First of all stop twisting my words Kruse walker for example I did not say No vets would Ever charge, what I said was in my experience it hasn't yet happened, if it did we would call the vets ourselves. Why would you assume suspicion must fall on the applicant if they can’t obtain a letter of reference form a vet for genuine reasons. As for vet being in another country we would use a phone! Like I said earlier ideally people should be dealt with on an individual basis.

assumptions assumptions, again like I said earlier policies imo shouldn’t be set in stone, policies with no leeway can be damaging to the rescue and the dogs. i.e no kids under a certain age Ever, no owners working fulltime Ever, Won’t home to flats Ever…….etc etc

Of course not, I find it strange that you would assume so, again like I said earlier Homevisits tend to take longer than obtaining a letter of ref or enrolling in a course of training/booking a home trainer. Of course not every single person has to provided a reference letter from their vet in some cases it’s impossible, Of course not every single owner has to attended training classes, obviously there are many already experienced owners out there. Those that do ihave to attend training if not able to enrol straight away, can book a future course, if not able to get a receipt they provide the rescue with the contact details of the trainer. Those who have adopted from the rescue before won’t necessarily need a pre home visit, those who are known well by the rescue won’t always need a post homevisit.

The list I gave in my original posts I explained were examples of checks carried out by most reputable rescues.

You seem to be very narrow minded and see policies set in stone. There really is no need to be so defensive maybe this is because you yourself don’t carryout these checks? I think maybe you would understand if you tried to look at it with an open mind. Although I am wondering why for someone who’s job it is to rehome dogs is so against the idea or rescues doing their utmost to insure their dogs go to perfect home even if it means carrying out additional checks.
I'm happy to defend our policies but I won't mention other rescues names when they're not here to correct your assumptions. btw some of the other rescues you've mentioned aren't what you would class as reputable rescues. Also all the rescues that are members of the ADCH aren't all classed as reputable rescues, one springs very clearly to my mind.

I dont think so because we werent aloud to rescue a dog from the humane society because we are a military family. They wont allow military to adopt. The only way that we could get another dog was from a breeder. I mean Im not saying that I want all breeders to be leanant (sp?) but...

Errr Ok Anne, if you wish to keep misreading posts and other such deflection techniques to avoid answering fair questions....
You will note they were questions, hence the questions marks at the end of many sentences.
And that i began my post with the big caveat:
For example, i think you will find that was *my* point and question to you

Of course, if you had chosen to answer the 15 or so questions when they were repeatedly asked, then we wouldnt have been at cross purposes in the first place.

But i see you have now answered some questions - thank you for that, but why make it so hard????
, If you have time answer the other remaining questions, I would be grateful.

Thank you, by the way, offering details regarding your homechecking, children, owner at work policies, etc.
Although these werent the issues i was questioning, I applaud the flexibility you share with many rescues here, including my own, which is a good thing.

Of course! My rescue does not insist upon letters from a vet in addition to in-house rescue assessment, introductions, and homechecks...we *may* ask for this letter *instead* of a homecheck.
Not do we ask for dog trainer letters. Athough we dont ask for them to provide details of training classes, we just provide them ourselves And we even watched and assessed the classes ourselves! and made friends with some of the trainers whom also come up to FOAL Farm to help with things sometimes. I organised much of this personally.

By the way, I wasnt the manager, and have now moved to Denmark.

Naturally, we are content with all of this, so have nothing to defend, but again, this discussion is about your 2 specific policies....
I am also quite happy we are in the good company of most good rescues, and the ADCH list of standards...however....
Now we have established all of the above, and that it is your assertion that it is standard practice with good rescues to apply these 2 specific policies, then please do feel free to list them.....

....according to you ..........

Your questions were ridiculous to be honest, however I answered them stating the obvious

Again! I did not say all reputable rescues carried out all of these checks, like I said they were examples of checks most reputable rescues carryout,
Off the top of my head other rescues who also ask for vet refs, letters fom council,landlord and/or insist on training;

The Mayhew Animal Home
A number of the RSPCA branches
A number of the Dogs Trust branches
Teckles Animal Sanctuary
HWAR
WAW
Rescue Remedies
Lizzies Barn
Four Paws
Helping Hounds

to name a few.....

One of the rescues who is a member of ADCH is well known to not be a reputable rescue, so no it's not just according to me. Again you make assumptions assuming all members of the ADCH are reputable rescues.

I have slowly ploughed through this and tried to read each and every opinion.
What immediately springs to mind is how unbalanced this thread is and yet again one sided.
It's yet another typical rescues are wonderful and breeders are awful.
You have pulled no punches in the past Anne that you hate breeders and have no time for them. You term reputable rescues but make no reference to or acknowledge the fact there are a lot of very reputable breeders around too. There have been a lot of posts on here saying that so called reputable rescues do not always follow through on their own policies and my family and friends alone who have adopted dogs from the main Dog Trust centre in the country have found they do not follow through on their so called policies. My brother for example lives 5 miles from the centre, adopted a GSD. There was no home check, a photo was requested of the garden. With all due respect he could taken a picture of any garden. He was asked to have the dog spayed, he did so but no after checks have been made on this matter or the dog. Their excuse is they have no resource for home checking in the area.
You ask for one person (a reputable breeder) to carry out all these checks alone, if they don't they are not reputable, however if a rescue doesn't do it they can fall back on the excuse they don't have enough resources.
You say if you can't homecheck then you will only rehome in that area. That's great, geographically you are in a large catchment area. What about those rescues that are in a small rescue area which don't have the support you do. Are they not reputable because just now and then, they go on their instinct and rehome outside the area?
In answer to your original OP, personally speaking, yes I do think you should home check as much as possible, and I personally would take any dog back, whatever reason, if I didn't have the capacity I wouldn't breed to start with.
With regards to home checks, especially post home checks, their are no guarantees, unless you home checked that dog for the rest of it's life which I've never heard happen. Rescues can no more be sure that a dog they adopted out is still with the owners than a breeder can.
You said before in a post, if a dog comes in and it has papers you won't contact the breeder of the dog as you don't want it being sold again. That's using your bias of breeders and not giving the breeder the chance to take responsibility for the dog that they bred.
I think this post was just posted to just yet again have another go at breeders. If this was not the case, why do you not acknowledge there are many reputable breeders out there who do all the checks your rescue does too? After all your OP refers to reputable rescues and reputable breeders. I have previously worked at a rescue and have a huge respect for the work that they do. They do the best they can with the facilities that they can. You talk of breeders making money. How can the two be compared, a rescue can fundraise and raise cash. They make money on the dogs they rehome, yes they don't sell them, they ask for a donation which has to be paid. Now I fully appreciate the money goes back into the rescue along with fundraised money, sponsorship etc. So they raise money to pay for their overheads and costs. So money is still raised on the back of the dogs. Yet a reputable breeder is slated for selling a pup and recouping their costs and overheads. For doing the best for their dog and litter.

This was a post about reputable rescues and reputable breeders, it wasn't a post about bad breeders or bad rescues. Like I said earlier if someone wants to start a thread about bad rescues, or rescues not following through go ahead.


That's great, I would have hoped more people would have felt the same.

Post home checks are extremely valuable probably the most valuable check as you get to see the dog in his/her own environment.

Your wrong I said I did contact breeders, I always do to try and educate them.

Not at all, I asked the question does anyone know of a breeder that carries out these checks,only got one person that said they did, so assume nobody else here does or knows a breeder that does. I personally think all breeders should do these checks as a matter of policy, I also think all rescues should. Again you'll notice I said most reputable rescues not all rescues as I know myself too well that their are dodgy rescues out there just like I know there are BYBs. Btw not all rescues fundraise of have the time and facilities to do so.

I knew it was a lie the dog was a private rehome via a small private rescue in wales, he was not adopted from a reputable rescue.

No lie, I went through the rescue, Anne, so did the cheque! Are you saying you agree with me then that the so called reputable rescue person on that forum is NOT reputable after all? and what they say on the forum does NOT equate to their rehoming policies in real life?

I know for a fact the rescue you claim to have adopted the dog from is not the rescue the dog was adopted from. The dog was a private rehome via a small private rescue in Wales, who don't post on dp. A reputable rescue did post Dylan on dp on behalf of this small rescue but no longer do so as they realised they aren't a proper rescue. Dylan was a private rehome not adopted from a reputable rescue who posts on dp like you made out.

Dylan? who is that Anne? I think you have the wrong dog!

I advertised on DP saying I wanted a dog having seen similar advertised, a dog named Dylan may be the one you are referring to, but it isnt the dog I got! I was contacted by a rescue who said they had a dog waiting to come in and without any checks whatsoever they told me where the dog was and that I could have him if I wanted him, they knew who I was and what I used my dogs for! The owner of this dog told me they wanted the right home for him and that this particular rescue was the ONLY rescue that was rehoming him and that he would be in his home untill the time a suitable home was found.

Some rescue 'eh? all that spouting (the person that told me about the dog who DOES posts on DP) just here's a dog, go get him!

I take it that you DO agree that this person on DP and the rescue (however big or small) is NOT one of the reputable ones you are speaking of?