Ellen Degeneres under fire for giving away dog

[fundiva]

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.

Well that's one side of the story. If the family did fill in the form online, the organization would already have had their address without asking to conduct a home check to get it. That part doesn't wash for me. IMO someone's trying to cover their tracks. As far as the other side of it, I'm just repeating what the Moms & Mutts attorney said in two different interviews. He stated that he has the emails, and offered to forward them to the hosts, from Portia saying that the dog was getting along great with the cats and everything was working out well. Now if he has actual documentation, as opposed to a story from Ellen, then I have to go with the docs as evidence. Maybe we'll see them soon on Greta or somewhere.

 

[reb]

HOLY CRAP!!! Did you all read that contract?? That is the most insane, insulting, most messed up piece of trash I have ever read.

'NO other pets??' oh great.. sooo the dog will be lonely all day.
'NO KIDS???' WTF?!?!? Most kids LOVE dogs and most of them will treat the pet as a member of the family and love them to pieces!! ..and most dogs love kids right back!! Caring for a pet also teaches responsibility.. and also, don't we want to raise kids to be more comfortable with and respectful of animals, from a young age?

'Must wear a collar at all times??' Geez.. my cat NEVER wears a collar (she's an inside cat but hangs out in the backyard when the dogs & I are back there). and my dogs are always 'nekkid' around the house & backyard, until we take them out, then we put their collars on. Guess the SPCA should have them all taken away.

'Must never restrain by tying up?' Geezus.. in some situations you might need to tie the dog up for its own safety. I guess that is now considered abusing a dog.

'Must never allow dog to put head out window?????' Oh my god!!!! This is one of the dog's favorite things to do in the world!
and, Can't ride in the back of a pickup?? So.. what if you live on a farm and you want to drive out to the barn and take the dog, who loves to ride in the pickup?? So,, they have to put the dog in a crate, in the truckbed, or a harness, in the front? That's just stupid.

I can't believe they didn't include the following requirements:

1. We reserve the right to inspect ALL toys and treats that go into the dog's mouth, lest they choke, beocme ill, or get an upset stomach... or they might not like the food and become depressed.

2. Adopter MUST not let dog eat grass,, they might vomit.

3. The adopter MUST not raise voice or have an argument with spouse, it might upset the dog.

4. The adopter MUST feed dog on a regular schedule.. delays or changes in feeding times will permanently traumtize dog.

5. Dog must NOT be taken to a dog park at any times.. they run the risk of contracting an illness, or getting into a scuffle with another dog, getting a thorn in their foot, pulling a ligament while running, or getting stung by a bee, spider, or a scorpion,... or getting hit by a UFO that is crash-landing at the park. And absolutely NO swimming... they could drown!

6. A trust fund of at least $1,000 MUST be started for the dog, upon adoption.

7. We reserve the right to inspect ALL food given to the dog. And the dog is never to recieve treats under ANY circumstances.

8. Dog is NOT to be brushed under any circumstances. You might do it too roughly and traumatize dog.

I guess the ideal thing is to just keep the dog locked up in a god damn cage all day... then they won't get hurt and nothing bad will ever happen to them! Better yet... just keep them in the dark.. the light might hurt their eyes. This is getting creepy. Remember the movie Misery..?? Seriously,, that's what these woman are like. 'No one will ever love you like I do'....

 

[Details]

The family would have known the rescue agency had no intention of giving them the dog when the paperwork said "No children". I still think the rescue agency is in the wrong. Good home, good bonding, they should have worked with the family. And I don't think they did. They came in like petty dictators to take the dog back, then said, sure, you can have him - just fill out this paperwork that certifies that you have no children, and we'll see if you pass our standards - knowing they wouldn't.

 

[SuziQ]

I thoght the police came to get the dog?

I am thoroughly confused! :blushing:

After a two hour stand off in the backyard, in which Miss Uppity wouldn't put the dog down, the husband finally called LE. They came out and tried to reason with Miss Uppity and even said, this looks like a nice family and house, the chip was checked and LE had to let the dog leave with Miss Uppity. It's all on video, that can be found online. Miss Uppity acts rediculous turning around refusing to give Iggy to anyone who asked for the dog back.

 

[weekender]

I am sorry if these videos have already been posted, but if you have not seen them, they are worth the watch. Be sure to watch all three.

http://www.tmz.com/2007/10/18/ellen-portia-rush-to-home-where-iggy-was-taken/


And this has been a great site to keep up on the latest, and the commentary is interesting. You can watch a video of the lady who did the adoption here.

http://glosslip.com/index.php?cat=155&submit=Go%21

 

[fundiva]

After a two hour stand off in the backyard, in which Miss Uppity wouldn't put the dog down, the husband finally called LE. They came out and tried to reason with Miss Uppity and even said, this looks like a nice family and house, the chip was checked and LE had to let the dog leave with Miss Uppity. It's all on video, that can be found online. Miss Uppity acts rediculous turning around refusing to give Iggy to anyone who asked for the dog back.

So why are you calling her Ms. Uppity, she was enforcing a legal contract. The people who tried to go around the rules and keep the dog are the ones thinking they are too uppity to follow the rules. So is Ellen for going around the rules. If you didn't want to abide by the rules, go to a different damn agency!

 

[reb]

OH-- and another one (from the contract)!!:

"dog must NOT be allowed to run free at any time...." Yeah, well, isn't that what leash-free dog parks are for.......????????

It amazes me that anyone in their right mind would sign such a contract.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I find it very troubling you have to sign such a contract to get a dog...but if you have a baby...there is no fuss at all! What a truly messed up world we live in!

 

[Olivia77]

I am sorry if these videos have already been posted, but if you have not seen them, they are worth the watch. Be sure to watch all three.

http://www.tmz.com/2007/10/18/ellen-portia-rush-to-home-where-iggy-was-taken/


And this has been a great site to keep up on the latest, and the commentary is interesting. You can watch a video of the lady who did the adoption here.

http://glosslip.com/index.php?cat=155&submit=Go!

Thanks for the links weekender. I've gotta sign off for the night, but I'll go watch them and be back tomorrow!

 

[reb]

fundiva-- because sometimes rules are utterly stupid and defeat the purpose of the whole endeavor (WHICH IS FINDING A GOOD HOME FOR A HOMELESS DOG)-- and deserve to be broken.

But I agree-- she shouldn't have signed it. I guess everyone who wants to deal with a pet rescue agency should ask to look at their contract BEFORE they start looking at their animals & getting attached to any of them... to make sure they're not dealing with self-righteous, control-freak lunatics.

 

[SadieMae]

LOL reb...I first misread about the following requirements!! I thought those WERE her requirements...and by the time I got to #4 I thought WTH, let me go back read this again!!

Yes..her application is BS and I've never filled one out like that that had those restrictions. How does a rescue ban a dog being adopted to homes with kids??? Some great dogs will miss out on some great families with kids. No other pets...I couldn't live without 2 Danes. They keep each other so entertained. No head out the window? My dogs would never go for a ride again if I didn't let them do that!!! That rescue is looney for sure!!!

 

[SuziQ]

So why are you calling her Ms. Uppity, she was enforcing a legal contract. The people who tried to go around the rules and keep the dog are the ones thinking they are too uppity to follow the rules. So is Ellen for going around the rules. If you didn't want to abide by the rules, go to a different damn agency!

Fundiva, I can call her Ms Uppity if I want to, which is nicer than what some others are calling her. I guess Ms Uppity is the only one in this situation who doesn't have to follow rules. And no one is disputing that Ellen went around the rules. She admits that. Now will Ms Uppity admit she's a b*tch?

 

[fundiva]

I am sorry if these videos have already been posted, but if you have not seen them, they are worth the watch. Be sure to watch all three.

http://www.tmz.com/2007/10/18/ellen-portia-rush-to-home-where-iggy-was-taken/


And this has been a great site to keep up on the latest, and the commentary is interesting. You can watch a video of the lady who did the adoption here.

http://glosslip.com/index.php?cat=155&submit=Go%21

The young girl didn't seem as torn up about the whole thing as Ellen said. Ellen said they were hysterical and besides themselves. The daughter seemed pretty posed and willing to talk to a camera. By the way, did you note how she said her mother was wanting to attack the woman to get the dog back, but her husband held her back. I wouldn't want a pet placed with her for that reason alone. Also, contrary to some posts, the daughter said the woman and her had a civil conservation "for a while" before she picked the dog up and took the tags off. She also said they didn't fill out the online application because it was too long and asked for more information than her school application. They were also asked to bring the dog and their other dog Buddy to the rescue shelter so they could evaluate them, but they didn't want to drive to Pasadena because it was "like 2 hours". Doesn't sound like a family that was willing to do anything to keep the dog.

 

[SadieMae]

1. Ellen signed a contract to adopt Iggy
2. Ellen broke the contract by giving Iggy away.
3. The rescue wants control of the Iggy because Ellen did not "inform" them she gave the dog away.
4. New family fills out the adoption request...
5. Ms Uppity goes for their "home check" and snatches the dog.
6. Ms Uppity adopts Iggy in a matter of days to another home

7 All hell breaks loose...

 

[fundiva]

Fundiva, I can call her Ms Uppity if I want to, which is nicer than what some others are calling her. I guess Ms Uppity is the only one in this situation who doesn't have to follow rules. And no one is disputing that Ellen went around the rules. She admits that. Now will Ms Uppity admit she's a b*tch?

I didn't say you couldn't call her that, I simply asked why since she was the only one who was actually following the actual rules. Why do you think she wasn't following the rules. The rules said if you don't want the dog or it doesn't work out, you bring it back to the rescue organization. By the way, if Ms. Uppity broke the rules and Ellen broke the rules, then wouldn't they now be following the same rules??

 

[SuziQ]

I didn't say you couldn't call her that, I simply asked why since she was the only one who was actually following the actual rules. Why do you think she wasn't following the rules. The rules said if you don't want the dog or it doesn't work out, you bring it back to the rescue organization. By the way, if Ms. Uppity broke the rules and Ellen broke the rules, then wouldn't they now be following the same rules??

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1746463&postcount=203

 

[Samiya]

So when was Mariana going to change the details in the microchip?

Sami

 

[fundiva]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1746463&postcount=203

Point taken that the business may not have the proper paperwork. Whether or not keeping the paperwork was Ms. Uppity's responsibility as opposed to the other person or attorney, I do not know so I can't say whether she broke the rules. If you are trying to say she had no right to place the dog because of the lack of corporate paperwork, then Ellen did not have the dog legally either and so has no right to the dog now.

 

[fundiva]

So when was Mariana going to change the details in the microchip?

Sami

It is my guess that they allow a trial period to see if the dog works out before they actually change the name. That was why they were checking in with Ellen in the first place to make sure everything was fine. I have adopted from animal shelters before and they have had a trial period to bring the pet back if it didn't work out.

 

[SadieMae]

The young girl didn't seem as torn up about the whole thing as Ellen said. Ellen said they were hysterical and besides themselves. The daughter seemed pretty posed and willing to talk to a camera. By the way, did you note how she said her mother was wanting to attack the woman to get the dog back, but her husband held her back. I wouldn't want a pet placed with her for that reason alone. Also, contrary to some posts, the daughter said the woman and her had a civil conservation "for a while" before she picked the dog up and took the tags off. She also said they didn't fill out the online application because it was too long and asked for more information than her school application. They were also asked to bring the dog and their other dog Buddy to the rescue shelter so they could evaluate them, but they didn't want to drive to Pasadena because it was "like 2 hours". Doesn't sound like a family that was willing to do anything to keep the dog.

Well I was right her place!!! There was NO need to have them bring THEIR dog to Iggy to "evaluate" them. The rescue should have already evaluated Iggy for his interaction with other pets and children. Owners know how their pet will react to other animals already. They obviously don't take the time to do anything with the dogs since they don't adopt to homes with children or other pets. That would be too much work for her "rescue". :banghead: Seems to me she cherry picks the dogs from the city shelter, dumps them at her shelter and the poor dogs get no training, socialization, evaluation, or even routine vet services. She is making me so :furious: .
It was sickening to me how she was holding Iggy like he was HER long lost baby. :sick: :boohoo: