Vet P.O.V. Oh, Ellen, we love you but...just admit you're not the dog person you thought you were

October 21st, 2007  

Add Comment20 Comments

Thank you from the bottom of my heart. Ellen has done so much damage to rescue orgs everywhere, she should have thought her actions through. I mean, if I throw a hissy fit because I don't like something,no one except my collies will ever find out. When she does it on national TV, her fans will obviously side with her, and that just wasn't fair or kind to the dog rescue folks.

I have always been an Ellen fan, but I got one of my dogs from a collie rescue, and the contract was very detailed. I tried for a second collie from another rescue, and was deemed to be an unacceptable home. That really hurt, to be honest, but they had their own set of criteria (no children in the home) and even though I disagreed, I wouldn't have made a fuss because they were the ones who spent countless hours and their own dollars to run a very successful rescue group, and I admired that.

I'm so disappointed that Ellen hasn't been able to just apologize for her behaviour instead of continuing to demonize the rescue group. If one of my fouor year olds had behaved that way I'd have grounded them. Too bad no one can give Ellen a time out.

Cindy October 21st, 2007 10:49:00 AM

Here Here! I agree! Ellen may have been doing the right thing - it sure seemed to be the right thing to do. She just went about it the wrong way.

I think that the people at the rescue agency looked at her actions as if they were a way to get around the adoption selection process. Rescuers love those animals very much and when they allow someone to adopt one of their animals, they intend for the animal to be with THAT person. If THAT particular person turns around and gives the pet to someone else, the Rescue organization feels jilted, as if they themselves left the pet in a vulnerable position. Clearly, if they wanted to leave rescued animals in a vulnerable position, they would set a crate full of dogs on the side of the road and give them to whoever came by with a leash.

I think that Ellen should make a demure (not tearful) apology to the Rescue group, offer a sizeable donation towards their continued work, and feature their pets on her shows for a month or so. It's terrible that all of this good will went to waste because there was a misunderstanding between Ellen and the Recuers.

Wendy October 21st, 2007 10:49:00 AM

Does anyone know what happened to the French Bulldog that Ellen had/has? Where is that dog? Does she still have him/her, or did she give that one away too?

Tara October 21st, 2007 12:00:00 PM

The best scenario, IMHO, would have been for the rescue group to take the dog back as per the contract with Ellen.

Since the dog was acclimated to the hairdressers's home and family, I then would have screened them for an appropriate home if they wanted to pursue adoption on their own merit. If they passed fine, all concerned would have been happy.

Both parties over reacted. It could have has a much happier outcome without flooding the news - was this a publicity stunt?

Judy October 21st, 2007 12:54:00 PM

During Ellens 1st season, she also gave away a dog she rescued out of Oakland because it couldn't get along with her cats. Do we see a pattern here? I think she's great and love her work, but I think she crossed a line here.

I just rescued a dog....that makes 5 in our household now. The first weeks were horrid. But we stuck with it and two months later we have a peaceful happy pack. Everyone needs to do what they can do, but how do you make a decision in 2 weeks that it's not going to work and pawn the dog off on someone else?

Love your opinions, Patty. UR the best.

Kelly October 21st, 2007 01:00:00 PM

Ellen KNEW exactly what she was doing when she shed those crocodile tears on TV... and the fact that the show is taped makes it even more preplanned..
Using her celelbrity to try and force her way; bully the rescue; shame..

Did anyone notice the time line? Sept 20 Ellen adopted the dog.. had it two weeks.. then gave it away..How long was Iggy even in her home?

Rescue works so hard and here is Ellen, who 'didn't read the agreement.." I bet she reads every contract when it comes to her shows..Getting on TV to harass the rescue.. Ellen , you could not get your way, so like a spoiled child, you threw a tantrum..
Oh by the way,Ellen's Frenchie, comes from a Petshop...

anonymous October 21st, 2007 06:00:00 PM

Ellen should have fostered Iggy for a few weeks before taking full "custody". Before I officially adopted Tornado (cat) from the shelter, I fostered her for 2 weeks. Of course, during those two weeks, she was a perfect angel, nice and soft, obedient, loving. It wasn't until day #15 that she started to rip the furniture apart and jump on the counters. I guess you never know with a pet.

I still think Ellen had good intentions gone bad. Lets not forget that the media made a circus out of the whole Iggy issue as well. It wasn't just Ellen. If we didn't watch that stuff, they'd shut up and go away.

Wendy October 21st, 2007 06:11:00 PM

Judy, I read in a few places that the family was given an opportunity to do this but complained that the rescue's online adoption application was "too long". Can anyone confirm this?

Carissa October 21st, 2007 07:53:00 PM

Because this has been discussed to the 9th degree on a list I am on I know way to much about it.

For the record her girlfriend Portia was the one that signed the contract and said she understood the dog needed to go back to the group if it didn't work out. (According to the rescue person in the video I saw her in.) I don't know if there was a communication gap between her and Ellen when Ellen decided to give the dog away but something obviously went awry.

The rescue took the dog from the new home because it had two kids, ages 10 and 12, and their group doesn't adopt dogs into homes with children under 14.

I think BOTH sides screwed up but do NOT think any malice was involved. The idiots sending death threats did so on their own volition and are obviously crazy fanatics. No one in their right mind would act like that IMO.

Ellen has a show and she used it to plea her case but who is to say any of us would have done differently being that emotionally vested at that point. (because of the heartbroken kids) I'm sure she had no idea the firestorm it would spark. People make pleas on TV all the time.

Just because she has a better job and house doesn't make her smarter than the average person IMO. Hopefully BOTH sides learned a valuable lesson. Certainly the general public did about rescue groups and their rules.

I don't think it has damaged rescue because people thinking they are to strict and not adopting from them go elsewhere all the time. I would hope people are also smart enough to not take one rescues possible lack of commpassion (for the kids in that home in that case) to mean they would have all acted the same way.

I for one am sick to death of people and the judgemental hate they are spreading all because a celebrity screwed up. When you know better you do better. Let's hope some valuable lessons have been learned here and it gets resolved (somehow) soon.

Marie October 21st, 2007 07:54:00 PM

P.S.

If rehomeing a pet makes someone a horrible heartless person then I guess that makes me (and probably other readers here) one too. I always thought it was about the best home for ALL the animals involved.

Marie October 21st, 2007 08:23:00 PM

If anything good comes out of all this, it is all the dialog. Maybe it will help the general public get a better idea of what rescue is - and why we care so much about the animals we place. (I say "we" - I don't run a rescue but have volunteered with one for many years).

And maybe it will help rescues remember that you have to strike a balance between strict requirements and finding homes for the maximum number of animals. Adoption failures are always heartbreaking - but tightening up on the requirements so that "this never happens again" doesn't work.

Barb October 21st, 2007 09:44:00 PM

I have two cats adopted from two different rescue organizations. Both contracts stated that if, during the eintire lifetime of the cat, I can no longer give her a home, I promise to return her to the shelter. It's not an unusual provision by any means. Incidentally, during Jasmine's first ten days here, she pretty much just came out from behind the furniture to eat and use the litter box. It doesn't sound like the puppy had much time to adjust. Also, both organizations required everyone in the family to meet the animal before we brought her home, and both adults to read the contract. I'm a little surprised this organization didn't require the same thing.

Diane October 21st, 2007 10:43:00 PM

As much as I'm a fan of pound adoptions, "All American" mixes, bringing home strays, etc...I'd like to warn readers to be careful of rescue organizations too. My cocker-cavalier mix is a rescue dog that I adopted with the same kind of contract. I knew she'd been abandoned and living on the streets before they rescued her from an animal shelter. They mentioned some housebreaking issues which I was prepared to handle and I expected an adjustment period. What they didn't mention is that she had HORRIBLE separation anxiety which involved her screaming every time I left her sight (even to shower). Being a single, shifthopping, apartment dwelling gal this was not a good situation for me, her, or my neighbors. For better and worse, I've never given up on a pet before and I didn't make them take her back. Be sure to screen your rescue organization as carefully as they screen you.

Sarah October 21st, 2007 11:30:00 PM

I also think that both parties made very poor decisions. Ellen shouldn't have used her show as a soapbox, which created to hysteria and every single news outlet to carry it. I think she knows better and I hope that she at least has learned from the experience. This could have been handled completely differently, out of public, and it could have been a win/win for everyone involved. However, did this rescue do a home visit, did it research Ellen's past pets. If they had, there would have been some question to the other pets that people are claiming that she re-homed. Did it ask about other current pets in the home? Didn't Ellen adopt another dog from this exact organization days/weeks before Iggy and returned that dog as the same was an issue with the cats. If that is the case, shouldn't that have been a red flag to not adopt another dog? Or was the rescue of the mind that a celebrity doesn't need to have a home visit or go through the regular due process that is involved in adoption.

From what I read the rescue adoption asked the family to fill out their application, and they did so. The rescue then used the address the family listed to get to the family’s house (with the police) to take their "property" (Iggy) back. It appeared that they weren't going to perform a home check, they had already made their mind up and merely stated that they didn't adopt to families with kids under the age of 14. I have also read that there are examples of other families that this rescue has adopted to that have kids under 14. If this is a widely used "rule" with no flexibility, there would be many kids who wouldn't benefit from having the joy of a pet while growing up, myself included. I know I am a different (and better) person for having many, many pets while growing up. Where are families with children under 14 supposed to get their pets from? The shelter or is buying them from a store a better option for today’s family. While, I am pleased with the dialog; I don’t think that anyone has all the answers and I hope that everyone can just move on. I hope that every pet adopter reads their rescue contracts and that rescue orgs make a point of making their terms known and why they are in place.

I am tired of the media carrying meaningless stories and doing their fair share of creating the madness. I could care less about what irresponsible celebrity has bought their first puppy or yet another dog from a pet store and the paparazzi is there to capture it all on film. Why is this interesting, why is is this news? Why not an exposé on buying pets from pet stores, why are pets even available for sale in stores. Is the general public just lazy or think that having a “designer” dog somehow validates them, much like the newest LV or Fendi bag. Why not get the cold hard facts, the horrible photos of the sickly shape that these animals are in “if” they are lucky enough to be rescued from breeder auctions? Why not a story on the plethora of Amish puppy mills or the backyard breeders who only see $ signs? Why aren’t news stations talking about this bigger issue on the nightly news? Not news-worthy enough, not going to garner the market share they need? I guess if the masses keep reading, watching and buying it, they’ll continue to create and serve mediocrity and fluff stories, since that is apparently all the public can handle.

Sorry for the length...

DogWorks October 22nd, 2007 12:15:00 AM

I just want to know why she didn't have her cats meet the dog first? I had my first dog meet potential pup that I was thinking about - she didn't like the first one...but she loved the next dog! Point being, she broke a contract whether she was doing good or bad. She should be punished and be responsible and not go on tv crying about an incident like that. All it did was make her look stupid.

ashleigh October 22nd, 2007 08:23:00 AM

Two wrongs don't make a right. I can't see how Ellen's failure to meet the terms of a contract make it right for an agency to forcibly remove a dog who was by all accounts settled into a happy, healthy, stable situation. As others have pointed out, it's not as though she handed the dog over to Michael Vick. Clearly the lawyer, who appeared on Bill O'Reilley, was lying when he said the family refused to fill out adoption papers because HOW else did they know the address to go to? I have no sympathy for silly Ellen but I also have no sympathy for this particular agency, who has given rescue in general quite a black eye. Maybe what they did was out of anger and spite, maybe it was because the family balked at paying another adoption fee on top of the $600 which had already been paid? Who knows what really happened but the best interests of the dog seem to not have been Marina's chief concern! I know a lot of very wonderful rescue operations and feel that what they provide is a wonderful and often thankless service done out of love and concern for the pets they rescue. Unfortunately this particular rescue is not, in my opinion, deserving of any such praise or defense. It turned into a battle between two nut cases and the looser was the dog and the family who loved him and welcomed him into their home!

Anonymous October 23rd, 2007 02:16:00 AM

I thought I'd already commented on this, but I don't see it. Maybe it was deleted? If this one doesn't appear, than I'll guess it was deleted instead of something weird on my end.

I don't understand why agencies don't like dogs going to families with children under 14. I guess I could see it if there were children 5 and under, because they can get rough, but 14?? With so many pets needing homes, it seems silly to set such rules, unless there's a good reason I'm not aware of.

There, I hope that's ok to post.

Sherri October 23rd, 2007 03:45:00 PM

I'm not sure about the age 14 rule either. Maybe its because a lot of times the motivator to get a pet comes from the children. Agencies probably don't think that young children will keep the commitment.

Wendy October 23rd, 2007 04:33:00 PM

I saw Ellen's fit on her program after it aired and was particularly struck by the fact that the dog's interests didn't figure in at all. In fact, she talked about the dog like a thing, mostly mentioning how she spent a lot of money on him. Her concern for the furry creature involved was less than impressive. Her chief complaint was that she had made the kids unhappy and that's what she was upset about.

Nothing in this episode strikes me as qualifying Ellen as any kind of animal lover or even a just-okay home for any pet.

Seems to me the rescue's original error was in giving her the dog to begin with and given the lack of compassion she showed toward the dog, removing it from her and the family she gave it to seems like it might have been the best thing for the dog with the hope that they do a better job of placing him next time.

Natalie October 23rd, 2007 06:04:00 PM

I'm sorry, but I have a very REAL PROBLEM with Rescue Groups or breeders who may have had no contact with an animal for years believing they can better rehome an animal than I can - the person who knows and loves the animal. This is the reason I do not support most rescue groups - due to their fanaticism. Even human children who are adopted have no such provisions - once an animal is adopted it is part of the family and no longer the responsibility of the rescue agency or breeder and they should not be butting in. Of course, I have a disdain for anyone who thinks they should be butting into my and my pet's business. I am a responsible pet owner and have very

Now, the circumstances surrounding this are different, but it is something that has made me walk away from ever supporting the so-called rescue groups.

Pax,

MLO

MLO October 25th, 2007 02:06:00 AM

Add Commment

Your Name:

CAPTCHA Verification