DeGeneres Under Fire for Giving Away Dog

[RMKC]

Signed it too !

[rrosenberry]

I'm not sure if this clip of Ellen and Portia and the new owner has been posted.. or not?
http://link.brightcove.com/services/...tid=1250621489

[crystalsmom]

Thanks Rhonda, I had not seen that. There are rescues and then there are resues if you know what I mean. I doubt very much there was ever a death threat and I do understand why some of these rules are in place but I feel this woman saw a chance to sue Ellen for ruining her rescue. She knew Ellen would mention it before some tabloid would. I watch Oprah so I didn't see and hear all but the video's posted and links have filled me in. I know one thing for sure Ellen would never do anything to ruin the name of Rescue as a whole, for heavens sake she could afford any dog and wanted to save one and that is the type of dog lover she is. JMO

[celstu1]

Well I can say this: Some (SOME) rescues ruined their own name by turning MANY MANY people away because of assinine reasons (ie. no fence, work full time, children under 14, etc...) MANY people HERE have beeen turned down for a rescue dog and went out and got their OWN dogs through the pet stores and breeders. So until rescues lax SOME of their rules, this WILL ALWAYS be an ongoing problem. Rescues should not deal with 'rules' so to speak but general guidelines with personalized bending of them. Some homes are GREAT .. I have a GREAT HOME! I tried to rescue, i was told I work full time, there was no way. So that poor dog that I wanted to give a loving home to, is STILL in a shelter!!! YOU CALL THAT FAIR????

AND are you kidding.... I bet that woman has more apps than she can keep track of right now by people who want to get the dogs out of her 'CARE'!!

[crystalsmom]

Originally Posted by celstu1

AND are you kidding.... I bet that woman has more apps than she can keep track of right now by people who want to get the dogs out of her 'CARE'!!

With this much free advertising, I'm sure that may be the case but whether it is or it isn't she can sue for 'loss of reputation' and win. ALOT.

[DesertChildAZ]

Originally Posted by Breeze

Portia and Ellen should of made sure that what they did by giving the dog away was OK with the agency first, before putting the dog and the family though all of this.
Sad.

Ellen already admitted that she didn't read the contract. If the rescue organization had that dog's best interest in mind, why didn't they require an application from Ellen or a home inspection from Ellen, when they adopted the dog out to ELLEN? How do they know what type of person Ellen is from the other side of the television screen? Just because she's a celebrity, they ASSUMED she was a suitable owner. Why? Because she had money? Hmm...sounds to me like that Rescue Organization uses pretty bad judgement itself.

That said, having not read the contract, perhaps Ellen simply assumed that - after spending $3000 on the dog (neutering, acclimating him, etc.) - she, as the rightful owner, had the right to determine what to do with the dog.

[DesertChildAZ]

Originally Posted by Breeze

Also by her publicity, Ellen is hurting rescues out there by all of this, so many people out there now will not be going to rescues for their next pet or want to go through the hassle after seeing this. These people will turn to BYBs and pet stores.

No disrespect intended, but the practices of most rescue organizations lead to people turning away from them and going out and buying animals from pet stores and breeders, as you can see from some of the posts here. MANY MANY people apply to adopt rescued dogs and MANY MANY people get turned down for ridiculous reasons. Irresponsible people do not make the additional effort to seek out rescues...they just buy a puppy from a petstore without bothering to do the research required. They buy puppies, not 2, 3, 6 year old dogs with issues.

The fact is, rescue organizations are simply too strict for the average household.

I submitted about 5 applications for rescues before bringing Johnny Cash into my home. I have raving reviews from my vet who tells me I bring my pets in too often (if Tahoe "seems" lethargic, I bring him in)...I spend at least $2500 per year on my two yorkies and two cats. I feed them premium food. I have pet insurance for them and get their routine shots, teeth cleaning, grooming, etc. I restrict my leisure activities and leisure time to activities they can do with me. Yet, still, only ONE rescue organization replied to my application (I suspect because I work 9-5...god forbid should a person EARN the money they pay out for their pets care...I guess I must inherit it to be qualified, or be a stay at home mom with no kids under 15 or someone home on disability in order to qualify as suitable). I met with that one rescued dog, insisting that Tahoe come with me to make sure the two dogs got along and they didn't. So I passed on the rescue. That's the actions of a RESPONSIBLE CANDIDATE. Nevertheless, I ended up buying Johnny Cash from local private home breeder because the response from rescue opportunities was essentially non-existent after that, despite several applications.

[DesertChildAZ]

Originally Posted by JENNGENE01_

II understand that the family is upset but the issue is also that the family didn't event want to fill out an adoption application because they said it was to long.

Can you please reference your source on this information. I have found nothing about the family refusing to fill out an application from news sources. As a matter of fact, I read on one site that they filled out the application online once they took possession of Iggy from Ellen.

Also, supporters of rescue organizations here keep admonishing Ellen for not reading her contract or following the process (because she hadn't read the contract), but none of you address the fact that the Mutts and Moms NEVER got an application from Ellen in the first place, nor did they conduct a home inspection of Ellen's home. Can you please address that issue? A link to news sources offering that detail is in one of my earlier posts.

[DesertChildAZ]

Originally Posted by Breeze

The more I think about this , the madder I get. What Ellen has done by getting the media involved, did not help the family get the dog back, it has ruined the woman, her rescue, hurt all rescues in general (due to the many, many people who now say they will never save a rescue dog now because of this), ruined the woman's business. Because of Ellen this woman does not feel safe in her home and is receiving death threats.

If Ellen would of went to the agency before giving the dog to the family all of this would of turned out differently, the family would of had a better chance of getting the dog, the heartbreak and all of this would of been prevented.


I'm sorry but after what Ellen did by getting the media involved causing all this to happen when it could of been dealt with privately, I do not blame the rescue lady for not giving the family the dog after it all ruined her life and hurt the rescue when all she did was follow thru the rescue's policies. I am not one for suing but I would be getting myself a very good lawyer to sue for whatever damages, compensation or for what ever I could.

I'm sure poor Ellen slept well in her mansion.

So are you suggesting, then, that the rescue organization is not considering what is best for the dog and the family, but what is best for their egos? You are suggesting that, had Ellen not called the media, the rescue would have used different judgement? If so, then you are saying that they are being spiteful. Isn't their spitefulness what is actually making them look bad in the media? Their inability to work this out? Ellen was upset and unable to do her show with such emotion and sadness....this is why this was brought out in the media. Her tears were real and embarassing, I'm sure. Mutts could have swung this in their favor by offering to consider the family and Ellen probably would have had them on her show, giving the cause positive exposure. Instead they chose to handle it the way they did. Pretty stupid, I think.

P.S. Ellen is not responsible for the crazies in the world who decided to call up this woman and offer death threats anymore than you and I are responsible for John Lennon's death by a stalker. We as fans, afterall, made Lennon a world reknown musician.

[crystalsmom]

Originally Posted by DesertChildAZ

Can you please reference your source on this information. I have found nothing about the family refusing to fill out an application from news sources. As a matter of fact, I read on one site that they filled out the application online once they took possession of Iggy from Ellen.

Also, supporters of rescue organizations here keep admonishing Ellen for not reading her contract or following the process (because she hadn't read the contract), but none of you address the fact that the Mutts and Moms NEVER got an application from Ellen in the first place, nor did they conduct a home inspection of Ellen's home. Can you please address that issue? A link to news sources offering that detail is in one of my earlier posts.

I would like to see this answered and did not want to post over you but would like to add this

If you work 9-5 it's a NO

so then you go to the family with a stay home mom/dad and they stay home because they have sm. children so that is a NO

then you think I know a retired person doesn't work and doesn't have sm. children but that's a NO because they would not have a fenced in yard in most cases because most move from their home to an apt.

I did not know it was so strict.

[For My Coby]

I mght be confused here..... If 9-5 is an automatic NO, then how was Ellen approved in the first place by this Rescue? I'm sure between her show, her endorsements, her charity work, her lifestyle causes, her stand up comedy (all require traveling), she certainly works even more than 40 hours per week. How was she approved? I'm sure that she has staff that care for the animal in her absence, but that doesn't seem like it would "fit" with all the other strict requirements. What if they aren't responsible in her absence?

I realize that there are several sides to every story. But I would think that a hairdresser with two middle-school age children would be at least as qualified as Ellen, who was approved. I mean they let us women have babies and still work full-time, so I'm not really "getting" the 9-5 thing in the first place.

[Breeze]

Originally Posted by DesertChildAZ

So are you suggesting, then, that the rescue organization is not considering what is best for the dog and the family, but what is best for their egos? You are suggesting that, had Ellen not called the media, the rescue would have used different judgement? If so, then you are saying that they are being spiteful. Isn't their spitefulness what is actually making them look bad in the media? Their inability to work this out? Ellen was upset and unable to do her show with such emotion and sadness....this is why this was brought out in the media. Her tears were real and embarassing, I'm sure. Mutts could have swung this in their favor by offering to consider the family and Ellen probably would have had them on her show, giving the cause positive exposure. Instead they chose to handle it the way they did. Pretty stupid, I think.

P.S. Ellen is not responsible for the crazies in the world who decided to call up this woman and offer death threats anymore than you and I are responsible for John Lennon's death by a stalker. We as fans, afterall, made Lennon a world reknown musician.

No not at all, I am not the rescue, I'm just giving my opinions on "perhaps" it could of been worked out better dealt with privately but Ellen decided to get the media involved but in any event the rescue had every right to stick to their policies in any situation.

I don't get where ego comes in by the rescue following their procedure, as Portia should of followed her legal obligation to turn over the dog as required of her and she agreed to do. The rescue is not at fault for what happened Ellen and Portia are.

Should the rescue of broken their policies for Ellen and the family because she is a star or for good publicity? I don't think so, I can assure you their would of been public out cry for that too, the rescues everywhere would of been upset that policies that are put in place for a reason were over looked for a star or publicity. Everyday people everywhere who adopt would be upset if they were held to that agreement but Ellen wasn't....... The rule is there for a reason, to protect the animals.

Ellen and Portia should of turned over the animal and followed procedure for the family to have the dog if they were approved. End of story.

I am not saying the rescue was perfect, they should of screened Portia and Ellen better in the first place.

I agree that many rescues can be too strict on their adoption procedures and that does need to change.

[JENNGENE01_]

Like I have stated before I am with a rescue and not all of us are as bad. We don't turn down people because they have a full time job or no fenced in yard. There are some dogs that need it and we tell all prospective about that one particular dog. But not all of our dogs need to have someone in at all times. At least that is what we do we read through that application to see if they are suitable. For example if they would hit there dog. Believe it or not most people tell us that they will smack the dog or tie it up in their kitchen all day until it is housetrained We have provisions such as no kids under 10 however we do make an exception. We would bring several other dogs with us during the homevisit to see how the child would react. So to say that rescues are bad really hurts me alot I give my life and time to these dogs and carefully place each one. We have rules in place to protect them and only them because if we can't protect them then no one will. Like I said before I understand the families pain but rules are rules. Contracts are contracts if this was any other person no one would care.

in addition to someone asking me about were I heard about the family not filling out the application it was on cnn.

[BabyFidgette]

Originally Posted by DesertChildAZ

Ellen already admitted that she didn't read the contract. If the rescue organization had that dog's best interest in mind, why didn't they require an application from Ellen or a home inspection from Ellen, when they adopted the dog out to ELLEN? How do they know what type of person Ellen is from the other side of the television screen? Just because she's a celebrity, they ASSUMED she was a suitable owner. Why? Because she had money? Hmm...sounds to me like that Rescue Organization uses pretty bad judgement itself.

That said, having not read the contract, perhaps Ellen simply assumed that - after spending $3000 on the dog (neutering, acclimating him, etc.) - she, as the rightful owner, had the right to determine what to do with the dog.

I couldn't have said it better myself. BOTH parties didn't follow proper protocol, and with that being said, "rules" could have been broken again to allow Iggy to remain with this family. Eleven and twelve year olds are not babies that will pull a pup's tail. I just heard on the news today that in Maine (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20071018c.html) eleven year olds can now get birth control without parental permission. So they are allowed to have sex, get a prescription drug, yet eleven year olds are too young to have a dog in their house? Give me a break.

PS. I'm NOT stating my opinion on BC for kids. Just making a comparison. Thanks.

[celstu1]

Originally Posted by JENNGENE01_

Like I have stated before I am with a rescue and not all of us are as bad. We don't turn down people because they have a full time job or no fenced in yard. There are some dogs that need it and we tell all prospective about that one particular dog. But not all of our dogs need to have someone in at all times. At least that is what we do we read through that application to see if they are suitable. For example if they would hit there dog. Believe it or not most people tell us that they will smack the dog or tie it up in their kitchen all day until it is housetrained We have provisions such as no kids under 10 however we do make an exception. We would bring several other dogs with us during the homevisit to see how the child would react. So to say that rescues are bad really hurts me alot I give my life and time to these dogs and carefully place each one. We have rules in place to protect them and only them because if we can't protect them then no one will. Like I said before I understand the families pain but rules are rules. Contracts are contracts if this was any other person no one would care.

in addition to someone asking me about were I heard about the family not filling out the application it was on cnn.

I heard on Chronicle last night that the family DID fill out an application to rescue iggy.

Not ALL rescues are bad, actually NONE are BAD. Just too strict. You may be one of few that do not reject suitable homes for assinine reasons, but many many people have told some pretty sad stories (myself included) of rejection from a rescue for a dog that they wanted to give a good home to. I personally was rejected because I worked full time. I have no children, had a fenced in yard at the time, etc. The only reason I was rejected from 2 rescues was because I worked! Thats HORRIBLE!