Apparently she fesses up on Tuesday's show to violating the agreement with the agency, and uses air time to plead with them to give the dog back to her hairdresser and her two kids.
Seems to me that Ellen should have read her contract and that she should have guessed that the dog wouldn't work with her cats.
2007-10-15 19:29:25 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Television ➔ Talk Shows
Everyone who thinks it was wrong, or doesn't understand why the dog was taken, has never been in rescue.
Volunteer for longer than a day or week or even a month, then you'll understand. You'll also learn why rescues screen the way they do. Few of you will, if any.
I'm sure once the family is checked out, they will be approved. But if you place a dog, and find out it is not in the home you adopted it to, the first thing you want is assure the dog is in a safe environment. The rescue doesn't know the family from Adam, so they pulled the dog immediately. The dog is their responsibility.
I know the family sounds great, but you don't know that until you asks the questions. Yes, it seems likely that a family that had two kids bond with the dog would keep it for a lifetime, and take good care of it, but you'd be surprised.
The rescue wants to be sure the dog the dog is in a good home and doesn't end up back where it started at the shelter.
The person who said BOYCOTT is clueless. The rescue was living up to it's responsibility to the dog. They took it in and promised to care for it. Rescues work darn hard , and they don't need people like that saying things that just hurt the rescues.
Do you have any idea how hard rescue is without crap like this?
If you boycott, THINK, who gets hurt? Well, the volunteers don't have to deal with the idiots dumping the dogs, or get depressed seeing all the ones they can't save, or checking into people oe doing home visits, so basically they have a lot more free time and money (most rescuers spend a lot of theor own money)
So who loses out? The animals. Boycott, yeah, great idea.
If you're going to complain about how volunteer organizations do things, you better be prepared to volunteer or you have no right to say anything
2007-10-16 08:39:55 · answer #1 · answered by enternet 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I only think that it was wrong if Ellen had known she was violating the agreement. Like many of us, she probably quickly skimmed through the fine print and signed the contract. Ellen was doing what she thought was right.
The dog rescue agency should have been able to evaluate and interview the dog's new owners once the representative went to check up on the dog. If the representative was uncertain if the family was fit to own the dog, they could have notified the family that they would like them to fill out the proper paperwork and be evaluated as potential owners. Instead, the rescue agency just took the dog away without giving the family any option to adopt.
2007-10-16 10:24:28 · answer #2 · answered by Tacymevol 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What the hell is wrong with this agency? Why do they think it is better for the dog to be kept in a cage then with a loving family? If the family is fit to care for the dog then they should not be able to take it away, contract or no contract. Who's best interest is at heart here? Cuz it seems to me that nobody is winning. Give the dog back! Ellen didn't do anything wrong, the agency did by taking away the dog without finding a more intelligent resolution.
2007-10-16 10:15:36 · answer #3 · answered by stew895 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The adoption agency couldn't visit the pup in its new home and do the paperwork there; rather than ripping the puppy away from its home??? This poor puppy has been through enough already, the agency could have a heart, no matter who gave the dog away, a celeb or not. That's not the issue. The agency overreacted and is putting that pup through more trauma than is necessary, if the agency had a brain/heart behind it. This pup is going to need a lot of love and nurturing after this agency gets done with it. I realize there was on oversight on Ellen's part by not reading the contract, and that was not smart and as you can see she is very sorry, but there has to be a better way than putting dogs through this trauma.
2007-10-16 11:55:56 · answer #4 · answered by gma 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If Ellen had taken the dog back to the agency she got it from the woman would have refused to take it back...and most likely would have used the situation for publicity anyway. At least Ellen did the right thing and found the dog a home where it is loved and cared for. While that may have gone against the agreement of the agency, at least it had a home---which is what this is all about.
2007-10-15 19:41:42 · answer #5 · answered by ♥Instantkarma♥♫ 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Ellen should have read the contract, however, she had good intentions.
I don't think that the agency is handling this situation appropriately.
They look into the family & proceed as if it were a new adoption. Maybe charge them another adoption fee.
To take the dog away from the children is cruel.
The purpose of these agencies is to find pets a home, not to destroy families.
2007-10-16 08:17:19 · answer #6 · answered by Corn_Flake 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Mutts and mothers Rescue did supply the hairdressers kinfolk the possibility to undertake Iggy the superb way. The lawyer for Mutts and mothers became into on Fox information and he has emails asserting the hairdressers kinfolk would not fill out the adoption utility, and did no longer desire to return abode for the abode circulate to to be executed. They have been given the possibility to do it the superb way by utilising Mutts and mothers, yet while you evaluate that they had the skill of Ellen DeGeneres in the back of them, they did no longer do what became into mandatory to undertake Iggy, legally from M&M. If somebody yanked you around like that, and would not follow technique while given the possibility to accomplish that, i'm particular you will possibly have executed precisely what Mutts and mothers did, and take the canines returned.
2016-10-07 00:36:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No she wasn't wrong. I thought we lived in America? If they didn't think Ellen was responsible enough to give the dog to a good nurturing home, why did they ever let Ellen have the dog in the first place? I think it was good she didn't take it back, it may have been put down, this way it went to a lovling home, with people who love it. I don't get this BS. It's just nuts.
2007-10-16 12:39:27 · answer #8 · answered by carolynn 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I didn't watch the show, I only saw a replay online, but it was really sad. I think she did the right thing to give the dog a good home. I understand that she broke her agreement, but she did give it to a family that wanted it and is taking care of it. I really hope someone went up there and gave Ellen a hug after her plea, I felt so bad for her.
2007-10-16 07:59:28 · answer #9 · answered by Green Eyed Girl 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I do think it was wrong of her not to inform the business but it was totally ridiculous of them to take the dog away. Their beef is with Ellen not the people that had the dog
2007-10-16 03:41:13 · answer #10 · answered by msX 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋