International (R)SPCA collusion, chance or caciquismal nightmare?


Watching what is happening in other jurisdictions is vitally important. We now have RSPCA UK, the SSPCA and RSPCA QLD all wanting to be able to dispose of animals before any court has heard the evidence against the Defendant.

For organisations that claim to care about fair play and due process this is a bizarre position to hold and highlights the disdain these AR-Groups feel for the rights and feelings of those unfortunate enough to come to their notice.

How many Defendants will have the will to continue to fight if either the breeding stock that has taken years to produce and which forms the core of their business is gone? Or if their only companion has either been killed or sold to someone else?

It is heartbreaking that Animal Rights (AR) organisations masquerading as “welfare” groups whose claimed aims include “kindness” prefer solutions that destroy the human animal bond over those that could work to enhance it.

Wouldn’t it be better if a local vet, chosen by the defendant, was to be allowed to oversee the ongoing health and welfare of the animals if they remained with their owners pending the outcome of any court proceedings? Meaning that pet animals could remain in their homes with the people they love without the stress of moving into kennels and grieving for their family,, and commercial animals could be dealt with accordingly?

The costs of the veterinary supervision to be the RSPCA’s if they lose and the Defendant’s if they should be found guilty – or proportioned costs if the Defendant is only found guilty on some of the charges against them?

Of course, in England and Wales, s.20 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 already allowed applications to court either by the prosecutor, requesting to dispose of the animals, or for the owner to ask for their return. This has not been good enough for the RSPCA in England and Wales because the courts have not always granted their requests.

Worse, a government that was penny pinching on animal welfare made S.20 a civil application, meaning that there is no legal aid available for individuals fighting for their animals against top prosecution barristers and solicitors. So much for equality of arms and human rights.

Can we really believe that three separate (R)SPCAs are asking for the same nasty solution to a problem of their own making purely by chance? Or is it more likely that they have been colluding together and if any jurisdiction allows these demands the others will point to it as reason for granting the same injustice in their country?