Yes, yes and yes again ! Exactly how it should be !

This is one of the reasons why I think a blanket set of rules is not necessary. Like many breeders who breed rarely I can have a much stricter criteria than possibly a rescue will. I simply do not sell puppies to homes with young children. My purchasers are all experienced dog owners, generally in my breed or very similar, so will have the necessary set up to keep a dog happily to old age. This is established when meeting them and chatting informally about their history with the breed. At the interviews at my house their is amble opportunity to establish their attitutude to dog hairs

Clearly they are not dependent on these palty "donations" or they would be out of business.
As it is a donation perhaps people could be asked if they still wish to donate it but it is the incentive side of the issue that concerns me.

I wanted to give you some more very recently [ you`ll know for which thread I`m sure ] but I have to spread some around again first

From the time I posted the relevent links to the fast time you responded, what a shame you did`nt bother to read the details on them [ if you even clicked on the links at all, but if you did there certainly was`nt time for you to read the info on those cases, not even O`Niell in Stargate with the super-human making armband could have read that fast... ].

All I can say is that its a good job those of us who do adopt are less concerned with how much money is in our pockets than with the expensive medical care of the dogs in rescue which our donations go toward...

And yes, they do depend on these adoption donations, they are on a shoestring as it is, they desperately need every penny given whether from adoptions or a collecting pot on a street corner.

Spend a day volunteering at a rescue Hewey, just one day, ask how much each dogs care has cost be it food, heating, routine neuter, chipping, de-fleaing, worming, other medical need, transport to pick them up, taxes on premises, other running expenses, heck just the daily phone bill !
I really do feel a reality check on the costs incurred by rescues is needed

And yet one of the main issues people have is that this or that rescue would not let them adopt because they have young children and a rescue they approached may have had a blanket ban of `no children` instead of considering them on an individual basis for an individual dog so they went to a breeder instead who was`nt bothered about them having children...

well said Patch.

I did not read all that because I think it has nothing to do with my point which is the incentives that could be created for certain rescues perhaps in not giving refunds. I appreciate you have your costs to cover, as reputable breeders do, but that is not the issue. The thread is looking at whether there are policies that some have that would improve homing success if adopted by others.
Edited to add. Don't forget if you follow my policy of deducting costs your rescue would not be out of pocket only lacking in a bit of extra gain.

What are you suggesting? That we should accept people that we think are unsuitable because someone else will give them a dog. I will always attempt to explain to people why I think their particular lifestyle is not suitable at this point in time, and I think some people do listen, but as you know some people will never accept this and will go elsewhere, which is why I believe we will always have irresponsible breeders and puppy farmers unfortunately but I do not feel me letting them have one of mine is the answer!

If you had bothered to read the links you would have seen it is entirely relevent
Please Hewey, take the blinkers off.
All may be rosy in your world as far as being a breeder goes but there is a very big, bad, and extremely expensive other world - rescue - which you seem to be choosing not to see