Non-profit animal rescue group Mutts and Moms is stepping in a steaming pile of dog doo-doo.
LOS ANGELES -- Ellen DeGeneres' doggy drama intensified Tuesday when the agency that took the talk show host's adopted dog back said they were keeping it.
The dog adopted by DeGeneres and later given to her hairstylist's family in violation of an animal rescue agency's rules will not be going back to the family, a spokesman said, amid threats of violence against the agency.
DeGeneres made a tearful plea on her talk show that aired Tuesday for the owners of Mutts and Moms to give Iggy, a Brussels Griffon mix terrier, back to her hairstylist's family.
The dog was removed from the hairstylist's home Sunday. The owners of Mutts and Moms claimed that DeGeneres violated the adoption agreement by not informing them that she was giving the dog away.
Mutts and Moms owners Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun were in possession of the dog and will not be giving it back, attorney Keith A. Fink told The Associated Press.
"She (Marina) is not going to give them the dog," said Fink, who is not legally representing the owners but is authorized to speak on their behalf.
"She doesn't think this is the type of family that should have the dog. She is adamant that she is not going to be bullied around by the Ellen DeGenereses of the world ... They are using their power, position and wealth to try to get what it is they want."
This is really ridiculous.
First, it's totally unacceptable for Mutts and Moms to be receiving threats of any sort because of the Ellen DeGeneres controversy.
No excuses. You don't respond to an outrage with rage. I'm not acting as an apologist for such inappropriate behavior.
That said, it's nuts for Mutts and Moms to be so stubborn.
Marina Batkis is "adamant that she is not going to be bullied around by the Ellen DeGenereses of the world."
What does that mean?
"The Ellen DeGenereses of the world?"
Yeah, Ellen is a real thug.
GIVE ME A BREAK!
...As a result of the ensuing publicity, Fink said Batkis and Chekroun had received voice- and e-mail threats of death and arson, and their Paws Boutique store in Pasadena was besieged by media Tuesday, disrupting business. The women handle the volunteer, nonprofit Mutts and Moms rescue agency out of the store.
"It's very upsetting to hear that someone is getting those kind of calls," [DeGeneres' publicist Kelly] Bush said. "Ellen just wants the dog reunited with the family."
I want to reiterate this: It's morally inexcusable, as well as illegal, for anyone to make threats of death and arson.
But just because there are some idiots out there acting like idiots, that's no reason for Mutts and Moms to take that out on Ellen's hairdresser's family.
The group wouldn't have been besieged by media if it had handled the matter responsibly in the first place. And it's worth noting that originally Mutts and Moms hoped to use the media to its benefit. Clearly, the group's threats to intimidate Ellen with the media, attorneys, and police backfired.
DeGeneres had said her hairdresser's daughters, ages 11 and 12, had bonded with Iggy and were heartbroken when the dog was taken away.
Fink said Moms and Mutts has a rule that families with children under 14 are not allowed to adopt small dogs.
"It's for the protection of the dog," he said.
DeGeneres said on her Tuesday show that she spent $3,000 having the dog neutered and trained to be with her cats, but Iggy did not mix well with the cats so she gave him away.
"She got rid of the dog not because it didn't get along with the cats," Fink said. "She didn't like the dog."
Not true, according to Bush.
"She loved the dog," the publicist said.
Four-month-old Iggy was trained by Zack Grey at his UrbanTales pet store in Los Angeles.
"Ellen and Portia followed the process every single day," he said. "It just didn't work. It had nothing to do with not loving the puppy."
I don't buy that this is for the protection of the dog.
Fink, on behalf of Mutts and Moms, is trying to discredit Ellen.
Luckily, trainer Zack Grey is willing to speak out and set the record straight.
Batkis and Chekroun are stoking the flames of a PR nightmare for Mutts and Moms.
I fear that other pet shelter and rescue operations may suffer because of their actions.
Their lies and stubbornness are serving to hurt their cause, not to mention Ellen, Iggy, and the girls who loved the puppy.
I question whether they are stable enough to be making decisions about placing animals in homes.
They seem to be more than willing to let personal animosity get in the way of their supposed mission.
53 comments:
I work in animal rescue, and this is a nightmare for the rest of us. I have quite frankly never seen a policy where no one under the age of 14 was allowed to adopt a dog. Children under 5, yes, because they are not old enough to know how to properly handle a pet without harm, but not older children. Dogs love kids. Children of this age can be responsible enough to make excellent pet owners. It was irresponsible of the agency to just take the dog without any effort to determine if it was a suitable home. They definitely did not do what was in the best interest of the dog, and seem to be furthering their own agenda at the expense of the dog. Too many animals die each year due to a lack of a suitable home. Why do something like this just because you can, rather than do what is right? I am afraid that this will cause a negative backlash against rescue agencies and further limit the ability to find homes for all the animals needing them.
I'm furious. I am an active rescuer in LA and it's hard enough to be taken seriously. We fight and beg for public support, and to have our instructions treated with respect. The situation may have been against contract, but there was a way to handle the issue that would have benefited all, as opposed to making one of the few public and respected animal lovers look bad. Right or wrong, Mutts & Moms seem to have handled this situation very, very poorly. It would have made much more sense to have assessed the situation carefully, perhaps even visiting with a video camera for any necessary evidence, etc. than managing to make rescuers look like jerks (yet again) and sending more people to pet stores, etc., instead of rescues. Truly irresponsible. Last comment: Age of children should have no bearing on the size of the dog. The ability and responsibility the parents show in teaching their children make the difference. I've seem many parents allow large dogs to be mistreated by small children without saying a word (I had to yank a 2 year old off an elderly 25lb dog just today).
This is sad and Mutts and Moms is NOT acting on the behalf of the dog...this is just bitterness on their part and I do hope they are boycotted. Trying to Dicredit Ellen is not the way to win friends or gain supporters. What is with this hard as and rigid policy? They sound like nutjobs.
Excuse me but doesn't acccepting money for a purchase and calling it an 'adoption' constitute legal ownership of 'property'?
Sounds like Mutts and Moms owner have a little personal issue about feeling the need to be controlling after they have reliquished control of ownership.
Maybe I'm wrong. Was Ellen just 'renting' the dog?
There’s a huge difference between rules and a control freak making dam*ed sure every single one of their rules is followed to the letter.
On LA television news at the dinnerhour a woman was interviewed who got a pet from Mutts and Moms. She bought her pet and was some time later walking the dog without a leash. [OK, that’s not kosher, she admits it, but the dog walked really well next to her. Still not an excuse.] And out of nowhere who drives up but the head of Mutts and Moms, pulls over, gets out of the vehicle, grabs the dog and takes off with the dog in her vehicle. The new pet parent was left standing there wondering what the he** had happened. A few days later she got her dog back.
Something’s very wrong with the head of a rescue org that has time to stalk its adoptees.
Doesn't matter to them, they run both a "rescue" and a pet store.
Those places are generally just rescues in the sense that they'll take animals in for free to resell.
Hmm - this is really bad for the rescues. I am a big dog advocate but it would be interesting to see what will actually happen with this. If this is fought in the courts, it could get really ugly for the rescues. Can you really sell something (because that is really what they are doing regardless of the reason or costs) and then take it back? While I don't think of my dogs as property, the law does in most states does. IMO - it is a bad situation for all. If the dog was in a good home, leave it alone regardless of any contractual provision.
I have been in the pet care business for 30 years and have never heard of anything this absurd. Why wouldn't you allow someone under 14 to own a dog??? I wouldn't of survived my childhood without my dogs! are these people just a couple of crackheads or what? ellen should start her own rescue shelter..
Having previously adopted from a LEGITIMATE rescue, I understand the need for rules. That said, I am deeply saddened and appalled by the actions of these women (Batkis & Chekroun). It is ridiculous to say that children under 14 cannot adopt a dog. Having a pet is one of the best ways to learn to accept responsibilities. If there were any concerns as to the treatment of the animal, the responsible thing to do before removing it from the home would have been to conduct an in home investigation. This animal should be return to this family and a formal investigation into the adoption practices of this "agency" should be conducted!!!
I totally agree with everyone! M&M's actions are completely uncalled for. They are only doing this out of "pride" if you can call it that, because giving the dog back would be admitting wrongdoing on their part. Sad.
If you want to support Ellen, please consider signing this (peaceful!) petition. The link has been sent to M&M via email. Please also pass the link on to anyone that you think would want to support Ellen!:) Thanks!
http://www.petitiononline.com/FreeIggy/petition.html
I would be curious to know a few details of the owners of Mutts & Moms... like do they have kids? Do they own their own dogs? Did they brag about the fact that a celebrity like Ellen got a dog from their establishment?
They commented that "they will not be bullied by a celebrity who has money..blah blah blah" but I would bet anything they had no problem bragging that Ellen was a client.
Ellen.... you did the right thing by Iggy, by the family and by your heart. There is nothing these folks can do now to right this wrong. Even if they decide to give the Iggy back to this loving family the damage has been done. I sure hope they have invested wisely because their business is about to take a huge downward trend.
Since when did life become completely about the rules? What happened to compassion? Goodness? Love and kindness?
Karma.... it always comes back to get you. Chin up Ellen! The Good Guy ALWAYS wins in the end.
BOY WHAT A WAY TO SHOW YOUR AUTHORITY AND PROBABLY MESS UP A GOOD P.R. RELATIONSHIP MOMS AND MUTTS YOU GUYS HAVE TO BE ABOUT THE BIGGEST HALF- WITS OUT THERE.ARE YOU REALLY IN THE BUSINESS OF FINDING PETS HOME OR IS IT JUST A POWER-TRIP.THE DOG HAD A GOOD HOME GO ON TO THE NEXT ONE IF YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT ANIMALS.FORSHAME!! NANCY, CONVERSE INDIANA
Years ago, I tried to rescue a dog from a local shelter, they turned me down because the didn't feel I would make a good pet parent. I fell in love with that dog after just meeting and trying to adopt him. They knew nothing about me except that my boyfriend and I were not married. They turned us down because we were not married! It was very painfull to think someone would keep a dog from a loving home because they were judging me based on my marital status. No that relationship did not work out but all adopted animals lived with me and have lived a great life. Pets & People kept me from having that dog, how many other wonderful people do these "rescues" keep from others having based on their idea of what a perfect family is? No children under 14? Sounds crazy to me. They didn't even take time to work with the current family that owns Iggy. Many people don't care about animals and throw the on the side of the road. When a family loves an animal - you don't take him away from them. Mutts and Moms sounds like it is ran by non-animal lovers to me. Don't judge before you've got to know the family Ellen gave Iggy to - she could have lied and you would have no idea. She believes he is in a loving home. Give Iggy back to those girls, it is not the way to help other animals in the future. Those little girls will never get over losing him to people like you that run a "rescue". Why do you want to hurt Iggy & the family?
Mutts and Moms owners Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun are control and power freaks. TMZ.com is reporting that they have breached all manner of their own supposed hard-line rules.They are hurting avid and caring animal rescue groups all over the world with their crazy actions. GIVE THE DOG BACK TO THE LOVING HOME. THAT'S THE IDEA YOU CRAZY LOONS!
Well said. I think most of the 'adoption rules' for pets are ridiculous anyway.
Sometimes it almost seems that it is harder to adopt a dog than it can be to adopt a child...and I am an adoptive mother(and I KNOW how hard it is to adopt babies today).
I can't believe that people like this are allowed to run animal adoption agencies. I gues it's time to regulate and licence them That way when someone runs into a couple of irresponsible control freaks like this they can get their licence pulled and shut them down. There is something fundamentally wrong in the head of a person who thinks that children under 14 shouldn't have dogs.
I also work in animal rescue, and what strikes me about this is that it is terrifying that rescues are getting a bad rap. We know nothing about the home Ellen gave the dog to; apparently the dog went from her house, to training to this new home since September 20th - is that really enough time for the kids to "bond" with the dog?
I always have people sign contracts, which clearly state that if the adoption doesn't work out, I am to be contacted and the pet is to be returned to ME. What if the home the pet would passed on to isn't a good one? The possibility that Ellen gave her dog to a good home should not negate the precedence that could be set here, which is that if a rescue group adopts out a pet, and if the adoptive home decides it is not working out they can pass that pet on. Why on earth would that be o.k.? If you adopt a child and you decide it doesn't get along with your cats, you can just give it to your cousin Bennie? C'mon now. Ellen signed a contract. I'm sure she knows how to read them. She should have called the rescue organization and said I can't keep the dog, but I know of a great family who is interested. Why couldn't she do that?
Now it's not bad enough when you get the call 7 years after an adoption that a cat is in a high-kill pound, you are basically saying that when you adopt the pet, you are signing away any ability to protect the pet from a bad home because you adopted to someone who passed it on.
This is not about whether or not you agree with M&M's 14 and under policy for small dogs - this is about the ability of a rescue group to protect the animals it places into homes. There is a bigger picture than this one incident here. Ellen is losing sight of that, and for her to do what she has done is out of line.
I'm a corporate paralegal. The contract Ellen signed can be knocked out by any Superior Court as containing an unreasonable provision counter to prevailing local adoptions. The Mutts and Moms shelter is next to the Pasadena ASPCA for a reason. They are picking up the dogs the ASPCA cannot adopt - and God knows what they are really doing with them. I know the whole routine at the ASPCA. It's against the law to adopt out any dog in Los Angeles County that hasn't been placed on hold at the ASPCA for 5 days while they check the dog and try to locate the owner. Anybody needing dogs for any reason, labs, pit bulls, who the heck knows, would set up shop right next door and get a regular bounty for all dogs. Of course, you would need a cover story - I think Ellen hit pay dirt and should call her lawyers.
Rules "for the good of the animal" that take a dog out of a loving home are rules that serve no purpose.
I encountered a similar rescue agency several years ago that wouldn't allow our family to adopt a cat because my daughter was too young. Who knows if that cat ever found a home after we were turned down, but the three subsequent cats we adopted from the pound love my daughter to death and are very happy to have found a home with us.
Any "rescue" organization that thinks an animal is better served by staying in a cage rather than being adopted is an organization that does not have the animals' interests at heart.
People, people! I have adopted a dog from Mutts and Mom's and can tell you that they are an amazing organization with huge hearts. The volunteers are courageous in my book for going into shelters to rescue animals, knowing that they only have the ability to take a few into foster care (THEY ARE NOT A SHELTER!). My dog came from Kern County shelters near Bakersfield where over 66% of over 25,000 animals are euthanized every year! I am so thankful to this rescue for my little dog who beat the statistics and that there are volunteers willing to do this. Furthermore, to those of you who aren't knowledgeable of the rescue-- they go through the adoption contract ITEM BY ITEM when you sign it. It isn't like the agreement is in fine print. In addition, if the rescue hadn't been burned by irresponsible and ignorant pet owners, the rescue wouldn't have to go to such lengths to ensure good homes. Do you know how many dogs get returned even a year after adoptions? Screening is necessary! Mutts and Mom's runs a store that helps to fund the rescue efforts. This isn't some money making scheme. Heck, Ellen only gave them a $600 donation! I'm middle class "American" and I give more than that to pet charities every year. These volunteers invest their time and resources into dog rescue-- they are there looking at the eyes of a red-listed dog-not you and not me. Ellen did a sad thing by adding such emotion to this issue considering that she had the dog for less than 3 weeks. Do you really think that she gave the dog a fair shot in her home at all within this short time? This backlash is very unfair to Mutts and Moms. It was Ellen who will benefit the most from her dog-problem when with the ratings. It is shameful to hinder the rescue efforts of Mutts and Moms when so many dogs need saving and fostering.
Mutts and Moms web pages have been removed as well as their domain (which was forwarded to Petfinder.com)
This one action shows that the organization will lose funding from the public, donations from the public and if they still continue to adopt pets, people will be questioning their "contract" to sign.
What this organization showed is that the dog never belong to Ellen to begin with. They still owned the dog after the purchase and can do with it what they want to.
What type of clause is that in a contract to adopt a pet? I never heard of that one!
I get that the dog was removed for the protection of the dog. Having worked w/ shelters, rescue groups and being well versed w/ lots of hands on experience w/ doing dog behavior evaluations (temperment testing for some) I know its VERY common for there to be rules regarding adoptions and ages of children in the home. At behavior seminars w/ shelter people we often discuss the issue of having few dogs in our shelters available for families w/ children under the age of 12 (a common age limit). There are huge liability issues.
Sadly, the general public that is getting all blown up by this doesn't get that small dogs, particularly terriers, don't do well with young children. A common thing children, especially little girls, like to do is hug a dog. To dogs, that's a rude, dominant behavior - I've worked w/ a family who's little girl got a face bite from just that. Seventeen stiches worth of face bite, to be precise.
Another incident, the 12 year old was taking a terrier off of a bed. From what I learned working w/ this family the terrier was the boss, was being removed from the higher sleeping position (preferred spot for an alpha) by a subordinate - possibly even viewed the child as a litter mate and okay to be corrected. Another face bite was the result.
As for the trainer Ellen used.. his BEST credentials only state he's recommended by vets? Pretty poor credentials unless those vets are trained in behavior and that I doubt since this trainer still subscribes to the "dominance theory". I wouldn't be surprised if he's one of the misguided experts that still believes in Alpha rolls and kneeing a dog in the chest for jumping. Before anyone jumps on that go to a behavior network of info: http://www.urbandawgs.com/divided_profession.html
I think Ellen should look for trainers that are certified by either the Association of Pet Dog Trainers or the International Association of Animal Behaviorists.
I think the women running the rescue could have handled it differently but they still should have gotten the dog back. Ellen, on the other hand, needs to read the contracts she signs and remember that pets are life long commitments. Her scorecard on adopting animals and giving them up seems somewhat high to me. Anyone remember the dog she adopted right when her show hit the air a few years ago. She even had a contest to name the dog. She gave it up before a year was over. So far, her series run has lasted longer than the dogs she brings into her home.
I am the biggest dog lover in the world but these rescues have become over the top with their contracts and policies. Ellen's experience is exactly what I have been relaying to friends for the past two months. I have been researching and looking to rescue (adopt) and the rescues I have contacted have been less then a pleasure to deal with. It has made me give up...do they want to save the dogs and have them go to good homes or not? When the thought of "purchasing" a dog for the first time in your life rather than rescuing one comes into your mind you know there is a problem. There is even one rescue out there that asks for your homeowners insurance policy!! The posters above who are worried about public support and respect for their hard work are right to worry...while I am sure they are great people with their hearts in the right place.. there are quite a few out there who the same can't be said for. Good Luck...
This is no longer about Iggy or the children. The Mutts and Moms spokesperson and operator made that clear when she said she wasn't about to be bullied by Ellen. What a pile of poop. It's clear from that statement that she cares far more for her own ego than any dog. I'll bet that if you dug into it, you'd find that underneath it all, she's all about generating business for her pet store. I say- Bully for her, the bi_ch.
Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun are just plain mean. How could anyone do such a thing? Taking a dog from a perfectly loving home because someone broke a rule? How could anyone with even a little bit of heart do that, especially to the children involved? Batkis amd Chekroun are hateful!
Well, having taken in many animals that need homes, I will not adopt from a shelter or rescue. Because I believe (being on this side of it) that they are too strict. I understand that you really don't know the people they could lie, but I know myself. I also have 2 dogs, one is a black flat-coat retriver I took in (awesome dog)he is only turning 2, he weighs 80 lbs., and I have an shih tzu who weighs about 10-12 pounds. And I also have a 9 year old son. That little shih tzu is awesome with my son. I think it depends on the type of dog you get when you have small children. Some are known to be nippy. The whole reason we got the shih tzu is because we have a somewhat smaller child, and that dog has small teeth. which could still do damage, but she's like the size of a cat. I have experience with dog bites, as my son at the age of 4 was bitten by our own dog! A chocolate lab, he did not bug the dog he never was one to really even pay that much attention to the dog. And the dog who was 5 years old bit him in the face causing 45+ stitches to him and he got infected and had to have surgery. As a mother it was the worse time in my life. The dog who we trusted and was great with him did this. And my son loved that dog, he didn't want to see her go, but when something like that happens you know the dog can't stay. So, my son still loves animals and since I didn't want him to have a fear of them we got the small dog, not right away, some years later. He is plenty big enough to know how to handle her, I never worry about her biting, although she could, it would be peanuts compared to where he has been. This rescue, should have gone to the house and scene what the set up is there and obviously this little dog is hyper and needs that young energy of these two girls. Just cause they aren't 14 doesn't mean they aren't a good match, it really depends on the dog. I researched small dogs and the shih tzu I believed was a good match for us. A happy people pleasing dog. And now that we took in the big dog too they are the best friends of dogs I've ever seen in my life. They are like mutt and Jeff, always together, playing all day long, getting into trouble together, they keep eachother going strong. And I've heard people say don't get a little dog and big dog, that's bull, it either works or it doesn't. Bottom line about this mutts and moms thing is they didn't witness how happy this dog probably was with this family, after all this is truely what the rescue is all about. And they are hurting the dog the most!!!! If they make the rules they can brake the rules!~
Ellen broke a contract and then used national TV to stage a PR event to make life unlivable for the people she broke the contract against. And I see a lot of people don't even consider that aspect of what Ellen did. Not only did she violate a contract - regardless if you agree or disagree with the contract in question - she then took her power and position and used it to target the very people she violated a contract with.
The Mom's and Mutts didn't do anything against their contract, they fulfilled it by carrying it out. They didn't do anything illegal (as far as been reported) and they didn't do anything wrong (they are protecting their interest in the dog, as per the contract). They did act foolishly in the situation, but that isn't a crime or wrong.
Should any harm come to them, I hope a lawyer sues Ellen for her willful and flagrant attempt to use her TV position to incite people to harm those two.
For the record, I also signed a contract with the exact same stipulations in it, I READ mine and actually asked questions about this exact same policy before accepting our dog. See, I don't have a talk show with people willing to make death threats so I can avoid adhering to what I contractually commit myself to...
How profoundly sad...This situation with mutts and moms is a devastating blow to all animals in need of rescue. I have always been angered by the numerous breeders and puppy mills out there mistreating dogs for profit. Now Batkis and Chekroun have just provided a legitimate reason for loving famiies to buy dogs rather than to adopt dogs and prevent so many unneccesary euthanasias. These women who claim to be serving the best interest of this dog are more concerned about their own control issues than to take a step back and see what a detriment their actions are to thousands of other animals currently in shelters around the country. I think everyone can concede that rules were broken and not contacting M&M before giving the dog away was a mistake, but Batkis and Chekroun could have handled this situation by evaluating the current family situation and then making a determination based on reality and not on some rule based on age rather than maturity and responsibility of a particular child. I have never bought a pet. Every pet I have ever had was a stray I found or adopted from a shelter. My daughters are 5 and 3 and they are wonderful with animals. They have learned from day one to treat animals with love and respect and they have never harmed, mistreated, or frightened animals. We lost one of our dogs last March to the pet food recall and the other had to be put to sleep last week due to a genetic degenerative nerve disease that finally left her unable to walk. We were planning to go to our local shelter to adopt a new dog that needs a good loving home, but now I am not sure what we will do. I truly hope all rescue agencies will voice their opposition to Batkis and Chekroun's terrible decision and help restore all of our faith in the positive aspects of saving the thousands of wonderful and loving animals that will otherwise be destroyed. If Batkis and Chekroun won't right this wrong, I hope all of the respectable shelters will step up and take the reins to steer people back to rescue these animals.
"Anonymous said...
Ellen broke a contract and then used national TV to stage a PR event to make life unlivable for the people she broke the contract against. And I see a lot of people don't even consider that aspect of what Ellen did."
Not once do I recall Ellen ever use the name Mutts and Moms, or the names of the two fools who own the rescue. Ellen only used the term "Rescue Organization".
Boycott Mutts and Moms, as well as their store.
I hope the two women lose all their customers and go out of business. They would have made good Nazis.
This was handled very poorly by Batkis and Chekroun - they should have let the dog stay on a "foster" basis, observed how the girls treated the dog, and WORKED WITH the family -
a loving, caring home is a loving caring home!
They have just made it harder for rescues to operate - congratulations ladies - have you picked a new name to operate under - you are going to need it!
ellen and portia had the dog neutered themselves, but isn't it illegal for any adoption agency/person/rescue to adopt out a cat/dog without having it neutered first???
Mutts and Moms... sounds like a horrible rescue.
Mutts and Moms owners Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun are just plain stupid.
This situation will surely ruin their business. They are a small and narrowminded run company. I do pray that they go out of business. Anyone who puts redicioulous stipulations on an agreement like that is bound to experience trouble.
Who are they to determine if a family is truly fit to adopt an animal? I am an animal lover and have 2 dogs, bought from a breeder, for this exact reason.
I will not let someone tell me that I can make a donation to adopt an animal and then have an agreement that stipulates how I can raise my animal. If I want to give my dogs to a good home, that should be my choice.
I don't see where these two women have more of a right to determine what is a good more than I do.
They seem to be acting as if someone crowned them Queen of the Animals. I crown them dumbasses of the universe.
And yes, rescue agencies should be regulated and licensed.
It is truly sad that rescue agencies may suffer as a whole because of these two morons, but we can't make it a perfect world.
This business saying there was a contract and Mutts and Moms only followed their contract and that Ellen broke her contract is a superficial analysis of the contract signed. Step back, take a deep breath and say to yourself "what was the purpose of the contract?" Answer: Find the dog a good home. Now Ellen found that her home would not be a good one for the dog. She found it another home that she thought would be good.
Now turning to the owners of Mutts and Moms...did they investigate whether the home Ellen found for the dog? Did they find it unsuitable? (and don't raise this business of children under the age of 14 that's a pile). I think not.
Now, simply because you have a contractual right does not mean you have to exercise it. In fact, the better part of valor here would have been to waive that right, if the new owners selected by Ellen were generally suitable.
As others have pointed out, this dispute was not about finding the dog a good home, it became a power stuggle and I think an overreaching by the owners of Mutts and Moms.
I should think that they will suffer in the end for this. Frankly, this type of incident makes me think twice about contributing to any of these organizations, makes me leery of getting a pet from one.
I hope Ellen moves from despair to real anger and shows them just how much bullying she can manage!
I don't get why everyone is on Ellen's side. Look at it in its most simple form. She signed a contract and broke it. Maybe they "didn't handle it well," but there'd have been no problems if Ellen stuck to the contract.
Rememeber that Ellen is using the media (plea on national TV to get her dog back). It doesn't seem to me as though she was trying to keep it a private issue.
And regarding "The Ellen Degenereses of the world," I really don't know about her as a person, but I do think her actions amount to unfair pressure. But we would all have to see the contract and know what she did in order to say for certain.
I am not saying she's a bad person. She obviously cares about animals. But so do the Mutts and Moms people.
Did Ellen ever think to discuss this matter with the organization before giving the dog to her hairdresser?
Additionally, whether "no 14 and under" is a ridiculous rule or not, that's immaterial. I can see people getting outraged by government policy, but by the policy of a tiny organization? If you don't like their policy, then don't use them. You really don't have to. It's just as good to get an animal from a shelter anyhow, as they are on death row.
I am just stunned that Mutts & Moms would not at least check out the home of whom Ellen placed Iggy. All they did was give a bad name for rescures everywhere. I have 4 dogs, one from a shelter, on his last day, one from a abusive home, one from a idiot who tossed it from a car window in front of my car, and my newest baby was from a back yard breeder who was going to snap its neck because they couldn't get $550 for each of the other pup's with him around because he was born with what they called a "defect" in the liter. He was born with a stub tail. These all will have for ever homes, and so would have Iggy. I really don't think that Ellen would have give $600 "donation" and spent so much more, and then gave Iggy to these girls and thier mom if she didn't think they would take the best care of them.
By the way, I know rescues take donations, but also know that they are suppose to have all dogs "fixed" before adopting them out. Hmmmmmm, what did they actually spend on Iggy, besides giving the necessary shots....
Being next to a shelter, great way to get dogs at little or no cost and make money off of them.
This whole story just makes me sick, and hope the Mutts & Moms never are able to take another dog/puppy in to adopt out.
There are too many others that people who want to resuce a animal can go to. I am sure they just cut thier own throats. As one could say they put thier own business to sleep, and put all the animals in thier care at risk.
I understand contracts, and rules, but rules are not set in stone, and could be adjusted as needed.
They did not have to take the dog away in the manner that they did. Where was the home check, where was the evaluation on the girls with the dog?????? Did they do what was in the best interest of the dog. NO....
I just really feel sorry for the rest of the animals in their care, and hope they can find home real soon for them, and Batkis & Chekroun go crawl under a rock!
I AM SO ANGRY!
Eight years ago, I was in the process of adopting my daughter from China when my beloved cat died at the age of eighteen. After several weeks, I applied to adopt another cat through a county animal shelter.
I can remember joking at one point with the oh-so-serious worker at the shelter that the questions she was asking me were nearly the same as the ones I had previously answered pertaining to adopting a child.
With that, I thought the cat adoption was about to go belly up, as she wrinkled her brow in concern that there may be a "conflict". What if my future daughter had allergies? Who would care for the cat when I traveled to China? Luckily, I was able to answer all questions to her satisfaction.
I did eventually adopt the cat and 6 months later, my cherished daughter. To this day, my first & only adoption experience with the shelter left a distinctly bad taste in my mouth.
Since that time, we have "rescued" on our own, a lovely dog & several additional cats. All are loved and cared for by my now nearly nine year old daughter and myself.
My daughter was in tears when our local Humane Society caught fire on Easter weekend & nearly 100 cats & dogs were lost in the fire. We made a cash donation & make a point of shopping at the thrift store affiliated with the local Humane Society as often as possible.
Of couse everyone sees, all too often, poor pet owners and situations. But these women were clearly not exercising good judgment in the situation involving Ellen & Iggy & the family to whom Ellen gave Iggy. In upholding their shifting "policy", they have emerged looking like fools. Their overzealous behavior should raise a real concern with anyone who comes in contact with them.
If, in fact, Iggy has already been placed in another home, as has been reported, then they have effectively put themselves out of business. Their sniping at Ellen & bandying about the term "bullied" is as wrong as the threats they profess to be so distressed at receiving.
Yes, Ellen was technically wrong in giving the dog away. But these women were just as wrong to hastily place Iggy in another home.
While I applaud the work done by people committed to rescuing animals & finding them good homes, these women simply did not exercise good sense. Bless their hearts, they are "Pet Nazis"!
But, if any good comes out of Ellen's situation, it will be that, hopefully, people considering adopting an animal in the future will carefully choose
the place facilitating the adoption.
stubborn ~ i could think of other words ~ this is a total losing situation ~ mutts and moms looks bad and their business and therefore their animals are not doing well and by extension all rescue operations look bad ~ i suspect a personality disorder ~ i hope that these women are scruntinized till they are found in violation of something ~ they are in the wrong business ~ if i had the means i would rescue iggy and fly iggy and his lovng family to bali or wherever they chose and set them up for life ~ children and puppies are a good thing ~
shut the efinhimer up beaatch at least the dog has a home away from you.
I have been looking for a little dog (having recently lost my dear little yorkie who was my loving companion for 17 years.) I had been seaching the animal rescue agencies in the misguided notion that it would be a good thing to adopt a pet in this way.
The whole Mutts and Moms story has really opened my eyes to the fact that these organizations feel that it would be their right to come into my home and rip my baby (because pets are as close to children and you can come) from my arms for whatever power-hungry reason they decide--even if it is just to resell it to someone else. I couldn't live with that fear.
It seems far better to just purchase a pet that you really own.
We have gotten both of our dogs through a local rescue. The first time was a wonderful experience from start to finish, the second was the complete opposite. The foster home that had her kept her crated all but one hour a day, the husband told us that they feed her only 1 cup of water and food a day because they were having a problem with housebreaking her. Her, her mother and brother had been abused before coming to the rescue but with seeing her it was obvious that she was also being abused by the foster home. When I called to complain about how she had been treated the agency became furious with me that I had confronted them regarding the situation. I was asked if there was a problem with a crate and that her only exercise was in a yard that was smaller that most public restrooms.I was completely dumbfounded by this because I thought that they were trying to give these dogs a safe place in a world and to ensure that they are loved. While I cant speak bad about all rescues or foster homes because I do believe that there are ones that are truly doing this for the love of the animals but I do believe that there is a lot of questionable activities that go on with rescues and their representatives. If you have a family that truly loves the dog why would you want to remove it? Because she didnt have a say in it? Was there any sign that the puppy was in distress or being abused? Just another case in my opinion for questionable rescue. While she may not be "bullied by the Ellen's of the world" she sure seems to be playing "the bully" to this puppy.
What's amazing to me is that no one seems to question the fact that Ellen DID know the rules and didn't follow them. Maybe the rules are stupid but she did sign saying she agreed and understood them. Why is she above those rules?
Just another case where the famous are supposed to be above the rules?
Ellen admits that she made a mistake.
She apologized profusely for her carelessness regarding the rules.
That's what makes the reaction of Mutts and Moms so bizarre.
I really don't see why the group didn't do a home check, take care of the paperwork, and allow Iggy to stay with the family.
Ellen doesn't seem to be considering herself above the rules. If she did, she would not have apologized. She said she was wrong and she was sorry.
It's Mutts and Moms that refused to try to work things out.
This is BS. I run a reptile rescue, and we do not adopt to anyone under 21, so adopting any animal to someone under 14 should be a no brainer- "NO". 14 IS NOT old enough to be a responsible pet owner. At that age you cannot legally contract anyway. Teenagers are not responsible, they do not have the funds to take care of animals on their own because they can't even legally work at most places, and teenagers are not at all stable..which is the whole point a rescue group strives for when they adopt an animal out...because they don't want to see it back in the shelter or in the euthanasia line. Stability is key, and a 14 year old cannot provide that. Rules are in place for a reason and almost every rescue organization has these right of first refusal rules to protect the animals. You can't just adopt an animal and then give it away to whomever you wish, nitwits. The animal is adopted out to a specific person on an adoption contract, and that contract is legally binding. The rule should be enforced no matter what friggin celebrity status it concerns. In fact, celebrities are probably the worst violators of all rules in general. From the news reports I have been seeing, Ellen is a serial adopter, who has a turn over rate on animals in her home that is worse that the turn over at a Taco Bell. She adopts all these animals, and when they don't work out with her cats...she dumps the dogs off on someone else. That sort of person...the flaky celebrity with more money than sense or responsibility...is a rescue group's worst nightmare. This isn't about what good PR could have come from it, had Mutts and Moms handled it better and given in to Ellen's demands. This is about breaking the rules of a legally binding contract and giving a pet to someone who was not approved to adopt the animal. There are screening processes for a reason. As a rescuer myself, I fully support Mutts and Moms. An adoption fee is an adoption fee. A contract is a contract. When you give away a dog to someone else when you signed a contract not to, you obviously surrender any possessory interest you had in the animal by your surrender, and the contract comes into force. Doesn't matter whether you have a TV show or not.
To all you people that think a pet at the age of 14 is a good way to teach a kid responsibility, I say none of you would probably make great pet owners with that thinking. Children are called children for a reason. They cannot yet take care of themselves, and cannot, nor should they, be expected to be responsible for another life, animal or otherwise. I see people everyday who think they are great pet owners because they call themselves "animal lovers". The two are not mutually inclusive. I can't tell you how many dog owners out there know absolutely nothing about dog behavior: prey drives, proper socialization, and pack orders.
Veiw this video. It shows what type of person Batkis realy is.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353549946/bctid1256260528
It is a video of when she showed up with 2 other women and one states that they are going to give the dog back. Yet they didn't which in the end marks them as liars as well as criminals in my opinion.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid353549946?bctid=1256260528
I've met Marina and Vanessa when I adopted my puppy and they are very clear on the conditions of their contracts. If I had found their terms unacceptable, I could have made another choice of rescuers. They are both very loving pet owners who often use their own funds (separate from the minimal rescue funds) to care for the animals available for adoption.
When we received our puppy, she was removed from the shelter, spayed, medicated for kennel cough and microchipped. All those are expenses that Marina & Vanessa paid - like they do for all their animals. They only asked for $250 to recover their costs.
I've read the accounts on the news and watched the videos, and it saddens me that people are so ready to attack these two caregivers who clearly have an interest in saving animals. This lynch mob attitude is horrifying, but clearly not out of character for our world.
Please take a step back and look at the origin of this incident. Iggy was the second dog that had been taken in and rejected. The first one was returned to the rescue and Iggy was passed along without a notification to the rescuers. Why not call them and say, "I'm afraid Iggy isn't going to work out for us, but my hairdresser is dying to adopt him. Could we make an appointment for you to meet her family?" Problem nipped in the bud.
This is the reason I will NEVER goto an animal rescue orginization. I love animals and can find a great pet at the local county run shelter and have done so. My family has resuced a male cocker spaniel from the local county run shelter. After getting him home bathing him didn't help his coat was in knots so we took him over to be shaved and was shocked at his real under nurish condition. He was so thin you could count all of his bones. We immediately called our vet and meet him at the office and after checking him over gave him an otherwise clean bill of health. We learned that he was about 2 years of age and weighed in at 18 pounds, now he weighs a healthy 28-30 pounds and is the most loving dog.
My point is if I had gone to a rescue orginization (which I almost did and the two I picked out would have cost me $400.00 $500.00 just to adopt the dog" then the dog that I adopted from the county run shelter would have been put to death the next day. I couldn't have gotten a better pet and friend.
I didn't have to sign a contract, I didn't have to aow strangers into my home on their unannoucenced visits to see if the dog is happy. To decided if I or my family are fit enough to own a dog.
I will NEVER deal with a rescue agenie especail after what these two women have done. Personelly I don't think these two women are fit enough to run an agencie let alone have pets of their own.
-winddancer
Let's say I sold you a car and later saw that you were not keeping it washed and wax the way I had. So does that mean I can go take my care back?
What if I was a women who decided to give my unborn child up to a married couple and here I carried that baby and did everything to make sure that it was born healthy and going into a family that had both a mother and a father. Then I learn months later that the couple divorced, does that mean I can walk into the home and take the baby back? what if the baby is now a 5 year old child can I still do it?
NO! the police would be involved and I would be arrested. So WHY! are these two women allowed to get away with it?
The minute they walked out the door with my dog I would have been on the phone with the police filling charges. They received money for the dog and now in order to get more money they STEAL the dog and sell it again. Why isn't the Los Angeles District Attorney office getting involved. Where is the investigation. Especailly when you read that they are stalking other owners and the first step out of line they snatch the dog.
Can anyone answer why they are not being charged with thefts, stalking, harassment, extortion? We need to ask the
I recently adopted a dog from Mutts and Moms and found them to be truly amazing ladies. They have a talent for picking the right dog for the right family. I have so much respect for them and the way they have handled themselves. Ellen needs to be medicated and start reading contracts more carefully. I never had an issue with the contract I signed with Mutts and Moms. It's very clear and straightforward. I wonder what would happen if someone broke a contract with Ellen? Do you think she'd have a problem with it? Hell Yes she would! She is so out of line it is absolutely rediculous. Sit down Ellen and shut up! Marina and Venessa are completely in the right. End of story!!
Batkis was wrong and everybody knows it. She was just pushing her weight around because she had control of the dog. She's a loser and I hope she goes out of business so she can't be cruel to anymore animals, because in the end that's what she was, cruel to Iggy. How many other animals has she pretended to help just to fuel her "control-freak" personality.
shari74 said...
"I'm a corporate paralegal. The contract Ellen signed can be knocked out by any Superior Court as containing an unreasonable provision counter to prevailing local adoptions."
And that is why you are a "para" legal...in other words...almost but not quite. All a paralegal does is go get coffee or briefs for the real attorneys.
One is free to contract on unreasonable provisions all they choose. That does not make the contract, or the demands contained therein, invalid.
Ellen had free will to submit and contract on the given terms, or not to, and go somewhere else. She could not have prevailed in court, and I'm sure she contacted several "real" attorneys who told her so during this ordeal. She surrendered any possessory interest in the animal the minute she gave it up, and the people she gave it to lacked standing to challenge ANYTHING. This is the sort of arguement any 1st year law student would understand, and I don't think your paralegal certificate program quite prepared you to argue with the big boys like a real attorney.
So many of these so-called "animal rescues" are run by control freaks who want to to control everything that the family of the dog does for years after it is adopted.
Had one of these lunatics once try to have an attorney file to TAKE my dog back, who had been with my family for TWO years, because she secretly called the vet (got my pet's records without my permission as owner), and found that my dog had a shot TWO WEEKS late because of a serious and unexpected family emergency and death.
These people need to be regulated very severely. They are crazy and are control freaks.
Post a Comment