In the past week I spoke to various people who have expressed their concerns at the cost of adopting animals from the SPCA. Then today this article turns up in my in box.
In view of the work that I have been doing with animal welfare I now see what is occurring. This is a course of events which it appears the spca are on
1. ensure all animals are neutered
2. close down puppy farms
3. adopt a no kill policy
4. claim poverty due to over loading of animals
5. Sell animals at a high price which includes de sexing and microchiping.
6. By on selling the animals there is the ability to maintain an ownership register.
7. By being able to identify the animal and the owner prosecutions will be more prevalent and successful.. they don’t have to prove much forgetting to feed the animal for breakfast will be enough.
8. The funds from the prosecution are payable to the spca ( section 171 animal welfare act ) The animal can also be surrendered to the SPCA.. giving more ” stock”
9. Therefore more funds higher wages for the CEOs. And those at the top.
Never lose sight of the fact that the SPCA is a business.
Anticorruptionnz's Blog 
The Auckland SPCA euthanises far more animals than it adopts out. Unlike breeders it also only adopts out animals in 100% good health. For dogs, the fee payable (around $200-$250 from memory) covers all inoculations, microchipping, Council registration and two-month vet insurance. These cost have to be met by someone and it is perfectly reasonable for the SPCA to expect a new owner to pay these costs. Who else do you think should pay them?
The alternative is for a would-be pet owner to visit a pet shop and pay $1000-$1500 for a designer dog, and still have to pay all the registration, microchipping and de-sexing costs on top of that. A neighbour last week took her two cats to a local vet to have their teeth scaled – the bill was $1800, which puts the fees the SPCA charges, into perspective.
If someone wants a dog but refuses to pay $250 to fulfill the legal requirements of microchipping and registration, then it is reasonable to assume that money will always be at the forefront of their thinking when it comes to the animal’s on-going care so it is probably better that such people do not have responsibility for an animal at all.
Comment by Jayne — 11/01/2011 @ 11:29 am
Yes but the charitable purpose of the SPCA should not be lost sight of. They have millions of dollars donated to them so that they can adopt animals out . Now that the volunteers are being replaced with employees brings about change .. In the end there are more people benefiting from the charitable purpose of the SPCA than animals. It is a charity .
Comment by anticorruptionnz — 11/01/2011 @ 11:42 am
A charity is not required to bankrupt itself out of existence to prove it’s a charity.
Even charities like “food banks” where food is freely donated to them, have ongoing running costs that they can not opt out of (wages, rent, vehicles, utilities, etc).
There is no doubt the SPCA made a questionable decision when hiring a new non-NZ based CEO a couple of years ago and leased a new VW car for him as some outrageous monthly sum. That was just plain dumb and the subsequent employment dispute with the unsuccessful candidate probably cost it dearly by way of reduced legacies and donations.
Comment by Jayne — 11/01/2011 @ 1:23 pm
If every Charity was to act responsibly with the money they obtained by way of donation and from the public purse we would all be better off. There is unfortunately no accountability for those who raid a charities coffers I will post more on that shortly.
Comment by anticorruptionnz — 11/01/2011 @ 2:42 pm