• expired

RSPCA QLD - All Cats and Dogs (over 4 Months) $50 to Adopt in April


Copy paste from RSPCA QLD Facebook

Tap, tap… Have you heard? No, the bird is not the word – it’s CATS and DOGS! RSPCA Queensland shelters are FULL and we’re reaching out for you to help us spread the word! Know a friend looking to adopt an animal? Tag them here :D.

All RSPCA cats and dogs (over 4 months) are just $50 to adopt in April! To view our pets available to adopt visit our website, http://www.rspcaqld.org.au/adopt and drop by your local RSPCA.

Sadly ALL of our RSPCA shelters across Queensland are FULL and we need to help find more homes for animals in our care so we can continue to help incoming pets.

Here’s a crazy stat for you, across our RSPCA Queensland shelters we are currently caring for 1,568 cats and 812 dogs! So as you can see, we’re doing all we can to help these pets - but need your support to spread the word far and wide about adopting a pet from the RSPCA.

🚗 We also have our Pet Delifurry service available in South East Queensland where we can bring an RSPCA pet TO YOU! Find out more here and apply: www.rspcaqld.org.au/adopt/delifurry-service.

PLUS find us at various Mini Pop Up Adoption events too: www.rspcaqld.org.au/news-and-events/events/mini-pop-ups

Related Stores


closed Comments

  • +8 votes

    Great post - even if you don't have room for a pet, consider volunteering to walk them once or twice a week - its only an hour or two of your time and you will meet some of the nicest people on earth there and they never have enough volunteers


      Any details on this volunteering walking?

    • +5 votes

      He has a point. Think of how many animals that actually have a chance for a normal life, could be saved with that $3000. As long as it's done humanly, ie. not in a bin!

    • +6 votes

      I have no problem if somebody wants to spend thousands of dollars on their pet. But this pet doesn't belong to anybody - it's a few weeks old.

      The RSPCA shouldn't be using its limited funds (especially this enormous amount) on helping 1 single animal. As paintoad mentioned, the dollars spent on this one animal could help tens of other animals.


        It's a publicity stunt specifically after that disgusting human did that act to a helpless dependant animal. I don't think them saying they can save an animal for twenty bucks has the same shock effect that the hungry jacks story did, which in turn leads to more donations.


    Come on Hervey Bay + Maryborough can you match this so furbabies can get themselves into a loving home???


    Apols for the slightly off topic question, but this is a genuine question: given that the RSPCA has limited resources, when they have a surplus of animals (Eg cats or dogs) they tend to give them away like this. But if there are no takers and there is an ever increasing number of animals in their care, and if they just can't cope with the sheer numbers, do they reluctantly have to put any of them down (even though they might be quite healthy)?


      Yes, they will put the animal down. I remember looking for our lost cat once and the person said that if these cats don't get pick up shortly, we will have to put them down.

      Always adopt


        Well you probably dont want to know the stats, but yes, if theyre not rehomed, they are put down.
        And to be honest, the numbers are quite high.

        Last year, they put down about 6700 dogs, and 17 000 cats.

        But the good news is, people are learning, and the numbers are going down. ie in 2010, it was shockingly 20k dogs and 37k cats.

        So where possible, adopt.

  • +1 vote

    This needs to happen nationally

    • +12 votes

      What would you have the RSPCA otherwise do with its limited funding?

      It's not the RSPCA's fault that this situation exists. Irresponsible, naive people are the reason the RSPCA floats on a growing tide of homeless animals. Emotionally I can understand it's horrific an animal is put down simply because it's not wanted, but the RSPCA can only do so much when the general population don't care.

      • -6 votes

        I would have the RSPCA separated from the pound. I am not donating money to kill animals. End of story.

        • +4 votes

          If they had more money they wouldn't need to put them down…



          Yes perhaps if they had 100x the money. My measly donation won't make a difference. That's not how the real world works at all.

          How much does it cost to feed and house a dog for 8-14 years vs the cost of a single injection of poison and another of a sleeping drug?

          You can't improve a bad system by just throwing more dollars at it.



          Using the argument of limited funding is no excuse when there are many no kill shelters that fund themselves just fine without the hype and marketing that rspca get.

        • +1 vote


          In part you're making your point for me. The mistake you are making is that those no kill shelters do not have to do animal control. They get to select which animals they take. I'd donate to them. I would not donate to RSPCA.



          I'm struggling to see your alternative scenario. Where do the pets from the pound that no-one wants go, if not the RSPCA? The best option seems to be that they go to an organisation that at least makes a genuine attempt to give them a life. Otherwise, would you have them euthanised after a few days by the pound?



          The RSPCA is suppose to be about the protection and care of animals as per their name. The PCA does not stand for "prolific culling of animals". A different organisation tasked with the gruesome act of disposal should exist. Pragmatically, I realize it's inevitable that some animals will need to be put down. But I have no intention of contributing to that. The RSPCA could either refuse animals to begin with (which means that some animals that could be saved won't be), or hand them over to animal control only when it had to (more workable). I don't see what's so hard for you to understand.

        • +2 votes


          It's clear that if the RSPCA didn't take the pets from council pounds they would have to be euthanised by the pounds themselves with little or no prospect of rehoming. Tens of thousands - literally - more pets would die. And considering that realistically many would have to be euthanised under any arrangement, I'd prefer that the most compassionate organisation do it. One that genuinely cares but recognises that in some cases there's no other alternative. Would you expect another organisation whose sole task was to destroy animals to do it humanely? I certainly wouldn't.

          I don't care where you put your money, but the situation you describe would seem to result in more pets dying and in a less humane fashion. That's what I don't understand.



          Well I would prefer not to fund the animal control organisation with donations. There is no such thing as compassionately putting down a healthy animal. Sure it can be done with respect for the animal - the least possible pain - but you still are not caring for the animal. Anyone tasked with that job is an executioner with all the mental health issues that go with that role.

          The situation I describe would not result in more pets dying. The RSPCA would probably get more donations if it wasn't killing animals. They would hand over animals to animal control only when they could no longer house them.

  • +1 vote

    Hmm.. I was just reading this news. Some humans are pathetic.


    • +7 votes

      If someone cant afford $50 to buy a dog / cat, then they shouldnt own one in the first place. A bag of dog food costs at least that.
      Most likely the animal will be just returned.
      This is after the rspca go and tag it, worm it, desex it.
      Giving it for free is a waste of tax payers money.

  • +2 votes

    Wish this was nationwide, great deal and initiative.


    Will RSPCA in other states price match??


      Is that a serious question? Surely you're joking?