http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/pets/9164744/Animal-sanctuaries-closing-under-pressure-from-the-RSPCA.html

Animal sanctuaries closing under pressure from the RSPCASunday 25 March 2012Telegraph.co.uk

A growing number of animal sanctuaries are closing due to an inability to cope with an increase in abandoned pets and growing bureaucratic pressure from the RSPCA.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Yogi the owl with new owner Keith Cole Photo: CASCADE NEWS

A growing number of animal sanctuaries are closing due to an inability to cope with an increase in abandoned pets and growing bureaucratic pressure from the RSPCA.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Veronica Mepham has started to take down her wildlife sancuary after an RSPCA visit Photo: CASCADE NEWS

By Jasper Copping, Ben Leach and Lynne Wallis25 Mar 201232 Comments

For 27 years, Veronica and Rye Mepham ran an animal sanctuary taking in thousands of abandoned pets, injured wild animals and unwanted livestock.

Run from a smallholding near Benfleet, Essex, their centre was so well regarded it even provided owls for use in the Harry Potter films and squirrels for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

But their life's work came to an abrupt end after the RSPCA visited on a routine inspection and accused them of animal cruelty.

Although they denied all the charges, they did not have the resources for a costly court case. To their continuing anguish, they agreed to close down the sanctuary and get rid of all the animals, in exchange for the case being dropped.

Their experience highlights a growing divide in the animal welfare world.

Related Articles *Fat dogs seized by RSPCA 24 Jan 2009 *RSPCA warns of pill-popping dog culture 09 Mar 2008 *Animal welfare experts hot under the collar over dogs in coats 10 Jan 2009

On the one side are the small-scale animal sanctuaries – often run by couples, like the Mephams, on shoestring budgets and with rudimentary facilities.

On the other is the RSPCA, the country's leading animal charity, which handles more than a million phone calls a year from members of the public concerned about incidents of animal cruelty.

Both sides say they are driven solely by the desire to help animals. Yet they are increasingly coming into conflict about how best to achieve this aim, with a mounting number of sanctuaries closing under pressure from the RSPCA.

Most sanctuaries have an open-door policy and find it hard to turn away any animal in need – and in the economic downturn, with a rise in abandoned pets, they are seeing increasing numbers.

But the RSPCA believe this can all too easily lead to problems, as it becomes too difficult for sanctuary owners and volunteers to provide suitable care to their growing menageries – the cleaning, the health checks, the feeding and watering.

David Bowles, head of communications for the society, said: "There is a thin line between people wanting to do their best for animals and them getting into difficulties.

"When these places are set up, they get a reputation locally and get more people giving animals to them. Things can spiral out of control very quickly. That is when we tend to get called in.

"A lot of people may have run sanctuaries for a long time. They are getting old. They can no longer raise the funds that they used to raise. They can no longer feed the animals they used to feed."

He said the society was supportive of well-run sanctuaries, and tried to offer advice before taking firmer action. But that is not how the Mephams feel their case was handled.

The couple started with just a few sick animals but as their reputation grew they began to take in more and more.

When Mr Mepham received a redundancy payout from his job as a medical engineer, they used the money to set up their site. Later they moved into a mobile home on the smallholding to be near their animals.

At their peak, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the couple looked after around 200 creatures, including horses, pigs, owls, dogs, fox cubs, and squirrels – mainly handed in by the public.

Their clash with the RSPCA began in August 2010 when they were reported to the society by a council inspector. They were arrested and charged with 18 counts of "animal cruelty".

Among the allegations were that they kept a fox and fox cub in unsuitable conditions, failed to stop a duck from suffering preventable injury, and failed to give a wood pigeon adequate food and veterinary care.

But Mr Mepham, 66, said they could have defended themselves against all charges. "The foxes were in the on-site hospital, which was always clean and tidy, so I never understood what the RSPCA were complaining about.

"The duck came to us with the injury so I really can't see how we could have done anything to prevent it. We were merely trying to nurse it back to health. And with the wood pigeon, we fed and watered it in the evening, as we always do.

"Then the RSPCA came the next morning. They wouldn't allow us into the pens to feed or water the animals, so the fact that they were unfed was the RSPCA's fault."

He added: "It's a sanctuary, so the animals come to you when they are in a bad way. Of course you are going to find some that don't look very healthy. Our job is to restore them back to health. We don't put down the animals, unlike the RSPCA."

More than 1,000 people signed a petition in support of the couple and many offered witness statements to assist them, including their vet.

The couple were due to appear before magistrates last year but the charges were dropped before the trial, after the couple signed a legal agreement to shut down. All the animals had to be re-homed. The couple now have only five pet dogs.

Mrs Mepham, 72, a former funeral director, said: "The sanctuary has been our life for almost 30 years. We've put everything we have into it. We've been deeply traumatised and our health has even suffered because of it."

The lack of financial resources – either to take on the RSPCA in court, or to meet its demands for changes – is a common reason given by sanctuaries closing down.

Dawn Critchlow, 44, last year shut the "Animal Haven" sanctuary, in Sheffield, which she had run for 22 years and which looked after dozens of dogs, cats, horses, donkeys, rabbits and guinea pigs.

When RSPCA inspectors told her she needed new kennels costing £12,000, she felt she had no choice.

"The RSPCA offered no help whatsoever. You would think they would want to support little organisations like this one. Everything we do is for the animals, not for ourselves. It broke my heart having to give up but there was no other way," she said.

But Mr Bowles said: "If you are running a sanctuary, like any business, you have to have the money to make sure it is operating properly and to the standards demanded by the [animal welfare] legislation.

"If some of these places do not see themselves as businesses then that may be the issue. They may just be animal lovers who have taken on more than they can handle."

In some cases, animals have been seized from sanctuaries and later destroyed by the RSPCA.

Three dogs – Stocking, Diesel and Clarke – were put down by vets accompanying RSPCA officers in a raid on the Rosedene Animal Rescue Centre, in Walsall, last year.

The animals were deemed to be too aggressive – a claim which was strongly contested by volunteers from the centre who regularly walked them.

Around 1,000 people joined an internet campaign in support of the centre, which looked after around 25 dogs, and it eventually reopened after the council returned its license.

Currently, anyone can set up a sanctuary and there are no regulatory checks. The RSPCA wants sanctuaries to have clear policies on their capacity, accommodation, staffing levels and staff-to-animal ratios.

Partly in response to these difficulties being faced by sanctuaries, a new organisation is being set up, to represent their interests: the Federation of British Animal Sanctuaries.

Sue Burton, who runs a horse sanctuary in Essex and is behind the new group, said she would endorse a "measured tightening up" in the rules, but warned: "The RSPCA need to understand that the smaller sanctuaries do not have millions of pounds in their bank accounts but work hand to mouth - so any changes need to be reachable targets.

"This is about sanctuaries getting together to help each other out. There is no one speaking for them with a powerful voice and that is the idea behind the federation. Centres need advice and help on the law."

While there is no register of sanctuaries, it is thought their number could extend into the thousands.

John Hemming, MP for Birmingham Yardley, said he would investigate the emerging threat to sanctuaries.

He said: "The RSPCA don't seem to care about killing animals, but they do care if they are overcrowded.

"Sanctuary owners are animal lovers who don't like the idea of stray animals. Most are very responsible and simply want to look after animals."

Showing 1-25 of 32 comments

anneallan8 hours ago

When did the RSPCA acquire these draconian powers? I can see that animal sanctuaries could easily become overwhelmed, but how on earth have we reached the stage where a charity has become an arm of the government? Personally, I stopped giving money to the RSPCA years ago, as I disliked their dictatorial attitude, but I hadn't realised they'd become that bad.

JDD London 3 hours ago The RSPCA don't have any powers and this is what people forget. They are becoming increasing power hungry and I think they lost their interest in animal welfare years ago - it now about animal rights. They are becoming the PeTA of the UK. I stopped giving them money years ago.

gb_dorset 8 hours ago The RSPCA, RSPB, WWF and others have lost their original sense of purpose. They now appear to be run for the personal ambition of a highly paid few, whose sense of self worth is only satisfied by the expansion of bureaucracy and power. They know best in all matters and must use this knowledge to dictate what is good for the rest of us.

happyhen 7 hours agoWhen the RSPCA condemn animal shelters what exactly are the problems they are seeing? A few rough buildings, maybe? What would the animals use as shelters in the wild? Perhaps old pottery bowls used for food and water instead of stainless steel? Again, what would the food come in in the wild?

Veterinary treatment is available at these shelters. Many vets reduce their charges in cases like this. That's more than would be available in the wild where the animals may well suffer a slow, painful death.

Yes, of course animal rescuers should provide good conditions, and most do to the best of their ability. Much of the daily care is done by volunteers, not well paid RSPCA officials in their nice uniforms no doubt paid for out of our contributions. What I find worrying in this report is that the RSPCA didn't take into

account the word of the independant witnesses that the rescued animals were being well cared for, and that in another case the council saw fit to relicense one refuge, so they obviously believed the owners were capable of doing a good job in spite of what the RSPCA said.

The RSPCA rehome a lot of animals with refuges. They have some nice facilities of their own, too, but then they are a huge organisation which is well publicised nationally and they get a lot of money from the public. They still euthanise a lot of healthy animals every year though.

volcano 7 hours ago The RSPCA has overstepped it's mark. They are only interested in big personal bank accounts. Instead of criticising the small sanctuaries why don't they help out a bit more? They also seem to have a high kill rate of animals in their care for the merest of reasons.

It's an excellent idea for all the small sanctuaries to get together under one umbrella and try to regulate their businesses.

We should give more support to these small sanctuaries who do so much for needy animals without thinking of fat salaries.

Shame on the big animal charities.

monkgate 4 hours ago

Volcano "Big personal bank accounts". Indeed it would be interesting to know the levels of remuneration for executives in the RSPCA. I would bet that some at least are on six figure salaries.

alegitbritcit7 hours ago

Another shower of self appointed know better than everyone else pc jobsworths. Tell them to f-off, all they see are others doing their job for them and doing it better and at no cost. Therein lies the problem with the UK, useless expensive quangos,run by useless expensive jobsworths of no use to society with their own pc objectives and a barrefull of spite and vindictiveness. Note i no longer give to this charity lke many more people because of their twisted logic and large salaried senior staff

country_lover7 hours ago

The RSPCSA used to be a good organisation but for several years now has been a politically motivated campaigning outfit with no regard for animals - in fact animals are really just the tool they use to extract money from a well-intentioned but gullible public.

If anything should close down it is the RSPCA - but perhaps for a start they should be stripped of the "Royal" part.

davmc7 hours ago

The RSPCA shelter on the Wirral was begging for money or it had to close down yet they have millions in the bank to fight small sanctuaries. I have given up giving to the stasi RSPCA. They are too fond of the money and getting people to court yet happily put down thousands of animals every year. It is all about money now.

1J2ackBrian6 hours ago

I've just noticed your comment, some friends of ours were going to leave some money to the same organization but have now decided not to, for similar reasons as your own.

1J2ackBrian Adequate food and veterinary care are mentioned here.This goes without saying, but whether this is really possible, is another thing. Both can be very expensive, particularly the latter. Sanctuaries, let alone those who have domestic pets all have to face these continually rising costs. Frankly, I don't know how they continue to do it. As a family we had dogs and cats as family pets in the past and even then Vets bills could be high - but not as high as now - and then there were more affordable insurance plans. Now, we would really think very carefully about taking on such a commitment again. It's a pity, we would love to take on another pet but it is a long term commitment - very long, in some cases.

themardler5 hours ago

The RSPCA should lose its charitable status and also its quasi legal status and be replaced by an arm of the police and the governments vets. officers. They are quite right to draw attention to the shambles of many so called sanctuaries-those who claim to love animals are often the least suited to to look after them correctly. But the RSPCA has failed to address the real problem and that is unfettered pet ownership. They and animal rights organisations have consistently targeted cages and penning in farming yet have failed to call for a ban on keeping caged rabbits, birds and reptiles or for a dog licence with compulsory tagging and insurance, or for a licence to keep a horse with proof of suitable accommodation. Farm animals have birth to slaughter paperwork, horses now have paperwork in case they enter the food chain, but any fool can buy one and keep it on dog biscuits in a back garden. I have long doubted the training and expertise of RSPCA inspectors and wondered about the objectivity of directly employed RSPCA vets.

themardler 5 hours ago RSPCA, RSPB-too much say , too much power, too much eye on membership income. Hypocrites all.

thomasgoodey 5 hours agoWhen you say " All the animals had to be re-homed", no doubt you mean, re-homed by the RSPCA in the cold, cold ground!

Graham Barker 4 hours ago A friend is a veterinary nurse whose practice now tries to have as few dealings as possible with the RSPCA as they're utterly unhelpful.

One starts to wonder what the RSPCA is useful for, as it seems more interested in making life hell for people than in helping animals. I now refuse to give them a penny and would much sooner support sanctuaries run by people who genuinely care for animals.

chrisp666 4 hours ago I can only echo your comments. My wife is involved with animal rescue - she shares your disdain for the RSPCA. Bureaucratic and unhelpful at best, obstructive at worst.

harrysnapper 4 hours agoThe RSPCA are becoming increasingly fanatical. They seem to relish pursuing well meaning people who have fallen short in some (often trivial) way. Going after animal sanctuaries like this seems to be more about wiping out competition than animal welfare. I used to donate but never again.

lordpete4 hours ago

From http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageL... it looks like the RSPCA euthanazation (kill) count for dogs is 50% of ones adopted out, and in the case of cats they "manage" to adopt out 3 times as many as they kill. Whoop-de-doo!

Page 19 - consolidated financials - makes interesting reading too. And they spend nearly as much on prosecutions as they do on Animal Centers!

The amount for "Inspectorate" is horrifying - $31 MILLION.

dogsbody67 4 hours ago The RSPCA are becoming (have already become?) fanatical to the point where they cannot be reasoned with and seem to have lost their way somewhat. Of course animal welfare is their priority, but it seems to me at least that in recent years they have taken on the persona of a spoilt brat, peeved at others who also care for animals, as if there compassion is somehow lessened by the smaller 'interlopers'.

Anyone who has had cause to call on the RSPCA for help will, I am sure, have been surprised at their almost brutal lack of interest (as I have), and have had to turn to other smaller scale sanctuaries. It goes without saying that these facilities should also be well run and the animals kept safe but the RSPCA are demonstrating a nasty streak in their dealings with their poorer colleagues, a trait they should be showing to those who do animals harm.

disaffectedcitizen4 hours ago

I have always been suspicious of the RSPCA's motives, politics and methods of operating. This latest alleged development comes as no surprise. I have never, nor would ever donate to them.

Whilst we only have a short excerpt of facts in any presented story, my own experience of RSPCA procedures for vetting potential homes for dogs led me to be highly critical of their high-handed, pompous and perplexing attitude towards their MO.

I hope the couple concerned, who have clearly had their lives shattered, can begin to place the RSPCA in context, and move on with their lives despite this huge setback.

liedtoo 3 hours ago We're bothered more about some dumb animals than we are about our own defenceless kind. Best part of 2700 people over 65 died as a direct result of fuel poverty, highest in Europe

Imagine the fuss if these ware animals?

aggiekrunch 3 hours ago We can be a selfish species and want what we want regardless of the animals needs. I have been to an albeit well kept sanctuary and seen some wonderful birds - owls specifically. I was saddened to hear from a handler (confidentially) that she felt the birds would be happier in the wild. I do believe that zoos and collections of caged, wild species are a cruelty and as such would agree with the R.S.P.C.A. However where such sanctuaries exist for suffering creatures and for their health and survival only - these I would endorse and good luck to them.

petev 3 hours ago The RSPCA is a business first and an animal charity second.

I learned that many years ago after dealings with them, and I will NEVER donate any money to them as a result.

Lynnejgr 3 hours ago I was filled with horror reading this story this morning as it resonates so closely to the situation in Thailand where 103 animals have been removed unjustly and cruelly by the Department of National Parks (DNP) from the Wildlife Friends Foundation Thailand wfft.org.

This NGO looked after abused wildlife, offering them sanctuary from further cruelty and expert veterinary care. Three animals have since died in the DNP's 'care'. Can the RSPCA honestly justify the closing down of this animal sanctuary whilst ignoring heartfelt pleas from the public for help with outright cruelty witnessed by them? Am I really living in England?

JDD London 3 hours ago This has been going on for sometime and it's about time something was done about this organisation.

http://www.rspcainjustice.blog...

Showing 26-34 of 32 comments

Zee Dogsos EndBsl 2 hours ago When will the powers that be open their eyes and see the RSPCA for what they really are?????? In some LIMITED cases they do a great job, but its not often enough, and its not balanced with the damage they cause / have caused / are still causing / will continue to cause!

thecrowman 2 hours agoI would have a lot more respect for the RSPCA if they pressured for the end of halal and kosher slaughter.

This most barbaric method of killing animals goes on daily in the UK without a word of protest.

Sickening.

Until then I cannot see how they can comment on anything which is a great pity because as a nation we have become far crueller to animals and happy to treat them as disposable objects rather than creatures for whom we owe a duty of care whether they are pets or for food.

rspcaexposed 1 hour ago This has been going on a considerable amount of time and when will it ever be challenged. I read your article and when I see that the couple were quite categorically blackmailed into giving up and more than likely the animals were destroyed. They bring these cases with more mistakes than you can believe, their own Law Team cannot even see them before they send the paperwork to the victim. The victim get a Solicitor who is talked down to by these highly paid solicitors, and they tell you to plead guilty. The RSPCA fail to provide the disclosures, but if you insist with the court order you might be lucky. They go into the Magistrates Court to train the Magistrates how to do their cases, then blacken the persons name with a catalogue of erroneous statements, that would be so easy to prove unfounded, but you don’t know every verbal comment until you get to court. So if you do appeal and you provide contradictory evidence the magistrate is confused, and will always believe the RSPCA. Then you can prepare a Case Stated where the Judge went wrong in fact and in law, you take it back for his amendments and the Court Officer files it in his draw, because he has never done one before or was it for another reason. These case files should be scrutinised by the Ministry of Justice and the CPS and HOW did the Labour party allow them to do these cases as the AWA 2006 in its passage through the House, had promised faithfully it would not be the RSPCA doing these cases, but Special Inspectors employed by DEFRA. On the last sitting, prior to it going before the Queen, Lord Rooker stood up and said "It will have to stay as it is, as we have run out of money". Then there was Tony Blair said "I don't even know why I got involved with the Hunting Act". Would he like me to tell him as it has been publicised in another Newspaper Finally I just wonder what they say to their RSPCA member at their AGM because they give their donations to save animals not to pay large salaries and pensions. Please listen to me and get hold of some case files and have some experts to go through them.

If Mr Hemmings would like to see mine he if very welcome I will even deliver it in person. The Telegraph needs to follow this story through as they have been teetering on the edge as far back as Jim Penny.

imperial_scout 1 hour ago The RSPCA is a jobs for the right-on boys and girls racket. It should be closed down and the work given to independent sanctuaries. This is the power hungry madness of the left destroying something really good. They need to remove their statutory powers to stop their flagrant abuse of power. If they actually had to win people over instead of being heavy handed it would change their whole tone back to what it should have been in the first place.

animalnut 34 minutes ago It is my belief that the RSPCA intend to eventually control ALL animal ownership, and that working class people for instance, will not be allowed to have pets. This may sound far fetched, but consider why they want the dog licence back, when others have said it won't work. Consider why they raid an average of eight sanctuaries/small rescues a year, if not to remove the competition for funds and to give people less choice about whom they donate to and adopt from. In truth, the RSPCA have absolutely NO legal standing beyond that of a charity, but they keep pushing the bounds because they have friends in high places to ensure they are never challenged or investigated. At heart this so called charity is solely about money, power and influence.

gb_dorset 20 minutes agoAny response to these comments from Mark Watts (CEO, RSPCA) or Daphne Harris (Chairman, RSPCA Council)? I know I'd be very concerned if these were the prevailing public views of my business. If they were erroneous, I'd certainly wish to set the record straight.

Glynne Sutcliffe Huilgol 15 minutes ago It's time that the use of the RSPCA's 'special language' was abandoned in favour of more accurate ways of describing things. For a start, 're-homing' is a term used to disguise theft and the subsequent sale of the stolen property. One of the charms of shutting down a sanctuary is that the RSPCA gets a bunch of resalable animals in a job lot. It's a nice haul they made here. People who 'adopt' (that is BUY) animals from the RSPCA should be challenged to acknowledge that they are receivers of stolen property.

mikewil Anyone with problems with the RSPCA should contact the SHG on 0844 700 6690 or visit their website at http://the-shg.org/

If you want to help to bring the RSPCA and other big charities under control then please sign and share the petition for a charities ombudsman

http://epetitions.direct.gov.u...Create a Charities OmbudsmanResponsible department: Cabinet Office

This petition calls on the government to create a Charities Ombudsman with the power to deal with complaints about charities and the authority to order a charity to provide adequate redress if a complaint is upheld..

The Charity Commission is unable to get involved in a wide range of complaints because they are not within its remit.

If a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of a Charity's own internal complaints procedure their only remaining option is the legal system. With legal aid being cut drastically this is beyond the reach of the majority of people.

Many charities are now running services or even acting as law enforcement agencies, so it is important that they are seen to be properly regulated and to have an effective and objective independent external complaints procedure.

We want Parliament to debate this issue.

mikewil This is the Big Problem, the RSPCA are really a business, not a charity, and as such are totally unable to understand the meaning of charity and why other charities actually put the welfare of animals first:

"But Mr Bowles said: "If you are running a sanctuary, like any business, you have to have the money to make sure it is operating properly and to the standards demanded by the [animal welfare] legislation.

"If some of these places do not see themselves as businesses then that may be the issue. They may just be animal lovers who have taken on more than they can handle."" blog comments powered by Disqus

© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2012