Ellen truly believed she was doing the right thing by adopting the dog in the first place and when she realized that it might not work out she did a very good thing by trying to find the dog a better home. How many people would take the trouble to put the dog's interest first?. I think that when she first adopted the dog it was her intention to give Iggy the best possible home and that is what she did by giving it to the other family. They obviously could give it more and she wouldn't have done that if she could have looked after him better. Why did the agency approve her in the first place? They must have trusted her. Does anyone know if the agency screened her by coming to her house and inspecting where the dog was going to live? They would of known she had cats and if they had done a proper evaluation on Iggy they would have known he was not suitable for a home with cats and ended the adoption proceedings right there. If the agency failed to do that then THEY are in the wrong.
2007-10-18 18:00:16 · 8 answers · asked by jessiebell 3 in Pets ➔ Dogs
I agree with you, most rescues evaluate the dogs in different situations and when they come for a home evaluation they usually bring the dog to see how it is going to react in the home and with the other animals in the home. So how was this missed?
Perhaps they figured she had money and the dog would be fine, who know what they were thinking but it does seem a bit fishy to me.
I felt sad seeing Ellen so upset about the issue, and she was upset because she thought she was doing the right thing for the dog and her hairdresser's family became attatched to the dog. I heard the rescue rejected them because the children were under 14 years of age (11 and 12). WHAT??? That's insane.
2007-10-18 18:10:27 · answer #1 · answered by Leizl 6 · 6⤊ 4⤋
This agency seems like it only follows rules when they feel like it.
Ellen and Portia did NOT fill out an adoption application, nor was a home visit done. Both things the agency says are required to adopt a dog.
The contract in question, the one that got Iggy pulled from the home, is rumored to have no child clause in it. It has also been said that this agency HAS adopted to families with children under 14 in the past.
Yes Ellen was wrong to do what she did, but at the same time the agency didn't follow all of their own rules either.
If you ask me something is very fishy about the rescue in question.
The end.
2007-10-19 02:40:19 · answer #2 · answered by Bindi *dogtrainingbyjess.com* 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I at first sided with the rescue, simply because the contract WAS breached by Ellen and there are safety reasons to protect the dog in those contracts, but now I have heard that Iggy was placed to Ellen without being neutered FIRST! Ellen then went and neutered Iggy, but the rescue should ALWAYS do this BEFORE placing the dog, NOT after. So that alone makes me mad.
I believe both parties are guilty here in some ways, but I am starting to see more and more than Mutts and Moms is a bit Nazi-like in their ways, and I thought I was strict with my rescues and my contracts!!
Something is wrong with this "Marina" or whoever is in charge over there.
I am still going to be finding out more information, as this has occured right here in my area.
2007-10-19 02:41:42 · answer #3 · answered by LiaChien 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
its done its over with.. people need to let this go! The pup is already in its new home. I dont think Ellen really wanted it to cause this much stir! Its upsetting that the puppy was taken away, but even Ellen agrees that SHE was in the wrong for not reading the contract.
People just need to drop this issue. All the threats and nasty emails/phone calls will not change the rescue's mind. The dog is already in another home. It wouldnt be fair to rip it from yet another home at this point.
2007-10-19 01:43:09 · answer #4 · answered by Nekkid Truth! 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Ellen was wrong! And it's old news. The dog has a new home now, Ellen said today it has gone too far, to let it go.
May Iggy have a long and happy life where ever he is.
Edit: and it was not that the dog [4 mos. old] did not like the cats. Ellen's cats did not like the puppy.
2007-10-19 01:06:31 · answer #5 · answered by Not Me!! 5 · 7⤊ 5⤋
How was mutts and moms wrong? Why do you think they should give her special treatment just be cause shes famous?
If this had happened to me or you, noone would've cared. People would just say, well she did break the contract.
Ellen was the one who failed to do what the contract said.
She ruined that adoption agency's reputation over Something like that could have been easily avoided.
The kids involved were not even old enough to have a dog from Mutts and Moms.
2007-10-19 01:11:00 · answer #6 · answered by ♥purple♥haze♥ 3 · 4⤊ 6⤋
Ellen did not abide by the agencies rules. If it was me or you do you think anyone would care? Ellen needs to get off her high horse and stop using her celebrity to whine to the media.
2007-10-19 01:05:26 · answer #7 · answered by Drago_65 5 · 6⤊ 5⤋
a lot of cats and dogs get along, i have no sympathy for her, the contract clearly stated no transfer of the dog or it goes back.
2007-10-19 01:04:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 5⤋