Has anyone read that story about Ellen Degeneres and the dog she gave away? Seriously, that has to be the wrongest thing i have ever heard! At what point does a volunteer organization part ways with a dog? I know they have that policy of giving the dog back for a reason, but come on! That was heartless. That dog belonged to Ellen Degeneres in my opinion, that contract shouldn't hold up.
2007-10-16 12:44:19 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Pets ➔ Dogs
I forgot, it really sounds like they leased that dog to Ellen. Isn't the point of a shelter to find good homes for these dogs? and why wouldn't they just check out the home? And furthermore, why is that dog still considered theirs?
2007-10-16 12:46:11 · update #1
But my point is, it was HER dog. She paid the fee, spent thousands of dollars training it and getting it medically sound, it was hers! She should be able to do with the dog what she wanted!
2007-10-16 13:04:27 · update #2
And i have worked with rescues! I know what it takes.
2007-10-16 13:23:25 · update #3
They did that? That's awful!
2007-10-16 14:11:20 · update #4
Why did the lady from Mutts and Moms tell the little girls' family she was only coming by to do a home check and then once she got there hijack the dog? She got them to let her in their house under false pretenses. I'm sure if Ellen and the hairdress knew she was planning on taking the dog away they would not have told her where the hairdresser lived.
2007-10-16 13:59:40 · answer #1 · answered by M'Shel 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
rescue organizations usually make the adopter sign a document stating that if they are unable to provide a home for the animal, that it will be returned to the organization.
This is to prevent an animal ending up in a bad situation. It's standard practice.
I don't quite understand why this particular agency didn't do a little more research into the new home before removing the dog. There may be something going on with that family that would jeopardize the dog that we (the general public) don't know about.
Rescue people sometimes can be pretty petty about things like what Ellen did, so that may just be the case.
2007-10-16 12:50:14 · answer #2 · answered by Zoo 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
both parties claim to worry about the dog's best interest but none act like it. The good thing is Iggy did found a loving home so mission accomplished regardless of which home it is. Iggy is alive and well. The saddest thing is that since this media drama has gone public, it destroyed a rescue organization during the most devasting southern california fire in history. The rescue organization seems to be functioning fine until all these public dramas. Thousands of animals could have been saved had this issue been dealt with privately through the legal system instead of using the media to butcher an organization over power issues. Beyond sad. This is horrible.
2016-05-23 01:08:23 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's what I was just saying.After Ellen adopted the dog and payed to have it neutered and trained,it was hers,not the rescue agency's.It's not as if she threw the dog out on the street! She gave it to people who cared about it,and she saw it regularly and knew it was being well - cared for.I say Mutts and Moms is just taking advantage of Ellen because she's a celebrity.They need to give the dog back to those little girls,instead of keeping in it in a cage! Stupid people!
2007-10-16 12:52:13 · answer #4 · answered by Dances With Woofs! 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That is the most uninformed series of statements I ever heard. Is it heartless to take the dog away from a home they have not screened and may be totally inappropriate for it? We do not know the details behind the scenes because only Ellen holds the microphone.
That dog belonged to Ellen until she decided she wasn't going to keep it. Then it should have gone back to the rescue organization as per the contract. The fact that the little girls are broken-hearted is her fault in giving them the dog without the legal authority to do so. The rescuers should not be vilified for upholding the rights of the contract .. and the dog.
2007-10-16 13:12:37 · answer #5 · answered by pugpillow 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Regardless "who" signed the Contract, it should Hold Up! There is a REASON for asking people to return dogs to the rescue if the adopter decides they can't keep the dog. The REASON is because the adoptive family MUST go through a process of completing an application, paying a fee, and being visited to be sure their home is suitable for the animal. DeGeneres couldn't determine that -- she didn't take an application. She didn't do the homework.
Work with Rescue for one month, then say what DeGeneres did was right! Rescues work their butt off, trying to place unwanted pets in the right environment, DeGeneres had no right to assume the position of placing the dog, because she Singed a CONTRACT!
2007-10-16 12:58:37 · answer #6 · answered by Jenny H 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋
i dont know.. they should of just did a home check with the new parents.. i mean, at least she found the dog a loving home!
also, the rescuers did not even get the dog fixed!!! thats total bullsh*t right there. every dog that leaves a shelter or rescue should and must be fixed!!!
ellen was not at fault.. the family should have there dog back!
2007-10-16 12:48:41 · answer #7 · answered by animluv 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋