home

Free Ellen DeGeneres From the Doghouse

I only found out about this today because I was going to do a segment on Dan Abrams show tonight about Rush Limbaugh (story below)and they canceled at the last minute because they are going to cover the Ellen DeGeneres meltdown instead. You can watch the video at the link.

I'm totally supporting Ellen.

In a nutshell: Ellen got a dog from a rescue mission. She paid $3,000 to have it neutered and go through training to make sure it would get along with her cats. The cats and dog didn't get along. Ellen gave the dog to her hairdresser who does her hair daily for the show and who has two young daughters. The kids bonded with the dog.

But Ellen didn't read the fine print of her contract with the rescue mission which said if she doesn't keep the dog it goes back to them. When they called to check on the dog, Ellen told them the truth. The rescue mission went and repossessed the dog. Ellen breaks down on the show saying it's all her fault and pleads with the company to return the dog to the kids.

More...

Why am I supporting Ellen? Because she's sad and a sad Ellen is not the Ellen I want to see. I want to see her laughing and dancing. (Ok, I don't really watch Ellen's show, it's on in the afternoon here, but I read that somewhere else and that's my image of her as well.) And because it's better for the dogs to be with the family it bonded with than a rescue agency.

Tell Mutts and Moms, the volunteer nonprofit organization in Pasadena, to give the dog back to the little girls. So, how can you do that? Their website is now down, their phone is unlisted.

Craig's List has their contact info.

Why didn't they just interview the family and have them fill out paperwork right then and there so the dog could stay with the family who was caring for the dog and had fallen in love with it? Why did they snatch the dog from two girls who had bonded with the dog (and with whom the dog had bonded)? This is a case of employees "going by policy" instead of MAKING THE EFFORT to work out the best solution for all parties involved! This is not the behavior of an organization that cares about animals first and foremost! They have disrupted the dog's life and the family's life instead of working to create a harmonious solution.

Mutts and Moms MUST issue an apology for its rash and thoughtless actions and return the dog to the family it loves and who loves it!

Free Ellen from the doghouse.

< Rush Limbaugh Admits Telling Reporter He'd Go After His Private Life | Fundraising With the Stars >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I can understand both sides of the issue (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:43:44 AM EST
    on this one.

    First off, if the hairdresser's kids bonded with the dog, let's try to get them the dog back.  It seems only right.

    But, now from the perspective of the rescue organization.  

    They're run almost exclusively by volunteers and out of their own pockets.  These folks do it for the love of the animals.  A prime motivation is to prevent suffering and provide homes for perfectly-good and loving animals which would ordinarily be destroyed because the people who bought them either didn't know what they were getting into (e.g., the kids liked "101 Dalmatians", so they wanted and got a Dalmatian, not appreciating those dogs are bred to run alongside coaches upward of 50 miles a day every day and go destructively nuts without that exercise) or didn't bother to find out or had to give the animal up for a wholly-human reason (like divorce, death in the family, moving).  And, they want to avoid the animals winding up being sold for laboratory fodder.

    I've gotten two dogs - setters - from rescue.  Both times, the rescue was run by the local "chapter" of the AKC-recognized breed organization.  They made me fill out the questionnaire and, initially, had some doubts about my ability to keep a dog of the breed because I didn't have a fenced-yard (living in a city as I do).  The upshot of that was my being "guided" to adopt the sweetheart of a dog who was over 10 y/o when she came into rescue (and didn't need quite as much exercise or room).  They wanted to see how I handled the dog.  They wanted to meet me and see how the dog and I got along.  And then there were vet bills and all the rest that goes with an older dog.  But, they understood I and the dog got along well.  That I did, in fact, have enough room for the dog.  That she would be well cared-for.  Etcetera.

    After that dog came down with cancer and had to be put down, a couple months went by and the rescue called me, with the possibility of adopting another dog - which had gone through two or three trial adoptions which did not work at all.  (I think she ate the cat in one of them.  Cats are prey to her.)  And I adopted that dog, who lies snoring at (or on) my feet while I write many of the comments that appear here.

    To make sure their purposes are fulfilled, the rescue organizations have their contracts, which include the "return the dog to the rescue and not give it to someone else" provision Ellen ran afoul of.  That's so these pets don't wind up in places like the hellhole of the dog dealer's kennel portrayed in the HBO movie Dealing Dogs.  Because, while Ellen may have been honest and all about her reasons for giving the dog away, that is not necessarily the case.  And the rescue organizations, particularly when they have spent a lot of time, money and love rehabbing or caring for a dog, are entitled to make sure that dog does not wind up sent to a hell.

    BTW - adopt a rescue dog (rather than fuel a puppy mill).  They know they're wanted, and love you the more for it.

    Liberal Media Bias (none / 0) (#1)
    by RedHead on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 07:30:55 PM EST
    Focusing on Ellen instead of "Brown Shirt" intimidation tactics.

    can you imagine the screaming if Al Franken had hired Wackenhut to investigate O'Reilly.

    Nothing that a big fat donation can't solve. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Geekesque on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 08:33:24 AM EST
    This isn't fine print, btw.  These adoption agencies want to make sure that the person adopting the pet is committed to making it work with the pet.  For every Ellen who gives it to an employee, there is someone who just dumps the poor animal out on the street.

     The hairdresser wasn't screened, so the agency has no idea if that person would be a kind and loving owner.


    been there... (none / 0) (#3)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 08:58:25 AM EST
    I recently adopted a dog from a shelter and later had to give the dog away for several person reasons.

    The shelter that I worked with was terrible - they were the most unprofessional, unforgiving organization that I have ever seen.  They told me that I was required to give the dog back (which is fine... that was in the contract), yet they wouldn't let me give the dog back, and when they did they tried to force me to pay a $100 "surrender" fee (which most definitely was not in the contract).  

    I love dog rescue organizations - I love what they do in rescuing dogs from being put down.  But it is really sad that these some of these organizations don't "get it."

    actually, they never really do. (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:01:48 AM EST
    The hairdresser wasn't screened, so the agency has no idea if that person would be a kind and loving owner.

    all they can do is guess, based on responses to a questionaire, filled in by the individuals themselves. it's not like they do follow-up visits or anything.

    they could have also done an expedited screening, had they any sense at all. it would have required far fewer resources, than getting the dog back did.

    not very bright of them, really.

    I bet they raise $$$ off of this. n/t (none / 0) (#5)
    by Geekesque on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:15:31 AM EST
    from all the (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jen M on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 01:37:53 PM EST
    Ellen fans?

    Parent
    The Family Didn't Qualify (none / 0) (#7)
    by helverings nag on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:58:22 AM EST
    to adopt the dog according to the shelter's  criteria. On Good Morning America this morning (this working mom's TV news source), the shelter rep said they have a policy to not adopt to families with kids under 14. The hairdresser's kids are between 11 and 13. (I was making lunches and missed exact ages.) The policy seems a bit restrictive to me. Both our dogs are rescue dogs, which we would't have if the shelters had the same policy.

    they sound almost as bad (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jen M on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 01:39:01 PM EST
    As Montgomery county Maryland shelter.

    Never adopt from them.

    Parent

    This seems a little odd. (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 01:59:14 PM EST
    We lost our dog a while back and have been looking at adopting and have found that shelters have many dogs that have never been around screaming aliens, er, young kids, so the adopting agency won't adopt those dogs to families with young kids.

    In this case the family has kids and the dog loves the home, so that obviously isn't a problem.

    Mutts & Moms ought to rethink their decision on this one...

    Parent

    Mutts and Moms.... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 01:49:08 PM EST
    needs to remember why they exist.

    Is the dog being fed and cared for?  If yes, what the hell is the problem?

    You can't even adopt a damn dog these days without red tape and bueracracy.  I'm glad I found my dog roaming the streets instead of in a shelter...I've got no patience for that nonsense.