How do I report animal cruelty? Expand If you witness an act of animal cruelty, please call the RSPCA WA’s cruelty hotline on 1300 278 358. You can also complete an online report here. We ask you to provide as much information as possible, but rest assured, your details will remain confidential.
Who is RSPCA WA? Expand The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Western Australia (RSPCA WA) is a non-government, community based charity that works to prevent cruelty to animals by actively promoting their care and protection. We are a registered company limited by guarantee, and we're registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC). You can find out more about us here, including what we do, our history and links to our annual reports.
What are RSPCA WA's goals? Expand Vision A world where animals and people live together with dignity, respect, and compassion. MissionWe improve the lives of animals through care and evidence-based welfare advancements that change attitudes, behaviours, practices, and laws. Our work is guided by the Five Domains for Animals.
Why is RSPCA not a vegetarian or vegan organisation? Expand The RSPCA respects freedom of choice and diversity. Our key mission is to improve the lives of animals through care and evidence-based welfare advancements that change attitudes, behaviours, practices, and laws. We aspire to educate and raise awareness on issues such as inhumane killing of livestock, responsible pet ownership, ethical consumer choices, etc. and we strive to collaborate with a wide range of stakeholders to achieve this. While the farming of animals for food and fibre continues, the RSPCA seeks to ensure that the conditions under which those animals live meet their physical and behavioural needs. The RSPCA believes we can help improve how farm animals are treated by getting involved in the process and constantly pushing for higher production standards along the supply chain. We do this at government, industry and producer level. The RSPCA encourages people who do consume meat, eggs, milk and other animal products to make a higher welfare choice, and to help them do this the RSPCA aims to ensure that higher welfare alternatives are readily available on the supermarket shelf.
What is RSPCA’s position on halal? Expand In Australia, the national standard for meat production requires that all animals must be effectively stunned prior to slaughter. The vast majority of halal slaughter in Australia (including at export abattoirs) complies with this standard, that is, all animals are stunned prior to slaughter. RSPCA is strongly opposed to all forms of slaughter that do not involve prior stunning of the animal. RSPCA Knowledgebase - What is Halal slaughter in Australia?
Why does the RSPCA WA euthanise animals? Expand Our main concern is always for the welfare of animals in our care, and their quality of life. Sadly, many of the animals who come in to RSPCA WA’s care are coming in as a result of a cruelty complaint. This means, they are often suffering from medical conditions, which require treatment from a veterinarian, or behaviour issues—often as a result of neglect and lack of appropriate socialisation. RSPCA WA vets have to make some very difficult and sad decisions regarding some of the animals who come into our care. Euthanasia is always a last resort, and considered only once every reasonable effort has been made to treat an animal’s medical condition or behavioural concern. Where an animal’s quality of life is compromised to the point that their suffering or distress can no longer be alleviated, or if they have demonstrated that they pose a significant risk to themselves, or other animals or people if released into the community, the most humane course of action might be euthanasia. Decisions around euthanasia are never made lightly. A panel of staff members meets regularly to discuss the animals in care, and to address any concerns about a particular animal’s health or behaviour. In some cases, an external specialist will be consulted as part of the decision-making process to ensure that all reasonable courses of action have been considered. RSPCA WA staff and volunteers work with these animals every day, trying to help them recover from their ordeals. Having to make the difficult decision about ending an animal’s life has an emotional impact on everyone at RSPCA WA. For many of the animals whose lives end with us, our staff and volunteers may be the only people who’ve ever really shown them love and compassion.
How is RSPCA WA funded? Expand RSPCA WA is a non-government, community-based charity. We rely on the generous support of the community to survive. About 80 per cent of the funding we need to carry out our animal protection work comes from the community. Less than 20 per cent of our funding is provided by a grant from the State Government. The government funding we do receive is allocated to cover a portion of the costs of enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 and education on companion animals. We are so thankful to the generous and caring individuals and organisations who donate so we can continue helping animals through caring for animals in our shelter, rehabilitation and finding new homes for them, keeping Inspectors on the road responding to cruelty reports, foster care and volunteer programs, and community education to continue to improve the lives of all animals, great and small. Read about our impact on animal welfare.
Why doesn't RSPCA push for harsher penalties in prosecution cases? Expand RSPCA WA Inspectorate is authorised to protect animals from cruelty and neglect by enforcing the existing law within the framework of the Animal Welfare Act 2002. The role of the RSPCA is to bring these cases to court for consideration by a magistrate. As with any crime, it is the judicial system that decides the penalty they believe is suitable for the crime, based upon the facts presented. The maximum penalties for animal cruelty, prescribed under Section 19 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 in WA include a maximum jail sentence of five years and a maximum fine of $50,000. The magistrate may also order an offender to reimburse legal, veterinary care or other costs, and may also apply a prohibition from owning, being in control of, or having any contact with animals for a period of time. Read the Animal Welfare Act 2002
What should I do if I see a dog in a hot car? Expand We encourage you to attempt to get the owner back to the car as quickly as possible (i.e. in a shopping centre get centre management to page the owner of the vehicle noting the registration number) to let the animal out. If this is not possible, please contact RSPCA WA on 1300 278 358 or the Police on 131 444. Alternatively, you can call the local Ranger. If the dog is visibly distressed, stay with the vehicle and monitor the dog until help arrives. Dogs in Hot Cars
Where can I find out what RSPCA's position is on certain animal welfare issues? Expand RSPCA Australia’s Knowledge Base is an informative online resource that contains a wealth of information on a wide range of animal welfare related topics and issues. Visit the RSPCA Knowledge Base
Why don’t you name and shame? Expand Stories about animal cruelty prosecutions provoke some of the most emotive reactions we see on our social media channels. And many people ask why we don’t ‘name and shame’ the people who are convicted of animal cruelty offences. There’s generally no legal impediment to RSPCA WA including names in articles about convicted animal cruelty offenders. We choose not to. And while there are many reasons behind this choice, they are all motivated by compassion, respect for the courts, and the knowledge that animal cruelty cases are rarely black and white. The punishment for people convicted of animal cruelty is decided by the court. We respect the magistrate's decision. There is no place in a compassionate, professional organisation for us to have the attitude that we need to add to that punishment by facilitating public shaming. And we don't ever want to encourage or facilitate vigilantism. There are many other reasons that inform our policy of not 'naming and shaming' animal cruelty offenders. You can find out more by reading this article.
FAQ's about Western Australia’s greyhound racing industry Expand Why are people against greyhound racing? Too many dogs are bred The greyhound industry breeds more dogs than there are homes or tracks for. Not every dog is fast enough to race, and not all dogs are successfully rehomed post-racing, creating a persistent oversupply. Data from the past 10 years by Racing and Wagering WA shows that even in the best years, nearly a quarter of greyhounds never make it to the track — and in the worst years, almost 40% fail to do so. While there is a re-homing program funded the State Government, around 33% of ex-racing greyhounds are rehomed through community programs. Crucially, these programs are funded entirely by volunteers and local groups, not the racing industry, placing a heavy financial and logistical burden on the very communities trying to care for these dogs. Dogs are injured and sometimes killed while racing Greyhounds race at high speeds, often in close groups, which increases the risk of collisions and falls. This can lead to serious injuries like broken bones, and some dogs are euthanised as a result. These are not rare events — they happen regularly enough to be a major welfare concern. It’s hard to get the full picture of what happens to every dog There isn’t a complete, publicly accessible system that tracks every greyhound from birth through to death. Data that is available is often limited or not independently verified, making it difficult to understand the true scale of injuries, deaths, and long-term outcomes. The same organisation promotes and regulates the industry In Western Australia, Racing and Wagering WA is responsible for growing the industry and overseeing welfare standards. This creates a conflict of interest — it’s difficult to independently regulate something you are also trying to promote and financially support. Don’t greyhounds love to race? I thought they were born for it. Greyhounds are naturally fast dogs, and many enjoy running. But there’s an important difference between a dog choosing to run in a safe environment and being made to race in a competitive setting. Racing involves pressure, close contact with other dogs, and a real risk of injury. So, the question isn’t whether greyhounds can run — it’s whether it’s acceptable for them to be put in situations where harm is likely. Owners and trainers say they love their dogs. Wouldn’t they look after them? Many people in the industry do care about their dogs. However, the welfare concerns are not just about individual care — they’re about how the system works overall. Greyhound racing depends on breeding large numbers of dogs and selecting only the fastest. Dogs that are injured, don’t perform, or are no longer competitive still need long-term care. Not all of these dogs end up in good outcomes, which is where the concern lies. What will happen to all the dogs if greyhound racing is banned? A transition would need to be carefully managed. This would likely include gradually reducing breeding; supporting rehoming and adoption programs; and government providing funding for care and rehabilitation. Other countries have shown that, with proper planning, most greyhounds can successfully move into homes as pets. Doesn’t the greyhound adoption program already solve the problem of what happens to ex-racers? Rehoming programs are important, but they only deal with part of the issue. They happen after dogs have already been bred and raced. They don’t prevent injuries, deaths, or the number of dogs being bred in the first place. To fully understand welfare, you have to look at the dog’s entire life — not just what happens at the end. The industry has a rehoming program known as GAP – Greyhounds as Pets and they rehome a large proportion of ex-racing greyhounds, however 33% of greyhounds no longer racing are rehomed through community programs. Crucially, these programs are funded entirely by volunteers and local groups, not the racing industry, placing a heavy financial and logistical burden on the very communities trying to care for these dogs. Isn’t it hypocritical for RSPCA WA to be against greyhound racing when every year they put down a lot more animals than the greyhound industry? The situations are very different. RSPCA WA cares for animals that are often very sick, badly injured, or unsafe to rehome. In those cases, euthanasia is sometimes the most humane option to prevent further suffering. Greyhound racing, on the other hand, is an entertainment industry. The harm happens as part of that activity — not as a last resort. RSPCA WA’s focus is on preventing avoidable harm wherever possible. What do other countries think about greyhound racing? Greyhound racing is much less common than it used to be. Around the world, it now legally operates in only a small number of countries, including Australia, Ireland and the United Kingdom. The others are the United States, where there’s only one track left, and New Zealand where it will be banned from August 2026 due to ongoing welfare concerns. Australia has more greyhound tracks than the rest of the world combined. That gives some context for where things are heading internationally — and how different Australia’s position is. Aren’t there rules and officials to protect the dogs? Yes — there are stewards, rules, and veterinarians involved in the greyhound racing industry. However, having rules does not always translate into good welfare outcomes. Evidence shows that serious injuries and deaths still occur. Also, there are significant differences in how breaches of the rules are handled: violations of the greyhound industry’s own racing rules are often treated differently from similar breaches of the Animal Welfare Act 2002. Concerns about independence also remain, since the same organisation is responsible for both promoting and regulating the industry, raising questions about accountability and impartial oversight. Greyhound racing has been around for a long time. Why change now? Many things that were once widely accepted have changed as we’ve learned more and community expectations have evolved. For example, laws around animal welfare, farming practices and the use of animals in entertainment have all shifted over time. As our understanding grows, it’s reasonable to reassess activities — especially where there is clear evidence of harm.