25 Comments:

• I don't think this story is as simple as you are portraying it. Yes, Ellen violated the contract, but this agency could just as easily reprimanded her, and then looked into placing the dog with her hairstylist anyways. Now I understand that this particular agency has issues with adopting to families with children under the age of 14, but come on, these girls are close to that age. They aren't toddlers, they already have a dog, so they have obviously understand the responsibilities of taking care of an animal.
  
  I don't think Ellen should be getting special treatment, I think all people who want to love and care for these animals, should have that opportunity.
  
  I completely understand making sure the animals are safe and in good loving homes, but there are so many animals in this world that need to be rescued, why hold up so many other rescues because of this case. There are better ways to rectify the situation.
  
  And on another completely different note, Ellen indicated that she had the animal neutered and so on. What kind of "rescue" doesn't spay or neuter their animals before they are adopted out? That seems highly suspicious to me, and irresponsible. They are awfully hypocritical about the "welfare of their animals" if they don't spay and neuter their adoptees.

  By  Antonia, at 12:15 PM, October 17, 2007  

  ---

• I agree to a point, this doesn't have to be about Ellen anymore. They shoudn't bow to pressure because its Ellen, they should do the right thing for the dog and the children. BTW, there are no "small" children in the home. These are old enough children who already have a small dog and have proven their ability to care for Iggy. How many homes does this dog have to go through to find out if he fits? We already know he fits well in this family.

  By  Hope, at 1:22 PM, October 17, 2007  

  ---

• Steve - this is my take on it as well! Nobody who claims to be an animal lover would agree with Ms. Degeneres. Those rules are there for a reason--dogs need to be temperament-tested and families need to be interviewed to determine suitability.
  
  It's about the dog, not about a celebrity's hurt feelings. I'm touched not at all by Ellen's big boo-hoo. She violated the contract which is the same one everyone has to sign.
  
  Shame on her for using her fame to try to coerce the shelter to violate their contract.

  By  Anonymous, at 3:39 PM, October 17, 2007  

  ---

• well as a person who rescued 4 dogs in my life i am taken back first by the adoption agency they were happy to give the dog to ellen especialy since it is publicity second i feel the agency could have gone to the family and given them the oppertunity to adopt they already own a dog and are already understanding of the needs of the animal. i think this not only would have worked out for everyone involved but if they were found lacking the agency would have a leg to stand on, now some may say things like she signed a contract and you are right but you cant have a canned contract cause it will not answer all things, and now my final point the poor dog just when it feels safe and secure it is moved again this is the reason it is hard for me to rescue a dog yes i said i rescued 4 dogs but the thing is i ask question to them as well because they are not just looking at me to see if i fit the dog but i am looking to see if the dog fits me i must have looked at 25 to 30 different dogs before i picked the ones i took and i have jack russell terriers. i ask questions like how many homes has it been in? also does it understand sit stay stop down heal? is it yard trained or kennel trained? and above all the most important to me is how many homes has it been in you see i will take a dog who knows nothing and has been in two homes over a dog who knows all and has been in 10 in his mind he can never get comfortable and is always thinking where am i going next, so we may never bond and i need to bond with my dogs. lets get past all the who it is and look at what is best for the dog.

  By  Anonymous, at 6:50 PM, October 17, 2007  

  ---

• Are you nuts? I have rescued hundreds of dogs...were is common sense? Jesus, just do an application on the new family, ask Ellen to use her show to promote animal adoption vs buying from breeders, and give the poor kids their dog back. It is shameful torture to punish these kids just to punish Mrs. Degeneres for an unintential mistake. To go the family home and rip the dog from the kids arms? These woman truly give rescue a bad name. How about a little humanity. In case you want to see what kind of girl had the dog check out tmz.com shame, shame, shame... and every poll is 90% in favor or returning the dog... This is why animal activist have such a hard time in society, no common sense.

  By  EricsDogBlog.com, at 7:16 PM, October 17, 2007  

  ---

• The agency that took the dog away should be shut down. It is against the law in CA to adopt out an animal that has not been spayed/neutered. What kind of fly-by-night org. is it that doesn't go over the terms of the contract with the new owners? Next, If Ellen had to invest so much money in the dog then the agency spent zilch seeing to its first shots, basic health exam, micro-chip etc.
  Shame on them! I am sure they would have been only to happy to capitalize on Ellen's fame if it suited them. Lastly, what idiots they are to make such a stink when the person involved is so beloved and such an ardent animal lover. The have essentially put themselves out of business; what fools!

  By  Anonymous, at 7:54 PM, October 17, 2007  

  ---

• i seen the ellen show and i cried my eyes out...i thought it was awful lthey came and took the dog away from those two little girls who had already bonded with the dog...who better to vouch for the family than Ellen..who loves animals...i think it was sad and needless...they couyld have left the dog and then had the hairdresser fillout the necessary paperwork

  By  biscuitsmum, at 4:22 AM, October 18, 2007  

  ---

• Ellen aside, I think that ALL adoption agencies (since this seems to be the norm) need to be a little more flexible when it comes to situations where the initial dog owner cannot keep the dog. If anything, the owner finding a good home for the dog seems to be a win-win for any pet rescue agency! Instead of putting the burden back on the rescue, if someone is able to find a suitable home for the dog, all the rescue should do is follow through with paper-work and interview the new family.
  
  And don't even get me started on how Mutts & Moms went about this in COMPLETELY the wrong way. Instead of being pioneers in effective animal rescue, they decided to hide behind their contract. They could have simply gone to the hairdresser's home, evaluated them, and given over custody to them. Further, they probably would be able to get Ellen to be a spokesperson or something, a-la Bob Barker from Price Is Right (spay/neuter ur pets), regarding animal adoptions.
  Alas, it's all about that adoption fee. Don't think for one minute that they wouldn't charge another potential owner with Neutering & vaccination fees even if the dog was already neutered! But perhaps that is common practice as well.
  
  Oh well, you gotta love America! You're not allowed to have good intentions unless they meet guidelines. You have to do the right thing the right way apparantly. Or else even if it IS the right thing... it turns out wrong... nice! - Vera

  By  Anonymous, at 8:14 AM, October 18, 2007  

  ---

• It's quite obvious that this entire situation has been blown way out of proportion on every level. Ellen did a horrible thing, the adoption agency is incompetent, blah, blah, blah. Throughout it all there is a dog and a child that is suffering the brunt of it all. That's what a lot of people seem to have lost sight of.
  
  If that woman who runs the agency knew ANYTHING about adopting out a pet into a loving, safe, nurturing, caring home she would do the right thing and return the dog to that family. Shame on her!
  
  Ellen is a self-proclaimed pet-lover and i don't think she ever would have handed that dog over if she thought a child or a pet would be harmed.
  
  I have a sneaking suspicion that the minute that woman found out she wouldn't have an excuse to contact a celebrity once in awhile (to "check in") she pitched a fit and balked. Very sad.

  By  jody, at 4:35 PM, October 18, 2007  

  ---

• Why is everyone always so willing to hold stars to a different standard than everyone else? They really are just people, no better than anyone else.
  
  Ellen violated the contract. The rescue organization had the right and went ahead and took the dog. They way to tell this is Ellen has to use her show to plea for the return as she knows she is legally WRONG.
  
  Placement for shelter animals is even more careful, because they usually have had a rough time of it in the first place by even being in the rescue system. Everyone talks about how they should focus on the many dogs out there than need homes...well, why doesn't the hairdresser go ahead and rescue one of those many dogs? I suspect that they DO NOT QUALIFY; hence, all the whining about the one they had to give up.
  
  This rescue does not deserve the persecution they are getting from ignorant fans of Ellen. Shame on her for using her position to try to get special treatment.

  By  Anonymous, at 8:17 PM, October 18, 2007  

  ---

• These comments are ridiculous. It is the rescue organizations responsibility to ensure the dog goes to a good home. Their rule states no family with childern under the age of 14 (not CLOSE to the age of 14....20 is close to 21, should a 1liqour store say "close enough!"). And I agree with that policy.
  But it is "Ellen" and the rules should apply to the rich and famous (oh, unless she gave the dog to Michael Vick...maybe then everyone would be so sympathetic). If this rule was not in place, what would stop homes that were NOT deemed acceptable to just find a friend to adopt the dog for them.
  The "it's just a dog" comments are also stupid. These are probable the same people that don't think Michael Vick should be punished.
  Get a grip. I think it is great that the owner of the rescue is sticking to her rules and not being swayed (like the rest of you star struck idiots) because it is "Ellen Degeneres"!

  By  Anonymous, at 5:45 AM, October 19, 2007  

  ---

• If this family wanted a dog....why didn't they adopt one on their own? And if the dog didn't get along with her cat, why did she think a good home for it was with a family with another small dog?
  I am 100% on the side of the rescue group.
  I have 2 small dogs and cancer. When I go I will probably give my dogs to a rescue group (as my friends all have small kids...and small dogs/small kids are a bad combo). I take comfort in knowing rescue group are diligent about finding good homes for dogs...and not letting the adoptor just "give the dog away" if it doesn't work out.
  
  Ellen, do the rescue groups of the world a favor and buy your dogs from a pet store (then you are free to treat it like an old sweater that doesn't fit!)
  
  I use to be a fan, but now will never watch her show again! (can take the tears she weeps when she can't break the rules)

  By  Anonymous, at 6:00 AM, October 19, 2007  

  ---

• HAPPY ACCIDENTS
  
  It's my perception that dog rescuing, an admirable undertaking, is nontheless often conducted by people who, in a pinch, would rescue a dog over a person. I'm not saying one is inherently more important than the other; I'm saying that it's no surprise that the focus of Mutts and Moms omits the welfare of those children who'd come to love the dog, and probably vice versa. Should you be in the business of rescuing animals if your compassion is exclusively the animals? Wouldn't that be like running a matchmaking service and only being "concerned" with the well being of your favorite gender. Or worse, if a match didn't work out but one client was introduced to and subsequently fell in love with the other client's sibling (and everyone was satisfied), YOUR position is "break it all up and damn the tears."
  The ability to make lemonade out of lemons separates problem solvers from problem creators. In my business (music) we call unplanned but successful musical moments "happy accidents."
  
  Jeff Paris, Studio City, '07

  By  Jeff P, at 7:28 AM, October 19, 2007  

  ---

• You are right, this is how rescue works. I've volunteered countless hours doing rescue work, and all the groups do things this way. However, this never had to go this route. I figure common sense thing would have been to say to Ellen that you were going to check out the family / person who had the dog now, and if they looked OK, then that would be OK with the group. Instead, they made this personal, and made this a fight. The welfare of the dog should trump the rules in this case. Rules are meant to be guidelines to help the organization operate humanely and smoothly. However, when the rules are more important than the dogs, then the rules need to be bent or amended.
  
  If the new owner is unfit to have a dog, then the group should have, by any legal means, taken the dog back.
  
  I don't condone what Ellen did, because she should play by the rules by which she got the dog. And she should have contacted the rescue group before she let the dog go to someone else.
  
  It is all just a big mess now.

  By  Sam Basso, at 8:20 AM, October 19, 2007  

  ---

• I am still trying to figure out why the dog was not neutered prior to being adopted. To me, that point makes me question the legitimacy of the rescue agency, and therefore their "high-minded tactics" in taking the dog away from the hairdresser's family. Oh, and I am also curious-are they going to charge fess again when they find a "suitable" home?

  By  queenie31401, at 3:10 PM, October 19, 2007  

  ---

• Listen think about it most rescue groups check out where the dog is going to go, before they adopte a rescue dog out. They themselves are responsible for wht happend. The rescue personal should alway's make sure the dog will get along with the other animals in the home. Give me a break on whats best for the dog, it sure was not the thing they did when they took the poor little thing back. Give the dog back to them!!! As I see it there just concernd about selling it again $$$$

  By  mammajan13, at 6:14 PM, October 19, 2007  

  ---

• Most animals are not neutered or spade before 6 months and if its a small dog then they have to reach a certain wieght before its done. This is for the safty of the dog or cat.

  By  mammajan13, at 6:18 PM, October 19, 2007  

  ---

• Shame on Ellen, just because she's a star doesn't give her the right to violate a binding contract. Hollyweird has gone too far with it's own self absorption. The rescue agency did the right thing and needs to be commended for it. Stars are just spoiled brats crying for attention. Come on Hollyweird, grow up!!!!!

  By  Anonymous, at 2:39 PM, October 21, 2007  

  ---

• Why are you Ellen defenders so sure that hers was an "unintentional" mistake? I adopted a dog from a rescue agency and they VERBALLY made it clear 3 or 4 times that I could not just give the dog away (in addition to the written contract). If Ellen was aware of the rule, and gave the dog away anyway, then she was well aware that the dog could be taken from the kids after they bonded. From that point of view can you still defend Ellen? Hardly. To defend her you HAVE to feel she 'had no idea" about the rule. I guess is IS possible that it went in one ear and out the other.. After all, she IS blonde!
  
  Anyway, everyone is acting like those kids had bonded for months and months with the dog. Had they not had it for only a couple of weeks or so?

  By  Anonymous, at 11:22 AM, October 22, 2007  

  ---

• Ellen is someone who describes herself as passionate for animal welfare issues, and yet she claims she didn't know one of the first things about adopting from a rescue. I question if Ellen is a suitable animal adopter.

  By  Anonymous, at 12:06 PM, October 22, 2007  

  ---

• I've never bought a dog from a rescue agency.but if there all like mutts an moms i never will. it sounds like the only think about the contract not the dogs i will go to the dog pound. the charge to but part of the money goes for spade and neutered

  By  chinyming, at 7:48 AM, October 24, 2007  

  ---

• Yes, there are rules and very strict regulations on adopting an animal and yes, people should abide my them just like every other law. Although, sometimes there is no justification to the matter of what's right and what's wrong. Ellen just wanted to find a good home for the dog since it couldnt get along with her other animals. There's nothing wrong with that, I would probably do the same. The Humane Society could have been leniant on the situation and just have the new family go in for an evaluation process and see if the dog would be in a good loving home. I guess telling the truth does'nt pay off.

  By  Anonymous, at 11:51 AM, October 26, 2007  

  ---

• Oh, bah. The hairdresser had an intact dog and an OUTDOOR-ONLY dog - which is probably the REAL issue. She also refused to fill out an adoption application. Kids or no kids, she still wouldn't have been approved based on the other dogs in the home.

  By  Denise, at 5:54 AM, October 28, 2007  

  ---

• With the money Ellen has she could have hired a dog trainer to train iggy to the cats!!!!

  By  Anonymous, at 12:06 PM, November 25, 2007  

  ---

• i have a similiar problem... only reverse of what ellen is going through. i used to sell my yorkies and all of the owners kept in touch with me. To me that is very important knowing that the dogs arent being abused. But, this one... my not bloood relation sister lives in st louis came down to see me in pittsburgh and adopted one of my yorkies and named beau abt 3 years ago. Just this past May i found out she said gave the dog to one of her boyfriend's boss. i was furious and said why didnt you let me know? she said i didnt think it was important. i told her off abt my contract anytime you cant keep the dog you must return it back to me. i have chips in them so i know which yorkies are the true litter breed of mine. I called the new owner and guess what? as rude as she was....oh please this is silly dont bother calling me again....I thought if i talk to them and visit the dog to see if he was well taken care of then i could let them keep it. but as rude as she was made me wonder if the dog is really ok or not. As of right now im having a hard time trying to find a lawyer who would help me to give them a choice to allow me visit or give the dog back. anyone with knowledge on lawyers pls let me know. most of lawyer are interesting in dog bites lawsuits, how convienance... its greed.

  By  Anonymous, at 12:03 PM, August 06, 2008  

  ---

Post a Comment
Back to Homepage