[QuickSilver]

I guess for me, I do think that rescues should be less stringent than breeders. Here is my thinking:

As a breeder, you have the option of bringing more pups into the world or not. If you don't have good buyers, you don't have to breed. You can make sure that every pup gets a perfect home.

In the case of rescues, it's more of a triage situation. Even though I think the rescue I volunteer at is very nice, it is still somewhat stressful for the dogs to live in a place with other strange dogs nearby they may not like, and have very limited contact with. Everyone has a nice little room with their own toys, bedding, food, etc, and they get walked a minimum of 100 minutes / day - but it's still hard for the dogs to be handled by a lot of strangers, and also just to have prospective adopters looking into their runs all day. A foster situation is generally not ideal either. And of course, there are literally millions of other dogs waiting to take their place and get rescued as well.

So in the case of a rescued dog, I think the criteria for a home should go from "it must be perfect" to "this will probably be a great place." Not that rescues should throw dogs at whoever happens to walk in, that would not be right either. But a rescue is trying to make the best of a bad situation, rather than create a perfect match. IMO.

Also, I know from having way more interview experience than I care to, you can have a good screening process, and you can have a very stringent one - one doesn't necessarily imply the other. You can make it impossible for your dogs to get adopted by requiring the wrong things.