Read what you sign

 I have a lot of respect for her and believe that her heart was in the right place.

I do think it is pretty much standard now, it is in both my contracts with the shelties breeders, but the purpose is to keep dogs from being dumped at shelters, not rehomed to another good home. I think the rescue overreacted. I understand their being concerned, but they could have contacted the new home and checked on the dog rather than moving it around again and likely stressing it out. Now the poor dog has to be rehomed yet again. How is that good for anyone? I know rescue groups do alot of good, but seriously, some can be pretty full of themselves.

Now I could be missing something here - the rescue may have checked on the dog, found him to be mistreated in his new home, and used the contract to take action, but I doubt it.

Yes, I believe this is not unusual, but I also think that it doesn't normally hold up in a court of law.  (Of course in Cali, owners may actually be guardians which changes things.)

This has been bandied about quite a bit today other places. My feeling is she did wrong, which she already admitted, but as a TV personality probably signs a lot of things she doesn't read thru, that's what agents are for LOL..

And that the rescue should have gotten an officer or judge or netural party...to remove the dog after all paperwork was reviewed in a closed door meeting or arbitration setting...not done so themselves thereby making them look petty and/or like the bad guy.

I am not even sure their seizure was legal, considering the people they took the dog from are not named in the contract they have.

Sounds a bit like some of the confusion surrounding some of the Katrina dogs...being rehomed then re rehomed...ownerships being disputed etc.

I feel bad for the dog and his second home, getting their new friendship destroyed over bureaucratic red tape like that  

I don't think what she did was all that terrible.  She didn't dump the dog at a shelter - she found him a good home with someone she knew. I think the organization she got the dog from should have evaluated the situation for themselves before removing the dog from his new home.

Joyce

I think that a lot of the things shelters do are overly emotional, verging on irrational, even. But when dogs get rehomed, it freaks them out and gives them behavioral problems. And shelters who take responsibility for this basic sentience of dogs by stating that dogs need to go back to that shelter are doing a good thing. Otherwise, any dog can get bounced around forever, until they go insane, and there is no accountability, and that basically amounts to torture. They should have pointed this aspect of Degeneres' contract out to her if they didn't when she got the dog in the first place--the same way my breeder went over my contract with me. And if she forgot or didn't get it, it makes sense that she was reminded. And she should feel bad. Dogs are a commitment.

Weird. How do you make *paragraphs* happen in this awful new forum format?

Cita

I feel bad for the dog and his second home, getting their new friendship destroyed over bureaucratic red tape like that  

I agree. I do think that instead of just rehoming the dog, Degeneres should have contacted the rescue to tell them that it was not working out and also inform them that she had found another family that was interested in adopting the dog instead. Had the rescue had the new person's information, given them some sort of basic interview to make sure that the dog was going to an appropriate home and revealed info on the dog's background (what if the dog was turned into the rescue for having bitten a child or something), the rescue probably would have been happy to have let the dog be placed in a new home. I know that at our shelter we are a bit annoyed when someone comes in to relinquish a dog and says "Oh I got this dog from my friend, who got it from her boyfriend, who got the dog from his cousin, who adopted the dog from you..." Geeze, there is a reason the dog was supposed to come back to us if the adoption didn't work out! It sounds like they made this about the principle of the issue (read what you sign in adopting a dog) rather than about the welfare of the dog...unfortunately, they have done themselves no favors in the eye of the public.

The shelter I work at also has this policy. However. We have never, and never will, sieze a dog if it is rehomed! I'm sorry, I don't care who you are, you simply cannot do that, esp. when the dog is in a loving enviromnet, and is being well cared for. The dog legally belonged to Ellen, she adopted him, she vetted him, she did what she had to do. I feel terrible for that family that had their dog ripped from them. Maybe, she should have contacted the shelter, but what they did was wrong. Especially when there are so many other suffering animals out there to worry about, why waste a shelters time and efforts on a dog with a happy home. Why not focus on the other animals that are rotting at animal services and being euthanized every day due to space... wrong on the shelters part, IMO.

Any shelter that does not stand by its rules can kiss its credibility goodbye. 

Every rescue/placement organization I know of has a clause that says you can't sell or give away the animal.  It's supposed to protect the animal.  Forget the contract and you've turned into a pet store. 

I'm sure she meant well and is sorry, but I think I'll wait to hear the other half of the story.  It feels like another Hollywood mini-frenzy to me.   After all, if she didn't say anything on the air, don't you think this would have been worked out easily enough?   I'm sure that other family can go to the organization and apply to adopt it themselves through the proper channels. Tune in tomorrow for updates.  (I sure hope we don't get a "Leave Helen Aloooooooone" video on youtube). 

 

cat0

It's supposed to protect the animal.

but where does 'protecting the animal' stop and start when it comes to the thousands of other animals that don't have homes? I understand that if the animal was in an abusive home, they needed to take it out. But when it's in a loving home, with kids of it's own, why not just have the family fill out the paperwork, and leave well enough alone!

I understand that they have their polices, every shelter does. But I think this one needs to re-examine how they go about things. I can think of much better ways for their time and resources to be used.

Part of me can't help but wonder... would they have taken away the puppy if the origional owner was not a celeb? My gut says they would have left it alone if she wasn't...

The group has a website, currently down...hopefully they use it to tell their side....but again...there's no rule stating they have to. I admit I'd like to hear it.

Also this wasn't a shelter, but a privately run rescue that seems to be a really nice organization.

Their adoption fee is listed at $250...which seems steep to me considering the pup wasn't fixed by them. BUT perhaps they have a deposit/refund part when you do the spay/neuter.

Like I said....I hope they do decide to let us, JQP on things...but I also understand if they don't.

erica1989

would they have taken away the puppy if the origional owner was not a celeb? My gut says they would have left it alone if she wasn't...

Celebrities aren't exactly rare, here, and I doubt that they are targeting her, but they need to speak for themselves.

Mutts and Moms isn't the local animal shelter, it's a non-profit org that's privately funded.  I'm holding out for the rest of the story.  News at 10.