How could Mutts and Moms not have a heart?

Question

Not sure if you saw this yet, but Mutts and Moms in Pasadena, California have completely lost their mind. There is a story on Yahoo about Ellen DeGeneres and how she adopted this puppy from them, after discovering the puppy didn't get along with her cats, she decided it would be best to give Iggy (the puppy) to a good loving home, her hairdresser. Well because she signed an agreement (which I am sure could have been renegotiated somehow) Mutts and Moms went to the hairdressers home and pretty much ripped the dog out from under them away from the loving family, including the two daughters! It made soo many people upset! Below is a link to the story and the video, which you need to watch.
http://tv.yahoo.com/contributor/33469/news/urn:newsml:tv.ap.org:20071016:people_degeneres__ER
Then sign the petition to free Iggy at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/FreeIggy/
These people just don't understand what it means to give a pet a good home..what is wrong with them?

Answer 1

I am a certified canine behaviorist and have 4 rescue dogs of my own. I know how difficult it is to find a great home for a dog with issues and what kind of dedication and commitment it takes on the part of the adopting family. I also have a deep appreciation of any rescue organization that takes the extra effort to guarantee that if a pet and family are not the right fit they make sure it comes back to shelter. Under normal circumstances I support this contract wholeheartedly. However, Mutts and Moms could have handled this particular situation WAY differently and fast-tracked the adoption to Ellen's friend's family if only for the incredibly good press it would have generated for their organization and pet adoption in general. To go to the family's home and summarily remove the animal was completely out of line. Hearts United For Animals (hua.org) is an organization with a contract that includes the return clause but has many of their animals in foster care while waiting for adoption. Why couldn't M&M have approved the family as fosters while awaiting approval for the adoption? To traumatize the dog as well as the children of that family is reprehensible. And to make Ellen, a beloved public figure as well as a philanthropist and dog lover, CRY pleadingly for the return of the dog makes them look even worse. Where is their effort in the BEST INTEREST OF THE DOG in this instance? Mutts and Moms is wrong here and if they expect to maintain their shelter they need to do serious damage control immediately.

Answer 2

I'm on the board of a rescue group, and of course we have it in our contract that the dog must be returned to us if it doesn't work out. We even have a question about it in our application. We need to know where the dog is at all times and that the dog is well cared for.

HOWEVER, Mutts and Moms seems to be handling this all very badly. All that they had to do is point out to Ellen that she did not do the correct thing, and then go to the new home to do a home inspection. Then they should have had the new family fill out an application to adopt the dog.

Based on the acceptance of their application - and based solely on this and the home inspection - the family should then be allowed to keep the dog.

There was no reason to pull the dog from the family unless they felt that it was not a proper environment.

A good rescue group will be open to new potential homes for a dog. We don't want to have to take back dogs because then it doesn't free us up and allow us to pull other dogs from shelters to save their lives.

Oh, and as for the fees ... our group charges between $275 - $350 for a dog. If you think it is a lot of money ... it's not! Our founder is over $30,000 in debt because of her personal money she has spent saving dogs' lives. We have to pay for boarding, for vet care (surgeries, you name it), food, etc. This is all very expensive.

We need donations so we can go out and save more dogs. We also need foster homes - there are never enough foster homes.

It makes me wonder why they threatened to call the media and why they called the police over this. Was it for the publicity or was Ellen not cooperating?

Some of the details appeared to be missing so I did some more checking.

Wow, I just read that this family will NOT be allowed to keep the dog because the children are under 14!

Personally, I think this is a silly rule, but a contract is a contract.

http://tinyurl.com/2x5wjn

Here's an excerpt:

Owner Marina Batkis "is not going to give them the dog," said attorney Keith A. Fink, who's not representing the shelter but is speaking on Batkis and co-owner Vanessa Chekroun's behalf. The women run the nonprofit Mutts and Moms out of their store Paws Boutique.

"[Batkis] doesn't think this is the type of family that should have the dog," Fink told the Associated Press. "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."

The attorney explained that Mutts and Moms has a policy of not allowing families with children younger than 14 to adopt small dogs. The stylist's kids are 11 and 12.

Answer 3

I signed the petition. Did you notice that Mutts and Moms took their webpage down. Guess they got bombarded with emails.

I side with Ellen. She knows the people she gave the dog too.She would never put an animal with a bad family. If Mutts and Moms had any brains they would have checked out the family and made sure it was ok instead of ripping the dog away from those little girls.

I have adopted many animals over the years and if I couldn't keep them I found a good home for them. When I told the agency what I had done they simply checked out the yard where the animal was now and said ok.

Too many animals are in shelters. I think maybe someone ought to send the ASPCA into Mutts and Moms and check out the conditions of the shelter. Perhaps they ought to shut the shelter down.

Ellen did nothing wrong. She could have lied about it and said oh Iggy is doing just fine. Thanks for calling. Goodbye. Perhaps that's exactly what she should have told them.

I'm not saying boycott them but get the animals out of there. and If they wanted to know anything about them. LIE and protect the animals.

GIVE IGGY BACK NOW!!!!!!

Answer 4

I am so tired of people saying some rules are made to be broken. No they aren't...you have choices in this world. If you don't like the rules of a private organization, go somewhere else. If you sign your name to something and agree to follow their rules then have the scruples to live up to your word.

What has happened to this world that your word means nothing? At one time, your word was your bond. Now you simply have to change your mind and everyone is supposed to be ok with that.

One thing no one has zeroed in on is that Ellen gave up the dog in the first place because it didn't get along with the cat. Those situations are WHY those contracts exist with shelters. Pet owners should be smart enough to realize that when you already have a pet, it may very well not bond with a new pet. You have to be prepared to adapt when things don't go according to plan. Lots of people have pets that don't get along but they don't run around handing off the pet to someone else to deal with.

Instead of inviting the drama llama on her show, Ellen could have told the hairdresser's family, you know what I screwed up. Let me help you through the process and see what we can do. Mutts and moms might have been more open to working with the family if a calm, reasonable approach had been used.

Answer 5

Hello! I am here to answer your question. Many people don't understand why Mutts and Moms are being so cruel, but truly they aren't. Almost every rescue in America has a policy that states "If the owner can no longer care for the animal, they must return it to the rescue from which it came". M&M was just following their policy. There was no way for them to know if the "hairdresser" was a good home for Iggy. Ellen didn't even contact them and tell them "Hey, I gave the dog to my friend is that ok?". I work with a rescue. People that don't work with rescues don't understand. These people may not have even been good pet owners. There was NO WAY for them to know. It's sad for the rescue because people are criticizing them, sending them death threats, and all the rescue was doing was following their policy (the same policy that every other rescue follows). Ellen is using her status to have a negative impact on the rescue. That is unfair to the rescue. Ellen should have never publicized this. Ellen is downing this rescue, and for that she is hurting the animals that exist within it. Ellen from the beginning should've called the rescue and said "Hey, Iggy doesn't like my cats. I know someone who might be interested in Iggy, can I give Iggy to them?" The rescue 9/10 times would've replied "Well, ask them to fill out an application first." Like I said before, if you don't work, or understand the REAL purpose of a rescue, then you won't understand why the rescue took the dog away.

Answer 6

Two questions to ask them:
1. Does DeGeneres get her adoption fees back?
2. Are they going to wave the adoption fee for the new family to adopt?

If the answer is no to both, then they are in it for the money, not the dog. The adoption fee is to pay for nuder/spay, micro-chipping (in some cases) , vaccines, and any other vet things that need to be done. They already got the fee. It already paid for the stuff.

But as it turned out, the dog was not altered, she had to do it herself and paid extra to have it spend the night at the vets house instead of a cage. Even the SPCA does that. Not sure if the pet was vaccinated or chipped because she didn't say otherwise, but I'll go on the assumption it was. There isn't a vigorous test to see if the parents are able to adopt. I've adopted several in my life. They ask a series of yes or no questions and if it seems good, they walk out with the pet. If it was extensive, the parent could not walk out with the pet that day within an hour or two of showing up. They would have to do a background check, ask neighbors about the living conditions and personality, do a walk-through of the home, and other stuff before allowing the adoption (they do it for children so no that is not of the wall if they were concerned about the pet.)

Now the difference between them and DeGeneres is they adopted to a complete stranger (exclude her being a popular actress; they don't know her private life) and didn't know the living conditions while she gave the pet to someone she has known for years and knows personally. They charged a fee to adopt while she let them have it for free, even after the thousands of dollars she spent on the dog. Who is the one that is making sure the pet is given a good home?

They are a business, she is a single person. They follow guidelines they made up (not a universal guideline because there isn't a universal pet adoption committee that decides the guidelines all rescuers must follow) to adopt, she followed personal experience with this family that has lasted a while. That is the problem. All these rescue places are touting "There are an overabundance of homeless pets, please adopt one and give it a good home" yet they put things like this in contracts, set high standards for adoption (I was denied adopting a dog because my current dog was late on his heart worm prevention by a week despite him being a strictly inside dog and our place has been flea free for years) and expect you to put your health in front of the animal (reason he was late was we couldn't afford it at that time because we had a medical emergency; I had appendicitis. I explained, they said, "So. He still needs it every month.") They "care" for the animal but they do everything to profit off it and keep it caged.

So I question their tactic. Anyone who really cared for the dog could have just as easily evaluated the family and the dog at the home (which actually is better, they can see the living conditions the dog is in). From that, then they could have decided to take the animal or sign the papers.

Answer 7

Anyone that really works in rescue would know that it's a lot more complex then just "screening people". I've worked in dog and cat rescue for the last 3 years and volunteered for longer than that. MOST organizations are so far behind the times they are more like hoarders than anything. It's probably easier to adopt children than it is to get dogs from most rescues.

"Screening" has a different meaning to every single organization out there and I don't think that ANYONE can know for sure if the animal will work 100% with the new family. What you see from an animal in a shelter or foster environment can COMPLETELY change with the dynamic of the household and no amount of interviewing or home inspecting can prevent that in some situations. The group should have been happy she found a home that worked for the dog and focused their efforts on helping the next dog in line because as we all know there are MILLIONS dying in shelters because of the lack of homes and resources.

Yes it is good to find out if people are lying about their lease and give them all kinds of good information (which can be done with a simple conversation) but I don't think Ellen was stupid enough to place this dog that she obviously cared about in a bad situation. I think that with 2 other dogs in their household they were well aware of how to properly care for one. The rescue group severely over reacted and I think made the situation worse by YET AGAIN pulling the dog out of a home in which it was getting acclimated. All paperwork could have been done while the dog was in their home. On a side note I would never trust a rescue group that doesn't let you register your own information to your pets microchip or one that contractually makes it seem like you're leasing their animal, at some point they have to trust people to take care of their own pet. That rescue group sounds like one I'd never want to deal with.

Answer 8

OK, I am about over this, but here are a couple of points that people are overlooking. I could argue both sides. BUT.... Ellen didn't sign the contract - her girlfriend signed it, so she really didn't understand what the rules were. She made an honest mistake. I do think that the agency over-reacted. At some point, people need to just "do the right thing"..... which would have been to discuss the adoption with the two little girl's parents. For goodness sakes, Portia signed the contract, the agency talked to Ellen, and she told the truth. Their angry approach to the situation blew everything out of proportion. With the millions of homeless pets, it is a shame that people are so hung up on contracts and rules that they fail to be human. With that said, what's done is done and in this situation, nobody wins.

Answer 9

I volunteer for the S.P.C.A. in my hometown and unfortunately many cats and dogs end up being adopted by what seems like the perfect family (on paper) and the animal often ends up back at the shelter or worse. Other cases, like the Ellen DeGeneres one, don't turn out well either. Mutts and Moms have obviously seen there share of sad stories after adoption and are only looking out for the welfare of the animal. I'm pretty sure the puppy will go back to the family when the proper procedures (in place to protect the animals) have been met.

Answer 10

What in the world.....
Now I absolutely love Ellen, she is such a genuine individual with a true heart. But to see her this upset and heartbroken - which made me upset and heartbroken, it does not make any sense what so ever!!!!
Yes, I do understand that the organization has rules and bi-laws that were put in place for a very good reason. However, there are always always always exceptions to the rules!!! Was there not one of the "volunteers" that could went out to the lil' girls home to make sure that everything looks legit and the puppy can stay there on a "temporary" base until all necessary legality's (adoption papers etc.) have been taken care off.
I have to say, I would never ever want anything cruel to happen to an animal (dog-cat-bird-whatever) and I respect all animal rescue organizations and their volunteers ....
But there have been times that made me wonder if some animal rescue folks lost their compassion for the humans and their feelings (i.e. the little girls or Ellen)...
Maybe you guys sit back one more time ("right now - right now) and reconsider - make an exception to the rule -
or think like the "Puppy" mmmhhh where would I want to sleep tonight....
- all alone in a Animal shelter with all the other lonely doggies
or
- with the cute lil girls that love me to pieces - play with me - feet me....
I think even that one is a no brainer for any animal !!!!
xoxo to all of you....
Anette