I saw an interview with the shelter owner. She seemed pretty resentful of all the negative attention coming her way and said that the dog would never go to the hairdresser's family because of it. I'd guess that's why there was such a quick placement with another family.

Well, that pretty much seals my perception of her in that case. If she spitefully placed the dog somewhere quickly not in the best interest of the dog but because she was pissed off, she's a real treat of a person who need not be dealing with this in the first place. I'm not trying to hold Ellen faultless (and don't really have that much of an opinion of her either way overall), but this woman sounds like she was on a real power trip.

I feel sorry for the women from Mutts & Moms. these people rescue all these dogs and try to put them in good homes, they were just going by the contract that Ellen agreed too.

What I find most interesting is that Ellen hasn't spoke out against the death threats against these people. I would have thought at the very least she'd ask her fans not to do such things, but I guess this speaks volumes about her character.

Is it really necessary to speak out against that sort of thing? Did Virginia Tech and the families of the victims of Seung-Hui Cho need to tell people it wasn't right to make bomb/death threats against his family?

I do think it underscores that this, for whatever reason and in whatever way, escalated into a pissing match between Ellen and the agency.

Actually, it appears Ellen never agreed to anything. Portia did.

I probably wouldn't eat them.

So are outdoor kids.

I believe you said it best with.....
Ummmm, I'm telling the shelter. That can't be allowed.


Brainiac? I have heard of both, and do not think either needs to be kept indoors either.

I'm honestly not trying to antagonize you, so don't take this wrong, even though it is clear you think little of me.

If the vets can't be trusted on this issue, how does one logically decide what they can be trusted on? I mean, I can only imagine that annual booster shots would be required by an agency like this, or regular vet visits, etc. I could be wrong, but if the shelter is so concerned about the animal's health, I would think they would want the vet to be a part of the pet's life (as much as a doctor is a part of a humans, anyway). So how does one decide what they can and can't trust them about?

Still sounds better than GETTING MY BALLS CUT OFF.

Which I somehow doubt these shelters have a problem with.

People with common sense can educate themselves and find decent vets. If I had a vet tell me that my cat needed annual boosters, then I would tell that vet to go F himself. Obviously, my vet is not like that, or he wouldn't be my vet. If your doctor gave you ridiculous advice, then I hope you would have the sense to find a new doctor. It's not as complicated as you make it sound. Not all vets are greedy lowlifes.

But isn't that the point, that they do what is best for the animal? Arbitrarily switching homes is not in the best interest on the animal. Sure, it may work out just fine, but they don't know that at the time. They can have harsh rules and be difficult, but they do it for the animal an its interests. They could probably place more animals if they weren't so concerned about each one having a good home, but they choose to try and make a few happy then to have many at various levels of happiness.

It's just like declawing. I don't think there's any evidence declawing is ever good for cats. It may not be bad for them, but it's never a good thing. That's why places don't want you to do it. Best case scenario is the animal remains the same and is happy. Worse case scenario is the animal has physical or mental problems. Why would any shelter want to allow it? Just so they can move more cats into homes? Even if some of those cats get permanently damaged (not be the declawing itself, but by its possible after effects).

Well then Ellen didn't have the right to do anything with the dog. Furthermore, the Mutts policy is reasonable since everybody thinks they are giving the dog a good home. That may not be the case.

These adoption agencies can do this because the new owners are not given the equivalent to a fee simple to the property - they are given something less ..the right to the property reverts back to the agency if the dog is given away. So its perfectly legal.



However, I sympathize with Ellen - these rescue owners think they are God, and to put it bluntly they like to play Pet Gestapo. I guess that is needed, but if it often falls to the semi-crazies to run these private organizations.

I tried to adopt a dog through one of these services - I filled out the neccessary paperwork, faxed it in. The paperwork specifically states you will be given an interview. well the lady called and said he rejected my application. i said what about my interview, she said I don't need it, you are rejected - you aren't fit for dog ownership - not enough money, etc, etc.

So I went down to the local shelter and adopted a dog. That was 2 years ago, and no problems. And yes they had an adoption interview too (the Anti-Cruelty society in Chicago) - I highly recommend it.

Oh and TMZ has video of the dog reclaiming on their Web site.

She has. I saw it on TODAY this morning. I think she's a day behind (films the day before to air the next day) so that episode where she chastises the death threats may be airing today.

Hey, I'm not the guy who started calling names, I stuck to the discussion. Didn't let it get to me, butthole. See, did that add anything? No, that would be trying to antagonize you, just like you did to me. So if you can handle actually having a conversation about this issue, let's continue. If you can't, fine.

Sounds like it still comes down to the vet being a greedy lowlife if he suggests anything that you (not a trained vet) don't agree with. That seems extreme. But then, so does telling a vet to go fuck himself if he happens to utter the words, "Would you like an annual booster shot?"

Obviously, we aren't going to agree. But I know that my cats are a hell of a lot happier being able to go outside than cats who can't. That seems to only be common sense.

So you are saying ALL cats have no desire to go outside?

To be fair, I don't think anyone really had a problem with letting cats outside, IF it's done correctly. Supervised outdoor activity or activity in a contained area seems fine. But too often people are more apt to let their animals roam about, which can lead to all sorts of problems: disease, predators, etc... And that's what shelters try to prevent against. I mean if they knew people would really take care of their animals, they'd allow more freedoms. But instead they need simple guidelines for what is and isn't acceptable.

Clearly, she was in possession of the dog. I think that gives her some rights.

From what I recall, title to chattel is a lot more fluid than estates in land. Transfers don't have to be recorded, for instance. The agency may have intended to create the equivalent of a defeasable fee (or perhaps you could argue even a life estate), but I am far from certain that they actually did so. I'm also very interested to see this TMZ video of the way they took possession of the dog. It sounds like they breached the peace, and I'd once again encourage the hairdresser to pursue the civil and/or criminal remedies available to her due to the manner in which the dog was removed.

ETA: Even if the contract was valid and was breached, the issue would then be one of specific performance versus monetary damages. The bottom line for me is that the agency was not entitled to self help and should have acted through the appropriate legal channels. The proper resolution to this dispute pursuant to California law is a very open question, I'd imagine.

I'm not sure she has that many rights. I mean, if I find something on the street, it doesn't necessarily make it legally mine with all the rights involved in owning property. She was in the home where the dog was adopted to, but that doesn't mean she can transfer the "property".


Transfers are recorded usually for notice purposes, which might be relevant if the hairdresser was a bona fide purchaser for value. But she wasn't (although that might have been a nice loophole to try and make work). I guess what she did have was more or less the same as a defeasble fee estate, fee simple on condition subsequent if you will. And by violating that condition, whatever title she had to the property ceased.

Plus, from what I've read, the police were with the Adoption people when they took the dog. Hard to have a breach of peace when you involve the police.

The police were not with the agency people. They brought 3 people there, two of them who were described as guards by the hairdresser's family. It appears somebody on the hairdresser's side called the police (you can hear it on the TMZ video, and that's about all the video is good for). That's self help, not properly repossessing property under police supervision.

In the time after I replied and before I saw your response, I added a little section about whether specific performance or monetary damages would be appropriate due to the breach of the contract even if a court determined that this was in fact a valid contract that was actually breached. I think those issues, among others, are still very much open. I'm not a California lawyer and can't assure anybody what the law is, but those are the sorts of things I think would be litigated if this happened in my state.

ETA again: I think the question of whether this would be the equivalent of a fee simple determinable or a fee simple subject to condition subsequent is a very interesting issue.

That's ridiculous. I'm not a cat person, I'm a dog owner. But I have had to deal with and feed many a cat, and let the little bastard jump up onto your lap with it's claws (even slightly) protruding just once and you'll jump the fence on this issue.

And a DEATH SENTENCE? Seriously? I live in the Manayunk district of Philadelphia... are there Jackyls or Coyotes running around that I'm unaware of?

Jesus H. Titty-Fucking Christ, can we stop saying this please? They are not fingers, they are retractable claws. What hurts is separateing the claws from the muscle and bones to which they are attached. It's not like cutting your finger off at the knuckle, it's like cutting your claws off at the finger. There is no way to analogize this, since we do not have claws.

I swear, you pet nazis do for your cause what Michael Moore does for liberals. I am both a pet owner/supporter or animal rights and a liberal, and yet Michael Moore makes me want to torture and the pet nazis make me want to throw cats into propeller blades. There are ways to be passionate about a cause without being towering douchebags (this is a generalization, Educator, not an indictment of you).



-Doc

First, if the contract says if the agency can take the dog back if transferred, then specific performance would be granted, especially in cases where the property is a living breathing animal.

The Self-Help issue seems to be a little less clear..but from what I can gather is that the family sent in an adoption form and the lady was invited over to the house, ostenibly for purposes of a household inspection...so whether that is breach of the peace, I don't know.

Well I think you are arguing against your own point in this paragraph. Of course title to chattel is more lenient and therefore their failure to say "From X to Y but if Y transfers Dog to C, then back to Y" would not defeat the claim of the Mutts and Moms.

I think its clear that the adoption agreement says if the person trys to transfer the dog to another owner without permission, the agency can repossess or something that equivalent.

At most she would probably be considered a baillee (the not for compensation kind) of the dog for Portia. The fact that they are not married is an issue here. I don't think Ellen is the type of person that sells dogs, so the UCC would not consider her a merchant.

They most certainly do have nerve endings. I trim my cats claws with special clippers and you have to be careful to only trim the tips, because if you look closely, farther down they have little veins in the claws. Once I have accidentally trimmed too low and have seen my cat cry in pain, so I have never done that again.

Another feral cat with claws intact could do a lot of damage to a cat without claws to defend itself. Even death, but not a quick instant one.

Sorry Jadzia, I have edited the original post amd removed the nerve ending comment.

I still stand by the sentiment, though. Because if this cat, even playfully, accidentally pulls a wolverine on a child, now the poor little guy has to be put down.

-Doc

No, they do what they think is best for the animal.

I too would have rather seen that dog go to a loving family with kids rather than back in a cage until another home was found. It is just a dog after all. Its not like they're placing a child into foster care.