Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [australianherps] RSPCA debate

Expand Messages
  • Chris Newman
    John, What you say is very true, the problem with the RSPCA lays with the governing body, not necessary with the people on the ground. However, having said
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      John,

      What you say is very true, the problem with the RSPCA lays with the
      governing body, not necessary with the people on the ground. However,
      having said that for a foot soldier in the RSPCA to advance in the ranks
      today, he needs to demonstrate his allegiance to his superiors. This is
      why very often we see the same RSPCA inspector name appearing again and
      again.

      I would say that the bulk of the inspectors are their to do their best to
      help animals, and the majority support the keeping of pets, be it reptilian,
      mammalian or avian. But as the old saying goes it only takes one bad apple
      to spoil the how barrel.

      Here in the UK the RSPCA would prosecute every time concerning the feeding
      of live vertebrates, in fact they are also opposed to feeding live
      invertebrates. One RSPCA inspector has demanded that fly papers should be
      banned as it is cruel to fly's?

      My advise to you chaps down under is not to underestimate the resolve of the
      RSPCA to try and ban you from keeping herps, they are a hugely powerful
      organisation with immense wealth. It would seem to me that you are only
      just staring to see pressure applied to you, it will intensify.

      Regards,
      Chris



      > Hi,

      > It would be interesting to hear what the RSPCA think about feeding live
      > fish, (and maybe crickets or mealworms) to other animals.

      > Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't fishermen, use live bait such as fish
      > and
      > hermit crabs?

      > Don't they put a hook through the live animal?

      > That sounds worse than feeding a mouse to a snake?

      > On the other hand my personal feelings are that dead food should be the
      > normal accepted way of feeding pet snakes, unless the snake will not take
      > dead food.

      > And what about all those pet cats, some of which catch mice, birds and
      > reptiles then just play with them until they are dead?

      > Note that the RSPCA do a lot of good: - I wonder if the problem lies with
      > the Victorian and the UK branches policies or perhaps with a few powerful
      > people in those societies, rather than the RSPCA as a whole.


      > Regards

      > John Fowler

      > I do not want some thought police in 5 years time telling me that I cannot
      > feed my turtle gambusia coz they are live, or any other permutation
      > relating to my judgement on the feeding of carnivorous reptiles.
      > cheers
      > Gavin


      > ************************************************************






      > Green Python merchandise available at http://www.cafepress.com/rajohn1


      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/






      > Green Python merchandise available at http://www.cafepress.com/rajohn1


      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • John Deutscher
      John Fowler, what good does the RSPCA do? I can t see them doing enough to be worthy of mention and certainly they do a hell of a lot more harm than good. Any
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        John Fowler,

        what good does the RSPCA do? I can't see them doing enough to be worthy of
        mention and certainly they do a hell of a lot more harm than good.

        Any organisation with the best interests of animals in mind with people with
        a third of a brain at the helm would want to strongly oppose the keeping of
        most of the animals the RSPCA strongly advocates and would strongly
        encourage the keeping of most of the animals the RSPCA wants to BAN. Go to
        the RSPCA, it's a haven for stray cats which they are trying to re house so
        that they can go and eat the birds, reptiles etc in peoples' gardens and the
        area around their houses, and they want to ban the keeping of any of those
        native animals because they think it's cruel!

        I don't know if they're genuinely trying to do good but are so insanely
        stupid/ill informed that they do a terrible job or if they are just
        maintaining an organisation for its own sake by trying to appeal to
        uninformed cat/dog/other fuzzy animal keepers/lovers by keeping up an animal
        welfare facade.

        Keep in mind that if they have their way they will ban the keeping of any
        natives (I have spoken to people of the RSPCA who have indicated this to be
        part of their written policy, although if you look it up it is very vague
        for some reason) and advocate cats, mice, rats etc with no ecological value,
        no potential for adding to our knowledge of biology and serious ecological
        problems, not to mention the problems associated with isolating people from
        natives and therefore keeping people from appreciating them and desiring to
        conserve them.

        Wiping out biodiversity is a terrible thing as we all know but for some
        strange reason, the RSPCA continues to be a very popular "charity" despite
        the fact that their actions harm biodiversity. It's a great shame that
        people who support the RSPCA do so while being oblivious to the fact that
        they are harming something they deeply care about.

        Please ponder what I have written and feel free to question the RSPCA on
        their policies and let them know what you think.

        -John Deutscher

        >Hi,
        >
        >It would be interesting to hear what the RSPCA think about feeding live
        >fish, (and maybe crickets or mealworms) to other animals.
        >
        >Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't fishermen, use live bait such as fish
        >and
        >hermit crabs?
        >
        >Don't they put a hook through the live animal?
        >
        >That sounds worse than feeding a mouse to a snake?
        >
        >On the other hand my personal feelings are that dead food should be the
        >normal accepted way of feeding pet snakes, unless the snake will not take
        >dead food.
        >
        >And what about all those pet cats, some of which catch mice, birds and
        >reptiles then just play with them until they are dead?
        >
        >Note that the RSPCA do a lot of good: - I wonder if the problem lies with
        >the Victorian and the UK branches policies or perhaps with a few powerful
        >people in those societies, rather than the RSPCA as a whole.
        >
        >
        >Regards
        >
        >John Fowler
        >
        >I do not want some thought police in 5 years time telling me that I cannot
        >feed my turtle gambusia coz they are live, or any other permutation
        >relating to my judgement on the feeding of carnivorous reptiles.
        >cheers
        > Gavin



        _________________________________________________________________
        Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
      • Weir, Stephen (DET, Lucas Heights)
        John, I think the RSPCA does do some good, in spite of my spray the other day. Most of this good concerns domesticated animals, and this is where the RSPCA
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          John,

          I think the RSPCA does do some good, in spite of my spray the other day.
          Most of this good concerns domesticated animals, and this is where the RSPCA
          should concentrate it's efforts. Stick to what they know best, as it's
          easier to spot a malnourished horse than to "know" the psychological state
          of a captive lizard.

          The issue of keeping native as opposed to non-native animals as pets is
          complex. Each side has valid points. Many contend that native animals
          either do not adapt well to captivity, or are just not suited, and this is
          true in some circumstances. The argument then runs that only domesticated
          animals should be kept as pets because they are actually specifically bred
          to be pets. This argument and all it's permutations can be best summarised
          as the "suitability as a pet" argument. It is difficult to argue against
          cats or dogs being the most suitable animals for a pet.

          The native pet proponents say that native animals make the best pets because
          they are just that, native. They state that the advantages of keeping
          native animals are that they are more environmentally friendly and help
          promote respect of native fauna. The "environmentally friendly" bit is
          based on a native animals being more likely to slip into the environment
          with less disruption if it ever escapes captivity.

          If the escaped pet animal is from a local population (indigenous) and has no
          diseases picked up from other pets then this may be so, but this is not
          always the case. Most often the pet animal has been bred from mixed stock
          and can cause the pollution of the gene pool for the local population of
          that species if it escapes and breeds. An example is Carpet Pythons kept
          within the Diamond Python range.

          There is also a subtle but important distinction between native and
          indigenous fauna. Native fauna can mean any animal found within the bounds
          of the Australian nation, whereas indigenous means native to that area. A
          native yet non-indigenous animal can cause just as much damage as an exotic
          if released in the wrong area. For example consider the Kookaburras
          already in Perth, or what may happen to the Lord Howe Island Wood-hen if
          some Blue-Tongued Lizards got loose (Litoria dentata is already there, but
          it's more benign).

          The pro-native camp can be summarised as "native animals are the best pets
          for the environment". Personally I think there are some provisos. A
          different slant would be to say that advocates of non-native pets put the
          welfare of the individual animal as the highest priority, whereas native pet
          advocates see the entire picture and believe the common good, but maybe not
          every individual animal, is best served by keeping native animals in
          preference to exotic purpose bred pets.

          Both summations are true in my opinion, but they are arguing different
          virtues and are not mutually inclusive. So it comes down to which is the
          more important in someone's opinion. The RSPCA appears to be pro non-native
          pets, because they are an animal welfare group. Interestingly, this pits
          them against many academics who work with native animals, and believe that
          the good of the species may not be served by ensuring the good of every
          member of that species.

          Steve




          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: John Deutscher [mailto:extatosoma@...]
          > Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:58 PM
          > To: australianherps@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [australianherps] Re: RE: RSPCA debate
          >
          >
          > John Fowler,
          >
          > what good does the RSPCA do? I can't see them doing enough to
          > be worthy of
          > mention and certainly they do a hell of a lot more harm than good.
          >
          > Any organisation with the best interests of animals in mind
          > with people with
          > a third of a brain at the helm would want to strongly oppose
          > the keeping of
          > most of the animals the RSPCA strongly advocates and would strongly
          > encourage the keeping of most of the animals the RSPCA wants
          > to BAN. Go to
          > the RSPCA, it's a haven for stray cats which they are trying
          > to re house so
          > that they can go and eat the birds, reptiles etc in peoples'
          > gardens and the
          > area around their houses, and they want to ban the keeping of
          > any of those
          > native animals because they think it's cruel!
          >
          > I don't know if they're genuinely trying to do good but are
          > so insanely
          > stupid/ill informed that they do a terrible job or if they are just
          > maintaining an organisation for its own sake by trying to appeal to
          > uninformed cat/dog/other fuzzy animal keepers/lovers by
          > keeping up an animal
          > welfare facade.
          >
          > Keep in mind that if they have their way they will ban the
          > keeping of any
          > natives (I have spoken to people of the RSPCA who have
          > indicated this to be
          > part of their written policy, although if you look it up it
          > is very vague
          > for some reason) and advocate cats, mice, rats etc with no
          > ecological value,
          > no potential for adding to our knowledge of biology and
          > serious ecological
          > problems, not to mention the problems associated with
          > isolating people from
          > natives and therefore keeping people from appreciating them
          > and desiring to
          > conserve them.
          >
          > Wiping out biodiversity is a terrible thing as we all know
          > but for some
          > strange reason, the RSPCA continues to be a very popular
          > "charity" despite
          > the fact that their actions harm biodiversity. It's a great
          > shame that
          > people who support the RSPCA do so while being oblivious to
          > the fact that
          > they are harming something they deeply care about.
          >
          > Please ponder what I have written and feel free to question
          > the RSPCA on
          > their policies and let them know what you think.
          >
          > -John Deutscher
          >
        • John Fowler
          Hi, The RSPCA is not a conservation group, their prime objective is (or should be) to stop cruelty to animals, whether they be cats or reptiles. I think that
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi,

            The RSPCA is not a conservation group, their prime objective is (or should
            be) to stop cruelty to animals, whether they be cats or reptiles.

            I think that most people including reptile keepers are opposed to cruelty to
            animals.

            I agree that maybe some of their actions may be counter productive and
            perhaps misguided, however at least people have someone to call if they find
            unwanted or injured animals.

            Regards

            John Fowler

            -----Original Message-----
            From: John Deutscher [mailto:extatosoma@...]
            Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:28 PM
            To: australianherps@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [australianherps] Re: RE: RSPCA debate

            John Fowler,

            what good does the RSPCA do? I can't see them doing enough to be worthy of
            mention and certainly they do a hell of a lot more harm than good.

            Any organisation with the best interests of animals in mind with people with
            a third of a brain at the helm would want to strongly oppose the keeping of
            most of the animals the RSPCA strongly advocates and would strongly
            encourage the keeping of most of the animals the RSPCA wants to BAN. Go to
            the RSPCA, it's a haven for stray cats which they are trying to re house so
            that they can go and eat the birds, reptiles etc in peoples' gardens and the
            area around their houses, and they want to ban the keeping of any of those
            native animals because they think it's cruel!

            I don't know if they're genuinely trying to do good but are so insanely
            stupid/ill informed that they do a terrible job or if they are just
            maintaining an organisation for its own sake by trying to appeal to
            uninformed cat/dog/other fuzzy animal keepers/lovers by keeping up an animal
            welfare facade.

            Keep in mind that if they have their way they will ban the keeping of any
            natives (I have spoken to people of the RSPCA who have indicated this to be
            part of their written policy, although if you look it up it is very vague
            for some reason) and advocate cats, mice, rats etc with no ecological value,
            no potential for adding to our knowledge of biology and serious ecological
            problems, not to mention the problems associated with isolating people from
            natives and therefore keeping people from appreciating them and desiring to
            conserve them.

            Wiping out biodiversity is a terrible thing as we all know but for some
            strange reason, the RSPCA continues to be a very popular "charity" despite
            the fact that their actions harm biodiversity. It's a great shame that
            people who support the RSPCA do so while being oblivious to the fact that
            they are harming something they deeply care about.

            Please ponder what I have written and feel free to question the RSPCA on
            their policies and let them know what you think.

            -John Deutscher

            >Hi,
            >
            >It would be interesting to hear what the RSPCA think about feeding live
            >fish, (and maybe crickets or mealworms) to other animals.
            >
            >Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't fishermen, use live bait such as fish
            >and
            >hermit crabs?
            >
            >Don't they put a hook through the live animal?
            >
            >That sounds worse than feeding a mouse to a snake?
            >
            >On the other hand my personal feelings are that dead food should be the
            >normal accepted way of feeding pet snakes, unless the snake will not take
            >dead food.
            >
            >And what about all those pet cats, some of which catch mice, birds and
            >reptiles then just play with them until they are dead?
            >
            >Note that the RSPCA do a lot of good: - I wonder if the problem lies with
            >the Victorian and the UK branches policies or perhaps with a few powerful
            >people in those societies, rather than the RSPCA as a whole.
            >
            >
            >Regards
            >
            >John Fowler
            >
            >I do not want some thought police in 5 years time telling me that I cannot
            >feed my turtle gambusia coz they are live, or any other permutation
            >relating to my judgement on the feeding of carnivorous reptiles.
            >cheers
            > Gavin



            _________________________________________________________________
            Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




            Green Python merchandise available at http://www.cafepress.com/rajohn1


            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          • John Fowler
            I could be wrong and I know this is not the case in some other states, but in South Australia the RSPCA does not seem to be active in opposing the keeping of
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 1, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              I could be wrong and I know this is not the case in some other states, but
              in South Australia the RSPCA does not seem to be active in opposing the
              keeping of native animals.

              Here they seem to "stick to what they know best"

              Regards

              John Fowler

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Weir, Stephen (DET, Lucas Heights) [mailto:stephen.weir@...]
              Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 2:06 PM
              To: 'australianherps@yahoogroups.com'
              Subject: RE: [australianherps] Re: RE: RSPCA debate

              John,

              I think the RSPCA does do some good, in spite of my spray the other day.
              Most of this good concerns domesticated animals, and this is where the RSPCA
              should concentrate it's efforts. Stick to what they know best, as it's
              easier to spot a malnourished horse than to "know" the psychological state
              of a captive lizard.
            • rrnabors
              The RSPCA is not a conservation group, their prime objective is (or should be) to stop cruelty to animals ... Here in lyes the problem. Define cruelty to
              Message 6 of 10 , Sep 2, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                "The RSPCA is not a conservation group, their prime objective is (or
                should be) to stop cruelty to animals"...

                Here in lyes the problem. Define "cruelty to animals". The common
                definition is the keeping of an animal in a way that endangers the
                well being or health of an animal. Cruelty in other peoples eyes is
                the keeping of a bird in a cage, or a fish in an aquarium, or a snake
                in a cage. The issue of keeping animals in a caged environment for
                personal pleasure or entertainment dates back years. It's an issue
                that will always be debated. I am, and always will be a keeper/lover
                of animals. My animals are kept in the best of conditions, provided
                the best of foods, and generally lead a healthier safer life than
                they would in their natural environment.

                The issue with the RSPCA is caused by an organisation, that was
                started with the best of intentions, spreading it's wealth and
                limited knowledge into fields without proper research and guidance.
                Their policies aren't based on the views of the general animal
                keeper/lover...they're based on beliefs and limited knowledge of
                their governing body, and the influence of a select few. People
                regularly make large donations to the RSPCA when they see the great
                good they do for the starving horse, dog, or cat kept by ignorant
                people spread all over the media. These donations were made to help
                the RSPCA rehabilitate those animals, pay for the officers who
                investigate the reported cruelty, and pay for the advertising they
                need in order to maintain their high profile. Yes...they do do a lot
                of good, but in more recent years they have over stepped their
                authority and entered fields of animal keeping that are/should be
                governed by the very people that we get our keepers licenses from.
                I'm licensed by the NSW NPWS...my license is governed and controlled
                by them...not the RSPCA. I can only hope that the beurocrats, that
                get caught up in the fancy web that the RSPCA attempts to weave, can
                keep faith in their rightful native fauna/flora governing body...the
                NPWS...and not be influenced by inflated egos, over emphasised
                stories, and a footage of animal cruelty cases that really only apply
                to a select few keepers.

                I support the RSPCA in targeting and penalising keepers who neglect
                their animals, I support the prosecution of those people IF
                warranted. I support the "protection against cruelty to animals"
                aspect of the groups very name. I don't however support a group that
                seeks to take away my right to keep native animals legally.

                If I want a dog or cat, I'll go to the RSPCA. If I find someone
                neglecting their animals to the point the animals very existance is
                in question, I'll call the RSPCA. BUT If I want to keep reptiles I
                ask that the RSPCA keep their noses out of my business. I'll answer
                to, and prove my ability to keep native animals to the very people
                who gave me the license and right to keep them in the first place!! I
                ask that the NPWS, politicions, and other governing bodies keep their
                chins up...have a look at the people keeping native animals, inspect
                their facilities on occasion, you'll see the greatlove most of us
                have in keeping native animals...you'll see the benefit we can, and
                do, serve in protecting them.

                enough woffle for now,
                Ron


                --- In australianherps@y..., "John Fowler" <rajohn1@a...> wrote:
                > Hi,
                >
                > The RSPCA is not a conservation group, their prime objective is (or
                should
                > be) to stop cruelty to animals, whether they be cats or reptiles.
                >
                > I think that most people including reptile keepers are opposed to
                cruelty to
                > animals.
                >
                > I agree that maybe some of their actions may be counter productive
                and
                > perhaps misguided, however at least people have someone to call if
                they find
                > unwanted or injured animals.
                >
                > Regards
                >
                > John Fowler
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: John Deutscher [mailto:extatosoma@h...]
                > Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:28 PM
                > To: australianherps@y...
                > Subject: [australianherps] Re: RE: RSPCA debate
                >
                > John Fowler,
                >
                > what good does the RSPCA do? I can't see them doing enough to be
                worthy of
                > mention and certainly they do a hell of a lot more harm than good.
                >
                > Any organisation with the best interests of animals in mind with
                people with
                > a third of a brain at the helm would want to strongly oppose the
                keeping of
                > most of the animals the RSPCA strongly advocates and would strongly
                > encourage the keeping of most of the animals the RSPCA wants to
                BAN. Go to
                > the RSPCA, it's a haven for stray cats which they are trying to re
                house so
                > that they can go and eat the birds, reptiles etc in peoples'
                gardens and the
                > area around their houses, and they want to ban the keeping of any
                of those
                > native animals because they think it's cruel!
                >
                > I don't know if they're genuinely trying to do good but are so
                insanely
                > stupid/ill informed that they do a terrible job or if they are just
                > maintaining an organisation for its own sake by trying to appeal to
                > uninformed cat/dog/other fuzzy animal keepers/lovers by keeping up
                an animal
                > welfare facade.
                >
                > Keep in mind that if they have their way they will ban the keeping
                of any
                > natives (I have spoken to people of the RSPCA who have indicated
                this to be
                > part of their written policy, although if you look it up it is very
                vague
                > for some reason) and advocate cats, mice, rats etc with no
                ecological value,
                > no potential for adding to our knowledge of biology and serious
                ecological
                > problems, not to mention the problems associated with isolating
                people from
                > natives and therefore keeping people from appreciating them and
                desiring to
                > conserve them.
                >
                > Wiping out biodiversity is a terrible thing as we all know but for
                some
                > strange reason, the RSPCA continues to be a very popular "charity"
                despite
                > the fact that their actions harm biodiversity. It's a great shame
                that
                > people who support the RSPCA do so while being oblivious to the
                fact that
                > they are harming something they deeply care about.
                >
                > Please ponder what I have written and feel free to question the
                RSPCA on
                > their policies and let them know what you think.
                >
                > -John Deutscher
                >
                > >Hi,
                > >
                > >It would be interesting to hear what the RSPCA think about feeding
                live
                > >fish, (and maybe crickets or mealworms) to other animals.
                > >
                > >Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't fishermen, use live bait such
                as fish
                > >and
                > >hermit crabs?
                > >
                > >Don't they put a hook through the live animal?
                > >
                > >That sounds worse than feeding a mouse to a snake?
                > >
                > >On the other hand my personal feelings are that dead food should
                be the
                > >normal accepted way of feeding pet snakes, unless the snake will
                not take
                > >dead food.
                > >
                > >And what about all those pet cats, some of which catch mice, birds
                and
                > >reptiles then just play with them until they are dead?
                > >
                > >Note that the RSPCA do a lot of good: - I wonder if the problem
                lies with
                > >the Victorian and the UK branches policies or perhaps with a few
                powerful
                > >people in those societies, rather than the RSPCA as a whole.
                > >
                > >
                > >Regards
                > >
                > >John Fowler
                > >
                > >I do not want some thought police in 5 years time telling me that
                I cannot
                > >feed my turtle gambusia coz they are live, or any other permutation
                > >relating to my judgement on the feeding of carnivorous reptiles.
                > >cheers
                > > Gavin
                >
                >
                >
                > _________________________________________________________________
                > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
                http://messenger.msn.com
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Green Python merchandise available at
                http://www.cafepress.com/rajohn1
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              • Emma
                I agree John the RSPCA isn t opposing it but they aren t doing anything about it either. I am part of a rescue group for native animals and we get a lot of
                Message 7 of 10 , Sep 2, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  I agree John the RSPCA isn't opposing it but they aren't doing anything
                  about it either. I am part of a rescue group for native animals and we get
                  a lot of calls from the RSPCA because they "do not handle natives". The
                  majority of natives, whether they are marsupial or reptilian, are passed on
                  without an RSPCA officer even seeing the animal, or asking about it. After
                  10 years of dealing with them I have come to know that they are out here to
                  deal with domesticated animals only and issue such as the mouse one comes
                  under this as mice/rats fall under domesticated not native. Unfortunately
                  the general public (like I was) is under the impression that the word
                  ANIMAL in their name means ALL/ANY/EVERY/WILD and/or DOMESTICATED
                  animal..... it doesn't.
                  Don't get me wrong I'm not getting at them as they do good things.... I
                  just wish they would extend their policies to cover the animals native to
                  their country so that we can regulate all the cruelty that is common place
                  and known about but ignored.

                  One thing that you may consider... and this is directed at all you people
                  with vast experience in reptiles.... is to put you name on the list that
                  the RSPCA keeps so that you can help as well. The more people that help
                  the more they are less likely to pick on petty issues and get down to
                  helping the animals that need it. The longer you are on their list the
                  more they listen when you see something cruel to any animal. If the NPWS
                  keep pushing to have native animals as pets like they are doing, it won't
                  be long before you see them being put up for adoption as commonplace as
                  cats and dogs.


                  And on a livelier note I want to know why they aren't jumping up and down
                  when I feed live crickets and roaches to my animals!!! : )


                  Regards,
                  Emma





                  >I could be wrong and I know this is not the case in some other states, but
                  >in South Australia the RSPCA does not seem to be active in opposing the
                  >keeping of native animals.
                  >
                  >Here they seem to "stick to what they know best"
                  >
                  >Regards
                  >
                  >John Fowler
                  >
                  >-----Original Message-----
                  >From: Weir, Stephen (DET, Lucas Heights) [mailto:stephen.weir@...]
                  >Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 2:06 PM
                  >To: 'australianherps@yahoogroups.com'
                  >Subject: RE: [australianherps] Re: RE: RSPCA debate
                  >
                  >John,
                  >
                  >I think the RSPCA does do some good, in spite of my spray the other day.
                  >Most of this good concerns domesticated animals, and this is where the RSPCA
                  >should concentrate it's efforts. Stick to what they know best, as it's
                  >easier to spot a malnourished horse than to "know" the psychological state
                  >of a captive lizard.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.