DO THE RSPCA actually care for animals?

RSPCA do they care for animalsMarianna May V RSPCA WA Brief overview

“Question for all the RSPCA board members”

  1. Marianna May had been taking in stray, sick and injured animals for over a decade, vet receipts alone indicate that she had invested tens of thousands of her own money in their proper treatment and rehabilitation.
  2. The RSPCA visited and found only 1 sick animal on their first visit, none of the animals were sick as a result of Marianna’s actions
  3. The RSPCA returned around 1 week later and seized all of her animals, most were healthy and those that were not were under vet care.
  4. The RSPCA then released media statements saying they were over stocked, in other words they did not have the facility’s to take this many animals. (over their quota)
  5. The Inspector in charge of the raid did not have a correct warrant for the property and also had refused to adhere to the states “Procedural and prosecution guidelines”.
  6. No notices were given, no instructions to lower the number of animals or seek vet treatment or any of the procedural guidelines were applied.
  7. The treating vets (of Marianna’s seized animals) contacted the RSPCA as the animals medications were not taken on the day of the raid, the RSPCA refused to speak with the vets and or allow them to check up on their patients.
  8. Shelter records make clear some of these animals suffered as a result.
  9. The State Administration tribunal all but ordered the return of the animals, because charges had not been pressed in time, the RSPCA then pressed hurried charges that were not only improper, but were also in the name of the RSPCA, which is not allowed under WA law.
  10. The Department of Agriculture (DAFWA) questioned the RSPCA and inspector Amanda Swifts actions, they were not happy with the standard of the prosecution, the ignorance of procedural guidelines and the reasoning behind the destruction of healthy animals belonging to Mrs. May.
  11. The prosecution however was allowed to proceed, even though it was invalid at law, Mrs May as a consequence spent tens of thousands of borrowed money fighting the charges.
  12. DAFWA had questioned why a forfeiture application had not been made; the RSPCA also chose to ignore this question.
  13. After 14 months, the animals had not been returned to Mrs May, many had been killed and the RSPCA had not advised Mrs May as required under the Animal welfare Act 2002.
  14. The RSPCA WA were by now demanding damages in the vicinity of $800,000, it was in or about March 2013 15 months later, that the original charges were dropped, and new charges were laid.
  15. The new charges were in the name of Amanda Swift in line with the legislation, but again ignored DAFWA policy in regards to “Prosecution and procedural guidelines, and neither of the prosecutions went before the state solicitor’s office for scrutiny, as required at law.
  16. By mid-2014 the cost to the RSPCA of this debacle had reached around $1.2 to 1.6 million dollars, the costs to Mrs May of a financial manner had exceeded $200,000 which will result in the loss of a home.
  17. In or about July 2014 the RSPCA filed a civil matter for forfeiture of the animals, something that ought to have been done within a couple of months from the seizure.
  18. In or about November 2014 (2 years after the first raid) the RSPCA WA entered into an agreement with Mrs May to drop all charges and costs in return for both her silence and the release of the animals into a shelter environment.
  19. This agreement which is also without legal foundation included the usual clause for Mays silence, and for independent vet checks to access the condition of the animals.
  20. During these negotiations (Terms of the agreement) several no kill shelters offered to take and rehabilitate Mrs Mays animals, the RSPCA refused the inclusion of any shelters except for “Cat Haven”.
  21. Cat Haven are unable to take that many animals, and Mrs May being aware of this fact, is refusing to comply with the contract, as she at all times believed the animals would end up in safe hands, you see, her only wish is to ensure the safety of the animals, that without her intervention would have died years ago. (I would have thought the RSPCA WA would back her position)
  22. The Vets have confirmed two things that undermine the RSPCA’s actions even further, that several of the animals are so sick they are suffering, and ought to have already been put down, several born in custody of the RSPCA have adverse behavioural issues, and FOI documents from DAFWA make clear healthy animals have also been killed, making Mrs Mays past actions more acceptable than those of the RSPCA WA throughout this ordeal from the stand point of genuine animal welfare.
  23. I write to ask this simple question, why can’t the animals be released into safe homes, when a case like this has been allowed to proceed at such a huge expense to the community, when the only driver for Mrs May is the safe release of the animals?
  24. Mrs Mays only mistake was loving animals, maybe in your eyes too many, Mrs Mays only driver is their safe release, and she has paid a huge cost to try and save them, so why are the RSPCA against their future safety?

Mark Aldridge, Community advocate and animal lover.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: