• 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.

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

Bob

Banned
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!
 
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
 
Tamsin said:
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?
 
Bob said:
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
 
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?
 
Tamsin said:
Bob said:
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?
 
bunnyhuggger said:
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
bunnyhuggger said:
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!
 
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
 
Tamsin said:
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.
 
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
 
Bob said:
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.
 
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??.
 
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.
 
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
 
Tamsin said:
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.
 
Bob said:
Tamsin said:
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!!!
 
Back
Top