Day 405: For the Love of Animals - or Money?

The new ‘fat cat’ boss of the RSPCA is being paid up to 45 per cent more than his predecessor, figures revealed yesterday.
Gavin Grant was accused of ‘brazen greed’ at a time when the animal charity’s income from donations is falling.
Figures also showed the RSPCA is spending less on animal welfare, but more on prosecuting people for alleged cruelty.
Mr Grant, a former public relations executive and lifelong Liberal Democrat who is credited with helping Nick Clegg become party leader, began as RSPCA chief executive in January 2012.
At the time, the charity refused to disclose his pay package, but yesterday its annual report revealed the figure to be between £150,000 and £160,000. The RSPCA still would not state his exact earnings.
His predecessor, Mark Watts, earned £110,000 to £120,000, meaning Mr Grant is raking in between £30,000 and £50,000 more – a rise of between 25 per cent and 45 per cent.
Two other unidentified bosses are earning up to £150,000 and £130,000. This is believed to be the first time pay has risen above £120,000 at the RSPCA.
Anne Kasica, a campaigner who runs the Self-Help Group, an organisation for animal owners ‘experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA’, said: ‘Even we were taken aback by the brazen greed which this represents.
‘Whoever all these highly-paid executives are, this is outrageous. Donations intended to help lost, sick and suffering animals have been, and are being, used to pay at least three people vastly more than last year.’
Fellow campaigner Ernest Vine said: ‘The dwindling number of people who still do without, in order to put money in RSPCA collecting tins, will be horrified at the way their sacrifices are being used.’ - Mail Online

When you donate to a charity, you expect that your donation will actually go toward the actual cause that you are donating to. Most people don't realise how incredibly high the salaries are for the exec's of big welfare/charity organisations. Here are some figures: &

Well, those salaries seem a bit excessive. Charities are assumed to be headed by dedicated people who are doing what they are passionate about and not doing it for the money. So that assumption just got busted.

So what the hell is the point of charities anyway? They make some small, individual differences, but they consistently fail to make any real, substantial and lasting changes. Consider the RSPCA, an organisation that is present in multiple countries that has been around for years and years - has it decreased animal abuse? No. Animal abuse actually seems to be increasing in regularity and level of brutality. Consider the Rhino protection organisations (pretty popular in South Africa at the moment): have any of them managed to stop Rhino poaching? No. Rhino poaching has only gotten more out of hand.

But then how could these charities make any real difference without understanding the actual cause of these problems? Animal cruelty is not going to stop because of criminal charges being brought against offenders, because this doesn't address the reason why people are abusing animals in the first place. Charities like the RSPCA are doomed to be chasing ghosts  forever- sure, they'll save a few animals along the way, but sadly only a tiny percentage of the animals who suffer in the world.

So what is the point of charities if they don't actually make substantial differences? Hmmm. Maybe so that people can earn lots of money while seeming to be "good people"? But then that's only one percent of the charity - can't be that, can it? Maybe so that people can feel good when they donate to a cause? Possible, especially since the act of giving money is not supported by any real knowledge of what is actually done with the money.

Charities are clearly not a solution. On top of that they are being used as money laundering operations for greedy people, but this time turning legitimate, "good" funds into exploitations.