders can be banned from owning animals and fined up to 20,000 pounds. Prison sentences of up to 51 weeks are also open to the courts.
……
Some of the requirements are:
Cats:
— Protect your cat from hazards while indoors and outdoors.
— Make sure your cat eats a balanced diet which is suitable for its needs.
— Make sure your cat is able to rest undisturbed when it wants to.
— While you are away, make sure your cat is being looked after by someone responsible.
— If you think your cat is in pain, ill or injured, contact a vet promptly and follow their advice regarding treatment.
Dogs:
— Provide your dog with somewhere it can go to avoid things that frighten it.
— Dogs should be able to reach food and water easily in all situations.
— Give your dog the exercise it needs, at least daily unless your vet recommends otherwise, to keep your dog fit, active and stimulated.
— Make sure that your dog is never left alone long enough for it to become distressed.
— You should carefully check your dog’s coat regularly and groom your dog, if necessary, to maintain a healthy coat.
We haven’t got the cash to take any more strays says RSPCA (UK)
21st April 2010The RSPCA (UK) is to turn away tens of thousands of unwanted and stray pets from its animal shelters to cut costs, it emerged yesterday. The charity said it would focus more on caring for animals seized from owners after being cruelly treated.
The move could affect up to 75,000 cats and dogs which are taken to its centres every year. One consequence will be to put pressure on other animal charities, local councils and police. And it could also lead to more unwanted animals being destroyed. Soaring numbers of abandoned animals in the last year have contributed to growing pressure on the charity’s finances. Donations from the public have also fallen because of the recession.
Yesterday the RSPCA (UK) defended its new rules, which will be introduced at 17 national animal centres in England and Wales, and said it wanted to make owners take more responsibility for their pets. ‘Our highest priority is to look after the animals that most need help, the pets and other animals rescued by our inspectors from cruelty and neglect,’ a spokesman said. ‘That is the RSPCA’s (UK) core aim and that has not changed.’
From next month, pets belonging to people taken to hospital, evicted from their homes or who are unable to cope with them will not be allowed to be left at the RSPCA (UK) centres. Owners will be told to contact the police, the local council or another charity. (ref)
The RSPCA (UK) is Britain’s eighth largest charity, with an income of £119 million in 2008. The move comes as the organisation is making savings of £54 million over three years, with donations falling due to the recession. In recent years it has expanded its role as the unofficial animal police, bringing criminal cases against owners for cruelty and neglect.
The charity investigated 140,575 cases in 2008, up from 110,841 three years earlier. It spent £11.1 million on prosecutions in 2008, compared with £7 million in 2007. The rise is in part the result of the Animal Welfare Act, which came into effect in 2007 and which was strongly supported by the RSPCA (UK), which introduced new offences of failures in animal welfare, rather than just cruelty. (ref)
I’m sure it’s just a coinkidink that putting lots of effort into targeting pet owners over dozens of new pet care infractions, giving inspectors expanded rights to impound pets and a bunch of tougher fines, has happened at the same time as huge increases in impoundments and a decrease in donations from pet lovers.
A coinkidink I tells ya.
Hi Shel,
This wasn’t an announcement from the RSPCA; the story was blown up out of all proportion from an internal document reinforcing the RSPCA (England and Wales) virtual no-kill policy (I call it ‘virtual’ because, although we achieve 90% save rate of animals taken in for rehoming, it’s official policy that it’s not acceptable for animals to be in kennels for years and years).
Basically what the policy says is that if, for example, an inspector takes in 30 animals from a hoarder and they’re treatable, then they ought to be found a place rather than be put down and if that means more adoptable animals have to stay on a waiting list for longer then so be it.
The point of the Animal Welfare Act is that it means there only needs to be evidence that an animal is being kept in conditions liable to cause suffering (e.g. no-one’s returned to provide food for 2 days instead of evidence of weight loss). It used to cause an enormous amount of aggro. when people reported animals being neglected and were told by the inspectors that they weren’t thin enough “yet” for a prosecution.
The other useful feature is the facility for the local authority to issue improvement notices to people who could be “good enough” owners with some prompting.
I genuinely don’t think the act has significantly increased relinquishments of animals who ought to have been left with their owners because we didn’t see any rise until the stockmarket problems began at the end of 2008. The rise we’re seeing now is accompanied by an increase in requests for help with veterinary treatment costs which is proportionately even larger and I think both can be accounted for by the recession.