Ellen DeGeneres Under Fire for Giving Away Dog

[Gawain 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071016/ap_on_en_tv/people_degeneres

If I were her, I would drop support for this "Mutts and Moms" "rescue" agency like a hot potato.

How is it that volunteer agencies wield so much "power" with the charters, that they forget what the purpose of their cause is?

[jimmytavino 16]

hmmmm

kinda sad. She does a good thing to "adopt ' the dog..

and so she tries to remedy the situation by forwading the Pet onto a family whom she Knows, whom she trusts, and whom she feels will care for it...

Ok so far....

Now the "agency" from whom she got the Dog... raises hell,,, threatens to and then DOES call the Police,,,
REPOSSESSES (sp) the animal and turns the issue into a spot on the national news...

A bit overdramatic i'd say, on the part of the Pet center... As long as the animal is cared for and loved, so what if the "ownership" changes hands,,,
I can see the agency NOT wanting people to adopt a pet and then sell it. or otherwise. give it away.. But this wasn't an exploitative action on her part, and has become a sad situation.

I have Loved Ellen since her early Days as a great stand up Comedian.. she is bright. witty, self -effacing, and charming..
I don't see her show very much, but I still think she is wonderful

Lets see how this turns out....

jmy

[johndh1 0]

I almost got a little teary-eyed with her genuine heartfelt plea on her show yesterday. And you know what? The only reason the police let that other hag leave with the dog from the new house (they called the police, and weren't going to let her leave with it after she just came in for a supposed inspection, under false pretenses - she intended to take the dog in the first place)? She still had the locator chip registered in her name! A little bit of trickery on her part, I'd say.

I think once Ellen gets past the "sad" stage and gets "mad," the Mutts & Moms group had better watch out!

Roll Tide Roll

[Thanatos340 1]

This does suck for everyone involved.
Mutts and Moms has some pretty stupid rules, Sadly Degeneres agreed to them when she accepted the dog.

The problem is the 1) she did not notify the organization she was giving the dog away as required in the contract she signed (Actually her Partner signed) and 2) the family she gave the dog to did not meet the guidelines set by the organization. They do not allow families with children under 14 to adopt (STUPID Rule in my opinion, But it is their rule and they are sticking to it).

Too some degree the organization should be commended for not making exceptions for celebs. They have rules and they enforce their rules across the board.

I understand why they have the first rule. They screen the people adopting the dogs, They don’t want one person adopting for an unscreened family. The second rule is stupid but at least they are consistent with it.

Sucks for Mutts and Moms with all the bad Publicity when they are just following thier own rules, Sucks for ellen because I believe she genuinely feels horrible for all this and sucks most of all for the Kids that just want their dog back.

[NCclimber 0]

Looks like she is the one who screwed up this situation. I don't think her grandstanding helped matters, either.

[johndh1 0]

Yeah, I agree with all that. She did in fact accept responsibility for her ignorance of the rules. Still, the organization should let them have the dog. This is not the case for "making an exception for the celebrity," but rather for the dog and the children. Exceptions are made to rules every day, and here's where one is well-deserved.

Situations like this are yet another reason I am all for gay couples adopting children, too. I mean, is it better to have them shifted from foster family to foster family, or worse yet, to live in a dormitory all their growing up years, instead of some fabulously decorated house?

(Don't mean to change the subject!)

Roll Tide Roll

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

How is it that volunteer agencies wield so much "power" with the charters, that they forget what the purpose of their cause is?

I think a better question is: How is it that such a useless story is worthy of any news coverage at all, let alone any discussion?

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[johndh1 0]

Hey, I'm just glad I don't have to change the channel so much to get away from Paris or LiLo anymore.

Roll Tide Roll

[NCclimber 0]

Like no one saw this coming.

Quote

The angry calls got so bad that Marina Batkis, co-owner of the dog rescue organization, said she had to close her business and stay home Wednesday, a day after DeGeneres broadcast a tearful, televised plea for the dog to be returned to her hairdresser and the woman's daughters.

"My life is being threatened. This is horrible," a tearful Batkis said outside her home.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SBO9JO0&show_article=1

[Unstable 8]

I agree. I think that this group has become a little overprotective and seems to have lost sight of it's initial goals and become power hungry.

=========Shaun ==========

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I agree. I think that this group has become a little overprotective

Well, what kind of people mix pets with children??? I mean, dogs hate bonding with children.

this group is a bunch of idiots

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

I agree. I think that this group has become a little overprotective

Well, what kind of people mix pets with children??? I mean, dogs hate bonding with children.

this group is a bunch of idiots

Exactly...puppies and kids go together...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jpjc2000 0]

You're right, she screwed up. We have rescued three senior greyhounds and two manx cats. None of them can be given to another home should we decide they don't fit, even if WE deem the new home worthy, unless we call the rescue agency first. I understand and like that clause allot.

[CReWGEEK 1]

mutts and moms are probably looking for their 15 minutes of fame

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

You're right, she screwed up. We have rescued three senior greyhounds and two manx cats. None of them can be given to another home should we decide they don't fit, even if WE deem the new home worthy, unless we call the rescue agency first. I understand and like that clause allot.

Agreed. Celebrities are not above having to follow the rules. That rule is a good one - it's for the protection of the animals. Ellen should be apologizing to "the heartbroken" kid and owning up to her mistake rather than turning negative attention (understatement of the decade) on such an underappreciated cause/organization.

It's Ellen's fault that kid had "her dog" removed - not the agency's.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

I agree. I think that this group has become a little overprotective and seems to have lost sight of it's initial goals and become power hungry.

I don't think so. I think they are sticking to their goals in spite of Ellen's celebrity. Ellen isn't qualified to determine whether a particular home is a good fit for a certain dog. What if the dog was shown to be aggressive with kids? What if the kids were rowdy and this dog needed a calm environment? What if everyone in the family was gone all day and this dog needed more attention to thrive? How would Ellen know? It's the center's job to place animals in families that are a good fit.

Why didn't the hairdresser's family apply properly to get the dog back?

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Why didn't the hairdresser's family apply properly to get the dog back?

They would not qualify. They have two Kids in the house under 14 years old (I seem to remember 11 and 13 but may be mistaken). The organization does not let families with children under 14 adopt the dogs.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Why didn't the hairdresser's family apply properly to get the dog back?

More importantly, why did the family yield to an entity they had no contract with.

If that were my house, those people would be facing trespassing charges at a minimum, and there's no way they'd have that dog.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[labrys 0]

Quote

I don't think so. I think they are sticking to their goals in spite of Ellen's celebrity. Ellen isn't qualified to determine whether a particular home is a good fit for a certain dog.

Ummmm...It's a dog. A DOG. It's not a child. It's not like 99% of all the stray dogs in the world wouldn't be better off in a cardboard box with a homeless guy sharing the night's dumpster dive treasures because at least then it has a packmate and a snack.

Owned by Remi #?

[jpjc2000 0]

No, the agency has no such rule...THAT dog did not fit the guidelines put in place to protect both animal and family...Hate to inform you, but sometimes celebrities and news reporters go for the dramatic, not facts.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...The problem is the 1) she did not notify the organization she was giving the dog away as required in the contract she signed (Actually her Partner signed)

So how did Ellen get mixed up in this if it was her "partner" that signed the contract?

I'll tell you...Ellen has the public forum and used and abused it with taking up for her partner like that.

Simple matter: Play by the rules. If you get caught breaking them, then own up and shut up.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't think so. I think they are sticking to their goals in spite of Ellen's celebrity. Ellen isn't qualified to determine whether a particular home is a good fit for a certain dog.

Ummmm...It's a dog. A DOG. It's not a child. It's not like 99% of all the stray dogs in the world wouldn't be better off in a cardboard box with a homeless guy sharing the night's dumpster dive treasures because at least then it has a packmate and a snack.

I applaud them for not backing down.

People in that field don't do it for the money. They don't do it for the fame. They do it for the care and protection of animals - often discarded or abused by people. (Celebrities, too)

A dog randomly given away has a better chance of ending up on the street again than a dog in a no kill shelter. Their goal isn't to "maybe get dogs off the street" or "kind of protect animals" or "at least they're a little better off"

Their goal is save the lives and work to ensure famillies that will last for the dogs.

I agree Ellen abused her celebrity and didn't own up to her mistake. She must've felt guilty that her cats were the reason her partner couldn't keep the dog.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[johndh1 0]

I've seen children put into worse foster homes than this dog had with this family.

Has anyone seen the official explanation from the shelter as to why they couldn't keep the dog, or why the conditions merit an immediate removal?

Sure, Ellen screwed up, but with her promotion of animal care, I hardly believe she put the dog in a bad situation that warranted removal. As well, why hadn't the agency changed the locator chip to Ellen rather than keeping it for themselves (from the news I saw, they were supposed to have already)? This is the only reason the police let her leave with it.

And now the kids are without their doggie. I don't care what anyone says, though I think Ellen's t.v. deal was a little over the top, if it were my doggie I had just gotten, I would be kicking and screaming too - that woman would not have left with it.

I mean, after all, when she entered the home under false pretenses, wasn't she trespassing? She told them she was just there to "inspect," knowing full well that she was there to get the dog - her argument was not over any conditions, but simply that Ellen didn't have the right to transfer the dog to them. And yes, they have made exceptions to their rules, and not for celebrities. This has little to do with celebrity.

Damn if I would have stood there and let her hold that dog away from me.

Roll Tide Roll

[misskriss 0]

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20152846,00.html

Call me naive but I really don't see Ellen as the lying to get her way type.



Following the Rules
DeGeneres went on to suggest that Mutts & Moms enforces its rules arbitrarily. One such rule, she said, is that it does not allow families with children under 14 to adopt – a rule she said the agency has not always followed in the past.

Also, she said, she was never asked to fill out an adoption application and never had a home evaluation – also supposed rules.

DeGeneres said she had little recourse at the time the dog was taken back because the agency was still listed as the owner on the dog's microchip.

Asked what she would like to happen next, DeGeneres said, "I want Iggy's health and safety, number one. I would like Iggy to come back to that family, because I gave Iggy to that family, and that family has now had their hearts broken, and I feel responsible."

Then she added: "But the bigger picture is, everyone [needs to be] aware of your rights, and that you have to make sure that the microchip has your name on it, someone can come at any time and take your dog away."

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

A dog randomly given away has a better chance of ending up on the street again than a dog in a no kill shelter.

It's not an incorrect statement, necessarily but...I would say a lot more dogs stay on the street b/c a no kill shelter is full. That's another discussion altogether, though. And usually you and I are on the same team on this subject.

I have to agree with the majority here, though.

Ellen (at least from what I saw on the TMZ clip & on her show) admitted to her mistake from the very beginning and has also taken ownership of the whole mess being her fault. Basically her mistake was not really paying attention or being aware of what she was agreeing to. Now that she's aware, she obviously disagrees. Mistake admited. Lesson-learned. But a mistake in and of itself does not mean one must change their opinion.

And I think her opinion is what she is continuing to express. With all the animals out there that need good homes, what is so terribly wrong with the one she placed the dog in? I noted your examples, and I completely agree people need to adopt a dog that fits their lifestyle as well as the dog's--not just go for the one they think is cutest. (I really can't reiterate this enough and preach it regularly.)

It doesn't sound like--by the information we've been provided with anyways--this family or dog would not/did not fit well together.

There really are no winners here.

I agree with Thanatos for the most part; except where he called the rules "stupid". I think the rules are good and are in place for good reason. I do NOT agree the rules should always adhered to. I don't agree most rules should always be adhered to. Consistency is good, but reason is better.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.