Well sorry to disagree but according the Tort law I am familiar with that is the case

Maybe you're familiar with a different law.

As far as I know that is the case, but if you're right one way round it would be to add breeders to the list when the dog comes in regardless of whether to breeder has been contacted. - Can't be done for slander when your just pointing out the facts. Should the breeder then take the dog back the rescue could remove them from the list.

You cannot do that, because if the breeder was ethical and took every dog back without hesitation but was not given the chance and you added their name already, they could then sue you for Defamation of Character as the damage could potentially already be done

The FACT has to be proved like I said and you need that in writing, that they refuse to take back the dog. Adding every breeder regardless would also confuse the people it was intended for and be slightly pointless !

The FACT is the dog is in rescue, not that the breeder has refused to take the dog back, obviously rescues aren't going to add breeders without contacting them first to give them the opportunity to take the dog back, but it's a way of getting round the whole slander thing. You can not be done for slander if you are just pointing out the facts (dog is in rescue)- so the list is of dogs that have ended up in rescue, not necessarily those the breeders have refused to take back. As soon as breeder takes dog back their name could be removed.

I think you are missing the point

The WHOLE point of the list at rescues would be to point out the UNETHICAL breeders, hence "Name and Shame" NOT name ALL breeders when/if their dogs come in !!!!

Ethical breeders dont need to be named and shamed and dont deserve it either if they do the right thing. THe point of the list is to expose unethical breeders/BYBs/PFs so people are aware of them !

If you read my post properly you would see I pointed out that rescues obviously aren't going to add breeders names without checking to see if they'll take the dog back first. But if what you said is correct about slander it would be a way of still doing the list without risk of being accused of slander.

You don't say

And if you read my post properly you will see it's not a way around it at all.

If you list a breeder that has refused to take back a dog and they then sue you for exposing them, you have no proof that they did indeed refuse to take the dog !! You need written proof beforehand.

If you are merely listing the dogs that come in, that would have to include ALL breeders which would be unjust.

The whole point is to shame bad breeders, not make pointless lists for the public.

And it wouldnt be slander, it would be Libel

In theory the list could be for breeders whose dogs end up in rescue - full stop. Rescues could then out of "politeness" contact the breeders to give them the opportunity to take the dog back before adding them to the list.

I'd prefer for it to be done the other way but like you said I'd be worried obout the rescue being done for slander (if that is the case)

Well done, this was stated on the first or second page !!

The WHOLE point to the list for the public is to expose bad breeders, NOT list good ones !!

Are you still struggling with that concept ?