A couple of question for you, AnneUK :smt001 What do you do to counter the rescues that are really just dog dealers, buying in stock and selling on?
Secondly, do you give people their "donation" back if the adoption fails for whatever reason? If a puppy was to be returned to me I state in my contract to do so, minus any out of pocket exspences, readvertising for instance. I understand many rescue do not do this and it strikes me that this is, in fact, rather an incentive to be a little, shall we shall, careless. For instance I know of a young labrador that was given, for a £100 "donation", to a woman with severe arthritis and both lower arms in splints! Consequently the adoption failed and the dog was rehomed with some friends of mine for another "donation" of £100, the original "donation" being trousered
I'm afraid this all reminds me of that old tale of the farmer who sells his dog repeatedly but it is trained to always return home :smt001
So personally, giving the money back is one policy I would like all rescues to adopt in order to get in line with responsible breeders.

I have`nt personally bought any dogs from any rescues.
I`ve freely given donations and thats exactly what they are - donations, not a `purchase` price.

I did know of one [ now closed down ] `rescue` which made a pretty penny from boomerang dogs, not placing dogs in appropriate situations almost so they would be returned so the same thing could over and over with a new donation every time :smt075
They were`nt in business for very long once it became known what they were doing.

No one is disputing that there are complete shysters who will use desperate situation dogs in that way, its one of the seedy sides of human nature in some people

I cant help but wonder though, why would someone with a condition which could clearly be problematic in handling a strong breed of dog even adopt one in the first place ?
I doubt wherever the Lab came from literally forced the dog on the lady...
Did she not meet the dog prior to adoption to make sure she could manage him/her physically given her arm problems..........

I don't know Patch, I only know her history from what the rescue told my friends. The rescue did not seem to think it was out of order People can be a bit daft but I would say it would be up to the rescue to redirect her thoughts to something more managable. I know that is what I would do as a breeder if I received inappropriate enquiries. But it is the issue of non returnable "donations" that troubles me most. Is this the norm? Can others see the issues inherit in this?

Anne, are you saying (sorry I haven't read through the whole thread) that people should not breed at all? Or that breeders should be made to carry out homechecks etc?

Whilst I think homechecks can be useful, I don't see they are totally beneficial. I would imagine meeting the whole family and talking to them about past dogs/expectatiosns/training classes they have lined up/vets they have lined up would be more useful. I also don't think a set interview is beneficial as it can be too rigid.

I am glad I was being a numpty about pedigree and purebreeds, but i do think when talking about dogs in rescue it is vital that we are accurate. It is one thing to say there are a lot of purebreeds but another to say there are mainly pedigrees I for one would really like to see some stats (not just from you Anne) that show the percentages across the country. I suspect the vast majority of dogs in recue are from byb, reputable breeders are just that...reputable...because they do checks and follow ups.

Just for the record, my opinion is that breeders should be licenced and any pups put on a national register so they are traceable...a bit like car registrations (except with microchips)if the dog changes hands it has to be re registered..if a dog is found without a chip...massive fines etc...9sorry slightly off topic but thought it was important on a thread like this to establish where I am coming from).

Now there's an idea I'd happily go along with I like it.

Debs

So let me get this right you think rescues should give any donations back!? They have a dog come in more often than not which will need speying, vax, worming, at the very least, a lot come in with medical problems which can and do run into thousands (hence being dumped in the first place), they keep the dog for however long to assess, train, feed etc etc and you think they're all in it to make money because they dont give a mere £100 pound back and are actually out to con the public into having the wrong dog so that they will bounce and then they can get yet another £100 to go in their holiday fund?

it has been said that most dogs are sent to rescue centres because the owner cannot handle them, they are unruley, too hyper etc

this problem could become less of a big factor if breeders carry out checks into the family that they go into - the same as rescue centres

i also think (slightly off topic) to make this problem less, all people who intend to breed from a bitch should be licensed - people who have to be licensed should be more willing to make sure their pups go to good homes, chekc the homes out etc so these problems should become less

As a breeder I incur expences and do not wish to be out of pocket but I have I desire to make a profit either by selling the same dog twice. My contract states that the returning owner will receive all monies received when sold again less my expences to readvertise and reasonable feeding costs etc for the period back with me. Can't rescue work on the same basis, maybe some do I don't know. In the case of my friends dog she came more or less directly from the first adopter.

Well said Patch, I concur

I have nothing but respect for Kruse, we've exchanged many PMs over the few years I've known him and he's nothing but straightforward and a "good egg".

Sorry it's probably a bit late to add this as the discussion has thankfully moved on, but I just wanted to "say"



Wys
x