(continuation)
And this is why I have refused to sign contracts from breeders and rescue groups that have essentially wanted to co-own the dog. So if they signed the contract then they did something stupid. And I'm sure it was probably some boilerplate contract a million pages long with real small print. But I read contracts and if there is something outrageous in there such as denying me basic ownership rights of the dog then I'm not going to sign it.

When I adopted from the county shelter their contract prohibits selling the adopted pets which is reasonable. Why on earth would a rescue group want the pet back? I have yet to hear a good reason for wanting the pet back after it has found a suitable new home. Saying it was breach of contract is not a reason to take the dog back. What damages are there?

It's your right and Ellen's to not sign the contract. However, they DID sign it agreeing to the terms and have no right to break it. By signing it, it's only Ellen and Portia's dog under the terms of the contract.

The reason breeders and rescues stipulate these terms is that they care about what happens to the animals and want to know they never end up in bad hands. Most of these animals have already been traumatized. They don't want them passed off from person to person and eventually landing in a kill shelter or in the hands of a neglectful owner. Ellen did soon pass the dog off. What if things weren't working out with them? Where does the dog go next? Once the rescue allows the rules to be ignored, the dog would forever be out of their control and anything could happen.

Believe me, rich celebrities know better than to sign anything they haven't looked at carefully. They just seem to have a tendency to think rules shouldn't apply to them and try to bully people into giving them their way.

Most people are glad to give a dog back to where it came from - it saves them the trouble of trying to find another home for the dog.

In this case it sounds like they found a wonderful home. I still think the rescue group should've worked with the new family - charge them the adoption fee if that's what they are concerned with.

If Ellen & Portia were being "so underhanded" all they would've had to do was lie to the woman on the phone and tell her everything was fine and Iggy was doing great. I really believe they didn't realize what they had done was against the rescue's policy.

It's quite possible the hairdressers home was indeed not a good home for whatever reasons are not being disclosed. They wouldn't fill out an adoption application, why? I think it has to be more than the age of the kids.

I adopted a dog from a (breed specific) rescue and I did indeed sign a contract that even allows the rescue to come and take the dog ANY TIME THEY WANT. I don't believe that they ever would, but it does give them the assurance and the responsibility for the animals welfare beyond the initial adoption.
The humane society refused me when I looked there, without even a site visit. The rescue group visited with the dog and stayed and talked for awhile, and were assured of a good placement.
They are not evil for establishing this criteria, and those of us that HAVE signed such a contract and honor that criteria are not in any peril of losing our beloved, adopted pets.
Don't fault the rescue for intervening, they are certainly not trying to make a profit (laughable!) on adoptions. They have a genuine, vested interest in the well being of the animal, even if you don't agree with their policies.

I agree with Barnmom, everyone reacted terrible.
It is my understanding Ellen didn't sign it and apparently the rescue didn't talk to all family members and make it clear. (should she have read it, yes.) But it happened and the dog got a new home, loved by the family. In my opinion the rescue people should have just gone to meet and interview the people and if the dog was loved/happy left the dog where it is. Come on no dog will be placed with children under 14!!! How many of you had pets for children under 14? Even breeders that stipulate they want the dog back just wants to be sure the pet goes to a good home. They would be happy to hear and meet another family if first owner had to surrender pet)

I believe that many rescue group's policies are far too strict. I've been denied allowed to adopt before, because I'm not home all day. It's a stupid and unrealistic rule.

However, with that said, I'm on the rescue groups side in this case. The bottom line is there was a contract. Ellen and Portia signed that contract. If the dog wasn't working out that they needed to return it to the rescue so that they could find the most appropriate home. Animals are disposible. And Ellen and Portia shouldn't get special treatment because they are famous.

Emma I agree no special treatment because of who she is. But it all happened and I do think it was terrible to take a dog away from a family that loved the dog. If they really cared about the dog they would have just gone and interviewed the family and if they passed (other than the age, remember these were not little kids) they could have made the exception under the circumstances and left him. Slap Ellen on the wrist, fine her, refuse to let her adopt from you again but don't uproot the dog again.

There was a great South Park episode last night involving a rediculous contract where one of the parties didn't think it would be enforced. It will probably air again tonight. These organizations are essentially lien holders on the animals. And that's wrong. It's got nothing to do with the welfare of the animals it's got to do with being control freaks.

If they really cared about the dog they would have just gone and interviewed the family and if they passed (other than the age, remember these were not little kids) they could have made the exception under the circumstances and left him.

My thoughts exactly...

Reading on another forum, a person said they saw a segment on their local news about this story, and the dog rescue agency asked to visit the family to see if it was a suitable residence for the dog,but the family DENIED their request! Not sure if it is true or not. Haven't read anything on the net to back that up (but I'm not exactly looking that hard)

QQ,
I really have to disagree with that general a statement. The rescue I adopted from was very concerned that the dog had a good, safe, permanent home. There were no "control" issues here. I cannot believe the lengths that these people went to for the dog were motivated by feelings of power or control. They were devoted to the breed and spent time and money for the dogs benefit.

From what I understand, the family thought they were in the process of becoming the rightful adoptive family. They filled out an application. The rescue group told them they were coming over for a home inspection. But when they arrived, they brought the police and basically pulled the dog out of the child's arms.

Nyce farm I've said time and time again that it's not all rescue groups. But if I were you, I'd knock on wood!

We've debated whether rescue groups do more harm than good in the past and there were quite a few horror stories told.

QQ, deal with the groups which have policies and practices you agree with. No need to slam the Moms & Mutts group because you don't agree with their policies. Ellen & Portia had the same choice. I appreciate the rescues are there for the life of the animal to make sure that, to the best of their ability, the animals are going to good homes. And if I die in the night, I know that my herd will be placed in good homes by the agencies I adopted them from, not sent to the shelter for pot luck on placment or euthanization.

It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks of the terms of the contract. Those were the terms and it was agreed to and signed. Now it is simple contract law. No one forced Ellen and her girlfriend to adopt from that rescue group. If they didn't like the terms, they could have gone else where to adopt. But instead Ellen somehow thinks she is entitled to ignore the terms of the contract.

The lawyer for the rescue group was on tv. He said that the family refused to fill out an application. Ellen and this family not only ignored the terms of the adoption, they refused to cooperate with the rescue group. And it was Ellen who threatened a civil lawsuit. The rescue group never did. And when the members of the rescue group arrived at the home, the family called the cops on them. Ellen can cry all she wants but she is not entitled to ignore the contract and try to intimidate the rescue group by threatening legal action and bad press. This rescue group relies on donations which are for the benefit of the animals. Now money has to be spent on a lawyer. Ellen was just trying to use her fame and money to get her way and like a child she cries when she can't get her way.

If you don't like the terms of a rescue group, go to another one. Don't adopt and then ignore the terms.

One of the areas I look at from my experience being involved with Shiba rescue and doing home visits is what other animals are already in place in the home. While I complete fault Ellen on this one, the rescue group should also have questioned about the cats already being there. Unless it's proven by previous ownership or nuetral meetings that a dog will get along with cats or other animals... it's safer to place it in an only one pet home.

Bob

I wouldnt buy a dog from a rescue for nothing in this world
they dont care about the dogs just the money and trying to look like a good person , if i have to pay for a dog or cat then it should be mine ..it wasnt like she dropped it along the road .i dont blame the people for not going back let them keep there dog, that just sucks ....

My experience with rescue organizations is a little different than most here because while I am now taking a much needed break, over the past 8 years that I've been involved in rescue, I have been a co-founder and officer of a purebreed rescue organization. I can't speak for rescues other than the one I was associated with, but most of the responsible rescues follow pretty much the same standards.

Our contract was not a boiler plate contract, but was written to conform to our guildlines. It was reviewed by an attorney to ensure its legality. Like the contract that Ellen's friend signed, our contract had a return clause. This clause isn't in the contract so that adopters live in fear of the rescue taking their dog. Its there to protect the dog for its life. Many dogs end up in shelters after their owners die or have life changing situations. Life happens. People lose jobs, take jobs, have children, move in with parents. We had an adopter who died of cancer within a year of adopting. While we were happy that her family kept her dog, if they had decided they couldn't, the dog would have come back to us. A pet adopted from a rescue will be welcomed back into the rescue and should never have to see the inside of a shelter or pound again.

The background checks and home visits - these are not done to be intrusive. They are done to find out if current or past pets have been taken care of and vetted. They are also done to get to know the applicant. The more that the rescue knows about the applicant and their lifestyle, the better they can make the best possible match of a dog with a family. Not every dog is a good fit for every family, even within the same breed. People are very focused on what the dog looks like. Rescues look at activity levels and temperaments. Rescues want the adoption to be a success.

The requirements of organizations for minimum ages of children sometimes seem arbitrary, but it isn't. It is done for the safety of the dog and children. While everyone loves the thought of dogs and children growing up together, children getting biten by dogs is a big problem. Small dogs, while they may not do as much damage generally don't do as well with children as the larger breeds do. Rescues need to weigh the possibility of being sued if a dog they place bites, no matter who is at fault. People are quick to sue and insurance for rescue organizations is expensive.

Ellen's actions through out this fiasco have been attrocious. She knows what a contract is, yet chose to ignore it. On her show she didn't even acknowledge that it was anything more than "a piece of paper" that she had signed. Her public sobbing has caused the woman who runs the rescue to receive death threats. Rescue is emotional, volunteers put their heart and soul into it. They open their homes to shelter dogs with unknown pasts and once they are better, they let them go, only to do it again. I feel very sorry for what the rescue is going through and also for the backlash that other rescues are now receiving.

katsmah wrote:
Many dogs end up in shelters after their owners die or have life changing situations. Life happens. People lose jobs, take jobs, have children, move in with parents. We had an adopter who died of cancer within a year of adopting. While we were happy that her family kept her dog, if they had decided they couldn't, the dog would have come back to us. A pet adopted from a rescue will be welcomed back into the rescue and should never have to see the inside of a shelter or pound again.

Yeah and people also let their dogs walk alongside a busy road with no leash, feed their pets cornmeal, leave their pets unattended for long periods of time, any number of more likely bad scenarios. Why not write that stuff in the contract too? Assess a $50 fine every time the dog is let off leash within 100 yards of a public road! How about a $25 fee for every day the dog is not taken for a walk? What are people going to do? Not sign the contract? Of course they will. They're emotionally attached way past the point of no return. They'll sign anything to get that dog.

There is no good reason to force people to give the dogs back to you in the event they die. They're dead. It's not a will, it's now agreement they they are going to default on. Second of all, you could make it voluntary and encourage the use of emergency pet care notebooks which I use, which are regularly updated lists of the pets and where they are to go in the event of an emergency or death. I keep a card in my wallet that you can not miss. It alerts that I have pets and they will need care It says where to find my pet care notebook. The handbook describes the dogs and their routine, where to find all the supplies they will be needed and other information. Does your contract do any of that?

To sum it up, there are other ways to phrase the wording so that people can find new homes for their pets other than kill shelters. It's trying to gain total control when total control is not needed and other systems would be far more effective. For instance checking in with the families every year or so by phone or setting up an emergency care website so the people that adopt your dogs can do something like what I did with the notebook only an online version that they can update easily. Then you'll always know the status of the dogs.

qq, Let me get this straight. You are leaving behind instructions of where your pets are to go and how they should be cared for in the event of your death, right? This is because you love them and want to know for sure that their lives will continue to have the same quality they do with you, right? So why is it so hard for you to accept that rescuers care about their animals and are only trying to do the same thing you're doing?

I'm sure this rule becomes a heavy burden on rescuers when they receive back elderly pets with expensive health issues that they placed years before but now the owner has died. What motivation could they have for wanting these animals back other than love and caring? If it is only because they are control freaks, you'd have to also assume that they are all masochists.

We had an adopter who died of cancer within a year of adopting. While we were happy that her family kept her dog, if they had decided they couldn't, the dog would have come back to us.

If her family wanted the dog, but didn't meet the rescue group's minimum requirements, would you have forced them to return the dog?

Anyone in rescue knows the sad truth is that you can't save them all. There are too many out there needing help. So, the choice then becomes how to be the most effective in the face of daily overwhelming odds. For some people, that choice means turning it into a numbers game. Adopt as many homeless animals as you can to whomever you can so that more numbers can be saved. That ignores the quality of life portion of the equation. If a pet is saved from euthanization only to spend the rest of their life at the end of a chain with poor quality food and zero interaction with a human family, was it really worth saving that pet's life? For some rescuers, that scenario is far worse than death. So they decide that they can't save them all, but they can save one or two and make sure their life as a whole has good quality care. For some rescuers, that does mean turning into control freaks. They are so focused on the quality of the whole life for that one animal that they don't balance it well with the numbers game of saving more animals. For them, assuring the fact that one dog or cat lives out their life in pampered care to their standard is worth the sacrifice of more lives in the shelter rather than allowing a larger volume of animals to go to a less known and sure home.

Most rescues are somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. THey understand the urgency of the millions to be saved, but they also consider the quality of the rescue's life in the equation as well. This rescue happens to err on the side of quality of life and has drafted a contract that spells out their terms of adoption. Contracts are very clear about the consequences of violating those terms. Those terms were violated in these circumstances, and the consequences were enforced. If the consequences weren't enforced, then the rescue becomes toothless in a situation where the actual life of the animal may be at stake. And, personally, it's like being the parent of a child who you tell to not do something, and the child does it anyway, so you just say, "don't do that" again rather than actually enforcing some type of punishment that will ensure that the behavior doesn't occur again. It's about boundaries. And, if the rules of the rescue were unacceptable, then no one is forcing an adult to sign that agreement. THere are other rescues out there with different policies. There's even the city pound.

I can't wait to hear the answer that that!

Deb, if you remember that topic I posted, the story that prompted me to create the notebook was that some fairly young dude had a heart attack or something, went into the hospital for a little while where the staff told him to let the county shelter board his labs. 2 days later the dog were accidently killed by the shelter. They showed pics of the dogs, they were very sweet and playful looking.

I didn't make the notebook to be a will neccesarily but in case of a bad car wreck. Or even somthing not so serious.
It got me thinking and asking people that I trust if they would be temporary care givers to the dogs in the event of an emergency. It is non-binding. There is a list of about 15 names, phone numbers addresses in order of preference. If the person can do it then ask the next person. In most cases people don't know their rescue group from adam. I'd much rather people I know and trust to take the dogs. None the less, the last name on the list is the breed rescue for my region.

Having a rescue group offering to take the dogs voluntarily is a good idea. Making it mandatory is not. A better solution is if you trusted the people to take the animal in the first place, why not trust them to find a caregiver. I don't think "love and caring" is the explanation for requiring all pets to be returned.

Excellent explanation katsmah.

There is a lot of misinformation in the above postings.
l.The hairstylists family did not refuse to fill out an application, in actual fact the dog was taken when a meeting was set up for a home visit and at that time they were going to fill out an application. But the rep from Moms and Mutts called in the cops and took the dog instead.
2. Yes their policy is no children younger than 14 however they have bent this rule in the past. So why not this time?
3. Ellen and Portia never filled out an application.
4. Ellen admits that she didn't read the whole contract and that she was at fault. However, I believe that Moms & Mutts should have made it clear verbally.
5. No one is suing anyone.
6. Fink is not Moms and Mutts attorney - this was specially stated - just acting as a spokesman.
The best thing to come from this: Maybe rescues will be forced to modify this practice. I personally will not take on a dog that is not mine to keep forever and I want the right to place the dog if I need to. When my children were younger we set up wills that listed who we wanted to raise our children. I would hate to think the state or anyone else would keep me from having that say. They are setting up the adoptors as foster parents and they keep control forever. Not acceptable to me. If I wanted to foster I would.

"Yeah and people also let their dogs walk alongside a busy road with no leash, feed their pets cornmeal, leave their pets unattended for long periods of time, any number of more likely bad scenarios. Why not write that stuff in the contract too?"

Actually contracts contain care requirements. Rescues don't want dogs that they place to end up being tied to the end of a chain or to get hit by a car. But that is also where the reference checks come in, how someone has cared for their previous pets gives a good indication of how they will care for future pets.

"There is no good reason to force people to give the dogs back to you in the event they die. They're dead. It's not a will, it's now agreement they they are going to default on. Second of all, you could make it voluntary and encourage the use of emergency pet care notebooks which I use, which are regularly updated lists of the pets and where they are to go in the event of an emergency or death."

Many, many pets end up in shelters because their owner has died. While your emergency notebook is an excellent idea, the cold hard truth is that many family members ditch the pet when the owner dies. Earlier this year I fostered an 8 year old dog whose owner's sister didn't even wait for him to die before she decided to get rid of his dog. We found out about the dog from a church friend of the sister. Nice, huh? There is a rescue in New York state that exists only to take in pets whose owners have died and they have no where to go but the pound. The rescue is always full and has a waiting list. Some families don't even bother to bring the pet to the shelter, they open the door and kick the pet out. That is the reality of what rescues see and deal with. Your notebook is a nice idea. If you want to make sure your friends and family will care for your pets when you die, put them in your will with money to care for them. For pets who have been adopted through rescues, the family just has to contact the rescue and the pet will be taken care of. That is part of the function of the return policy.

"If her family wanted the dog, but didn't meet the rescue group's minimum requirements, would you have forced them to return the dog?"

Yes.

"And, if the rules of the rescue were unacceptable, then no one is forcing an adult to sign that agreement. THere are other rescues out there with different policies. There's even the city pound."

Thank you live wire oak, that is it exactly. In Ellen's case, if she didn't like the rules of the contract, just as the Mutts & Moms rescuer had, Ellen could have gone to the inner city kill shelter, she could walk among the cages crowded with dogs and puppies deciding which one would get to live another day. She could pick a puppy, take it home and wash it multiple times to get the stench of the shelter off the pup. Then she could get the puppy vetted and wormed and then give it to the girls.

Or she could go on her TV show and cry about how the rescue should give the puppy to her friend's children.

Tough choice.

I know there are people here who think all people in rescue are nutty and the rules are over the top. Trust me, they didn't start out like that. There are things I have seen and heard that I wish I never knew. I am thankful that I live in a state where most pets are well taken care of. If you don't like the rules that a rescue has, you are free to go elsewhere. If you decide to rescue, check out the rescue. Don't be afraid to ask them questions. Responsible rescues will welcome your questions.

"The hairstylists family did not refuse to fill out an application, in actual fact the dog was taken when a meeting was set up for a home visit and at that time they were going to fill out an application. But the rep from Moms and Mutts called in the cops and took the dog instead."

That is not true. The lawyer for the rescue group has been on a number of tv shows and said that the family did refuse to fill out the application. He said it was a repeated refusal by telephone and emails. He also stated that Ellen rejected the notion of the family filling out the application also.

Ellen's pr person and atty both threatened to file a civil lawsuit against the rescue group if the dog was not returned within 24 hours. I heard a voice message left by them which said that plus they wrote letters saying that.

When the home visit was set up, Ellen arranged for TMZ to be there to video tape the visit. I have seen the video. On the video you can clearly see and hear it was the family who called the police trying to stop the removal.

I don't know what the policy is about children because that topic was never brought up in all the interviews with the lawyer for the rescue group. I have doubts that it was ever an issue since no one ever asked about it.

"Ellen and Portia never filled out an application. "

Ellen didn't but Portia did and Portia signed the contract. Portia adopted the dog. Ellen did not.

"4. Ellen admits that she didn't read the whole contract and that she was at fault. However, I believe that Moms & Mutts should have made it clear verbally."

Ellen didn't adopt the dog. And even if she did, it is idiotic for her not to read a contract. Ellen is a highly paid business woman and is used to reading and signing contracts. She has no excuse. It was also said verbally to Portia at the time of the adoption. And the rescue group told Ellen about that term of the contract when they called and discovered Ellen gave the dog away. A reasonable person would not have acted like Ellen did when she is in the wrong.

katsmah is correct about mentioning the dog in the will and leaving money for the care of the dog. If you want to protect your pet, you must have it set forth in your will. This is becoming more common and not just for the rich and famous. People have left there residences to a person with the provision that the person properly care for the pet. It is commonly done with restrictions so the person can't dump the pet and take the assets.

In a case in my area now, the dog was left the residence and $250,000. A relative is allowed the use of the residence as long as the dog is alive. Upon the death of the dog, the residence and balance of funds goes to a charity. A problem arose with the person living in the residence and taking care of the dog. The judge appointed a lawyer to represent the interest of the dog.

Many relatives dispite assurances that they will care for the animal simply dispose of the animal. I personally know of so many cases in which this has happened. I think it is great that the rescue group will take the animal if the owner dies. The death of an owner is very hard on animals.

Like I said premier, alot of misinformation and lies. Getting info from the internet is a dangerous practice. Anyone can say anything without threat. I know one of the people involved and most of your info is bogus.

The REAL truth will probably never be known as anyone, including lawyers, organizations, and pr's can, and sometimes will, say anything to suit their cause. And there is so much info out there, who's to know what is the actual truth.

What I heard on the radio was that the rescue group told the family there was no need to file an application as the children were under 14, and they do not adopt -small- dogs to family with younger children.

Ellen did the wrong thing although I truly believe she thought it was good for the dog. My opinion is that she was distraught over putting the girls through the ordeal of getting attached and then having the dog removed. I don't believe she was not concerned for the dog, but thought it would receive a good home.

My question would be why did the organization move so quickly in rehoming the dog rather than attempting to work something out with the family? Made me wonder what more could have been there besides the age of the girls. I think in a "unique" situation, rules can be bent. Rules are bent in -all- organizations under certain circumstances.

With the info that I have seen, (and some of it from this thread) I wonder if any party involved worked towards a solution.

BTW, did anyone else notice the family's other dog? It was well groomed and well behaved, slept on the sofa and had lots of toys around. Just from what I saw, I think the dog would have had a good home. What more can ya ask for?

Some rules can be bent, others rules will never be bent. It depends on how important that rule is to the rescue.

Did anyone say how the older dog was with the puppy? Some dogs are great with puppies, others want to hurt them. You are right, the real reason most likely will never be known.

As far as the rescue placing the puppy quickly, they may have had multiple applications on the pup. That happens a lot with cute puppies. When the puppy did not work out in Ellen's home, he may have been adopted to the person who was next in line for him, who had already been approved to adopt.

TMZ has some of their videos on their website. I just watched one in which the little girl spoke for a long time. Ellen was sitting next to her. The little girl admitted that they never filled out the application and that the rescue group did inform them more than once of the necessity to fill out the app. The little girl said the app was online for them to fill out but that it was to long and they didn't fill it out.

Ellen and the little girl both said the husband of the hairdresser telephoned the police.

In the tape, Ellen claimed that the rescue group threatened to contact the media if the dog wasn't returned. I find that hard to believe. The media is not going to come running for the rescue group but they sure did for Ellen. Plus Ellen arranged for TMZ to be at the home to video tape the whole thing. It sounds clear to me that it was Ellen threatening to use the media against the rescue group.

Portia was also speaking on one of the videos. She did not deny knowing about the term of returning the dog to the rescue group. Instead she claimed that they simply held off contacting the rescue group until enough time went by to ensure that the dog was working out with the hairdresser family. Portia said they intended to inform the rescue group once they were sure that it was working out. Ellen added that although that was a term of the contract that she did not feel it was necessary to immediately contact the rescue group if she gave away the dog. She felt she should be able to inform them at any time afterwards.

Katsmah, thank you for the exc explanation. I also work in rescue and frankly, you truly wouldn't believe the stories we hear. All those things you think are unlikely, too horrible to be true - they happen times 10.

I have adopted before and had to sign a contract.

However,nowhere in the contract I signed did it say I HAD to bring the animal back to the shelter. It said the animal was not to be taken to the POUND.It did not say it couldnt be given to someone.Also,I never got a phone call or a check up of any kind.

So do animal shelters differ in their rules?

What concerns me is,the dog's welfare should have been most important here.So now this poor dog has been moved 4 more times when God only knows how many times it was moved before. They should have just let it stay where it was as from how I understand it,it was loved.

My rescued cats are to be returned to the agency..Good luck with that. I paid for and signed a contract for them but with the one I fostered for two years, it was a nightmare trying to get the agency to take her back. I didn't adopt this cat, she followed me home from two miles away on a freezing night. I called the agency and they arranged for a vet visit and then she was brought into my house. It never worked out for me to adopt her because there was a lot of friction between existing cats and her. It took me two years to finally get her out of here and into a single family home. No one has EVER checked where all these cats presently are, if they are well or even here, so what's the point of the contract?

Seemed to me like the dog's welfare was considered most important by the rescue folks. I can't imagine a nonprofit actually seeking to tick off such a big name for no reason.

If Iggy could not get along with the cats, is it possible he is one of those dogs who needs to be the only pet in the family, and this is another facet of why he was removed - because there was another dog in the home? I have a dog like that - she should have been an "only dog", but we didn't have anyone to guide us in that decision so we'll just have to wait until somebody dies (they're all older - 14+, 10+, 10+) - so that would make sense to me. There are dogs that simply have that personality.

I read this evening that Iggy has been placed in a new home. I'm glad it was done quickly, I hope it was done right, and I hope it works out for him to be his forever home.

I am sure the girls will rebound; they don't have a choice at this point at any rate. I am truly sorry that they were caught in the crossfire and it certainly wasn't their fault.

I've learned two lessons in this:

1. Read the contract thoroughly and decide if I can live with it, or pass on it.

2. Even famous people have to follow the rules once in a while.

I'm not at all sympathetic with Ellen. It is a simple fact of law that any such private agency has a right to set their own rules and that those who deal with them must thoroughly understand those rules before they sign a contract. Whether "too" strict or not, the rescue group had a right to enforce its own rules, and Ellen and partner had the obligation to abide by those rules -- or choose not to deal with them. IMO, she's used her celebrity and media sob story to not only seek special privileges but also to defame a legitimate rescue group. What a shame!

Just heard on Fox News that some person gave Ellen a dog 2 years ago. When the woman followed up with Ellen about how the dog was doing, Ellen informed her that she gave away the dog to one of her staff members.

my 2 cents - honor a contract and for god sakes go get another pet from another place, there are hundreds of thousands of dogs needing rescue.

Ellen is has lowered herself into the barrel with the other Hollywood celebs who think the rules don't apply to them. No, you can't drink/drug and drive (most celebs get off very easily on this unspeakable crime IMHO), if you sign a contract you must adhere to it. Plain and simple. Seems to me that all of the media attention is part of the problem and cycle of distinctly different rules for different statused (word?) celebrities. Makes me sick.

I don't feel a bit sorry for Ellen. I do feel a bit for the young girls from whom the dog was taken from. They were just collateral damage. Shame on Ellen and her partner.

If only everyone would follow through with what they commit to, but we all know it doesn't happen - contract or no.

There's one thing I think we can all say with certainty was this was not some kind of publicity stunt. No celebrity stands a chance against a "rescue group" in a situation like this. They will be villainized.

I think it definitely was akin a publicity stunt;

Ellen figured she could use the media to punish the rescue group for not letting her get away with not only breaking her contract but with "placing" the dog in a home that did not fit the rescue group's guidelines for that particular dog.

Ellen went on tv & acted melodramatic & cried crocodile tears & made a big fuss *for the purpose of making trouble for the group*.

& the rescue group *tried* to "work with her" & the new family.

They tried to get the "adoptors" to complete an application but the "adoptors", knowing they wouldn't qualify under the group's rules, refused to fill out the application & allow the home visit.

The dog is in what we all hope is a good home now, & Ellen has revealed her character.

I should have known this group could not agree on anything.

quirkyquercus - "I should have known this group could not agree on anything" - then why did your opening post say "Let discussion commence." Didn't you want people to post their opinions??? Even if people had different opinions, what's wrong with that???

Geez...

I thought this group was very open-minded on the subject. Though I may be wrong, it appeared to me that quirkyquercus was hoping that only people who wanted to slam rescue organizations and their policies would post.

This email from Scott Sorrentino, the president of Rescue & Humane Alliance-Los Angeles was posted on another forum. I found it a very interesting read and most likely very close to the truth - http://blog.netesq.com/

Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Mutts and Moms: The Rest of the Story
While I believe that the Iggy news cycle finished out this last Sunday night, I feel compelled to post the following information that I found posted on the website for Ellen Degeneres' talk show:

When Worlds Collide

In the world of rescuers, companion animals are no different than children. They need our protection as they cannot survive on their own. They need our advocacy, as they cannot speak for themselves. They need our compassion, as their suffering is real.

Our world, the world of animal guardians, is fundamentally different than the world in which the majority of humans on the planet live, and there is nothing wrong with that. But however distant we think our world is from the average human, the world of celebrities is on another planet, in another galaxy, maybe even in an alternate universe.

When Marina Baktis of Mutts & Moms rescue explained to her celebrity adopters that only Mutts & Moms could re-home Iggy, and that he needed to be returned immediately, it was the beginning of a surreal sequence of events that could only happen in Hollywood. What we need now is a good, old-fashioned Hollywood ending ...

RHA-LA was contacted almost immediately for comment, and what I said was this: \"There is only one side in this controversy that concerns me, and that is Iggys side. The right thing to do is always what is best for the animal, and anyone who doesnt understand that has no business in animal rescue.\"

Of course, no one printed my comment, because none of them understood it. It was a comment from another world.

Marina very quickly became inaccessible (for obvious reasons), and unfortunately without knowing the facts, it was extremely difficult to comment on this situation, or help in any meaningful way. There may have been an opportunity early on for reconciliation, but that window quickly closed as the parties began to dig in their heels.

For those of you who do not know Marina Baktis, she was a volunteer with LA Animal Services for many years. She was a constant presence at the North Central shelter to which anyone at that shelter can attest. As heartbreaking as it was, she chose to volunteer her time right where all the killing takes place, trying to make a difference. She also worked with the Bill Foundation (an RHA-LA member).

Day after day she would see litters of puppies with their mothers at the shelter, and watch as the puppies were adopted and the moms left behind to be killed. About three years ago, she started Mutts & Moms with her rescue partner, Vanessa, and for the past year and a half, they have been pulling primarily from the extremely high-kill Kern County shelters (including pulling for other rescues). The mission of Mutts & Moms is to save as many of these moms as possible. Its hard to imagine a more noble cause.

I finally spoke to Marina at length on Friday. I think its important that some of the facts be clarified, as they have been hugely distorted by the media. You may still disagree with how Marina handled the situation, but that is irrelevant now. She has lost her rescue, her business has been crippled, her life has been threatened, and she has been demonized on national television. Those worlds may be lost to her, so we are the world she has left. Will we stand with her as friends and colleagues, or abandon her?

Please read below before you decide.

Marinas account of the story:

Ellen DeGeneres and Portia DeRossi came to Marinas store in Pasadena and saw a dog they were interested in adopting. Her name was Tasha.

Tasha had not been cat-tested, and Ellen has two cats, so Marina decided to let them take the Tasha home for the afternoon to see how she would get along with Elllens other animals. After adoptions, Ellen called to say that Tasha was not cat-friendly, and Marina left straight away to pick her up. Iggy, who Ellen & Portia had also met and liked at adoptions, was in the car with her. He had recently been rescued from the Bakersfield shelter, and was being treated for an upper respiratory infection. That is why he was un-neutered. They looked at Iggy again, Iggy played in the yard with Ellens other dog, and was briefly introduced to her cats. No adoption took place, and Marina left with both Tasha and Iggy. That night, Ellen left a message that they had decided to adopt Iggy. She said they had a trainer who could socialize Iggy with cats. Portia came to the store the next day to sign the adoption agreement, which Marina explained in detail, including how if there was ever a problem Iggy would have to be returned to Mutts & Moms. Portia said that she understood. Marina told her that she would need to bring Iggy back to be neutered when he was finished with his medication, and she circled the provision stating the same in the adoption contract. Marina told Portia that the neuter was included in the adoption, but Portia said they would like to take care of Iggys surgery themselves with their own vet. Portia left the store with Iggy.

There were several email follow-ups, including how Iggy was playing happily with their dog, not bothering the cats, and how Iggy would be going to their trainer for about a week while they were moving. Marina followed up a few weeks later. She received a reply from Portia that they \"tried Iggy\" and that he was \"too much energy and time for them in their brand new home with so much going on in their lives.\" There was no mention of the cats. The email went on to say that Ellens hairstylist and her family had met Iggy, fallen in love, and that Iggy had been re-homed.

Marina wrote back explaining that this was not acceptable and in violation of her agreement. She asked that Iggy be returned to the store in Pasadena the next day. She said that the family needed to fill out an application and go through the adoption process just like any other adopter. They refused to bring the dog back, and although they eventually filled out an application, they did not want to go through the process. The phone calls back-and-forth had become increasingly hostile, eventually leading to a call from Ellens attorney. Marina felt compelled to go to the hairdressers home to reclaim Iggy, at least for the time being.

When she arrived, Marina explained that she would need to take Iggy back until Mutts & Moms had an opportunity to review their application and discuss the adoption among their committee. It is important to understand that Marina was still willing to consider the adoption, and if everyone had been cooperative and non-confrontational, the outcome might have been different. Instead, the family called 911 saying that someone was there trying to steal their dog, and as if on cue, a TMZ camera crew appeared to capture the events on film. When the police arrived, they looked at the contract and determined that Marina had legal standing to take Iggy back. The next day, Ellen broke down on her show. The rest is history.

Media Distortions: It is amazing to me that people are so quick to believe everything they hear in the media (especially the tabloid media). Does it really surprise people that the media would get it wrong, or distort things for dramatic effect, or withhold the context that serves to explain what otherwise doesnt make sense?

It was reported that Ellen never filled out an adoption application, and that there was no home check.

THE REST OF THE STORY: A trusted friend who had adopted to Ellen in the past vouched for Ellen & Portia as being a good home. Since Ellen & Portia were in the process of moving, Marina decided to go ahead with the adoption and do the home check later when they had moved into the new house. Although she never took a full tour of the current house, she was there, and it was obvious that Ellen has a beautiful home and that Iggy would be living the life of Riley there.

It was reported that Mutts & Moms found the hairstylists home unsuitable because they have a rule that they do not adopt small dogs to families with children under 14.

THE REST OF THE STORY: Mutts & Moms never said the home was unsuitable. They said that the hairstylist needed to fill out an application and be evaluated like any other adopter. They are wary to adopt small dogs to families with young children, but were always willing to consider this family. The family did not want to bring the dog back, and they were not willing to accept any outcome other than their keeping Iggy.

It was reported that Mutts & Moms non-profit corporation is not in good standing, which among other things was being used as \"proof\" that Mutts & Moms was not a reputable organization.

THE REST OF THE STORY. Every year a California corporation must file a Statement of Information. It costs $25 to file. Marina for whatever reason failed to file it for 2007. It is no big deal. You just pay a fine and immediately the corporation is returned to good standing. Im not a lawyer, but I find it hard to believe that this would negate a contract entered into during the corporation was not in good standing. The essence of a contract is a meeting of minds, which obviously occurred.

It was reported that Mutts & Moms transferred the dog to Ellen unaltered, in violation of State law.

THE REST OF THE STORY. The law provides an exception for animals unfit for sterilization due to age, illness or injury. In such cases (as was the case with Iggy), a rescue group can adopt the dog, subject to a spay/neuter deposit of not less than $40 and not more than $75, refundable upon proof of sterilization within 14 days following the day the dog first becomes fit for sterilization.

While many rescues will place animals under a spay/neuter agreement with a deposit, RHA-LA feels strongly that regardless of the legality, this practice is unacceptable. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should legal owner/guardianship of an animal occur prior to spay/neuter, and unaltered animals should NEVER be released to the public (other than to the organizations trusted volunteers and fosters) until he/she is fixed. Marina told me that she has done this maybe 3 or 4 times out of the over 400 placements she has made. She says she has records of every adoption and that she can confirm that every animal she has adopted has been spayed/neutered. Nonetheless, I explained to her why RHA-LA discourages this practice, and she understands and agrees.

Learning from Iggy:

The Rescue & Humane Alliance-Los Angeles was founded to be a bridge. It is a bridge not only to connect rescue organizations to each other, but also a bridge between rescue organizations and other worlds outside of rescue --- the world of government, the world of business, and yes, even the world of celebrities.

We have access to a network of professionals, including attorneys, publicists, lobbyists, and people at all levels of the entertainment industry. As Members, you should always feel free to use us as a resource.

If there is a lesson in the aftermath of this Iggy incident, it is that no one who does responsible rescue should be alone. Mutts & Moms is not a member of RHA-LA, but even so, we reached out to Mutts & Moms and to the Ellen DeGeneres Show immediately. I truly believe we could have helped if we had been presented with all the facts in the first 24 hours following the original broadcast.

What we can do now: It is impossible to un-ring a bell. Marina never thought that her adoption procedures would be analyzed and discussed on CNN by people who know nothing about rescue. She is devastated that her many years of hard work in animal rescue have been erased, her compassion questioned, and her reputation irreparably damaged because she was inexperienced in dealing with celebrities and the media. On a larger scale, the way the information has been manipulated has led to backlash against rescue in general. We should take this opportunity to come together as a humane community, and resist the destructive forces polarizing us and weakening our ability to help animals in need. It is all too easy for members of the public, and even other rescuers, to sit in judgment from the comfort of their living rooms.

At this point, Ellen is the only one who can set this right. RHA-LA has learned that Ellen is planning to do a segment on her show about rescue. As you might imagine, the show has been inundated with ideas and appearance requests from local and national animal welfare organizations. They have chosen to work with Petfinder, as Ellen has an existing relationship with them. Our understanding is that the show will tape on Monday for air on Tuesday. We hope that the show will help people understand the challenges of rescuing animals, and the reasons for some of the processes used by rescuers to insure that animals are adopted into loving, permanent, responsible homes. We hope that Ellen will tell her audience that this was all a misunderstanding, and that it is a wonderful thing to rescue an animal and save a life. We hope she will challenge her viewers to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Please keep your eye on your inbox for further information about this broadcast.

That part is now out of our hands, so lets not waste any more time pointing fingers or assessing blame, regardless of where we stand. Our mission now is to continue to do good work, to support those who do good work, to reach out to our friends when we find ourselves in need, and to help our friends when they reach out to us.

Mutts & Moms is shut down at least temporarily. That means that there are animals in its care that Marina may need assistance placing. If any RHA-LA members are willing to help, please email me at rescuealliance@earthlink.net and I will put you in touch with her. In addition, I will forward to her any emails of support which Im sure she would appreciate. Please understand my reluctance to distribute her email address under these circumstances.

In summary, when worlds collide, RHA-LA is here to support you. This is our mission, and depending on the situation, there are a lot of ways we may be able to help.

For Iggy and all the animals,

Scott Sorrentino
President / Co-Founder
Rescue & Humane Alliance-Los Angeles

I don't understand why Mutts & Moms shut down.

Maybe they'll come out with the cliff's notes version of that. I stopped reading after the second sentence.

Thanks for the information, Scott.

The cliff notes version is don't believe everything you see on TV.

So Ellen lied and there was no problem socializing the dog with the cats, he was just too energetic and too much work for them. Nice!!