Mutts & Moms vs DeGeneres?

Question

If You were able to Hear Mutts & Moms side of the Story, do you think more attitudes would be changed?

Being Involed in Rescue Myself, My first instinct was to side with the Rescue. I agree that DeGeneres was wrong in placing that pup in a home without contacting the Rescue. But DeGeneres has the Media to give her side of the story, thus making 95% of the population on her side. 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.
And DeGeneres should have Adhered to the Agreement she Signed. DeGeneres is where she is, because of Signing Contracts.
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 1

PH, you are so wrong. Rescues are not in it for the money. Adoption fees rarely cover the vet bills and the shortfall is funded by fundraising. Rescue volunteers, like Marina Batkis, often spend money out of their own (often limited) resources because there is not enough in the rescue's coffers to go around.

Do the math. A dog comes in and in all cases needs a vet checkup, usually shots and microchipping, and most often spayed/neutered. Rarely will the adoption fee cover that. Then you have those animals that come in needing special surgery, diseases treated and therapy of some sort. Vet bills turn into thousands of dollars. That money comes from fund-raising and sometimes from the volunteers.

Tell me how a rescue makes money from this??????

As for the adoption of an unneutered dog: the dog was too young at 4 months for this procedure. Most vets will not perform it under 6 months. Ellen's vet, however, obviously did in the approximately 10 days that she had Iggy.

The time line doesn't make sense to me. Portia (not Ellen) adopted Iggy on Sept 20th and "rehomed" him to the hairdressser about 10 days later. In that short period she had him neutered (too young) and trained to the tune of over $2500. When did the training begin? If she started on Day 1, did she really think training would "take" on a 4 month-old puppy within 10 days, particularly since he was not up to par part of the time due to being neutered? According to this timeline, the hairdresser and her children had Iggy for no more than 2 and 1/2 weeks. There's more to this than meets the eye.

Also, has anyone ever added up the number of dogs she has dumped so far? Someone suggested it was 9. I don't know what the real number is, but I think we should know the facts before we fall for her sob story.

For an interview with Marina Batkis, the rescuer see: http://www.accesshollywood.com/news/ah7107.shtml

Answer 2

The poster who cited the quote "there is one side, the other side, and the truth" is probably most accurate in this case.

Truth: The majority of rescue groups do good work for little or no thanks or monetary compensation.

Truth: When an individual/family can no longer care for an animal, the responsible thing to do is place the animal in a good (not necessarily perfect by everyone's standards, just good) home as opposed to dumping the animal in a shelter or just releasing it into the wild to fend for itself.

Truth: Rescue shelters are not necessarily a better judge of a good "forever home" for an animal than anyone else--if they really were, there would be no need for a contractual "return clause" because the animal would not stand a chance of being returned.

Truth: Blanket statements (i.e. -- no children under 14, no adoptions to people who are out of the house longer than 8 hours at a time) are not necessarily a sign of good judgment; rigid prejudices increase the possibility of passing over a good match.

Truth: Everyone made mistakes in this situation and things could have been handled much better (i.e. -- in a way that left everyone at least somewhat happy instead of miserable and/or sick).

My 2 cents: Dogs, cats, birds, fish, etc. may be lovable (some are more cuddly than others) and honorary members of a family. But, they are still just pets (i.e. -- property of their owners). They need care, attention, affection, food, and water -- a good home. Rescue workers' ownership of an animal ends once the animal is placed in a home and papers are signed that another individual has accepted legal responsibility for said animal. Rescue workers do not have a lifetime claim on the animal (the last time I checked, pets do not come with warranties), well-intentioned as it may be for them to want the animal to always have a loving home. Screening is important, as is good judgment. But, there comes a time when you just have to let go and trust that you made the best possible (not necessarily perfect) decision.

Answer 3

As more details have come out over the past couple of days, it seems as tho the rescue had asked the new family to fill out an application and agree to a home visit. This family declined. And it was Ellen's camp who called TMZ to tape the police situation. Having been doing animal rescue and placement for many years, I thoroughly sympathize with Mutts and Moms. They have specific adoption criteria for good reasons, and in this case, it very well could be that Iggy had been temperment tested and found not to be reliable around children. And what is this business that "I had the dog for two weeks and spent three grand . . .?" No animal will settle into a home in two weeks, and if a trainer gets paid three grand for two weeks worth of work, I'm in the wrong business!! This is apparently a pattern with Ellen as she's adopted at least two other dogs in the past couple of years and then given them up. But to think you see the true personality and character of any animal in two weeks is ridiculous. She didn't give the dog a chance, the other family didn't want to do the paperwork required by the rescue group, so the dog went back per their adoption guidelines. What's so difficult about grasping this? And BTW, I am very grateful that rescue groups will take animals back!! If they didn't, our kill shelters would be more overflowing than they already are!!!

Answer 4

I don't think the owner of mutts and moms is a horrible person; however, I do think the contract that they have discriminates against children. If the contract was for children 5 and under I could understand because typically children get too rough with small dogs prior to the age of 5 and it would be contrary to the best interest of the dog to live in home with a child that age. Also, it would be in the best interest of the child because the child could avoid being bitten by a dog and developing a fear of dogs. If the contract had stated five and under there would not have been a problem adopting to the family Ellen chose whose children were eleven and twelve. Most pet adoption agencies have the five and under policy but 14 and under is ridiculous. By the age of six, children know how to treat an animal, they are often the ones that want to have a pet with their parent's permission, and they are typically the ones that give the animal the most attention. I think it is good that the shelter kept an eye on the dog, it actually shows they care about each and every animal that goes through their shelter on the one hand but on the other they took a dog away from a little girl that loved it with their being no reason other than a simple contract. It would be different if there was some type of abuse going on but the dog seemed completely safe and happy, which is the primarily important thing here. It seems to me that they were just trying to prove a point. I have two dogs and I do not consider them to be property like the law does. They are both members of my family. The family likely saw Iggy as a member of their family as well, not property. The contract indicates the shelter sees the dog the way the law does, as property. The contract is unfair in this situation but in some situations it is a positive thing. Typically people who adopt animals from shelters are good people but there are also some people that adopt them to torture them or abuse them and that is why some of the clauses in the contract are there to protect the dog. Ellen was wrong in not reading and fully understanding the contract as well as not following the requirements of the contract that she signed but I believe that to be legal technicalities. The point of the matter is two little girls were hurt when their dog was taken away simply because they were eleven and twelve and not fourteen years old. Something about that just doesn't make sense to me. No one was mean to the dog, the dog was taken care of, the dog was loved and had a good home. What animal shelter could ask for more when it comes to adopting a pet out of their shelter. There are millions of cats and dogs that are euthanized every year because suitable homes can't be found for them and I think this contributes substantially to this problem. It is a contradiction that they take pets away from perfectly good families because a child is eleven or twelve instead of the fourteen they want her to be. It is as if they want to kill these dogs if this is the common practice among animal shelters. To me, it seems that the only thing they have proven during this whole ordeal is how heartless and ridiculous not only they are but their adoption rules and regulations are. I think they should give substantial reasons for their child age restriction because I find it highly likely that it is unfounded. I think they should either change the fourteen and under age restriction to be consistent with 5 years and under restriction or lose funding for their program, essentially resulting in the loss of their program. I recently read an article that states that the agency attempted to adopt the dog out to the family and asked them to come and fill out paperwork for the adoption but they refused. If this is the case, everything I said prior to this is null and void because they obviously didn't even want the dog or they would have filled out the required paperwork to try to adopt the dog.

Answer 5

I agree wholeheartedly. The only thing I am hearing from the rescue is that its not a suitable home for the dog. I would like to know what their reasoning is. Kids age 11 &12 is not a legitimate reason to deny an adoption.

However; they let a dog go out unaltered. Too easy to spay and neuter at 8 weeks no reputable rescue should allow any unaltered animal be adopted.

Im also confused that within ten days she spent $3000 on training and gave up?? It all sounds like my favorite saying.

There are two sides to every story and the truth.

Answer 6

To some extent, yes, I agree with the rescue on a technicality.. but I disagree with that clause in the contracts.. I'm sorry, this is a good case for it.. She found a decent owner by the sound of it.. I understand that if it comes to a point where you give away to just anyone or bring it to a kill shelter.. it's a better idea to give it back to the rescue that you got it from.. but when there is a home, where you can keep in touch and see that it's being cared for.. what is the big deal?.. They should not have taken the dog from another family..

That clause is a not right for many reasons.. It should be listed as an option, but not the ONLY option. ( I can even see adding a clause that you can not SELL it after)

Answer 7

I also do rescue and our contract states that "if for any reason the dog is unable to remain in the adopters home, it is to be returned to us. Not given away or taken to a shelter." We do have a stipulation if they have a friend or family member that wants the dog, those people must go through our adoption procedures as well but if approved, they may have the dog.

This whole thing was tragic. Ellen's feelings are most likely genuine, she really is an animal lover and fan. I think the thing to do would be get references on the family that Ellen gave the dog to, have them pass all requirements and expedite the steps a bit, and without anything to prevent it, place the dog back into their home.

It has put Rescue in a bit of a bad light, making them the 'bad' guys for taking the dog out of the home and away from the little girls. I would be willing to bet the dog had a great prospective home where it was. I just would like to see it settled and with a happy ending.

I agree, tact was missing in this event.

Added to PH: We receive very few donations. While occasionally we receive an owners' dog that is neutered/spayed, vaccinations are current, dog is micro-chipped and saw it's Vet just last week. All we have to do is feed it, bathe it, clip it's nails and match the dog to the best suited home for it. For this, we get an adoption fee. Which in our case, goes right into the medical fund to pay for the dog we get in that has been so badly abused that it has a pelvis fractured in three places, two broken ribs and one rear leg is broken. We pay for surgery and we foster this little one for months of recuperation and physical therapy. We vaccinate her, spay her, micro-chip her and we adopte her out for $200. Of course we already have $2,583.71 into her Vet bills. So, you do the math and you figure out how many 'perfect' dogs we must take in and adopt for $150-$200 to get that Vet bill paid off! When we say we are non-profit, we are not kidding!!

Answer 8

EXCUSE ME - Rescue is a wonderful thing but where is the common sense, the logic. No small dogs to a household with children under the age of 14 - Some 14 year olds are not responsible and some 11 - 12 year olds are who is the judge. Sometimes rules are made to be broken, both parties are guilty here and they both love animals?

Answer 9

Sure a little common sense would have gone a long way to avoid this whole stupid mess. The rescue group should have contacted the family and told them that they needed to go through the screening process...then they should have done a rapid evaluation of the situation and if all was good they should have left the dog there with a strong letter or reprimand to DeGeneres. I see no sense in taking a dog away from a good family because of one line in a contract....the bottom line is a good forever home for the dog.

I have adopted two retired greyhounds and the process for adoption is daunting depending on what group you go through. But the bottom line is always about finding good homes for the dogs. Better to error on the side of caution.

Answer 10

Mutts and Moms made a statement on Good Morning America.