Are you kidding me, rescues fork out thousands of pounds on vet bills

Reputable rescues don't make money out of rehoming animals, they have the dogs best interests at heart not money and it should be the same for reputable breeders too

Training classes here where I live, there arn't any,the closest ones to here are 40 miles away,so for people with no transport that could prove very difficult,my dogs have never been to training classes,yet are well socialised and trained.

Vets,what about if the owner is a first time owner,afterall we all have to start somewhere,this been the case,they will not have a vet that knows them,who could give a reference.

How could a Breeder enforce an adoption contract and how is it legally binding?

Let rescues balance their books how they can and let breeders do the same.
I don't see why it should be mutually exclusive to the dogs best interest, far from it. I don't think leaving themselves seriously out of pocket to the point that they may not be able to continue breeding quality dogs is a benefit to anyone. It leaves the way open for less ethical breeders who do not have the same costs to recoup such as showing, health screening, general welfare etc.
Rescues have other sources of revenue that a breeder will not have ie donations and fund raising events. Breeders only have puppy sales or, perhaps, some stud fees.

FOAL Farm actively encourages adopters to go to classes. We even have some listed on our website and hand out lists, 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.
You can time the beginning of a course with the same time everyone adopts a dog.
It is a fact there are way more pet dogs in England than pet dog training classes. We have other classes near FOAL which we wouldnt dream of putting on a list, but we could if we wished to please a policy of they must show proof they have paid for a class prior to adoption.
But by having such a policy, how do you overcome these realities?
It is not a policy i have heard of before in my many years in the rescue community.
And re the vet check - what if they are first time dogs owners?
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).
However, on this same forum, people have asked for a letter form a vet in liue of a homecheck.
What do you feel about that?
I know lots of rescues and their policies, and they are already very stringent and have a hard time defending the exisiting policies from complainers.

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.

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?

The Dogs Trust have the resources to deal with everyone on a one to one basis, as they are a network of several small or medium sized centres. Thus, wouldnt really count as 'one of the larger centres', in that sense.
That is more like Battersea, Manchester, or Birmingham:
huge city centre kennels that would find it difficult to deal with everyone on a one on one basis.
Battersea interview applicants, put the details in the computer, and the programme flags up dogs for this person.
It was a programme written espesh for Battersea, and they do not deviate from it. So not much room for negotiation or grey areas.
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.

Re Homechecks out of area
I did notice a post stating that breeders should only home within an area that can physically homecheck, as that is what most rescues do.
And if they cant, reputable breeders should form a homechecking network, as rescues do.
Again, the criteria comparisons are great, but to be fair, it doesnt always work out that way for reputable rescues either.
FOAL Farm doesn't home outside its area, as we dont have homecheckers, and we tried many times before to get other rescues to check for us.
We failed too many times. Either:
a) the other rescue doesnt homecheck for other rescues - RSPCA.
b) the other rescue couldnt arrange it, epsesh because their homecheckers are volunteers, *not* staff, and do not have the time, energy, or desire to fit in checks for groups other than their own, even if their own rescue asks them to do it.
However, some rescues will just home out of area anyway and solve this prob by dropping the homecheck and accepting a letter from a vet or dog warden instead.
Like Mahooli says with breeders, in theory, there is a rescue homechecking network - the ADCH - but in practice, it falls down.

You are gonna hate me Anne, but there is always discussion on the rescue board about this as well.
Adoption contracts are a grey area, and should it come to court, it is up in the air whether or not you could actually enforce rescue ownership and retrieval clauses after the adopter has been 'in possession' of the dog after a certain amount of time.

Conversely, 'rescue retains ownership' is also dangerous for the rescues. Rescue have been sued under this clause for acts dogs have performed when in the care of the adopter.
Battersea, for example, changed their contract from 'adoption' to 'ownership', because of this.

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


An adoption contract is legally binding :smt001

There are many small independent reputable rescues that don't fundraise. They wouldn't rescue if they couldn't afford it, I think it should be the same for breeders :smt001

I don't understand what your saying Krusewalker? are you saying rescues shouldn't bother with homevisits or adoption contracts?
I'm sure you know well that adoption contracts and homevisits certainly help towards responsible rehoming. 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?

I agree but the point is, to be able to afford it, a great many breeders would need to recoup a practical price not a nominal one in order to do that.