Ellen's Dog
 

Source

So what do you think?

It is a rule that should probably be bent.

But DeGeneres's breakdown was pretty embarrassing to watch and is a huge over reaction (not so much her feeling really upset, but rather her doing it on public TV).

When I first saw it yesterday I expected that eventually it would end up with a dead dog being involved; not a custody dispute.

That's why I will never sign one of those contracts. I don't like encouraging people to let their animals reproduce, but both my cats came from people I knew and no contracts were involved. Some of the adoption contracts I've seen are outrageous.

WTF? I, of course, did not see Ellen's display of whatever emotion on TV ... but since I suspect the agency's staunch upholding of the contract was tied in to Ellen's celebrity (not to mention it being the only way it could have found out about the OMG transgretion of the century) ... it's only fair game that Ellen use her very bully pulpit to decry such a cold-hearted bureaucratic reaction, and hopefully force a reversal through public outcry and p.r. embarrassment.

Well, I mostly agree with Alex on this, though I can go either way in regards to whether the rules should be bent in this case - I would like to hear the rationale before making a final decision.

From what I understand, the agency (Mutts & Moms) will not adopt pets out to anyone under 14 or anyone who has kids under the age of 14 in the home.

That's right - you reminded me about that rule (which I had heard this morning). The hairdresser has a twelve-year-old and a thirteen-year-old. Now I am leaning towards bending the rules, but also support the adoption agency if they don't (due to precedence setting concerns).

Some rules at pet adoption agencies are so strict. When Ralphie and I were looking for a Corgi, we tried to go to a rescue. But they insisted on interviewing us, inspect our home and make unannounced visits to check on the welfare of the dog. So we said forget it....

There are some agencies who want you to have a set amount of money in the bank before you can adopt too.

I guess they feel the dogs are better in cages and kennels then in a home that doesn't have $5k in liquid savings and a huge yard.

Oh, and Iggy is a cool name for a dog.
:)

And what the FU<K is that about no kids under 14?!?!? Oh Em Gee, that's who pet dogs are for!!!!!

Yeah, kids can't take care of dogs by themselves, but they are the PRIME target audience for the pets. DoubleYou Tee Eff!?!?

Mistake on Ellen's part for not reading the contract (which she admitted to).

Power trip in general on the rescue group's part. Apparently the Sheriff's Department was called out to "repossess" the dog and the Sheriff had to pry the dog out of the the younger girls arms.

Everyone at that agency is going to Hell.

Oh yeah! No one is coming here for a home visit and basing my pet parent status on whether I have dirty dishes in the sink. I'm not opposed to some sort of reference check, but unannounced home visits? Not a chance. Talk to my vet and hear how many thousands of dollars I've already put toward Boris's care. He gets whatever he needs - no matter the cost. He gets special food and medications from the regular human pharmacy and his favorite treats and for pete's sake even eats off my plate and drinks out of my glass from time to time (meaning whenever he wants what I'm having.) And yet, I know I'd fail a home inspection.

Meanwhile, the human interest news here is full of stories about the shelter overflow crisis.

Here too.

And here the shelters are super uber picky about who they will adopt to as well. I would not qualify to adopt cats because I'm don't get home until late in the evening.

No problem with her using the bully pulpit. It was that she essentially melted down on her show, sobbing and talking about how it was impossible to go on pretending to be funny when things were going so horribly wrong, blah blah blah.

You can watch it here. The emotion is honest, but I wonder what she'll do when something truly horrible (rather than just a big pain in the ass) happens.

While I understand that adoption agencies don't want dogs to go to bad homes, I think this situation is a bit out of control. Dogs don't always work out. Usually they are returned to the adoption agency, but I can understand that Ellen figured she was doing the right thing by adopting out the dog herself to a good home. I certainly think the dog is better off with 2 kids in a good home than in a crate with no real "parents".

As for he under 14 rule, I think it is ridiculous. There are some breeds that don't mix well with children but, in my experience, the Brussels Griffon is not one of them. I have 2 that I currently watch and they are some of the most laid-back dogs. They also, although on the smaller size scale, are not incredibly fragile. The breed is actually on my own top 5 list based on my experiences with them.


I know quite a few of the local adoption people and there are a few who are real Nazi's about the adoption process - so much so that they discourage what could be really good placements.

Pulease, my dog, Pluto, eats better than me.

Chicken and rice and vegetables, most nights, with vitamin powder and flax seed oil for his coat thrown in. He eats better than most humans on the planet.

I admire an agency wanting to assure that dogs go to good homes, but the thought of one putting more nazi obedience effort into it that most child adoptions or foster care placements makes my dog-loving blood boil.

My mom has experienced this with some of the rescue groups she works with. Occasionally someone has asked my mom to take their dog for whatever reason, and she has often taken them on privately because she felt that the group she was fostering for was just a bit *too* strict on pet placement. However, she agrees with some of the rules, such as the one about not letting tiny dogs go to homes with small children.

Now, IMHO, 12 and 13 are big enough to deal. Perhaps the group had a rule against it, and I know MANY groups do have a stipulation in their contracts stating that if you give up the dog, you have to give it back to the group. This is to protect the dogs from being sent to the pound or being given to highly inappropriate homes.

In this case, I think the group could have insisted on reviewing the new owner's family and home, and perhaps could have granted an exception based upon that review, as well as get the new owner to sign a contract as if they had adopted the dog directly. Facing a reposession of the dog, the new owner would probably have complied. Then everybody would have been happy (if a bit inconvenienced).

This group could still save face by coming back and being willing to offer the above opportunity to the hairdresser, or by holding the dog till the younger child turns 13 and then granting a special exemption.

We could have a "who spoils their pet more" contest!

Never mind that the shelters think we're all loser rejects.

(Of course, right now Boris is complaining that I haven't turned on the heat yet this fall, and he would really like to sleep on the bathmat atop the furnace vent in the bathroom.)

Well, this is I think going too far. I understand Ellen did not read the contract (I probably would have in this case), but I also do not see that she did something so wrong that the dog needs to be repossesed. After all, kids N dogs, they go together like peanut butter & jelly and the fact that a sheriff came to get the dog, how traumatic for the kids. Sad all the way around, and sad for the dog, who was probably having the time of his life with all the attention.

I looked into getting a buddy for Tango when I moved back (lease prevents me) but still, in my investigations, even the SPCA was incredibly demanding with requirements for an adoptee parent. Sheesh, I could probably get an apartment easier. Like other LoTizens, Tango eats better than me most nights, she gets whatever she wants or needs and has her own bag of Trader Joe's shrimp in the freezer, with her name on it.

It's sad, I'm sorry the shelter people are getting threats, but I agree with Alex, I think in this case, the rules should be bent in favor of the dog and the family that grew to love him.

Jack airs his grievences to the neighbors nightly, but forgives us every morning.

I suppose these dogs are just held onto until a more desirable family comes along, and not put down? Damn well better be, if the agency is going to be so incredibly uptight about it. I think they'll wind up being very sorry they were such assholes about this. They make China's adoption rules look fairly liberal.:rolleyes:

From what I heard today (through the vast and efficient Long Beach pet gossip network ;)) is that it was Ellen's publicist who pissed off the adoption ladies. He apparently told them to go fu<k themselves and that brought out their claws.

Yes, it is forgiveness that causes him to wake us up at 5 am with kisses and demands for pets.

And, now he's taught Calliope his ploys of forgiveness.

Oh, so they took it out on two little children? And had the stupidity to (essentially) do it on popular national T.V.


I hope they get a better handle on their hackles in future.

Well, they're just people, people with flaws and emotions, like any of us.

A fine example of building a business relationship or service on either side. Muy bad of the publicist to be such a poo-hed and pretty reactionary of the rescue people. Heck, handled right, they could have appeared on Ellen's show in a forum that would have promoted their good works and found good homes for many dogs.

According to Keith Olbermann (is he ever any worse than when doing one of those segments where he is trying to feed straight lines to some comedian in something supposed to resemble news commentary) the agency has given the dog to a new home.

I'm so thankful we got our Lucy and Ethel from someone far better than any agency - and she's always welcome for "home inspection" visits :)

The agency people were just on whatever show follows Olbermann. They were pretty adamant that they tried to work with DeGeneres saying that she needed to bring the dog in and they'd go through the process to try and work with her and that DeGeneres's publicist essentially tried to browbeat them into ignoring their rules and the contract everybody signed.

Who knows. I'm fine with just assuming that everybody involved (including the puppy and the 12 year old) are pricks.

"It's not like Ellen gave the dog to Michael Vick!"

~ one of the assistants in my office.

lol
:D

Visible mojo to the assistant!

I trying to picture a couple of Brussels Griffons tearing each other apart. It's sort of wrong.

Get 'em, Monkey Boy!

They agency could have easily handled this differently - and still can - by just saying that they reconsidered their rule and decided to judge the situation on a case by case basis rather then an arbitrary hard and fast rule. They can show off their website which has the dogs there - and then Ellen will give her a bunch of pet toys and pet food and such and sha-dang-dang. The kids get their dog back and everyone is happy.

I heard on the radio this morning that they'd already adopted the dog out to someone else. So maybe that's not even possible anymore.

I was watching MSN last night and the anchor, Dan Abrams, was initially skeptical of Ellen and on the side of the agency. Then, their attorney spoke. By the end of the interview, Abrams had obviously lost any sympathy for the agency simply because of the attorney's confrontational and inflammatory attitude. The attorney came across as a litigious, ambulance-chasing blowhard trying mightily to turn this into something more than what it is, and Abrams eventually just cut him off. They might want to rethink going with this guy- he's just going to piss people off and wind up making the agency look even worse.