Mordred

I can't wait until you get tasered.

PopcornTreeCt

Who gives a dog away after owning it for awhile? Some people have no heart at all.

And why is she crying when she gave the dog away? This isn't much an issue just another celebrity crying over not getting what they want.

GreenVulture

If only there was some kind of article, linked in a previous post, that explained all this.

Septemberbaby

She said today that her cats weren't getting along w/ the puppy.. he was too much to handle... she also said that she spent a lot of money on obedience classes and had him neutered. I don't think this was a case of: let's go and get a puppy and if it doesn't work out, we'll get rid of him. I really think that they tried... and it just didn't work out.
Even though Ellen signed a contract.. I would bet that she donated a ton of money .. and if that is the case, then maybe the agency could have made an exception and instead of going to the residence and ripping the dog from the kids hands.. maybe they could have spent some time w/ the family to see if they were compatible. I understand how rescue shelters work.. they want to make sure the dog doesn't get back into the wrong hands that got him there in the first place... but I think ripping puppies from kids is probably not a great way to show your good work. They knew full well who they were dealing with. Again.. they should made an exception.
Yeah, I know... doing that would have been cowing down to Ellen, the celeb... who cares? If the dog was placed in a good home and the family would have passed anyway.. why not, not look the cash cow ($ELLEN$) in the mouth and make an exception.

Jimmy James

I would imagine that the problem with this contract would be authenticating the dog. Is it adequately described in the contract? Did they take a DNA sample? My take on this is that nobody has done this dog right so far:

1) Ellen probably should have been more careful with what she signed and figuring out how to make a proper transfer of the dog. It's not like she is without a lawyer, I'm sure. All she needed to do was give this over to her people and let them take it from there.

2) The hairdresser should have stood more firmly and refused to make any admissions about where the dog came from. Let them sue. I can't imagine that would make any judge happy, particularly if it were clear this was a good home for the dog. Isn't the mission of the agency putting dogs in good homes?

3) The agency is the party I find to be most in the wrong. If the dog were given away and hurt, blame Ellen. Use the contract as a legal and PR tool against her and make sure the importance of placing animals in good places is known. In this sort of situation, I think you have to find out if the animal is in fact in a good home before you consider taking the dog away. I get that they're probably just trying to do a good thing in a wrong and inappropriate way (kind of like Ellen, actually), but they're the ones who have just taken a dog away from what seems like a decent home for no good reason.

Septemberbaby

I don't think the family could have lied... The agency called Ellen to check up on how the dog was doing.. and she didn't lie... she told them that it wasn't working out and placed the dog w/ her hairdresser and family. Not strangers.
Ellen was wrong. That's obvious. As for checking with her lawyer.. I'm guessing that she didn't think she needed to. This wasn't a house she was giving away.. it was a dog that she 'adopted' (bought) and probably donated (paid) a lot of money for. She probably thought he was hers to give away. She was wrong. She admitted that many times today while telling her story. She has nothing against this agency. All she wants is for the kids to happy again... they bonded with this dog.. if they have a beef with Ellen, they should sue her. Don't rip the puppy from the kids.
Again, I'm not suggesting that every celeb get a free ride.. but give me a break.. she placed the dog w/ decent people.. and of course the agency needs to be careful who the dogs are placed with.. I think in this situation, they could have interviewed the family .. asked them for a donation and be done with it. The only reason why we're hearing and reading about it is because of the way it was handled. You don't drive up to kids houses w/ police cars and take away their puppy. It ain't right.

Jimmy James

I think the family could have said that unless the police had a warrant (or other valid legal document to be executed), they were not welcome inside and that as far as the family was concerned that's all they wanted to say.

GreenVulture

Once again: DeGeneres might think it's a loving home for the dog, the hairdresser thinks she has a loving home for the dog, and it probably is, but the company doesn't know it's a loving home for the dog, and they're not going to determine that by just poking around the house for 15 minutes and calling it a day. As others in this thread can attest to, adopting an animal takes several days and lots of questions before getting approved. Yeah, the company could have handled this with a bit more tact, but rules are rules, and they're there for a very good reason.

The only people I feel bad for is the hairdresser and her kids; they have to pay the consequences of DeGeneres screwing up.

movieking

They talked about this TMZ.com tonight, and it was the family that called the police when the rescue place tried to take the dog, after telling the family that they just wanted to pick up the dog to inspect him. Since the paper work still officially named the rescue pound as the owners, they were allowed to take the dog. TMZ said they talked to the lawyers for the rescue pound, and since everyone wants what is best for the dog (and they don't want the bad publicity), there's a chance that the dog could end up back with the family.

Jimmy James

Using deceptive tactics just makes it all the more clear to me that the agency is the party most seriously in the wrong. If I were the hairdresser, I'd make it clear to the top people at the agency that this fraud took place and inquire as to whether the agency is so well funded that they'd like to spend resources in court figuring this out instead of giving the family a fair shake and an opportunity to adopt the dog.

ETA: If the agency didn't bring the police with them it makes it only that much easier to tell them you have nothing to say to them. Of course, that's more difficult to do when the agency gains your trust by telling you lies. That's really unacceptable.

Michael Corvin

How is this even news worthy? I was scratching my head when it came up on ET tonight. What the fuck is wrong with this country?

Jimmy James

Hold on -- you're trying to figure out how this of all ET stories is newsworthy? I totally agree with your premise that this is most certainly not something that "real" news should be covering (although I bet they are), but ET and its competitors/sister shows are not "real" news shows in the first place. In fact, I'd say this is more appropriate material than what I have seen recently on these entertainment "news" shows.

RichC2

Yeahh... it's ET, I mean, oh noz! Somebody got fat.

Whatever, at least nobody mistook it for a rat.

vegasbaby

That was my point in starting this thread in the 1st place. A spoiled celeb weeping uncontrolably over a 'lost' puppy. Its not like the dog got run over by a Zamboni ...

We sure have more to worry about then a returned puppy.

DieselsDen

Saw the clip. You know, just based on the video alone, I think it's pretty indulgent and vain of Ms. Degeneres to do this kind of public weeping on something which is fairly trivial is ludicrous and undignified. And even worse, to see it advertised as a newsworthy item. Gimme a break.

Edited: just read Michael Corvin's post and I agree 100%.

Giantrobo

I had a friend who LOOOOVES cats and who takes exceptional care of them be rejected by one of those groups who works with/at Petsmart. She had been looking for months to adopt one and found "the perfect" cat. She even went through a couple stages of the interview process but they wouldn't let her adopt.

They're VERY strict indeed.

movieking

I think it depends on the person you deal with. I've adopted from similar organizations before, and the first time, I had to wait a week, sign a bunch of forms, and get written permission from every adult in the house that they knew and agreed that a pet would be living there.

The last time we adopted a dog, we went there on the spur of the moment on a Sunday knowing that it would be a week or so of red tape before actually getting a dog if we did find one we wanted. Instead, we ended up taking a dog home about 30 minutes later.

Same organization, different people.

stingermck

Bored at work, only reason I feel the need to post this crap:

DeGeneres had said her hairdresser's daughters, ages 11 and 12, had bonded with Iggy and were heartbroken when the dog was taken away.

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071017/...uX9TLFyqZxFb8C

movieking

Just saw this on CNN. Now it looks like the family definitely won't get the dog back, and the rescue place is getting death threats.

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Ellen DeGeneres' doggy drama intensified Tuesday after her tearful plea on her talk show led to death threats against the rescue group that took back her adopted dog for violating the contract, according to a spokesman for the agency's owners.

Ellen DeGeneres (left) adopted a dog and then gave it to an acquaintance when it didn't get along with her cats.

DeGeneres explained on her show that the Brussels Griffon terrier mix didn't get along with her cats, so she gave it to her hairstylist's family. The owners of Mutts and Moms claimed that DeGeneres violated the adoption agreement by not informing them that she was giving the dog away and removed Iggy from the hairstylist's home Sunday.

As a result of the publicity, Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun received voice mail and e-mail threats of death and arson and were besieged by the media, disrupting business at Paws Boutique store in Pasadena, where they handle the volunteer, nonprofit rescue agency, attorney Keith A. Fink said.

Batkis rejected DeGeneres' plea to give the dog back to her hairstylist's family.

"She (Batkis) doesn't think this is the type of family that should have the dog," said Fink, who is not legally representing the owners but is authorized to speak for them. "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."

DeGeneres' attorney, Kevin Yorn, did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

"It's very upsetting to hear that someone is getting those kind of calls," DeGeneres' publicist Kelly Bush said. "Ellen just wants the dog reunited with the family."
Don't Miss

On her talk show taped Tuesday and airing Wednesday, a serious DeGeneres reiterated to her audience that "the dog needs to go to the family."

It "just needs to be in a good home," she continued, according to a transcript given to The Associated Press. "All that you're supposed to do is put a dog in a loving home."

DeGeneres had said her hairdresser's daughters, ages 11 and 12, had bonded with Iggy and were heartbroken when the dog was taken away.

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.

kantonburg

I had to go through the same thing when we got a cat. At the time we were in college, so we technically lied about owning a home. But the process was extensive and took about two weeks. That and they did call twice the following year to check on the cat. I was pleasantly surprised that they did.

Snowmaker

I F@*KING HATE animal rescue shelters like that!

My wife wanted to adopt a kitten from one one time, but when we mentioned the cat would be declawed, the woman really got on our case about it and the fact that we would not be allowed to do that or risk them taking the cat back! My wife and her argued back and forth for a bit and then we just walked away.

Some animal "rescue". They'd rather keep an animal is a cage of its own feces rather than let it go to a loving home over a small technicality.

adamblast

Wow, I really strongly disagree. I think the agency is 100% right, and Ellen and her hairdressers 100% wrong. And I love Ellen to death.

But it's flaky beyond words to adopt a dog and then give it to a third party within a week or two. Any private animal shelter worth anything would have done exactly what this one did. Remove the dog from the unauthorized and unaccountable new "owners" and bring it back for safe placement within the system.

And it's clearly *not* a good home, by the shelter's rules. They do not allow placement of toy-sized dogs in families with young children. That seems reasonable to me, for the safety of the animal.

Ellen's just upset because her own sense of privilege--not having to pay attention to the rules--ended up making some young girls (the hairdresser's daughters) very, very unhappy--and she has had to deal with their weepiness over the dog's removal. Too bad.

Bravo to the shelter for sticking to their guns. I wish them luck, but I suspect they'll have to cave and break their rules for the sake of celebrity power within the next day or two. Ellen's got a national soapbox, and she's talking about it every day.

adamblast

Rightly or wrongly, there are hardly *ANY* animal shelters that will let you have a cat if you say you're going to have it declawed.

While owners with fancy couches might consider it a bonus, it's almost universally strongly disapproved--it's considered both animal cruelty and (if the cat ever escapes) a death sentence outdoors. I'm surprised that any vets will still do the procedure, in fact. My impression is that declawing is largely considered a thing of the unwise past.

MechanicalMan

Good for them. People who want to allow a cat outdoors or to have a cat declawed should not be allowed to adopt. If your wife is unwilling to take proper care of an animal, then she shouldn't be a pet owner.

Vibiana

Amen. I have five cats, all rescues, and the only one that is hostile is the one whose previous owners were cruel and ignorant enough to have her declawed. Declawing is barbaric and should NEVER be done. "Small technicality," indeed! Go get your fingers cut off at the joint, Snowmaker, and then come back and tell us how piddling it was.