How could Mutts and Moms not have a heart?

DogMaNYC

2007-10-16 14:23:36 UTC

I am a certified canine behaviorist and have 4 rescue dogs of my own. I know how difficult it is to find a great home for a dog with issues and what kind of dedication and commitment it takes on the part of the adopting family. I also have a deep appreciation of any rescue organization that takes the extra effort to guarantee that if a pet and family are not the right fit they make sure it comes back to shelter. Under normal circumstances I support this contract wholeheartedly. However, Mutts and Moms could have handled this particular situation WAY differently and fast-tracked the adoption to Ellen's friend's family if only for the incredibly good press it would have generated for their organization and pet adoption in general. To go to the family's home and summarily remove the animal was completely out of line. Hearts United For Animals (hua.org) is an organization with a contract that includes the return clause but has many of their animals in foster care while waiting for adoption. Why couldn't M&M have approved the family as fosters while awaiting approval for the adoption? To traumatize the dog as well as the children of that family is reprehensible. And to make Ellen, a beloved public figure as well as a philanthropist and dog lover, CRY pleadingly for the return of the dog makes them look even worse. Where is their effort in the BEST INTEREST OF THE DOG in this instance? Mutts and Moms is wrong here and if they expect to maintain their shelter they need to do serious damage control immediately.

Dogs 3, Cats 4

2007-10-16 23:43:08 UTC

I'm on the board of a rescue group, and of course we have it in our contract that the dog must be returned to us if it doesn't work out. We even have a question about it in our application. We need to know where the dog is at all times and that the dog is well cared for.

HOWEVER, Mutts and Moms seems to be handling this all very badly. All that they had to do is point out to Ellen that she did not do the correct thing, and then go to the new home to do a home inspection. Then they should have had the new family fill out an application to adopt the dog.

Based on the acceptance of their application - and based solely on this and the home inspection - the family should then be allowed to keep the dog.

There was no reason to pull the dog from the family unless they felt that it was not a proper environment.

A good rescue group will be open to new potential homes for a dog. We don't want to have to take back dogs because then it doesn't free us up and allow us to pull other dogs from shelters to save their lives.

Oh, and as for the fees ... our group charges between $275 - $350 for a dog. If you think it is a lot of money ... it's not! Our founder is over $30,000 in debt because of her personal money she has spent saving dogs' lives. We have to pay for boarding, for vet care (surgeries, you name it), food, etc. This is all very expensive.

We need donations so we can go out and save more dogs. We also need foster homes - there are never enough foster homes.

It makes me wonder why they threatened to call the media and why they called the police over this. Was it for the publicity or was Ellen not cooperating?

Some of the details appeared to be missing so I did some more checking.

Wow, I just read that this family will NOT be allowed to keep the dog because the children are under 14!

Personally, I think this is a silly rule, but a contract is a contract.

http://tinyurl.com/2x5wjn

Here's an excerpt:

Owner Marina Batkis "is not going to give them the dog," said attorney Keith A. Fink, who's not representing the shelter but is speaking on Batkis and co-owner Vanessa Chekroun's behalf. The women run the nonprofit Mutts and Moms out of their store Paws Boutique.

"[Batkis] doesn't think this is the type of family that should have the dog," Fink told the Associated Press. "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."

The attorney explained that Mutts and Moms has a policy of not allowing families with children younger than 14 to adopt small dogs. The stylist's kids are 11 and 12.

Holly N

2007-10-16 13:56:21 UTC

I signed the petition. Did you notice that Mutts and Moms took their webpage down. Guess they got bombarded with emails.

I side with Ellen. She knows the people she gave the dog too.She would never put an animal with a bad family. If Mutts and Moms had any brains they would have checked out the family and made sure it was ok instead of ripping the dog away from those little girls.

I have adopted many animals over the years and if I couldn't keep them I found a good home for them. When I told the agency what I had done they simply checked out the yard where the animal was now and said ok.

Too many animals are in shelters. I think maybe someone ought to send the ASPCA into Mutts and Moms and check out the conditions of the shelter. Perhaps they ought to shut the shelter down.

Ellen did nothing wrong. She could have lied about it and said oh Iggy is doing just fine. Thanks for calling. Goodbye. Perhaps that's exactly what she should have told them.

I'm not saying boycott them but get the animals out of there. and If they wanted to know anything about them. LIE and protect the animals.

GIVE IGGY BACK NOW!!!!!!

desi

2007-10-18 18:35:24 UTC

I am so tired of people saying some rules are made to be broken. No they aren't...you have choices in this world. If you don't like the rules of a private organization, go somewhere else. If you sign your name to something and agree to follow their rules then have the scruples to live up to your word.

What has happened to this world that your word means nothing? At one time, your word was your bond. Now you simply have to change your mind and everyone is supposed to be ok with that.

One thing no one has zeroed in on is that Ellen gave up the dog in the first place because it didn't get along with the cat. Those situations are WHY those contracts exist with shelters. Pet owners should be smart enough to realize that when you already have a pet, it may very well not bond with a new pet. You have to be prepared to adapt when things don't go according to plan. Lots of people have pets that don't get along but they don't run around handing off the pet to someone else to deal with.

Instead of inviting the drama llama on her show, Ellen could have told the hairdresser's family, you know what I screwed up. Let me help you through the process and see what we can do. Mutts and moms might have been more open to working with the family if a calm, reasonable approach had been used.

Julianne .

2007-10-17 17:30:43 UTC

Hello! I am here to answer your question. Many people don't understand why Mutts and Moms are being so cruel, but truly they aren't. Almost every rescue in America has a policy that states "If the owner can no longer care for the animal, they must return it to the rescue from which it came". M&M was just following their policy. There was no way for them to know if the "hairdresser" was a good home for Iggy. Ellen didn't even contact them and tell them "Hey, I gave the dog to my friend is that ok?". I work with a rescue. People that don't work with rescues don't understand. These people may not have even been good pet owners. There was NO WAY for them to know. It's sad for the rescue because people are criticizing them, sending them death threats, and all the rescue was doing was following their policy (the same policy that every other rescue follows). Ellen is using her status to have a negative impact on the rescue. That is unfair to the rescue. Ellen should have never publicized this. Ellen is downing this rescue, and for that she is hurting the animals that exist within it. Ellen from the beginning should've called the rescue and said "Hey, Iggy doesn't like my cats. I know someone who might be interested in Iggy, can I give Iggy to them?" The rescue 9/10 times would've replied "Well, ask them to fill out an application first." Like I said before, if you don't work, or understand the REAL purpose of a rescue, then you won't understand why the rescue took the dog away.

2007-10-16 14:53:18 UTC

Two questions to ask them:

1. Does DeGeneres get her adoption fees back?

2. Are they going to wave the adoption fee for the new family to adopt?

If the answer is no to both, then they are in it for the money, not the dog. The adoption fee is to pay for nuder/spay, micro-chipping (in some cases) , vaccines, and any other vet things that need to be done. They already got the fee. It already paid for the stuff.

But as it turned out, the dog was not altered, she had to do it herself and paid extra to have it spend the night at the vets house instead of a cage. Even the SPCA does that. Not sure if the pet was vaccinated or chipped because she didn't say otherwise, but I'll go on the assumption it was. There isn't a vigorous test to see if the parents are able to adopt. I've adopted several in my life. They ask a series of yes or no questions and if it seems good, they walk out with the pet. If it was extensive, the parent could not walk out with the pet that day within an hour or two of showing up. They would have to do a background check, ask neighbors about the living conditions and personality, do a walk-through of the home, and other stuff before allowing the adoption (they do it for children so no that is not of the wall if they were concerned about the pet.)

Now the difference between them and DeGeneres is they adopted to a complete stranger (exclude her being a popular actress; they don't know her private life) and didn't know the living conditions while she gave the pet to someone she has known for years and knows personally. They charged a fee to adopt while she let them have it for free, even after the thousands of dollars she spent on the dog. Who is the one that is making sure the pet is given a good home?

They are a business, she is a single person. They follow guidelines they made up (not a universal guideline because there isn't a universal pet adoption committee that decides the guidelines all rescuers must follow) to adopt, she followed personal experience with this family that has lasted a while. That is the problem. All these rescue places are touting "There are an overabundance of homeless pets, please adopt one and give it a good home" yet they put things like this in contracts, set high standards for adoption (I was denied adopting a dog because my current dog was late on his heart worm prevention by a week despite him being a strictly inside dog and our place has been flea free for years) and expect you to put your health in front of the animal (reason he was late was we couldn't afford it at that time because we had a medical emergency; I had appendicitis. I explained, they said, "So. He still needs it every month.") They "care" for the animal but they do everything to profit off it and keep it caged.

So I question their tactic. Anyone who really cared for the dog could have just as easily evaluated the family and the dog at the home (which actually is better, they can see the living conditions the dog is in). From that, then they could have decided to take the animal or sign the papers.

Adriana V

2007-10-16 23:40:46 UTC

Anyone that really works in rescue would know that it's a lot more complex then just "screening people". I've worked in dog and cat rescue for the last 3 years and volunteered for longer than that. MOST organizations are so far behind the times they are more like hoarders than anything. It's probably easier to adopt children than it is to get dogs from most rescues.

"Screening" has a different meaning to every single organization out there and I don't think that ANYONE can know for sure if the animal will work 100% with the new family. What you see from an animal in a shelter or foster environment can COMPLETELY change with the dynamic of the household and no amount of interviewing or home inspecting can prevent that in some situations. The group should have been happy she found a home that worked for the dog and focused their efforts on helping the next dog in line because as we all know there are MILLIONS dying in shelters because of the lack of homes and resources.

Yes it is good to find out if people are lying about their lease and give them all kinds of good information (which can be done with a simple conversation) but I don't think Ellen was stupid enough to place this dog that she obviously cared about in a bad situation. I think that with 2 other dogs in their household they were well aware of how to properly care for one. The rescue group severely over reacted and I think made the situation worse by YET AGAIN pulling the dog out of a home in which it was getting acclimated. All paperwork could have been done while the dog was in their home. On a side note I would never trust a rescue group that doesn't let you register your own information to your pets microchip or one that contractually makes it seem like you're leasing their animal, at some point they have to trust people to take care of their own pet. That rescue group sounds like one I'd never want to deal with.

Trixie98

2007-10-17 18:24:21 UTC

OK, I am about over this, but here are a couple of points that people are overlooking. I could argue both sides. BUT.... Ellen didn't sign the contract - her girlfriend signed it, so she really didn't understand what the rules were. She made an honest mistake. I do think that the agency over-reacted. At some point, people need to just "do the right thing"..... which would have been to discuss the adoption with the two little girl's parents. For goodness sakes, Portia signed the contract, the agency talked to Ellen, and she told the truth. Their angry approach to the situation blew everything out of proportion. With the millions of homeless pets, it is a shame that people are so hung up on contracts and rules that they fail to be human. With that said, what's done is done and in this situation, nobody wins.

2007-10-17 07:50:35 UTC

I volunteer for the S.P.C.A. in my hometown and unfortunately many cats and dogs end up being adopted by what seems like the perfect family (on paper) and the animal often ends up back at the shelter or worse. Other cases, like the Ellen DeGeneres one, don't turn out well either. Mutts and Moms have obviously seen there share of sad stories after adoption and are only looking out for the welfare of the animal. I'm pretty sure the puppy will go back to the family when the proper procedures (in place to protect the animals) have been met.

2007-10-16 14:11:05 UTC

What in the world.....

Now I absolutely love Ellen, she is such a genuine individual with a true heart. But to see her this upset and heartbroken - which made me upset and heartbroken, it does not make any sense what so ever!!!!

Yes, I do understand that the organization has rules and bi-laws that were put in place for a very good reason. However, there are always always always exceptions to the rules!!! Was there not one of the "volunteers" that could went out to the lil' girls home to make sure that everything looks legit and the puppy can stay there on a "temporary" base until all necessary legality's (adoption papers etc.) have been taken care off.

I have to say, I would never ever want anything cruel to happen to an animal (dog-cat-bird-whatever) and I respect all animal rescue organizations and their volunteers ....

But there have been times that made me wonder if some animal rescue folks lost their compassion for the humans and their feelings (i.e. the little girls or Ellen)...

Maybe you guys sit back one more time ("right now - right now) and reconsider - make an exception to the rule -

or think like the "Puppy" mmmhhh where would I want to sleep tonight....

- all alone in a Animal shelter with all the other lonely doggies

or

- with the cute lil girls that love me to pieces - play with me - feet me....

I think even that one is a no brainer for any animal !!!!

xoxo to all of you....

Anette

Lisa x

2007-10-18 00:27:58 UTC

Apparently Marina and her posse showed up at the residence of the hairdresser's on Sunday under false pretenses claiming that all they wanted to do was see the dog's living environment. As soon as these ppl arrived at the home they made a bee line to the dog and picked it up and refused to release the dog to the new owners. Both sides called the police and unfortunately the dog was still micro chipped to Marina after a month of ownership after Ellen had donated $600.00 and legally owned the dog.

These people had no intention of reviewing the application of the new dog owners that Ellen had given the dog to. They had every intention on taking the dog out of their home. Not only we're they planning on taking the dog (where you can see the video on TMZ) they were bad mouthing Ellen over the issue to the new dog owners.

You can see all 3 videos on TMZ.... http://www.tmz.com/

Apparently, Ellen and this Marina woman of Mutts & Moms had been in contact via phone earlier and this woman from this pet adoption agency was uncooperative from the very beginning. It kinda sheds some light on the mind set of this organization. Right or wrong this organization handled this unprofessional from the beginning. She threatened to expose Ellen to the media and sue her over this issue if Ellen didn't immediately return the dog between 11:00 - 2:00 the following day.

On another note...It seems that this company Mutts & Moms has been suspended from the CA Secretary of State. What does this mean? That possibly any contract that Ellen had signed with Mutts & Moms wouldn't mean any more than the poop from this little doggy if it shat on the contract itself. You can review the post on the following site that gives you a link to the CA Secretary of State http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/17/215726/17.

Threatening to kill the owner over this is too extreme but boycotting her organization sounds more than fair given the circumstances.

Better Yet..Here's Mutts & Moms address and contact info.

1. Marina Baktis

Mutts and Moms

4610 Cerrillos Drive

Woodland Hills, CA 91364

1.818.932.8914

pawboutique@yahoo.com

Marina Baktis

578 MC Wilton Place

Altadena, CA 91001

Phone: 626.797.7662

Email: mbaktis@hotmail.com

llathrop

2007-10-17 19:55:59 UTC

THANK YOU for posting the petition, I did sign it. There are always circumstances when we can't follow well intended rules, it's a part of life. I'm sure this pet has already bonded with Ellen's hairdresser's family, what is in the pet's best interest? That should be the main consideration.

Yes, Ellen should have known but is everyone perfect?? I don't think so, we've all made mistakes. A pet is a family member, not something we can just shove around b/c of rules. Thanks for taking the time to show this!

Gene D

2007-10-17 05:27:51 UTC

I think Ellen and her hairdresser should sue M&M. Their bullying behavior is obviously not in the best interest of Iggy. Their unbelievable stupidity is symptomatic of the "degener"ation of our society. Claiming they won't be pushed around by the "Ellen Degenereses of the world" is pure BS. They need to get real. Just because you make a rule, well I'm sorry but you've got to be kidding. Who is thier advisor, Carl Rove? I have recieved both of my beloved cats by rescuing them from irresponsible owners. Somebody needs to rescue Iggy from M&M. Their callousness and disregard for emotional effect this will have on 10 and 11 year olds is really disgusting, and should be addressed. What the heck is a rule that prohibits adoption from a household with children under 14? Please, that is about the most rediculous rule for adoption of a pet I've ever heard. What idiot came up with that. M&M are so elitest that they should be shut down!!!!! And they should lose some cash to the hairdressers children.

DeeGee W

2007-10-16 22:49:47 UTC

According to new reports, Mutts & Moms stated they will not return Iggy to the family because they will not allow families with children under age 14 to adopt small dogs.

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=114&sid=1268988

By BETH HARRIS

Associated Press Writer

Excerpt from WTOPNews.com

"As a result of the publicity, Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun received voice mail and e-mail threats of death and arson and were besieged by the media, disrupting business at Paws Boutique store in Pasadena, where they handle the volunteer, nonprofit rescue agency, attorney Keith A. Fink said.

Batkis rejected DeGeneres' plea to give the dog back to her hairstylist's family.

"She (Batkis) doesn't think this is the type of family that should have the dog," said Fink, who is not legally representing the owners but is authorized to speak for them. "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."

-----------------

This will give rescue organizations a bad name in general and Mutts and Moms specifically,

Too often these rescue organizations have rules - as has been stated in other answers here - that are without merit. The idea that a 14 year old would be safer for a small dog than 11 and 12 year olds is ridiculous. Safety for the animal in a family with children depends upon the education of those children by the parents. Mutts and Moms didn't bother to determine whether or not these children would be careful. I've seen rescue organizations refuse to place a toy dog with a family with toddlers, and I do understand that completely, but pre-teens?

This whole thing is a travesty, and I for one do not believe these people have the best interest of this dog at heart. I think that's proven by their "bullying" statement in the snippet of the article noted above.

neicey800

2007-10-18 13:20:22 UTC

They said the hairdresser could not adopt because they dont let familys with children under 14 adopt small dogs,,ok weird. Then they now say they have given Iggy to another family,,,this is all crap. Ok she made a mistake and they enforced their rule to prove a point but they should have worked with the family ,,,they family thought they were coming to inspect their home but instead they were taking the dog with police and everything ,,,,how devastating...Shame on you Mutts & Moms no tact at all

scotchdrnkr

2007-10-17 04:58:06 UTC

I'm on Mutts to Moms side on this issue.

Most non-profit animal rescues I had dealings with have the policy of "If the adoption doesn't work out hey get the animal back".

The one I got my Abbie from won't even let me put the microchip in my name. It stays in their name and if the dog is picked up more than a few times they will not give the dog back to the adoptive parents.

I feel sorry for the family with the kids but I understand why the Agency doesn't allow small dogs like Iggy to be in houses with small children. Younger children don't always understand animal behavior. When the kids get rowdy animals will get excited. Small animals have a tendency to bite when excited. Then the poor animal gets blamed for biting the kid and gets labeled as a biter. And thus un-adoptable.

If the family is still interested in adopting an animal they can fill out the paperwork and go thru the process just like everyone els.

As far as the money spent on vet bill on the dog. Most agencies I know have the animal fixed and shots given before they allow them to be adopted. Cuts down on more strays that they will have to find home for.

lakotamahcohlori

2007-10-16 14:01:42 UTC

While I have a lot of empathy for the little girls, the hairdresser can apply to adopt the dog very easily. You have to understand that when you adopt a dog from a rescue, that if it does not work out you must return the dog to the rescue. When a rescue takes on a dog, it does so for the LIFE of the dog. If the hairdresser was unable to keep the dog after Ellen gave her to their family, where do you think the dog would end up? Most likely in an already overcrowded shelter and there it could be euthanized for lack of space. Then there would be an outcry against Mutts and Mom's for not getting the dog back in the first place and re-homing the dog. Simply put, Ellen should read what she signs. If the situation was reversed I'm sure Ellen would be extremely upset if someone didn't abide by the terms of her contract if she was a rescue. Don't villify the rescue people who are actually out there saving dogs lives every day. They've not said they would not consider the hairdressers home as an adoptive one. They cannot play favorites because Ellen is a celebrity and to erode their contract by not enforcing the return clause would jeopardize every dog they spend time and money finding FOREVER homes for.

Michelle

2007-10-17 12:53:53 UTC

I understand not adopting a small breed dog out to a family with small children in the home!! A toddler and a min pin just don't mix. It is the responsibility of parents to teach their young children how animals should be treated, handled and cared for. This takes time and persistence. Hands on experience and understanding of others feelings.

Since when are a 11 and 12 year old too young to peacefully and responsibly co-exist with a small puppy? Most 11 year olds understand that a small dog is fragile and know how to treat it with this in mind. I started babysitting small children at this age....If you can trust a pre-teen with your childs' lives, I would hope they could also be trusted with a small dogs life.

Maybe this organization should change their policy on children. Not adopting small breeds to families with children under 6 (for example) Then on a case by case basis for children older than 6.

All children are different. They mature differently. Have different temperaments, energy levels and personalities. Dogs are adopted to families on a case by case basis. Why can't the families children be considered in such way? How does the child handle the animal? Do they understand how easily the animal could be injured and take this seriously? I think that the child that would injure a small dog at age 11 would also injure a small dog at age 14. Something must be wrong with this child that age wouldn't cure.

stelladebz

2007-10-16 18:52:04 UTC

For all the good ellen does for human and pet causes. Mutts and Mom's should be ashamed. Hope they change their minds on this one lickity split. Bad press. Ouch.

Shame on them. I wonder why the rules weren't emphasized to ellen at the time of adoption. Yes ellen made a mistake but the rescue should have covered all the rules with her.

2nd Chance Boxer here in NY and Maine is very competent and caring with the forever homes and pets they unite.

ellen has learned a valuable lesson through this occurance.

Tore our hearts out to see ellen so wounded. So deep in despair. I am sad this is such a big entertainment news story, but it shows how truly Humane she is. I hope things turn out well for Iggy the family and gets the forever home ellen has chosen. My heart feels for ellen and Portia and the forever family. Poop on the Moms. I work in a middle school- so poop is tame.

Spay and nueter you pets just as Drew Carey says on the Price is Right.

M'Shel

2007-10-16 18:01:00 UTC

Why did the lady from Mutts and Moms tell the little girls' family she was only coming by to do a home check and then once she got there hijack the dog? She got them to let her in their house under false pretenses. I'm sure if Ellen and the hairdress knew she was planning on taking the dog away they would not have told her where the hairdresser lived.

sarahsbears

2007-10-16 15:48:04 UTC

Anyone else think this whole scenario is really unfair and one-sided?

I really think that Mutts and Moms needs to give their side of this story. All we have is Ellen's word for all of this, right? Rescues work really hard. All the volunteers spend countless amounts of their own money to help transport the pets and all the rest that goes with helping animals. Maybe this is a legitimate rescue and maybe not, but why would Ellen adopt from a rescue she didn't respect? That leads to believe they are a respected and legitimate rescue.

What I think would be a real shame is if all this negative outpouring of opinion causes a reputable rescue to close its doors. Go to one over crowded shelter and anyone would be grateful to what a rescue does. They are invaluable. They protect animals for life. As a foster parent for rescued dogs, I would be most upset if a dog I fostered was passed along without the rescue's knowledge. I'd want the dog back until the family could be checked out too! After some of the stories I have heard from people that seem to be great adopters that have turned out to be LIES, I think it is very responsible of Mutts and Moms to make sure everything is legitimate. They don't really have a choice if they care about the animals.

Ellen needs to grow up. She needs to read the contract. She needs to stop thinking that being able to throw money around for the upkeep of a pet makes her a suitable recommendation for an adoptive family for a pet. She needs to stop using her free publicity to elicit compassion for her side of the story. Let the rescue be! If they close their doors she will have all those pets that could have been helped by M&M and are now just left in shelters on her conscience as well. I am sure she doesn't want that. Sometimes you need to THINK before you speak out in such a public forum as NATIONAL TV. Why wouldn't you just put your energies into helping the family you think is the perfect family for that dog actually adopt the pet legally? It boggles the mind.

By the way, I've adopted two dogs from rescue and I would never DREAM of giving one away without the knowledge of the rescue because I READ THE CONTRACT. It is also a wonderful security to know that if something would happen to me, the rescue would take care of my dogs. Rescues do great things.

reyes r

2007-10-17 08:40:25 UTC

Couldn't disagree with you more!

These shelters have rules (which apply to everyone including the wealthy). They work really hard to place animals with the right family. And really little dogs don't belong in a home with young kids. I know first hand about broken bones, etc... because kids were not careful enough.

Mutts and Moms should stand their ground. That family can go there and adopt another dog.

Too bad a amicable agreement could not have been reached but did you hear the threatening phone call the shelter got from one of Ellen's "people". REally!

Crystal K

2007-10-16 16:34:25 UTC

Now as much as I encorage and respect Vounteers who offer there time to rescue these pets... I am disappointed in how this was handled. Regardless of the fact that Ellen did make a mistake in communicating to the shelter of the dog's new home...they could have simply sent a employee of there to view the surroundings and environment to make sure this was a safe environment.Instead of filling out reports to tear the pet from the family they could have simply brought the appropriate paperwork and walked them through on filing for adoption while they fostered the pet. Ellen payed them a pretty steep price in training and vaccinating the pet and I am very sure there is a clause in the paper that states that she will not be refunded if dog was taken. Also, if this a non profit company then they also get government grants to fund there facility...and in which many cases I am sure they are. This is a simple case of a company trying to make an example of another celebrity to gain recognition for there efforts....the only thing is... it backfired. If she really wanted to put them in there place she could have all the files pulled legally from there records to see if they have bothered to follow up with every single adoption family and if it was a random check up to investigate to see how they do there random selection. I think this was all about an ego and power trip trying to teach another celebrity a lesson and the end result backfired on them. Damage control neccessary before this gets worse for them because this can hurt there facility as far as funding and donations goes. Also, people will become to afraid to adopt in fear to have there dog taken from there home. This was biased and they targeted her. I would seek legal action if they choose not to give the dog back.

larry B

2007-10-17 08:35:54 UTC

This is more of a comment that I also posted on TMZ:

I'm stunned, that in spite of the (CONTRACT) these people are incapable of making some compromise. This is a living, loving creature and needs a living loving home. Exactly what this dog received.

My question to the adoption agency is, "what is your objection to this particular home?"

My gut feeling tells me that these people want to keep their bragging rights of placing their puppies with "STARS".

With all of the animals that are being slaughtered, move on and save the next wonderful puppy or full grown dog on death row.

This puppy found a loving home and that makes the world a better place and makes me personally happy that he/she did not become yet another statistic.

suzonkers

2007-10-16 23:01:08 UTC

I can best express by attaching a communication I had earlier tonight with a woman I work with who has a rescue of her own. Please start reading from the bottom 1st, it'll make more sense.

************

I'm not saying she's wrong. I watched Brian on the CBS news and then watched Ellen which followed. She very respectfully apologized to the rescue WITHOUT naming them, as Brian DID) and said it was clearly HER fault for not reading what she signed, live, on her show. She simply wants them to give the dog back to the family. The kids really cried and love that dog. She got daily reports on how Iggy was adjusting and all his antics for the 2 weeks they had him. Don't know if you are aware that Ellen donated $600 to this rescue and paid thousands for the dog's medical care and training (mostly). I also read where the rescue is trying to arrange giving the dog back to the family Ellen gave it to. There ARE many people who adopt and then abuse, neglect or torture the dogs. Some of them just through them out in the street if they decide they changed their minds about having them. Lots of them get hit by cars, never see a vet, are fed an unhealthy diet, I could go on and on. Ellen has not only donated $1000's but she has fund-raisers for them year round, tries to educate the public and get them involved on any level she can. She's even suggested fostering on her show. I watch her religiously and have a great deal of admiration for her. If that's not a role model........I don't know what is, Jo Ellen. Anyway, we can agree to disagree but I wanted you to hear another viewpoint. Take good care.

Susan

***************

Jo Ellen

I don't know how all you feel, but I'm sick over Ellen's show today, being upset with the rescue. Try doing a search on the internet for Mutts and Moms, nothing but boycotts and slamming. See below the letter I wrote just now and sent to the Ellen show explaining how wrong she is and what damage she is doing to us that save these dogs everyday. She has no idea how much damage she is doing. Who didn't sign an agreement when adopting from a rescue that for any reason what so ever the dog is returned to the rescue. She is no different!! Ellen is WRONG!!

Jo Ellen Rice

Here's her letter to Ellen!

Ellen,

I saw on ET tonight what happened with the dog you adopted. I'm so sorry how this happened and can understand your pain, and your friends pain. BUT, you must understand rescues take in animals daily that have come from horrible situations into foster homes, as Mutts and Moms does to find forever homes. I work with several dog rescues in Tennessee, and everyone you sign an agreement that for whatever reason the dog does not work out for you, the dog has to come back to the rescue. We are looking out for the dogs safety and well being. You are being horrible slamming this rescue on your show. Now they also are being slammed all over the internet, and being boycotted. Well, lets look at this from the dogs waiting to be adopted view!! The website looks to be closed down at this site, because of you and your selfness. Lets look again at the dogs with this rescue that now don't have a good chance of being adopted because you are sl amming a rescue for doing WHAT EVERY RESCUED REQUIRES. How are you helping us who are out to save this dogs. your doing much more damage than you can imagine. I hope you sleep well tonight.

Jo Ellen

Chihuahua Rescue

sabrina l

2007-10-16 13:48:40 UTC

I am soo upset after seeing that video. How dare they take a puppy away from a good home and 2 little girls. Someone like Ellen would never put that dog in a home that would be unsafe. I plan on signing that petition. Thank you very much for posting that link.

m

2007-10-18 08:56:10 UTC

They do have a heart - how could you deny that? how could you assume so many things so falslely -- like Ellen is an expert in what is a 'good and loving home for a small dog'. That is the basis of your argument and you assign more to a celebrity than should be. The dog agency are experts, they have a clear policy and they determined that the famil;y was unsuitable -- why? because Ellen refused to come back in and fill out an application for the family and the family refused to come in and fill out an application. Therefore, it is their sole arrogance to deny this business their rights to set their own policy and their deliberate attempt to control and dictate how this agency must conduct its business. Shame on them and you for not honoring this business' right to operate as it sees fit. shame on you all for threatening that agency too -- what kind of criminal and for some even nazi like behaviour is that?

Amber

2007-10-16 21:42:16 UTC

This is TYPICAL of any pet rescue. Every rescue that I know of has this stipulation in their contracts. If people don't like it DON'T adopt from them! There are plenty of other needy dogs who need homes. Show the rescues that you won't stand for what they do and take your business elsewhere - like to your city's animal shelter. Your taxes pay for those pets anyway and the behavior screening is much better.

Rescues will even microchip in their name and the info can't be changed. One of my friends asked a rescue for help in rehoming her dog that she found on a busy road. They talked her into microchipping it in THEIR name and sent her home with the dog after they promised her help in rehoming it. Well, she got NO help and now she feels she can't EVER rehome the dog because if the dog is ever lost or taken to a shelter the rescue will know the dog used to be hers. She's an elderly lady, too, and the dog knocks her down all the time. I worry about her. Stupid rescue.

Rescues can be soooo lame. That's why I never recommend them. I've seen how they do things and I think many of their higher ups (founders) are seriously CREEPY people.

dennis_chiu1

2007-10-16 21:31:30 UTC

The answer is that Mutts & Moms could have had a heart, chose not to use it, and removed the puppy instead. In my opinion, it was an extremely foolish thing to do. I am an attorney and was General Counsel for a nonprofit in the San Jose, California.

First, every contract written by a competent attorney has a waiver clause that allows the company (or nonprofit in this case) to waive any of its provisions one time and still keep all of its other rights in the agreement, even the one it waived for the one time. So, it is highly likely that Mutts & Moms could have left Ms. DeGeneres' puppy with her hairdresser's family, by making a one-off waiver.

Regardless, if they did not have such a waiver clause, almost all competently drawn contracts state that the agreement may be altered in writing, signed by both parties. So Mutts & Moms, could still have let their heart win out and allow the family to keep the puppy.

Mutts & Moms may have exposed themselves to is a lawsuit for defamation of Ms. DeGeneres. They claim that Ms. DeGeneres gave the dog away because she simply did not like the dog and that "[s]he's trying to tell a story to make herself look good." After viewing video of Ms. DeGeneres' sobbing plea today, Mutts & Moms will have a hard time proving what was in Ms. DeGeneres' head. Having their spokesman apparently from AP reports state them as fact is a clear case of defamation. The spokesman did not apparently preface Mutts & Moms' statement that "in Mutts & Moms opinion" Ms. DeGeneres didn't like the dog and is trying to make herself look good. The spokesman apparently flat out and stated as a fact that Ms. DeGeneres hated the puppy and is trying to make herself look good. This, of course, defamed Ms. DeGeneres.

In conclusion, in my opinion, Mutts & Moms have handled this situation with utter incompetence. In my opinion, if they are a nonprofit corporation, the Board of Directors should suspend the Executive Director with pay pending an investigation. The Board should probably retain competent legal counsel and begin mitigating their damages by issuing a public apology to Ms. DeGeneres, stating that they had no evidence that Ms. DeGeneres hated her dog and that her open sobbing plea was staged to make Ms. DeGeneres look good.

In my further opinion, Ms. DeGeneres should bring suit against Mutts & Moms for defamation.

There are other potential causes of action to be brought by Ms. DeGeneres' hairdresser's family, including Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, if in fact they went to the home under false pretenses and took the puppy.

In my opinion, Mutts & Moms should get this out of the headlines as soon as possible and settle this case out of court. Perhaps, after all of this, Mutts & Moms will find their heart.

chrisp999

2007-10-16 17:12:28 UTC

I have seen several people applaud the actions of Mutts and Moms and call their actions responsible. I disagree. Taking an animal away from a family to which it has bonded hurts the animal, hurts the image of animal rescue groups ( which hurts animals), and hurts the family that opened their home and heart to a rescue animal. Across the country, at this very moment, are several people who will choose to "buy" an animal from a puppy or kitten mill instead of adopting a rescue because they don't want something like this to happen or because they don't want to deal with the stupid requirements that many of these "animal adoption agencies" will try to impose.

I once was looking for a new cat to join our family and was taken with one from one of these "responsible" rescue groups. I am a responsible adult who has a great love for animals and could have provided a wonderful home for this innocent animal who wanted one. I made the appointment with a representative of the rescue group, met them, and was then informed of all of the steps they demmanded before I could bring this animal home. The requirements were laughable including letting a stranger into my home to decide wether or not it was fit for their "baby". That innocent animal was left in the tiny cage with barely enough room to turn around and I had to walk past it for weeks at the pet store. I eventually changed where I shopped because I could not bear to see it crammed into that tiny cage with it begging me with its eyes to take it home. It was there for a very, very long time. I accidently saw it as I walked past that store much later. I don't know if it ever found a home.

That is the result of the "responsibility" of places like this. Animals left to rot in their care while people who want them but who are unwilling to let strangers monitor their lives walk away.

Albert G

2007-10-17 20:09:06 UTC

I am not sure either how they cold have been so cold, as well as feeling they needed to bring armed policeman with them to take the dog away from the two little girls.

Maybe those that think it was wrong should get a hold of them and ask them:

Mutts and Moms Paw Boutique 523 S Raymond Avenue Pasadena, CA 91105

626.394.0946

Email: pawboutique@yahoo.com

frenchy62

2007-10-16 15:53:48 UTC

Mutts and Moms needs to have the courage to do the right thing and let the family have the dog. Perhaps legally they don't have to, but if they choose to go that route, it shows that they have no heart whatsoever.

And people with no heart whatsoever have no business in being in the animal care profession.

(P.S. It was very much my privilege to sign the petition. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.)

Mervo05

2007-10-16 15:02:08 UTC

Ellen did nothing wrong in my eyes and my and I wish that M&M would hopefully find it in their hearts to return Iggy or even better change that one clause in the contract. Yeah, she signed it and everything but who really reads the fine print of everything that they sign (I know you're supposed too) but it's to much. Some rules are made to be broken and this is one of them. She told the truth and I can't knock her for that.

Sunshine75

2007-10-16 20:05:44 UTC

Kudos to Annie. Her answer was perfect!! I totally agree. No one could have said it better.

If Mutts and Moms were going to apologize and/or return the dog, they should have done it long before now. Seems like they are ignoring it. As far as their reputation, I think it's way too late...... it's history.

Edward E

2007-10-16 19:53:39 UTC

mutts and moms needs to carefully re-evaluate their policies and consider the well being of the animal. If they need some direction on how to be humane to animals they should contact me directly at lalo650@yahoo.com.

douglaspray1

2007-10-16 14:04:38 UTC

I believe that Mutts and Moms email address is pawboutique@yahoo.com

Guinea pig foster mother

2007-10-16 13:24:56 UTC

Animal rescue groups carefully screen the homes they adopt out to, and educate the adopters as needed on pet care. This is to ensure that each adoption will be a good one that will last for the entire life of the pet being adopted. Groups that don't screen homes often find that their animals are mistreated or end up homeless again within a few years.

Here's an example of something reputable rescue groups screen for: whether the people adopting either own their home or have their landlord's permission to adopt a pet. This is very, very important because when people who rent their homes DON'T have their landlord's permission, what often happens is that the landlord finds out about the pet and orders the people to get rid of the pet within 24 hours.

That's just one example. There are a number of things that rescue groups check on to make sure the placement will be a good one. It isn't just a matter of asking questions, either. Good rescue groups also provide adopters with lots of information on things like heartworm preventative medicine (without which dogs can DIE), how to deal with behavioral problems, how to brush a dog's teeth, and so on. When someone like Ellen DeGeneres looks for a new home for her pet, she may not think to ask about things like landlord permission for the pet, and she may not remember to pass on information she's been given on pet care. The placement MIGHT still be a good one, but it's much less certain than if it's done through a rescue group that has trained volunteers who know what questions to ask and what information to provide. For that reason, it's better for adoptions to take place through rescue groups.

Please note that Mutts and Moms DIDN'T say that the hairdresser couldn't adopt Iggy. All the group has said is that the adoption must be done through them. The hairdresser can fill in an application form the same as anyone else and go through the adoption process. This will make sure the adoption is a good one.

I applaud Mutts and Moms for insisting that the terms of Iggy's adoption contract be honored. Contracts exist for a reason, and a businessperson like Ellen DeGeneres should know better than to sign a contract without reading it.

garbanzo b

2007-10-16 15:55:04 UTC

call them and email them at:

pawboutique@yahoo.com

626.394.0946