The poor woman who runs that animal shelter is just trying to find good homes for animals. So the contract you sign states you cannot give the animal to another home. If you decide you do not want it then return it to the shelter. This is to protect against dogs being used for fighting, or being put out on a chain, going to a bad home or ending up in another shelter and being euthanized. It is a very common practice amoung shelters.

Petfinder.com

Ellen admits she did not read the contract. So instead of apologizing to the woman she goes on tv and denounces her. The poor shelter got so many threats, harrassing emails and phone calls it had to take down its web page. Yes the children were upset the dog was taken away, but that is not the shelters fault! Adults do things all the time that hurt children and this was Ellen's fault. She should have contacted the shelter, explained the situtation but offer that she had a great home and allowed the shelter to do its procedure and check out the potential new owners. Why should she not have to follow the rules because she is famous and has access to the airways?

She should apologize to the owner and make a huge donation.

But apparently no one I have heard interviewed agrees with me.

__________________
Raising my baby RIGHT!!!!!!

All the cool babies are wearing cloth!

yes, you are in the minority. And while I understand that rules are rules--the lady who owns the shelter should evaluate each case where this occurs individually. I think the woman is just as wrong as Ellen is. Two wrongs don't make a right...

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Come on! Ellen is rich, very very rich. She is not an 18 year old kid, she has entered into contracts. She has to have a lawyer on retainer... If you enter into a contract in this country, you are expected to NOT breach the contract. That is why we have agreements.

This is just like that dumb Senator who decided to not get a lawyer, plead guilty and then try to change his mind. People who should know better SHOULD know better.

I understand Ellen feeling badly and crying and trying to make things right. I'd feel badly if I breached an agreement and gave a dog to a family that then had the dog taken away. She should feel miserable, more importantly, she should have understood the agreement she entered into before giving the dog away.

__________________
After all these years, I see that I was mistaken about Eve in the beginning; it is better to live outside the Garden with her than inside it without her.

Mark Twain

you may be in the minority, but you are not alone. Ellen could have handled this in an entirely different manner. I think she did put the shelter and it's owners in jeopardy. She knew what would happen, she had to have. I like Ellen, but I think she did the wrong thing here. I agree her giving the dog away was an honest mistake and maybe the shelter could have also handled things differntly, but she still could have handled it better.

I'm with you so I'm in the minority too.

This is part of our "it's not my fault" mentality, coupled with our worship of celebrities. I normally do not pay much attention to them, however your post did catch my eye. In general, how can anyone disagree with a poor, sobbing, heartbroken Ellen who is using the media?

Instead of saying she made a mistake and / or suggesting the shelter consider that family ( she could highly recommend them) she chose to cast blame where it didn't belong. She could have stood up and agreed she made a mistake and turned the whole thing into a positive thing for adoption, about how the shelter is doing the right thing with their placement policies, etc.


I think you've figured out I'm in the minority with you.

dl

I agree about the contract and understand the shelter going over there to check on the dogs. What I don't agree with is them taking the dog from a family that clearly has the means and support to care for the dog and a family that has already bonded with it . To put it back in a shelter where it will live in a kennel and recieve no love at. Clearly there are times that rules can be stretched to accomodate a situation like this. Ellen has invested thousands of dollers into this dog just trying to be able to keep it. When it was found she couldn't she gave it to somewho she trusted to take care of it. I can bet that if that dog ever needed any thing Ellen would be right there to help.

That is one lucky puppy I sure hope things work out for it.

I agree with you too. Plain and simple, there were rules and Ellen broke the rules. It's an unfortunate situation, but one that Ellen brought on herself by not abiding by the contract. She definitely owes the shelter an apology (and maybe a HUGE donation) for all of the grief she has caused them over HER mistake.

It also stated that the house had to be searched and checked out.. ellens house was not checked out, but the persons house that she gave the dog too was.
Wrong on both sides.. but honestly isn't the bottom line that the dog needed a home? I think somewhere I read that 70% of animals in shelters get euthanized. so this here is a loving family wanting the dog and this idiot out of spite mind you decides to give it to someone else. never even offering another dog to them. best interest in the dog my foot!

__________________
Too many people spend money they haven't earned to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like. - Will Rogers

I don't know that you ARE in the minority, maybe on this particular board. I don't know one single person who doesn't think Ellen was wrong.

Ellen signed a contract with an organization. She didn't honor it. This entire situation was completely her fault. Ellen broke the rules she agreed to abide by when she accepted the dog. Instead of quietly admitting to the shelter that she made a mistake and quietly requesting that her friend's family be considered, she decided to try to use her celebrity to browbeat them into doing what she wanted. She deliberately made a public commotion and cost this shelter time and money. All they wanted was to find the animals good homes and Ellen's behavior has jeopardized their other animal's placements. Ellen's no babe in the woods. She's been dealing with contracts for decades. She created the mess, fed it, and it backfired on her. Unfortunately, it's the shelter and their animals who will pay the higher price for her ego. She makes me sick.

I am also with you on this. Ellen was wrong. I think this lady should sue Ellen for defamation or slander.
Ellen signed a contract, then broke it. Then went on national TV and ruined this this lady's reputation including this lady getting death threats. It is outrageous. Ellen should of kept her mouth shut since she is the one who is in the wrong here. I really like Ellen too.

I guess my feeling is that the contract should have been honored... but I feel that this family should have at least been considered.

We went with Petfinder when we got our dog and the place that we adopted gave us ONE WEEK to return the dog for our money back and 30 days to return the dog -- no money back. After that, the dog was ours to do with as we pleased.

There were other specifics but I'm wondering how long before Ellen could 'legally' give the dog away without breaking the contract? Or was she beholden to this rule until the day the dog dies? Does anyone know?

I'd sure like to read a copy of the contract. LOL.

I think that this makes a good argument against gay adoption.

(picturing Ellen leaving the baby on the steps of her agent's house b/c he upset her cats)

Rebecca

Yeah, with all this hellabaloo over this dog---where is the contract? This reminds my of once I gave a 10 week old backyard kitten to a friend. I said, "if he doesn't work out you can give him back." Two years later she called me and said, "he bites- you said you would take him back!!!". I offered a ride to the vets for him to be euthanized.

__________________
Lyn Clarke

Research, however, suggests that there is no difference in the success rates of the adoptions between organizations that screen heavily versus those that have more open adoption policies.

that just caught my eye when I read it this morning in our hunt for a furbaby...

while I agree that the "terms of the contract" were broken... to enforce the agreement when she gave away the pet, but I would think that the agency in essence voided it first when they didn't change the information on the microchip...

I don't agree at all how it was handled... it could have been handled a lot better... I can't help but wonder why its ok for the agency to pick and choose what they enforce in their agreement... if you are going to have policies, etc fine, but then you need to follow them completely...

WOW!!! There's a loaded statement. Not wanting to go off topic here, so I'll just leave it at that. Maybe a topic for a thread of its own?

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Wow, is proudusamama your BFF? So straight people would never do this? I do hope you realize that your statement outed you as a close minded, elitist, racist wench. Do you think the Nazis did the correct thing? People are people are people; it does not matter if you are black, white, gay, straight, catholic, jewish, rich nor poor. If this is not something you choose to believe in then you are a sad sucky person!

__________________
I dream to escape!

Please tell me you are joking. If not, you should be.

To keep my post OT, I see both sides. Ellen shouldn't have given it away without first contacting the shelter, and she shouldn't have taken it to the level she did. OTOH, the dog had already bonded with the family, and she should've given them a chance.

the whole thing is sad, IMO.

ITA!!!!!!!

I think Ellen was in the wrong for proceeding the way she did, but I think she did it more out of frustration, because she is close with the family and felt horrid that they pet she gave them was taken away. I do think the shelter should have considered the family for the adoption, instead of sending the dog elsewhere....The dog had been there long enough to bond with the family and vice versa.....

When it comes down to it.....She signed a contract, broke the terms of the contract, and shelter fulfilled what they said they would do by taking the dog....

__________________
"You can never really pay back. You can only pay forward."

Wayne Woodrow “Woody” Hayes

O-H-I-O

Wow. What a hateful statement.

__________________
I'm the kind of woman when my feet hit the floor in each morning, the devil says "Oh crap, she's up."

I'm in the minority too. I think Ellen is in the wrong...entirely. It's not wonder our youth are a generation of "it's not my fault" and "it's not my responsibility" with celebrities like Ellen doing this kind of crap. I really used to enjoy Ellen but after this crap started...I can't hardly stand to hear her voice. Just because she's a big star doesn't mean that contracts aren't contracts. Are the contract terms questionable? Perhaps, but that should have been discussed and/or resolved BEFORE it was signed. Signing something without reading it first isn't too bright. Is that the shelter's fault? No, it's not. What a horrible example of a star using their *powers* to ruin someone needlessly. It most likely could have been resolved quietly

__________________
Proud to say I haven't shopped at a Wal-Mart since Sept 2003

Ellen didn't sign the contract.

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

Where did you hear that......I was thinking that I had heard that she ended up not having signed anything, but couldn't remember, just assumed that she had since all the talk has been about the contract. If it turns out that they didn't have her sign a contract then I think the dog needs to be returned to that family.

__________________
"You can never really pay back. You can only pay forward."

Wayne Woodrow “Woody” Hayes

O-H-I-O

the owner said Portia signed it during an interview she gave.

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

who is Portia?

__________________
"You can never really pay back. You can only pay forward."

Wayne Woodrow “Woody” Hayes

O-H-I-O

Ellen's girlfriend

__________________


"Never loan your car to someone you have given birth too"

ok I guess I should have known that......

So if they (she) signed the contract then they were still then bound by the contract.....

__________________
"You can never really pay back. You can only pay forward."

Wayne Woodrow “Woody” Hayes

O-H-I-O

100% agree...

but I really think that Mutts and Moms only picked and chose which policies they were going to follow... if they're going to have rules, policies, and contracts then it has to be all or none...

That is true.......follow them or none

__________________
"You can never really pay back. You can only pay forward."

Wayne Woodrow “Woody” Hayes

O-H-I-O

That would make sense. Look at all this publicity they are getting. I have not followed the situation, but it just really seems to be a big mess. Has the dog gotten a good home yet???

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I'm hoping your winking icon means you're kidding.

I think both sides are wrong on this, but I think the agency is "more" wrong. Isn't the point to find a good home for the animal? Which it apparently had with the family? If they were so concerned about finding good homes, why didn't they investigate Ellen's? My guess is they were hoping for good, free publicity from her.

I'm thinking this wasn't the kind of publicity they hoped for......

__________________
"You can never really pay back. You can only pay forward."

Wayne Woodrow “Woody” Hayes

O-H-I-O

I've seen that he has gotten a new home...

[quote=truble2301;2898105]I'm hoping your winking icon means you're kidding.QUOTE]

Yes, I was kidding.

Rebecca

I am wondering if they have ever taken a dog from anyone else? What do they do if someone who has taken in a dog from them has a baby or adopts a child, or marries someone with children? Do they go in and take the animal back? The contract states that their cannot be any children under the age of 13 in the home.

Nice to meet you, Skeevy. Whose alter-ego are you?

Rebecca

If it was a joke, I apologize! I totally thought you were serious. I am not a bad troll here to do harm. Personally, I love the name as I'm sure you can find some humor in it.

__________________
I dream to escape!

[quote=rebeccarr;2898262]Sorry, I don't see many of the smileys, they take too long to load.

Personally, I think you are being passive aggressive...You obiviously have an issue w/ a specific poster (yes, I can read between the lines) and instead of confronting HER, you do the little snarky stuff like using her name as part of your name, referencing her screen name in your tag line.

Now, I do not care one way or the other about what issues you (or anyone else) may have with another person (or even myself ), but at least be big enough to address it head on. The alt's have got to go. They just creat dissension and hard feelings among the whole board.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

They knew what the terms of the adoption were, if they didn;t like them they should not have adopted that dog. I think the dog should have gone back to the shelter until they could have the new owners checked out and signed their papers. This is for the safety of the animals. I think I signed more papers to adopt the cats than I did to buy my house. They are not toys or trinkets. They are a lifelong commitment and dependent upon their owner. I applaud the shelter for sticking to the rules no matter who breaks them. Ellen had a fantastic opportunity to teach people about the responsibility of pet ownership but it became a punchline

I don't watch Ellen, so all I know is what I've read here. But regarding why they're pushing this rule with her, where they may have very well ignored this very rule in the past, here is what I would assume:

I doubt they are in a position to check up on every dog they adopt out, so people are largely on the honor system. If Ellen went on tv and made a big, public deal of the action she was taking - which happened to be against the rules - she was basically broadcasting to the world that that organization doesn't really mean what they say in the contract. Their own credibility is shot if they let the world think that you can violate the contract and they won't consider it a problem at all.

My guess is that when they hear of a violation, they check up on it, but they probably don't have the time or manpower to police their adoptive families themselves. Ellen made her violation known to the world, and put them in the position of *having* to assert themselves regarding this part of their agreement if they wanted to maintain their own organizational integrity.

Tessa, you are not alone. I don't like how this all happened either. It could have been handled by both parties a lot better but Ellen made this ugly.

Well if Ellen did not sign the contract that still is not an excuse if her significant other did. the contract was still signed. So Ellen had no right to give a dog away that maybe was not even hers in the first place. If Portia signed then it was her dog and she was bound by the contract.
Either way the dog should have been returned that is why there was a contract. If you do not like what the contract says do not adopt from there.. Move on to another place that you can accept thier rules.