I dont run a rescue personally. My lifetime involvement within the rescue world is in many other ways, some hands on, some purely financial.

As for rescues following your policy, Hewey, with respect [ because its clearly not your area ], you just have`nt got a clue whats involved.
Read those links, actually read the details, then tell me you still dont get it...

I don't need to take any blinkers off to appreciate how expensive running a rescue can be. I know what it costs to keep dogs but that is entirely missing my point which is that I do not consider it ethical to take a price for the same dog twice except where it leaves you out of pocket and that this could prove an incentive to less reputable rescues that would actually be detrimental to dog welfare.
I will not labour the point though. If you still cannot appreciate or agree with what I am saying it is no matter :smt001 because at the end of the day reputable breeders and reputable rescues will carry on doing what they need to do to look after the welfare of their dogs regardless of the others view of how it should be done. There own experience will prevail :smt001

No, I am stating [ not just suggesting ] that many breeders will and do sell to entirely unsuitable people / situations, far worse than those sadly not coming within sometimes unfortunately inflexible blanket rules of some rescues. It happens all the time. Not every breeder obviously but the unethical far outweigh the number of those who do things properly.
That is the whole main point of this thread, to consider ways to bring the lesser breeders up to scratch, if following some of the policies used by the better and highly experienced rescues should be a minimum standard under which breeders be allowed to operate...


Thats why we are debating on this thread to consider what might be feasible answers

Well, you cant say I didnt try to help you understand Hewey.
Clearly my ability to get things across is severely lacking in this case, for which I accept my failing
Hopefully someone else will be able to explain it better for you.

I did mention this in an earlyer post, I have also said this in other threads, it would be great to have some sort of breeders chip, That way I could be more relaxed and know should any of mine end up in rescue I would be the first to know, I would hate for any of my doggeys to end up in kennels, if they kept a registar of how many dogs came in form this breeder or that, they could hand out warnings should any one breeder hit a certain number then if they continued they could be fined, I understand some folk may just be unlucky, but if they took the dog out of the rescue great, if not then they could help with costs, rehoming and so on, its so difficult to say who is unlucky and who does not give a damn though, but it would be a start eh.,

To be honest with you not very much compared to what some of the other rescues are doing, however we will act on those we hear about, informing other rescues and the authorities where possible and continually try to educate the general public.
I think the problem with offering to refund is it gives people the wrong impression, I don't want potential adopters thinking; we can see how it goes if it doesn't work out after all we can get our money back! Adopting a dog should be seen as a long term commitment no matter what. They're not goods to be bought and refunded. So as a general rule no, although having said that in ten years we've only had one return, so it's not something we come across very often

Don't worry it's a long thread What I'm trying to say is that reputable breeders should consider carrying out the same checks as reputable rescues. If it helps prevent one of their dogs ending up in rescue then surely it's worthwhile.



Totally agree with that :smt001

Completely agree with you :smt001

Totally agree :smt001