This
is the newsletter published by and for members of the RSPCA. Because of the
deep discontent that it shows within the membership we feel that it should
have wider publicity than it currently receives. We have maintained the content
accurately, but have lost some of the formatting. Past editions will be added
as time permits. We hope that publishing this will do some good and lead to
a much needed reform of the society. contains links that might be of further interest.
| Watchdog
Newsletter No 78 |
Tel:
01293 786166
|
THE
MILLENIUM
The
year 2000 will mark the 13th year of RSPCA Members" Watchdog - our newsletter"s
first edition was in October 1987. Our aims remain the same. We want the RSPCA
Council to pursue animal abusers with vigour and to treat all members fairly
and justly - these aims have not yet been achieved.
When, in 1988, Watchdog came under threat from the RSPCA Council, three Vice
President of the Society wrote these words:-
"We believe that members of the Society have the right to meet together
and express concern over the policies, organisation or methods adopted by
their society and, if necessary, to communicate that concern to other members
-by way of newsletters."
Clive Hollands Lord Houghton of Sowerby Edward Carpenter
WE
HAVE ONE PRIORTY ANIMALS
MUST COME FIRST
In
this the first newsletter of the year 2000, we are reviewing cruelty to animals
and our concerns about the RSPCA Council.
In 1984, Les Ward wrote in his study "The Role of Low, Cost Spay/Neuter Clinics
in the Control of Stray and Unwanted Animals"-
"To rely
on euthanasia or killing the unwanted as we have always done will continue
to help, but help is all it will do it will never get to the root of the
problem and surely in a modern society, this method of control must now
be considered unacceptable.
So, could the
introduction of Local Authority or privately operated low cost spay/neuter
clinics in this country offer a solution?
From the information
provided by this "Study", I would say "yes" or at the very least - it is
certainly worth a "Pilot Scheme"".
SIXTEEN
YEARS have passed since this study was published. The unwanted pet problem has
become almost out of control. Healthy dogs have had to be killed because the
Inspectors have no place to put them. Money has been found for a new £21 million
palace of an HQ for humans but no money has been made available to provide low
cost neuter clinics where they are most desperately needed. Celia Hammond,tired
of waiting for the Council to act has set up her own low cost neuter clinics
in SE London. They are an ENORMOUS SUCCESS but the Council takes no notice of
her advice. We wonder why? In her 1997 election address,Celia said that:-
"For
years,arguments against the establishment of low cost neuter clinics have
been put toward in Council by various representatives of the veterinary
profession. Unfortunately for the animals, the majority of Council members
have been swayed by these arguments."
We
think that Council members should consider the trauma caused to the Inspectors
when they have to carry out the unnecessary killing of healthy animals. Animal
homes do not solve the problem of increasing numbers of unwanted animals.
Always remember that Vets are answerable to their customers and not to their
patients.
********************
ANIMAL
EXPERIMENTATION
IN 1991 we published the following comment: -
"There is nothing amusing about the RSPCA deciding to sit on a committee with
the Research Defence Society (RDS) whieh was,of course,set up to defend ALL
animal research Other members of this newly formed committee though wearing
other hats,are themselves members of the RDS and one was recently seen to
comment in the RDS newsletter that "cruelty is a natural phenonomen".
We are left wondering
why it is that the RSPCA is so tolerant of those who speak for the continued
abuse of the animal creation whilst condemning and villyfying those of their
own members who are for the rights and welfare of animals but whose views
on the way forward may not always coincide with their own."
TWENTY
THREE YEARS have passed since the RSPCA Council was told about the lack of
proper regulation over animal experimentation during a symposium at Trinity
College Cambridge.
The
Guardian newspaper reported little has changed on the 22/9/99:
The
home office refuses to release the names of scientists who have broken regulations
in experiments on animals, although in one research project the breaches were
so serious that the further use of animals was banned.
A
total of 17 infringements of regulations surrounding animal experiments was
reported in 1998. The Guardian requested details of these infringements under
the open government code introduced by the last government.
The
home office replied that identities of the researchers concerned had to be
protected to prevent possible attacks by animal rights extremists. A spokeswoman
said researchers provided information in con fidence to the home office, making
the data exempt from disclosure.
Jan
Creamer, the director of the National Anti-Vivisection Society, said: "If
researchers have broken rules set up to protect laboratory animals, people
have a right to know details. It"s nonsense to argue that confidentiality
is necessary because scientists fear reprisals. Researchers" names and
locations are freely available because they regularly publish results of their
work in scientific magazines.
"We want to see an end to these feeble excuses put forward to protect an industry
that simply can"t justify itself without hiding behind this veil of secrecy."
In Britain, 2.6m experiments a year are carried out on living animals, mainly
mice and rats.
Scientists who want to do such experiments must apply for a licence from the
home office. The home office said it granted licences only when the benefits
of research outweighed the pain, suffering, or lasting harm that might be
experienced by animals.
Each
establishment requires a licence; another is needed for each project at these
establishments; and each researcher on these projects requires one. Each licence
sets out how experiments are to be done. Inspectors scrutinise applications
and visit laboratories to check compliance.
A
summary of infringements is given in the annual report of the animal procedures
committee, which advises the home secretary, Jack Straw, on animal experiments.
This
summary is shorn of all names of researchers and laboratories. One licence
was revoked, but the misdemeanour is not specified. In another case, a researcher
was banned and the ban was overturned on appeal; again, no details of the
circumstances of this case are given. The reportsays "as in previous years,
the nature of the infringements varied from the relatively minor and technical
to the more serious". It adds: "Infringements are relatively rare events...
but they can provoke intense and lengthy discussions within the committee."
Some
14 infringements occurred in universities, the other three in commercial labs.
In 15 cases, experiments were conducted outside stipulated terms of licences.
Seven project leaders were required to review controls to prevent further
unauthorised tests.
The
committee is reviewing the question of disclosure.
Tomorrow:
Censorship, prevarication, and political intrigue at the British Museum -
plus more individuals and organisations support the Guardian"s campaign
to strengthen the freedom of information bill.
********************
Shamrock
Customer Wins Animal Aid"s "Mad Science" Award
Animal
Aid"s Mad Science Awards(AAMSA) - handed out for pointless and grotesque
experiments, highlighted current research on a , group of ten macaques at
the Institute of Neurology, a Shamrock customer.
The
experiment at the London based lnstitute was a collaboration with the Departrnent
of Physiology at Germany"s Kiel University and funded by the Wellcome
Trust. One cat and ten rnacaque monkeys were used to investigate how the organisation
of nerves differs between species.
The
cat and monkeys were anaesthetised and their left arms dissected to expose
nerves to which electrodes were attached. A large section of their backbone
was cut open to expose their spinal cord and a hole was cut in their skull
to expose their brain. They were paralysed and held in a frame during the
time taken
for the experiment (24-30 hours). Electrodes inserted into their brains were
used to send electrical impulses and the response measured using electrodes
inserted into their spinal cord.
The
experiment revealed that the nerve pathways in macaque rnonkeys and cats are
different, that extrapolating research from cats to humans in the recent past
had probably been misleading and that applying results from cats about their
nerve pathway to man ond other primates should be regarded with great caution.
However, the authors do not comment on the fact that species differences of
this sort raise major questions over the relevance to humans of other research
on the neurological systems of cats - and indeed over the general relevance
of animal research. For further information on the awards, contact: Animal
Aid, The Old Chapel, Bradford Street, Tonbridge, TN9 I AW. Phone 01732 364546
********************
Live dogs were butchered
Metro 04/08/99
THE
British Heart Foundation has been criticised for funding an experiment in
which 14 dogs had their chests and abdomens split open before being killed
at the University of Leeds.
Researchers
tied off arteries and veins in unconscious dogs during heart and blood research
before killing them by draining their blood.
Animal
rights campaigners are outraged that the university agreed to carry out the
experiment. last year and that the British Heart Foundation provided £70,000
towards the cost of the study.
Jan
Creamer, director of the National Anti-Vivisection Society, branded the research
shocking and said she was appalled the Home Office had granted a licence for
the study. She said: "The silly part about this is that in the research
paper it specifically pointed out that there are differences between dogs
and humans.
"Over
the last six months they have used ferrets, rats, mice, fish, sheep, pigs,
bats, frogs, snails and chickens."
A
spokesman for the BHF said the dogs were unconscious and would not have suffered.
He added: "We would only fund something if our rescearch committees believed
it to be justified
********************
We
wanted you to read these two items as well as the press cutting on page 2
for two reasons. You will notice that there is no comment from the RSPCA -
NAVS yes and Animal Aid. Whenever the question of campaigning against animal
experiments is raised some Council member will bleat out the excuse that one
must consider the benefit to mankind. Is it not time that the RSPCA set about
exposing experiments that are clearly not of benefit to humans and time to
set up a non charitable group with a separate fund raising scheme?
Why
did the RSPCA not condemn the Hillgrove Cat Farm? Why were the Huntingdon
Life Sciences not exposed by the RSPCA? Huntingdon Life Sciences would have
closed down but for the money provided by the NatWest bank. There is a former
NatWest employee on the Council,did SHE protest to her former employer? Is
the RSPCA Council complaining about Shamrock(GB) Ltd? Did the Director General,on
his trip to India, ask where all the monkeys had gone? I did (MHH). I was
told that they had been sold to laboratories in the West. "ETHICAL"
committees will not be much use to them.
********************
FARMING OR KILLING FOR FOOD? FREEDOM
FOOD?
"No one can claim to have a genuine interest in
the welfare of animals if they continue to condone their unnecessary slaughter,not
at any rate, without being accused
of hypocrisy. To continue to eat the object of your concern is a stunning
piece of self-deception,one of those very contradictions in human nature that
makes campaigning so frustrating."
John Harris M.A. (1974 RSPCA Cambridge Symposium)
What contradictions led Council members to establishing Freedom Food? Could
they not see that sticking an RSPCA logo on a piece of animal flesh was promoting
the meat trade? Did Council members ever question the standards set for Freedom
Food? Are these standards lower than the standards set by the Soil Association
and in most cases no better than those of the intensive meat industry? Did
Council members not know that beak trimming causes intense pain and trauma?
Did they not foresee the ultimate cynicism of a Freedom Food award to a meat
producer whose logo ridicules the pig"? The Rev Andrew Linzey has said:
-
"Animals are sentient beings with their own dignity, intrinsic value
and rights"
********************
We
believe that more could have been achieved for the welfare of farm animals
if the £ millions spent on advertising meat and dairy products had been spent,
on campaigning against factory farming. In this belief we are not alone.
We know that the RSPCA is not a vegetarian society with membership restricted
to vegetarians. It is difficult for us to understand how a vegetarian could
be a director of Freedom Food Ltd condoning the slaughter of animals for food
and calling it animal welfare.
Postscript In 1981,whilst in India, I visited Dharamsala,the home in exile
of the Dalai Lama. Over the entrance to the temple was a sign in English.
It read:-
"REMEMBER
ANIMALS ARE SENTIENT BEINGS".
Nearly
twenty years on, I want to ask Council members how slaughter can be welfare
friendly.
Margaret House.
In
1990 a member wrote to Watchdog and said: -
"I attended the Westminster Abbey "celebration" service for
150 years "Royal" SPCA last Thursday 4/10/90. So first we had the
"celebration" and blessing of the animals and then afterwards we
ATE them at the Horticultural Hall reception."
Times
do not change - do they.
********************
COMMUNICATION.
In 1996 we quoted tbe words of Ray Goodfellow, RSPCA Solicitor. He said:-
"The AGM is the most important meeting in the Society"s calendar and
RSPCA members should be given a proper opportunity to participate in the business
of the meeting. The Animal Welfare Conference has no relevance to the Society"s
constitutional functions".
So what did the Council do? They cut the AGM, or as modernisers say" dumbed
it down" to 2 1/2 hours and members direct participation in presenting motions
to less than an hour. A council that is as obsessed with secrecy as this one
is, has no taste for communication with the members at an AGM.
There
was a time when we had interesting speakers. Just imagine if the Reverend
Professor Andrew Linzey had been invited to speak on hunting with hounds!
Andrew Linzey used to be an RSPCA Council member and now holds the world"s
first post in Christian Theology and Animal Welfare at Nansfield College,Oxford.
But this is unlikely. It seems we must not upset the hunters. Like serfs and
vassals, the once proud RSPCA now has to bow down to the Lords and Ladies
of the Hunt.
There
is no light on the horizon. The AGM 2000 will be held in Telford. Ever anxious
to please, here is a helpful hint on how to get there if you live south of
London. Get to Euston station and catch the 7.30am train and change at Wolverhampton.
Then catch a train to Telford which arrives at 10.25 am. By the time you have
found your way to the venue and registered, you will have missed part of the
meeting. You could catch an earlier train but that leaves at 6.30am from Euston!
Never mind, the all important RSPCA Council members will be tucked up in their
hotel beds and will enjoy a leisurely breakfast all at RSPCA expense.
WHAT
A FARCE!
* * *
* * *
Quote
of the Millenium
"For
those concerned for animals within the Church, the Synod debate on hunting
was a defining moment. We learned the hard way that the Church rhetoric about
animals- the resolutions about welfare, and care and humanity- really cannot.
be taken at their face value. When the chips are down and the Church feels
itself threatened like any other secular commercial business, it behaves like
any other secular commercial business. What was most touching in the debate
was the sense of astonishment provided by the First Estates Commissioner that
they should be accountable on an issue like this. An anti-hunting agreement
would not, in any case be "enforceable", he declared. Most tragicaliy
of all, we have in the interirn years an Archbishop of Canterbury unwillingly
even to comment publicly on this issue, and that despite his post as Vice
Patron of the RSPCA, which itself opposes sport hunting."
ANDREW
LINZEY extract from his book "ANIMAL GOSPEL: Christian Faith As Though
Animals Mattered", Hodder and Stoughton.
********************
THE
COUNCIL.
It
is no secret to say that we are ashamed of the majority of Council members
who behave so badly towards the minority. In July 1997, we published a letter
from former Council member Joan Dell. We are publishing part of it again because
things have not changed but seem to have got worse.
Extracts
from Joan Dell"s letter 6 June 1997 (Council member 1990-1995)
"From the first day of my taking office I was astounded at the vitriolic
attitude towards me and my colleagues who believed in the concept of the
rights of animals. I would return home on the 17.35 Paddington/Bodmin train
exhausted and emotionally spent; how could these people decide policy on
animal welfare and protection when they refused to discuss animal based
experiments saying "we are not an anti- vivisection Society";
another saying "they are quite happy as long as they have toys to play
with". Then came the launch of Freedom Food. During council meetings
I said I was happy to have a labelling system, but the standards were not
high enough and the public would not believe that no suffering was involved.
Members of staff admitted to me that of course debeaking, toothclipping,
was painful; and of course farrowing crates are inhumane, but there was
no alternative. The hypocrisy of it all made me sick.
When a video of a European slaughter house was shown during a lunch break
showing animals being slaughtered with their screaming and ensuing blood
and filth, there were murmurs of "how awful, how sickening, shameful"
etc; they would then proceed to the foyer and eat their meat sandwiches
and become completely switched off. It was after the paper was proposed
Delegation of Powers, delegating many powers of council to officers and
staff that I began to think that something was terribly wrong.
I carried on for five years becoming bitter, frustrated, depressed and losing
all confidence in the najority of my fellow council members, not knowing how
to cope with their deviousness and indifference. I eventually resigned feeling
that I could not fight a multi million pound top-heavy, empire building, self-perpetuating
beaucracy that had very little to do with animals."
********************
THE FUTURE.
The
Director general stated in the Trustees Report 1998 that cruelty to animals
continues to rise - hardly a sign of a successful society. We believe that
the Council should make a greater effort to stem the rising tide. We would
like to see the following changes:-
UNWANTED
CATS AND DOGS. Low cost spaying and neutering clinics set up in areas
of greatest need as a matter of urgency.
ANIMAL
EXPERIMENTATION. A non charitable campaigning group set up by appealing
for funds to do so. The present department to identify those experiments on
animals that are NOT beneficial to mankind.
FREEDOM FOOD. All RSPCA funding and staff removed. RSPCA funds used
to campaign effectively against intensive farming methods.
THE
COUNCIL. The greatest of all needs in the Society is to choose its next
Chairperson wisely. The RSPCA should have a leader with a national standing
as well as conspicuous ability. SOMEHOW SUCH LEADER MUST BE FOUND.
Since
October 1987, we have supported over 40 members illtreated by the RSPCA- The
late Anne Jenkins wrote to us in 1993 and said.: -
"My
recent appeal to the DG was successful. I am glad that the Branch Committee
no longer have the authority to make decisions without any accountability.
I attribute this entirely to your persistent fight for justice on our behalf
and want to thank you for your understanding and sympathy for the distress
I suffered for 2 years until I heard of Watchdog. Until then I was very lonely
and bewildered-"
********************
Don"t be worried about the STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAl. stamp. We thought.
why should HQ have all the fun stamping everything CONFIDENTIAL, so here is
your own CONFIDENTIAL WATCHDOG! PLEASE help us to keep barking and demanding
that ANIMALS ARE PUT FIRST!
THE
WATCHDOGS