Having a look at the RSCPA’s website about it’s corporate partners, there are a few of them that should raise some serious concerns and questions. The RSPCA is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Yet as we have a look at the corporate partners, there are some that are involved in the cruelty of animals, whether it be directly or indirectly.
In no particular order.
Sure this company is a long term supporter of the EMU (Education Mobile Unit). This has to be a big conflict of interest for the RSPCA, Mack make trucks right? And trucks carry road freight. Now how do we think that animals bound for the abittior get there from the farm? By road, either all the way or to the railyards. There has always been an inherant problem with the transport of animals by any other means than their own. Now has Mack guarenteed the RSPCA that there will never be a Mack truck involved in the transport of animals by road? Before you start saying that this is a riciculous request, let me ask you this. Would Amnesty International, or one of those anti-war groups accept sponsorship from Winchester Firearms, Boeing, MacDonnell-Douglas, etc.? It’s not the fault of the company how their products are used is it?
Where do I start with this one? It is an RSL club, that gets it’s money from gambling, food, and alcohol. Alcohol and gambling are not the most family friendly of activites. If they were why wold there be the need for RSA and RSG (Responsible Service of Alcohol, Responsible Service of Gaming), and self help groups for those that have self-diagnosed problems with the either of the two? Then comes the meals. A majority of the meals served there are meat/dairy/egg based, and no mention of “Happy Meat” on their website. Oh, hang on that’s right, animals that are for human consumption, aren’t entitled to the protection of the RSPCA.
Hills Science Diet.
All I am going to say abou thtis is that it is a pet food company that has animal based products. Another conflict of interest?
This company is involved with animal testing.
Also reading the Future Directions page on the website.
“The Society seeks to serve the needs of many stakeholders including members, RSPCA Councillors, RSPCA Australia and its international affiliates, branches, staff, volunteers, supporters, donors, the general public, educational institutions, government (local, state and federal), media and suppliers of goods and services.
The central stakeholders are animals and their welfare is our core focus.”
Why are the needs of the media, government, and suppliers of goods and services listed about those of the animals, even when it does say that animals are the core focus? Can someone also please tell me what are the need of the media with regards to animal welfare?
How can the RSPCA accept money from these organisations when they are part of the problems that the RSPCA is trying to rectify? Or is it the belief that money is money, regardless of where it comes from?