View Full Version : Ellen DeGeneres trouble with a dog adoption agency
17th October 2007, 04:54 PM
I don't know if the guys in US watched the show yesterday.. But Ellen cried A LOT on her show... You can read about why she cried on this link below.
Basically she adopted this pooch and she found out that the dog wasn't getting along with her cats, so she gave the dog to her stylist's family. When the agency found out, they took the dog away.
For more details on the story: http://www.tmz.com/tmz_main_video?titleid=1243623082
What do you guys think on this? Personally I'm a big fan of Ellen and was both shocked & sad to see her break down like this on her show... She must feel awful. But I think the agency had all the fundamental rights to do what they did.
I just wish and pray that everyone is happy in the end. It's sad that the no-nothing media is trying so hard to dramatize the situation by pointing all the fingers at the lady at the adoption agency.
17th October 2007, 05:01 PM
Agree the agency had the right to do what they did under their adoption terms, but it is also incredibly distressing at the same time for Ellen and the stylists family too, sitting on the fence on this one!!
17th October 2007, 05:04 PM
I just feel so bad for the little dog. Its got to be so hard on him/her to be bounced around like this.
17th October 2007, 05:13 PM
Just added another link to my original post for more details on the story by TMZ.
It is true that the real victim in all of this is the poor little Iggy. It must so be stressful to be bounced around homes like this.
17th October 2007, 05:21 PM
maybe it will make the public think twice about breaking rescue contracts ......
I had a so called friend do this with some of my rescues & years later it still hurts to not know were they are. Saying that I wouldn't take a dog away from a home it was happy in
17th October 2007, 07:04 PM
Did you see the awful comments people made if you scroll down. :mad:
17th October 2007, 07:12 PM
Yes!!! I was going to comment on that as well. People can be so heartless - "its just a dog" - I am tempted to comment back on that website and tell all those people what I really think of them!
17th October 2007, 07:18 PM
Not to mention all the horrible gay comments - people are just mean!
17th October 2007, 08:35 PM
This thing which should have been resolved simply and quietly has clearly gotten out of hand. Now death threats are being received by the Mutts and Moms rescue group. I mean really, I knew this was a weird and scary world but I didn't know it was that weird and scary.
What are we teaching here:
1. Its wrong to remove a puppy from a loving home (I agree, of course)
2. but its okay to kill someone (Since when????)
Folks we are in real trouble is anyone out there in that big scary world actually believes this! (IMO)
17th October 2007, 08:35 PM
Yea I didn't notice the comment section when I posted the link but wow these comments are bizarre and some downright rude. Well at least it's good that all this publicity gets people to talk about the issues on pet adoption and will hopefully change some people's views towards it. I know if I didn't have Ginger I would never have learned about all the hard work the rescue agencies put in finding good homes for these pets (with most of them at enormous amount of stress for what happend in the past), and I would have never understood the rules set by the agency.
I do have a slight wish though... that I wish the agency provided some sort of flexibility given the situation by not making such a quick decision to take away the dog, but by carefully evaluating and considering that what Ellen and her hairstylist's family's did were sincere and meant to cause no harm to the dog... I just hope that the agency will do what is really really the best for her.
It's so horrible that the agency is getting all kinds of death threats and being humiliated by the media. I wonder if Ellen saw this coming...
18th October 2007, 06:29 AM
Haven't there been a couple of posts here recently by people who have given a Cavalier over to parents or a sibling? Wouldn't this be a violation of a breeder's contract, much the same way as the Ellen situation? :confused:
18th October 2007, 08:18 AM
This is such a typical example of "stick it to the Celeb"
The "rescue" organization was the first one who threatened to go to the media if the didn't get "their dog" back. Now they are crying that they got a bad rap.
They blew it and they deserve everything that is coming their way. Sorry little small minded B**ches. Ellen is not exactly some alcoholic, dope smoking, trailer trash who gave the little doggy to the garbage man, so his 5 year-old could stick fire crackers up it's butt.
They are the ones who went all Rambo, and frankly, I think they should be shut down!
The last comment I heard from them today was, "There is no way we will give the dog back, after the way we have been treated."
So, obviously, it is all about them with no regard to the dog whatsoever. Oh, and BTW, they triumphly stated that they have already given the dog to someone else.
How many ways can they be scum, apparently more than most of us can imagine.
18th October 2007, 12:16 PM
Kris (and I) are in Cavalier Rescue. If we place a rescue and the contract says the person can't pass the dog on without contacting us, then they can't pass it on. Seems simple and straight-forward to me. Maybe there should be a clause in contracts saying which other clauses are OK to break :confused:. There could also be a clause saying that if you don't know what's in the contract, it's OK to break it. I'm being a little harsh, but I get tired of people who feel that a contract is nothing more than a guideline. Now, if someone came back to us said they have a problem and would like to place the dog with someone they know, we may (and probably would) be able to work with that.
Now having said that, it seems this is getting blown way out of proportion. By the media, the rescue group, Ellen, etc. On the bright side, it will probably boost Ellen's ratings. As for some of those comments at the end, well they have some real problems that they should be talking to a professional about.
18th October 2007, 02:54 PM
Apart from the awful homophobic comments, which I will never understand, I can see both sides of the situation--you do what you think is right for the dog that you've taken responsibility for the dog vs. you abide by the terms of the contract because the agency wants to ensure that the dog has a good home.
But what about the dog in all of this? What if it had bonded with the family it moved in with, still had contact with its former owner so that it didn't feel abandoned, and had a great doggy existence? Personally, I think that the best course of action would have been for Ellen to contact the agency to do the change right. Since that didn't happen, the best thing would have been the agency to investigate all this and come up with a resounding "no" before uprooting the dog again. Assuming it was a good home, at the end of the day all the agency has done is trashed its own reputation and possibly given a dog behaviorist a little income in the future by dealing with this dog's separation anxiety.
18th October 2007, 04:10 PM
I know I feel terribly conflicted. While I agree that the rescue group can and should require that the dog be returned to them, I think they could have handled things better by investigating the "new" family to see if Iggy would work out there. However, none of us know what transpired between the rescue group and Ellen prior to all of this hitting the fan. Perhaps Ellen copped a nasty attitude and the group decided to cut their losses and move on. I thought her performance was a bit over the top for someone in the public eye. Seemed more like a "spin" tactic to do damage control than pure emotions. I'm sure she felt bad but really!
Like Bruce said, "Maybe there should be a clause in contracts saying which other clauses are OK to break . There could also be a clause saying that if you don't know what's in the contract, it's OK to break it. I'm being a little harsh, but I get tired of people who feel that a contract is nothing more than a guideline." I too am weary of people thinking it's okay to pick and choose what to obey and what to ignore. Working as a volunteer with a rescue group makes you look at people and their motives somewhat closer than you did before. Some of the things we see that happen when supposedly loving individuals torture their animals with all forms of neglect, well, it is just tragic! (But I do have to agree that some folks in rescue are a bit "power crazed and judgmental.")
I hope that Mutts and Moms and Ellen can come to some kind of resolution. The antics from both sides really hurt all the animal rescue groups. They really need to take a long look at what they want in the end. Hopefully, it's a happy life for Iggy.
18th October 2007, 05:11 PM
Like others, I am somewhat torn here. Ellen definitely should have contacted the rescue group before giving the dog away, so they could have done a home check prior to the dog going to that home, and approved or disapproved the re-adoption. Ellen admitted she made a mistake. But the rescue group just snatching it away doesn't seem like the right reaction either.
HOWEVER, a couple of things that got my goat about that rescue group (from what I've read): 1. "We never would have approved that home because we don't adopt small dogs to homes with kids under 14." Sheesh. Can you not go to the home, see the 11 and 12 year old girls and see how they interact with the dog and try to get a feel for their personalities and their love for the dog (and vice versa)? At 11 (and way younger), I was the biggest dog lover in the world, and my dogs' best friend, bar none. I think an arbitrary rule of 14 is extreme. Kids are not the devil, lady. Yes, sadly some kids are cruel to dogs as are some adults, and I hate that more than anyone. No one better mistreat a dog in front of me, regardless of their age. I could understand maybe a cut-off of 5 or something as being an age where a child truly has developed some empathy and is capable of learning how to treat a dog. But 14?
I waited to get a dog until my youngest was 6. And we had long talks beforehand about how to treat a dog, and what was OK and what was not. And about dog's signals as to when they want to be left alone, etc. If that lady could see Daisy's tail wagging whenever one of my kids walks in the room, maybe she would understand that many dogs love kids and their life wouldn't be as full without kids to play with. To not even do a home visit and see how things are working out before deciding to take the dog was selfish and arbitrary, IMO.
2. "We would never consider working with them now, with the way they've treated us." Wow, I'm so glad you are all about the dog's welfare. This lady may have lost her grip on the mission of her rescue group.
That said, making death threats to someone because you disagree with them is beyond reason. It's not like she took the dog out and shot it or something. I think the internet has allowed a lot of very sick people to make their feelings public. I feel very sorry for all involved.
19th October 2007, 03:30 AM
Bruce, I think you have it in a nutshell. I have nothing for or against E.D. but the whole thing became about her and the family and it's supposed to be about the dog. They didn't take the contract very seriously if they didn't take the time to understand it.
19th October 2007, 02:57 PM
Was watching Fox News again last night (okay, I'm a news junkie!) and the attorney for Mutts and Moms was on. He stated that the rescue group HAD tried to work with the hairdresser and her girls but Ellen insisted they didn't need to fill out an application or go through the regular process. The family refused to comply with the rescues request to come down for an interview and complete their application for adoption. This whole thing gets sorrier all the time. I sure hope the family that has Iggy is wonderful and stays out of the fray.
19th October 2007, 03:57 PM
No matter how many times I hear "it's all about the dog" in rescue...sometimes it isn't!! Guess I'm a bad rescue person in this rescue group's eyes....I just placed a Cavalier with a family with as 12 year old and a 14 year old. They have really narrowed their possibilities by this clause.
Here's my take. Our contract states that if you aren't able to keep the dog you will return it to rescue. That said....if someone is unable to keep their dog and let me know they had a friend, family member, whatever who would like the dog I would follow up with a visit to the prospective family. If they checked out...all's good. If not....the dog comes back to me. I have a really hard time with rescue allowing people to adopt a dog but always having that stipulation that the dog isn't really theirs!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.