But i can see why *they* do this.
Interestingly, on the basis of a large centre being unable to do all the one on one checks, did you know that these 3 centres only homecheck for selected dogs - most dogs aren't homechecked for, and the interview is done in liue of a homecheck instead.

Like Mahooli says with breeders, in theory, there is a rescue homechecking network - the ADCH - but in practice, it falls down..

Like I said in my first post, asking for reference from their vet if they have owned dogs before

Fair enough, but that would raise an irony some would find odd:
You make it harder for previous dog owners compared to first time dog owners.

And what about the other points i raised?

An adoption contract is legally binding :smt001

I imo Breeders should do the same if they really care about their dogs long term welfare.

Seems to me people are making excuses, it's so much easier just have a chat with the owner convince yourself their a good owner and then relinquish responsibility of the dog for the rest of it's life. Is it because it's too much hard work?

but the fact is, we have received loads of feedback from the adopters telling us they have to be on a waiting list as the next batch doesn't start for 3 months, or whatever.

As you say - but why is this a current concern of rescues? And what is your legal basis for this?
I dearly hope you are right, so a link would be nice.

Also, how would you deal with any delay whereby you are forcing dogs to spend extra time in kennels, because everything else is done, but you are still waiting on the vet and dog training paperwork?

It does come back to money, but not in the way you are suggesting, to breed a litter doesn't just cost about £100 and you get to keep the rest, not if it's done properly anyway.

I agree that you shouldn't breed a litter if you can't afford to do it. I strongly believe that you shouldn't breed a litter if you're not prepared to keep them all or have them back if things go wrong.

I also agree, no-one should make money out of breeding, but are you saying that they shouldn't recoup anything that they've paid out?

What if you have a litter of 8 pups, they go to their new homes at 8 weeks having been reared on the best food money can buy, the mother has been given extra food and supplements. What if the mother has also been under the vets care for three days and ends up having a c-section?

The last litter I had consisted of 8 pups, Bramble was 3 days overdue so was taken to the vets both morning afternoon and night for scans and a check up for those 3 days. As she started to dehydrate on the 3rd day she was given a C-section. On day 4 one of the pups started to go downhill. He was taken to the vets everyday for treatment, he was hand fed and given every chance I could give him. Sadly I had to have him pts at 10 days, the pm revealed a hole in the bladder, something he was born with and couldn't have been treated. Can you imagine the vets bill I was landed with for that lot? It was horrendous but nothing I wasn't prepared for and had made prior arrangements with the vet to cover financially if and when they happened.

As I was keeping one of the pups anyway, (and I could have easily sold him as I still didn't have enough pups for my waiting list), by the time the vets bills had been paid, food etc for the pups,(not mum as she gets fed anyway), KC registration etc., was accounted for, once the six pups had been sold I came out of it with a minus balance.

I don't breed for the money, I only breed when I want to keep something which is why I've only had the two litters in over 20 years of owning the breeds.

I know this has taken your original thread off topic so won't continue. My answer to your original questions would be yes, breeders should carry out as stringent checks as rescues albeit there will be some differences. I personally do not think puppies should be put up for adoption rather than sold.

Neither of these policies are recommended by the ADCH, for example, and i havent heard them mentioned by any of the members on the actual main rescue dog forum (that i cant name on here)

I think you have to draw the line somewhere, as too many policies just dispirits people from going to rescues in the first place. In some small quarters, rescues already have a reputation as being uncompromising and inflexible as it is, but fortunately, i think the majority don't share this assessment.
However, if you start adding even more extra burdens, this minority can say 'i told you so', and their opinions could become more popular.