• Forum/Server Upgrade If you are reading this you have made it to the upgraded forum. Posts made on the old forum after 26th October 2023 have not been transfered. Everything else should be here. If you find any issues please let us know.

RWAF launches a rescue fund

RosRWAF

RosRWAF

Warren Scout
The RWAF has long supported the work of rescue centres and by the start of 2011 we had already raised over £12,000 which has been donated to UKrescues. We also support rescues by providing our educational leaflets free of charge and maintain a list of rescue centres. We are also currently undertaking a rescue survey where we hope to update the well known figure of 35,000 rabbits through rescue each year, which we think is very out of date now.

We are now pleased to announce the launch of the RWAF Rescue Fund, where we hope to make a difference to both rescue centres and rabbit owners, and of course most importantly, our favourite animals, rabbits themselves. For details of how we can help and to find out whether you or your rescue are eligable for help, please look at our website

http://www.houserabbit.co.uk/?section=rescue.html

We plan to highlight some of the rabbits that we have helped and may be looking for homes, so please do keep rescue centres in mind if you are thinking of getting a friend for your rabbit or adding rabbits to your family for the first time.

If you believe that a hutch is not enough then join the club!
http://www.rabbitwelfare.co.uk/catalog/index.php?cPath=3
 
If it did come from PAH, I hope it's put to use to discourage people buying from Pet Shops. Something good might as well come from the adoption scheme. I would encourage any rescue to take whatever money they can get from PAH.
 
Yes, as stated on our website (from the link in my message above), it is from the Support Adoption fund from Pets at Home.

A lot of multi-species charities and rescues have already benefited from the Support Adoption scheme, and given that RWAF is the champion of rabbit welfare, we felt it was time that rabbits benefited specifically, and that it should make a positive impact on their welfare.

Since the RWAF Rescue Fund's launch 2 days ago, it is already making a real and practical difference as we have already agreed funding to help 30 rabbits, split between 5 rescues and 1 rabbit owner. The sooner rescues can neuter and vaccinate rabbits and get them rehomed, the more space they'll have for more rabbits. Likewise, with individual owners neutering and vaccinating their existing rabbits so a partner can be adopted, again more spaces become available in rescues.
 
"Since the RWAF Rescue Fund's launch 2 days ago, it is already making a real and practical difference as we have already agreed funding to help 30 rabbits, split between 5 rescues and 1 rabbit owner. The sooner rescues can neuter and vaccinate rabbits and get them rehomed, the more space they'll have for more rabbits. Likewise, with individual owners neutering and vaccinating their existing rabbits so a partner can be adopted, again more spaces become available in rescues. "

But if Pets at Home stopped selling rabbits in the first place the pressure would reduce overnight. No brainer. In the MMC survey of rescues 60% of those given up came from pet stores
 
Last edited:
The Duchess said:
"Since the RWAF Rescue Fund's launch 2 days ago, it is already making a real and practical difference as we have already agreed funding to help 30 rabbits, split between 5 rescues and 1 rabbit owner. The sooner rescues can neuter and vaccinate rabbits and get them rehomed, the more space they'll have for more rabbits. Likewise, with individual owners neutering and vaccinating their existing rabbits so a partner can be adopted, again more spaces become available in rescues. "

But if Pets at Home stopped selling rabbits in the first place the pressure would reduce overnight. No brainer. In the MMC survey of rescues 60% of those given up came from pet stores
Click to expand...

I bet the rwa didnt make that suggestion before/during/after discussions about tge dobation. 10k is a drop in the ocean to p@h.
 
Have the RWAF asked PAH to at least stop selling livestock in December?
No point in a company that continually adds to the problem , dishing out small ( to them ) amounts to others, who give up their time voluntarily to try to stop the flow of unwanted animals coming from the same source as the handout :?
Ridiculous.
 
honeybunny said:
Have the RWAF asked PAH to at least stop selling livestock in December?
No point in a company that continually adds to the problem , dishing out small ( to them ) amounts to others, who give up their time voluntarily to try to stop the flow of unwanted animals coming from the same source as the handout :?
Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Exactly. 10k is a drop in the ocean to PAH. To me sounds like a fob ooff to make them look good to the public. The rwa to me are condoning the sale of livestock by taking funds that no doubt some of which comes from the sale of rabbits.

I find it very ill conceived. Disappointed.
 
Firstly, wanted to point out, given that the RWAF started this thread but may not have seen this other one, that not everyone disagrees with this entirely:
http://forums.rabbitrehome.org.uk/showthread.php?321096-RWAF-Benevolent-Fund

I'd be interested to hear what other people who have worked or do work in the voluntary sector think about this, as it's quite usual for charities, just to have to keep going and provide services, to accept donations from companies relevant to their area of work whose practices aren't wholly in line with the charity's principles, e.g. doorstep lenders, manufacturers of junk food. (We're not going as far as, say arms dealers here.) Not to mention relying on assistance from government who may be creating problems with one hand and giving grants with the other. Is it better to stick rigidly and obsessively to principles and be able to do virtually nothing?

The very nature of most corporate business is such that it doesn't behave entirely ethically unless compelled by law. It seems better if some of their profits go towards ameliorating the system than none at all. Similar to what Hugo's There mentioned in the other thread, it means the charity is at least engaging the attention of the company and encouraging incremental improvements in practices, rather than risking being classed as a hostile & extreme pressure group, with less chance of its message being taken seriously.
 
Last edited:
Vita said:
Firstly, wanted to point out, given that the RWAF started this thread but may not have seen this other one, that not everyone disagrees with this entirely:
http://forums.rabbitrehome.org.uk/showthread.php?321096-RWAF-Benevolent-Fund

I'd be interested to hear what other people who have or do work in the voluntary sector think about this, as it's quite usual for charities, just to have to keep going and provide services, to accept donations from companies whose practices aren't wholly in line with their principles, e.g. doorstep lenders, manufacturers of junk food. Not to mention relying on assistance from government who may be creating problems with one hand and giving grants with the other. Is it better to stick rigidly and obsessively to principles and be able to do virtually nothing?

The very nature of most corporate business is such that it doesn't behave entirely ethically unless compelled by law. It seems better if some of their profits go towards ameliorating the system than none at all. Similar to what Hugo's There mentioned in the other thread, it means the charity is at least engaging the attention of the company and encouraging incremental improvements in practices, rather than risking being classed as a hostile & extreme pressure group, with less chance of its message being taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Thats why we asked the question, "Did the RWA ask P@H to stop selling rabbits in December at least?"
 
Perhaps it would put them in a difficult position to answer, or maybe they'll be able to respond.

But considering what you can realistically ask of a business - whilst this isn't quite at the core operating level of asking a doorstep lender if they can charge 5% interest per annum - quite some planning ahead would be needed for that, as they will have existing contracts with breeders to supply animals throughout the year, and they would have to amend them with some notice.

I'd guess that the presence of live animals massively increases footfall in P@H stores and so they would probably be very reluctant to stop having them at a time when business is tight for most companies unless there were some legal compulsion. In the longer term, I wonder if they would pilot keeping a pet zoo instead, with a permanent population of animals who can be visited, but aren't for sale. But for now their competitors are selling live animals, so it would seem more realistic to press P@H, as the biggest retailer of its kind, for the animals to be kept in better conditions, to give better education to owners, be vigilant not to sell pets to people who imply they can't look after them properly, and for them to make larger rabbit hutches and cages available, even if that is, for the moment, alongside ones which are too small.

Perhaps the rabbit housing regulations in a couple of years will require so much space that it becomes impractical for them to keep rabbits, but that will still leave other animals, like the pair of poor skinny miserable fighting chinchillas I saw there last month.
 
GrahamL said:
Sounds like double standards to me.

Lets make life better for rabbits!

Lets take money from the people that cause the problem!

Yay....
Click to expand...

Hi, I always have a lot of respect for you and read what you have to say with interest but I am afraid that I respectfully disagree with what your saying here.

Should the people who cause or contribute to the problem not be made somewhat responsible for sorting it out? Other people are also commenting that sorting it fully is not an over night solution and as has also been said, £10k is a drop in the ocean. But I must say that even in the last 3 years that I have been involved with buns and witness the P@H debate, things have improved enormously, agreed still not enough but I do feel like we are getting somewhere. I do agree, it is too slow but its happening.

Everytime I go near a P@H, I go in purely to see how the buns are being kept and that they have enough hay, water etc. In the begining, I used to have to ask frequently for the buns to be given hay.

Now, they always have it, whichever branch it is. The signs are different about having pairs, amount of space etc.

I also feel very strongly indeed about the plight of buns and help out a rescues etc, one of the drivers for me moving house was so I could give my 6 an even better quality of life too but I do agree that we will only change things by a consistent, methodical approach.

In the meantime, lets take as much money as we can from anywhere we can get it to help ease the burden.

Much respect

Angela
 
Bungle bunny said:
Hi, I always have a lot of respect for you and read what you have to say with interest but I am afraid that I respectfully disagree with what your saying here.

Should the people who cause or contribute to the problem not be made somewhat responsible for sorting it out? Other people are also commenting that sorting it fully is not an over night solution and as has also been said, £10k is a drop in the ocean. But I must say that even in the last 3 years that I have been involved with buns and witness the P@H debate, things have improved enormously, agreed still not enough but I do feel like we are getting somewhere. I do agree, it is too slow but its happening.

Everytime I go near a P@H, I go in purely to see how the buns are being kept and that they have enough hay, water etc. In the begining, I used to have to ask frequently for the buns to be given hay.

Now, they always have it, whichever branch it is. The signs are different about having pairs, amount of space etc.

I also feel very strongly indeed about the plight of buns and help out a rescues etc, one of the drivers for me moving house was so I could give my 6 an even better quality of life too but I do agree that we will only change things by a consistent, methodical approach.

In the meantime, lets take as much money as we can from anywhere we can get it to help ease the burden.

Much respect

Angela
Click to expand...

Absolutely!


Don't accept donation--> P@H continues as before, possibly less open to rabbit welfare messages because the RWAF is unengaged and possibly viewed as obstinate; charity gets less funding. Sounds like a lose-lose situation.

But how about a levy/ tax on pet shops and breeders with proceeds earmarked for rescues? Nice idea, but it's hardly likely to happen in this economic and political climate. So why not accept a corporate donation on a similar principle?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

InspectorMorse
  • Sticky
Important Message From the RWAF Re ‘Conscious Dentals’
Replies
2
Views
309
InspectorMorse
InspectorMorse
C
Attempting to find a companion..
2
Replies
28
Views
630
ColPer
C
bubbleblue
introducing a new bun to a bonded pair?
Replies
3
Views
110
joey&boo
joey&boo
Back
Top