There has been an outcry in the press about the delays in dealing with the animal welfare situation in Hyde Heath near Amersham (horses, ponies and donkeys).

The Buckinghamshire/Beaconsfield Advertiser and Buckinghamshire/Amersham Examiner have published, on their 'Newsdesk' page, an item by Sarika Sharma (17th January 2008):

Tim Was, a regional superintendent at the RSPCA, said: "We did not have the power to remove animals earlier"

But ......

Is the RSPCA only concerned with 'powers' and with 'removal of animals'. Is there a danger of preoccupation with prosecution?

Could nothing have been done in situ? If all the media coverage is to be believed (and I'm sure that arguments will be put up to the contrary and there will almost certainly be a court case to establish the rights and wrongs), a great deal of suffering could have been avoided by more timely intervention and help for the animals. Anyway, we are told that tests confirm that the dead horses died of emaciation (i.e. starvation). Such a death is not a rapid process. Should animal welfare not be the proper emphasis and the ultimate aim?

Why not take a look at www.alternativevet.org , while you're here?