Does RSPCA approved extend to King Charles?

Last week the RSPCA spent some of its donor’s money plus a share of the funds given to them by the taxpayers of WA to continue their long running anti-farming campaign by publishing a letter to the community in the West Australian.

The paid advertisement reads like it was written by radical university animal activists, rather than what was once a highly respected animal welfare organisation.

The President of the RSPCA WA made the claim that the live export debate had become very polarising, ‘city v country, east v west, farmer v animal welfare groups’, but nothing could be further from the truth.

The reality is there is widespread support for the trade for those who wish to inform themselves of the facts, this is born out in repeated community surveys that go back decades.

The only polarised views are between those who accept the science and the facts and those who believe the emotional rhetoric fed to them by the likes of the animal activist organisations of which the RSPCA has become a lead proponent.

Any follower of the live export debate knows that this industry has literally been studied to death by animal scientists, and the government regulators have used this data to set the current standards for the industry, which is achieving outstanding results. 

The end result is the improvement of the welfare of the livestock on ships has been so successful that it makes a compelling case for Australia to continue to lead the way to export these standards around the world.

The fact that live export by ship is a global trade with over 20 countries participating in it makes it illogical for the RSPCA to advocate for a policy that will end up reducing not improving the welfare of livestock on a global scale.

The fact that only one country actively acts as the international protector of livestock, effectively the animal welfare version of the United Nations Peace Keepers, by placing people in various countries to train and lift standards, is quietly ignored by the RSPCA.

It is Australian farmers that are underwriting the millions of dollars invested in overseeing and training workers in feedlots, saleyards and abattoirs in developing counties in the proper handling and care of livestock.

Take the live export funding for Australian stockies and vets out of these countries and who is going to replace them? The RSPCA? 

They have neither the funds, the interest or the access to the feedlots or the abattoirs in countries as far afield as Indonesia, Vietnam, Jordan or Egypt to make a difference to the millions of animals that pass through these facilities.

Unfortunately, both the RSPCA and the Albanese Labor government have chosen to ignore these inconvenient facts, along with the improved performance of the industry, and instead has focused on the politics of backing the animal activist industry, which in turn uses the emotion of live exports to support their fundraising activities.

Without live exports to put up on their web pages to drive donations into the coffers of organisations like the RSPCA, Animals Australia, Four Paws, Voiceless, Humane Society, World Animal Protection, PETA, all of them would struggle to exist.

Don’t expect to ever see the RSPCA campaigning against their royal patron King Charles III, who has long also supported grouse shooting and fox hunting. Why, because such a campaign might put off potential donors who may be strong supporters of the monarchy.

Just as the RSPCA is not going to lead the discussion on difficult issues like the welfare of dogs in remote indigenous communities or the keeping of companion pets in small apartments by people who lack the ability to walk the dog.

Far easier to beat the drum louder that all the other competing animal activist organisations and point the finger at farmers and live exporters as they race to cash in on the emotion of demonising live exports.

The RSPCA has settled on the formula of endlessly rerunning their ‘cash for cruelty’ paid for images – which it was caught conspiring with low paid ship workers to  generate – in an attempt to compromise the welfare of animals and use the shock horror footage to counter the facts that the industry has improved its performance.

The RSPCA seems to have no self awareness that they are acting like an extremist organisation.  Worse, they close they eyes to the fact that they have sold out their credibility by entered the market of animal food products under their own brand.

They see no problem with the claim that its version of “RSPCA Approved’ animal welfare is backed by the science even when other more extreme activist organisations claim it is not. 

But they can’t have it both ways, they either believe the standards set by government are acceptable to the community or they should exit the market. They are not the standard setter.

How is the public expected to trust an organisation that is funded by government to undertake the role of livestock regulator, who then proceeds to judge farmers who compete against it in the marketplace?

Every way you look at it the RSPCA is riddled with contradictions. On the one hand, it is desperately trying to maintain market share for the hearts and minds of the compassionistas so they can tap their pockets for donations, while on the other it makes money out of livestock while regulating producers who they compete with. If ever there was a need for a royal commission to review the royal role that the RSPCA has, it is now, particularly as it no longer seems to know what its role is.