Ellen DeGeneres In Trouble With Rescue Agency For Giving Adopted Dog Away
Ellen DeGeneres is in trouble with a pet rescue agency for giving a dog that she adopted away to her hairdresser.
DeGeneres adopted Iggy, a Brussels Griffon mix, at the Mutts and Moms dog adoption agency in late September. Unfortunately, Iggy and her cats didn’t get along, and Iggy was too energetic, so DeGeneres gave the dog to her hairdresser.
When a representative from Mutts and Moms called DeGeneres to see how Iggy was doing, she said she had given the dog away to another family. The agency said DeGeneres violated an agreement by not telling them what she did.
On Sunday, an agency representative went to the hairdresser’s home and took Iggy away. The two daughters of the hairdresser, ages 11 and 12, had become close to the dog and were extremely upset when Iggy was removed from the house.
DeGeneres spoke about the situation during a taping of her show. She said she did not read all the paperwork during the adoption.
She told her audience, “I thought I did a good thing. I tried to find a loving home for the dog because I couldn’t keep it. I feel totally responsible for it and I’m so sorry. I’m begging them to give that dog back to that family. I just want the family to have their dog. It’s not their fault. It’s my fault. I shouldn’t have given the dog away. Just please give the dog back to those little girls.”
Source: Associated Press
Photo: Celebrity Week
(Thanks Lynn)
October 16th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Taking a dog from a loving home and two children is unconscionable. What is wrong with these people? Did they find something wrong with the dog’s new home? Did they give the family a chance to adopt? I think somebody wanted that dog because it once belonged to Ellen. I doubt if it is in a good place now. People are jerks.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Sharon, I agree. I understand the need for rules but with all of the legitimate abuse and arenas for concern this just seems cruel to the family and the dog.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Hopefully an ascessment will be made of the hairdressers family as adopters and the pup will be returned. Too bad the Rescue yanked the dog like they did out of the loving home if in fact that is the case! I am sure at this point that little Iggy is very confused and depressed.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:54 am
It’s all right for a rescue to be concerned about the pets they adopt out, but this is going too far. THE WELFARE OF THE ANIMAL COUNTS ABOVE ALL ELSE! It appeared the dog had a wonderful home with the hairdresser, her family, and her two little girls. Certainly, Ellen was wrong in failing to notify the rescue. But 2 wrongs do not make a right. The rescue could have evaluated this dog with this family before taking it away from what appears to be a very loving home.
THE WELFARE OF THE ANIMAL SHOULD COME FIRST!
October 16th, 2007 at 9:59 am
It’s an unfortunate situation but it probably would have turned out the same way had Ellen not been a ‘celebrity’. Most rescue groups (and some breeders, too) require you to sign to the fact that if you need to return the animal for any reason, you will return it them. It protects the dog from going into a bad home, or from being turned into another shelter that might have kill verses no-kill policies (like most rescue groups). In the end, they’re trying to protect the animals, and hopefully in this case, the hairdressers family will get apply for adoption and get Iggy back.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:28 am
No good deed goes unpunished, unfortunately the dog is being punished. Although Ellen was wrong in not reading the entire agreement, she did the right thing by finding a new home. They did not need to take the dog away. This happens with rescue dogs - the dog is found a new home by the adopter when it doesn’t work out. Rescue orgs concerned more with the dog, check out the new home without taking the dog away unless the new home doesn’t check out. I hope the kids get Iggy back post haste. The action of this “rescue” group is more about their ego than the dog. Give the poor dog a break.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Sharon, I agree with you 100%. I can understand them checking on the dog but this goes too far. Ellen spent $3,000.00 on that pup I can see where she thought it was hers & she found it a good loving home, I fell bad for all of them especially the little girls & puppy.
Some rescues & some shelters go to far, both in rules where they act like they still own the animal & the cost to adopt. How many other babies will not be adoped because of this & other stories. How many stories have we read just on Itchmo where people couldn’t adopt?? I like to know how much she had to pay to get the pup. You can see why people don’t want to get a baby from a shelter or resue. The whole idea is to get the babies good loving homes instead of killing them. Sad, people will just go out & buy there babies.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:29 am
HB, I know that rescue groups often include this kind of language that requires animals to be returned to them–and I understand the reasoning behind it–but common sense and the welfare of the animal should come first. Here it sounds as if the agency is putting the letter of the law above everything. Taking the dog away from a presumably suitable home punishes the dog and the family–not the person, Ellen, who violated the contract.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Hopefully the hairdresser will be asked to fill out pre-adoption papers and will qualify themselves as a good home.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:43 am
TELL THE ADOPTION AGENCY WHAT YOU THINK!
HERE’S THE EMAIL FOR MUTTS and MOMS dog adoption agency of Pasadena, CA
Email address was found on the “Donate” page. It is not hot linked on the “Contact” page. …Think they thought they’d get a lot of mail over the Ellen issue?
pawboutique@yahoo.com
October 16th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Ellie, the key phrase is “presumably suitable home”. It’s the rescues’ obligation to the animal to be as sure as they can that the home the animal is in is suitable. They owe it to the animal. And they have to treat each case with the same scrutiny and objectivity as they would any potential adopter. These people are usually underpaid or not paid at all volunteers who are in it for the animals, not to ’screw’ people over. But their main focus is the animals, not the people.
Cheers,
HB
October 16th, 2007 at 10:53 am
purringfur,
For goodness sake, these people are a not-for-profit who RESCUE dogs! Don’t promote berating them! Donate to them, write them and thank them for giving up their weekends to run adoption shows, giving up their homes to foster dogs, giving up their evening to do home inspections and interviews, tell them how amazing they are for opening their hearts to dogs that were given up to kill shelter and were next on the euthanasia list because they were old or sick or injured. Help these people, don’t hurt them. Their hearts are already breaking for these animals, they don’t need strangers who don’t put themselves in their position to tell them how horrid they are for this one over publicized issue. This happens all the time, it’s just not so public. And in 9 cases out of 10, if the second family meets their adoption criteria, they are first on the list to adopt the dog back.
Here is an excerpt from their home page, read with your heart:
“In Marina’s work at the shelter, it always saddened her when she would see a Mom with a litter that would be euthanized because the shelter could not keep the family until the puppies were weaned. The other sad scenario is when a Mom’s litter is adopted and the Mom gets left behind to be euthanized. Adopters never step forward and take the Mom since she is still lactating and her sacks of milk are unattractive to them. Mutts & Moms adopts the Mom, waits a few weeks for her milk to dry up, spays her and then she is good as new. It has always been an outrage to Marina that a nice dog could go through pregnancy, giving birth, caring for her puppies and then be killed. This is why she formed Mutts and Moms.”
-HB
October 16th, 2007 at 11:35 am
HB, we might be more inclined to agree with you if those ‘Mutts & Moms’ freaks hadn’t come for Iggy like (s?)he was a stolen chair.
You imagine the scene: Cops, two crying little girls, Iggy likely crying and struggling, and the M&M hero there rescuing Iggy from a happy home, so they can put him back into a cage.
Not exactly a Norman Rockwell moment, it it?
October 16th, 2007 at 11:57 am
As much as I agree with the idea of the dog being left in the care of the new family, I have to also agree more with HB that the agency’s main focus is on the dog. The new family should be given the opportunity to fill out the forms, etc to take on the dog. In this case where the dog was already placed, the agency really could have checked out the family while the is in their possession. Unless, the original owner of the dog stipulated that anytime one of his/her dogs didn’t work out where it was placed, it would be given back. Alot of fosters or those putting dogs/cats up for adoptions through agencies request this. I do.
As HB pointed out, most of these agencies are non-profit and rely on donations and often spend their own money. The cats I take in are vetted by the agency that works with me. I don’t have scads of money so the discount I would receive from their vet is even further discounted to me, as the agency is more concerned about the animal being properly cared for. All the food, etc I pay for. Having had the cat(s) in my care for any amount of time get me attahed. So yes, I would like final say on where the cat is placed. This may be the case with Ellen’s dog. Not all details of this has been disclosed in the article. Maybe the new family isn’t the best environment for the dog; just insinuated. Maybe it could be the best place for it and they would have to go through the regular channels.
I hope that the family proves to be a good one and gets the dog back. It is unfortunate though that the dog is going back and forth like that. Maybe there will be an update on this or the agency will have a chance to have their say too and clarify their moves.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Crap - lost my comment.
As I understand it, a copy accompanied the agency to the hairdresser’s home to collect the dog.
The agency, for all its best intentions, really screwed up big time. The appropriate way to handle this would have been to contact deGeneres and remind her of the clause in the contract, then contact the new home and make an immediate appointment to check it out to ensure it meets the standards of the agency [without removing the dog], then to close the deal. I’m sure deGeneres would have been so thrilled that nothing more was made of this that she would have made an extra donation.
Instead, the agency yanked a dog out of a good home and obviously confused and frightened it, they created two distraught little girls, they irritated someone with the power to do the agency a lot of bad publicity….and to what end.
Sounds like there’s a loose canon in this adoption agency. Better quell it before it creates more headaches.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I sorry but if I paid the adoption fee of $70-100 for a dog (like I did), the dog is mine. Then I subsequently paid thousands for medical care, the dog is mine. If I found myself unable to care for the dog or it wasn’t getting along with the cats, I can find MY dog a good home. I certainly would be very careful about it. It would only go to a relative or friend that I knew felt the same way about animals as I do.
Ellen placed her dog in a good home and since she sees her hairdresser all the time, can check up on the dog. The rescue was way out of line.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
It would seem to me that finding an unwanted pet another good home is a responsible way to go. If the people who turn their pets over to shelters would consider doing this instead of taking the legal abandonment approach, there would not be a need for so many animal shelters.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Lynn says:
October 16th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
i agree Lynn. they certainly could have handled this in a much more sensitive manner. not only did they cause grief for ellen, the hairdresser and her children, they just gave rescues a huge black eye.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
why couldn’t they have just taken over adoption papers and have the family sign them?
October 16th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
HB said: HB says:
October 16th, 2007 at 10:53 am
purringfur,
For goodness sake, these people are a not-for-profit who RESCUE dogs! Don’t promote berating them! Donate to them, write them and thank them for giving up their weekends to run adoption shows, giving up their homes to foster dogs, giving up their evening to do home inspections and interviews, tell them how amazing they are for opening their hearts to dogs that were given up to kill shelter and were next on the euthanasia list because they were old or sick or injured. Help these people, don’t hurt them. Their hearts are already breaking for these animals, they don’t need strangers who don’t put themselves in their position to tell them how horrid they are for this one over publicized issue.
……………………………………………
I’m suggesting that the adoption agency look at cases individually, suggesting they do a home inspection of this family and to interview the family members as soon as possible to see if the dog’s needs are being met properly, and if so, to give the dog back as soon as possible because this family apparently became attached to the dog. Yes, it was Ellen’s fault for NOT reading the adoption agreement fully, but the family and the dog are suffering for it.
Even though rules are rules, in this case, I would suggest looking at the situation on an individual basis since the dog was already in a home. I would have thought that since the dog was already settling in (and apparently bonds had formed), the adoption agency could have taken intermediary steps (for example, an “on the spot” home inspection, interviewing family members, observing the family interacting with the dog, asking the family to fill out adoption papers, making “surprise” visits — taken ANY number of one or more actions) to see if the dog was well cared for BEFORE removing the dog from the hairdresser’s house. If the dog did not have a water bowl set out… if the dog was sleeping in its urine… if the children were pulling the dog’s tail… Yes, then remove the dog immediately.
Although Mutts and Moms may do praiseworthy work, the agency needs to think individually about each case before it applies its apparently immutable rules in all cases.
This is not an argument as to the praiseworthy nature and often completely selfless actions of doing animal rescue at all. Not at all. And, my comments ARE about having heart.
The contention is the way in which this case was handled, when investigative actions to assess the home’s suitability could have been conducted and perhaps prevented removing the dog from its environment.
And, this adoption agency has caused its own bad publicity by not thinking carefully before reacting.
Purringfur
(who chose to be a proud owner of now 4 shelter babes, donated $800.00 to shelter last year, donated regularly to local and national shelter groups, always refused reimbursement for spaying/neutering my animals, declined extra leashes, collars, toys, food, bedding, etc. — done with heart so shelter money could go further to help more animals)
October 16th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
What happened to the “morkie” designer dog that Ellen bought not too long ago? Did it get along with her cats?
She adopted this rescue dog on September 20, and didn’t even give it a month to settle in?
Everyone’s jumping on this rescue, what does anybody know about the hairdresser’s home? How do we know it’s a “great” home? We don’t. Being Ellen DeGeneres’s hairdresser is not a guarantee of a great home! Give the rescue a break!
October 16th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
On the Mutts and Moms site it says they do not adopt small dogs to homes with children under 13. I am assuming that Iggy is a small dog so the new family would not quaily to adopt.
How many of you people blaming the rescue group have ever pulled a dog at the last minute from the pound, got it vet care, loved and cared for it like your own and sent a piece of your heart with it when it was adopted? I have and I want to know where my dogs go! And yes, they are my dogs, in my mind and in my heart, no matter where they live. I love Ellen (she’s from my home state), but she made this mess by not reading and following the legal contract that she signed. And I think she needs to find a way to fix it without dragging this rescue through the mud.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
CJ: I have no clue about what happened to the Morkie dog deGeneres adopted. Presumably the agency asked if she had given away any pets or disposed of them. And whether a month was sufficient time to adapt as a family - well, who knows?
True, Ellen did not read the contract [how many people do?].
And if it’s true that the adoption agency allows no one to adopt their pets who has children under the age of 13…..well….that could be a grievous mistake on their part. [I know a bunch of 11 year-olds that are more responsible and accountable than some adults over 35.]
Here’s the bottom line: the dog had a potentially excellent home with the hairdresser.
While I applaud the organization for following up on their adoptees, I really must say that they do the animals a huge disservice by not bending rules when called for. The agency missed the boat on this one.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Ellen signed a contract saying if she had to give up the dog she would give it back to the shelter. Period. She should have read the contract, that is her responsibility. If she didn’t agree to that, she could have adopted elsewhere. The shelter is only looking out for the best interests of the dog.
Perhaps the shelter was a bit hasty in removing the dog, but then I know there are people asked to give an animal back who hide it or refuse. Hopefully the family will fill out the adoption papers and get the dog back. Most shelters have rules, but then will do special evaluations and make exceptions if warrented.
And for those of you who say, “I paid for the dog, its mine to do with as I like”, its that attitude that leads to animal abuse and neglect. Its a living creature, not a piece of furniture to be disposed of when you get tired of it.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
I’m kind of torn here I like Ellen and I know she has dogs on her show to be adopted. I thought from this orgization but I could be wrong. Almost all shelters have this prevision in their adoption papers but I don’t think it is usually enforced.
What surprises me is that since Ellen has ties to shelters that she didn’t think to check with them before giving away the dog. But I don’t know the whole story, did she mention the problem to the hairdresser and the hairdresser said she was looking for a dog? I don’t know but I hope this dog finds a home.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
What surprise ME most of all [and too many people seem to be missing the bottom line] is that the dog was in a good and loving home. And it was yanked out simply because all the rules weren’t followed.
Furthermore, think of all the time the people at this agency will be spending on enforcing their rules rather than using their resources to find homes for the other pets.
Get real.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I believe Ellen’s intentions were genuine.
When I adopted my dog, I had to sign an agreement that if I wanted to give him up, he would have to be returned to the rescue organization.
The organization cares about one thing only…and that is the welfare of the dog. It us up to them and not Ellen to assess whether the dog should go to the hairdressers home.
I hope this will be resolved and the organization finds the hairdresser to be a suitable dog parent.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Check out deGeneres’ statement at her website.
http://ellen.warnerbros.com/2007/10/iggy.php
October 16th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
let’s see here, the dog wasn’t getting along with her cats (or vice versa) so she gives it to a family she knows who has a dog and is looking for a second who already knows it?! oh, the HORROR! they should have just done a check on the home and transferred the adoption papers, imo.
when i’ve worked with adoptions, i always point out that part of the contracts (standard around here) and make sure it’s understood. while i would be upset if a pet was re-homed without notice, i certainly wouldn’t take a pet out of a good home on *principal*. i always thought the object was to place pets in good homes . . .
October 16th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Lynn, thanks for the link. This story is reaching millions of people & so far the only people who think the rescue people are right is on Itchmo. The bottom line is more people will not adopt because of the contract & more babies will not get good homes and or rescue & shelters less money. I wish she would use her lawyer because I don’t think any court would hold up that contract without abuse involed. Imo the greatest people are rescue people but no they do not own the animal if they adopt it out it is no longer belongs to them. Having a contract is good to check on people but without abuse that contract should mean nothing.
We keep reading & hearing stories about how people are not good enough to adopt, now it has happened to some one big & people don’t like it. As I said before imo less babies adopted & more bought, sad. Maybe it would be good for some to read her 19 pages of comments & still counting from all around.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I work with a dog rescue and, frankly, I am going to withhold judgement until I hear the rescue’s side of the story, since I have been in situations like this. Many people who are commenting don’t know the whole story and neither do I.
We don’t know that the rescue won’t adopt to the hairdresser - because we haven’t heard from the rescue. They might. Or, since Ellen decided to take this public and, even though she admitted wrongdoing, try to force the rescue’s hand through public opinion, they might not.
We know nothing at all about the backgrounds of any of the people in this article. How can we judge who did what wrong or right?
But, whatever they do, I hope that Iggy goes to the right home for HIM, whoever that might be. Where-ever that may be.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
If the new home was a good one…then IMHO…Mutts and Moms was more interested in enforcing a contract than they were the welfare of the dog.
What have they gained here? They have gained a lot of BAD publicity for what appears to be a very heavy-handed manner of handling this.
As suggested elsewhere…call Ellen and explain that she should not have given the dog away. Ask her for her help as a celebrity to get the message out about adopting dogs from a rescue group and abiding by the contrat.
They could then have checked out the home and if ok….left the dog.
There is now one scared and confused dog….one more dog needing a home ….and people who will see this story and decide NOT to adopt from a rescue group because they would not want this to happen to them.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Have any of you found a working link to Mutts and Moms? I googled it but hit only error pages. I would like to see what they are all about.
Ellen has received over 950 comments on her post! All the ones I read were very positive and sympathetic to her situation.
It really is a heartbreaking and unnecessary situation.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
This is a mistake on both parts, Ellens and the M&M agency.
Ellen should have paid more attention to the contract she signed, but the M&M agency should have handled the situation better.
I read a comment that the dog might be too small for a home of children under 13, if so than in my opinon that is a stupid rule. I let my 2 year old nephew play with my small dog, he’s a pekinese. He loves him a lot, gives the dog a hug when he sees him. the dog loves it.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Okay now there is a story on Yahoo of Ellen crying over this situation during her show.
There is a special place in hell for people who make Ellen cry.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
i recall every bit of my adoption agreement- all with not for profit rescues- and everyone of them states i agree to ‘ contact’ the organization if i find at whatever time in the future i no longer want the pet. all of them will take the pet back.
i also agreed not to declaw the cats and ok’d the right of the rescue to call or visit to check on the pet.
people will sign anything like automatons instead of thinking.
most independent rescues who put an animal up for placement generally have a good idea what the animal can deal with. im surprised they didnt know the dog might not get along with cats. it’s a standard part of preparing an animal for adoption so it can be properly placed. i say the rescue fell down on this one too-along with the gestapo tactics which are entirely inappropriate and overboard they should have had a more complete assesment of the dog’s temperment before giving it to someone with cats and children. you pratically have to bend over and spread them nowadays to adopt some mutt dragged out of the shelter after one paw was in the gas chamber. they asked me everything you could imagine-im surprised they didnt ask me for my credit report and a drug test. if theyre gonna grill the adopter until crisp they really need to prove better able to do the same to the animal to avoid such a poor placement.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
This is idiotic. Where are the brains of these volunteers? I agree with the IDEA of returning the dog if you can’t keep it, BUT the reason behind that is to ensure a loving home. The home had already been found. Take your time to investigate that instead of destroying it. Unfortunately, I have cut back on my donations for shelters that have good ideas, but are run by idiots. This is not the worst story I have heard of. REMEMBER, THE DOG IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, not some stupid red tape.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Degeneres has changed her story a tad. First she said she paid to have Iggy neutered. I checked the petfinder listing for the adoption group - and all their animals are already neutered/spayed before being offered for adoption. Degeneres did not say that the hairdresser agreed to fill out an ap for the dog. For all we know, the rescue group called and asked, the hairdresser got beligerent and that’s why they came to collect the dog with cops in tow. All those people are volunteers. I foster as a volunteer. My foster is a part of my family, sleeps in our bed, plays in the yard, begs at the table, cuddles up in our laps in front of the TV. If I had someone adopt my foster and hand him off in two weeks, I would be outraged. Period. Particularly if the family had children. My foster has been badly tormented by children in his past, and would not do well in a family with children. The kids might like fooling with him, but he would be peeing all over himself in terror.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
They used to be on Petfinders. My guess they still were up until this morning when they were most likely swamped by hate mail. They are affiliated with a Pet Boutique as well and I am sure that email address and phone number are being swamped as well.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Talk about bad press.
What I found at Petfinders was an error page! So they didn’t leave up their page. Interesting.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
check out pawboutique.com and see if you are getting the same thing as I am. Asking for user name and password.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Jill, thank you! I too have fostered…have an adult cat now in fact. I too would be outraged if I found out one of my cats was given away like that. I have stipulated that should anything now work out for whatever reason, the cat comes back to me. Even if the new owner has someone in mind, it has to go by me first, then handled with protocol with the agency. I’ve always given my phone numers, address, email etc to adopters. In fact someone just took two kittens and didn’t know she was allergic. She is working with medications but did contact me in the event they would be too much. We’re playing it by ear, but I will get the cats back if necessary. I’d like to know what the resuce group has to say on this before I judge against them.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Jill says:
October 16th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Jill, that is YOUR foster, not Ellen’s puppy. 2 different dogs with 2 different histories. Apparently, Ellen, her hairdresser/kids and puppy were all fine with this. Only the rescue wasn’t for whatever reason if it’s something more than just the *rules*.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I’m sorry, but i have to agree that any contract like this is in violation of my rights as a “pet parent”. the fact is, i bought the cat or dog. it’s mine, my property.
You can have all the contracts you want, but they are uninforceble in the eyes of the law, because a contractor cannot specifiy how you will deal with a possion of yours. They can try to encourage you do treat it a particular way, but that’s about it.
That said, if i love my pet and find i am unable to care for it, i am much better prepared to find my pet a home than an agency who is swamped with pets and for whom most pets are just “numbers” eventually. not cause they don’t like animals, but they can’t love 100 pets that are housed in shelters.
Also, you will all i’m sure hate this idea, but is there any chance the shelter was going to charge another family another grand for the pet? Just curious if they would let the dog be placed for free, since Degeners already paid once for it.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
The rescue group had an agreement with Degeneres for a reason. They want the dog back if there is a problem. They will do background checks before they approve an adoption. They almost certainly check with the vet of the applicant. For hot spots like the west coast, most rescue groups have waiting lists for small dogs with approved applicants. Degeneres has no right to hand that dog over without the group having a chance to do a background check. For all you are I know, the hairdresser has taken her old dogs to the pound and let her new dogs get run over.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
“For all you are I know, the hairdresser has taken her old dogs to the pound and let her new dogs get run over.”
yeah, i’m sure Ellen would place a puppy in a home that dumps older dogs at the pound. for all you and i know, the family was looking for a second dog and her kids had already formed a relationship with this one prior to the placement.
you bring up an interesting point about little dogs though. rescue groups do have a tendency to use them. seems when i look at pet harbor for la county/city shelters, they do have their fair share of small dogs. chi’s in particular. i did notice this groups selection of dogs before they pulled their site. interesting . . . especially if they are pulling from the system going no-kill
October 16th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Tanya, yes the rescue group will charge the next family the adoption fee. If Ellen, doesn’t get the dog back she should get her fee back and the $$$s she spent getting it nuetered since it seems that the agency didn’t take care of that themselves.
Just because a group say their adoptable animals are spayed or neutered doesn’t mean they are. I know, because the male cat I adopted had to be neutered after I adopted him even thought he was advertised as being fixed.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Why punish the children? I agree with most of the people here. Must have been someone else wanting that dog. I say “GIVE THE DOG BACK TO THE LOVING HOME IT WAS IN WITH THOSE CHILDREN!”. I feel like this was a very unthoughtful & rude thing to do to these children. Please have a change of heart & return this dog to those children.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
It’s also quite possible that Ellen having the means to pay, volunteered to do the S/N on that particular dog (so as to save the rescue from the cost).
October 16th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
tanya, where did you get a grand for an adoption fee?
October 16th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
I sort of agree - with everyone. I probably have more free time than Ellen does. I have a Rescue whom I wouldn’t give up unless I knew the potential adopters VERY WELL, including observing them with other pets and making a visit with a Rescue rep.My Rescue cost $250.Let’s be fair, the Rescue that performed Ginger’s adoption is a 501(c)(3) which is tax-deductible,above the line deductible.100% deductible and she chases my cat.My solution is barricades, but that’s just me. The cat seems to be okay with it. Gin is a bit frustrated,though! She’s not evil, just chases everything that she can see.
In spring,she barked at carpenter bees!
October 16th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
As I work with a rescue, I understand this rule perfectly. We have a list of people who will never get another dog from us, but have had experience with them sending others to adopt a dog for them—-THERE ARE REAL GOOD REASONS FOR THIS RULE. But I do agree that the situation should have been investigated more thoroughly before the dog was yanked. Ellen, didn’t your mother ever tell you to read the contract before you sign it?? Had you called first, things might have worked out differently.
And good grief, how on earth did you manage to spend $3000 on a spay and training???Did they use gold stitches or what??
October 16th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Kathy,
if she took the puppy to a reg vet hospital and did all the pre-op blood work, it prob cost a pretty penny. especially in her area and with her status. same with the training. lordy, look at what they charge for beds, totes and little dog clothing specifically aimed at those with big wallets. the 3 grand barely raised my eyebrow, sad to say. the price of a haircut around there can be down right insane!
October 16th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Ok who in the world thinks Ellen meant to harm anyone? Good Lord I have always had rescue anminals. Mine have all worked out with lot of trying times on my part. BUT I am the unusually that runs home everyday for lunch to attend to the dogs and cats. So I make it work. Ellen did a great thing and should be told so. She resued an anminal that didn’t work out of her, hmm gave it a new good home with someone she knew, with 2 kids who Ellen says have all come to love each other now this so called resue center RIPS THEM OUT OF THE HANDS OF THOSE SAME KIDS…oh I am sorry why? to place Izzy in a better home? hmmm lets think about this. I know my money will not be supporting that animal rescue. EVER. Maybe they should have just called them to see or make arrangements to go there for a visit.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Straybaby, i mis understood the posts of her “costs” as adoption fees. my bad.
AGain, contracts like this are likely not going to hold up in court any time soon. a pet (like it or not) is a legal possession.
Imagine a contract that says “if I find out you have given away your computer to your daughter or anyone else, i can go in and take the computer back”.
the law sees possessions as fundamental concept. contracts cannot stipulate what you do with a possession that is legally yours once it is legally acquired. The most a shelter could do is send the animal control people to investigate the matter.
I mean, imagine the ramifications of saying a SHELTER had right to your pet. YOu and your son and his best friend all raise your dog together. after your son dies in a car accident, the best friend says “I’d like to take Lucky, if you are ok with that. it’s my conection to our friendship”.
so a shelter has a contracted legal right to step in and remove YOUR dog from the home YOU choose???? get real.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
It appears that Mugs and Moms has changed their name, probably due to the bad press. Here is there new info:
Small Time Rescue
Southern California
Phone: (626) 792-7577
Email: beckynot@beckynot.com
ITCHMO ADMIN: We received an email from Rebecca Kramer, the owner of Small Time Rescue, saying that she is not the same dog rescue agency as Mutts and Moms. Small Time Rescue is a dog rescue in Pasadena, California and focuses on senior and special need dogs.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
interesting video update (?). . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffBmnFSp4M
October 16th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
The women who run Mutts and Moms should go into hiding right about now. There is nothing but hate for them today. Ellen post is up over 3500 posts.
I think it is safe to say this rash act has just ended their business.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I sympathize with Ellen, however I am glad that this issue is being brought to the attention of the public. Millions of homeless pets are put down every year because of action and inaction on the part of animal shelters. Have an opinion that differs from theirs? No pet for you! You are not worthy! It is more a power trip that truly caring about the best interests of innocent animals. Qualified caring people are turned away every day because some bitter old biddy has an opinion that differs from yours. Is anyone who wants their kitten declawed an irresponsible owner. How about refusing to get shots for completely indoor cats due to the evidence of cancerous tumors caused by over vaccination? Nope, when adopting you must have the same opinion as the rescue or you will be told that you don’t meet the criteria. Unfortunately, like everything else it’s about supply and demand and rescues try very hard to take in cute little puppies and kittens so that they have a product that will be in demand. I have witnessed first hand a distraught owner attempting to surrender his cat due to litter box issues, and being turned away by the shelter because “we would be unable to place the animal”. If it was about truly caring about animals they would not only take the easily placed they would take the ones that cannot be placed. Unfortunately, the only way to change the behavior of most animal shelters comes at the expense of animals. Quite frankly, boycotting private animal shelters is the only way to effect change.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
“Quite frankly, boycotting private animal shelters is the only way to effect change.”
Please don’t lump all private shelters in one basket. Grrrrrr.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Strawbaby, in several ways, i agree with you.
I have found that many shelters (public and private) are so “worried” about who they place with, they limit who can own or adopt. People who rent must have permission from landlords. well, that may be all and well, if you can FIND the landlord, but if not (my land lord long-lease to me from Germany where they live in thier retirement), then it’s No-Kitty-For-You.
I hate the idea of declawing a cat, but frankly - what’s worse, putting a cat down, leaving it in small cage or over crowded room, or losing 10 digits but getting love.
Not all shelters are this extreme, but most have some kind of waiver or regulation for parenthood that is an infrigement.
Traci, i know it’s not “all” shelters, but even the shelter you work at, suggests if not requires you to adopt two kittens at once, not just one. It is a situation today where if you want to do teh right thing, and buy from a shelter instead of a pet store, you do have to fit whatever “mold” the owner of the shelter deems “appropriate”.
I’m curious of someone who is a known skitzophrenic could get a pet from a shelter, even when evidence suggests that pets can HELP.
Or a homeless person, wanting to take any dog that hasn’t been adopted?
or parents who think that a 3 year old is fine with a dog - even though a shelter might disagree, etc.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
So, does anyone know what happened to the “designer dog” Ellen bought less than a year ago? Does she still have him/her?
As far as rescues requiring renters to have their landlord’s permission being some kind of Gestapo rule, how many dogs/cats get taken to a kill shelter because their irresponsible owners “suddenly” found out their apartment/condo/trailer park doesn’t allow pets??
How many people move to those many states/cities/towns that don’t allow animals and dump their pets at kill shelters?? You know, all the “Free dog, moving, can’t take him/her”. I’m sure you can find hundreds in the newspapers and on Craigslist.
So tell me again how rescues have the unreasonable expectation of getting a dog or cat back if the adopter doesn’t want them anymore?
October 16th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
I think all shelters & AC (dog catcher) should be changed starting at the top & Nathan Winograd put in charge of all of them. It could only make it better for all the babies & people. They haven’t done a good job in all these years by the #. I think we are going to have a big backlash for years over this. I think we are going to find out those contract’s arn’t worth the paper they are on except to not get babies adopted.
If you really want to know what people think of most shelters ask the people who live around them & know them.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Tanya,
The reason shelters ask not to declaw is that it is considered an unhealthy and last resort option–yes better to keep a cat in a good home if it means a must-do declawing for non-medical reasons.
We ask that people live where they are allowed pets but we don’t ask for permission slips–the obvious is that someone facing eviction because they broke the pet policy is likely to dump the cat somewhere else.
We ask that kittens under 6 months be adopted in pairs or as singles if there is another cat already in the home. THIS IS FOR ANIMAL SOCIALIZATION.
All shelters/rescues private and public monied have rules for adoption and post-adoption. Nothing is going to be solved by boycotting decent private shelters vs going to public ones.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
After my terrier mix passed away more than 20 years ago, I travelled all over the state trying to find one similar. I was unsuccessful, but did find a couple of dogs that I took in, that turned out to be wonderful in their own way. I also got a couple that were not like her at all, but once in my home they stayed until they passed on and were loved. If I found out tomorrow that a shelter had a dog just like my terrier mix that I could adopt - as much as I would want it, I would have to think long and hard. For people to have the legal right to come in to my house to take my dog away because they may not like the way I am raising it, I could not handle losing it. My little terrier was the love of my life, and each of my dogs that I have had over the years took a little piece of my heart when they passed on.
During my never ending journey to find a replacement for my merry little dog that made me laugh, an assistant at my vet literally begged me to take in a totally different type dog. The owners were paying to board it until it found a home and they were running out of money. She knew it would have a wonderful home with me. I took it in as I could not look any dog in the eye and know it was going to be put down. It wasn’t my terrier, but she had a good home with me. She would stand at the window and cry when I left for work in the morning. She came a long way from when I first got her when I had to catch her to put her out in my fenced in yard to go, and catch her again to bring her in.
I have had dogs live to 15, 18, and 20. My horse lived to 33. But after reading all this, I would be hesitant to adopt from a place that has the legal right to come in and take my dog. I know they have those rules for a good reason, but when a dog is yanked from a good loving home that gives me pause.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
hmm, i didn’t write the 6:29pm post!
anyway, gotta love the wayback archive thingy. here’s mutts and moms adoption requirements from april 07′
http://web.archive.org/web/200.....dmoms.org/
this is very interesting:
“We are committed to the well being of every single dog we rescue. We are financially responsible for that dog for as long as it takes to find their “forever” home. That can sometimes take as long as one to two years. We pay boarding for nearly all of our dogs (very few are in foster homes), at a minimum cost of about $300 per dog per month. ”
i hope like hell they had foster space for that puppy! talk about best interest of the dog, NOT!
October 16th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I’m sure I will provoke much hate but I have to say that I see a lot of problems with the private rescue groups. I’ve personally rescued two of my cats and adopted the other two from the local shelter. I’ve almost always had one dog in my life for most of my life and all my animals (including my house rabbits) live to a ripe old age from 13 (the rabbit, seriously) to 19. They are our family members.
I have real problems with private rescue groups in that if you do not share their political stances on feeding, declawing (I don’t believe in declawing but many groups demonize families before they educate them), and vaccinations then you are a BAD PERSON not to be considered for their babies.
I’m sorry, but if your feelings for your foster are that the cat/dog is YOUR cat/dog forever even after you adopt it, I question why you are in the business of adoption. I work with one rescue group as an occasionally foster when they find themselves in a desperate situation of needing a holding place while they shift between homes. This one group is fantastic and truly about the animals AND the people. That is what makes them great. They care as much about the adopting family as about the animals.
I witnessed one group literally kidnap a cat from a placed home because another member found out who the poor adopter was since she had met her at an adoption event and did not like her personality because she was a little weird. She was a different person but she was a good home. They made this poor girl jump through the most amazing emotional hoops to prove her worthiness as a PERSON to fit in their definition of a normal person. They ended up giving the cat back but only after torturing this poor girl.
I was turned down by a Golden Retriever rescue after filling out an online form and never even talking to a person. I was turned down because I have to work in the office 1 day out of the month. I was told that they will not place any animal in any home where there is not a member of the family in the house with the dog 24 HOURS A DAY! I’m serious.
With that all said there are some fantastic rescue groups out there. I think that more people wanting to adopt need to take the attitude that they should interview the private shelter/rescue group as much as they are being interviewed. I’ve met more “collectors†and “power-tripping†people in various rescue groups than in Homeowner’s associations.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Jane A.
It is scary to think about isn’t it? I have adopted two of my current 4 critters, including my beloved Daisy, who I would die for. It the adoption group decided for whatever reason to take my dog away, they would have a fight on their hands. My home may not be up to their standards for all I know. They have never done an inspection, thank God.
My kitty, Tucker, surely would have been because I haven’t kept him updated on his shots. I am also one of those people who doesn’t think vaccination for totally indoor cats is necessary. I am in violation of my contract too. Please don’t tell the rescue agency! I can’t lose my Tucker either.
Once I pay for my animal it is mine, as in like a possession, even though thinking of animals as property goes against my every fiber of my being. Obviously, like Ellen, if we adopt a dog from a rescue we aren’t going to rehome it with a monster. People who adopt rescue dogs (cats and bunnies, and gerbils etc) are special people. Obviously we aren’t into harming them! Believe me, I am perfectly capable of finding a good home for my pets if I need too! No one has higher standards for my pet’s care than I do! Ask my cat sitter!!!
No one has the right to take my animals from me. Just because I choose to declaw one or not, whatever this issue is. I paid for the animal it is mine. Contract or no. Like Tanya was saying these contracts are basically illegal. We aren’t renting these animals. This isn’t shared custody. If it is, the rescue group should start forking over half the money for any medical bills. You can’t have it both ways.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
http://www.declawing.com/
October 16th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Traci, don’t worry. I was just using declawing as an example. I have sticks and threads for furniture and am losing about $2500 worth of carpet, new carpet too. That is how much I dislike declawing.
I am now going home to *attempt* to put SoftPaws on the scoundrel.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Bridgett and Traci,
This is a perfect example of what I see with many rescue groups and conversations with pet lovers. You use a valid example for the discussion and now Bridgett is having to defend her worthiness as a pet owner.
This is not conducive to educating the public and creating good pet owners when the response is a backhanded implication this person should not be listened to because they may be an evil declawer.
Sorry but I’m getting really sick of all the constant need to defend what a worthy or better pet owner each person is. Frankly, I realize I did the same thing and I’m a bit pissed at myself. I justified my post by “proving” that I took in rescues and my pets lived a long time.
This is part of what is causing the furor over this dog being taken from a family that, appears, for all intents and purposes to be good people.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Please email this lady and ask her to give that pup back to that loving home!! This country is starting to scare me. No wonder people are going out of the country to adopt children and now maybe animals too. They are making in practically impossible to give loving, caring people the opportunity to change the lives of children and animals. It seems that they would rather put this pup in a cage and god for bid put him to sleep than to give him a good loving home.
It appears that Mugs and Moms has changed their name, probably due to the bad press. Here is there new info:
Small Time Rescue
Southern California
Phone: (626) 792-7577
Email: beckynot@beckynot.com
ITCHMO ADMIN: We received an email from Rebecca Kramer, the owner of Small Time Rescue, saying that their dog rescue agency is not the same agency as Mutts and Moms. Small Time Rescue is a dog rescue agency located in Pasadena, CA that specializes in senior and special need dogs.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Bridgett
After reading of what vaccinations do to our pets, I do not vaccinate when I can titer. And vets do accept titers rather than vax. I was really surprised Some authorities feel that the initial vax will protect for life. If the only way I could adopt a pet from a shelter was to show continuing proof of vax rather than using titers, then I would not adopt. As I said before, the welfare of the pet should come first and over vaccination can cost your pet its life.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Why didn’t she just use common sense and tell the rescue why the dog didn’ t work in her home and that she had found a new, accepatable home. Common sense ain’t common?!
October 16th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
On tmz vote if dog should be given back to Ruby, 96% yes, 4% no, total votes as of 10 min ago 218,893. 340 comments, I didn’t read to many because they where ugly, mostly about Ellen being gay or it was only a dog a couple for Ellen. I only read 2 pages but I thought the vote was interesting especially because the comments where ugly.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
The problem with some rescue groups is they fix their narrow rules and consider themselves so important that they do the dogs and would be good homes a real disservice. I know of instances where excellent potential adopters were turned down for the most ridiculous of reasons and the dogs languish. Not all rescues lack common sense and many are wonderful but this is not one of the wonderful ones. This is one where the rescue is more interested in showing power than what is best for the dog and the kids in this family. Stop donating to them Ellen.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Ellen’s web site 7,519 comments & boy should you read some of them. Just about every single person is for her. There is a lot of people who has had their dog or cat taken back or they have given them back because of rescue people always calling them up & telling them what to feed & etc. I have learned a lot from a lot of people from a lot of different states. I can’t believe it.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
There’s a huge difference between rules and a control freak making dam*ed sure every single one of them is followed to the letter.
And get this, on the dinner tv news a woman who got a pet from Mutts and Moms said she bought a pet from her and a while later she was walking the dog without a leash. [OK, that’s not kosher, she admits it, but the dog walked really well next to her. Still not an excuse.] And out of nowhere who drives up but the head of Mutts and Moms, pulls over, gets out of the vehicle, grabs the dog and takes off with the dog in her vehicle. The new pet parent was left standing there wondering what the he** had happened. A few days later she got her dog back.
Something’s very wrong with the head of a rescue org that has time to stalk its adoptees.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
“There is a lot of people who has had their dog or cat taken back or they have given them back because of rescue people always calling them up & telling them what to feed & etc. I have learned a lot from a lot of people from a lot of different states. I can’t believe it.”
Where I volunteer, we have way too much to do to be bothering with that kind of nanny nonsense even if we wanted to…
I don’t get it.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Bridgett,
I wasn’t insinuating you were some kind of evil declawer. I am sorry if it came across like that. Just, since it had been brought up and brought up again, I thought I would post that educational link so as to show rescues and shelters have a right to be concerned about the practice–at least to politely ask that an adopter won’t (in good faith) and for the adopter to understand why it’s more serious than a difference of opinion.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
What should the prime directive be for Mutts & Moms? Answer: the health and happiness of pets. Therefore, this organization must have the capacity for flexiblity; the ability to evaluate a situation on a case by case basis; and the wherewithal to realize that the dog was in a happy home with the hairdresser’s family. Again, the happiness of pets is the purpose of this organization. The organization has no other purpose. Pleaase, Mutts & Moms, push aside your egos and allow this dog to go back to his happy home with the hairdresser’s family.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Lynn on some of the posts (I think tmz) they said the women holding on to the dog is the owner of the rescue place not the same one as in the dog tag in the heading. The video on tmz at the house is really sad.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
The hairdresser is not getting the dog back. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21336607/ “Fink said Moms and Mutts has a rule that families with children under 14 are not allowed to adopt small dogs. “It’s for the protection of the dog,” he said.â€
October 16th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
i have found that the private rescues i deal with are too busy and too under staffed and under funded to go around playing SS Dog Nazis. if these people have the leisure to tool around spying on clients and dragging dogs off the street for minor issues they’re simply sick control freaks. they aren’t helping people nor animals but causing harm so they can indulge in manipulating and controlling others .
i really don’t mind them talking to my landlord or asking about other pets, children and general questions around basic pet care( like if you get a himalyan you HAVE to groom them regularly) but the truth of the matter is as others have pointed out-once you buy it the animal is your property.legally they give up all rights when they transfer the animal to you as long as youre not doing something illegal with it. it’s one thing to assure a proper home for the pet- it’s quite another to invade someone else’s life and seize their legal property with no recourse to reason and probably outside the bounds of the law. they sound like nut jobs. there are many private rescues out there doing a great service to animals and humans. it would be a shame if we judged them all by this particularly bad example of how not to operate.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
I wonder if one could construe this “checking up on the dog” as stalking?
In any case, it seems the Dog Nazi definitely has a problem. Far too much time on her hands. I’ve said it before: Something’s very wrong when the head of a rescue org that has time to stalk its adoptees.
AND THIS IS A PET LOVER???????
I really wish deGeneres would consult legal counsel on this one.
8300 posts so far on deGeneres’ website, almost all in support of her.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:06 am
trucorgi says:
October 16th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
“the protection of the dog”?!!!!??? the family already has a small dog! that’s freakin’ absurd!! Ellen saw the new owner EVERYDAY. it’s not like she passed it off to some stranger!
personally, i think kids should be around dogs/pets long before 14. i mean seriously, if you go by the rescue groups idea that small dogs shouldn’t be around children under 14 for “their protection”, what about cats, rabbits, birds, fish, hamsters, rats, mice . . . .
lordy, my parents raised us with all kinds of animals. and oh the horrors, NONE of them were “large” except for the beagle! 2 doxies, cats, and a host of other critters . . .
thanks for the update. GRRRRRRR!
October 17th, 2007 at 3:44 am
Lauren says:
October 16th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
It appears that Mugs and Moms has changed their name, probably due to the bad press. Here is there new info:
Small Time Rescue
Southern California
Phone: (626) 792-7577
Email: beckynot@beckynot.com
——————————
Where did you get that information???
I don’t think that’s right at all. Unless Marina Baktis also changed her name to Rebecca Kramer …
See:
http://thepetgazette.org/cgi-b.....;printer=1
“Rebecca Kramer, founder of Small Time Rescue in Venice, California, rescues small dogs and dogs with special needs from the animal shelter. Her dedication and commitment to rescuing older, unwanted canines is unique and highly commendable. Giving them a second chance at life, Rebecca has successfully placed many older canines into loving homes, saving them from the fate of being euthanized.
Small Time Rescue, an all breed and breed mix rescue, takes in small dogs, 10 lbs and under who, according to Rebecca, “aren’t likely to be adopted from the shelter or have already been there and been overlooked. Most commonly these dogs are older (10 to 15 yrs), ‘fear biters’ (dogs who have snapped out of fear in the kennel and been labeled dangerous), have health issues (cataracts, skin issues, non critical things), or are filthy and matted to where no one can see past it.â€
And:
http://web.archive.org/web/200.....dmoms.org/
Mutts & Moms is a non-profit organization that rescues dogs from Los Angeles City and County shelters.
This rescue was started by Marina Baktis, a volunteer with Los Angeles city shelters, who saw all the beautiful animals that are euthanized daily and wanted to do something! Mutts & Moms rescues mixed breed dogs (mutts) and Moms with the occasional litter, taking them out of the shelters and into foster homes and boarding kennels, where they are groomed, cared for, and then adopted into loving homes.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:03 am
Just because Ellen is a celebrity, and not a Michael Vick, does not excuse her from obeying the terms of a contract she made. Mutts and Moms did the absolute correct thing in taking the dog back. Perhaps they will evaluate the family to whom Ellen gave the dog, and determine that they are, indeed, fit guardians. It is not up to Ellen, nor any of the posters on this list, to decide the fate of the animal. While I have always been an Ellen fan, and likely will continue to be, I am a bit cynical about that tearful diatribe on her show. I am not impressed! She apparently, like many others, thinks the rules do not apply to her because she’s a “somebody.” WRONG! The rules (should) apply to everyone.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:43 am
A companion animal is a lifetime commitment. What part of that doesn’t Ellen (and the wags who are posting support of her grievous decision) get?!?
October 17th, 2007 at 9:24 am
After hearing the owner of Mutts and Moms, or whatever she calls herself today, on the news I am more convinced it is all about power and control than the love of animals. How ridiculous to rule out all kids below 14 as kids learn so much from having pets. My family has always had animals and loves them. The tiniest children learn respect from early on. People should stop supporting such a person and deal with local shelters that are looking for good homes not power over others. Maybe the city or county should look into her business more carefully too.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:25 am
>
Funny that now animals are property. Seems not long ago people were screaming because the pet food companies were saying pets are property.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Pasadena Humane Society & SPCA spokeswoman Ricky Whitman speaks out against Mutts and Moms taking Iggy from hairdresser:
Though the local humane society has the same policy, saying adopted dogs who aren’t working out should be returned to the shelter rather than given away, Whitman says her group “would’ve handled this very differently.”
“I doubt very much that we would’ve taken that animal away,” she said. “From what I’ve read, the family is just devastated. Ellen is certainly devastated. That’s not what you want. You want people who have animals to be happy, and you want animals to be in wonderful environment.”
http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_7194819
…………………………………………..
Someone on tmz found this and is calling for an audit of Mutts and Moms:
Mutts and Moms’ California Corporate Filing - Suspended?
http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpd.....r=C2693823
October 17th, 2007 at 9:43 am
I’m sicken by the people who are talking about ‘boycotting’ private shelters because of a case like this. Are you serious? Do you actually think that publicly run shelters are doing a superior job because they will allow almost anyone with $30 to adopt a dog? Do you realize the HUGE number of animals most of these shelters euthanize each year? They can’t afford to have no-kill policies because they aren’t given a big enough slice of the pie of YOUR tax money. Do you realize that most public shelters perform social tests on animals to see if is adoptable, sometimes within hours of the dog arriving at the shelter (an unfamiliar and SCARY place), only to deem them ‘too aggressive’, ‘too shy’, ‘potential to fear bite’, etc, within HOURS of their arrival. And then they kill them. Without giving them a chance to get used to their surroundings, after being dumped by who they thought was their family.
And now you sit there and criticize the people who for the most part VOLUNTEER their time to private rescue groups and are doing it soley for the animals, not to be on a power trip and not to screw over potential adopters. They are doing it for the animals.
And yes, I do have a vested interest in this. I work with a fairly large, not for profit, animal rescue group in the Washington DC area. Some of you have no idea the hours and hours people put in of their time at adoption sessions each and every weekend. Going to peoples houses before the adoption, going once the animal has been there for a couple weeks. It’s a whole hearted commitment to the ANIMALS. Many of us, if we can afford it, pay out of our own pockets for gas to drive to adopters houses, the vet, adoption shows, supply pic-ups, for vet bills, including vaccines, spay/neuter, medications for illness (imagine a litter of 7 pups all with long worms in your house), etc. These animals are our only concern. And all we expect is adopters to do is love their animals, treat them right, and if it doesn’t work out, bring them back to us, so we can make sure they get a good home, and in the mean time, we’ll give them a good home. We don’t get paid, we don’t get any tax money. We raise our own money at countless fund raiser events (more time we are donating).
Rules, good faith and otherwise, should apply to all who agreed to them. Ellen violated the contract. The dog was the ‘property’ of the rescue if it was not in possession of Ellen. Period. We have no idea if that was a good home for that dog. The rescue had no idea. The best interest of the dog was to remove it, care for it at their facility (or with a pre-approved foster) and then try to adopt it out again (maybe to those people again).
Private shelters support the animals. Why don’t you?
October 17th, 2007 at 9:58 am
HB
Apparently you have not heard that the woman entered the residence under false pretences and said she was there for a home inspection. Once inside she grabbed the dog out of a child’s arms and went out to the waiting police she had called. On the news she announces that under no circumstance will that family even be considered to adopt the dog. Welfare of dog or power and control? I am supporting the animal. It had a loving and safe home. Do all the background checks needed but who handles things this way??? Hope your group does not.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Traci,
You didn’t read what we posted, you defended your WONDERFUL (adn it is wonderful) rescue.
what we said was simply that rescuse force you to follow THEIR standards, not your own. Maybe i only want one kitten. this is my choice as an adoptive parent, but now i know i can’t adopt from your center.
It doesn’t make a shelter bad, it just means that many of us find it frustrating that in a world where sheters (good and bad, public and private) are over run with animals, they would rather hold onto animals and keep them in CAGES, then give them to a home they do not personally find “acceptable” for often simply ideological postions like declawing, like adopting 2 instead of oen, or having children under a certain age.
so, if i had to adopt one kitten, or wanted a kitten to come home to my 6 year old’s birthday present - i’d have to go somewhere else, and not give the kitties at your shelter a home.
it’s not saying the policies are not sound, it’s simply saying shelters force you to fit into thier molds.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Animal lover.
To most of us, a companion animal is a “lifetime commitment”, but we are here on itchmo. we are a rare % of people. we likely donate time or money to animal causes, ect.
that does NOT mean animals MUST be “life time companions”. they are still animals. Most people eat animals. most people accept them as service animals. and, most people will put thier own family or other pets they have had long term, before the new pet.
I myself would do this, if my cats had extreme problems with a new adopted member of our family. Luckily, i’ve only ever had minor skirmishes that 1 month of care and attention have cured. but my Dulci was with me for 16 years, if she was fighting with a new cat, I’d find the new cat a new home.
I’m glad you see your pets as “forever”. Put it’s wrong of us to chastize other people who do not make the same kind of total commitment to an animal, as long as they do what they can to make sure the unwanted animal is cared for in the interum.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:56 am
I am siding with the rescue group on this one…it is disturbing to me that Ellen felt the need to use her show as a platform for, I don’t know, a highly effective way to bully this group? I can’t come up with any other motivation.
I think this probably could have been handled just fine behind the scenes. But that’s not how celebrities like things done - lol.
I’m sure the little dog will find a forever home through the Mutts and Moms rescue now that he was taken back in.
rikki
PS: I find it highly likely that there are publicists trolling lots of these message boards. Just pointing out the obvious…
October 17th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Sylvia,
I had not heard that. How unfortunate that this group is giving rescues’ such a bad rep. While I don’t condone lying, like it or not, I think M&M had a right to take the dog back for Ellen’s contract violation. Don’t get me wrong, I completely sympathize with this dog. The poor thing is probably horribly confused about what is going on, hoping from one home to another. But when push comes to shove, this is a policy that 9 times out of time, enforced properly (not by lying to get into someones home), has the best interest of the animals in mind.
This really does sadden me, there are so many good rescue groups out there that help so many, many animals find good homes. They have restrictions and guidelines for many reasons, but when it comes down to it, it’s all to protect the animals. If you don’t like their restrictions, go to a publicly run facility (some of them have restrictions too!). It’s not like private rescues have a monopoly on abandoned dogs.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:13 am
(last comment, i promise -grin)
HB -
People who diss the Public Animal Control/Animal Sheters are mearly uneducated about the real policies of “no-kill” shelters and the effects upon so-called (eronously) “kill” shelters.
I’ll use teh shelter i work in, Boulder HS. Boulder HS is OBLIGATED to take EVERY animal that comes to it’s doors. they are also the shleter were any lost, or wounded animal is brought by the county. they are also the offical shelter to house abused animals during investigations. They do not have the option to deny animals.
On the other hand, “no-kill” shelters will only take 1) enough animals they can support - then no others, 2) adoptable animals, 3) healthy animals, etc. To maintain thier “no-kill” status, they have to push off unadoptable animals to teh public shelters.
they are not “no kill”, truly. they are just “we do not actually kill any of the animals here”.
I am fully in support of most private shelters. most do a GREAT job. most put tons of focus on the animal, and on finding the animal a good home.
But i will not tollerate the bashing of public shelters when compared to “no - kills” simply because public shelters do not have the choice that private shelters do, in regards to which animals they can or will house. If a 3 legged cat with a seriously bad attitude come into a private shelter, they can say “we don’t have the space or time for this one, and can place 5 others instead.” which is great. but that 1 who they can’t place then has to go to the public shleter.
public sheters do what they can in a VERY VERY thankless world. I am so glad private shelters like Traci’s exist. but i also know that bashing public shleters cause they aren’t “no kill” is a ridiculous game of not really understanding or ideniftying the real problems (over population) and how to cure them (spay, neuter, etc).
October 17th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Traci,
I wasn’t offended. I get upset sometimes too when I hear that friends are declawing their cats. I usually give them my spiel and move on. I would rather have the kitty in a good home with no claws than in a shelter.
:)
October 17th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Ok, last one for me too ;)
Tanya,
I think we’re both guilty of passionately over generalizing. I’ll give you that not all public shelters are guilty of the practice I mention in one of my posts of testing animals one they first come in, while some are. I know they have limited resources as well, but they are publicly run, so logically, the public has a say in how they run (the same way we have a say in how the transportation boards maintain our roads, etc).
As for all private rescue groups turning away ‘unadaptable’ animals so they can keep their ‘no-kill’ status. Not true either. Many rescues maintain animal sanctuaries as well, for animals that will never be adoptable and do not have an illness that puts the animal in chronic pain. These sanctuaries allow these animals to have a good quality of life, even though they are not adoptable for whatever reason. We have quite a few 3 legged animals or one eyed that no one wants at adoption events, that have spent several months and even several years on our property.
And yes, rescues do have limits on space, but then again, we have so many fosters in our group that take one 3, 4, 5+ dogs sometimes in order to NOT have to turn any dog away, regardless of its status.
And I 100% agree with you that the root of the problem is overpopulation and nothing else (we could spawn this into a debate over pediatric spay and neuter next ;) ).
Cheers,
HB
October 17th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
The owners of the shelter said : She is adamant that she is not going to be bullied around by the Ellen DeGenereses of the world … They are using their power, position and wealth to try to get what it is they want.”
I have to say. To me, this sounds like the owners of the shelter are the ones doing the bullying and having serious control issues.
To take a dog from a home with a loving family would be virtually “kidnapping” in my home.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I heard on a show that this shelter has said:
a) it has no intention of returning the dog to the hairdresser and
b) it has a policy against adopting dogs to any household with children under the age of 14.
These positions both seem unreasonable to me.
I do support rescue and shelter policies which require that animals adopted FROM them be returned TO them for rehoming. However, the primary consideration has to be placing these animals in good homes.
It is COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS to bar a family with children under the age of 14 from adopting. Maybe there should be restrictions on adopting SOME dogs (based on breed, size, or temparament) to families with babies or toddlers, but the hairdressers kids are 10 and 11 right?
That policy, if true, definitely stands in the way of many animals being placed, it’s NUTS.
In this case, what they should do is have the hairdresser’s family go through the adoption screening process, and return the dog to them if they are suitable — but they need to bend their “children must be 14″ rule.
It is in the best interest of this dog to go back to a family he has bonded with provided they have been taking decent care of him and are capable of continuing to do so. Seems like this group is just being stubborn and defiant because of what Ellen did, and they are punishing the DOG who is the victim here!
This reminds me of the post about the new book about the no kill movement, where someone posted that many rescues and shelters pass up “good homes” for pets in the search for the “perfect” homes, or what their idea is of the perfect home.
They may think the “perfect” home would not have kids under 14 — or would not have come about in this fashion — but this dog apparently has a GOOD home with a family that has kids 10-11. That’s GOOD enough, provided they are caring for the dog adequately as well. The best interests of the dog would be served by giving him back.
Stefani
The Toonces Project
http://www.TheTooncesProject.com
“Is Your Pet Safe at the Vet?”
October 17th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
That rescue is run by egomaniacs who are trying to make a point (”I won’t be pushed around by the Ellen’s of the world . . . ) and in doing so, have completely disregarded this DOG’s interests. What an egomaniac!
This is not about what Ellen did (it was the wrong way to go about rehoming the dog, yes). It’s about the DOG!!!!! This is the person they are hurting with their stubborn indignation!
THEY should be investigated.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I haven’t read through all of the commentsyet, but I have to say that I think this situation is RIDICULOUS! Ellen’s intentions in giving the dog to the family in question were good. The family clearly loved the dog and would have provided a good home for it. I think the rescue kind of went overboard.
Perhaps instead they should have simply done a home visit on the family and observed them with the dog. Yes, Ms. Degeneres did violate the agreement; however, why make this family (and maybe the dog, from the stress of bouncing around) suffer?
I agree they should give the dog back to the family. Maybe the solution vis a vis Ms. Degeneres is that she be fined and agree not to do business with that rescue again. (Ie, she violated the agreement, so they don’t want her as a client again.) Not win-win, but the dog would be in a loving home, not back at the rescue WAITING for one.
I feel strongly about this. I don’t know Ms. Degeneres personally, but from having seen her perform, seen her in interviews, and read about her, I think she is a good person and truly thought she was doing the right thing for the dog.
I’m an animal rights activist too,but I think some of us can go too far sometimes.
~The Lioness
October 17th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Ellen was wrong for giving the dog to another home without going throught the rescue…but her actions are hardly of the “high crimes ” nature. She neglected to read a contract…as most of us do. Did the rescue bother reviewing this with her? It would appear not!
Ellen made a choice that many in her position do not…and adopted a shelter dog rather than getting an expensivie vanity pooch a la Paris Hilton.
She would not have given the dog to a bad home.
This rescue sounds like they are on a major ego trip and not putting the needs of the dog first.
It is self-centered groups like Mutts and Moms that give rescue a bad name.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Ellen’s web site now has 12,435 Comments. There are a few more than before against her but I would say there are a good 99% for her.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“so, if i had to adopt one kitten, or wanted a kitten to come home to my 6 year old’s birthday present - i’d have to go somewhere else, and not give the kitties at your shelter a home.”
That policy for under 6 months kittens was made by the owner after it became apparent that it greatly reduced the kittens/cats being returned to us. You can look up the information on a google, the sound reasons why those kittens will do better in twos.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
I might add that those kittens/those kittens that became cats which are returned usually come back with behavior issues making it harder to get them readopted.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I find it very telling that there has been no public statement from Mutts N Moms on this whole thing, other than to loudly and snottily state there is no way the family will get Iggy back.
Hello??? Don’t they think telling their side of the story–not just spouting their little “rules” over and over again might help them out?
~The Lioness
October 17th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Hi,
A couple posters have given my e-mail as the contact info. for “Mutts and Moms”, the rescue that adopted to Ellen.
I also have a small dog rescue in Pasadena, for senior and special needs doggies, but I’m not “Mutts and Moms”. You can see my rescue information below.
Thanks,
Rebecca Kramer
Small Time Rescue
website: http://smalltime.petfinder.com
e-mail: beckynot@beckynot.com
October 17th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
“As for all private rescue groups turning away ‘unadaptable’ animals so they can keep their ‘no-kill’ status. Not true either. Many rescues maintain animal sanctuaries as well, for animals that will never be adoptable and do not have an illness that puts the animal in chronic pain. These sanctuaries allow these animals to have a good quality of life, even though they are not adoptable for whatever reason. We have quite a few 3 legged animals or one eyed that no one wants at adoption events, that have spent several months and even several years on our property.”
Our shelter has/has had plenty of special needs kitties housed and adopted since I have been volunteering–diabetics, blind, neurological disorders, seniors, food allergies (vomiting/diarrhea–not something that is considered highly “adoptable”), limbs broken or deformed etc. We recently got back a cat that had been chipped back to us but that had been found in a ditch nearly dead with rats eating her face. She got facial reconstruction from our vet and she is back at her shelter after recuperating with the owner. We send Feline Aids positives out to rescues and homes that specifically have those populations. Kitten season is usually feral kitten season for us. Most of them can be “tamed” and adopted. Occassionally one will grow up that cannot be or we get a feral adult in. Those cats will be sent to a barn or back to their colony. We work closely with the feral advocacy groups as well as tax funded shelters in the greater Seattle area. Often we get highly adoptable “green tags” from them–cats that are older, moms with new kittens/pregnants, black or tuxes, minor respiratory that a couple weeks of medicine can cure.
“And yes, rescues do have limits on space, but then again, we have so many fosters in our group that take one 3, 4, 5+ dogs sometimes in order to NOT have to turn any dog away, regardless of its status.”
Stressing the importance of being a foster parent… :)
October 18th, 2007 at 12:24 am
SOLUTION: The court orders the dog back to the family (if the family is approved by a respected pet adoption agency) Ellen donates money to another pet adoption agency (not M&M), as a fine for breaking the contract. I’m sure she wouldn’t mind. She knows she would be helping other pets in need.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:36 am
I might add a fine that is fair. This has already been blown way out of proportion.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
The shelter does not have the best interest of the dog in mind. They need to be shut down.
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:41 am
I know I’m probably going to tick off a lot of people with my comments but I have had enough. The rescue group DID offer to have the family come over and sign an agreement and informed them that they had to do a home visit. I guess Ellen and her hairdresser must have thought it was beneath them and refused to do so. Instead of calling this rescue group crazy, controlling, lunatics maybe you all should try gathering all of the facts first. Ellen went sobbing on national TV and the next day she said that she didn’t want to talk about it anymore. Hmmm, maybe it was because the founder of the rescue group decided that she had had enough of threat to her life -THREATS TO HER LIFE - and wanted to explain their point of view and went on the early shows. So then Ellen decides to cover her butt by saying that she no longer wants to talk about it.
I’m a rescuer and a foster mom and reading most of these posts really tick me off. Most of you don’t know what we go through. We take care of “bottle babies” feeding them every two hours around the clock, stimulating them so they can go to the rest room because you’re their momma now, and then dealing with work because we get to pay the vet bills. Do you know the pain that we go through when we’ve given it our all to still have them pass away? Do you know the heartbreak we go through having a cat die in your arms because the medicine that it needed to stay healthy was $25 dollars a month but it was too much for the owners who happen to have the latest cell phone and a purse that costs a couple hundred dollars. Do you know what it feels like to have a FULL grown cat come to you weighting 4 pounds?!?!?!?! Do you know the anger of taking in a cat that has spraying issues because the owners declawed all four paws have a new dog who likes to chase it and don’t understand why after one week of trying he is still doing this? Or how about getting lovely messages from irate random people who want you to take their cat or dog and you should because you’re a rescue group. Trust me if we could we would take all of them but for space and finance issues we can’t. In the last two months I have personally spent close to three thousand dollars on vet bills alone (I get NO donations). Every week I spend around two hundred dollars on litter and food alone. So I apologize that I can’t take in your cat that you’ve had for 8 years and your new boyfriend doesn’t like him so you have to get rid of your cat. I apologize that I don’t have space to take in your cat that you are suddenly allergic to after 14 years. And I REALLY apologize that I cannot take in your cat who “just keeps on getting pregnant”. I’m sorry that you feel you can threaten me by saying that you’ll take her to the pound if I don’t take her. I wish to god I could take all of them because when I say no a little bit of me dies knowing what their outcome is likely to be - but because I have 5 cats who will NEVER be “adoptable” I cannot make more room right now. You see I now have 5 cats that will permanently be with me for their rest of their lives. These guys will never allow me to pick them up or pet them but I made a COMMITMENT when I took them. Even if they hiss at me and scratch me when I take them to the vet to get their shots an annual check ups (although they are all INDOOR cats) I promised them a good home no MATTER what.
After all of this most of you have the gall to say that we are control freaks?!? You bet I’m going to make sure that my babies go to a good home because I have seen what a marginal home can do. We promised them from the day they came to us that we would make sure they went to a home where they were loved as much as they are with us. So I TRULY, TRULY apologize if I wouldn’t adopt to some of you but I hope that you all understand (although it seems that most of you don’t from these posts) that we are doing this for them NOT us like many of you think.
October 19th, 2011 at 5:55 am
free microsoft points
[…]Itchmo: News For Dogs & Cats » Blog Archive » Ellen DeGeneres In Trouble With Rescue Agency For Giving Adopted Dog Away[…]
October 20th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
wooden jewelry box
[…]Itchmo: News For Dogs & Cats » Blog Archive » Ellen DeGeneres In Trouble With Rescue Agency For Giving Adopted Dog Away[…]
October 25th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
professional makeup case
[…]Itchmo: News For Dogs & Cats » Blog Archive » Ellen DeGeneres In Trouble With Rescue Agency For Giving Adopted Dog Away[…]
October 29th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
orthopedic dog beds
[…]Itchmo: News For Dogs & Cats » Blog Archive » Ellen DeGeneres In Trouble With Rescue Agency For Giving Adopted Dog Away[…]
November 13th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
glass
[…]Itchmo: News For Dogs & Cats » Blog Archive » Ellen DeGeneres In Trouble With Rescue Agency For Giving Adopted Dog Away[…]
November 15th, 2011 at 8:39 am
page
[…]Itchmo: News For Dogs & Cats » Blog Archive » Ellen DeGeneres In Trouble With Rescue Agency For Giving Adopted Dog Away[…]
November 15th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Careers Plus Resumes
[…]Itchmo: News For Dogs & Cats » Blog Archive » Ellen DeGeneres In Trouble With Rescue Agency For Giving Adopted Dog Away[…]
November 16th, 2011 at 2:54 am
Resume Writing
[…]Itchmo: News For Dogs & Cats » Blog Archive » Ellen DeGeneres In Trouble With Rescue Agency For Giving Adopted Dog Away[…]
November 18th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
professional makeup case
[…]Itchmo: News For Dogs & Cats » Blog Archive » Ellen DeGeneres In Trouble With Rescue Agency For Giving Adopted Dog Away[…]
November 22nd, 2011 at 11:56 pm
makeup cases
[…]Itchmo: News For Dogs & Cats » Blog Archive » Ellen DeGeneres In Trouble With Rescue Agency For Giving Adopted Dog Away[…]
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:43 pm
wooden jewelry boxes
[…]Itchmo: News For Dogs & Cats » Blog Archive » Ellen DeGeneres In Trouble With Rescue Agency For Giving Adopted Dog Away[…]
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:05 pm
jewelry armoires
[…]Itchmo: News For Dogs & Cats » Blog Archive » Ellen DeGeneres In Trouble With Rescue Agency For Giving Adopted Dog Away[…]
December 9th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
pillardrill
[…]Itchmo: News For Dogs & Cats » Blog Archive » Ellen DeGeneres In Trouble With Rescue Agency For Giving Adopted Dog Away[…]
May 9th, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Trackbacks
…This is undoubtedly one of the most practical web sites I was fortunate to have read. See it, the information and facts are tremendous…