Defending MRCTAL?

I have to write something to defend MRCTAL, though it is becoming extremely difficult the more I read.

That organisation has taken a position that it is the leading animal welfare organisation in the country and spends hundreds of thousands of donated pounds reinforcing this view.

They seem to have a rather enthusiastic use of euthanasia for the animals it collects and this in part I believe is because it has allowed itself, in its own words to become the last point of help. Which of course they are not. They want everyone to think that so they get more and more money. Take the case of those ten GSDs - there is a well established GSD rescue that would have been willing to help. They may not have been able to save the dogs but I am sure they would not simply have turned up, written the dogs off and then shot them all.

As anyone in animal welfare will know you will try and help wherever you can, taking in as many animals as you physically and financially can. But, as a charity you have to also ensure you remain solvent and this means ensuring that decisions on charitable activities have to be balanced with the money coming in.

Therefore, as a rescue organisation you have to set limits, and this inevitably means lists of some kind or another. Essentially these are waiting lists, lists for dogs to come in, or people who need financial help with neutering, and so on. The point is there has to be a point at which you have to say no, or at the very least, not yet. It is difficult, can causes arguments, but ensures you can deliver an ongoing service and not simply sink under the burden of charitable activities as the funds dry up.

MRCTAL may still use the no or not yet point, but it seems that if it is destroying so many animals that it is not using no or not yet point enough. They may say in reply that to say no or not yet would undermine its position as the last place people can go to for help. Yet they are not legally bound to take in every animal that they are aware of, simply to do what they can. There are hundreds, probably thousands of small organisations that can help.

Then again, the fact that so many animals are killed every year can also be a vote winner. Such a figure may convince people to donate more and more because of course if MRCTAL had more money they wouldn't need to destroy so many animals. Or would they? Surely they would argue the destruction is necessary due to the state the animal was in? If that is the case then the number of killed would not change if they had more money? If more money would save some of those animals killed then that it is an admission that those animals have been needlessly killed.

This is increasingly not becoming a defence of MRCTAL!

That is why we have a non-destruction policy. We will of course accept veterinary advice for dogs in suffering and beyond help, but thus far, in a short and very small history we have not had to do that. Dogs Trust show that in a very very big way you can save dogs, keep them alive and not have to kill in the many thousands.