12 January, 2010

Raunchy for the RSPCA

Raunchy for the RSPCA?  Well, fellow #PTUBer Tim Pokorny aka @soporificfrog and all-round good-guy is raising money for the RSPCA (WA).  Specifically a minimum of AUD$520.  When that target is reached, he will nude up for a tasteful self-portrait, which will then be posted to Flickr.  Why?  Read Tim’s blog.  It’s a worthwhile cause, in my humble opinion.  I have not only given a denotation, but have offered an other $10 donation for Tim to keep his clothes on.

Go on.  Donate.  Do it now.  Tim is dying to nude up in front of his own lens.


  1. If you want animals killed then donate to the rspca. Take a look at their Annual Reports and you will find that over half the cats and dogs received by them are killed. If you like animals donate to Monica's Doggie Rescue or any other animal organisation that puts money into rehoming, not killing. I would not give one cent to the rspca.

  2. I fully appreciate that the RSPCA doesn’t have all the resources to save every animal put into its care either by law or otherwise. Less money means more animals being euthanised.

  3. How different are they from the RSPCA in the UK?

    Over here the situation is appalling. See:


  4. I don’t know enough about the RSPCA in the UK to comment here. Dissenting views are welcomed and encouraged on anything I post, however in this case I applaud Tim’s efforts to help an entirely different RPSCA make a difference.

  5. The rspca in both the UK and Australia are very wealthy organisations. Get a look at the rspca's Annual Reports. People leave them millions and millions in bequests. They are forever crying poor, saying "your donations will help save this little doggie" etc etc. Rubbish! They pay excellent salaries with lots of lurks and perks to their inspectors. Two of the three inspectors that I have encounbtered were ex-policeman, who were rude egotists with no sympathy for animals. There are many small animal organisations which are genuinely doing a good job for animals. The rspca is not.

  6. The RSPCA also receives government payments. IMHO this means the RSPCA is more open to scrutiny, and criticism, than other not-for-profit organisations. That’s not such a bad thing, as para-police they should be open to any criticism, however it’s not for me to defend them.
    I purchased my dog from an independent animal welfare organisation the day before he was scheduled to be euthanised, so I’m well aware of the problem we humans create, and can solve. I was able to save but one animal, but I also know that he was the lucky one out of four.
    You have a perfect right to your view that people shouldn’t support the RSPCA, and being truthful I rarely donate money to them. But I believe they are a benefit rather than a cost, as well as essential in educating irresponsible owners & keepers about animal welfare.
    That is my view, having taken in consideration your views and that of trundlepip as I’ve yet to see any compelling evidence that the RSPCA here is corrupt, inept or both.

  7. Unfortunately the rspca is not open to criticism. The NSW ombudsman refused to investigate a case which is written up on the website www.careaware.info - a shocking case of killing the mothers of lively little calves. The ombudsman said the rspca cannot be investigated because it is a "charity". Actually it is a business, making lots of money from products sold nationally as well as selling animals for "an adoption fee".

  8. The RSPCA WA (Inc) is an incorporated body, and registered as a not-for-profit organisation. It’s not a charity as it the administrative body for the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA).

    As it’s a not-for-profit organisation, it is not allowed to make a profit. Any money the RSPCA WA (inc) make must be kept by the body for the running and administration of that body, plus or minus a small percentage.

    The Auditor General has powers to audit them at any time, the same powers the Auditor General has over any Western Australian Government Department or administrative body. As far as I’m aware, in Western Australia, the Ombudsman can investigate any complaint against the RSPCA WA (inc) pertaining to the Animal Welfare Act 2002, but not a case by case basis, although I may be wrong on this.

    Certainly, I don’t pretend to know the day to day running of any RSPCA body, be it in WA, Victoria, NSW or the UK. In any case, they are separate entities governed by different laws. To unravel and compare any criticisms of one body with another or even to say, in effect, the hand is rotten thus the head needs to be removed, is not the heart of the issue here. I can only repeat I don’t know the all the facts of any cases highlighted to me and it wouldn’t be proper to nor fair to comment beyond what I know.

    My experience with the RSPCA WA (inc) has always been a professional one taking aside the emotive issues surrounding such work. It would be better not having to deal with them or similar organisation, but we don’t live in an ideal world.

    If you, or anyone else has any issue with an RSPCA, or any not-for-profit or charity organisation, then the proper course to to complain directly to that body and wait for a response. If the response is not satisfactory, then redirect the complaint to the appropriate regulatory body. Any action beyond that is activism, which is fine of itself, but activism needs to be tempered that the good all is served, not just a few.

    The issues brought up are really beyond the scope of this blog, or - I suggest - any other blog that has mirrored Tim Pokorny’s wish.

    The thought has occurred to me to not publish any further comment, however I don’t believe in censorship on the grounds that someone doesn’t agree with me, particularly when not abusive or offensive. In any case the contribution has been productive: I have been researching animal welfare groups of all kinds globally and I will make my conclusions when I’ve completed that, not before. In the process there will be no haste as it’s an emotive and complicated issue.

    It may require another blog.

  9. Tell me how a "charity" can afford to spend AU$3 MILLION on AVDERTISING (promoting itself) shown in RSPCA (Queensland, Australia) Annual Report 2008

  10. If you are serious about researching the outcomes of RSPCA protocols you should get up & interview those who have been affected. Go travelling & listen to the stories. Sitting in front of a computer will only ever be an intellectual experience with predictable outcomes.

  11. I certainly agree that personally interviewing people is an essential tool to get the real story. Fortunately I have access to various law libraries here in Perth at major Universities, and they are also valuable resources.
    Even though I’m the first to admit I’m not a journalist (in fact I’m very sceptical of journalism as it stands today), I do understand the need to remain a non-interfering objective observer. In the same way I can’t help but be sceptical about “emotional campaigns” used by many activist camps. Yes, they are very effective in influencing public opinion but they aren’t necessarily the “truth”.
    Ideally, to gain a balanced knowledge of the “industry” of animal welfare, be it the RSPCA, PETA, Cat Haven, or the livestock industry, it’s important to interview those who write up protocols as well as those who are adversely affected.
    Two sides to every story? No. Stories are always multifaceted and dynamic. What may be factual one day can be fiction the next and visa versa.
    The upside of this, from my perspective, is that I don’t have an editor on my back to get the story written within a tight time-frame, nor the narrow boundaries imposed by publishers.
    What I learn on this journey will be done at my pace. To whom I speak and when is my call. If I find a compelling reason to post a blog in depth on this topic is my decision and make no apologies for that.
    Having said that, I do sincerely appreciate the input those have put forward in this blog’s comments, even if they were slightly off topic. None of us can afford to remain complacent and accept the validity of one story only: concentrating on a tiny detail without being able to look at the whole story is forever a problem, just as accepting the whole story without being capable of analysing the detail.