Some of these rescue originations are just egomaniacs with a cause

[Maraya1969]

In response to the "Muts and Moms" group that took a dog that Ellen Degeneres gave to her hairdresser because the dog could not get a long with her cats I would like to say:

Get the fuck over yourselves already!

Now Ms. Degeneres will not be allowed to adopt another dog from any other rescue organization because she "surrendered" a dog. I know that because I was denied a dog because I "surrendered" a cat because he terrorized my other cat.....to the point that my other cat would not come home because Oliver was sit in front of the dog door all day.

Anyway, it was heart wrenching to do it and I first looked high and low to find a good home for him but there came a time that I just had to take him to the shelter with his toys and a big donation and hope for the best.

But because of that I am now considered ineligible to adopt a dog from one group. Another group refused me when I said I do not give heart worm pills every single month of every single year because I dislike the idea of feeding my pets pesticides. So I get them tested and I use natural products and there are times when I will use the heart guard.

But I am disqualified anyway.

When those 2 groups disqualified me I felt like a terrible mother. And I have been adopting the old and the infirmed for years. I would love to have a little puppy but I always take the older ones who have a harder time being placed.

These groups make you fill out an application that is longer than most of the job applications I have filled out. I had to measure my backyard for one of them, (and I was trying to adopt a Chihuahua).

Anyway some of these people are just jerks. And now they have taken this little dog, (Ellen's) away from her hairdressers 2 kids because they were not over 14 years old and put the dog with a new family.

[ThomCat]

1. Yes. It's unfortunate, but it is pretty common

for organizations to set "holier than thou" rules. x(

[Maraya1969]

2. Apparently they have to keep it secret when they have put the dog because

they have been getting threats. I think threats are all wrong but what did they expect? Why the hell couldn't they just let those 2 kids have the dog? I am sure it would have been well taken care of because their mother probably makes a decent living. I heard on some site that the family's house was not big enough but I'm not sure about that.

[cuke]

3. I blame Ellen

If she had just done what she agreed to do, no one would have gotten hurt

[Maraya1969]

6. She didn't do it on purpose. She either did not read that part of the

contract or forgot about it. I can understand that.

[cuke]

8. Actually, she did do it on purpose

Unless she's using the Ambien defense

And it doesn't matter if she read or not, or read it and forgot it. She entered into a contract. That doesn't make her evil, but it does make her RESPONSIBLE. Purposeful or not, the problem was caused by Ellen, not the rescue org.

[Blue Diadem]

17. It was actually Ellen's partner who adopted the dog and signed the contract.

That's according to a news video I saw of the lady who is getting the threats.

[Javaman]

25. Yeah, just like all the people who bought homes on subprime loans.

got to read the details.

[Links]

26. I blame the system! I blame the Muttering Mom !

Since when have the cops been given the right to interpret and enforce written contracts?

This case should have never been handled in this manner. Had it been handled properly, there would not have been this firestorm of controversary over who is responsible!

Once possession has been transferred, breech of a contract is determined in a court of law, not by cops on the beat!

The mutt got screwed, Ellen got screwed, and the kid got screwed. Our system just seems to be filling up with illegal, and un-necessary what-if prosecutions; a lot of which unfortunately evolve from legally un-enforceable contract language written to satisfy personal wishes, which in fact are in direct contradiction with the laws of the land. It seems that many think that just because they want it a certain way, that it is enforceable if someone agrees to it... NOT! Contract language must be enforceable, and therefore must be shown to be reasonable and within the purview of the courts. I want to say that over 90% of the online contracts I've seen written by armatures ( most on eBay ) are unenforceable under the state laws in which they would apply.

Example, many eBay sellers include a statement like " Once the item is shipped, we will not be responsible for lost or undeliverable items. In fact, all state consumer protection laws require the seller to deliver the product in the condition in which it was advertised.. In other words, a seller can not simply absolve themselves of the liability to deliver the product, simply by making a statement to that effect! Similarly, when one is in breech of contract, it becomes a matter for the courts, not the police!

I think Ellen has a case against the Muttering Mom, and should go for the jugular! Make her bleed the green blood that many business owners have come to understand..

Where will it all end! I suggest a Revolution against petty prosecutions!

[Vanje]

4. Yep

Control Freaks

[idgiehkt]

5. sigh...

Ellen needs to get over *herself*.

I just read this article and I'm really not surprised, Ellen should have had the foresight to see what would happen:


Ellen's Rescue Agency Dogged by Death Threats
by Sarah Hall
Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:37:26 PM PDT

Marina Baktis, who runs the nonprofit rescue agency Mutts and Moms with business partner Vanessa Chekroun, filed a police report Tuesday night, after receiving death threats in the wake of DeGeneres' tearful on-air plea for the return of her adopted pooch to her hairdresser's family.

The Pasadena Police Department said it was investigating the source of "several threats cell phone and work phone from several angry persons who threatened her life and her property."
http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=c528d860-95a0-46bd-a2b8-58f19367d2e8&sid=fd-news

I have always been a fan of Ellen's, long before she 'came out', hell long before she was even on the "Ellen" show. But using her fame to manipulate the public to put pressure on a charitable organization that probably is funded mainly by donations is beneath contempt in my book. I'm really disappointed in her. She could have taken this through the courts but for someone with her level of fame take an issue that should have never been publicized and talk about it on her show like this, naming the org, and saying they have a 'vendetta' against her is b.s., as a celebrity she knows better than most what kind of whack jobs are out there and how fanatical some 'fans' can be. I just can't believe Ellen has done this, I really can't. It won't void the contract and it won't do anything but most likely force this org to shut down or change it's name and reorganize. This is such a punk move on Ellen's part...I say that as a fan, this just reeks six ways to Sunday.

[Maraya1969]

7. Did you see the clip of her on her show. The woman broke down sobbing.

Maybe she should have kept herself together and not brought it up on tv. I still think that organization was horrible for taking the dog away from its new family.

[cuke]

9. Yep, she should have known better

Now, an organization that helps dogs is going to be hurting. Now, more dogs will be left to the streets, or in shelters where they kill dogs.

Nice going, Ellen. You did nothing for your hairdresser except upset her children, did nothing good for the dog by giving it away, and hurt a charitable organization

[Coyote_Bandit]

10. Leasing an animal

That's what Ellen did. She made the mistake of thinking it was hers. Probably an honest mistake. Legally, prperty ownership carries the right to gift the property or otherwise transfer ownership to another. Regardless of whether it is appropriate, animals are considered property. Ellen didn't own the dog she leased it. Kind of like leasing an automobile.

I have two "rescue" dogs. Neither came from a traditional rescue group. It is likely both would have been difficult to place. One has renal disease and the other is visually impaired and had minimal human interaction for his first year of life. But they are mine. I can direct who cares for them should I be unable to do so, God forbid.

[alarimer]

11. Which is why I never adopt from these organizations

I have never thought of getting a dog and probably never will if they are such assholes. I got both of my cats by chance. The one I have now I got from someone in front of Petsmart. I only wish I could have taken more than one.

[Javaman]

27. Me too, that's why I go to the pound. :) nt

[LeftyMom]

12. The rescue's first responsibility is to the animal

Her home didn't work out, so they did what their contract said they would do and found another home that met their specifications. Which is what rescues do, find suitable forever homes.

For her to break the contract, then use her national bully pulpit to shame these volunteers (who do expensive, time-consuming, heart-wrenching work and deserve all the love and respect in the world for it, whether or not you agree with all of their decisions) and try to get them to do what she wanted is irresponsible and manipulative. Honestly, after her behavior in this situation I wouldn't in a million years let her adopt an animal from me.

FWIW, it's not exactly news that the small kids/small dogs combo is bad news. A disproportionate number of reported bites to children come from small dogs, and a disproportionate number of those are dangerous and potentially disfiguring bites to the face and neck. Small dogs tend to be easily frightened and intimidated by younger children's quick movements and noisiness, which can be a larger concern with animals that have abuse or poor socialization in their history.

[LostInAnomie]

13. "Muts and Moms" sound like some control freak assholes

I've never liked the idea of rescues that can repossess an animal just because they don't feel you are living up to their standards. If the animal is not in any danger or being mistreated then leave it the fuck alone. What's more important, a rescued animal living happily in a home, or some bullshit, invasive rules?

[alphafemale]

14. I think it will make people less likely to go to these organizations for a pet.

Or that they will at least be more selective of the organizations they DO adopt from.

After all, there are "FREE TO GOOD HOME" ads in the paper everyday. You can cut out the middleman. Or you can just wait for the homeless animal to find their way to your door.

And the "Mutts and Moms" name of the organization in question seems more than a tad deceptive.

Since they won't adopt to you if you're...well a Mom...with kids.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. if you dealt with abused and abandoned animals all day, your attitude may have been different

also i am sorry but we are all getting worked up because this is a celebrity we like.

had this been paris hilton, we would have said, she should play by the rules or learn to read her contract like anyone else.

[calico1]

16. Would we feel the same if this were Paris or

Brittany? I think not. I have always been a fan of Ellen's but she is wrong in this case. Of course it's hard to disagree with someone who is so "nice" and so likeable.

I know a number of people who work for rescues and I am blown away by their dedication and the hard work and countless hours they dedicate to finding animals good homes.

Whether it was advice from one of her people or her own decision it was a very bad move on her part to make the public display. She attempted to get the dog back despite her not honoring the contract by humiliating the agency and giving them bad publicity.

I don't know...I guess if I were publicly outed as a really bad person by someone with a lot of power and getting menacing calls, death and arson threats I probably wouldn't be in the mood to deal with Ellen.

[flvegan]

18. Horseshit. Absolute horseshit.

It's this mentality that's going to fuck over a lot of rescue groups, like mine.

While I agree that this instance with this rescue could've been handled better (as I've previously stated), to suggest that rescues (like mine) are a front for an egomaniac with a cause is quite fucking insulting, thank you. Are some of them too strict? Possibly. Are some overzealous? Certainly.

Our application is longer than most job apps. Why? Because it's 2 pages of questions about your yard, vet, family situation, other animals presently in the home, where former animals are now, if you understand the cost of having a dog, agreement to find the animal friendly disaster shelters, etc. You should see the adoption contract. 5 pages long. Much of it is liability to cover our asses. Much of it is fair warning that if you unreasonably tether, crop, dock or "misuse" the animal, we're coming back for him/her and you can't bloody stop us. We've covered legal costs, and make suggestions about insurance.

To your credit, measuring your backyard is idiotic. That's a new one even for me.

[Coyote_Bandit]

19. So

if I get an animal from your organization I do not take all of the traditional incidents of property ownership:
1. control of the use of the property
2. the right to any benefit from the property
3. a right to transfer or sell the property
4. a right to exclude others from the property.

I don't think animals should legally be considered to be property but the fact is that they are.

I do not think that organizations or breeders that place animals pursuant to contracts with surrender clauses should lead folks to believe that the animal is theirs. The most they take when an animal is placed is the right to have care and custody of the animal for an indeterminate period of time.

I suppose it is largely a matter of semantics but I really wish breeders and rescue groups would indicate that they are only awarding care and custody of the animal when they place it. They are not adopting it or placing it in a home. It is a far better description of the transaction that occurs. It defines the expectations of the services that will be provided to the animal. It does not suggest transfer of ownership. It does suggest that custody could be terminated.

Yes, rescue groups do valuable work. Yes, they are largely under financed. The rescue workers I have known have been well intentioned. I'm not questioning that. To be fair, many breeders also have surrender clauses in their contracts. Such provisions and issues are not unique to rescue organizations.

Still, next time I take in an animal I will again look through non traditional sources for an animal needing a home. For me, doing so is a far more complete and responsible commitment to the animal. If I know and care for the animal and know its personality, needs, behavior and circle of human interaction then I am best suited to determine where it should be placed should it need to be re-homed or should I no longer be able to care for it. I will not assume responsibility for an animal only to be required to completely surrender responsibility for such a major decision impacting the animal. Somebody else can do that. A surrender clause would prohibit me from making a full commitment to care for the animal. An organization/breeder that insists on including a surrender clause has clearly indicated that they do not trust my judgment and prefer to substitute their own. Not only is that presumptuous it is a personal rejection of the care I have offered the animal. It assumes that I do not have the same level of commitment to the animal as does the organization/breeder. I will not voluntarily submit myself to that control. And I don't have to because there are lots of good animals that need homes that can be obtained from other sources.

Just my opinion. Nothing personal.

[flvegan]

20. Give me a break.

You mistreat the subject property, we have civil contractual rights to take the animal away. Much like animal control/the police have the right to do the same via powers given them via Statute.

Additionally, a contractual rescue's right of first refusal upon disposal of the dog doesn't seem outlandish.

We can play semantics all day long if you like.

[Coyote_Bandit]

21. Legally

animals are property. Maybe they shouldn't be but they are. Ask a lawyer. Look it up.

A gun also is property. And I don't have the right to do with it whatever I choose. But if I own it I can transfer ownership (and make any number of modifications and improvements - but that's another issue altogether isn't it?). Can't do that with an animal that comes with a surrender clause. If I cannot transfer ownership to property then I do not legally own it. It isn't mine to gift or sell.

I ***WILL*** have the ability to make a lifelong commitment to any animal for which I assume responsibility. I believe that is the best investment of my emotions, my commitment, my care and attention, and my finances. To make a lesser commitment is irresponsible to the animal. Frankly, I am far more interested in the animal and its welfare than in the well being or agenda of the breeder or rescue organization which is placing the animal. I suspect breeders and rescue organizations share that desire and priority (the welfare of the animal is more important than the rights or agenda of the individual caring for it). If that were not true those surrender clauses would be irrelevant. Surrender clauses exist for one reason and one reason only. The breeder or organization does not trust the person with whom they have entrusted the care and custody of the animal and wish to reserve the right to exercise their judgment and be able to remove or retrieve the animal from that individual. It is an issue of trust (or more accurately the lack thereof) that is manifested and expressed by asserting legal control over the animal throughout its lifetime.

If I have had care and custody of an animal for a period of time and observed its personality, its needs, its desires, its likes and dislikes, and its circle of human interaction I am best able to determine its appropriate care. I am unwilling to surrender the ability to do so in order to obtain an animal from any breeder or rescue group. That said, if I have only had the animal for only a brief period of time I may not be qualified to make that assessment. Unfortunately, surrender clauses don't have sunset provisions. They don't expire after I have cared for an animal for a year - or ten years. They don't expire until the animal has passed to the Rainbow Bridge.

It is blatantly arrogant for a breeder or group to assume that they are the only ones invested in lifelong care of an animal.

Again, I will not have an animal to which I cannot make a lifelong commitment. Surrender clauses prohibit that commitment and insure that only the breeder or rescue organization has the ability to make such a lifelong commitment to the animal. I refuse to accept an animal under those terms. There are other less traditional sources for obtaining "rescue" animals that do not carry such restrictions.

I will not darken your rescue door. Promise. I've expressed the reasons for that decision. You don't have to understand or agree. You don't even have to pay attention. It is nothing personal or vindictive. I simply am not obligated to accept, defend or agree with animals being made available under contracts that contain terms I find objectionable. I doubt my opinion is unique to me.





Please don't misunderstand. I respect those individuals and organizations who work to improve the lives of animals. I wish them well. That doesn't necessarily mean I am willing to patronize them.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

22. My sister runs a rescue group in Texas...

and over the years I have heard horror stories about the conditions most of these animals were rescued from. Is she strict about who is eligible to adopt her animals? Damn straight, she is.

She has a multi-page form for potential owners. She charges a large adoption fee. She restricts certain breeds/sizes/temperments from certain homes. She does everything she can in her power to make sure the animal goes to the right household.

Why? Because she does not want to put an animal back into another potentially abusive situation. Nor does she want to have to "rescue" that animal again, this time from the local animal control after it's been dumped by their adopted owner because they got tired of it or the animal wasn't a good fit. She also wants to make sure that they are not going to be used for animal research, or, in the case of rabbits, end up snake food or in someone's cook pot.

ALL animal rescue groups want adopters who are serious about being the best caretaker they can be for the new member of the family. And they do this because every single day they see first hand the result of a bad match.

[Links]

23. Cops can't enforce Written Contracts.

Since when have the cops been given the right to interpret and enforce written contracts?

This case should have never been handled in this manner.

Once possession has been transferred, breech of a contract is determined in a court of law, not by cops on the beat!

The mutt got screwed, Ellen got screwed, and the kid got screwed. Our system just seems to be filling up with illegal, and un-necessary what-if prosecutions. Where will it all end! I suggest a Revolution against petty prosecutions!

[Deep13]

24. True, it is the basis of a civil action. n/t