sorry anne missed this, to be honest yes it is only a small part of it, I have been lucky all of my first litter went to family and friends the second litter five were accounted for pre birth, tegan was scanned with four and had 11 but I didnt feel the need to rush them into homes and most left around 11/12 weeks a few before, but most are localish except beau who is in caithness, I do worrie about him, but I know he is just fine deep down, I prefer people over 40 to be honest unless I know them or they are close by, I would be nervy giving to young married couples if they lived miles away, but my opinion is when you breed you and you alone are responsible from birth to death, I would love to see a breeders micro chip introduced so if any dog lands in kennels the breeder can be contacted to be honest I would hate to think of any of my lot in kennels, it would be great for the good breeders and a kick up the ass for the bad ones, eh,

They are never going to have exactly the same policies not least because the need for any particular one is purely subjective and this is born out by the fact that reputable rescues do not appear to recognise each as equally essential. What matters is the end result and responsible breeders will use what they have found effective in the same way as reputable rescues.

Actually, most websites i have read are very detailed about their procedures and generally cover everything they do.
OK, if we do take the ADCH list of checks as 'minimal standards', then I am still confused.
Are you now saying that the vet ref *in addition* to a homecheck plus proof of placement of dog training are formal policy standard for most good rescues (such as those already mentioned on their websites), or are you saying it is an extra that most good rescues will apply as they see fit according to the individual they are dealing with, meaning that they are not formal policy standards, which is why they arent mentioned on the websites?
Similar to the other examples you mention, like proof of address or photos of previous dogs.

Interestingly, I dont feel that meeting all members of the family falls into the 'discretionary extra' catergory. I think that is something that ALL good rescues should do ALL the time, and have noticed that many do this as a 'standard formal policy', thus it is mentioned on many of their websites.
At FOAL Farm, this included meeting any non nuclear family household residents...cousins, lodgers, live in staff, even regular visitors if a dog had certain problems.
I think that is just good common sense, and the vast majority of applicants have gladly supported that measure.
I know some rescues that dont do this - i also know of some
rescues that even let the applicant go off and walk the dog themselves, without any staff supervision or assessment.
Personally, i feel this would be irresponsible for breeders or rescues...also potentially dangerous.

FOAL Farm has asked for refs from vets/dog wardens/other rescues, but only if a homecheck wasnt physically possible. FOAL wouldn't do both, as they have thorough interviews, assessments, and pre and post homechecks, so think that getting extra refs is duplication, and an unnecessary hold up for dog and people, 2 points which many people would be unhappy about.
(Of course, there is always going to be that one off case when FOAL will try to get an extra ref about someone, but that could be various sources, not necessarily a vet...for example, neighbours can come up as an issue, so may need consulting).

I do think it a good idea to at least ask the question if they have had a dog from another rescue...i *think* this is on the Battersea application form. Then decide whether or not to check this out accordingly..

getting back to the OP's thread...........

I dont think it would be possible for reputable breeders to do homechecks.
most (and i go by experience) will grill you left,right and center.

i had this initially by phone. then the first visit to see the pups at 4 weeks and then when i went to pick pup up.

i wasnt fazed one bit. i expected it and welcomed it.

most people who want pups from breeders are honest and trustworthy( as they are with rescues) its when you get the dishonest ones that cause the problems.
anyone really can pull the wool.

as for rescues, i cant fault their work and dedication to the animals they care for, except 1, which i've dealt with and will never again

hello hectorsmum, but would you have given detailees of referees to be contacted (as decided by the breeder)
personally, i think that should be accepted if a homecheck is physically impossible.

it is true that most applicants are trustworthy, but you would be surprised how often dishonest ones do crop up.

yes i would ,if asked, i've nothing to hide from anyone.

dishonest 'rescues' as well. as i've found out.

that's a good attitude hectorsmum.

also true re rescues, unfortunately .

I have been informed that Krusewalker/Martin is not a representative of FOAL farm. Some of the information he has given is neither truth nor fact, whether his intentions are to mislead people remains unknown.

Reputable rescues insist on a number of various pre adoption and post adoption checks, most of which have been listed on this thread, these are in place for no other reason than to ensure the dogs they rehome go to suitable, life-time homes. If reputable breeders were to follow suit, inevitably less dogs would end up in rescue. It is a fact that the number of unwanted dogs ending up in rescue originally bought from reputable breeders far out weighs the number of dogs originally adopted from reputable rescues, hence the need for reputable breeders to start considering carrying out more thorough pre and post sale checks.

Can I ask a stupid question,
When you get dogs coming into/through rescue,how does the rescue know they have come from a reputable breeder especially if there's no paperwork?

Where are you getting this data and how has the collator defined reputable breeders?