"Unwanted Pet rabbits, 33,000 in the year 2000"

[Bob]

I see this figure used by many sites.

It is on old statistic frequently used as a fact and comes from (IMO, and that of the charity commission) an extremely unreliable source.

I wonder why sites continue to use use such information?, does that not reduce thier credibility? I think that it does.

Is there a more reliable source for information?

Serious hat on now!

[Tamsin]

It actually came from a survey done by the Rabbit Charity. The reason we continue to use the old stats is that there are no new ones. The large rescue orgs like th RSPCA don't produce seperate statistics for rabbits they are just listed under all "small animals" and there is no org that represents rabbit rescues to collate details from the smaller places.

I've actually been contemplating sending out a survey myself in Jan to see what the 2004 stats were.

Tam

[Bob]

It actually came from a survey done by the Rabbit Charity. The reason we continue to use the old stats is that there are no new ones. The large rescue orgs like th RSPCA don't produce seperate statistics for rabbits they are just listed under all "small animals" and there is no org that represents rabbit rescues to collate details from the smaller places.

I've actually been contemplating sending out a survey myself in Jan to see what the 2004 stats were.

Tam

It would be nice to see an honest and open survey. I think that it is well overdue!.


I am not convinced as to the validity of the previous survey and do feel that anyone who cares about buns need to present a clear case based upon not only up to date evidence but also evidence that can be challenged.

Otherwise - why present it?

[Tamsin]

I am not convinced as to the validity of the previous survey and do feel that anyone who cares about buns need to present a clear case based upon not only up to date evidence but also evidence that can be challenged.

I totally agree. Any suggestions for the logistics of carrying out such a survey?

I know RR has listed 1821 rabbits in 2 years so 900/year. This must be a small fraction of the total unwanted though!

Tam

[bunnyhuggger]

The SPCA now record the following catagories - dogs, cats, rabbits, and small animals (that is excluding of course all the other types of animals they rescue). When I spoke to one of their workers, they said it had changed to this recently as they were now more 'aware' of rabbits coming into rescues. Maybe this will lead to more accurate figures in the future, say end of next year. Not sure about the RSPCA though.

How do you suggest this survey is carried out Bob? Any ideas?

[Bob]

I am not convinced as to the validity of the previous survey and do feel that anyone who cares about buns need to present a clear case based upon not only up to date evidence but also evidence that can be challenged.

I totally agree. Any suggestions for the logistics of carrying out such a survey?

I know RR has listed 1821 rabbits in 2 years so 900/year. This must be a small fraction of the total unwanted though!

Tam

What percentage of them are actually rescues or simply dumped because "you are there" Now that would be a good start!

I don't make this point nastily tams so please don;t take it that way. A good point for discussion tho?

[Bob]

The SPCA now record the following catagories - dogs, cats, rabbits, and small animals (that is excluding of course all the other types of animals they rescue). When I spoke to one of their workers, they said it had changed to this recently as they were now more 'aware' of rabbits coming into rescues. Maybe this will lead to more accurate figures in the future, say end of next year. Not sure about the RSPCA though.

How do you suggest this survey is carried out Bob? Any ideas?

Let me just go back to my origonal point as I am sure this debate will go in other directions! YOU and many others hve been using and relying upon figures that are 4 plus years old and came fom a discredited source in the first place.

That was my point.

[Tamsin]

Do you mean on RR or at rescues in general?

Atleast 1070 total were added the the site by rescue centres, the rescues don't always remember to mark themselves as such though so its probably a bit higher. The others were private individuals rehoming their pet for a variety of reasons.

Unfortunately I don't think most rescues keep records of why a rabbit was handed in, or at least not in an easily counted format.

To be honest I don't think we really rely on the figures for much, yes we quote them but mostly just as a skock tactic for members of the public. Its just a simpler way of saying that rescues are full. I can give you a list of resues that are full but thats not such a snappy one liner :D

I could do with some ideas for how/what to survey though if anyone has any?

Tam

[bunnyhuggger]

Yes I appreciate that was your point Bob and I don't disagree. I'd love to be able to refer to properly accredited statistics. So in order to get those statistics, can you or anybody else assist by suggesting methods for retrieving those figures. I would dearly love to be able to deliver factual statistics, but in the meantime I can only go on what is currently written. I have tried asking various animal welfare agencies in the past but as was stated, they 'do not record small animals separately'. If the 'over 33,000' rabbits in rescues is inaccurate, who can prove it is or isn't?

So, again how do you think we can get hold of the correct figures?

[Bob]

Yes I appreciate that was your point Bob and I don't disagree. I'd love to be able to refer to properly accredited statistics. So in order to get those statistics, can you or anybody else assist by suggesting methods for retrieving those figures. I would dearly love to be able to deliver factual statistics, but in the meantime I can only go on what is currently written. I have tried asking various animal welfare agencies in the past but as was stated, they 'do not record small animals separately'. If the 'over 33,000' rabbits in rescues is inaccurate, who can prove it is or isn't?

So, again how do you think we can get hold of the correct figures?

So why use it on your web site? Lynda that figure was actually used by you as an answer on a quizz!

[Tamsin]

Cos, I personally think that the number of rabbits is at least that and it makes people stop & think :D I've got no proof it is wrong, it was probablly accurate at the time, and I quote it with the date so why not?

Tam

[Bob]

Cos, I personally think that the number of rabbits is at least that and it makes people stop & think :D I've got no proof it is wrong, it was probablly accurate at the time, and I quote it with the date so why not?

Tam

Actually I think it is double that o perhaps only 3 % Whatever.... You are all moving into dangerous territory now and losing credebilty.

[Tamsin]

As far as I know the statement "33,000 pet rabbits were taken to rescue centres in 2000" is accurate. The same might not be true for 2004 but I'm not saying it is. I don't think using the statement means less credibility. A more up to date statement would be better but there isn't one available.

To answer your orginal questions...

I wonder why sites continue to use use such information?

Because people like figures and this is one of the only ones available. Generally people actually think figures as giving more credibility!

Is there a more reliable source for information?

Not currently, nope.

Its a good question though, it will be easier to 'prove' there is a problem if accurate, up todate figures are available along with details of how they were collected.

Tam :D

[bunnyhuggger]

So why use it on your web site? Lynda that figure was actually used by you as an answer on a quizz!

It was and still is used on my website and many others including the RWA if I remember correctly, as there are no other statistics available, if there were other statistics available I would use them.

When I first read that figure I was shocked, but I could not disprove it. As it shocked me, I use it as Tam says, 'to make people stop and think'. Let them prove the statistic is inaccurate. As I said before, I would dearly like to use accurate figures but until they are available, I will use the figure everone else uses. :D

And yes it was used as a question on the quiz sheet, and on my website, and believe it or not, quite a few answered it right by checking it out on the net. The law of supply and demand dictates.

[Adele]

Hi, I can understand what Bob is drawing to our attention.
However I would like to add that there are many variables for statistical purposes, for example, it is not just Rescues than rehome rabbits, but I know individual people working to this exact same end, and the numbers they rehome are not recorded.
I think the statistics from the Rescues are only half the picture, but at the end of the day, numbers are just numbers.
What can be safely said is that just by taking the National trend with RSPCA centres , and Rescues etc, we can see that almost all are very full. even with all the Rescues, Sanctuaries and other Institutions offering rabbits homes, there still seems to be lots of rabbits still seeking accommodation.
I think it is virtually impossible to get a complete and true picture, but a reasonable estimate at the numbers through a survey is good enough to show a realistic trend.

The 33000 figure is just a guideline, and there is nothing wrong with using those figures to give folk a base line to work from.
I wonder how many facts and figures we use in daily life are wholly inaccurate though :? .It is frustrating when the real scale of the problem cannot be easily recorded properly, I can see both sides of the coin here, and we can only use the figures available, inaccurate / or as accurate as they are??.

[Bob]

I think that you guys need to hang your head in shame. I would be walking backwards with my head lowered in shame if I were caught out like this AND still defended my position!

I am still gobsmaked that could continue and defend the use of such figures!

Ah well - each to thier own. It is your own credebility that is at stake. Make your own judgement.

[Tamsin]

Sorry, I feel absolutely no shame at all :D The statement "33,000 pet rabbits were taken to rescue centres in 2000" is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate. I just don't follow how you think its wrong to use it just because its old, lots of statistics aren't updated yearly that doesn't mean they have no value. The source of the quote is also given so any credibility or the lack of falls on the sources head.

Tam

[Bob]

Sorry, I feel absolutely no shame at all :D The statement "33,000 pet rabbits were taken to rescue centres in 2000" is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate. I just don't follow how you think its wrong to use it just because its old, lots of statistics aren't updated yearly that doesn't mean they have no value. The source of the quote is also given so any credibility or the lack of falls on the sources head.

Tam

Prove it.

[Tamsin]

Which bit?

Tam

[Bob]

Sorry, I feel absolutely no shame at all :D The statement "33,000 pet rabbits were taken to rescue centres in 2000" is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate. I just don't follow how you think its wrong to use it just because its old, lots of statistics aren't updated yearly that doesn't mean they have no value. The source of the quote is also given so any credibility or the lack of falls on the sources head.

Tam

Prove it.

What backs up these figures that you and do many use -- and expect us to believe!!!

[Adele]

Bob I do not think it is fair to ask anyone to prove these figures unless they carried out the survey themselves originally.
You need to challenge the very source of the statistics and not those who are using them.
:?

[Bob]

Which bit?

Tam

Anything!!!!!


Anything woulld be helpful. YOU publish the data YOU are responsible for providing the source.

[Bob]

Bob I do not think it is fair to ask anyone to prove these figures unless they carried out the survey themselves originally.
You need to challenge the very source of the statistics and not those who are using them.
:?

I understand that. That obligation should also be carried forward into published materials.

Back to my origonal comment!

[Bob]

I am amzed that on a site such as this I am arguing the toss about something so simple yet so obvious.

Why are people trying to wriggle out of their responsibilities?

[Bob]

Bob I do not think it is fair to ask anyone to prove these figures unless they carried out the survey themselves originally.
You need to challenge the very source of the statistics and not those who are using them.
:?

Yet they freely quote these figure as a "defacto standard" to further thier cause. Watch them run like rabbits when it does not add up!

[Tamsin]

I think you need to give me a little longer than 15 minutes to prove something like that ;)

National Rabbit Aid carried out a similar surveys prior to the Rabbit Charity one which found:

1995: 15,000
1996: 17,500
1998: 25,000

These were totals from the 170 shelters that they had on their database. The trend suggests that by 2000 33,000 rabbits would be a not unreasonable sum.

Maiwen Guard was the lady who set up NRA, you can contact her via Cotton Tails rescue if you want to confirm these details.

Does that help?

Tamsin

[bunnyhuggger]

Sorry, I feel absolutely no shame at all :D The statement "33,000 pet rabbits were taken to rescue centres in 2000" is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate. I just don't follow how you think its wrong to use it just because its old, lots of statistics aren't updated yearly that doesn't mean they have no value. The source of the quote is also given so any credibility or the lack of falls on the sources head.

Tam

Prove it.

What backs up these figures that you and do many use -- and expect us to believe!!!

You disprove it, and I'll change my website accordingly :D

[Bob]

Lynda and Tams

Well I am sorry that you have chosen to go down the path that you have chosen - seems plain daft to me.

Your argument is based upon figures that are out of date and from a
"dodgy" source. These facts you seem to agree upon.

Yet you still feel that they are valid because you cannot find antthing better?

??

And you want the public to support you with donations?

[Bob]

Sorry, I feel absolutely no shame at all :D The statement "33,000 pet rabbits were taken to rescue centres in 2000" is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate. I just don't follow how you think its wrong to use it just because its old, lots of statistics aren't updated yearly that doesn't mean they have no value. The source of the quote is also given so any credibility or the lack of falls on the sources head.

Tam

Prove it.

What backs up these figures that you and do many use -- and expect us to believe!!!

You disprove it, and I'll change my website accordingly :D

Exactly my point!!!! Publish cos it looks good. Forget if it is based upon actual facts!!! that is not important!!!

I **** 30 times a day - prove it.!

[Bob]

Sorry, I feel absolutely no shame at all :D The statement "33,000 pet rabbits were taken to rescue centres in 2000" is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate. I just don't follow how you think its wrong to use it just because its old, lots of statistics aren't updated yearly that doesn't mean they have no value. The source of the quote is also given so any credibility or the lack of falls on the sources head.

Tam

Prove it.

What backs up these figures that you and do many use -- and expect us to believe!!!

You can lie tlil the cows come home but passing wind is prohibited! EOFL

You disprove it, and I'll change my website accordingly :D

Exactly my point!!!! Publish cos it looks good. Forget if it is based upon actual facts!!! that is not important!!!

I **** 30 times a day - prove it.!

[Bob]

Sorry, I feel absolutely no shame at all :D The statement "33,000 pet rabbits were taken to rescue centres in 2000" is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate. I just don't follow how you think its wrong to use it just because its old, lots of statistics aren't updated yearly that doesn't mean they have no value. The source of the quote is also given so any credibility or the lack of falls on the sources head.

Tam

Prove it.

What backs up these figures that you and do many use -- and expect us to believe!!!

You can lie tlil the cows come home but passing wind is prohibited! EOFL

You disprove it, and I'll change my website accordingly :D

Exactly my point!!!! Publish cos it looks good. Forget if it is based upon actual facts!!! that is not important!!!

I **** 30 times a day - prove it.!

[Bob]

Sorry, I feel absolutely no shame at all :D The statement "33,000 pet rabbits were taken to rescue centres in 2000" is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate. I just don't follow how you think its wrong to use it just because its old, lots of statistics aren't updated yearly that doesn't mean they have no value. The source of the quote is also given so any credibility or the lack of falls on the sources head.

Tam

Prove it.

What backs up these figures that you and do many use -- and expect us to believe!!!

You can lie tlil the cows come home but passing wind is prohibited! EOFL

You disprove it, and I'll change my website accordingly :D

Exactly my point!!!! Publish cos it looks good. Forget if it is based upon actual facts!!! that is not important!!!

I **** 30 times a day - prove it.!

[bunnyhuggger]

Bob, you forgot to post............... and congratulations on your daily activities...............stud!

[Bob]

Bob, you forgot to post............... and congratulations on your daily activities...............stud!

I had to think about that one.......

Twas not me me but was the net! and nowt to to with stud capabilitiess LOL

[Tamsin]

Your argument is based upon figures that are out of date and from a "dodgy" source. These facts you seem to agree upon.

I don't think that the survey itself was "dodgy", finances and counting bunnies aren't really related. As far as I'm concerned the statement "33,000 pet rabbits were taken to rescue centres in 2000" is true.

The argument there are hundreds of rabbits needing help, is not soley based on those stats. In fact they are a pretty unimportant part of the arguement. There are hundreds of rabbits handed in to rescues each year, the exact count isn't that important. We ask people to help individual rabbits and rescues that need help. I can give you a list of rescue centres that are full.

I could ask around rescues and get a count to prove my point but I'd rather wait and get a count for 2004 in Jan/Feb time. Maybe we can adjourn til then?

Tam

[bunnyhuggger]

I had to think about that one.......

Twas not me me but was the net! and nowt to to with stud capabilitiess LOL :roll: walks away disillusioned..................

[kimbun's mum]

The figure of 33,000 is used by the SSPCA in their material too and I can't see them using it if they thought it was way out.

:idea: Maybe a more accurate way of assessing the true figures would be if Bob did a survey off all the rescue centres on Rabbit Rehome to find out how many buns had passed through their hands each year.

This figure could then be used as a starting point.

Either that or he could contact say 50 rehoming/rescue centres of varying sizes, find out how many rabbits they have dealt with and then take an average. He could then find out the total number of Uk centres dealing with rabbits and multiply them with the average figure.

Personally I think the 33,000 figure would be about right. Anyway as a person who used to work with polls and the like I can honestly say that no figures given out my any organisation are totally acuurate. Take the TV viewing figures for example. These figures that you see such as 10m people watched Coronation Street or whatever are based on a survey of only 300 people.

What I would like to know is why doesn't Bob turn his bed around the other way - that would save him getting up on the wrong side of it :!:

[anon101]

I think Bob’s got a point in that people ARE using out of date information.

Everywhere you go you see this 33,000 figure in your face but the majority of the time it doesn’t say it is from 2000.

It can be quite misleading as alot of people myself included thought this figure was for 2003/4

If people said this 33,000 figure is from 2000 that would at least be accurate.

But whatever way you look at it there is ABOUT 30,000 Rabbits in rescue and this is something we should be concerned about.

Louise

[Denny]

I do see everyones point about the statistics being inacurate, and yes, stating the year might help, but aquiring accurate statistics in this day and age is not going to be possible. Society is too fast today and statistics change every single day, especially where animals are concerned, we are talking the whole of the uk, it is also very time consuming for the persons who is trying to obtain this information to gain true accurate statistics, especially when these figures change the next day.

I think a figure is better than nothing because it shows that there is cause for concern regarding the amount of animals that are in rescue centres, and at the end of the day, finding a good home for any animal is a priority more than a statisitical number

[Bob]

The figure of 33,000 is used by the SSPCA in their material too and I can't see them using it if they thought it was way out.

:idea: Maybe a more accurate way of assessing the true figures would be if Bob did a survey off all the rescue centres on Rabbit Rehome to find out how many buns had passed through their hands each year.

This figure could then be used as a starting point.

Either that or he could contact say 50 rehoming/rescue centres of varying sizes, find out how many rabbits they have dealt with and then take an average. He could then find out the total number of Uk centres dealing with rabbits and multiply them with the average figure.

Personally I think the 33,000 figure would be about right. Anyway as a person who used to work with polls and the like I can honestly say that no figures given out my any organisation are totally acuurate. Take the TV viewing figures for example. These figures that you see such as 10m people watched Coronation Street or whatever are based on a survey of only 300 people.

What I would like to know is why doesn't Bob turn his bed around the other way - that would save him getting up on the wrong side of it :!:

You make two very good points! Firstly regarding conducting the survey and yes I would be prepared to carry it out over a period of time if Tams wanted me to. I would not be able to start on this in earnest for a couple of weeks because of work pressure but I think you make a very valid point.

What would people think that the questions should be?

The second point was that yes I did get ouf bed on the wrong side ROFL. I am afraid that I cannot agree with every one all of the time and would not expect it of others to agree with me. Sometimes you just got to say what you gotta say!

[Tamsin]

Thanks for the offer of help Bob, I think it would be best to do this in January time to get the 2004 figures rather than collecting 2003's figures which are already nearly a year old. That way they'll be as up to date as possible.

I have 200 rescues listed on RR but it shouldn't be too much work to do as the address labels can be printed off automatically by computer. I imagine thats not all of them but it should be a good proportion.

The trouble is with no 'official' list of rescue centres its impossible to work out exact % or survey everyone.

I made a couple of notes awhile ago on what to ask which were....

total numbers taken in
number rehomed
number pts
number of pens available
length of waiting list

Tam

[Bob]

Makes sense! The questions need to be kept simple possible. I am going to kick myself when you answer this but what does "number pts" refer to?

Good subject to start the new year off! I will try to rearrange my sleeping arrangements to suit Kimbun'smum! ;-)

[Tamsin]

pts = put to sleep (euthanised)

I agree, it need to be fairly simple and not to much for busy rescues to fill in.

I think that should give us the total taken in and what happened to them. The by pens I mean how many spaces available (I say pens because the total buns depends on whether they are in pairs or not). I know many rescues also have a waiting list so I though the current waiting list would give an idea of how many at one particular point in time.

It will certainly be interesting to read the results.

Tam

[kimbun's mum]

The second point was that yes I did get ouf bed on the wrong side ROFL. I am afraid that I cannot agree with every one all of the time and would not expect it of others to agree with me. Sometimes you just got to say what you gotta say![/quote]

Sorry but don't know how to do these funny boxy things.

Anyway Bob - you're right about saying what you feel - it's better out than in.

Hope you have a good night's sleep!!!

lol Pam, Kim & Aggie

[Bob]

The second point was that yes I did get ouf bed on the wrong side ROFL. I am afraid that I cannot agree with every one all of the time and would not expect it of others to agree with me. Sometimes you just got to say what you gotta say!

Sorry but don't know how to do these funny boxy things.

Anyway Bob - you're right about saying what you feel - it's better out than in.

Hope you have a good night's sleep!!!

lol Pam, Kim & Aggie[/quote]

Bless your little cotton socks! I can get a good nights kip tonight then!