I AM writing on behalf of the volunteers of the South Bucks branch of the RSPCA.

We are a core group of some 20 people who each year rescue, rehabilitate and rehome over 1,000 animals in the South Bucks area. Not only do we manage our "homing operation", we must also raise around £100,000 a year to fund it. We receive no money from RSPCA HQ. We are a self-sufficient group.

We carry out a home check for virtually every one of these animals to ensure that the sad, cruel and abusive start they have already had is not repeated. In order to ensure this, as best we can, policy and guidelines are set down for their benefit.

Our home checkers, all volunteers, have been trained by the national society and give enormous amounts of time freely to the cause of animal welfare. They are made aware daily of the abuse animals receive at the hands of humans and their commitment to animals is unquestionable.

We are therefore at a loss to understand why the BFP and it's sister paper, The Star, has chosen to highlight a few of the homes we do turn down each year thus giving the public a very negative impression of us. So negative in fact, that we received not a single inquiry for animal adoption during the weekend following your report.

Also, we were particularly disappointed that we were unable to comment on specific situations you highlighted in your report and therefore a balanced view was not presented to readers.

For instance Mr and Mrs Wilson were turned down purely because their garden fencing was such that a dog could easily have escaped on to a busy road, maybe caused road traffic accident and maybe someone would have been injured, or worse. Would that have been responsible on our part?

Let us also bear in mind that a percentage of our dogs are strays and are therefore used to escaping and roaming the streets. Mr and Mrs Wilson were advised that if their garden were made secure there would be no problem.

The fact that Ms Harbour was turned down by three charities for the same reason surely confirms that the policy on suitable homes for kittens is in fact the correct one. Ms Harbour was only refused a kitten, not a cat, because the special feeding and socialisation needs of kittens must be taken into account.

There are always good reasons for saying no. We are a responsible organisation, refusing about five per cent of homes at the home visit stage. We do not want our catteries and kennels full of homeless animals. It's not why we do it. Neither do we want them coming back to us again, even more traumatised after another rejection.

Many people want to adopt animals for the "wrong" reasons. These are not "loving" homes. We are the ones that see 1,000 abandoned animals a year, many from "loving" homes. We are the ones that have to look after cats brought into us with shattered hips and legs after being run over on "quiet" roads, and foot the bill if the owners then don't claim their pet.

We try incredibly hard to get it right, taking second and third opinions when unsure. There will be occasions when we get it wrong. We are not infallible, but those people who are genuine in their concern for the welfare of animals will support us when we err on the side of the animals.

Linda Rimington

Chair

South Bucks RSPCA