Ellen Degeneres under fire for giving away dog

New Posts

  • #201
  • #202
Well, it answers the question of the chip...so that is no longer an argument in Ellen's favor.

Still...if Ellen didn't fill out or sign the paperwork...is there a contractual agreement?

I wouldn't sign a piece of garbage like that myself!!! It sounds more like you are freaking RENTING the dog for $250.00 instead of actually owning it!!! BS!!!
 
  • #203
  • #204
I still don't think it's a matter of the contract. Legally, Ellen was wrong. She admitted that on day one.

My point is ethically. IMO, it was unethical for the "rescue" people to not give this family a chance. Leave the dog there, fill out the required forms, no problem!

The point of a rescue is to find an animal a good home. Sounds to me like Iggy found a good home. If the rescue was run by anyone with any smarts, this whole problem would have, and should have, been handled in a much better way.
 
  • #205
IrishMist said:
I still don't think it's a matter of the contract. Legally, Ellen was wrong. She admitted that on day one.

My point is ethically. IMO, it was unethical for the "rescue" people to not give this family a chance. Leave the dog there, fill out the required forms, no problem!

The point of a rescue is to find an animal a good home. Sounds to me like Iggy found a good home. If the rescue was run by anyone with any smarts, this whole problem would have, and should have, been handled in a much better way.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. It takes an hour to fill out standard paperwork and a homecheck can be done in an hour as well. They could have approved this family to keep Iggy in less than a day... If the family didn't meet their requirements, they could have removed Iggy immediately.

ETA: Sounds like the family refused to fill out paperwork and work with the rescue, which brings me back to believing the rescue was justified in removing the dog.
 
  • #206
  • #207
  • #208
Sadie and Olivia, I know all of this about rescues, and you do. We know what to look for. Hardly anyone else does though. It's only occasionally that you hear about them ending up in civil court. The big problem is, in the past several years scam artists have lached on to the "rescue" movement and taken advantage of people with big hearts. In the normal course of wanting to do the right thing, I've dealt with shelters, humane societies and rescues. I have had bad experiences with them. I highly doubt I am the only one. I will never buy from a pet shop. There's plenty of hard luck cases in the paper from individual parties who's animals are shelter bound if no one takes them. That's how I rescue. Because I do read contracts, I chose years ago not to adopt from groups that have rules that basically say all I will ever be is a glorified foster parent. I could lose my animal at the will of someone else's weird thought process. End up heartbroken and in court. Who wants to go through that?

Spend enough time on Petfinder.com and you'll start recognizing the suspicious listings.

1000.00 Rescue. This add have been listed for over 4 months. :

http://search.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi?petid=7452520

PICO 5 lb. 8 mos. puppy Teacup purebred tan Chihuahua is friendly with people but not other dogs unless tiny, loves cats and is very smart. This Christmas when we have so many vet bills for the senior dogs that need dentals, eye surgeries, arthritis meds and more, we are asking a donation for this little Angel of $1,000 which includes all his neuter/ 2 sets of shots/microchip/worming and other needs we had to take care of. No children please. http://www.saveadogandkids.org/Adoptions.htm for questionaire to apply thank you
 
  • #209
SuziQ said:
Sadie and Olivia, I know all of this about rescues, and you do. We know what to look for. Hardly anyone else does though. It's only occasionally that you hear about them ending up in civil court. The big problem is, in the past several years scam artists have lached on to the "rescue" movement and taken advantage of people with big hearts. In the normal course of wanting to do the right thing, I've dealt with shelters, humane societies and rescues. I have had bad experiences with them. I highly doubt I am the only one. I will never buy from a pet shop. There's plenty of hard luck cases in the paper from individual parties who's animals are shelter bound if no one takes them. That's how I rescue. Because I do read contracts, I chose years ago not to adopt from groups that have rules that basically say all I will ever be is a glorified foster parent. I could lose my animal at the will of someone else's weird thought process. End up heartbroken and in court. Who wants to go through that?

Spend enough time on Petfinder.com and you'll start recognizing the suspicious listings.

1000.00 Rescue. This add have been listed for over 4 months. :

http://search.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi?petid=7452520

PICO 5 lb. 8 mos. puppy Teacup purebred tan Chihuahua is friendly with people but not other dogs unless tiny, loves cats and is very smart. This Christmas when we have so many vet bills for the senior dogs that need dentals, eye surgeries, arthritis meds and more, we are asking a donation for this little Angel of $1,000 which includes all his neuter/ 2 sets of shots/microchip/worming and other needs we had to take care of. No children please. http://www.saveadogandkids.org/Adoptions.htm for questionaire to apply thank you
Click to expand...

SuzieQ, thank you for clarifying your position, I see where you are coming from now! I love that you are able to rescue homeless pets using just a few of the many venues out there. :) Like I said before, 1k as an adoption fee is ridiculous and makes that organization highly suspect. In fact, the fee on their site contradicts their petfinder ad. Shady indeed.

I am still a huge advocate for animal rescues, especially the two I work with, and hope that people won't write all rescues off.:D
 
  • #210
Olivia77 said:
I agree with you. It takes an hour to fill out standard paperwork and a homecheck can be done in an hour as well. They could have approved this family to keep Iggy in less than a day...
Click to expand...

Does anyone know if a home check was done with the hairdresser's family? Maybe it was. The media tends to puff their wares to sell a story. Ellen's blog stated the hairdresser's family already had a very large dog that was well taken care of. Maybe the big dog was perceived as a threat to the little dog. Regardless, a business, including rescue agencies, should follow procedure and the law. I haven't yet read the business revocation but if true that alone shows the rescue was required to comply with certain state/local standards that have nothing to do with how nice a family may or may not be.
 
  • #211
Olivia77 said:
I agree with you. It takes an hour to fill out standard paperwork and a homecheck can be done in an hour as well. They could have approved this family to keep Iggy in less than a day... If the family didn't meet their requirements, they could have removed Iggy immediately.
Click to expand...
I like Ellen, but I also think there is more to this story. I heard the organization's attorney state that the Moms & Mutts had offered to let the family fill out the necessary paperwork to adopt Iggy. He said they refused. IMO, probably because they realized they didn't qualify because of the age of the children. I also think Ellen was aware of the rules and chose to go around them to give the dog to the family. When she was called on it by the organization, she threatened them. Now look where she's at. As an animal owner, she should have known that the children would get attached and if there was a problem she would be responsible. Also as an animal advocate, I can't believe she took this issue to the media and dissed the organization. Now all those animals they have, and potentially others, will not have a chance to be saved. They can't even conduct interviews because of the fallback from Ellen's rant. Thanks, Ellen! Frankly, after hearing the threatening telephone call from Ellen's publicist to Moms & Mutts, I think she took it to the media on purpose to pay them back. The publicist said (in not so many words) they would regret not doing it Ellen's way and they would pay for it professionally and personally. She even told them they were hiring an attorney to take care of it. I noted Moms & Mutts' attorney also said that he had emails from Portia saying the dog was getting along great with the cats and all was well with the adoption. So what is Ellen's real excuse for getting rid of Iggy?
 
  • #212
Olivia77 said:
.... I am still a huge advocate for animal rescues, especially the two I work with, and hope that people won't write all rescues off.:D
Click to expand...

Not everyone will write off all rescue groups.:D

I truly hope the lady is shut down if she is not a credible rescue facility. On the other hand, a person's word and being responsible for doing what one agrees to (in writing or via the old "handshake") should mean something. It is also a good business practice to treat everyone alike, without special favors.
 
  • #213
BOESP said:
Does anyone know if a home check was done with the hairdresser's family? Maybe it was. The media tends to puff their wares to sell a story. Ellen's blog stated the hairdresser's family already had a very large dog that was well taken care of. Maybe the big dog was perceived as a threat to the little dog. Regardless, a business, including rescue agencies, should follow procedure and the law. I haven't yet read the business revocation but if true that alone shows the rescue was required to comply with certain state/local standards that have nothing to do with how nice a family may or may not be.
Click to expand...

There were some optional clauses in the contract that may have been checked off -the no children clause and no other clause. I wish we could get our hands on the one that was signed by Portia.
 
  • #214
  • #215
fundiva said:
I like Ellen, but I also think there is more to this story. I heard the organization's attorney state that the Moms & Mutts had offered to let the family fill out the necessary paperwork to adopt Iggy. He said they refused. IMO, probably because they realized they didn't qualify because of the age of the children. I also think Ellen was aware of the rules and chose to go around them to give the dog to the family. When she was called on it by the organization, she threatened them. Now look where she's at. As an animal owner, she should have known that the children would get attached and if there was a problem she would be responsible. Also as an animal advocate, I can't believe she took this issue to the media and dissed the organization. Now all those animals they have, and potentially others, will not have a chance to be saved. They can't even conduct interviews because of the fallback from Ellen's rant. Thanks, Ellen! Frankly, after hearing the threatening telephone call from Ellen's publicist to Moms & Mutts, I think she took it to the media on purpose to pay them back. The publicist said (in not so many words) they would regret not doing it Ellen's way and they would pay for it professionally and personally. She even told them they were hiring an attorney to take care of it. I noted Moms & Mutts' attorney also said that he had emails from Portia saying the dog was getting along great with the cats and all was well with the adoption. So what is Ellen's real excuse for getting rid of Iggy?
Click to expand...

Like you, I suspected there is another side to this story. Thanks for the above post. It shows another perspective.
 
  • #216
fundiva said:
I like Ellen, but I also think there is more to this story. I heard the organization's attorney state that the Moms & Mutts had offered to let the family fill out the necessary paperwork to adopt Iggy. He said they refused. IMO, probably because they realized they didn't qualify because of the age of the children. I also think Ellen was aware of the rules and chose to go around them to give the dog to the family. When she was called on it by the organization, she threatened them. Now look where she's at. As an animal owner, she should have known that the children would get attached and if there was a problem she would be responsible. Also as an animal advocate, I can't believe she took this issue to the media and dissed the organization. Now all those animals they have, and potentially others, will not have a chance to be saved. They can't even conduct interviews because of the fallback from Ellen's rant. Thanks, Ellen! Frankly, after hearing the threatening telephone call from Ellen's publicist to Moms & Mutts, I think she took it to the media on purpose to pay them back. The publicist said (in not so many words) they would regret not doing it Ellen's way and they would pay for it professionally and personally. She even told them they were hiring an attorney to take care of it. I noted Moms & Mutts' attorney also said that he had emails from Portia saying the dog was getting along great with the cats and all was well with the adoption. So what is Ellen's real excuse for getting rid of Iggy?
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard about the family refusing to fill out the paperwork - I wonder why as well.

I bolded and underlined what I believe to be an excellent point.
 
  • #217
BOESP said:
Not everyone will write off all rescue groups.:D

I truly hope the lady is shut down if she is not a credible rescue facility. On the other hand, a person's word and being responsible for doing what one agrees to (in writing or via the old "handshake") should mean something. It is also a good business practice to treat everyone alike, without special favors.
Click to expand...

ITA 1000%. :blowkiss:
 
  • #218
BOESP said:
Does anyone know if a home check was done with the hairdresser's family? Maybe it was. The media tends to puff their wares to sell a story. Ellen's blog stated the hairdresser's family already had a very large dog that was well taken care of. Maybe the big dog was perceived as a threat to the little dog. Regardless, a business, including rescue agencies, should follow procedure and the law. I haven't yet read the business revocation but if true that alone shows the rescue was required to comply with certain state/local standards that have nothing to do with how nice a family may or may not be.
Click to expand...

The rescue group emailed Ellen and Portia for a follow up. They called the rescue and said we've been meaning to call you, but this is what and why we did this. After being promised that the new family could submit and application online, which they immediately did. The group said they wanted to do a home check. That's how Mutts and Moms got the address. When they arrived the two dogs were playing. There was no issue with the dogs getting along. The rescue group had no intention of doing a home check. They immediately took the collar and tags off the dog and said, we are taking the dog back.
 
  • #219
  • #220
SuziQ said:
The rescue group emailed Ellen and Portia for a follow up. They called the rescue and said we've been meaning to call you, but this is what and why we did this. After being promised that the new family could submit and application online, which they immediately did. The group said they wanted to do a home check. That's how Mutts and Moms got the address. When they arrived the two dogs were playing. There was no issue with the dogs getting along. The rescue group had no intention of doing a home check. They immediately took the collar and tags off the dog and said, we are taking the dog back.
Click to expand...

I thoght the police came to get the dog?

I am thoroughly confused! :blushing:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 61 more.
Total: 2,684 (members: 62, guests: 2,622)

Online statistics

Members online
62
Guests online
2,622
Total visitors
2,684
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
632,859
Messages
18,632,638
Members
243,315
Latest member
what123
Back
Top