Should they give the dog back?

Ellen DeGeneres keeps up public plea for dog

1 hour, 8 minutes ago

celebs: Ryan Seacrest | Ellen DeGeneres




LOS ANGELES (Reuters Life!) - Comedian Ellen DeGeneres took to the airwaves on Wednesday for a second day to denounce an animal rescue organization that took back her adopted dog after she gave the puppy away without the agency's permission.

DeGeneres caught the nation's attention on Tuesday when she opened her TV talk show with a tearful plea for the pet-adoption service to reunite the dog with the family of DeGeneres' hairstylist, whose daughters she said had already bonded with the pooch.

The performer said she had adopted the shaggy-haired mixed breed named Iggy in September and spent thousands of dollars to neuter and train it. But ultimately, she found the dog another family because it did not get along with her cats.

"I thought I did a good thing," she said. "I tried to find a loving home for the dog because I couldn't keep it."

But the owners of Pasadena-based Mutts and Moms insisted on reclaiming the dog on grounds that DeGeneres violated terms of her adoption agreement that required her to return the pet to the agency if she chose not to keep it, DeGeneres said.

Footage of a sobbing DeGeneres begging for the agency to "please bring the dog back to those little girls" was replayed endlessly on the Internet and celebrity news shows, triggering an outpouring of support for the performer.

One owner of Mutts and Moms, Marina Baktis told Pasadena police that she received several threats on her cell phone and her work phone. Police said they had no suspects as yet.

DeGeneres pressed on with her public plea for the dog's return on Wednesday during her own weekday talk show and a separate radio interview with Ryan Seacrest, host of the hit TV talent contest "American Idol."

She told Seacrest that she had heard the dog had since been placed with another home, and she gave more details about how Iggy was taken back by Mutts and Moms during an emotional, three-hour standoff at the home of her hairstylist.

Baktis was able to claim the dog "technically" still belonged to her because her name alone was on the pet identification microchip implanted under the dog's skin, DeGeneres said. She said Baktis had failed to add DeGeneres' name to the chip, as promised, at the time of adoption.

She also said that contrary to the agency's stated rules, DeGeneres was never asked to fill out an application, nor was any inspection of her home conducted before she took possession of the puppy last month.

"I didn't say, 'You can't come to my home.' I didn't say, 'I won't fill out a form.' She didn't ask me to," DeGeneres said.

Neither Baktis, Mutts and Moms, nor their representatives were immediately available for comment.

 

Wah. If it were a normal person who hadn't read the rules and did something stupid, nobody would bat an eye. Contracts are there for a purpose. If someone adopted a pup from me and broke contract, I wouldn't care how famous they were; I'd be taking my dog back. The whole argument is stupid, IMO.

 

lol rescues, breeders and their contracts. This is what people get for signing anything ridiculous like a pet contract.

 

they should cull them both and be done with it,,,

 

I don't care if people don't like contracts; its well within their rights not to buy from someone who demands that. But if someone's going to deal with people who do require some sort of agreement, man up and honor it. Don't say "Oh, well, errrm, gosh, I thought it didn't apply to me because I made sure the new home liked the dog!" And for the crybaby business about having to spend thousands of dollars to train the dog to like her kitties... just back to my original statement. Wah.

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MinorThreat again.

I 100% agree with you. I will add they should just give these people the friggin dog. Isn't recue suppose to encourage good homes for pets ? This is just a power trip that some yahoo is on. Way to go to blacken the eye of rescue by causing a scene with Ellen. How many people are going to rescue dogs now seeing how Ellen is having a hard time with them ? Not a smart move by a long shot, these people gotta pick and choose thier battles and its quite obvious they chose the wrong fight.

 

What I'm reading in this artical there was no contract signed. The only legal link between the dog and the rescue is a microchip.

 

From what I'm hearing, this isn't the first time Ellen has done this. There was a contract signed but Ellen didn't read it. I do think that the shelter should of left Iggy where he was with the family. And I do think Ellen should not ever be able to get another dog. She should stick to whatever it is she does:rolleyes:

 

I copied this from someone on my other forum:


This whole situation has gotten way out of hand, mistakes were made on both sides, but ultimately the animals will suffer because Mutts and Moms (the rescue that placed the dog) has had to shut down due to death threats against them. There is also a lot of information that hasn't been made public as well, skewing the public against this rescue due to a celebrity being involved.

Mutts and Moms had a return clause in the adoption contract, as many of us do, stating the dog must be returned to them. Ellen DeGeneres had this puppy for exactly 2 weeks before deciding it wasn't working out and placed the dog in her hairdressers home without notifying the rescue. Ellen has stated publicly that she did not read the contract (which didn't matter anyway, as her SO Portia DeRossi had actually signed the agreement). When the rescue called to do a followup on the pup, she told them she rehomed the dog. When the rescue told her that the dog had to come back to them, it then turned into an all out brawl, the rescue called the new home, showed up to take the puppy back.

Mistakes were made on both sides, and here's why I think the whole scenario kind of sucked.

Rescue adopted out an intact puppy.
Rescue adopted out a puppy to a celebrity who has a history of returning adopted dogs.
Rescue adopted out an intact pup for 600 bucks.
Rescue has a rule about not adopting to any family with children under 14, a rule that sometimes needs to be bent a bit.

Ellen has adopted two pups and returned/rehomed them, big red flag for many of us.
Ellen rehomed the pup without consent of rescue, breaking the contract.
Ellen had this pup for two weeks, supposedly hired a trainer who trained the pup, and still rehomed the pup because it didn't get along with her cats (show me a trainer who can completely train a puppy in two weeks and I'll eat my shoes).
Ellen's PR people called the rescue and threatened them with a media blitz and a lawsuit if the issue wasn't dropped, not the other way around, as has been said.

This whole thing is going to be a nightmare for those of us who do rescue, and I'm not looking forward to the backlash.

As for giving the puppy back to the family, if they are indeed a good fit and can pass the rescues requirements, I don't see a problem, actually, they may be a better adopter than Ellen was in the first place .

 

Ellen's right, she is the one who broke the rules, so she should be punished not the other family. She put a bunch of money into that dog, and made sure it went to a safe and happy home. I think Rescue groups go to far sometimes. They should check the house, and then if it looked like a dangerous environment, they should have taken the dog. If it looked like a good home, just make those people sign a new contract. Why take the dog away if it's doing well? I mean I feel bad for the little girls, and I think that's why Ellen was so upset as well. But whatever, that's just how I feel...
I understand that contracts are put in place for a reason, but it seems some rescues would rather put a dog down, then actually re-home it. You would think after seeing the dog was re-homed into a best happier home, the Rescue group would have said, "okay, this is better," and be happy that they don't have to worry about finding it a home or finding space for it in their shelter/rescue. I don't know. Seems kind of messed up...

 

as far as how this is going to portray rescue groups in the public eye, i agree with you. it will surely make more than a few people hesitant to contact a rescue agency. however, ellen did sign a LEGALLY binding contract, however ridiculous that may be. i'm sure she knew what she was doing would jeopardize the dogs placement with a new family. so, don't sign some frivolous contract if you don't intend to follow it.

 

Pet contracts are not ridiculous. that's part of being responsible when adopting out a dog. That's what going that "extra" mile means. I think it's great that rescues or breeders have these contracts. Ellen thinks she's un-touchable. Well, look what mess she created now.....people will now be hesitant to go to a rescue or a responsible breeder for that matter....and possibly use a BYB

 

I know most people are already hesistant to go to rescues now, even before Ellen had anything to do with it. Mainly because they won't adopt a dog out to someone who plans to secure their dog on a chain or outside. Many places at least around here, you have to promise to make it an indoor dog before they will adopt it to you, so the rescues are kind making life more difficult on themselves...
I agree with the person above. That rescue wasn't thinking much, when they decided to take the dog. If it was joe-schmoe, people probably wouldn't care. But you know when a celeb gets involved there is going to be publicity, and chances are, you're going to look like the idiot, not the Celeb. Now had they found the dog in a horrible state of being, then they could have really played it up, and made Ellen look horrible, and make themselves look good, but they played the cards wrong on this case. Is it fair? No, but that's how life is. Plus, like I already said I understand the need for the contract, but since the home was safe, they should have let the people sign the contract.

 

nope,i say the rules are in place for a reason and if you break them for one then everyone will expect to be able to do anything.just like with the laws in the country right now the people that be are choosing basically what laws they will enforce and how and thats no good.you have to have a well planed set of rules and then make everybody follow them no matter who they are.