### PLEASE NOTE THIRD COMMENT BY FENRIS WOLF. And my comment even Fenris doesnt go far enough.

. The RSPCA are running a criminal racket, underwritten by state power. http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/channels/Policy%20&%20politics/Article/1102537/RSPCA-planschange-its-approach-campaigning/

RSPCA plans change in its approach to campaigning

By Sophie Hudson, Third Sector Online, 4 November 2011

QuickTime and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

Justine Pannett, senior campaigns manager at the RSPCA Animal welfare charity will undertake more research in advance of campaigns after finding that its current messages are not getting through The RSPCA will carry out more pre-campaign research with members of the public because its behaviourchange messages are increasingly "falling on deaf ears". Justine Pannett, senior campaigns manager at the RSPCA, said the charity had decided to carry out more research into why people behave in certain ways before launching a campaign. She told Third Sector the charity felt its campaigns that aimed to influence peoples behaviour on issues such as looking after their pets or rehoming dogs were increasingly "falling on deaf ears". "We have success in the short term but no long-term behavioural change," she said. The RSPCA, Pannett said, had looked at models of campaigning used by organisations such as the Department of Health. "Its about taking a bottom-up approach understanding our audience and the barriers that prevent people from changing their behaviour," she said. "The research will help us identify the right point at which to intervene or the right way to help people." Pannett said it was very easy for charities to make assumptions about how people should behave and to want to educate them. "But without understanding why people behave in the way they do, its very difficult to intervene in an appropriate way," she said. "I think well see more charities taking this approach." But she warned this could increase the cost of campaigning and said that the RSPCA had had to invest more money in "audience insight" over the past 12 months. "Its not cheap to be undertaking this insight work, but the benefits will pay off in the long term," she said. END

COMMENTS Helen Llewellyn, 4 November 2011, 11:11

This sounds like a good idea. I hope that it will mean that the RSPCA can then focus its attention on animal cruelty, education on the implications of pets and refrain from "saving" wildlife. Whilst I am all for wild animals being put down to prevent further misery, I dont agree with putting foxes with three legs in an enclosure. That isn't a life for a wild animal. If this happens I may consider donating.

Jeanette Harley, 4 November 2011, 12:38

They need to improve their communication and response times to people advising them of sick and injured animals.

I called about an injured bird of prey in a small wood by my house. I said if they called me when they got to the wood I would show them where the birds was. They came out to find the bird 48 hours after the call and didn't call me to offer assistance but instead wandered around the wood aimlessly looking for the bird (my neighbour spoke to them). I could have saved them a trip as the bird had gone 24 hours after I called them. Waste of time, money and resources.

Fenris Wolf, 4 November 2011, 13:33 The real problem is that the RSPCA's messages are increasingly extreme and unconnected with normal life. Who wants to support the bolt-gunning to death of dogs by an organisation that prosecuted a policeman for putting a dying cat out of its misery? Who wants so support an organisation that is continually criticised for intimidating and prosecuting vulnerable people, the elderly, the disabled, children instead of helping? Who wants to support an organisation that prosecutes local rescues doing the job the RSPCA should be doing (did you know that the RSPCA no longer takes stray or owner surrendered animals?) when they start to damage RSPCA fund collection? You only have to look at what happened to Pat Seager. Who wants to support an organisation that has been ( and despite their claims of opposing the Dangerous Dogs Act are still) running round identifying dogs as 'pit bull type' resulting in dogs, even pure bred staffies, being slung in stark kennels, sometimes for years and even dying before their owners (who don't get any legal aid to fight the case) manage to get a court hearing that releases the dogs? And who wants to support an organisation that wants to ban virtually every kind of humananimal interaction? If the RSPCA wants people to support its message then it needs to give a message that is supportable.