Sorry I may have got the name wrong, if you weren't so secretive about the details
The picture of the dog you posted was not adopted from a rescue that posts on dp. From what I understand a very reputable rescue posted the dog on dp on behalf of a small private rescue. They no longer post for this rescue as they are not reputable.

You have made out that you adopted this dog from a reputable rescue that posts on dp, this is simpily not true.

Anne, they telling you fibbies!! I was contacted by a so-called reputable rescue that still advertises on DP who told me this dog was available for rehoming. I was asked no questions, nothing, just given a phone number for the rescue (Which seems to be the one you are saying is not reputable) which was responsible for the rehoming of this dog. I collected the dog a day or so later and a cheque was posted to this rescue the day after that, no follow up, no questions, either from the rescue or the person from DP. I was told the dog was 5/6yrs, the owner said 9yrs and the rescue knew that. I was told he was vacced, neutered and chipped. He was neutered but NOT vacced and NOT chipped. He was matted up to the eyeballs and his nails were in a terrible curled over condition. The owner said she was ONLY rehoming the dog through said rescue, and the person on DP said she knew the rescue very well.

Are you saying the person who still advertises on DP is involved with the very reason you started this thread? NOT carrying out the correct checks as a reputable rescue would? and furthermore is supporting was you have now said is NOT a reputable rescue? Thats all I want to know.

Ahhh the truth at last :smt001

The rescue that posts on dp just pointed a dog out to you that they knew was available for rehoming, at the time they thought this was reputable rescue that was rehoming this dog, they have since found out they're not so therefore no longer recommend them or give details of the dogs they have available for rehoming.
The dog you got was a private rehome, not adopted form a reputable rescue.

Anne, youre not answering the question! Ill ask you again. Do you think the rescue supposedly reputable carried out the checks you have started this thread about? Lets face it she willingly gave me details of a dog knowing what I use mine for, knowing what the dog was likely to be doing. Do you feel its ok to do this then, is that what you are saying? She seemed very "in" with this rescue after all it was her that gave me all the info on the dog in the first place NOT the rescue!

I think I know what you are saying though, its ok for her to tell me about the dog, but perhaps NOT inform the rescue what she knew about me working my dogs, because it wasnt her rescue, so she wasnt directly responsible, yes?

Ahh you edited your post!!!! NORTY!!

Dawn this rescue who pointed out the dog did not know you from adam! The rescues on there including ourselves do not read all the posts on there esp by members of the public, nor do we remember who posts what on the posts we do read. There is a section on there for people looking to adopt dogs, we ourselves often point out dogs to these people without knowing nothing about them or their situation, as we know full well when they contact the rescue that's when the interview process will start.

Unfortunately a reputable rescue pointed a dog out to you thinking the dog was under the care of a reputable rescue, they have since found this is not a reputable rescue and no longer point out any of their dogs. It's wasn't the job of the rescue, who pointed this dog out, to start questioning you and checking your suitability, that is the job of the rescue who is rehoming the dog. It turns out this dog certainly wasn't under the care of a reputable rescue (unbeknown by the rescue who 1st pointed him out) the dog was the privately rehomed direct from the owner.

Oh but Anne, she did know me from Adam, she did indeedy!
It was her I had more contact with rather than the rescue! in fact I telephoned the rescue just once to say I had got the dog having been given the number, and once for the address to send the cheque to. It was her (on DP) I sent pics too etc.. of the dog after I got him. I see you are trying to defend her as she clearly wasnt concerned about the dog possibly working, neither was the rescue, but she did without a doubt know I posted on DP, was pro hunting etc.. and worked my dogs! and she without doubt told none of this to the rescue, (although I did) and I also told the dogs then owner.

Thats how it was Anne, whatever they told you, I swear it was.

I raised the point because these "checks" you speak of are clearly ignored at times, even those you yourself see as "reputable" dont do things how they say they do every time.

added.
I accept that the person from DP now may know the rescue is not a reputable one, and does not help on their behalf.

Hi All - let's please keep things amicable

Thanks

We are Amicable!!

Dawn if what your saying is true I am truly shocked I really am, I suppose I will never know for sure as it is their word against yours, I have to say though I know of them better than I know yourself so are inclined to believe them.

Back on topic...The point of this thread wasn't for people to think that Every rescue carries out, Every single one of those checks, All of the time, we certainly don't, no rescue could or should, policies have to be flexible. What I was asking is should breeders carryout the same checks as most reputable rescues. If people don't like the idea of asking for vet ref letters or proof of training, what about most reputable breeders asking for letters from council/landlords/housing and doing follow up checks, and neutering although that's been started on another thread.