who think it was wrong what the animal group Moms and Mutts did to Ellen DeGeneres?

Answer 1

Yes it is wrong and very unfair. I guess the grench came early this year, eh.

Answer 2

The Mutts and Mom contract was illegal. Animals are property in the State of California. It doesn't matter if the contract was signed, it is an illegal contract. You can't sell property then retain ownership. Mutts and Moms took a $600 donation. It was really payment for the animal. However, they cannot legally charge for the animal and retain their non-profit status. It is also illegal in the State of California for a rescue organization to "adopt" out a dog that has not been spayed or neutered. Ellen did that so this was a sell and not an adoption.

Mutts and Moms got a $600 donation, free spaying and training of a dog then steal the dog back.

Sadly, this will result in many animals not being rescued because of Mutts and Moms illegal tactics.

Please people don't blame pet rescue centers for one bad apple. Animals need rescued. In this case, the spay/neuter issue would tell Ellen they were not legimate. Check out the agency to make sure they are legitimate and you won't have these problems.

Answer 3

Because I have 7 rescue babies, My first instinct was to side with the Rescue. I agree that DeGeneres was wrong in placing that poor pup in a home without contacting the Rescue. But DeGeneres has so much more "air time" to give her side of the story, thus making 95% of the population on her side. This is Giving ALL Rescues a Bad name. I've been reading news groups, and you would not believe the people saying they are going to Boycott all rescues and adopt from a Pet Store to avoid the Hassle. What a Shame!
They both did wrong. Mutts & Moms should have handled it differently to avoid the publicity this is causing, and giving rescue (All Rescue) a bad name.
I hope this doesn't keep people from adopting a needy pet, rather than a Puppy Mill baby.
All this could have been avoided, with a little common sense & Tact.

Answer 4

Please do some research & know what you're talking about before condeming a rescue - if you haven't worked in rescue you have no idea what they go through to protect the animals in their care. Mutts & Moms did exactly the RIGHT thing. Having worked in small dog rescue for several years I can tell you that this is what most if not all rescues require. Passing an adopted animal from one person to another is how these animals wind up back in rescue, on the streets, or worse. Rescues customarily do background checks, check with potential adopters vets, etc. to be sure the animal is going to someone that will love & care for the animal. Most people don't go through this procedure when they decide to just pass along the animal. This dog was most likely being fostered in the rescue & should've been returned (1) because it's in the contract, (2) because it's in the best interest of the dog, (3) because this was a place familiar to it. Animal rescues try very hard to not have an animal that has once been in its care to ever be back in rescue, or worse.

Answer 5

C'mon, we all have to follow the rules. Every place that I've ever adopted a dog had rules like that so it's not like they're singling her out.

Those rules are created for the safety and well-being of the animals! Who is looking out for the pup's welfare? Ellen? I don't think so! I already heard the hairdresser already had a grown dog so it's not like the pup was going to where he'd be the center of attention and what if that other dog gets jealous and chews up the pup?

But "Oooh, I'm Ellen DeGeneres and the rules shouldn't apply to me, boo-hoo!" so the story is splashed all over the Net, on the radio and TV. Gimme' a break!

If she didn't want the pup because he was too 'rambunctious' and energetic, then she obviously doesn't know much about pups. That's their trademark!

Oh, don't get me started....

Answer 6

I have adopted a dog from Mutts and Mom's and can tell you that they are an amazing organization with huge hearts. The volunteers are courageous in my book for going into shelters to rescue animals, knowing that they only have the ability to take a few into foster care (THEY ARE NOT A SHELTER!). My dog came from Kern County shelters near Bakersfield where over 66% of over 25,000 animals are euthanized every year! Ellen should be outraged and speaking publically about these statitics, not crying about a dog that she adopted for a week or two. That puppy was probably just as happy to go back to its familiar foster family.

This rescue goes through the adoption contract ITEM BY ITEM when you sign it. It isn't like the agreement is in fine print. In fact, they are quite clear of their expectations. In addition, if the rescue hadn't been burned by irresponsible and ignorant pet owners, they wouldn't have to go to such lengths to ensure good homes. Let's face it-- people can be selfish, irresponsible, and lazy. Do you know how many dogs get returned even a year after adoptions? Screening is necessary!

Ellen did a sad thing today by adding such emotion to this issue considering that she had the dog for about 3 weeks. Do you really think that she gave the dog a fair shot in her home at all in under three weeks time? What was the $3k in training supposed to solve in this time period? Money doesn't change reality that puppies are rambunctious! This backlash is very unfair and to do this to such a grass-roots organization that has accomplished so much with so little is just shameful.

Answer 7

i think both party's were wrong but one already confessed that they were in the wrong, and the other didn't - i don't like most shelters like Mutts and Moms no offense but my two dogs and my cat came from my humane society (south suburban human society,IL) A wonder full place, which does a way better job in handling issues like this because they realize that the pets they adopt for most people become family not pets, so what Ellen did was wrong, but what mutts and moms was way worse, Ellen and for those of U like her please don't be stupid and not look over what u are signing come on people u are putting ur name on something for god sake, u could be signing ur life away,did ur momma ever tell u never write ur name on anything that u dont read.

Answer 8

I think mutts and moms acted correctly. Harsh but true. Ellen should have had her lawyer check the contract. Most animal rescue agencies have this rule. Once again celebrities trying to go around red tape and do it their way.

Answer 9

I wanted to cry today when i saw that. how dare that do that to ellen. she was doing a good thing for the family and the familys 2 girls. they loved that dog as if it was there own. and so what if ellen gave the dog away . she gave it to someone who would love the dog as much as she did. Its wrong that the animal group would rather take the poor dog away and put him back into a cage left all alone to not be loved. i am furious with the animal group !

Answer 10

I think both parties handled it poorly. Ellen signed a contract and should know what she agreed to. However, I have no respect for a rescue that sends ANY animal out the door unaltered.

Answer 11

When you sign a contract you should always know what you're signing.

It's not wrong what they did.....but I also think because it's a celebrity they're being hard just to prove they don't cater to celebrities.

The poor little dog and the 2 little girls are the ones caught in the middle of this mess.