RSPCA defends itself
posted by Happy Paws on Monday 01 March 2004.
The state head of the RSPCA has launched a stinging attack on those people who claim the organisation is operating a kill and chill policy at the Port Macquarie branch, calling them "a cancer in animal welfare".
Bernie Murphy, chief executive officer of the RSPCA's NSW network responded to claims aired in Friday's Port News that the branch was failing to save animals from death row and operating a "slaughterhouse", calling them mischievous and unwarranted.
A former branch member said she believed too many animals were being euthanased because the RSPCA was not taking on as many from the pound.
In the past, she said, every animal offered to the branch was saved.
But Mr Murphy said the Port Macquarie branch had gone through a considerable transition period and the new committee now had a "good grasp on reality".
He said the previous management's philosophy on re-homing, where they "saved everything" was irresponsible and inappropriate.
"These people are a cancer in terms of animal welfare", he said.
He also labelled those people wishing to see a policy of no-kill within the RSPCA as troglodytes. According to the Macquarie dictionary that is "people thought to be primitive, barbaric, unintelligent or insensitive".
He said the philosophy of no-kill shelters was totally unrealistic.
Mr Murphy said the Port Macquarie shelter has one of the lowest euthanasia rates in the state.
"These claims have been driven by people who have an unrealistic, irresponsible and naive expectations about re-homing every animal that arrives at our shelters".
"A no-kill policy sounds a wonderful idea but in theory does not work".
"Someone is left to deal with the problem of unwanted animals, and that "someone", in most cases, is the RSPCA".
Mr Murphy said not only is there a lack of homes for unwanted animals, the RSPCA has a policy of not adopting aggressive or unhealthy animals into the community.
"Some animals are simply not suitable for re-homing", he said.
"To send dangerous or unhealthy animals into the community would be foolish and irresponsible and would not only threaten the welfare of other animals, it would pose a danger to people".
Mr Murphy said it was evident by the nature of claims that those responsible knew little about animal welfare.
"If they are associated with our branch, then it's time they were kicked out".
"We do not need critics with a hidden agenda to undermine the credibility of the RSPCA".
Mr Murphy considers the only way to avoid euthanasia and the high numbers of unwanted animals is responsible animal ownership and compulsory de-sexing.
"Until that day happens, the RSPCA will continue to shoulder the burden for the community".