Tuesday, 8 November 2011

Suddenly, The RSPCA Aren’t In Favour Of Collective Punishment?

The council plans to ban dogs from playgrounds, sports fields and ornamental gardens and to extend rules making owners responsible for cleaning up after their pets.
Good news, surely (dog poo being a burning issue in local newspapers), albeit yet another example of collective punishment rather than focussing on those operating outside the rules?

But the RSPCA isn’t happy:
But a spokesman for the animal charity said: “Where dogs are excluded from open spaces or restricted, it is essential that local authorities ensure other open spaces in close proximity remain accessible to dogs on and off leads, to allow owners to fulfil their responsibilities.”
That would be the ‘responsibilities’ stemming from the Bill the RSPCA forced the Labour government to bring in, would it?
According to Kath Airey, a trustee of Halifax and Huddersfield branch of the RSPCA, dogs enjoy socialising and playing, and it is important that they are able to express normal behaviour off the lead.

“It is imperative that control orders are used sparingly and in a manner that is proportionate to the problem.”
And since when is that any business of the RSPCA? If control orders aren’t any of those things, it’s for the voters to deal with, not some charity.
She added: “It is important for a local authority to promote responsible dog ownership by encouraging training, proper care, microchipping and neutering, as well as ensuring owners clean up after their dogs.

“Our society sees this as a better means of tackling the problem of dog control in the long-term than issuing orders which could prove a strain on resources, with regard to the policing and enforcement, particularly if they are widely applied.”
Who cares, frankly, what your society sees as a ‘better approach’? It’s an issue for the local voters, and that’s it.
According to the RSPCA, control orders should not become a blanket power that punishes the responsible majority of owners in an effort to tackle problems created by an irresponsible few.
Which is why your Bill announced blanket measures, rather than simply address irresponsible pet owners, right? You bunch of hypocrites…
Head of housing and environment, Mark Thompson said the council was searching for a constructive balance between the needs of dog owners to exercise their pets and the preservation of a clean and healthy environment.
Should have just told the RSPCA to butt out!

7 comments:

Bam Bam said...

I bow to no one in my dislike of the pernicious evil called "The Labour Party" and my despising of the burdens imposed on the British people by their 13 years of mismanagement is second to none.

But to blame the RSPCA for forcing legislation on the Liebore bunch of misfits in power at the time is unfair. NuLab so loved forcing any legislation of the people of this country they couldn't wait to add more to the list of 'don'ts and stops' they had already dreamed up.

So much so that nothing remains within the power of local voters any more. Councils got used to doing what they are told, and much of the telling is routed via Europe. I like the idea that local people have a say, but frankly it just isn't so.

When the history of our times comes to be written, one day someone will have the courage to ask who the hell these people were to impose so many blanket bans and sought to punish and restrict the 'majority' in favour of various feckless minorities.

I am sure I won't be around to see it, but there will be a chuckling from under the ground at the news...

Dippyness. said...

If anyone thinks the RSPCA is a charity they should take a good look at exactly what they actually do.
I've no respect for them, nor do any dog/equine rescue charities I know.
If you haven't a garden or are prepared to WALK your dog, you shouldn't have one.
Battersea often end up re-homes dogs & cats originally re-homed by RSPCA.
As for horses...don't get me started!!
RSPCA = Political lobbying for Labour.
Fox hunting classic example.

Shot Fox said...

... and have you seen the RSPCA's HQ?

Demetrius said...

Our local park is visited by a lot of shaven headed tattooed men who have attack dogs straining at the leash. These dogs do not do much in the way of friendly play.

Woman on a Raft said...

it is important that they are able to express normal behaviour off the lead.

So no more of this carping about certain types of terriers which automatically challenge all other dogs and tend to chomp them to death. It's 'is 'uman rights, innit.

JuliaM said...

"But to blame the RSPCA for forcing legislation on the Liebore bunch of misfits in power at the time is unfair. "

We do people for incitement to murder, don't we? Not just the murderers?

"If anyone thinks the RSPCA is a charity.."

Not me, that's for sure!

"... and have you seen the RSPCA's HQ?"

Oh, yes! :/

"So no more of this carping about certain types of terriers which automatically challenge all other dogs and tend to chomp them to death. It's 'is 'uman rights, innit."

:D

ivan said...

WosR, the last little bugger that tried that with my Newfoundland was picked up, shaken and then thrown, yelping all the time, plus it was well coated with slobber.

Newfoundlands may be placid, just don't rile one up!