Ellen DeGeneris Weepy Over Iggy
 

Yoy! Ellen really lost it on the air. Iggy's a dog she adopted and then gave to friends because she couldnt handle the dog. Some organization removed the dog (not Ellen) from the friends house because Ellen signed a contract agreeing not to give up the dog.

I love dogs, but Cmon Ellen, get it together ... imagine if Prez Bush told Ellen's gal pal Portia Derossi she needs to go fight in Iraq ...


http://tv.yahoo.com/contributor/3346..._degeneres__ER

Can't say that I do...

I don't know all the details, but if she gave up the dog, why is she so emotional? And even if she wasn't supposed to give the dog away, why would the adoption people really care if the dog is in a good home?

Really? You're judging someone because they feel grief? You don't know who Portia de Rossi is? Not sure I can understand much of anything about this thread. -ohbfrank-

Someone at Mutts and Moms is just being an asshole or afraid to overlook the infraction because they could lose their job. Why in the world wouldn't they simply have the new family fill out all the necessary paperwork after the fact instead of marching into their house and seizing the dog? I can't say that her emotional reaction was unjustified especially since she cared about Iggy enough to find him a new, loving home instead of returning him (which many hollywood stars would have had their assistant do). What Mutts and Moms did was nothing short of cruel and unusual for both the dog and the two daughters of the hairdresser.

Because the new owners' kids already bonded with the dog.

I hope the family gets the dog back. Anyone know what organization took the dog?

I'm not sure why the hairdresser just didn't say "fuck you" when the adoption agency came for the dog.

And I have no idea what the Iraq non sequitur even means.

I guess it's the lawyer in me, but since when does a private organization have the right to recover property from a third party without a judicial order? What relevance does a contract signed by a non-party have to this family?

http://tv.yahoo.com/contributor/3346..._degeneres__ER
The relevant parts:
So basically, the organization was following their rules which DeGeneres was too stupid to fully read. Bitch at them all you want, but they're not in the wrong here.

Not disagreeing with you, but why couldn't they have worked something out with the new family? I mean it is in the organizations best interest to place the dogs in a loving, nurturing environment. So instead of "patching" the placement by having the paperwork redone retroactively by the new family, they now have one more dog to place - blocking some other dog from entering the program for placement... a dog who will likely end up being put down instead. :(

Well they have a right to ask, and as a lawyer you should know the hairdresser was not a bona fide purchaser for value. ;)

I don't know much about animal adoption places, but from what little I understand, it's a pretty extensive process, with a lot of questions about your home, your lifestyle, etc., agreeing to occasional visits and updates. The organization was justifiably upset that the dog was suddenly moved to a new location that they were not aware of and having new owners that they've never met and talked to. For all they know, the new owners could have been abusing/neglecting the dog.

The article stated that the policy of Mutts and Moms is that the owner is supposed to return the animal if for some reason they can't take care of them anymore. DeGeneres broke that rule and now there's an upset family and negative attention brought to the company who was only acting in their and the animal's best interests.

This whole thing probably could have been avoided with a single phone call from Ellen telling Mutts and Moms that she can't hold onto the dog and is returning it, but she found a family that is looking for a dog, so can they setup a meeting. But no, she didn't read the papers and just assumed they would be OK with her actions.

It is standard policy of every animal adoption place to say "If it doesn't work out, you must return the animal here, not give it away on your own." These no-kill private animal adoption agencies take their responsibilities seriously. You can't just walk in and grab a dog or cat. They want to know it's going to a good home. And you can't do that unless you forbid further "hand-offs" down the line.

Just another example of a celebrity being scatterbrained and pleading to be treated special because she can.

She looked & sounded so upset, you'd think it was over something that was truly devastating.

Sure, they can ask, and my response would be "get a court order". Also, if the hairdresser was at least semi-intelligent, he would say he traded services for the dog.

I just adopted a kitten in Northern Virginia a week and a half ago at PetSmart. I filled out a form saying I owed my house, had a cat-friendly dog, agreed the cat was to stay indoors and never be declawed, paid $135 and they gave me the cat right on the spot. Took under and hour including getting supplies and a pet carrier. Sounds really "entensive" doesn't it?

Which they could easily have remedied with a home visit. They must care a lot if all Ellen had to do was lie to them on the phone at their "check-in" for the poor dog. All I'm saying is some of these groups lose sight of their real mission and sabotage themselves by not trying to finesse such a scenario instead of bringing down the hammer. Did anyone BENEFIT from their reaction to reclaim Igggy? Can't see who has from the details here...

The hairdresser is a "she" BTW.

When I adopted my cat, I had to agree to the same things. They even made follow up calls to make sure everything was ok.

TMZ reported ( i know, i know) that the rep from the adoption agency came for the dog with the cops

Did they ask to speak to the cat or ask for it to meow in to the phone?

I was talking about a privately owned animal adoption agency, not a corporate-owned shelter where you got your cat from. Different cases.

To my knowledge, PetSmart doesn't own any shelters. Instead they work with local shelters in the area.

For example, when I adopted a kitten I found at PetSmart I had to go through the same paperwork as Ellen. Indeed, the process was so extensive it took several days before we actually could take her home. In fact, we were #10 on the waiting list -- the previous other 9 adoptees were rejected.

Like Ellen, I also had to sign an agreement that I would return the kitten if I didn't want her. They were also supposed to come and visit our home and make sure it was a good environment (but that never happened).

Next time I adopt a cat, I'm going to China.

(not a joke post, btw...except maybe the last sentence)

Well, now I know that her partner is Portia De Rossi.

Ah Gestapo tactics. No court order = no sale, cops or not.

Fair enough. Like I said, I'm not terribly familiar with how animal adoption works. But I wonder why your experience was so different from rfduncan's if you were both using PetSmart.