Animal Charities Taking Preemptive Action Face Criticism.
Why do we turn against those attempting to assist animals?
Battery farms with battery chickens, cruelty to chickens and hens Pro-active charities such as PETA and the RSPCA address animal cruelty issues head-on and focus their resources and attention on them.
Organisations and groups defending animal exploitation and cruelty issues are increasingly targeting charities focusing on animal abuse as part of a campaign to maintain status quo practices. Targeted charities include those whose aims or actions become an interference with people’s leisure pursuits such as sports or hobbies.
Proactive charities typically invest large sums in politics, prosecuting cruelty cases, crusading for change and education campaigns and even direct action, sometimes drawing criticism and condemnation from critics who accuse them of spending too much money on these activities instead of saving individual dogs and cats even though these can result in long-term improvements that benefit multiple animals at once.
As one would expect, animal welfare organisations such as RSPCA in the UK and around the world, Humane Societies of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), etc are often the target of attacks by those who feel their livelihood or pastime is threatened by their campaigns; yet few criticise charities like Dogs Trust, PDSA or Blue Cross due to our confused concept of animal welfare and where our money should be best spent.
Should it be spent prosecuting animal cruelty and addressing issues like hunting, the fur trade, intensive farming methods and unnecessary vivisection? Or should it go toward subsidising irresponsible pet owners and providing state of the art facilities to house homeless animals?
Anything goes when it comes to portraying them as villains.
The RSPCA has long been blamed for overstepping its remit of “prevent cruelty by all lawful means, promote kindness, and ease animal suffering”. They have come under criticism due to perceived overstepping with biased investigative documentaries, spurious news reports and hate websites which often feature extreme content or profane remarks aimed against their services around the world. Simply search any search engine with “hate RSPCA” to uncover sites criticising them; many written by misinformed individuals but even legal professionals themselves have participated in fanning fears by whipping up doubt and spreading misinformation against their organization.
Some UK lawyers appear to be on a crusade to diminish animal cruelty prosecutions in the UK. Some lawyers advertise themselves as specialist defense lawyers against the RSPCA and publish misinformation to cloud the issue further. At least one firm posts very extreme and sensationalist viewpoints against it on their website; one even depicts a bloodstained RSPCA sign as evidence that it has taken over investigating and prosecuting animal cruelty allegations in Britain while accusing its inspectors of dressing in police-like uniforms in order to deceive the public.