Ellen Degeneres and Iggy

[HedgeMom]

If you haven't been following the story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ellendog18oct18,0,6661719.story?coll=la-home-center), Ellen Degeneres adopted a dog, decided it wasn't a good fit with her cats and gave the dog to her hairdresser. The rescue took the dog back because they have a contract that prohibits the adopter from rehoming the dog and they don't adopt small dogs to families with younger children.

Ellen went on tv, had a big boo-hoo, threats have been made and blah blah blah.

This begs the question. There is a contract. Who is right and why? And does being a celebrity exempt someone from the rules of a small shelter? Just because the Humane Society thinks it should be ok to rehome the dog, are they right?

My .02USD: A contract is a contract. It's binding to both parties. Ellen should have returned the dog, offered to help place it, suggested her hair dresser and shut up. When they took the dog back, she was very wrong in her public boo-hoo. Suck it up.

Just because the Humane Society would think it's ok, doesn't make it so. They are not the end-all/be-all of animal adoption decisions and this small shelter should be allowed to make their own policy decisions based on their positions.

Have fun!

[MonteCarloChick]

I think it was a mistake. Period. And to say her public weeping on her talk show wasn't called for is just insanity. Ellen is a huge animal lover and contributer to many causes dealing with animals. I think she genuinely thought she was doing the right thing. Yes, of course she was wrong in not reading the contract, but to knock her for it is equally as wrong.

[snickers]

I agree with you a contract is a contract and everything else.

Like if I had a contract for my animals & stated, if you ever decided to part with the animal I have first rights to adopt it back.

I don't think people should threaten the adoption agency either. Two wrongs don't make it right either.

[paris26]

A contract is a binding agreement between two parties but it is only as good as the group willing to enforce it. We have a contract with all of the animals adopted out of my shelter that says the animal MUST come back to us if it doesn't work out or you no longer want it. That applies to everything from a hamster up to a Great Dane. We try our very best to do follow ups and make ourselves available within reason to our adopters. But if they choose to break the contract, we put them in a do not adopt catagory IF we find out. A lot of times they will bring the animal back and say, "It didn't work with our family, but my brother or neighbor is interested in the _______". We have them fill out an application and if it all works out, the animal is adopted to that person.

I would hope as a rescue/shelter/animal lover, that the ultimate goal is to find the animal a loving home. It's so easy to get caught up in our own propaganda as a shelter/rescue ( I feel I can say that because I've been with a shelter for 5 years) thinking that our way is best!

I think the whole situation is sad and I fear the repercussions of what the backlash is going to be for shelters and private. I sure hope this doesn't drive people to get their animals from petstores and puppy mills

[illinidairychic]

It just seems like one big mess to me. I haven't decided either way on it yet. I'm pretty torn in the middle. The dog had a home, so that's good. But the contract was broken, so that's bad. I do agree the threats being called in are riddiculous though.

[Incubus527]

I think that because there was a contract, it should be followed. It's pretty simple. I do feel for the family, because I'm sure they got attached. But if they really wanted it back bad enough they should have personally gone to the rescue and talked to them about it. Not saying that it would have done a whole lot of good, but it's better than Ellen crying all over tv.

[Kiki's Mom]

Admin - Can this thread be merged with this thread http://www.chins-n-quills.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126078

[tunes]

I would merge them, but since they go in chronological order, I think it would just make a confusing mess out of them. A debate would start amongst other comments that probably wouldn't make much sense.

If the OP of the other thread wants me to, I can close that one.

[Karin]

i don't even think the entire mess is really about a *contract*. it's the fact ellen got a dog, decided nope she didn't want it, then when rehomed the dog, it was snatched away.
if ellen wants to boohoo about anything? then she needs to be crying over what she did to the hairdresser. if you had paid attention and done what you were told to, it would have saved a lot of pain for both dog and new owner.
and ditto, if they really want that dog back, then fight for it!~~

[HedgeMom]

Sorry, never saw the other one. This can be closed for clarity or merged. Just something to talk about.