# Ellen's crying plea



## camfan (Oct 30, 2006)

Did you guys see this? What do you think of it? I'm not sure how long the link will be here at Yahoo, but for now, here it is: http://www.yahoo.com/ Here is a written article on the topic: http://tv.yahoo.com/contributor/33469/news...e_degeneres__ER


----------



## Julie718 (Feb 17, 2006)

I saw this. I think it is really sad that they took the dog back!  I know Ellen didn't follow their procedure, but it's not like she just abandoned the dog! She found him a good home.


----------



## Maidto2Maltese (Oct 19, 2004)

I do understand a rescue organization having this policy of returning the dog to them if after adopting ..it doean't work out. There are many valid reasons for this policy. I signed the same thing when I adopted Naddie. However like anything... there are times when this policy should be investigated with 'reasonable' courses of action. 
The dog was obviously well cared for.. and I'm sure Ellen is correct that little Izzy was placed in a loving home. 

I personally think the rescue should have checked into the situation.... did what they would normally do in any adoptive process... gotten the vet-references from the new owners etc. Since they went to the home to take the dog... they had to have been able to evaluate the home conditions. I tend to think this little dog was going to a good home. They could still follow-up and have the new owners sigh the respective adoptive papers and it would be one pooch in a forevr homw...allowing room for another that is in need.

If it is necessary they could maybe "fine' Ellen.. which I'm sure she'd have no problem with... which would make for a win-win situation for everyone. I pray the Rescue doesn't become hard-headed as a 'principle' and does what is best for the dog.


----------



## lillady (Jan 25, 2007)

I agree-I think the rescue should do a home visit of the family to see if they are a good fit-which they obviously sound like they are. I pray this has a good outcome rayer:


----------



## Carla (Aug 30, 2005)

I agree with everyone else. That while those policies are are made to protect the pets, they shouldn't be arbitrary. I think they did a grave disservice to Iggy. It appears he was in a loving home despite Ellen not following the rules. Why couldn't they do the adoption process with Ellen's hairdresser and leave Iggy there during that process?

Carla & Shotzi


----------



## camfan (Oct 30, 2006)

I agree--I think they should do what's best for the dog. I understand that there are formalities, legalities, etc. I just can't stand places that take an all or nothing approach to things. I deal with this all the time in my skin kids schools. Anyway, I really do love Ellen--I've always thought she had a heart of gold and she loves animals, too. I know she wouldn't do anything that would put that dog in harm's way. Why couldn't the agency gone to the family's home and and done an interview, etc. and not just take the dog out of there? Is it really best for the dog to be shuflfed around yet again--taken from a family that was loving him? Maybe we don't know the full story...maybe the family had "issues" that we don't know about. Anyway...


----------



## Gemma (Jan 19, 2006)

it's sad that people don't use common sense anymore. they just do more damage to themselves and the poor dogs. I bet the dog is missing his home


----------



## gatiger40 (Jun 7, 2007)

Yes, yet another example of how wonderful homes are thown out due to small minded people. 

Isn't the point of a rescue organization the best interest of the dog, not the best interest of the organization. I would think this type of crap would make alot of people not want to get involved in adopting a rescue dog. That's my opinion from some of the examples I've seen lately. Makes me sick.


----------



## 3Maltmom (May 23, 2005)

This will not be popular, but to be honest with you, if I called Cindy for an update on Tinkerbell, and she told me she gave her away two weeks ago, sh*t would hit the fan. I would absolutely go to the house, get Tinkerbell back, give them an application to fill out, and do the home check while I was there. The dog would not be back up for adoption unless they were not approved. I would most certainly hold Tinkerbell for them to go through the proper channels.

I hope this rescue is giving this family the same opportunity. I don't know anything about this rescue, I've not heard of one who releases dogs without being spayed/neutered. Maybe the new owners have to send proof of it, much like breeders do.

As I said, though, I would be shocked if one of mine were given away to strangers. Maybe Ellen knows these people, but the rescue doesn't know them from a hole in the ground.

I sure hope they do their best to "right" Ellen's wrong, and give this family a chance to adopt the poor little puppy. A terrible situation all the way around.


----------



## MandyMc65 (Jun 14, 2007)

> This will not be popular, but to be honest with you, if I called Cindy for an update on Tinkerbell, and she told me she gave her away two weeks ago, sh*t would hit the fan. I would absolutely go to the house, get Tinkerbell back, give them an application to fill out, and do the home check while I was there. The dog would not be back up for adoption unless they were not approved. I would most certainly hold Tinkerbell for them to go through the proper channels.
> 
> I hope this rescue is giving this family the same opportunity. I don't know anything about this rescue, I've not heard of one who releases dogs without being spayed/neutered. Maybe the new owners have to send proof of it, much like breeders do.
> 
> ...


I think that you absolutely have a point. Whether it be popular or not. Ellen is the one who qualified AND adopted the dog, not the other family. I do however, hope that the organization would adopt the puppy back to the family Ellen gave it to, if they qualify...

I'm sure that Ellen had the best intrest of the puppy in mind, as well as this family's. I believe she truely does have a heart of gold, and wouldn't do anything to hurt any one. 

I just hope this puppy gets what is best - a loving home.


----------



## momtoboo (Jan 30, 2006)

> This will not be popular, but to be honest with you, if I called Cindy for an update on Tinkerbell, and she told me she gave her away two weeks ago, sh*t would hit the fan. I would absolutely go to the house, get Tinkerbell back, give them an application to fill out, and do the home check while I was there. The dog would not be back up for adoption unless they were not approved. I would most certainly hold Tinkerbell for them to go through the proper channels.
> 
> I hope this rescue is giving this family the same opportunity. I don't know anything about this rescue, I've not heard of one who releases dogs without being spayed/neutered. Maybe the new owners have to send proof of it, much like breeders do.
> 
> ...


Very well said, & I agree. :aktion033:


----------



## KAG (Jun 1, 2006)

Did you notice how many times Ellen called Iggy "it" before she actually said Iggy?


----------



## Ladysmom (Oct 19, 2004)

> > index.php?act=findpost&pid=453995
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I also agree 100%. Rescue groups don't make these rules to be mean or discriminate. This rule was made to insure that when this rescue took this dog in, it would forever be responsible for it's well being. A good breeder has the same rule. If people break this rule and give the dog to someone else instead of back to the rescue or breeder if it doesn't work out, whose to say the next person won't give the dog away, too?

I would expect that, heaven forbid I were ever in a position to have to turn one of mine over to rescue, the rescue would make sure they kept control over her for the rest of her life. I would be horrified to find out later they had somehow "lost" her.

By adopting this dog, Ellen agreed to the terms and conditions of the adoption. Ellen made a big mistake. She should have known better IMO.


----------



## 3Maltmom (May 23, 2005)

> Did you notice how many times Ellen called Iggy "it" before she actually said Iggy?[/B]



I noticed that, as well. If you also keep in mind she adopted Iggy on September 20th. Her hairdresser has had the dog for two weeks already. So Ellen gave away an adopted rescue after just a few short weeks. 

Doesn't appear to be much thought involved on Ellen's end, with regards to adopting a rescue.

I'm very surprised a person in Ellen's position, and money, would sign ANY contract without reading it first. Heck, I'm surprised she didn't have an attorney look it over first. I also noticed she is calling the contract a "piece of paper".


----------



## abbey (Apr 4, 2005)

I sure hope they do their best to "right" Ellen's wrong, and give this family a chance to adopt the poor little puppy. A terrible situation all the way around.
[/QUOTE]


This is what I hope for, thinking of my own 2 little girls...They would be heartbroken to loose their pet because Abbey is a part of our family. I really hope the organization gives this family a chance. I just can't imagine the tears & sadness of these little girls when their pet was taken away from them :bysmilie: I'll be praying for them all rayer:


----------



## MalteseJane (Nov 21, 2004)

Everybody has a good point. But in some cases common sense should be applied. I like 3Maltmom's approch : _I would absolutely go to the house, get Tinkerbell back, give them an application to fill out, and do the home check while I was there. The dog would not be back up for adoption unless they were not approved. I would most certainly hold Tinkerbell for them to go through the proper channels.
_Now I might add this : how come a responsible rescue organization that is so contract driven gives out a dog that has not been spayed or neutered ? It is my understanding that Ellen had him neutered and trained. That is raising another question. If she got him on Sept. 20th, and the family already had him for 2 weeks, there is barely a week left for the neutering and training. Then I have another question mark ; if he would not have been neutered already, would the rescue organization have him taken away so quickly ? 
Now for the "it" thing, technically she is right, it's an "it" if we like it or not. It does not mean that you don't like animals, it means that you like to be grammatically correct.



> Yes, yet another example of how wonderful homes are thown out due to small minded people.
> 
> Isn't the point of a rescue organization the best interest of the dog, not the best interest of the organization. I would think this type of crap would make alot of people not want to get involved in adopting a rescue dog. That's my opinion from some of the examples I've seen lately. Makes me sick.[/B]


I am one of those people who will certainly think twice before applying to adopt a rescue dog from a rescue organization, just because of the paperwork involved and the strings attached. I for one read contracts. And if I pay 400 $ for a rescue dog, the dog is mine to do with it what *I* feel best. Next thing you know they come and take the dog away because you don't feed him what *they* want.


----------



## Ladysmom (Oct 19, 2004)

> Everybody has a good point. But in some cases common sense should be applied. I like 3Maltmom's approch : _I would absolutely go to the house, get Tinkerbell back, give them an application to fill out, and do the home check while I was there. The dog would not be back up for adoption unless they were not approved. I would most certainly hold Tinkerbell for them to go through the proper channels.
> _Now I might add this : how come a responsible rescue organization that is so contract driven gives out a dog that has not been spayed or neutered ? It is my understanding that Ellen had him neutered and trained. That is raising another question. If she got him on Sept. 20th, and the family already had him for 2 weeks, there is barely a week left for the neutering and training. Then I have another question mark ; if he would not have been neutered already, would the rescue organization have him taken away so quickly ?
> Now for the "it" thing, technically she is right, it's an "it" if we like it or not. It does not mean that you don't like animals, it means that you like to be grammatically correct.
> 
> QUOTE





> Yes, yet another example of how wonderful homes are thown out due to small minded people.
> 
> Isn't the point of a rescue organization the best interest of the dog, not the best interest of the organization. I would think this type of crap would make alot of people not want to get involved in adopting a rescue dog. That's my opinion from some of the examples I've seen lately. Makes me sick.[/B]


I am one of those people who will certainly think twice before applying to adopt a rescue dog from a rescue organization, just because of the paperwork involved and the strings attached. I for one read contracts. And if I pay 400 $ for a rescue dog, the dog is mine to do with it what *I* feel best. Next thing you know they come and take the dog away because you don't feed him what *they* want.
[/B][/QUOTE]

You don't "pay" for a rescue dog. You pay an adoption fee that goes to support rescue. In many cases the fee is much less than the money the group has invested in vet bills for that particular dog.

A dog from a rescue group will never be yours to do with what you feel best. That is not how rescues operate. It's not about the people; it's about the homeless animals. Their sole purpose is to find forever homes for homeless dogs and cats and take responsibilty for that life just as any good breeder would. Both require contracts stating that a pet be returned if they can't be kept for any reason. This protects the dog or cat. 

Anyone who is not willing to abide by the terms would not be approved to adopt from that rescue.


----------



## MalteseJane (Nov 21, 2004)

Sorry Marj for me it's a payment. There is an exchange. I get a dog, they get money. If I want to support the rescue organization, I make a donation. Maybe if those rescue organizations would be more open minded they would be able to place more dogs and there would not be such a huge list of dogs in Petfinder. No wonder people buy their dogs through newspaper adds. They don't have to go through all that hassle. This is certainly not helping to put the puppymills out of business. I certainly learned something new today. I always thought that this return policy was meant so people don't drop the dogs in shelters if it does not work out. It did not cross my mind that you cannot give it to a good home. :smpullhair:


----------



## 3Maltmom (May 23, 2005)

If I may, I would like to add, PLEASE do not bash "Rescues" in general. They save thousands of dogs, from kill shelters. 

My Daisy was on her way to a "kill shelter". I have Sassy and Winter, waiting to be adopted. I have several I've adopted myself.

Do not allow Ellen's ignorance, between a piece of paper, and a CONTRACT, get in the way of rescue.


----------



## Bonnie's Mommie (Mar 2, 2006)

> If I may, I would like to add, PLEASE do not bash "Rescues" in general. They save thousands of dogs, from kill shelters.
> 
> My Daisy was on her way to a "kill shelter". I have Sassy and Winter, waiting to be adopted. I have several I've adopted myself.
> 
> Do not allow Ellen's ignorance, between a piece of paper, and a CONTRACT, get in the way of rescue.[/B]


Well said, Deb. I saw Ellen's show today, and cried with her. I hope the organization gives her hairdresser's family 'first dibs' on Iggy.


----------



## Maidto2Maltese (Oct 19, 2004)

I got my Naddie thru rescue and I have the highest respect for those involved.. I'll be eternally grateful for them saving Naddie's life.. and I mean by a matter of 15 minutes!!! One rescurer found her.. and made frantic calls to get her to one of the fosters who could care for her medically as well as the obvious. 
Naddie was in terrible physical shape.
When I had a call to the vet in SC that took care of her that same night she was rescued... I was told they get a lot in bad shape but Naddie was the worst they had seen... so bad they even got 'the powers that be' to come down immediately to take photographs so they could hopefully prosecute the ^$#@@-es.
She needed months of medical care as well as physical therapy for her one leg... aside from all the normal de-worming/spaying/heartworm treatment/shots/ on and on. The $275 we gave was a drop in the bucket to what the rescue layed out for her. 

Yes, the application was long... but I'm OK with that... yes it is mainly for the dogs but benefits adopters as well... so you get a good 'match". The more info they have...the better chance of getting the type/personality/ etc you are seeking in a new pooch. Most rescues WANT that good match! They Want the adopter and pooch to "work". They don't want the little pooch having to go back into the system.... each time they are re-homed.. it takes a toll on the pooch.
In Naddie's case she had some 'issues".. I was made fully aware of them BUT also had conversations as to how I intended to work on them. 
My application process happened to go thru very quickly... extremely so in fact. It is not the norm from what I understand.. but I made it clear I knew exactly what I was going to be 'getting' and I knew if we couldn't get her thru them..well we'd 'adjust". I personally am GRATEFUL! the rescue organization had the "return to them policy". Naddie WAS adopted out.. that's how she got to come up north to our area. The people returned her after a very short time.... said she was aggressive to their little dog. I don't believe a word of it.... I think they simply got fed up thinking she was going to get 'cured' of her problems overnight. Since they were told beforehand.. I think they were embarrased to admit it... so made up the story of the aggression. 

NOW! IF that rescue didn't have the return-policy in their contract.. God only knows what might have happened to her... go from home to home ( which would have only reinforced her separation anxiety NOT helped it!) or possibly she could have gotten dumped! 
I kept an ongoing contact with both her fostermom here, and the one who saved her in SC. I gave updates and sent photos. I wasn't required to... just felt they'd like to see her 'blossom' and wanted to let them know their efforts were so worth it!!
I firmly believe that , God forbid, I had to give her up for some reason...and I had a good home in mind.. that the fostermoms would take me recommendation respectfully. Yes, I believe they should go thru the same process.. but I think my recommendation would have a very strong influence and would be followed thru.

Granted there are some 'exceptions... some individuals who don't always make the best decisions but I truly believe they are few and far between. We must keep in mind these people are giving of themslves, their time, their emotions, and their finances for the well being of these pooches.


----------



## makettle29 (Nov 12, 2005)

hmmmmmm.. I'm wondering if there is more to the story than we know. I wonder if the rescue group was so stern so fast becasue they regretted the placement in the first place. I wonder why the pup was placed in a household of......cats! Maybe they didn't do a thorough enough screening and now acted out of regret for their earlier poor judgement in placing the pup. :bysmilie: 

just wondering..mary anna herk and theena


----------



## Ladysmom (Oct 19, 2004)

> hmmmmmm.. I'm wondering if there is more to the story than we know. I wonder if the rescue group was so stern so fast becasue they regretted the placement in the first place. I wonder why the pup was placed in a household of......cats! Maybe they didn't do a thorough enough screening and now acted out of regret for their earlier poor judgement in placing the pup. :bysmilie:
> 
> just wondering..mary anna herk and theena[/B]


I don't think the rescue was "so stern" or regretted their placement. Bottomline is that Ellen breached the contract she signed when she adopted the dog and the rescue group had every right to take the dog back.

If you breached the contract you signed when you got your car by missing payments, they would have every right to come and take it no matter how much you cried. 

Try to remember that there are a lot of people who voluntarily turn a dog into rescue for a number of reasons. A rescue group has to be able to assure these people that they will forever be responsible for their dog, not just place it and forget about it.

Just like any other contract, if you don't agree to the terms and conditions, don't sign it.


----------



## Furbabymom (Dec 17, 2004)

> ['3Maltmom' date='Oct 16 2007, 05:13 PM' post='454015']
> 
> I noticed that, as well. If you also keep in mind she adopted Iggy on September 20th. Her hairdresser has had the dog for two weeks already. So Ellen gave away an adopted rescue after just a few short weeks.
> 
> ...


<span style="color:#9932cc">


Reputable Rescues groups do a great service to dogs that would not be adoptable if they were not socialized and taught love first and had the medical bills paid for first. I know the foster dog I took into my home to save and give all proper medical treatment to (spaying, mammary tumors removed, teeth cleaning and removal of rotten teeth, special food until no longer not feeling well, etc. ) that cost over a thousand dollar. The socialization and travel time back and forth to the vet were time I lost hours of accounting fees but time that was well spent to me in saving a lost soul who was so afraid of humans she would crawl to her bed with her head down submissive peeing and never looking at me or any human. She would not eat or potty in front of me. She would not leave the bed by the window in my home office. After I picked her up from the spay/mammary removal surgery/ teeth cleaning and rotten teeth removal overnight stay, Little Bit (three dogs were rescued and at 6.8 lbs she was the smallest one from the backyard/Puppy Mill breeder she came from) started to trust me a tiny bit and would crawl to let me feed her. She finally let me give her medicine. It took her several weeks before she would come to me to be loved when she saw my other furkidz getting love. I am in my home office all day and night either doing work or typing emails or posting on lists or emailing clients or on the phone so Little Bit started to get used to my home office and started to enjoy looking at the window. It took Little Bit 5 weeks to come around and after the 6th week she was ready for her forever home. The new mommy I stayed with for 3 hours despite not having time since I had deadlines since I grew to love Little Bit so much and wanted her to be comfortable and know I was not deserting her. I had wanted to adopt her myself but the rescue group was right that they found the perfect home for Little Bit who fit in right way with the other rescue dogs. In my home only my Panda accepted her and Little Bit still had problems with a few visitors where she got so anxious and fearful and ran upstairs crying. She learned how to go up steps but not down them in my home. My tax season would have been hard on her with so many new visitors while in her new home she got to slowly be socialized and allowed to blossom.

The few hundred dollars collected for Little Bit did not even cover the teeth removal and teeth cleaning with anesthesia which is so expensive in North Jersey. If she was sold in the newspaper or adopted from a shelter, she most likely would have not had the happy ever after life she has now where she is so loved and has blossomed into a beautiful Maltese that is spoiled and is not afraid to get love or love back.

Ellen should be fined (unless they waive the fine for Ellen doing the neutering and training herself... I never heard of a rescue group not fixing a dog before placement before) for not following the rescue rules and the home she had placed the dog in that was doing well should be screened and decided if this is a good home to sign a contract with and get a new rescue fee from. This is just my humble experience from working with a rescue group and seeing all what is involved and how much love and care goes into each and every dog and how a reputable rescue group (Mary Palmer is President of the National Central Maltese Rescue Group that I fostered for) really tries their best to make the best placement that will result in a forever home where everyone will be happy.</span>


----------



## msmagnolia (Sep 8, 2004)

I can see both sides of this situation. I just hope that for the dog's sake, a good home can be found with either the hairdresser's family or someone else. And I don't think any malice was intended by Ellen......


----------



## totallytotontuffy (May 16, 2007)

I think that Ellen should allow a representative (from another rescue org.) to appear on her show to educate the public as to what responsibilities are involved in a rescue organization. Let the representative show where some of these dogs came from, the conditions they were found to be in, how they were brought back to health, how they flourished in a loving foster home and then were carefully screened before being placed in their *"forever"* home. I think the right representative could present these things in a non-confrontational way so that Ellen and the viewing public could better understand where rescue orgs. are coming from. 

I don't think that to date, this story has been portrayed showing all sides and to use the children as pawns to garner support from the public is wrong. That being said, if the family is suitable for adopting and providing a *forever* home for Izzy, I'm all in favor of allowing them to adopt her.


----------



## kathym (Aug 5, 2006)

This morning on the news they said that the children are younger than 14 years and because its a small dog that home was not suitable
I'm not about to judge that statement when i don't like children coming around Baci. but thats me we have plenty of neighbors who have small dogs and really young kids who are all just fine.


----------



## The A Team (Dec 1, 2005)

I can't believe Ellen didn't know she couldn't give the dog away. When I rescued Tink, it was made clear to me that if it didn't work out I had to return it to the rescue group. 

There were times I considered it (when things weren't going so well) and I kept in contact with the Humane Society alot.

I didn't have any lawyers to read my contracts, but I'm surprised Ellen wasn't "told" she couldn't give Iggy away.

Now that the damage is done, I just hope only the best interest of the dog is considered. No one elses.


----------



## mpappie (Jun 28, 2005)

I think Ellen is a good actor. *The pup will be just fine*, the rescue will see to that. Ellen can purchase another dog for the family without any rules or regulation. She is trying to get out of a legal contract by using public opinion. Public opinion for the most part have no idea how rescues are run and must be run for the benifit of the pups.


----------



## k/c mom (Oct 9, 2004)

I tend to usually side with the rescue group in situations like this but there are some things about this situation that bother me. One, like Deb mentioned, is that they apparently adopted the dog out without neutering him. That is really odd. And I'm sort of surprised that the group didn't go over the salient points of the contract with Ellen verbally, especially something as key as if the adoption doesn't work out, he should be returned to the rescue group. I think Ellen deserves kudos for even going the route of rescue versus the route of pet stores and brokers that so many celebrities use.

One of the news channels described how the situation played out... that the rescue went to the home of the hairdresser who had the dog. At the door the rescue respresentative said that she wanted to inspect the home. She was let in the home. She then grabbed the dog, told the family she was removing the dog from the home and called the police and waited for two hours in the home holding the dog until the police arrived. She then left with the dog.

I have to say that I think it is a shame that rescue organizations can sometimes forget that it isn't going to hurt the rescue org. to be kind to people, as well as animals.


----------



## abbey (Apr 4, 2005)

> I think Ellen is a good actor. *The pup will be just fine*, the rescue will see to that. Ellen can purchase another dog for the family without any rules or regulation. She is trying to get out of a legal contract by using public opinion. Public opinion for the most part have no idea how rescues are run and must be run for the benifit of the pups.[/B]


I found the part about Ellen purchasing the family another dog alittle upsetting :shocked: Even after having Abbey for the first 2 weeks we knew she was irreplacable to our family & I know my children (who are under 14 years old) would be heartbroken, to say the least, & I don't think another dog would have replaced her. Maybe because I have taught my children that a pet is not just a pet. JMO


----------



## robin (Jul 11, 2006)

I agree Pat. When I rescued Henry, it was made very clear to me, verbally and written, that should things not work out, that Henry must be returned to the rescue. I'm truly sorry that the litte girls are hurting. You know when I watched Ellen yesterday tho, I picked up right away on her referring to Iggy as "it". I've always like Ellen and will continue to watch her show.
We have a kill shelter in my town and I routinely stop by every Saturday. THANK GOD for rescue groups. My husband and I have had many from the kill shelter stay with us for a night or two until the appropriate rescue group could be notified. Just last Saturday, my mother and I walked the concrete walkway between the cages and prayed that someone would come for them before their time was up. If I lived on a farm, I'd take them all. So many of the tags on the pens, say turned in by owner. It breaks my heart. The sad sad look in there eyes is heartbreaking. Like, why wasn't I good enough? Why did you throw me away? I don't know why I do it but I feel I have to go there to let them know that someone cares, someone loves them.

So yes, I am a big supporter of rescue groups. Thank God for them. and yes I think they should be very picky as far as where these sweet souls are placed. Why in the world should they be bounced around or abused anymore than they already have?


----------



## MalteseJane (Nov 21, 2004)

> I tend to usually side with the rescue group in situations like this but there are some things about this situation that bother me. One, like Deb mentioned, is that they apparently adopted the dog out without neutering him. That is really odd. And I'm sort of surprised that the group didn't go over the salient points of the contract with Ellen verbally, especially something as key as if the adoption doesn't work out, he should be returned to the rescue group. I think Ellen deserves kudos for even going the route of rescue versus the route of pet stores and brokers that so many celebrities use.
> 
> One of the news channels described how the situation played out... that the rescue went to the home of the hairdresser who had the dog. At the door the rescue respresentative said that she wanted to inspect the home. She was let in the home. She then grabbed the dog, told the family she was removing the dog from the home and called the police and waited for two hours in the home holding the dog until the police arrived. She then left with the dog.
> 
> I have to say that I think it is a shame that rescue organizations can sometimes forget that it isn't going to hurt the rescue org. to be kind to people, as well as animals.[/B]


Exactly Sher. There is no doubt Ellen made a mistake and she recognizes that. And to be fair, she didn't give the dog enough time to get along with the cats, and I wonder about the energy and the rambuctiousness of the dog since he was neutered in that same week. I must say I have trouble with the time frame. Neutering and training, that's a lot in one week. On the other side the rescue group made plenty of mistakes : there is the neutering question, did they know she had cats, if they did a home inspection they must have known she had cats, if you have a contract, you go over the contract with the person and make them sign the contract in front of you and make sure she understands everything that's in it. And if the news about the way they retrieved the dog is true, they do a huge disservice to all the other rescue groups. Things like this reflect on everybody. Already some people are reluctant to hand over their dog to rescue, others are reluctant to get a dog through rescue, this is not helping. This is bad publicity. What were they thinking ! That Ellen would shut up ?


----------



## mpappie (Jun 28, 2005)

> > index.php?act=findpost&pid=454344
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Some rescues adopt out puppies before spay or neutering because they are too young for neutering, but need to be in their forever home. They charge a higher adoption fee and give a partial refund when spay or neutering is proved.


----------



## mpappie (Jun 28, 2005)

Don't forget even if the family filled out an application and had a home visit, they still wouldn't pass.
The girls are too young. As moms and dads of a toy breed we should be glad that rescues are so careful.


----------



## gatiger40 (Jun 7, 2007)

The hairdressers children were 11 and 12. I have no idea if they were the right family for this dog, but to put them out of the running based on the age of the children alone is another reason I think rescuse organizations can be inflexible. No fenced in yard, no dog for you. Kids under 15, no dog for you. I'm just saying each case is different and should be looked at individually. To make a blanket rule is what makes me mad.

If I had to qualify to get my two malt's based on the current criteria of most rescue organizations, I wouldn't have them and I KNOW I'm a darn good maltese mom if I do say so myself!


----------



## Ladysmom (Oct 19, 2004)

You get this statement when you try to go to Mutts and Moms website:



Petfinder Statement

Mutts and Mom has chosen to temporarily inactivate their website on Petfinder.com because their email inbox and voice mail are overwhelmed. Petfinder has 11,000 shelters and rescue groups posting over 260,000 pets that need homes. We do not dictate the adoption policies of our members. We do work with them to educate their volunteers and hope to professionalize the industry as a whole, providing a positive experience for adopters. Petfinder advocates for all parties: the pets, the adopters, and the shelter and rescue group workers and volunteers.

Pet Return Policies
Many shelters and rescue groups insist, through their adoption agreements, that if a pet cannot stay with his adoptive family, the adopters must return him to the group. Why do they do this? 

Between 500,000 and 1 million pets adopted from shelters and rescue groups find themselves homeless and in the shelter once again. 

One foster mom said it best, “I found the dog on the street, starving. I nursed her back to health. She slept in my bed. I sang her back to sleep when she had nightmares when she first came to me. Then I adopted her to a wonderful family. A year later, I got a call from animal control because she was at the shelter and she was going to be euthanized. The family had gotten divorced and she ended up on death row!” 

This too-common experience leads rescue groups and shelter to put strict policies in place governing what happens if the adoption doesn’t work out. In effect, the rescue group and shelters are promising to always be there as a safety net for the pets. This can be very comforting to adopters. 

Finding a New Home for Your Pet
Some pet parents, who have the best intentions for their pets, feel that they can do a better job of finding a new home for their beloved pet than a shelter or rescue group. Their rationale is that they know their pet best, they can keep it in their home until the perfect new home is found, and they can help ease the transition for the pet. Often times, this is a natural transition – a family member, trusted friend, or a colleague gets to know the pet, falls in love, and the ownership of the pet is unofficially transferred to them. 

This is a controversial point of view, even amongst shelters and rescue groups who may feel that they have more experience identifying pitfalls and risk factors when identifying new families. Research, however, suggests that there is no difference in the success rates of the adoptions between organizations that screen heavily versus those that have more open adoption policies.

It also bears noting that shelters and rescue groups, understandably, want to keep in contact with new families to be able to lend their support and continue to get updates about the pets they cared for. So we have two groups, the shelter and the pet parents, who both want what is best for the pet, but who may have very different points of view. The silver lining is that everyone really wants the best home possible for the pet. If we could ensure that same future for all the pets available on Petfinder.com, our job would be accomplished

http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/CA711.html


----------



## camfan (Oct 30, 2006)

I'm glad I posted about this because I learned some things about rescue that I didn't know. 

Someone said something about how Ellen should have a rescue group rep. come on her show and talk. I bet that would be great--she show has a huge audience and I bet you'd see a big jump in people getting involved in rescue.

Thanks for all the insights--very interesting!!


----------



## MalteseJane (Nov 21, 2004)

Lets get something straight here. In this particular case the dog was NOT too young to be neutered. And that's what we are talking about. Responsible rescue organizations spay and neuter the dogs before placing them. It is rare that a rescue has pups too young to be neutered or spayed. And they are spaying and neutering now earlier and earlier.
About age, 11 and 12 year olds are too young for toy breeds ???? Now common. Isn't this going a little too far ? My 8 years old was better with the dog then some adults. So a hamster is ok but a small dog is not ? It seems to me that when rescues start to put an age limit on who can adopt a dog, the pool of adoptive parents is getting smaller and smaller. I am also talking about the age limit on seniors. And I am not talking about 80 years old, I am talking about 60. Just to clarify.


----------



## k/c mom (Oct 9, 2004)

> Lets get something straight here. In this particular case the dog was NOT too young to be neutered. And that's what we are talking about. Responsible rescue organizations spay and neuter the dogs before placing them. It is rare that a rescue has pups too young to be neutered or spayed. And they are spaying and neutering now earlier and earlier.
> About age, 11 and 12 year olds are too young for toy breeds ???? Now common. Isn't this going a little too far ? My 8 years old was better with the dog then some adults. So a hamster is ok but a small dog is not ? It seems to me that when rescues start to put an age limit on who can adopt a dog, the pool of adoptive parents is getting smaller and smaller. I am also talking about the age limit on seniors. And I am not talking about 80 years old, I am talking about 60. Just to clarify.[/B]


Are you saying there is an upper age limit of 60 to adopt a rescue?


----------



## totallytotontuffy (May 16, 2007)

> Lets get something straight here. In this particular case the dog was NOT too young to be neutered. And that's what we are talking about. Responsible rescue organizations spay and neuter the dogs before placing them. It is rare that a rescue has pups too young to be neutered or spayed. And they are spaying and neutering now earlier and earlier.
> About age, 11 and 12 year olds are too young for toy breeds ???? Now common. Isn't this going a little too far ? My 8 years old was better with the dog then some adults. So a hamster is ok but a small dog is not ? It seems to me that when rescues start to put an age limit on who can adopt a dog, the pool of adoptive parents is getting smaller and smaller. I am also talking about the age limit on seniors. And I am not talking about 80 years old, I am talking about 60. Just to clarify.[/B]


Jane, aren't there a lot of breeder's websites that also discuss Maltese dogs not being suitable to homes with children under a certain age? Every child is different, every family is different. My guess is that breeders and rescue orgs. place these restrictions based upon instances where toy breeds have been harmed by children who were either not properly trained in the fragility of smaller dogs or left unsupervised. *It's unfortunate that all of us can only make judgments based on what information is available and maybe therein lies the problem. *Granted, there are gray areas in all aspects of life, but there are always two sides (and sometimes more) to a story.


----------



## Max & Rocky (May 20, 2004)

> > index.php?act=findpost&pid=454406
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Last year we had a rescue by the name of Coco who was an absolute doll and yes, some (or many or all?) rescue organizations will not adopt a young pup like her out to a family that she is likely to outlive. The sad fact is that in such cases, many family members, when the older person dies or is unable to take care of things, will simply take the dog to the nearest pound.

This situation is different but similar in some respects... I was recently involved in another rescue attempt which did not turn out so well. In this case, a family found a stray Maltese and the wife started caring for it. The husband was apparently not real crazy about the dog... The dog then had some potty accidents in the house and the husband then took the dog to the local pound without telling the wife what he was doing while she was at work...

A few days later, the wife contacted rescue at which point I was asked to go to our county dog "shelter" (which is really a facility for killing dogs). I got there too late and a little Maltese had been put down.... :angry: 

I realize that in some (or many?) cases, rules or guidelines like these are going to seem unfair, but that is why rescue organiaztions like this have adoptive families sign legally enforcable contracts and I fully support them doing so.


----------



## precious paws (Jun 7, 2006)

> This situation is different but similar in some respects... I was recently involved in another rescue attempt which did not turn out so well. In this case, a family found a stray Maltese and the wife started caring for it. The husband was apparently not real crazy about the dog... The dog then had some potty accidents in the house and the husband then took the dog to the local pound without telling the wife what he was doing while she was at work...
> 
> A few days later, the wife contacted rescue at which point I was asked to go to our county dog "shelter" (which is really a facility for killing dogs). I got there too late and a little Maltese had been put down.... :angry:[/B]


How awful. Very, Very Sad. :smcry:


----------



## ShilohsMom (Jun 25, 2007)

> Lets get something straight here. In this particular case the dog was NOT too young to be neutered. And that's what we are talking about. Responsible rescue organizations spay and neuter the dogs before placing them. It is rare that a rescue has pups too young to be neutered or spayed. And they are spaying and neutering now earlier and earlier.
> About age, 11 and 12 year olds are too young for toy breeds ???? Now common. Isn't this going a little too far ? My 8 years old was better with the dog then some adults. So a hamster is ok but a small dog is not ? It seems to me that when rescues start to put an age limit on who can adopt a dog, the pool of adoptive parents is getting smaller and smaller. I am also talking about the age limit on seniors. And I am not talking about 80 years old, I am talking about 60. Just to clarify.[/B]


Well said. 11 and 12 year olds are not under the usual criteria for a maltese which the norm tends to be ten for a TINY maltese. This dog in question is a toy breed, on the larger side, not an itty bitty super fragile maltese dog. I feel the rescue has taken the wrong approach in this scenario to retaliate against Ellen's breach of contract. And made themselves look heartless in the process. I have a new rescue and I noticed I got ignored by many of the "rescue supporters" here because my opinions are not always popular. Lucky for me and Jackson, perfection was not a necessity in adopting him out with the organization I went through. Unfortunately rescues can do no wrong on this website, even when they do on occasion come across as overbearing and inflexible.


----------



## Ladysmom (Oct 19, 2004)

I think the tragedy in all this is the harm Ellen is doing to the reputation of all rescues when she has always been such a supporter. I think it was very, very wrong of her to go public with this. As she said, she made a terrible mistake. She violated the terms of her adoption by giving this dog to her hairdresser instead of returning him to the rescue group as she had sworn to do. There are two very upset little girls caught in the middle of this and it is Ellen's fault, not the rescue group's.

I truly hope Ellen can get past this and focus on the cause she has always championed and try to salvage the damage she has done to rescue organizations everywhere. I agree with TotallyTotoNTuffy. I'd love to see her have someone from Petfinder, for example, come on her show and explain the other side of the story, how adoption criteria is in place to protect the animal it has been entrusted with.


----------



## MalteseJane (Nov 21, 2004)

I am sorry Marj it's this rescue organization that is doing the harm to all other rescue organizations by taking the wrong approch about handling this mess. They could have worked out something between the 3 parties involved and nobody would have ever known something. On the contrary, I think Ellen did the right thing going public so everybody can learn from her own mistake.


----------



## mpappie (Jun 28, 2005)

> I think the tragedy in all this is the harm Ellen is doing to the reputation of all rescues when she has always been such a supporter. I think it was very, very wrong of her to go public with this. As she said, she made a terrible mistake. She violated the terms of her adoption by giving this dog to her hairdresser instead of returning him to the rescue group as she had sworn to do. There are two very upset little girls caught in the middle of this and it is Ellen's fault, not the rescue group's.
> 
> I truly hope Ellen can get past this and focus on the cause she has always championed and try to salvage the damage she has done to rescue organizations everywhere. I agree with TotallyTotoNTuffy. I'd love to see her have someone from Petfinder, for example, come on her show and explain the other side of the story, how adoption criteria is in place to protect the animal it has been entrusted with.[/B]


Well said Marj


----------



## k/c mom (Oct 9, 2004)

> > index.php?act=findpost&pid=454416
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That man is a monster. What kind of human being does something like that. If I were in the wife's shoes I could never forgive that jerk and could never live with someone who is so cruel as to take a Maltese or any dog to its death like that. [attachment=28271:mad.gif]

Sorry to get off topic but that is just the saddest story..... :smcry:


----------



## 3Maltmom (May 23, 2005)

> > index.php?act=findpost&pid=454467
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Last year we had a rescue by the name of Coco who was an absolute doll and yes, some (or many or all?) rescue organizations will not adopt a young pup like her out to a family that she is likely to outlive. The sad fact is that in such cases, many family members, when the older person dies or is unable to take care of things, will simply take the dog to the nearest pound.

This situation is different but similar in some respects... I was recently involved in another rescue attempt which did not turn out so well. In this case, a family found a stray Maltese and the wife started caring for it. The husband was apparently not real crazy about the dog... The dog then had some potty accidents in the house and the husband then took the dog to the local pound without telling the wife what he was doing while she was at work...

A few days later, the wife contacted rescue at which point I was asked to go to our county dog "shelter" (which is really a facility for killing dogs). I got there too late and a little Maltese had been put down.... :angry: 

I realize that in some (or many?) cases, rules or guidelines like these are going to seem unfair, but that is why rescue organiaztions like this have adoptive families sign legally enforcable contracts and I fully support them doing so.
[/B][/QUOTE]

That man is a monster. What kind of human being does something like that. If I were in the wife's shoes I could never forgive that jerk and could never live with someone who is so cruel as to take a Maltese or any dog to its death like that. [attachment=28271:mad.gif]

Sorry to get off topic but that is just the saddest story..... :smcry: 
[/B][/QUOTE]


Yep, this wasn't too long ago. Steve called me from the shelter. It was very upsetting. I cried. :smcry: 

You'd be surprised how many emails Mary gets from wives saying the husband is threatening to take the dog to the shelter. These woman seem so desperate to get them into rescue before the husband follows through with his threat.

I can't imagine any man, I was marrried to, even mentioning it, much less actually doing it.


----------



## 2maltese4me (May 8, 2006)

> I agree with everyone else. That while those policies are are made to protect the pets, they shouldn't be arbitrary. I think they did a grave disservice to Iggy. It appears he was in a loving home despite Ellen not following the rules. Why couldn't they do the adoption process with Ellen's hairdresser and leave Iggy there during that process?
> 
> Carla & Shotzi[/B]


ITA!!!!

Seems they removed the dog because the kids fell into an age bracket that they felt was un-suitable...however it was only a few yrs off, and IMO a ridiculous reason. Its not like the kids are toddlers....the youngest is 11. Which IMO is old enough to be around a toy breed dog. The whole thing is heart breaking and ridiculous.


----------



## gatiger40 (Jun 7, 2007)

Ellen is not the one doing damage to the rescue organizations she has given a national voice to a very BIG problem within these organizations. 

Drawing a line in the sand the rescue organization has said "there is NO WAY this dog will EVER go to that family". Sounds like someone's personal agenda that is NOT in the best interest of the dog. Not the first time I have heard of this happening by the way. 

Whatever side you fall on, the best interest of the dog should be the only interest.


----------



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">I am just know reading this thread after catching Ellen's show today. She is unfortunately still not being IMO COMPLETELY honest about this situation. I have been a fan of her show since it went on the air but I am really saddend by how she is handling this. She is reacting purely on an emotional level right now and trying to manipulate public symathy by using what the children are experiencing. She really needs to be educated on how good, responisble rescues work. I signed a contract for Jett when I adopted him and was also told that if for whatever reason I could not keep him, he would go back to the rescue. Personally, it is a relief to know that if something were to happen to me, I know Jett would be taken care of. I agree that it is unfortunate that sometimes the rules seem to be "unfair", yet anyone who has worked with the public knows that rules must be made and enforced to protect the innocent. Not everyone is a responsible person who looks at ALL sides of the situation and how do you say the rule applies to one person and not another? If someone were to take a case like this to court, precident would have already been set from not enforcing the rules in a previous situation.

Also, has anyone else noticed how many times Ellen has adopted a dog that did not work out and she found another home for? I know that this is at least the 2nd time. IMO, Ellen tends to make decisions on an emotional level. If she truly loves animals the way she says she does, and has their best interest at heart, then she needs to evaluate her past history with previous adoptions.

I would really like to educate her on why rescues have contracts and how they operate.</span>


----------



## Ladysmom (Oct 19, 2004)

> <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">I am just know reading this thread after catching Ellen's show today. She is unfortunately still not being IMO COMPLETELY honest about this situation. I have been a fan of her show since it went on the air but I am really saddend by how she is handling this. She is reacting purely on an emotional level right now and trying to manipulate public symathy by using what the children are experiencing. She really needs to be educated on how good, responisble rescues work. I signed a contract for Jett when I adopted him and was also told that if for whatever reason I could not keep him, he would go back to the rescue. Personally, it is a relief to know that if something were to happen to me, I know Jett would be taken care of. I agree that it is unfortunate that sometimes the rules seem to be "unfair", yet anyone who has worked with the public knows that rules must be made and enforced to protect the innocent. Not everyone is a responsible person who looks at ALL sides of the situation and how do you say the rule applies to one person and not another? If someone were to take a case like this to court, precident would have already been set from not enforcing the rules in a previous situation.
> 
> Also, has anyone else noticed how many times Ellen has adopted a dog that did not work out and she found another home for? I know that this is at least the 2nd time. IMO, Ellen tends to make decisions on an emotional level. If she truly loves animals the way she says she does, and has their best interest at heart, then she needs to evaluate her past history with previous adoptions.
> 
> I would really like to educate her on why rescues have contracts and how they operate.</span>[/B]


Excellent post. It seems like those of us who have or have worked with rescues have a different persceptive on this subject.

Speaking of different persceptives, read this article from The Washington Post. It suggests that Ellen's tearful plea was done to spin a situation that she otherwise would have been criticized for once it became public. Afterall giving away a rescue dog she'd only had for 10 days instead of returning it to the group as her contract stated doesn't look too good for someone who is supposed to be so supportive of homeless animals.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/200...egeneres_1.html


----------



## thefab5 (Feb 1, 2007)

NO ONE PERSON or ORGANIZATION has the insight, crystal ball, interview skills to predict the life of any adopter's 
(or a animals) life long out come. If they did they would be called GOD.

I believe all adoptions should be about education in pet owning rather than restrictions and regulations. Unfortunatly we see poor choices made all the time in humans and pets lifes. The only way to stop these bad choices is to educate with values and responsibility. 

The organitzation that denied Ellen's family the dog, chose to handel it in a way that caused harm to their own reputation. I believe if they would of handled this in a more sensitive and positive out come then there would be no Negitive repercussions. As they are experianceing right now. Again that mistake boils down to education on everyone part.

If the family had the dog right now we would not be having this debate and this rescuse would not be under fire for their actions.

The rescue put the needs of an dog over hurting the feelings of children. Now, that screwed up! Those poor children caught in the middle.......... 

Do any of you really think this family would be bad for this dog??????


----------



## luvmyfurbaby (Feb 11, 2007)

Before I got Peanut I put in an application for a special needs rescue and was turned down with no reason given even after I asked. I felt very discouraged since I have the financial ability to take care of this special needs dog and I treat mine like my kids....in other words spoiled rotten. So maybe it should be taken on a case by case basis and not so strictly adhered to set rules for everyone. JMO


----------



## msmagnolia (Sep 8, 2004)

As previously posted (by me), I don't feel like there is enough info for anyone to make a judgement one way or the other. I would like to have more information and here are some questions that I would like the answers to:

1. Why did the rescue organization decide to let Ellen and Portia have the dog? Did they do a home-study - which would have surely indicated previous attempts to adopt dogs, and the fact that cats are already in the house.?

2. Did Ellen actually have the dog neutered, or did she have to pay for the cost of the neutering as part of her "fee"? This makes a big difference because a legitimate rescue organization would have wanted that dog neutered before he was adopted. On the other hand, they may well have done so, and had Ellen pay as part of the adoption fees so she feels that she had the dog neutered. The semantics ARE important and I want to know who actually had that puppy spayed. 

3. Did the rescue organization even pretend to look at the hairdresser's family as a possible solution to the DOG's problem? I am concerned that they showed up at the family's home with a police officer - it certainly makes it seem that they had no intention of leaving the dog no matter what they might have found. I don't like inflexibility. I understand the need to have rules, but sensitive, caring people also need to be flexible and I would sure like to know more about the whole situation. 

Mostly I think it is too bad on almost every level. It doesn't look like anyone is going to be a winner - not Ellen, not the rescue organization, and not the family. I can only hope that the dog will eventually be OK.


----------



## Max & Rocky (May 20, 2004)

> <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">I am just know reading this thread after catching Ellen's show today. She is unfortunately still not being IMO COMPLETELY honest about this situation. I have been a fan of her show since it went on the air but I am really saddend by how she is handling this. She is reacting purely on an emotional level right now and trying to manipulate public symathy by using what the children are experiencing. She really needs to be educated on how good, responisble rescues work. I signed a contract for Jett when I adopted him and was also told that if for whatever reason I could not keep him, he would go back to the rescue. Personally, it is a relief to know that if something were to happen to me, I know Jett would be taken care of. I agree that it is unfortunate that sometimes the rules seem to be "unfair", yet anyone who has worked with the public knows that rules must be made and enforced to protect the innocent. Not everyone is a responsible person who looks at ALL sides of the situation and how do you say the rule applies to one person and not another? If someone were to take a case like this to court, precident would have already been set from not enforcing the rules in a previous situation.
> 
> Also, has anyone else noticed how many times Ellen has adopted a dog that did not work out and she found another home for? I know that this is at least the 2nd time. IMO, Ellen tends to make decisions on an emotional level. If she truly loves animals the way she says she does, and has their best interest at heart, then she needs to evaluate her past history with previous adoptions.
> 
> I would really like to educate her on why rescues have contracts and how they operate.</span>[/B]


I agree totally.


----------



## gatiger40 (Jun 7, 2007)

> NO ONE PERSON or ORGANIZATION has the insight, crystal ball, interview skills to predict the life of any adopter's
> (or a animals) life long out come. If they did they would be called GOD.
> 
> I believe all adoptions should be about education in pet owning rather than restrictions and regulations. Unfortunatly we see poor choices made all the time in humans and pets lifes. The only way to stop these bad choices is to educate with values and responsibility.
> ...



Great post!


----------



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

> QUOTE(Crystal&Zoe @ Oct 17 2007, 05:25 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=454539


<div class='quotemain'><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">That is really interesting Marj. I wonder, a few months ago Ellen showed everyone an EIGHT WEEK old Morkie (yeap...8 weeks-very very tiny) that she decided to get. This after a very emotional on again off again, (even returned him to the breeder once), 24 hour (yeap I said 24 hours) period. So again I'm wondering, does she still have him? How many cats and dogs does she have and how long has she had them? Is there a pattern of turnover here? My first thought was that she was acting on a purely emotional level after feeling personally responsible. Heck, can't blame her there. We all react on a purely emotional level when it is something that affects us personally. But after reading that link I do wonder. She does have PR people that are surely advising her on this situation. But that doesn't mean she is doing what they have advised. Hmmm....</span>


----------



## totallytotontuffy (May 16, 2007)

QUOTE(Thefab5 @ Oct 17 2007, 06:03 PM) 
NO ONE PERSON or ORGANIZATION has the insight, crystal ball, interview skills to predict the life of any adopter's 
(or a animals) life long out come. If they did they would be called GOD.

I believe all adoptions should be about education in pet owning rather than restrictions and regulations. Unfortunatly we see poor choices made all the time in humans and pets lifes. The only way to stop these bad choices is to educate with values and responsibility. 

The organitzation that denied Ellen's family the dog, chose to handel it in a way that caused harm to their own reputation. I believe if they would of handled this in a more sensitive and positive out come then there would be no Negitive repercussions. As they are experianceing right now. Again that mistake boils down to education on everyone part.

If the family had the dog right now we would not be having this debate and this rescuse would not be under fire for their actions.

The rescue put the needs of an dog over hurting the feelings of children. Now, that screwed up! Those poor children caught in the middle.......... 

Do any of you really think this family would be bad for this dog??????


msmagnolia

As previously posted (by me), I don't feel like there is enough info for anyone to make a judgement one way or the other. I would like to have more information and here are some questions that I would like the answers to:

3. Did the rescue organization even pretend to look at the hairdresser's family as a possible solution to the DOG's problem? I am concerned that they showed up at the family's home with a police officer - it certainly makes it seem that they had no intention of leaving the dog no matter what they might have found. I don't like inflexibility.

Did anyone watch Inside Edition today on ABC? There were two segments, one that portrayed the family's position and another that portrayed the owner of the rescue org.'s position. If you didn't see it, you can look up Inside Edition's website and view the video. The newscaster said that there was a 3 hour stand-off in the family's backyard until the *family* called the police. Maybe they felt that since "Ellen" gave them the dog, they didn't have to go through an adoption process or return the dog. We weren't there to know how anyone "acted" to cause the final outcome. 

Despite what snippets of interviews the show decided to air, we STILL do not know what actually happened. There have been a lot of valid points made both anti-rescue and pro-rescue. I don't feel that because you or someone you know have had a bad experience with a rescue org. that it should warrant a judgment being made against THIS rescue org. or this particular situation. I don't think that Ellen is a bad person, I believe her heart was in the right place but she made a mistake. I also believe that the hearts of all people involved in rescue are in the right place but they are human and make mistakes too. So who came first, the chicken or the egg?

I'm still withholding my judgment because I think there is a lot of "he said she said" going on, and somewhere therein lies the truth. I too have had a frustrating experience with a rescue org. but it doesn't negate my respect and admiration for all of the people who *volunteer* their efforts by saving so many dogs who otherwise would be euthanized and instead are vetted, groomed, fostered, loved, trained, and found forever homes. There is nothing easy about what they do. I think on a whole, they have done way more good and have had more success stories than not. Personally, I am thankful for their existence.


----------



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

> The rescue put the needs of an dog over hurting the feelings of children. Now, that screwed up! Those poor children caught in the middle..........
> 
> Do any of you really think this family would be bad for this dog??????[/B]


<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">Gee, I don't know. I haven't met them personally, or been to their home. But as far as the rescue putting the needs of the dog over hurting the feelings of children, well...isn't that their job? Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that this particular rescue handled the situatiion in an appropriate manner. I don't know all the details, just what has been put out there by only ONE side of the situation. Just please everyone, take a moment to consider what it is like to walk in the shoes of someone whose sole responsiblity it is to place one of these precious, innocent and helpless babies in the best possible home. They not only have the best interest of these furbabies at heart, but the prospective adoptive family. Can you imagine the heartache of realizing that your adoption is not working out and having to give them back? Or how it would affect a child that may cause an injury or death of a tiny pup because a child was too rough or accidently fell on it because they were just being a kid? The people that are responsible for placing these furbabies are also responsible to everyone who supports the rescue. I have heard heart wrenching stories of placements that went terribly wrong, and that person has to live with that knowledge for the rest of their life. I suspect it would make every one of us be a little more cautious in placements. So personally, I would rather leave the placements to someone who has had experience and knows what to look for, what to ask, and how to spot red flags rather than to someone who has a good heart, but no experience.

That being said, it is really just a heart wrenching situation for every person involved. And for that I am truly sorry.</span>


----------



## wooflife (Aug 8, 2007)

sorry double post.


----------



## wooflife (Aug 8, 2007)

I own a brussels griffon 

I honestly wonder why the organization would put this dog in Ellen's home if she has so many cats. Did they do a home a visit?!? Did they see how the dog got along with cats before they placed the animal!?!?

I know the dog was BG mix - but BG's chase the h#$% out of cats. I know I have a cat... and he get's chased a lot. Fortunatley he can take it and beats the dog up too. 

BG's are VERY high energy dogs. They are also VERY emotional and can have a lot of anxiety issues. They actually aren't great family dogs - because they tend to bond with 1 person more than any other and want very little to do with the rest of the family. So depending on the temperment of this particular dog, I would say he was probably misplaced from the start (MO) and that Ellen as much as we all love her needs stop adopting animals she can't take care of. 

I wish ALL CELEBRITYS WOULD STOP ADOPTING ANIMALS THEY CAN'T TAKE CARE OF! sorry for yelling they just make me mad..

Getting off my soapbox now.... 

Leslie


----------



## Furbabymom (Dec 17, 2004)

> As previously posted (by me), I don't feel like there is enough info for anyone to make a judgement one way or the other. I would like to have more information and here are some questions that I would like the answers to:
> 
> 1. Why did the rescue organization decide to let Ellen and Portia have the dog? Did they do a home-study - which would have surely indicated previous attempts to adopt dogs, and the fact that cats are already in the house.?
> 
> ...


I could not have said it any better than Susan did above since this was what I was going to ask next the questions that Susan just asked but she did it in a very tactful and well written post while mine wouldn't have been as wonderful and to the point. Thank you Susan. I wish Ellen would join in and answer our questions. She knows what contracts are and she broke it. I have a feeling she paid the rescue a fee to neuter the dog but we do not know all the facts. The rescue was wrong to let her adopt a dog if they would have done their homework due to all her cats and her prior poor adoption experiences from what I have been reading.


----------



## makettle29 (Nov 12, 2005)

> I own a brussels griffon
> 
> I honestly wonder why the organization would put this dog in Ellen's home if she has so many cats. Did they do a home a visit?!? Did they see how the dog got along with cats before they placed the animal!?!?
> 
> ...


I was wondering the same thing...if the initial placement wasn't .....hummmm, not the best. I saw the rescue gal on the news tonight and she's in a tough position, I feel bad for her, and even if the placement was not so great she has to stick to her guidlines to keep her rescue efforts focused the best she can. oh well... I also don't think that $$$$ spent on a dog (training etc.) means too much. There is no substitute for one on one bonding and consistent long term "pack leadership" at home.

mary anna


----------



## makettle29 (Nov 12, 2005)

p.s. you can't just hire somebody to some over and magically train your dog for you. The Owner has to do it, again and again and again, forever, if you want results.

mary anna herk and theena


----------



## 2maltese4me (May 8, 2006)

> As previously posted (by me), I don't feel like there is enough info for anyone to make a judgement one way or the other. I would like to have more information and here are some questions that I would like the answers to:
> 
> 1. Why did the rescue organization decide to let Ellen and Portia have the dog? Did they do a home-study - which would have surely indicated previous attempts to adopt dogs, and the fact that cats are already in the house.?
> 
> ...


Ellen said she had HER VET nuetered the dog and than she paid an extra fee for the vet to take the dog home with him that night, so the dog wouldn't be alone in the hospital.


----------



## thefab5 (Feb 1, 2007)

......If a dog and a child were found floating in a raging river, and only one could be saved..... Which one would you save and why?......... Do not answer that! I am only thought provoking. While I appreciate everyone's opinion....please do not misjudge my comments for personal attacks on anyone,,,,,again I am only calling it as I feel and adding to the discussion.

The Question is.......is the wellbeing of the child more important or the dogs? Human living beings in my book rank first. (don't get me wrong I am all for animal rights) The rescue most likely did more damage to the children than the dog would of ever experianced.....in a home with two parents and two preteen girls. 

I think this is really about someone from the rescue that is segued in their thinking....... After all, you do not have to have an education or a license with any type of training to open an rescue. Did you see the pictures of the home of the rescue lady, it looked like a filthy, junkie unkempt yard. A yard I would not want one of my rescues living in. 
Please do not misunderstand what I am saying most rescues are good, but not all are void of lack of good judgment or common sence....Just because they are a rescue or a non profit does not mean they are perfect, after all it is run by humans.

I too am sorry for all this sadness and hurt bestowed upon those two girls....... Blessing to all that are good to animals and care about the well being.....but we can not control everything in life.




> > index.php?act=findpost&pid=454567
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## precious paws (Jun 7, 2006)

> <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">Gee, I don't know. I haven't met them personally, or been to their home. But as far as the rescue putting the needs of the dog over hurting the feelings of children, well...isn't that their job? Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that this particular rescue handled the situatiion in an appropriate manner. I don't know all the details, just what has been put out there by only ONE side of the situation. Just please everyone, take a moment to consider what it is like to walk in the shoes of someone whose sole responsiblity it is to place one of these precious, innocent and helpless babies in the best possible home. They not only have the best interest of these furbabies at heart, but the prospective adoptive family. Can you imagine the heartache of realizing that your adoption is not working out and having to give them back? Or how it would affect a child that may cause an injury or death of a tiny pup because a child was too rough or accidently fell on it because they were just being a kid? The people that are responsible for placing these furbabies are also responsible to everyone who supports the rescue. I have heard heart wrenching stories of placements that went terribly wrong, and that person has to live with that knowledge for the rest of their life. I suspect it would make every one of us be a little more cautious in placements. So personally, I would rather leave the placements to someone who has had experience and knows what to look for, what to ask, and how to spot red flags rather than to someone who has a good heart, but no experience.
> 
> That being said, it is really just a heart wrenching situation for every person involved. And for that I am truly sorry.</span>[/B]


Thank you. :thumbsup:


----------



## totallytotontuffy (May 16, 2007)

> I am sorry Marj it's this rescue organization that is doing the harm to all other rescue organizations by taking the wrong approch about handling this mess. They could have worked out something between the 3 parties involved and nobody would have ever known something. On the contrary, I think Ellen did the right thing going public so everybody can learn from her own mistake.[/B]


A question for you. How do any of us know that something could have worked out between the 3 parties involved? None of us were there to know what occurred other than what was reported (which was that there was a 3 hour stand-off in the family's backyard until the family called the police to intercede). Wouldn't it stand to reason that something had to transpire during those 3 hours between the owner of the rescue, the family, and most likely Ellen via telephone? A lot of emotions and conjecture are flying around out here and again, none of us know what happened.


----------



## camfan (Oct 30, 2006)

> > index.php?act=findpost&pid=453969
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here's something to think about...11 year olds can take a formal babysitting course and get officially qualified to be babysitters. 11 year olds are legally allowed to stay in the house alone without a parent. But yet 11 is too young to have a dog in their house. Just something to think about (I'm staying out of any debates  )...


----------



## thefab5 (Feb 1, 2007)

> > index.php?act=findpost&pid=454517
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great point!


----------



## totallytotontuffy (May 16, 2007)

> > index.php?act=findpost&pid=454517
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where is it legal for an 11 year old to stay in the house alone without a parent? Is there a legal time limit? An hour, overnight, a week?
Is that a law in a specific State? I'm not asking to be confrontational but I've never heard of any laws setting forth age/staying home without a parent and I've never heard of being officially qualified to babysit.


----------



## Ladysmom (Oct 19, 2004)

> > index.php?act=findpost&pid=454495
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm a cable news junkie and of course it's been the big story tonight. The lawyer for Mutts and Moms was on a MSNBC Dan Abrams show. For the first time we are at least hearing the other side of the story.

Apparently, Ellen's PR person sent the rescue a letter threatening to sue and threatening to take the story to the media if the dog wasn't returned to the hairdresser's family. Obviously that's exactly what Ellen did.

Much has been made about the police being called and taking the dog. According to the attorney, it was the hairdresser's family who called the police, not the rescue group, and escalated the situation to a three hour standoff. Ellen's camp also called TMZ to film the whole thing. 

The microchip was still in the rescue's name which is why the police took the dog. I have adopted pets with microchips and the first thing you do is change the owners information. Why didn't Ellen or this new family bother to do that?

I honestly think there was some truth in the Washington Post article that suggested that Ellen was smart enough to realize that giving away a dog only ten days after she adopted it and breaking her agreement with the rescue group would get pretty negative publicity, so she decided to use the media to put her own spin on it.

The dog and the children are the innocent victims in all this.


----------



## Desiree (May 29, 2007)

I too feel bad for the children and the dog. According to the attorney for Mutts & Moms on Fox tonight the rescue asked the hairdresser's family to put in an application for the dog like anyone else would have to, and she refused. He also said the dog has already been placed in a new home. Sad this couldn't have been dealt with better and with more maturity. Hopefully everyone will at least learn something from this.

<div align="center">Desiree & Eros


----------



## Toby's Mom (May 7, 2004)

I have so many thoughts on all of this, but one that keeps coming to mind, is if this had been anyone other than a celebrity, no one would have heard a thing about this. The rescue would have had the RIGHT to take the dog back and that would have been the end of this. I don't understand how lawyers have gotten involved! According to the standard contract that I am assuming she signed, the rescue group has every right to do what they did.

It is so sad that Ellen, having the media power that she has, is able to twist what rescue groups do into something nasty.

While I agree that the children are probably unmistakably upset, the rescue group is there to protect the animals--someone has to!

I am also confused by this organizations placement to adopt the dog. I am wondering if they were a bit lax in the adoption process, hoping they could tout that they have given dogs forever homes with celebrities.


----------



## gatiger40 (Jun 7, 2007)

> I too feel bad for the children and the dog. According to the attorney for Mutts & Moms on Fox tonight the rescue asked the hairdresser's family to put in an application for the dog like anyone else would have to, and she refused. He also said the dog has already been placed in a new home. Sad this couldn't have been dealt with better and with more maturity. Hopefully everyone will at least learn something from this.
> 
> <div align="center">Desiree & Eros


[/B][/QUOTE]


Oh I think a lot of people will learn from this and I know just what most will learn.... I've learned quite a lot in the last few weeks no doubt about it....


----------



## Ladysmom (Oct 19, 2004)

> I have so many thoughts on all of this, but one that keeps coming to mind, is if this had been anyone other than a celebrity, no one would have heard a thing about this. The rescue would have had the RIGHT to take the dog back and that would have been the end of this. I don't understand how lawyers have gotten involved! According to the standard contract that I am assuming she signed, the rescue group has every right to do what they did.
> 
> It is so sad that Ellen, having the media power that she has, is able to twist what rescue groups do into something nasty.
> 
> ...


Very well said, Nicole.

I can't help but think if this was a newbie to SM who told us she'd just adopted a Maltese from a rescue, but the other pets in her household were having problems adjusting, that we'd tell her to give it time. 

If she came back in ten days and said she gave up on the dog already and gave the dog to her hairdresser instead of returning it to the rescue group as she was supposed to, I doubt we'd be as sympathetic to her as we are to Ellen.

I don't think Ellen was as dumb as she pretended to be when she said "apparently she'd signed a piece of paper" and didn't know she was supposed to return the dog to the rescue if it didn't work out. She's a smart lady who knows a lot about rescue. I really do think it was damage control on Ellen's part. By having a public meltdown on her show, she got sympathy rather than criticism for her actions.

Such a shame that a little dog and two children were caught in the middle.


----------



## camfan (Oct 30, 2006)

> > index.php?act=findpost&pid=454737
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here's something to think about...11 year olds can take a formal babysitting course and get officially qualified to be babysitters. 11 year olds are legally allowed to stay in the house alone without a parent. But yet 11 is too young to have a dog in their house. Just something to think about (I'm staying out of any debates  )...
[/B][/QUOTE]

Where is it legal for an 11 year old to stay in the house alone without a parent? Is there a legal time limit? An hour, overnight, a week?
Is that a law in a specific State? I'm not asking to be confrontational but I've never heard of any laws setting forth age/staying home without a parent and I've never heard of being officially qualified to babysit.
[/B][/QUOTE]

(edited) it's only Conn. and Ill that have legal laws about what age is appropriate to let a child stay alone in the house. Other states have recommendations. I'm almost certain that MA is 11 or 12. I'd have to find out for sure, but I'm not going to look into it further--I wasn't making a point about specific age I was making a point about when is a child old enough/not old enough for certain, very important responsibility. When an entire state thinks it's ok for an 11 year old to take their own life or the life of another child into their hands, then why isn't that enough to care for a dog.

And we all know adults can be just as careless with dogs as kids. I think I've stepped on Ollie's toes probably more often than my kids have.

As for babysitting...that's a discretionary decision made by adults of the 11 year old who are "old enough" to take a babysitting course. Some can handle it (babysitting), some are not ready yet. I have had an 11 yr old watch my girls--not for long periods or when I am out of town. 

No debating here. Besides, I don't think the main point of the whole Ellen thing is the ages of the kids, it's the contract violation...


----------



## 2maltese4me (May 8, 2006)

Have you all seen these videos. It sickens me that the rescue group had now adopted the dog out to a "different" family. What the hek is their point, I sure dont get it. It sounds like someone has some major control issues!!!!  

http://www.tmz.com/2007/10/17/ellen-portia...iggy-was-taken/


----------



## gatiger40 (Jun 7, 2007)

Thank you, it's not about Ellen and what she did wrong at this point. Yes, Ellen messed up and has tried to spin this after. That's not the point of this story. 

The point of this story is that because the rescue organzation woman's position was challened and she's in control of it by God, no one, but no one will tell her what she can do period. She would rather be in control and get her way than step back, look at this situation with this dog and decide what's right based on the best interest of the dog, not her own personal agenda. She's drawn a line in the sand and want's the world to know no one can make her change her mind. Wether it's right or wrong or some where in the middle doesn't matter, it's all about not giving up her postion of power at this point.


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

> Thank you, it's not about Ellen and what she did wrong at this point. Yes, Ellen messed up and has tried to spin this after. That's not the point of this story.
> 
> The point of this story is that because the rescue organzation woman's position was challened and she's in control of it by God, no one, but no one will tell her what she can do period. She would rather be in control and get her way than step back, look at this situation with this dog and decide what's right based on the best interest of the dog, not her own personal agenda. She's drawn a line in the sand and want's the world to know no one can make her change her mind. Wether it's right or wrong or some where in the middle doesn't matter, it's all about not giving up her postion of power at this point.[/B]



I don't see it that way. I see it as Ellen tried to beat the system by pulling the meltdown and using the children as levers. Ellen knew what she was signing. It's not a 50 page contract, for pity sake. I'm sure they even verbally said the dog is to be returned if it doesn't work out. Should they have done as Ellen requested and set a new precedent for rehoming pets? I don't think so. What would be the point of rescue groups then? We don't know that the home with
the children was the best place. We DO know Ellen surely didn't give it much time with this little dog, and that tells me something.


----------



## totallytotontuffy (May 16, 2007)

> Thank you, it's not about Ellen and what she did wrong at this point. Yes, Ellen messed up and has tried to spin this after. That's not the point of this story.
> 
> The point of this story is that because the rescue organzation woman's position was challened and she's in control of it by God, no one, but no one will tell her what she can do period. She would rather be in control and get her way than step back, look at this situation with this dog and decide what's right based on the best interest of the dog, not her own personal agenda. She's drawn a line in the sand and want's the world to know no one can make her change her mind. Wether it's right or wrong or some where in the middle doesn't matter, it's all about not giving up her postion of power at this point.[/B]


Wasn't TMZ the affiliate that Ellen's people called to film this and "spin" it? How can this NOT be about Ellen? I think a mistake was made allowing her to adopt Iggy in the first place. Why did the family refuse to fill out an application to adopt Iggy? Was it because Ellen is a television personality who thought she could push HER weight around? If we are talking about positions of power, doesn't it apply to the celebrities who think that they don't have to abide by the laws and/or rules that everyone else is required to? If the rescue org. wanted to exert their legal authority to remove Iggy from the famiy's home, all they had to do was go there with a police escort and take the dog. Instead they spent three hours with the family, and unfortunately the family thought they now owned Iggy because Ellen gave Iggy to them and I guess, since it was Ellen, they didn't have to abide by the rules either. 

If I, or someone I know, had a poor experience with a doctor, I think I would still be able to recognize that the entire medical profession should not be hung out to dry. I think I would be able to put my experience aside or the experience someone else told me from their point of view, and still be able to evaluate another doctor with objectivity rather than stand behind a pulpit and say that all doctors are bad. I think that it is disrespectful and a disservice to all of the unpaid volunteers who are involved with not for profit rescue organizations to continue in this vain.


----------



## gatiger40 (Jun 7, 2007)

No one will ever know if the kids home would be the right place because they were never given a chance based on the age of the kids. They were not allowed to even try to get qualified.

Both sides did things that were wrong no doubt!

The thing to do now is start over with someone not so closely tied to the current situation and reevaluate the whole issue. Just look into what might be best for the dog. It could be he isn't right for that family or it could be he's perfect. We will never know because too many ego's got in the way on BOTH sides.

Opinions are like belly buttons everyone has one and they are all different. I will bow out of this debate as me thinks anymore and I'll get into trouble. :blink:


----------



## MalteseJane (Nov 21, 2004)

Now it comes down to he said, she said. Attorneys are not exactly known for telling the truth. They will spin a story to their advantage the same way Ellen does. Some things have been troubling me from the beginning :
- A rescue group that gives out a dog without being neutered,
- A rescue group that has not done his home work. If they had they would never have given that particular dog to Ellen knowing she had cats. And if she already gave another rescue dog to somebody because it did not work out, that was a second reason not to give her the dog. 
- A rescue group that does not go over a contract verbally with the potential adopter. We assume they did, but we don't really know. Ellen admits she did not read it.

Then we have the adopter :
- who we all agree did not give the dog enough time. As I mentioned in my first post, I have trouble with the time frame. The dog was adopted on Sept. 20th. The family had him already for 2 weeks. That leaves barely a week to do the neutering and training to be nice to the cats. I also have trouble with the fact that a dog who has just been neutered could be so rambouctious, but I guess all depends on the dog.

Did anybody read the answers people wrote to the blog Marj mentioned ? I only read part of it because it's way too long. But the part I read is troubling. And is raising more questions about Mutts and Moms. Apparently they are Nation wide. People are talking that they put the dogs in cages like in a pound or shelter. One lady mentioned that Mutts and Moms took over their local pound and are now dictating who can and cannot adopt a dog. 
Anyway you look at it, this story has done a big disservice to all the rescue groups but in the same time is raising questions about the rules and regulations rescue groups put on people. Are those regulations good or bad ? It's good if you don't go overboard but bad if you don't use common sense. And it seems that common sense has been lost in many aspect of society today. 

That all thing cleared up one misconception I had. I new about the return policy but interpreted this to mean that instead of bringing the dog to a shelter I should bring it back to the rescue. But if I could find a new home I would be free to do that. Take an example : you suddenly get sick after having the dog for x amount of years and you cannot care for it anymore. You are giving the dog to a family member who loves the dog as much as you do. The rescue group learns about this and comes and takes the dog away from your family. Is that fair ? Is that in the best interest of the dog ? I don't think so. And if this is the meaning behind the return policy, I would not sign that contract and not take the dog. If this policy is enforceable, it means that the adoptive parents are never the full owner of the dog. It's a co-ownership.


----------



## thefab5 (Feb 1, 2007)

> Have you all seen these videos. It sickens me that the rescue group had now adopted the dog out to a "different" family. What the hek is their point, I sure dont get it. It sounds like someone has some major control issues!!!!
> 
> http://www.tmz.com/2007/10/17/ellen-portia...iggy-was-taken/[/B]


I agree!




> Thank you, it's not about Ellen and what she did wrong at this point. Yes, Ellen messed up and has tried to spin this after. That's not the point of this story.
> 
> The point of this story is that because the rescue organzation woman's position was challened and she's in control of it by God, no one, but no one will tell her what she can do period. She would rather be in control and get her way than step back, look at this situation with this dog and decide what's right based on the best interest of the dog, not her own personal agenda. She's drawn a line in the sand and want's the world to know no one can make her change her mind. Wether it's right or wrong or some where in the middle doesn't matter, it's all about not giving up her postion of power at this point.[/B]


On TMz they talked with a Lady that had adopted a small dog from the rescue and they came and took the dog back because she had walked the dog with out a leash. Six days later the dog was returned. Talk about controll issuses!


----------



## thefab5 (Feb 1, 2007)

Well said!!!!!!
FYI: the agreement was signed by Porta and not Ellen.



> Now it comes down to he said, she said. Attorneys are not exactly known for telling the truth. They will spin a story to their advantage the same way Ellen does. Some things have been troubling me from the beginning :
> - A rescue group that gives out a dog without being neutered,
> - A rescue group that has not done his home work. If they had they would never have given that particular dog to Ellen knowing she had cats. And if she already gave another rescue dog to somebody because it did not work out, that was a second reason not to give her the dog.
> - A rescue group that does not go over a contract verbally with the potential adopter. We assume they did, but we don't really know. Ellen admits she did not read it.
> ...


----------



## MandyMc65 (Jun 14, 2007)

I was listening to the radio this morning on my way into work and wanted to let you all know that the Rescue Organization is going to be on Bill O'Reilly tonight on Fox News Channel.

It could be interesting...


----------



## Bonnie's Mommie (Mar 2, 2006)

> I was listening to the radio this morning on my way into work and wanted to let you all know that the Rescue Organization is going to be on Bill O'Reilly tonight on Fox News Channel.
> 
> It could be interesting...[/B]


Billo? Oh geez. This really has become a circus.


----------



## MandyMc65 (Jun 14, 2007)

Here is the quote from foxnews.com/oreilly

"Thursday, October 18: 
• Ellen's Puppy Plea: As the Degeneres drama plays out on national TV the pet adoption agency tells their side of the story. Bill gets to the bottom of this dogfight..."

At least they will be able to get on TV and tell their side.


----------



## Ladysmom (Oct 19, 2004)

Thanks for the heads up! I hate Bill O so this should be interesting!


----------



## MalteseJane (Nov 21, 2004)

> > index.php?act=findpost&pid=455117
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree and if there is one I don't trust it's Bill O'Reilly and Fox News.


----------



## Maidto2Maltese (Oct 19, 2004)

> That all thing cleared up one misconception I had. I new about the return policy but interpreted this to mean that instead of bringing the dog to a shelter I should bring it back to the rescue. But if I could find a new home I would be free to do that. Take an example : you suddenly get sick after having the dog for x amount of years and you cannot care for it anymore. You are giving the dog to a family member who loves the dog as much as you do. The rescue group learns about this and comes and takes the dog away from your family. Is that fair ? Is that in the best interest of the dog ? I don't think so. And if this is the meaning behind the return policy, I would not sign that contract and not take the dog. If this policy is enforceable, it means that the adoptive parents are never the full owner of the dog. It's a co-ownership.[/B]



This is the first I've had a chance to post since my earlier coments regarding rescues, and have only 'skimmed' thru the others since I posted.
As I mentioned I do believe there are "some" people in "some" rescue organizations that don't always act in the best interest of the dog...or use common sense...but truly believe they are few and far between.
Though I signed the return aggreement.( which I agree with) .. I still believe, as I stated earlier, that the recsue organization and fostermoms I dealt with would STRONGLY lean to any recommendation of a family I would provide for Naddie should I have to give her up. Yes, they'd likely have to apply and go thru the process and I'm Ok with that. I feel anyne I would recomend would "pass" .
I truly feel they keep the best interest of the pooch in mind...first and foremost. For instance: the fenced yard...yes, ideally they would want that for Naddie. I told them I live on over an acre and no fenced yard...However, I also explained to them that I would never leave her or any little dog outside alone...fenced or not... the fence doesn't protect from hawks, or coyotes etc. so it simply wasn't enough of a safeguard in my opinon. If the dog is outside...someone is with them and they are 'tethered if not on a leash. The gal respected my viewpoint and it was not a deterrent to my application.
Also as stated... Naddie was returned to the rescue in a very short time after adoption.... without the contract these people could have easily put her 'anywhere...she had major problems and initially without time ( and lots of it) and patience( and lots of it) I think she could easily have gone from home to home or just plain "dumped". her potty issues were 'big-time" problem as was her separation anxiety.... not a lot of people would tolerate their house being chewed up and carpets "messed upon" for very long. I happened to know what I was getting into and I felt I could work with her. I know the returning family "knew" too but didn't have the patience to work with her. Without the contract I may not have gotten my little sweetheart!!!


----------



## Ladysmom (Oct 19, 2004)

I honestly think if this situation was handled differently is might have had a different outcome. I know people who work in rescue and have "bent" the rules about fenced in yards or the age of the children if everything else about the family was wonderful. Placements are usually made on a case by case basis based upon the best place for the dog.

I know Ellen thought she was helping by putting pressure on Mutts and Moms by taking it to the media, but I honestly think it backfired. If the hairdresser's family had simply returned the dog and filled out the application like they were asked to instead of staging a public standoff by calling the police and TMZ to film it, perhaps the rescue would have been more willing to consider the family.


----------



## MandyMc65 (Jun 14, 2007)

I listened to Bill O'Reilly last night, and it seems as though the rescue organization did ask the family to fill out an application, and they refused. I think that it was great they had the Rescue organization's side on the show.

Here is the link in case any one didn't see it and is interested in it.

O'Reilly

It seems like Iggy has been placed in a new home, and hopefully they will keep her forever and love her!


----------



## Furbabymom (Dec 17, 2004)

> I listened to Bill O'Reilly last night, and it seems as though the rescue organization did ask the family to fill out an application, and they refused. I think that it was great they had the Rescue organization's side on the show.
> 
> Here is the link in case any one didn't see it and is interested in it.
> 
> ...


Ellen and the family are wrong than to be fighting this when the family refuses to fill out an application. Little dogs do adopt to new loving homes and the little dog was not with the new family long enough to have a rough time adopting to a loving forever home that takes the time to complete applications with an application fee since they know this little rescue is worth it. I hope the new family has years of happiness with Iggy and he lovse his new family and is very well taken care of.


----------

