Ellen DeGeneres Continues Fight with Dog Adoption Agency from www.people.com....
WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 17, 2007 08:35 AM EDT
By Sara Hammel
Ellen DeGeneres isn't giving up her appeal for doggie asylum. On her show set to air Wednesday, the show host, 49, continues her plea, "It's become so insane ... the dog just needs to go to the family." She stays composed as she goes on to say the fight should not be about anything but putting the dog in a loving home. The Mutts and Moms rescue agency, however, is standing its ground – despite receiving death threats after DeGeneres broke down in tears on Tuesday's show, the Associated Press reports. Vanessa Chekroun and Marina Batkis, who run the agency, believe they are doing what's best for Iggy, says a spokesman for the pair. "[Batkis] doesn't think this is the type of family that should have the dog," said Keith A. Fink, an attorney who does not represent the agency but is acting as a spokesman. "She is adamant that she is not going to be bullied around by the Ellen DeGenereses of the world ... They are using their power, position and wealth to try to get what it is they want." But DeGeneres's publicist Kelly Bush says the TV host has the best intentions. "It's very upsetting to hear that someone is getting those kind of calls," Bush told the AP. "Ellen just wants the dog reunited with the family."
A Home for IggyThe dogfight began after DeGeneres and her partner, Portia de Rossi, took home the Brussels Griffon mix on Sept. 20. Things didn't work out between Iggy and the couple's cats, so the TV host gave the dog to her hairdresser. In doing so, DeGeneres violated an agreement with the Mutts and Moms dog rescue agency – by not informing them of the switch-off. When the agency contacted DeGeneres and learned another home was found for Iggy, Mutts and Moms then dispatched a rep and police to the hairdresser's home and removed the pet on Sunday. The women running the Pasadena-based agency say the publicity from DeGeneres's show generated voicemails and e-mails threatening death and arson, along with hordes of media that interfered with their work at the Paws Boutique store, where they handle the volunteer agency, Fink told the AP. He also insists that Iggy's are the only feelings that count in the skirmish: "It's for the protection of the dog."
Aren't there enough homeless animals without causing another one to lose it's home? I've always been involved in animal rescue and have met my share of self righteous animal nuts! These "animal nuts" that took poor Iggy out of this family's home should be taken out of their home to see how they like it!
WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 17, 2007 08:35 AM EDT
By Sara Hammel
Ellen DeGeneres isn't giving up her appeal for doggie asylum. On her show set to air Wednesday, the show host, 49, continues her plea, "It's become so insane ... the dog just needs to go to the family." She stays composed as she goes on to say the fight should not be about anything but putting the dog in a loving home. The Mutts and Moms rescue agency, however, is standing its ground – despite receiving death threats after DeGeneres broke down in tears on Tuesday's show, the Associated Press reports. Vanessa Chekroun and Marina Batkis, who run the agency, believe they are doing what's best for Iggy, says a spokesman for the pair. "[Batkis] doesn't think this is the type of family that should have the dog," said Keith A. Fink, an attorney who does not represent the agency but is acting as a spokesman. "She is adamant that she is not going to be bullied around by the Ellen DeGenereses of the world ... They are using their power, position and wealth to try to get what it is they want." But DeGeneres's publicist Kelly Bush says the TV host has the best intentions. "It's very upsetting to hear that someone is getting those kind of calls," Bush told the AP. "Ellen just wants the dog reunited with the family."
A Home for IggyThe dogfight began after DeGeneres and her partner, Portia de Rossi, took home the Brussels Griffon mix on Sept. 20. Things didn't work out between Iggy and the couple's cats, so the TV host gave the dog to her hairdresser. In doing so, DeGeneres violated an agreement with the Mutts and Moms dog rescue agency – by not informing them of the switch-off. When the agency contacted DeGeneres and learned another home was found for Iggy, Mutts and Moms then dispatched a rep and police to the hairdresser's home and removed the pet on Sunday. The women running the Pasadena-based agency say the publicity from DeGeneres's show generated voicemails and e-mails threatening death and arson, along with hordes of media that interfered with their work at the Paws Boutique store, where they handle the volunteer agency, Fink told the AP. He also insists that Iggy's are the only feelings that count in the skirmish: "It's for the protection of the dog."
Aren't there enough homeless animals without causing another one to lose it's home? I've always been involved in animal rescue and have met my share of self righteous animal nuts! These "animal nuts" that took poor Iggy out of this family's home should be taken out of their home to see how they like it!
Here's an email from a WDOK listener...
I understand the clause that the rescue place has. Some people with less scruples would get a dog, decide they did not want it and give it to some shelter or worse. They then have the option of finding a proper home for the puppy. But they also need to be realistic about it and judge it case by case and now that they know the dog is loved and in a happy home this is a non-brainer.......let the dog go home !!!!!!! I watched the show yesterday and she truly loved the dog and since she could not keep it did everything in her power to make the dog happy.
GO ELLEN.......
GO ELLEN.......
.Let me know what you think !
11 comments:
I love animals and have had cats and dogs throughout my life. But I truly believe the animal rights activists have flipped out and have gotten extremely carried away! It's crazy! They claim to be acting in the animal's best interest but they are only satisfying their own distorted interests. It almost seems like animal worship and is a symptom of a decaying society. If only children's rights could be so important in our society! After all, children are people and dogs are just animals. Rita
Hi Nancy,
I think it is a great idea. My daughter bought a Cocker Spaniel from a breeder. She had to sign a paper stating, if she didnt want to keep the dog, she must bring it back. This way the breeder and check to see if the people should have the animal. Not everyone should have an animal. I had a Spaniel that was abused. The parents left there kids pull, poke and just be mean to this dog. It had to be kept in the cage til the father came home, so the kids were mean to it.
I have a Granddog, and love her to death, an animal loves unconditionaly, and makes you feel like your the best thing, since dog biscuits...LOL
Thanks for listening to me.
Pat
I agree with you. Believing in rescuing a dog instead of purchasing a dog, I spent months looking for the right dog for our family. Unfortunately, I found out that these rescue groups have the ultimate say-so of who adopts the dog. Many of the rescue groups have applications that are pages long and ask for long, paragraph-form answers. If your application is considered, they will also come to your home to make sure they believe your home to be a proper home for the dog. This process makes it extremely difficult and time-consuming to rescue a dog. The dogs end up staying with the rescue groups for months on end. In the long run, the very people who are trying to help these dogs are sometimes hurting them by insisting on having so much control. I finally was able to adopt a dog from the Cuyahoga County Dog Kennel and I was able to choose which dog was right for my family. We now have a beautiful, sweet, well-behaved 9 month old white shepherd!
Nancy! We have become a country where good intentions is supposed to make it right. This whole mess started because of Ellen. Let's not put it on anyone else. She signed a contract that was written to protect the dog. The whole point of returning the dog is so that the shelter can find and screen an appropriate home for their dogs. This is to protect the dog from being shipped back and forth from inappropriate homes to eventually a kill shelter. It is an excellent idea and it was written in the best interest of the dog so it is not abandoned every time an owner decides it doesn't want it. All Ellen had to do, if she had read her contract, is to return the dog to the shelter and make a recommedation for her hairdresser. Is it that difficult to follow the rules to protect this dog?? Now we are supposed to feel sorry for the dog and the poor family it was taken from? Ellen is the only one that should be feeling sorry. It was all her fault. Let the rescue center do its job and continue to screen potential owners of this dog so that it ends up in a permanent home. If we allow Ellen to break this rule, then why shouldn't everyone else be able to do the same? I guarnatee dogs would be kicked out of their new homes the first time there is a problem. Eventually, they would end up being euthanized. I totally support the actions of this rescue agency for the good of all of its dogs. Ellen is not qualified to decide what is a good home for a dog. Let people with experience handle it even if it "upsets" some people. Let's do what's best for the dog and make a rational decision rather than an emotional one!
I have been a victim of a militant animal rescue group.
I am a college educated professional married to another college educated professional. We have two children. We are upper middle class and have been I the same home for 13 years. We would probably qualify to adopt children. About 2 years ago we “applied” to “adopt” a cat from a group that works out of Pet Smart stores. I have had a cat continuously since I was seven years old. On the application I indicated that the cat would occasionally be taken outside under monitored conditions in my completely fenced in back yard.
In reply, I received the vilest email from the woman that runs the rescue agency saying that (among other things) I am unfit to own a cat because I would dare to let it outdoors. Needless to say I sent out several registered letters to the Pet Smart headquarters as this group operates out of their stores. I believe Pet Smart suspended the group form their stores for a period.
If you want to rescue an animal, please stay away form these groups !!!!!
Go to the pound, the Humane Society, etc.
We ended up adopting two cats from a kind family that had taken in a pregnant stray that was running around their neighborhood.
Rita has a good point. Animal worship may be a symptom of our decaying society.
I would like to poll the people that run these groups as to whether or not they are pro abortion of children. It would not surprise me of they were.
This situation has nothing to do with the resue group being right or wrong on their decision. Ellen signed and agreed to a contract. Now, because it doesn't fit her purpose, she wants to disregard it and make someone else the "bad guy". Who does she think she is? Obviously she feels she can take back any promise or agreemnt she has made. Also - I believe this group is doing it's best to protect animals. The hairsylist's family does not fit the RULES they have set for adoptive families. That should be the end of it!!!
Rescue groups (for the most part) act in the best interest of the dog. I will admit that there are some out there that give most rescues a bad name, but for the most part they do good. Many dogs that come into rescue were abused (physically or emotionally) and the rescue groups carefully screen every home to ensure that the animal never has to suffer again. Fact is, Ellen signed a (legal) contract and violated it by giving the dog to someone else instead of returning to the rescue group. The rescue group *should have made certain* she understood she was to return the dog only to them (never assume anyone reads the content of a contract). We are only hearing one side of this story (Ellen's & her hairdresser). Why the hairdresser didn't apply to adopt the dog is beyond me. Did the rescue group look into their home as a suitable home for the animal or did they just dismiss them because Ellen screwed up? Everyone is free to get a dog from any source they choose, but once you commit to the adoption, you must abide by all that organization's terms and conditions. In my opinion, ANYONE who refuses the screening process and home check MUST BE HIDING SOMETHING and rescues have every right to refuse to place an animal in that environment. AND THAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ANIMAL -- not the rescue group!!
I think Ellen knows she screwed up. Now, instead of taking the time to talk to the new family and see if they were "qualified", they immediately took the dog out of the home. I'll bet they were hall moniters in high school!
I agree, most rescue organizations are wonderful, committed animal lovers, but I too have met my share of kooks that are control freaks, not animal lovers! This could have been left out of the press, but they wanted the attention that they certainly got from Ellen. I truly believe she is a good person who screwed up and is trying to fix it for the ones that REALLY matter, the kids and the dog!
So, who is really responsible for the dog. Okay, Ellen didn't understand her agreement with the rescue org. But, the dog was not in an abusive situation so nobody needs to get worked up about that. I have rescued dogs in the past and would never agree to have constant monitoring for the life of the dog. If something had happened where I had to make decisions about vet care, treatment, etc., would I then have to get permission from the rescue org? That is ridiculous. Ellen gave the dog, which I am sure she felt was within her rights after purchasing the dog...and what was the $3000 for if she didn't own the dog?? ... and she was making the decision to provide it a home with a responsible family.
I understand compassion for dogs and I agree that most rescues (certainly all the ones I have been involved with) have the interests of the dog in mind. But I don't get what the problem is. This dog was never mistreated. I think the rescue org is in the wrong here and will be very careful about who I deal work with in the future.
Ellen was wrong not to abide by her contract but she only had the best intentions. The rescue group wants to protect the dog, I understand that. But why are children under age 14 not fit to have an animal from them? Pets are wonderful for children of all ages. True, some are better behaved then others but the same can be said for adults. The rescue group should have left the dog and checked on the family just like they were checking on Ellen. Too many animals need homes not to let them have this dog just because of the way they got Iggy and because of children under 14 years of age.
Post a Comment