Ellen in the doghouse

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Chris Myers — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:30:38 GMT

the agency in question has missed the entire purpose of such organizations. If they are so worried, why don't they do an in home interview with the family before pulling him away from a family that obviously wants to care for him? That is the mission of such agencies. To place stray and unwanted animals. Hello......

re: Ellen in the doghouse

debra — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:43:48 GMT

the family should absolutley get the dog back...that is the whole point of these organizations, to find good homes for the animals!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Joanne from North Port — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:44:29 GMT

I would like to know the reasons why the 3% of the people in this poll voted no????
Thank you

re: Ellen in the doghouse

fran — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:44:35 GMT

So the owner of Mutts & Moms is taking care of her own feeling over the best thing for the dog. I think her license should be taken away. The reason for these shelters is to find good homes for animals. Ellen did that, she spent her own money on the dog and found it a loving home. Obviously this person from the shelter doesn't care that much for animals. Boycott Mutts & Moms!!! The law should take Mutts & Moms animals away because they are in danger being in her care.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Ron Dawson — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:44:53 GMT

I think it is rediculous that the rescue people are so obviously just having a power trip. They don't care about the dog or the children involved. They are just interested in rubbing Ellen's in it.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Tina Kingberg — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:47:04 GMT

I love the comment by the shelter owner "who is Ellen Degeneris to decide who gets a dog and who doesn't?" Well who is SHE? Just a well meaning dog lover? Ellen has a track record for adopting and providing excellent care for shelter pets. Additionally, the shelter owners DID approve Ellen so presumably in their opinions Ellen is qualified to do her best for a dog. I can't imagine what was deficient in the hairdresser's home, except perhaps a big name celeb. The children are not too small to appreciate waht a dog needs but are young enough to keep a lively pup happy.
As alluded to above, I think the shelter was delighted when a high profile Ellen adopted from them. Now that they can't claim that connection, they want their dog back. It's obvious they care nothing for the feelings of young girls but also that they care nothing for a pup tha thas been bonded to several people in its young life. How to ruin a nice dog in one easy lesson! It's disgusting.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

jeanette dunham — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:49:36 GMT

Just because Ellen is rich and famous does not give her the right to violate the policy of the rescue organization. She signed an agreement to return the dog if she couldn't keep it. She violated that agreement. Not only that, but the rescue agency does not give their animals to families with children under 14 years of age. I like Ellen. I watch her show occassionally. She is very entertaining. However, I am disappointed in the way she is using her popularity and media access to bully this rescue agency. The agency has the right to use their own discretion in regards to placing their animals.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Linda Dougoud — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:51:09 GMT

The owner now is taking this as a personal attack. She needs to step back and rethink her decision. The bottom line is the puppy has a good home. Ellen obviously cared about the puppy or she just would have given the puppy back to the
agency. Instead she knew the family and wanted a loving and caring family for the puppy. If I was the owner of that agency she should do the right thing for the puppy. Step back, shut up and do something right. There's always exceptions, and the agency needs to redo their policies for the sake of the puppies. Shame on this lady, sometimes you have to bend a little. No one is getting hurt except the puppy.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

kathy leduc — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:52:16 GMT

I think that if it were a regular person, and not a celebrity, there would be no issue. I think the rescue owner only sees dollar signs $$$$, and just by the tone and attitude of her statement on the news leads me to believe the only thing keeping her from doing the right thing is her unyielding pride, which is not in the best interest of the dog.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Bonnie — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:52:51 GMT

I do believe that this company is doing the wrong thing...isn't this about giving the dog to a loving family? I do believe that this company will end up going out of business on this one!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Sue G. Sarasota, Fl. — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:52:57 GMT

I Think the owner of Mutts and Mom's is epotomizing what cruelty not only to animals, but this poor family who was willing to give Iggy a loving home!!!!
I am outraged at the owner and her nasty attitude !!!!
I truly hope she gets to read the results of all polls on the internet and realizes what a mean spirited person she is.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

fran — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:53:27 GMT

Mutts & Moms has taken down it's website. So obviously they don't want to hear the reality of what they have done. Also, now the animals they have will stay in cages for a long time instead of being in a loving home.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

stacey cutting — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:53:33 GMT

I think that it is unfair for the family. those girls are well old enough to know how to treat a dog. There are so many un wanted animals out there and for ellen to resure this dog and spend money taking care of it she should be aloud to do as she wants with the dog regardless of what she signed. I would think that the owner of the shelter would be happy that the dog was in a good home and had family that wanted him. Instead she is being selfesh and not thinking of the dog and the dogs feelings. Why would she want to take it back and make it un happy by keeping it in a kennal with no one to love him. I really hope that it lays on her conscience and she decides to change her policy.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Nancy — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:54:53 GMT

What does that woman hold against children under 14? It was the greatest experience for my children to learn responsibility in adopting a puppy from our local SPCA here in Hernando County. Nothing can replace the bond between our dog and our children.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Jane — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:55:39 GMT

I agree with Chris Myers comment. It seems to me that this woman has seen an opportunity to make a finacial gain by dragging this out into a legal matter. Oh! of course with a very famous individual. Need I say more. Who's best interest is really at heart here? Every dog has it's day. No pun intended.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Josie Fieber — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:55:48 GMT

I feel, that if the dog is happy with the family and is loved, what's the big deal? Isn't that what they want when they put the dog up for adoption? How silly this is!!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Desi Spezza — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:02:22 GMT

The owner of Mutts and Moms is being extremely immature and perhaps insecure. I feel she is trying to use Ellen as some weird example(you know, like just because she is a celebrity....no special treatment.) Well, get over it lady, Ellen has done sooo much for the animal community. I think she is very experienced in caring for pets and also has good judgement. Please give this dog back to the family that wants to love and care for it. The rescue center owner is selfish and immature and certainly does not have the best interests of this dog at heart. sad.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Kathleen P — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:10:00 GMT

The owner of mutts and moms should be ashamed of herself. She obviously has major controlling issues and power problems.
Rescue people should have kind hearts she seems ice cold and mean. She should be investigated. Her license to care for animals should be revoked. And she should definitely seek some help. Give the dog to the family.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Gail (Tampa, Florida) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:14:15 GMT

Jeanette Dunham this is my opinion of you.........you have no morals to understanding the life of an orphaned animal. Do you know that a pet is the most loving, understanding, and compassionate animal to a human being. Ellen being rich and famous is not the ISSUE here. The ISSUE IS THE DOG. She violated the agreement...the same as a person violating parole, doesn't mean that they aren't given a chance to redeem themself. This dog was in a loving home and should not have to be removed. Turn the corner.....it must be Mutts and Mom's looking for the publicity, Ellen doesn't need it.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Jules Kirchain — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:24:40 GMT

I am outraged by the actions and attitude of “Moms and Mutts.” I have adopted animals from two other so called rescue agencies (one in California and one in Florida) only to find out how untruthful they are. No, it was not Moms and Mutts but, the prevailing attitude of the “rescue” agencies is to COLLECT as much MONEY as possible without regard to the animals. This first dog turned out to be vicious and was returned to the agency (I did not receive my adoption fee back). The second dog turned out to be very ill according to my veterinarian and was returned after only a few days. This time the adoption fee was refunded. Finally, I came to my senses and adopted a wonderful dog from my local SPCA. I totally support Ellen and sincerely hope the puppy is returned to its now rightful owners. I note with interest Moms and Mutts have taken down their web site. Only gutless cowards would run and hide from an outraged America.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Ken Benton — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:25:31 GMT

I think that the lady that has the adoption agency, should lose any contributions to her agency, whether it be state, Federal, or private.
I am sure that she could concentrate on all the other animals she has for adoption, this is nothing more than wanting exposure. What a low down thing to do to a couple of children that had fell in love with the dog, and I am sure the dog fell in love with them and the attention it was getting from them.
Shame on the Mutts org.
Let the public beware of dealing with such people.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Kathleen Barber — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:56:06 GMT

I work with a terrier rescue group here in Florida. The issue goes beyond Ellen and her pup. The problem stems from the lack of regulation and supervision of rescue groups nationwide. Adopted pets are often inadequately vetted and left unaltered. Many groups are now “rescuing” puppy mill pets and adopting them out for big bucks. YES. It is all about the money! NOT the dog! Licensing and regulating these groups followed by inspections and audits would help stop these "non-profits" from unscrupulous practices and get them back to rehoming pets with the best possible family.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

marge parry — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:15:07 GMT

Mutts and Moms should really be ashamed of themselves. Ellen did the right thing by giving the puppy to her hairdresser. My God, is that so terrible? Everyone that watches Ellen knows she absolutely loves animals and she would never give the dog to someone that would not love her.
What's wrong with these people at Mutts and Moms?? Obviously, they don't like Ellen and their throwing their weight around. Obviously they don't care if Iggy has a good home...SHAME ON THEM!!!!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Sandra Urban on Siesta Key — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:12:24 GMT

I cried right along with Ellen over Iggy's situation. The rescue place should be ashamed that they removed Iggy after knowing she( Ellen) had found a loving home for the dog. That's what the purpose of adoption isn't it? So she didn't read the fine line...some rules should be allowed to be bent depending on the circumstance. In this instance, the rescue place ripped the dog right away from little girls who had become attached and loved it in just a short time. I, being an animal lover too, can fall in love at first sight, so I know the heartache those girls must feel and even the confusion the dog must be going through. Enough is enough...give Iggy back!!!!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Bianca — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:20:21 GMT

I think that Mutts & Moms is going WAY over board with this whole situation. They are now trying to "prove a point" and stand stern by not giving Iggy back. What they dont take into consideration is that they are ruining a family's life by taking away a new member of their family. JUST GIVE IGGY BACK!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Patty Pascua — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:21:17 GMT

Would the rescue group have reacted differently if Ellen had called them first? I have a rescue dog and did sign papers stating I would call them should I have to find another home for her. I am surprised the rescue group would not take into consideration Ellen was not abandoning the animal, she found someone to care and love the dog.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Corin H. — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:21:17 GMT

Organizations like Muts and Moms are supposed to find good homes for the animals, Iggy was given to a good home, and they took him away. I think he would be happier at the hairdresser's house then he would be back at the kennel. Give Iggy back!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Joe — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:21:38 GMT

Get real give the dog to the girls do it now !!!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Haylee, Riverview — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:21:42 GMT

Yes; Ellen didn't follow the contract. But this is no longer about any contract.
This is all about the media. The owner is going to end up getting money, and "everyone will be happy".
Ellen loves animals and would NOT have given Iggy to this family if she and Portia did not trust the family.
The family deserves the dog, it shouldn't even be anything to think about.
A loving family or a shelter....It's quite obvious.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Rich — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:21:53 GMT

Ellen should actually read the agreements she signs, or at least have her attorney do so. Maybe the atty should do the signing for her. She obviously did the threatening for her!! And she certainly must not realize how stupid she looks in her weepy appeal to resolve the issue! Honor your agreements & quit crying about it!!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Debbe Smith — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:22:12 GMT

I really think the Dog should go back to the family. The Lady from the rescue I feel shouldn't have lied to the people about coming over to check out the place and then rip the dog from the little girls. I think was is sooooo Cold Hearted.
I feel this has gone far enough. Please give Iggy back to the little girls.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Dee — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:22:29 GMT

If the agency would actually care about the dogs, they would not have to go through this whole drama about it. When the lady from the agency said that the only reason that she is not giving the dog back now is because of the way she was treated by Ellen, well she is being selfish and just wants attention from the media. Instead of wasting everyones time, she needs to grow up and be mature about the situation; thinking about the "DOGS" and not how much she was offended.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Fred — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:22:50 GMT

The owner of "Mutts & Moms" obviously doesn't knbow why she is in the business she is in. Ellen, and everyone else, should go to their local SPCA. You can get an unwanted pet there with no strings attached.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Julie — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:23:05 GMT

Good luck Ellen! This lady and her company are being ridiculous. Give Iggy Back already!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Stella Smith — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:23:31 GMT

The owner has clearly showed that she is not taking the dogs best interest into account but rather using the dog as punishment for Ellens PR person voicing their opinion. Also, the owner didn't mention they FORGOT to put Ellens name on the chip.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Linda Brightman — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:23:53 GMT

What has this organization have against children under the age of 14 having a puppy and taking care of it. My children had many animals and Loved every moment they spent with the dog and cats. This organization is nothing but a scam. Ellen keep up the good work helping others.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Susan — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:24:05 GMT

I am not well and i have a 10 year old yourkie, and a year ago i got another pup, It just did not work out for me. But my 3 year old grandson just loves her and she loves him, she sleeps with him . We have taught him to be gentle with her and she just loves him. So please don't tell me a child has to be 14. I think this lady is nuts. She should not have the bussiness she has.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Dotti Kyler — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:24:21 GMT

Absolutely, Iggy should be given back to the family that was taking good care of him. They were a loving, caring family that wanted this dog. Isn't that what animal adoption is all about? I think this whole thing is a control issue on the part of the ASPCA's manager at that particular adoption center. She should be fired! She apparently does not have the dog's best interest at heart. It is better to return the dog to the family that loves him rather than throw the dog into another home. Ellen spent a lot of money on him and it showed she really had his health and care at heart. He surely must feel lost and that is not what adoption is all about. Give him back!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Darryl Mizer — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:24:38 GMT

By the news clip of Moms and Mutts owner is clearly more concerned about her own feelings rather than the children. What a shame.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Linda (Tampa, Fl) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:24:45 GMT

This has made me very angry. Give the dog back to the children ( and family) that LOVE it.
Ellen did the right thing.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Judy Roche' — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:25:07 GMT

What's this all about.....Control, control, control by the shop owner. How wonderful to be right & stick to what is in a piece of paper, come on lady get real. Two little girls are heart broken & the dog probably loved it there. It's all about what is best for the animal, you don't sound like an animal lover to me. Maybe it's all about making money all over again when you find someone else. GIVE THE DOG BACK!!!!!!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Linda — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:25:18 GMT

What the heck is this woman at mutts and moms thinking.....It sounds like she is taking a personal attack on Ellen...Why? Ellen has done nothing wrong here...Not only is she stopping this little puppy from being with a family that will love and nurtur him, but she is also stopping the rescue of the other animals in this shelter....This woman needs to grow up and think about what is best all around and NOT for her personally.....I truly do not get it.....All I can say is Ellen keep fighting, you are truly an inspiration to animal lovers all over....Linda

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Susan — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:25:24 GMT

Good luck Ellen, u deserve it for your kindness that u give to others, God will Bless you

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Kay Nowak — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:25:28 GMT

The hairdresser and family should be able to keep the dog. Mutts and Moms does not seem to be as interested in a good home for the dog as they are in the power they have over a celebrity such as Ellen.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Michelle Salgado — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:25:40 GMT

I agree that Ellen did violate the contract, but as an avid animal lover, she did not put that puppy in harms way. She found an excellent home for that puppy which is what the shelter was trying to do. Since Ellen wasn't supposed to take it upon herself to find it a new home, why can't the agency interview the family to make sure they agree on them being a good home for the puppy? The owner is just taking this personally and I wouldn't feel bad if she were to go out of business after this ordeal. She isn't doing what's right for the puppy...

re: Ellen in the doghouse

ellen viewer — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:25:52 GMT

Ellen owned Iggy and she should've be allowed to do what she wanted with it. The animal shelter doesn't even know if the hairdresser's family is bad or not so instead of just taking the dog they should have at least interviewed the family. I saw the owner of the shelter say that Ellen shouldn't tell her how to run her shelter but that's not what she's doing at all. She's telling them that her dog Iggy belongs with a family and she couldn't handle its energy, so she wanted to give it to a family she knew would take good care of it. The shelter should have been fine with the decision if they saw the family because that is the point of animal shelters.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Cheryl from Tampa — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:26:59 GMT

I run a nationwide animal rescue organization so I know where the owner of Mutts and Moms is coming from. While I can sympathize with her, I think she could make an exception in this case as long as the home checks out as a good home for the dog. Our contract also states that if the dog or cat doesn't work out, they must be returned to the foster home (our foster homes are just like yours--loving homes, not shelters!). Rules are made for a reason, but sometimes you have to consider the big picture and make the occasional exception, as I would have in this case, given the facts as they have been stated by both sides.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Emily — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:27:06 GMT

I think the organization, or more to the point, the owner of the organization is only thinking of herself and what others are saying to her. I try to see arguments from every angle and frankly I would have let them keep the dog if I were the owner! I feel bad for Iggy now, to be happy and then sudenly sent back must feel horable. Besides, dogs cant be given to familys with kids younger than 14, what the hell is that(sorry for the bad language) but thats stupid! some dogs are energectic and what are they going to do when there stuck with old people, run around in circles until they barf from being dizzy, no! I feel like the owner of the organization is completely selfish. And well, now she close to being publice enemy #1. It's just plan stupid if this is how kennls are going to be run in the future. Not even the Aspca are like that.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Mary — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:27:14 GMT

This is crazy. There are so many dogs, cats, etc. put down every single day of the year. Why not check out the adoptive family and let the dog go back and be loved by this wanting family. The pet rescue operation it came from needs to let the rules be broken just once.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Tom — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:27:26 GMT

Ellen signed a contract and broke it. End of story.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Cheri McPherson — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:27:32 GMT

I definately think the hair dresser should receive the puppy back. Ellen certainly would not have given the dog to her unless she had any doubts. Also, I have never heard of an dog rescue not letting people adopt dogs if their children are under the age of 14. Now toddlers I could see. Most people don't want to adopt dogs when their children are that old as soon the children will be off to college or getting jobs and the dog would be ignored. Why doesn't the adoption agency do an inspection of the home and see how the dog is settling into it's new home??? After seeing your newscast I do not think this rescue agency has the dog's best interest at heart.
our family is truly dog lover's and this just breaks our hearts that those 2 girls can not have their dog back. Thank you for putting the story out their as we missed that Ellen show that day. RETURN IGGY BACK!!!!!!!!!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

kate muhl — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:27:54 GMT

What an unbelievably sad thing it is that a family who obiously loves this puppy loses it because of one arrogant woman with a vendetta against Ellen. The whole point of a rescue service is to find good homes for the animals. DONE! Her attiude is horrid. The dog is better off back in a souless kennel????

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Diane — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:28:04 GMT

I'm confused, Ellen paid that much for the animal, I fell that's her pet. If she wants to give to two little girls the her right. Are going to be police by everything now and lose are rights? If they going to take back the animal, give back the money.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Angie Thomas — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:29:20 GMT

We have 2 dogs, both were adopted, one from an owner that travel, and one from an animal rescue organization. The primary goal for these organizations is to find good loving homes for the animals. When Ellen realized that the dog was too much for her she did the most responsible thing and that was to find a good loving home for the dog. Giving the dog her make up artist and her family was another way to keep track of the dog and to hear about her. I understand that these organizations have rules, but I think the owner of the group is being very harsh and it mostly has to do with who Ellen is. This is her 15 minutes of fame, how shallow; she is loosing sight of what her organization is supposed to do. The dog should absolutely go back to the family. Give Iggy back to those little girls.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Gail — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:30:48 GMT

If you listen to the interview with the woman from the adoption place, she clearly states why she is not giving the dog back: "I was not treated nicely by Ellens people" or something very close to that. When did it become about how she was treated. I thought professionally running a doggy adoption was all about how THE DOG would be treated! If the dog doesn't treat her nice... what's she going to do? Not give him back his food.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Kyle jeffries — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:31:01 GMT

Well im 14 so I willy dont understand why that family hade to give it back. I but you ellen was trick of the contract. I think that if that the girl that gave the dog to ellen that if she wont give back the dog to the outher famliy that ellen gave it to she stupind and hate full agents kids and happy famlies. I hope ellen and the famlie will somthing about this. because tacking a dog away from a haoopy famliy with kids and wont give it back is worg. If she was going to do thaat take a dog away from a happy famliy she shold not hade that websit up in the first place and she shold not start that besineys. And ellen is right this whole thing shold be about staying in a happy home not a cage or any thing else. oh by the way i cant spell that good

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Nikki — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:31:10 GMT

Mutts and Moms does NOT care about their animals and shouldn't even exist...they are not doing what is best for the animals in their care, obviously they have poor judgment and I would NEVER EVER do business with them. They should not have a business, they are fake!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Karen from Tampa — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:31:12 GMT

This is so wrong. The owner of the Mutts & Moms needs to get her ego out of the way and do the right thing and give the dog back to Ellen's friends. Otherwise, she should have her business shut down, since she is not looking out for the best interest of the dog. This is an outrage. The only thing that should be important to the owner is to make sure the dog has a good loving home, and it did with Ellen's friends. I think a full investigation should be done making someone sign a contract like Ellen did and how the owner of this animal shelter is abusing the dog by taking it away from the loving family and putting it back in a cage. She needs have her business license taken, she is so cruel and has a huge ego.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Lucy — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:31:40 GMT

I think the gal that owns Mutts & Moms is going to regret this decision she is making in the long run..Ellen took the dog in, cared for it, decided it was not going to be the dog for them, found it a good loving home, that is the human thing to do.

I wonder if Ellen had called Mutts and Moms , told her the situation, said, hey I will
give you a $1000, I have found this great home, will you just forfeit the fine print..
She prob would have taken it, and forgot the fine print.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Rosalie Fehling — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:32:12 GMT

Ellen was right, give the dog to the hairdressers children

Sincerely Rosalie

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Ginger — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:32:37 GMT

This agency is really gonna lose some business over this whole ordeal. I think they are looking at this the wrong way. All Ellen wanted to do was to make a families life a little brighter. If you listen to the message, she said that her hairdresser asked for the dog, not the kids nor did she offer the dog to the hair dresser. She is an avid supporter of animals. She would never place any animal in the wrong hands. The last thing this dog needs is to be bounced around to another home, it is already confused enough. These places always turn people away because they are so full all of the time and now a good thing is done and they go and take the animal back. I think it would be in this rescue's best interest to give the dog back and let this all settle or it could hurt thier adoptions in the future and that will only hurt more dogs.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Betty Timoldi — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:33:15 GMT

The woman/owner of the agency is clearly not caring about the dog.
Ellen may have broken her so called "agreement" with the agency but she acted very responsible, placing the dog with a loving family who wanted to care for the animal and give it a good home. I think this has become such a big media issue because Mutts & Moms saw an
opportunity to get some press and took advantage of Ellen's celebrity
status. The dog should go back to those little girls.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Sue Brasel — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:33:24 GMT

Anyone familiar with Ellen knows she cares very much for animals and would never let the puppy go to a home unless it would get loving care. The Moms for Mutts owner took the puppy because she could, not because it was the best thing for the dog. Perhaps she was disgruntled because she doesn't have fame and wanted some. Well, she's got it, but not the kind I would want.

Since she won't give the puppy back to the hairdresser and her family, hopefully the publicity will bring forth another person she can approve of.
What a power trip she is on !!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Dana — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:33:40 GMT

The agency/owner is not looking out in the best interest of the dog....if she was, she would be looking further into the family wanting to keep the dog. Instead, she is making it about Ellen by stating Ellen is the reason she isn't giving the dog to the couple with the two girls. Sometimes, you have to break your own rules in the best interest and welfare of the dog...let the poor thing go live with a family that has lots of love to give him!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Nikki — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:34:17 GMT

The said contract should never have existed! It is dumb for the Mutts people to even have such a thing if the animals are going to loving homes...they are not in it for the animals that is for sure, they shouldn't even be in business. THEY are wrong! Give the puppy back to the family and stop wasting everyones time and money!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

"G" — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:34:24 GMT

Mutts & Moms, are missing the point. Obviously, Ellen is a good judge and animals are a priority in her life. I feel the dog was stolen from the hairdressers house and should be returned. Since when do you pay for something, then to have someone come to your home under false pretenses and take it. It is called "theft."

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Renee Sinrod — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:35:20 GMT

It's so simple. When the agemcy that gave the dog to Ellen found that she had given the dog away, all they had to do was to visit the home of the people who had it and discuss it with them instead of going there under false pretenses or insist that Ellen take the dog back into her custody and then tell them what her intentions were. This looks like a case of tit for tat going very wrong and the only ones to suffer are the children and the dog.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Robin — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:36:52 GMT

I am a dog lover and I hope someone who has a puppy would give one to this family. Shame on Mutts and Mom's owner for taking Iggy away from them. My family have always had dogs , even since my daughter was born. I feel dogs are good for all ages. Plus I feel this agency should remburse Ellen the $3000.00 she spent on the dog.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Karen (Tampa, FL) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:36:54 GMT

The owner of Mutts and Moms has taken this situation as a challenge to go up against Ellen, I think for the power she thinks she has. She should be shut down, she is not thinking of the dog or family. Give Iggy back!!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

pat farrell — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:38:11 GMT

that woman from mutts&moms has no heart & needs to be put out of business.it is only right for the dog to go back to the good home Ellen had found.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Tamara — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:38:24 GMT

I was very sorry to hear about Iggy’s situation. However, I was even more distressed about the rescue organization’s failure to make their policy crystal clear before the contract was signed.

Most people are aware that by law pets are considered to be property. It is reasonable then for people to believe that when adopting a pet, as when buying one, they become the pet’s “owner.” A rescue organization which by contract retains primary “ownership” of the pet should emphasize the contract language and make a point to confirm that the potential adoptive owner understands the arrangement, the reasons behind it, and the actions they should take if the adoption does not work out.

Upon discovering that Iggy was no longer living with Ellen, the rescue organization should have acknowledged their failure to confirm her understanding of her contractual obligation. They should have made arrangements to assess the appropriateness of her placement of Iggy without removing him from his new family. If she had understood and followed the procedures for a transfer placement, I’m sure the new family would have been deemed suitable and Iggy would be living happily ever after with them. (I don't buy the this rescue group's assertion that they adopt only to families with children 14 y/o or older.)

The “return policy” is beneficial for both the pet and the adoptive owner. It should, however, be fully disclosed and discussed before the contract is signed. The rescue organization, if not legally, is ethically at fault. They should make this right immediately.

When I adopted my Jesse from IMPS, a nationwide Miniature Pinscher rescue group, I was informed, and reminded several times, before signing the contract that Jesse was not “my” dog. In fact, his microchip was registered with IMPS as the owner. If the adoption did not work out or if I was no longer able to care of him (or no longer around), Jesse should be returned to an IMPS foster home to find a new loving family. I find it comforting to know that if something happens to me, he will be taken care of regardless of his health or age.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Kristy Cook — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:38:52 GMT

Their rules not to give a puppy to a family with kids under 14 is absurd. Kids in their teens are usually more cruel & aggressive than younger kids. I've witnessed many households (as a pet sitter in my community) with young children who love their puppies & kittens. I think Mutts & Moms are just being completely spiteful & mean. Aren't exceptions ever made in these cases, come on just do what is right!!!!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Kim Lord — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:39:05 GMT

I feel the agency is not taking in the consideration of the animal in question. The agency is more bent on keeping with a written policy. Ellens actions were not criminal and she should not be treated as such. She probably should have handled it all differently, however she should not be hung out to dry for giving the dog up to a loving home. I agree with Chris Myers when he said the agency should be happy that the dog did go to a good home. The money hungry agency should release the dog to the hairdresser and stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Dianne — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:41:32 GMT

Mutts & Moms is the side of this issue who handled the whole thing wrong. There was no need to threaten anyone with attorneys or send out the police. She has now apparently decided that SHE is going to be "RIGHT" no matter how good a home that family has provided for the little puppy.

It could have been handled in a much more appropriate manner for everyone. Why couldn't they do a home check on the family? Get references? Let the new family fill out an adoption form?
But NO she'd rather be spiteful, and vendictive at the cost of the little puppy getting back with his new family.
Who died and made HER God. Why is HER way the only RIGHT way to do anything? Her rules should be flexible as long as the animals get placed with loving, caring people. Isn't THAT the whole idea of rescuing..... to make sure animals are placed in LOVING homes not taken away out of spite and vengence????

re: Ellen in the doghouse

jerri (Tampa FL) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:41:53 GMT

Let's hope that the owners of the rescue facility will never be in a situation where they have failed to read all the pages and pages of fine print and they will become victims of someone who refuses to bend the rules for the good of all concerned. Rules are bent ...it's done all the time as we all know. It's what life is all about. What a hideous case of bad judgement . Where else could she have had such an unbelievable amount of good publicity and become a national heroine just by being a kind and compassionate person ? Instead, it's the old "it's all about me..." Time to step up and do the right thing.....give Iggy back.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Kristy Myers — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:42:12 GMT

I think both Ellen and the rescue shelter could have handled the situatin in a more mature and private way, however the rescue shelter owner is acting very childish by simply refusing to give the dog back without even any consideration of the family. Mutts and Moms needs to stop throwing a pity party for themselves and do both the dog and family right.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

msventura — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:42:47 GMT

The bottom line of the rescue organization is to place animals in a good and stable home and above all a pet loving home. I think that Ellen's caring and loving manner for animals speaks volumes of her judgment. Most rules can be amended and this one is one of them.
"PLEASE MUTTS AND MOMS, DON'T LET THIS BE ABOUT A POWER STRUGGLE" IGGY WAS IN A LOVING AND CARING ENVIRONMENT, IS THAT NOT WHAT YOU ULTIMATELY WANT?

For shame, for shame, Lady don't forget what your organization stands for.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

kathy — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:44:57 GMT

iam a very much of a animal lover and i feel that ellan did what she felt was the best thing for the animal. and besides it is a rescue place big deal ellan did a good thing. yes she brock the rules but the rescue place is for finding homes for the animals. i feel the rescure people is just looking for money . and all the rescue place all they had to do was have the new people come in and sigh paper work. so yes i vote for ellan. and ellan was not for money like the rescue people.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

BJ — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:45:03 GMT

What is wrong with those rescue people? Having Iggy put in a loving home with people that will love him and take care of him. If that's not a rescue, I don't know what is. A piece of paper should not determine the welfare of this precious little puppy. Come on rescue people, give the little puppy back to the girls and make them all happy. The puppy certainly will be better off and much happier with a family of his own, than being in a crate at a rescue shelter. I admire Ellen for showing her feelings and I pray that all of this will come to a good end, and with a happy puppy and family. God bless you Ellen.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Bill From Bradenton — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:45:36 GMT

She is doing it for spite because of all the negative publicity . The real concern should be about the dog . A childs age should not be a factor .

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Lori Ward — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:45:36 GMT

I am totally outraged. As a dog lover, I cannot fathom a plausible excuse for Mutts and Moms to take Iggy back. The owner said herself she did it because she did not like the way she was treated by Ellen. They (the owners) obviously have lost sight of the reason they started their organization of rescuing and finding loving homes for dogs. They have robbed a family and created nothing but heartbreak for both Ellen’s hairdresser and family and Iggy. I completely believe, although, I don’t have all the details, that the reasoning for taking the dog back is for monetary and publicity gains. Forget the paperwork, unless the dog was being abused, it should be null and void because Ellen had found an alternative solution and placed Iggy with a family that she trusts. The life of this sweet puppy is at stake. Mutts and Moms are treating Iggy like valuable PROPERTY. This dog is a family member and they took him from an obviously good, loving home. All for what purpose? Isn’t the whole purpose of their organization to find loving homes for their rescued animals?? This is wrong on so many levels. Also, the way Mutts and Moms took him was very sneaky thus proving Mutts and Moms have ulterior motives. They do not have Iggy’s best interest at heart but their own greedy ones instead. Mutts and Moms don’t have one single humanitarian reason to take Iggy back so they turn to some paperwork and “red tape” that was probably created for people who adopt and then abuse and neglect dogs. That paperwork was not created for people like Ellen who loves animals and would never harm a flea. I feel confident that she would not employ anyone who doesn’t have similar values.

---Outraged and Angry in Sarasota

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Katie — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:46:42 GMT

I have worked with rescue groups , and for the most part, they are excellentThey take in the worst of the worst. Most not for profit no kill groups have that clause in it, regarding the return of the dog or cat if it is not a suitable home. Typically the adoptive family goes through reference checks,including vet ,groomerand family friends. If the vet check comes back that the adoptive family is not up to date on vaccines on any existing animals in the house hold they are given an oppurtunity to bring the pet up to date.At that time the application is review and if all checks out , they find the right dog for that family. There are situations where someone will adopt a pet and move it along to someone else who is not an appropriate home for the animal.For example, they may not be able to afford the expenses of the pet , l or the animal may have special needs and the person it is passed to is not prepared for that experience. To top it off, there are people how are animal horders, there are people who collect animals for sale to research labs.So just because, everyone likes Ellen, don't be so quick to judge the rescue groups, they clean up alot of messes unprepared, animal owners create !

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Mary Lou — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:47:12 GMT

I think Mutts & Moms is wrong. They should give the dog back to the loving family Ellen found for him. They should be ashamed of their actions and their policy of not letting children under 14 adopt puppies. Children learn alot from taking care of and loving pets.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Doreen from Lake Placid — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:52:45 GMT

I think Ellen was doing the right thing. She gave the dog to a good family. They became very close to the dog and love the dog very much. I can't believe that lady from Mutts and Moms. I know the rescue places are great, but Ellen gave the dog to a good family and one she knew very well.
I think they need to give Iggy back to Ellen's hairdresser family.
I am on your side Ellen!!!
Ya did a good job!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Marc Dodson — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:54:05 GMT

If the agency has policies that Ellen agreed to and broke then the agency must be consistant and not break policy just because Ellen is famous and can complain about the pet adoption agency on national tv. From what I've heard there was the policy about returning a pet you cannot keep and pets do not go to homes with children under 14. Since both of these were broken if the agency goes back on their policy for Ellen then they would have to break policy for any Joe who wants a dog or hear that they give special treatment to the famous, and aren't we all sick and tired of that?

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Beverly Wilson — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:54:19 GMT

Even Petfinder.com has a Statement page:
http://www.petfinder.com/statement.html ( Check it out )
regarding the issue of "Iggy" and adoption policies.
Mutts and Moms has pulled their pages from the official Petfinder.Com site.
This has certainly brought national attention to two points of view.
I want the children to get their puppy back - plain and simple!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

jeff powell — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:55:27 GMT

when you get a dog from a rescue, most likely you have to sign a contract when you get the dog. that states if it does not workout with the dog, you are to return the dog.and they will refund your money. i know when i got my dog, that is what transpired.i think the rescue has handled this wrong, but so as Ellen.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Melissa — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:56:39 GMT

I'd like to know what legal rights this woman had to enter somebody's home and remove this puppy. Isn't a warrant required for that? I hope Ellen's lawyers look into the unorthodox methods used by Mutts and Moms and presses charges for trespassing and stealing a little puppy from the arms of a child.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Emily(again) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:58:15 GMT

I'm sorry but I just had to post again. I agree with most of you, the family should get the dog back. I mean, I'm 13, and I got a dog when I was in 4rth grade. And it's a toy breed, as in it's not even a foot tall. I just dont understand why some one would try to be so horibale to the dog and family.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

francine — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:58:39 GMT

I REALLY CANNOT BELIEVE THEY TOOK THE LITTLE DOG BACK, KNOWING ELLEN IS JUST THE MOST FUN AND LOVING PERSON, SHE WAS JUST HELPING THE DOG AND THE FAMILY OUT BY GIVING IT TO PEOPLE THAT CARED, BUT INSTEAD THEY WOULD RATHER SEE IT IN A CAGE WITH NO LOVE. I AM OUTRAGED.....HOW BADLY WRONG THIS IS?OOD LUCK TO THE PUP. WHY DIDNT THEY JUST GO CHECK OUT THE FAMILY????

re: Ellen in the doghouse

James Pitcher — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:00:40 GMT

I agree on Ellen giving the dog to her hair stylist children, as long as the dog was giving a proper home, and for the people who rescue dogs,they should not have a say in this matter, the dog was paid for. Mutts and Moms said they screen the people before giving the dogs away and the dogs should not be given to children younger than 14, because they do not know how to care for a dog, well, I believe Ellen is older than 14 and what happen? Just give the poor little dog to those children. Those children and the dog are the only one getting hurt in this situation.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Bob — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:01:34 GMT

1. Ellen signed a contract with the rescue organization to return the puppy if she couldn't keep it. I signed he same contract when I adopted an animal from the Humane Society of Tampa Bay. They want to be sure that the animal is in a suitable home. Ellen made a mistake by not contacting the organization about transferring the puppy. Now she blames everyone else! As a celebrity in showbusiness, she must understand contracts. Her whole industry runs on contracts and fine print.

2. The rescue organization has a standing rule against adoptions to households with children less than 14 years. The puppy was removed when they found it in a home with not one but two children under the minimum age. This in compliance with the contract that Ellen signed.

Typical of politicians and celebrities, when you are caught doing the wrong thing - raise a big fuss about being "Wronged" and blame everyone else. It's even worse in the case of TV talk celebs.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Carol — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:02:00 GMT

Wow! Has the organization out there lost their collective minds. Ellen is a very good person and loves animals and supports the different humane organizations all the time. I'm sure Ellen just didn't think and forgot the agreement she signed. They should let her apologize to them and then interview the family. Those kids sure didn't look like abusive kids to me. A lesson when you adopt an animal call the chip company and get the chip in your own name and phone number this is what I was advised to do when I adopted a pet. I was told by people working there that on several occasions when lost pets were turned in the owners were never contacted.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Tony Loprinzi — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:03:28 GMT

Hi, I am tring to get some more info on the Doctor that would like to pass a patiation for a 1.25% tax for home owners but I can not get same one to give me information on how to get in toughe with this person. My e-mail is tonyloprinzi@AOL.com thak you for your help. PS. I can not find an thing on your web page to help me.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Skippy — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:04:28 GMT

There was an agreement that Ellen would not give the dog away, although she did. Ususally when a dog is given away once, it is given away over and over again due to obvious issues. Ellen should have taken the dog on a "trial" basis as she knew she had other animals in the home to consider.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Jerri Pererson, — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:04:33 GMT

According to Ellen, Mutts&Mons were supposed to add Ellens name to the chip .. sounds to me the organzation did not follow through with their part of the contract either ... Did they see the home they took the dog from .. did they see how much the girls loved Iggy? Doesn't that count ... The owner is making this bigger than it needs to be ... some people love that 15 minutes of fame ...

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Chris — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:09:17 GMT

From what Ellen said on her show it sounded like she did not even read what she was signing. That is her fault. Also, I cannot believe she went on tv to talk about this, and even had her lawyer leave a threatening message on the owner of the adoption agencies voice mail. Rules are there for a reason, this should teach people to read what they sign.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Elizabeth — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:13:06 GMT

This is great PR for Ellen, it's all over the news, read what you sign and follow rules and there wouldn't be a problem.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Lisa D — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:15:40 GMT

Skippy I agree with you. It seems to me the decisions are being made my Ellen's cats and not Ellen or the Rescue Center. I say "BLAME THOSE DARN CATS". Heck, what was wrong with the cats? Perhaps Ellen should have spent the $3K rehab dollars on the cats and not the dog? Why was the dog given away and not the cats? That's what I want to know.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Bob — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:20:50 GMT

What is wrong with Florida's educational system? Read the comment posted earlier that I copied and pasted below. Maybe, the pet adoption agency is right and 14yr old kids and younger should not have dogs.

Kyle jeffries said:
Well im 14 so I willy dont understand why that family hade to give it back. I but you ellen was trick of the contract. I think that if that the girl that gave the dog to ellen that if she wont give back the dog to the outher famliy that ellen gave it to she stupind and hate full agents kids and happy famlies. I hope ellen and the famlie will somthing about this. because tacking a dog away from a haoopy famliy with kids and wont give it back is worg. If she was going to do thaat take a dog away from a happy famliy she shold not hade that websit up in the first place and she shold not start that besineys. And ellen is right this whole thing shold be about staying in a happy home not a cage or any thing else. oh by the way i cant spell that good
October 17, 2007 4:31 PM

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Chuck Opheim — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:22:05 GMT

I am waiting for the civil lawsuit for entering a private property under false pretenses. Its all documented according to what I have seen in the news. The police showed up and had to let the owner of the dog leave the premises. I am sure some lawyer type is going to go nuts over this one. And why do you think I say that?....just look at the OJ situation where he went and took his PROPERTY back....why isnt this MNM person in jail for ROBBING these people of their dog!!!!!...OJ would have already been in jail the day the police showed up if this was his dog he was trying to get back....

ok ok ok...im going nuts....lol..but you get the idea.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Nancy — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:31:43 GMT

In a country where you can go on line and see how many dogs are being killed because of over crowding they should be happy that she found a good home for the dog. I went on the net and their is a site that tells you which dogs will be next and how many days will be left for them to live. They are just doing this to be on the TV and because it is Ellen. Give the dog back to the children. Make sure they have a good home for the dog if you have to. please don't deprive a dog of a good home.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

mercy crouse — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:38:16 GMT

In reality this is a very sad story...yes, it's true ELLEN MADE A MISTAKE..!

We should focus now in how do we fix this mistake...?for the sake of the children and for that poor puppy that can understand what's happening?

...but let's be realistic...the job of the agency it's to place recued animals in good homes..!
It looks to me that Ellen said she was sorry! It doesn't look to me that the Agency is looking for the best interest of this poor animal at this moment.

All rules could be analized and given the proper treatment ...it' s not just white and black that's why we have the gray areas to study them. It's not anymore just who's right and who's not... just who's the person that's going to be fair in the situation.

As an animal lover with 3 dogs of my own and one cat I would like to be able to tell the Agency that there are not just hurting the animal with their decision they're also hurting the children feelings.

When I lost my husband 2 years ago the dogs reacted the same as me...we grieved for his lost and even do that it was very dificult to keep them and for my to let them adapt that it was me the one to be the pack of the leader, I considered first the emotional reaction of them.

After two years I appreciated my dogs and love them more than ever and I can not understand all the fuss for one poor animal that he already was aclimated to this family enviroment.

I would recommend to the agency to watch some of the Humane Society Videos and then realize that at least this dog has a good change perhaps it would not be that lucky with the next family...

If they want another I AM SORRY..! here it goes...

I am so sorry... that this unfortunate incident happened and yes, she should ask the agency first. The agency it's right she did have a contract with them but we have all make mistakes in our lives, let's leave the pride behind and return the poor puppy back to the children..!

My name is mercy martin-crouse, my telephone # is 813 962-3044 and I do not care if you do send this letter to the agency and let them see my letter too. I would love to be able to talk with a supervisor in that agency. it breakes my heart to think about those kids and it does make me very sad to think about that poor puppy faith..!

POOR ANIMAL...POOR CHILDREN...! IT'S TIME TO STOP..!

Try to please understand that animals does have feelings too and this dog already had a connection with this 2 girls, that they can provide for the dog. Who's right and who's wrong it's that important anymore or the children's feelings are important at all???
I't time to stop two wrong does not make one right..!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Petfinder.com — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:38:35 GMT

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.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

mercy crouse — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:02:49 GMT

re: Ellen in the doghouse

mercy crouse — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:06:19 GMT

In reality this is a very sad story...yes, it's true ELLEN MADE A MISTAKE..!
My e-mail address nicholascrouse@gmail.com
We should focus now in how do we fix this mistake...?for the sake of the children and for that poor puppy that can understand what's happening?

...but let's be realistic...the job of the agency it's to place recued animals in good homes..!
It looks to me that Ellen said she was sorry! It doesn't look to me that the Agency is looking for the best interest of this poor animal at this moment.

All rules could be analized and given the proper treatment ...it' s not just white and black that's why we have the gray areas to study them. It's not anymore just who's right and who's not... just who's the person that's going to be fair in the situation.

As an animal lover with 3 dogs of my own and one cat I would like to be able to tell the Agency that there are not just hurting the animal with their decision they're also hurting the children feelings.

When I lost my husband 2 years ago the dogs reacted the same as me...we grieved for his lost and even do that it was very dificult to keep them and for my to let them adapt that it was me the one to be the pack of the leader, I considered first the emotional reaction of them.

After two years I appreciated my dogs and love them more than ever and I can not understand all the fuss for one poor animal that he already was aclimated to this family enviroment.

I would recommend to the agency to watch some of the Humane Society Videos and then realize that at least this dog has a good change perhaps it would not be that lucky with the next family...

If they want another I AM SORRY..! here it goes...

I am so sorry... that this unfortunate incident happened and yes, she should ask the agency first. The agency it's right she did have a contract with them but we have all make mistakes in our lives, let's leave the pride behind and return the poor puppy back to the children..!

My name is mercy martin-crouse, my telephone # is 813 962-3044 and I do not care if you do send this letter to the agency and let them see my letter too. I would love to be able to talk with a supervisor in that agency. it breakes my heart to think about those kids and it does make me very sad to think about that poor puppy faith..!

POOR ANIMAL...POOR CHILDREN...! IT'S TIME TO STOP..!

Try to please understand that animals does have feelings too and this dog already had a connection with this 2 girls, that they can provide for the dog. Who's right and who's wrong it's that important anymore or the children's feelings are important at all???
I't time to stop two wrong does not make one right..!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Shirley D — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:38:37 GMT

Now, I kind of understand where both sides are coming from. I wasn't in the room when Ellen signed the contract, but I would like to play optimist and say that she was not aware of the condition of the contract. Not that it makes it ok, but how many of us actually take the time to read the fine print, and how many of us just say "I agree to such and such terms". I'm sure most of us fall under the second one. And the agency's best interest, theoretically, is for the dog to be placed in a good and loving home. And the return clause is to prevent the dog from falling through the cracks and ending up in an abusive home or landing in a high kill shelter and on death row. I understand all this.

However, what I don't understand are the following. Why did she take a dog out of a home where he was obviously loved, thus defeting the purpous, and refuse to give the dog back under any circumstances? Yeah, they may have ended up with the dog in a way that may be concidered "illegal", but the dog was loved, and as far as anyone has said so far, was being cared for. And they may have children under 14, but so what? Many, many children's lives have been enhanced by a dog's furry presence. Clearly these two little girl's lives were enhanced. Why should they be denied what so many other children enjoy? I understand how some children may not be old enough to understand the needs of another animal. Some kids try to poke dogs in the eyes (their stuffed dog's eyes are plastic), pull the ears or the tails or fur, but don't most kids start to understand that around age 7 or so that the dog has feelings? And besides, at this time in children's lives, the parents should be the primary caretaker of thd dog anyways, if that is a worry of the agency.

The agency has said that it is not Ellen's place to question her policy (and thus, not OUR place), and she's right. It's her agency, and she can write up any rules she wants, even if they are wrong. She most certainly has the right to deny children the right to a puppy (from her) because of their age, and strip families of their dog because she herself didn't adopt this puppy out to them.

In my mind, this is how it should have gone (from the point where Ellen gave away the dog). Mutts and Moms, in accordance with their contract agreement, would have retrieved the dog, but held the puppy long enough to let the current family put in an application and go about adopting the puppy the right way. And the girl's age wouldn't be a factor. (I personally probably would put the age limit at about 7, where hopefully kids know that the dog's eyes aren't made of plastic and that fur hurts when pulled) Then, after a home inspection and all that other legal jargon, the puppy would be returned to the loving home it came from. That's how I think it SHOULD have gone.

Oh, and one more thing I just don't get . . .I'm sure they had some kind of profile on Iggy and had to know that Iggy didn't get on well with cats . . .seeing as a lot of people have cats and if I had an agency, I'd check to see how a dog did when around cats. This person clearly didn't, or she wouldn't have adopted him out to a home with cats in the first place. So figure this. Lady, who claims to have the dogs best interests at heart, adopts a puppy out to a home with cats that the pup doesn't get along with, but then strips the puppy away from two little girls who he loves. If you forget the stupid contract for two seconds, does that make any sense at all?

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Vicki — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:44:03 GMT

As other's have said here, the whole purpose of the shelter's outcome is to find a home for pets. It's just a media thing for Ms. Jeanette.......She doesn't know what she has done to herself now by trying to slam Ellen. God knows Ellen was doing the right thing so she thought and found a very loving home for Iggy. What some links Jeanette will go to for media coverage is insulting. She should have any funding taken from her and she definately needs to find a new career.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Lucy — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 02:24:33 GMT

This is tooo bizzare...if you adopt a baby, go to court, it is all finalized, you are not told, if this doesn't work out, we want the baby back..

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Laura Edwards — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 03:11:00 GMT

I think it is ridiculous. People here who are saying Ellen should have read the contract and that the company is right are not thinking about the dog at all. Ellen admits she did wrong, NOW has an attorney to try to get this dog OUT OF THE SHELTER (HELLO????) and she feels horrible. Maybe she should have lied and said she has the dog. If the agency is so stringent about their rules and that they are supposed to be there to help out abandoned animals, then tell her she screwed up then see if the home is suitable. Of course saying a dog should not be in a home with children under 14 is just completely, utterly and ridiculously absurd and limits the number of animals they can save and put into warm, loving homes. No matter what the rules are, so what, what's done is done and for the love of God, put that poor dog back into the loving arms of people who want to take care of him and stop this needless suffering. That poor dog is back in a shelter. How stupid is that and how stupid can people actually be? I had more faith in people than that. The bottom line of what should now happen is nothing more than common sense.

WAKE UP!!!!!!!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Fran, Bradenton, Florida — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 05:28:40 GMT

Ellen did the right thing, it's the owner that's heartless.Every kid should have a cat or dog . Give IGGY back!!!!
( Love you Ellen )

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Lucy — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:18:09 GMT

Just on news, that the dog has already been found a new home, Ellen prob can't do much about it...what a shame!!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Charlie — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:16:35 GMT

Ellen disobeyed mthe law and violated the contract she signed with the shelter, when you adopt an dot or cat or some other pet from a shelter, you sign a contract stating if itdon't work out you will return it, not give it to someone else no matter how good or bad the other people are. Case closed

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Beverly - Clearwater — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:19:22 GMT

It would appear that Mutts and Moms do not adhere to their own "mission statement"

MISSION: "Mutts and Moms is a non-profit rescue that goes into high-kill shelter to save mixed breed and mama dogs from certain death. We are an all-volunteer organization and receive no funding except for donations from private individuals. The dogs are kept in foster homes until a forever home can be found. The dogs are given medical attention, love and of course all our pets are altered, vaccinated and microchipped." www.muttsandmoms.org

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Mary Reilly — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:54:37 GMT

As much as Ellen does for this country and its causes, and as generous as she is, she more than deserves to give her dog (didn't she pay for it???) to those little girls. Mutts and Moms should give the dog back

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Lucy — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:49:02 GMT

I love Ellen and her show, but actually I don't think she should have put her private business on national television for support from her admirers...there are many nice people out here, and if a non celebrity person didn't read the fine print, and had this happen, it would not be all over the news. The dog is in a new home, prob not nearly as concerned about this as the humans...Worry about something important, like abandoned or neglected children, people losing their homes over Ins, taxes, etc.
We can all find something to focus on, let a dead dog subject die..no pun intended

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Liz DiRocco from Sun City Center — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:28:09 GMT

When will the madness end?
The owner of the pet adoption agency is just letting this go on for the notoriety and the publicity. It is so obvious that she certainly has not put the needs of the puppy first. What a shame. Ellens love of animals is obvious and the pet agencys owners love of keeping her name in the news is just as obvious. Such a selfish person.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Beverly - Clearwater FL — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:37:40 GMT

Petfinder.com responded to my e-mail. (Note last paragraph re: reaching out for resolution.)

Thank you for visiting Petfinder.com. Petfinder.com's mission is to ensure that everyone has a positive adoption experience and all adoptable pets find a home. We are a searchable database of over 260,000 adoptable pets posted by over 11,000 animal shelters, humane societies and rescue organizations. We do not dictate policies to the various organizations, but do work hard to help them provide the best customer service possible.
While we are not familiar with the complete details of the situation between the rescue organization Mutts and Mom and Ms. DeGeneres, so we are reaching out to that organization to see if we can assist in a resolution.
Thank you for taking the time to write and share your concerns.
Cary

Cary Moran
Public Relations Coordinator
Cary@Petfinder.com
http://www.petfinder.com
Adopt a Homeless Pet!
Do you have a web site? Want to add dynamic content to your site and show off your commitment to pet adoption? Please check out our Featured Pet Module and our Pet List Scroller: http://www.petfinder.com/getwidgets.html
So that I can better assist you, please include original correspondence in your replies. Thank you!

wilsonclrwtr@aol.com
10/17/2007 07:15 AM
To pets@petfinder.com
cc
Subject Mutts and Moms

Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
(wilsonclrwtr@aol.com) on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 07:15:31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

shelterID: Florida

message: Mutts and Moms lists your site as a link , but they are not there. Their own site has no dogs available, I find this interesting in lieu of recent scandel.

Submit: Submit

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

re: Ellen in the doghouse

pat — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:46:43 GMT

hello, I think Ellen is right, this is out of hand...I understand rescue centers are in the profession of finding a good home for these pets. and I understand about small
print. and maybe they didn't think it was the right thing to do by giving the dog to some-one else. But if this pet is indeed being taken care of, and receiving love like a member of the family, what more do you want for him??? I also have pets, and I realize that everyone is emotional about the family, but what about the emotions of the pet, do you really think thats healthy, to keep placing him in a home, and then removing him???sounds alot like foster care for pets, this dog needs a permanate loving and happy home..pets also become very attached to their owners, as well as the owners being attached to them..Is this the only dog they have to place, if so go to the local shelters, they need enormous amounts of help there..

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Sam — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:51:46 GMT

Should Ellen Degeneres get the dog back. Aboslutely not. She signed a contract stating that she agreed to abide by the conditions of said contract. She should have thought about several factors before purchasing the dog. Let her abide by the rules just like the rest of us blue collar working class citizens. So what if you live in Hollywood or where ever ..laws are laws. Period!!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Carol Howard — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:55:35 GMT

The owner of Mutts and Moms should have her license revoked. Her reason for not giving the dog back to the children had absolutly NOTHING to do with the dog's well being, as her words were to the effect "I will not return the dog after the way Ellen treated me". This not only shows immaturity on her part, but it shows no concern whatsoever for the dog. Did she even TRY to access the dogs new living situation, and check out the new family as she had Ellen? It was all done for spite, and she should not be allowed in the care of animals ever again.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

John — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:58:03 GMT

Seens strange a new home was found in less then a day. Sounds like spite to me.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Lucy — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:34:23 GMT

Well, you get what you give...Ellen acted out when what she did wasen't accepted, and the owner stuck by her guns...what do you want, the owner to back down because of who she is dealing with?? how many times do we see stuff with celebrities, they get by with, but if it was us, no way..take a moment and think about what celebrities get by with, come on folks, its a dog....and I am an animal lover...I wouldn't back down, if I believe in what I am doing, for nobody.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Carol — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:47:10 GMT

YES, YES, YES!!! Iggy should be given back to the people of whom Ellen had choosen. Ellen paid all that money plus vet cost and everything, the company had NO right doing what they did. The pup should stay with the hair stylest and her children because it is very visible that the dog and the family had bonded in their 2 weeks time together. Are the people within the adoption this cruel or is it because this so called company just wants more MONEY, and another good question is how many other people have they taken the animals away from? Just so they can get more money out of someone else. This company to me sounds like a scam, do they have any more complaints about other animals and what about the better buss. bur. Do they even have a lic. for what they do? They are a sucky company who don't care about the animals just the green backs they get..!!!!!!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

dana — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:29:47 GMT

It is just amazing how quick people are to vilify the Mutts & Mom woman, and all but declare Ellen a saint. I think there are definitely two sides to this situation, and it is not so cut and dried as other commentators have made it out to be. I think both parties started out with good intentions, but things turned awry and both went overboard with their reactions. On one hand, rescue groups have these kinds of contracts in place for a reason -- it is to protect the animals, and make sure they are going to a home that was agreed upon. Great care is made to place the animal just in the right home, and for one who is given the privilege of housing a rescue to turn around a few weeks later and just give it away to some other home is not right. While I do not doubt that Ellen first made sure that Iggy was going to a good home, who can say that other people would be just as conscientious. Just because a pet is adopted by a nice celebrity, doesn't mean that she should automatically be exempted from any requirements/agreements/rules. On the other hand, however, I think the Mutts and Mom could have resolved this problem more civilly. She could have reassessed the situation, review Ellen's friends, see if they can be good adoptive parents, and issue them the contract. Or she could have explained why she was doing what she was doing, and I'm sure Ellen, being usually reasonable, may have understood. The bullying tactics from both sides is not productive, and obviously neither one is coming out of this happy.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

David — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:06:52 GMT

I agree with the majority of the people on this site, Isn't the objective of a shelter to place animals in good homes?!? I really think what happened in this case is a travesty and the local authorities should be involved as opposed to the media. It is apparent the Mutts & Moms is a "for profit" enterprise. It realy is sad that the dog had to pay the price because of a greedy, power hungry entrepeneur! She really isn't much better than Michael Vick!

re: Ellen in the doghouse

laurie martin — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:56:53 GMT

mutts and moms should do an adoption application for the hairdresser family in question and if they pass on an equal grading scale then let them keep the dog, if they don't remove it to a family that does. they are acting like they are in junior high (mutts and moms)

two things in life you can contral

attitude and effort

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Jack — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:15:48 GMT

My wife & I have just adopted a Black Lab from a Lab Rescue group. We signed a contract with the group with the same clause in it that we would return the animal to the group if for any reason we decided to get rid of the dog. Before they would let us have a dog, they came out to our house and looked at the conditions where the dog would live. We don’t consider this an “invasion of our privacy” but it shows us that the Group really cares about dogs.
Our dog, “Rookie”, was given to the Group by a City Animal Control Shelter. This is who does away with an animal if it is not adopted in some given length of time, NOT the Rescue Group. Rookie had heart worm when he was given to the Group and over a 3 mo. time period was nursed back to health before the Group put him up for adoption.
The Rescue Groups in general are doing a great job and should be recognized for this.
Ellen DeGeneres is the one responsible for this whole mess and should apologize to the Rescue Group. I think she has already apologized to the family.
My wife & I watch GMA every morning if we are in town and love Dianne & Robin. However, I think they really slanted the news in this case. We would like to see them put the Rescue Group on their show so that they could give their side. I think a lot of people have pre-judged them.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Chloe — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:13:20 GMT

I used to watch Ellen most days, but I will not watch the Ellen show anymore. I lost a lot of respect for her after hearing her bullying techniques she used to try and get what she wanted. If a normal person broke the contract, and the legally binding agreement it represents, nobody would back up the normal person. They probably wouldn't be so unreasonable as to get a lawyer to call the adoption agency and leave the threatening message that Ellen's lawyer left. And, going on her television show to complain and cry to her viewers was just wrong. Ellen has abused her celebrity and as of last week I am not watching her show ever again, it's sad to, because I really enjoyed the show.

re: Ellen in the doghouse

Larry — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:41:25 GMT

Ellen should be fired and the dog not given back to the hairdesser.