Let Mutts and Moms know what you think about taking the Ellen Degeneres dog....

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Magic Mood Jeep wrote:


Current flap w/ Ellen DeGeneres. She adopted a dog from them. Says she
spent $3,000 on spay/neuter & training to integrate the dog w/ her cats.
Dog was too hyper, so she gave the dog to her hairdresser. Hairdresser's
kids totally bonded w/ dog - dog was happy.

Then rescue agency found out. What Ellen did was against their policy.
Ellen admits she did not read all through the paperwork that she signed
when she adopted the dog. Rescue people took the dog away from the
hairdresser & her family.

Ellen is admitting what she did was wrong - but since the dog was happy,
and so was the hairdresser & her family, rescue agency could be lenient
and let the dog stay with them...

And five will get you ten, if DeGeneres were not a celebrity, the rescue
people would never have done a thing! (Some people go on the assumption
that ANY publicity is better than none.) IMO, she behaved in a
responsible way, so what's their point? They wanted the fees for
"placing" the dog a second time, never mind that she'd already found it a
good home?

I think the responsible thing for DeGeneres (or anyone who adopts an animal
for that matter) to have done would have been to contact the agency and
explain her situation and then suggest her hairdresser as a potential
adopter and let the hairdresser fill out the appropriate paperwork,
interview with the rescue group, and sign a contract. After all, if
Degeneres did not turn out to be a good match for this dog then maybe her
judgment and experience regarding the dog's placement would not have been in
the best interest of the dog. I think the dog's welfare comes first.

I am beginning to find out from working with the cat rescue group I'm
involved with how many people think they are qualified to be a good pet
owner, who aren't...also most rescue groups are not flush with money and you
have no idea what kind of expenses the rescue group incurred in taking care
of the dog before it was adopted (not to mention all the other expenses for
dogs they rescue) so I don't think it unreasonable that they should ask for
another adoption fee from a potential adopter.

(My .02) I don't know this for sure, of course, but I would think the rescue
group would follow the same policies no matter if an adopter is a celebrity
or not because they care about their rescues; it's a huge responsibility to
try to find the best home for their rescues.

Christine

I can't get past this. I know they charge "them that have it more but...".
$3,000 on spay/neuter & training I have worked with training/house breaking
and traveling doge before and can't see unless again, the more you have the
more they charge.
"Christine Burel" wrote in message
...

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Magic Mood Jeep wrote:


Current flap w/ Ellen DeGeneres. She adopted a dog from them. Says she
spent $3,000 on spay/neuter & training to integrate the dog w/ her cats.
Dog was too hyper, so she gave the dog to her hairdresser.
Hairdresser's kids totally bonded w/ dog - dog was happy.

Then rescue agency found out. What Ellen did was against their policy.
Ellen admits she did not read all through the paperwork that she signed
when she adopted the dog. Rescue people took the dog away from the
hairdresser & her family.

Ellen is admitting what she did was wrong - but since the dog was happy,
and so was the hairdresser & her family, rescue agency could be lenient
and let the dog stay with them...

And five will get you ten, if DeGeneres were not a celebrity, the rescue
people would never have done a thing! (Some people go on the assumption
that ANY publicity is better than none.) IMO, she behaved in a
responsible way, so what's their point? They wanted the fees for
"placing" the dog a second time, never mind that she'd already found it a
good home?

I think the responsible thing for DeGeneres (or anyone who adopts an
animal for that matter) to have done would have been to contact the agency
and explain her situation and then suggest her hairdresser as a potential
adopter and let the hairdresser fill out the appropriate paperwork,
interview with the rescue group, and sign a contract. After all, if
Degeneres did not turn out to be a good match for this dog then maybe her
judgment and experience regarding the dog's placement would not have been
in the best interest of the dog. I think the dog's welfare comes first.

I am beginning to find out from working with the cat rescue group I'm
involved with how many people think they are qualified to be a good pet
owner, who aren't...also most rescue groups are not flush with money and
you have no idea what kind of expenses the rescue group incurred in taking
care of the dog before it was adopted (not to mention all the other
expenses for dogs they rescue) so I don't think it unreasonable that they
should ask for another adoption fee from a potential adopter.

(My .02) I don't know this for sure, of course, but I would think the
rescue group would follow the same policies no matter if an adopter is a
celebrity or not because they care about their rescues; it's a huge
responsibility to try to find the best home for their rescues.

Christine

Christine Burel wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Magic Mood Jeep wrote:



Current flap w/ Ellen DeGeneres. She adopted a dog from them. Says she
spent $3,000 on spay/neuter & training to integrate the dog w/ her cats.
Dog was too hyper, so she gave the dog to her hairdresser. Hairdresser's
kids totally bonded w/ dog - dog was happy.

Then rescue agency found out. What Ellen did was against their policy.
Ellen admits she did not read all through the paperwork that she signed
when she adopted the dog. Rescue people took the dog away from the
hairdresser & her family.

Ellen is admitting what she did was wrong - but since the dog was happy,
and so was the hairdresser & her family, rescue agency could be lenient
and let the dog stay with them...

And five will get you ten, if DeGeneres were not a celebrity, the rescue
people would never have done a thing! (Some people go on the assumption
that ANY publicity is better than none.) IMO, she behaved in a
responsible way, so what's their point? They wanted the fees for
"placing" the dog a second time, never mind that she'd already found it a
good home?


I think the responsible thing for DeGeneres (or anyone who adopts an animal
for that matter) to have done would have been to contact the agency and
explain her situation and then suggest her hairdresser as a potential
adopter and let the hairdresser fill out the appropriate paperwork,
interview with the rescue group, and sign a contract.

Ordinarily the "rescue group's" authority would end when the
adoption was finalized, wouldn't it? What would they have
done of DeGeneres had decided to move to New York, or
somewhere else favored by entertainers? Usually, when you
adopt a dog from a shelter, you pay the license and
vaccination fees, plus whatever they add on to cover their
"costs", and the animal is yours.

After all, if
Degeneres did not turn out to be a good match for this dog then maybe her
judgment and experience regarding the dog's placement would not have been in
the best interest of the dog. I think the dog's welfare comes first.

Which is apparently why she rehomed it! If the dog was
happy with its new family, and its new family was happy with
the dog, why would any responsible "rescue" organization
interfere? (Other than some self-righteous idiot wanting to
see herself on the "Nightly News"?)

Granby wrote:

I can't get past this. I know they charge "them that have it more but...".
$3,000 on spay/neuter & training I have worked with training/house breaking
and traveling doge before and can't see unless again, the more you have the
more they charge.

There was an item on the news here, yesterday, about someone
stealing an English Bulldog pup from a pet store. "Value"
of the dog, $4,400! (And all the lovely, often purbred,
dogs dying in animal control shelters every day, who could
be ransomed for simply the cost of a license!)

On Oct 18, 1:47 pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:
Christine Burel wrote:
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...

Magic Mood Jeep wrote:

Current flap w/ Ellen DeGeneres. She adopted a dog from them. Says she
spent $3,000 on spay/neuter & training to integrate the dog w/ her cats.
Dog was too hyper, so she gave the dog to her hairdresser. Hairdresser's
kids totally bonded w/ dog - dog was happy.

Then rescue agency found out. What Ellen did was against their policy.
Ellen admits she did not read all through the paperwork that she signed
when she adopted the dog. Rescue people took the dog away from the
hairdresser & her family.

Ellen is admitting what she did was wrong - but since the dog was happy,
and so was the hairdresser & her family, rescue agency could be lenient
and let the dog stay with them...

And five will get you ten, if DeGeneres were not a celebrity, the rescue
people would never have done a thing! (Some people go on the assumption
that ANY publicity is better than none.) IMO, she behaved in a
responsible way, so what's their point? They wanted the fees for
"placing" the dog a second time, never mind that she'd already found it a
good home?

I think the responsible thing for DeGeneres (or anyone who adopts an animal
for that matter) to have done would have been to contact the agency and
explain her situation and then suggest her hairdresser as a potential
adopter and let the hairdresser fill out the appropriate paperwork,
interview with the rescue group, and sign a contract.

Ordinarily the "rescue group's" authority would end when the
adoption was finalized, wouldn't it? What would they have
done of DeGeneres had decided to move to New York, or
somewhere else favored by entertainers? Usually, when you
adopt a dog from a shelter, you pay the license and
vaccination fees, plus whatever they add on to cover their
"costs", and the animal is yours.

No, most shelter contracts stipulate that if an animal must be
relinquished, the adoptor must bring it back to the shelter.
All responsible breeders I know
have the same clause in their contracts. The clause is there
*in case* it needs to be enforced. For instance, if the dog is given
away, and found chained in a backyard, the shelter has legal
muscle to rescue the dog.
I don't think any shelter would enforce that clause if the dog was
obviously loved and well-taken-care of.

Sherry

The lady has had her 15 minutes of fame, hope this gets settled and the dog
goes where it is loved and not stuck in a cage. Will probably appear on EBAY
the next we hear.

"Matthew" wrote in message
...
I think this has gotten way out of hand.

Both parties are partially wrong on both sides.

The clause that she signed stated she basically needed to bring the dog
back to the original person. If she was going to do what she did.

The OP instead of being a moron should have checked the family out and if
found to be fine leave the dog.

IMO The cops had no business allowing the dog to be taken. It was a civil
matter and a police report should have been filed. And I would have filed
criminal charges against here

Who ever these idiots are doing deaths threats. What did that accomplish
except for them committing a felony possible federal felony.


Personally the lady would have never been allowed in my house and or been
able to put her hands on the pet. She would have been bounced out on her
butt to quick to talk about if she tried to touch the pet.

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Christine Burel wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Magic Mood Jeep wrote:



Current flap w/ Ellen DeGeneres. She adopted a dog from them. Says she
spent $3,000 on spay/neuter & training to integrate the dog w/ her cats.
Dog was too hyper, so she gave the dog to her hairdresser.
Hairdresser's kids totally bonded w/ dog - dog was happy.

Then rescue agency found out. What Ellen did was against their policy.
Ellen admits she did not read all through the paperwork that she signed
when she adopted the dog. Rescue people took the dog away from the
hairdresser & her family.

Ellen is admitting what she did was wrong - but since the dog was happy,
and so was the hairdresser & her family, rescue agency could be lenient
and let the dog stay with them...

And five will get you ten, if DeGeneres were not a celebrity, the rescue
people would never have done a thing! (Some people go on the assumption
that ANY publicity is better than none.) IMO, she behaved in a
responsible way, so what's their point? They wanted the fees for
"placing" the dog a second time, never mind that she'd already found it a
good home?


I think the responsible thing for DeGeneres (or anyone who adopts an
animal for that matter) to have done would have been to contact the
agency and explain her situation and then suggest her hairdresser as a
potential adopter and let the hairdresser fill out the appropriate
paperwork, interview with the rescue group, and sign a contract.

Ordinarily the "rescue group's" authority would end when the adoption was
finalized, wouldn't it?

Not necessarily, see below. It's not like

What would they have
done of DeGeneres had decided to move to New York, or somewhere else
favored by entertainers?

The right thing for DeGeneres (or anyone else adopting a pet) to do then is
to contact the rescue group (per the contract) and see what arrangments
could be made.

Usually, when you
adopt a dog from a shelter, you pay the license and vaccination fees, plus
whatever they add on to cover their "costs", and the animal is yours.


Both our rescue group and the one we share space with at Petsmart have
contracts specifying that the animal must be returned to the group if the
situation does not work out. Then they may get a refund or pick out a
different animal if they wish. You'd also wish that people would call the
rescue group and ask for advice if they are having problems before they give
up the animal. It is up to the individual rescue groups' contracts to
specify what their requirements are and there are many other places people
can adopt from should they not want to comply with the contract's
requirements --- also, one shouldn't sign a contract without reading it
first.

After all, if Degeneres did not turn out to be a good match for this dog
then maybe her judgment and experience regarding the dog's placement
would not have been in the best interest of the dog. I think the dog's
welfare comes first.

Which is apparently why she rehomed it! If the dog was happy with its new
family, and its new family was happy with the dog, why would any
responsible "rescue" organization interfere?

For one thing, we don't know all the circumstances...
Did you think that maybe there were other people who might have been on a
waiting list for this dog originally -- shouldn't they have had the chance
to adopt, too?

Not to say that this family might not have been a good choice for the dog,
but there are people who come in to adopt and probably think they would be a
great home for a rescued animal but after talking with them you find out
there are issues regarding care of the animal that your organization and the
potential adopter might definitely disagree on (e.g., an example of a hot
issue with a cat rescue group might be allowing declawing or not -- there
are probably hot issues re dogs, too, but since I'm not familiar with
those...although I guess ear cropping might be one...)

I have to say that maybe if DeGeneres had gone about this the right way and
contacted the rescue group like she should have maybe something could have
been worked out with the hairdresser people; I know that sometimes our
rescue group makes exceptions on their usual requirements depending on the
situation and the people involved. But "trying this in the media" now has
backed both parties into a corner.

I am very sorry for the hairdresser's family who knew no better. I'm sure
Ellen Degeneres has realized she made a mistake that has consequences
despite any good intentions. I am sure she will read all contracts more
carefully from now on but I wish she hadn't made a media event out of this
as by polarizing the issue with so much negative publicity she may actually
now have made it harder for that rescue group's animals to be adopted -- and
who does that ultimately hurt? The animals...

Christine


(Other than some self-righteous idiot wanting to
see herself on the "Nightly News"?)

Remember the $3,000 spay/neuter and training fee? The training was to
acclimate the dog with the cats, didn't work, wonder if she got her money
back. Silly I know but I just remembered the bucks she spent.
"Christine Burel" wrote in message
...

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Christine Burel wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Magic Mood Jeep wrote:



Current flap w/ Ellen DeGeneres. She adopted a dog from them. Says
she spent $3,000 on spay/neuter & training to integrate the dog w/ her
cats. Dog was too hyper, so she gave the dog to her hairdresser.
Hairdresser's kids totally bonded w/ dog - dog was happy.

Then rescue agency found out. What Ellen did was against their policy.
Ellen admits she did not read all through the paperwork that she signed
when she adopted the dog. Rescue people took the dog away from the
hairdresser & her family.

Ellen is admitting what she did was wrong - but since the dog was
happy, and so was the hairdresser & her family, rescue agency could be
lenient and let the dog stay with them...

And five will get you ten, if DeGeneres were not a celebrity, the rescue
people would never have done a thing! (Some people go on the assumption
that ANY publicity is better than none.) IMO, she behaved in a
responsible way, so what's their point? They wanted the fees for
"placing" the dog a second time, never mind that she'd already found it
a good home?


I think the responsible thing for DeGeneres (or anyone who adopts an
animal for that matter) to have done would have been to contact the
agency and explain her situation and then suggest her hairdresser as a
potential adopter and let the hairdresser fill out the appropriate
paperwork, interview with the rescue group, and sign a contract.

Ordinarily the "rescue group's" authority would end when the adoption was
finalized, wouldn't it?

Not necessarily, see below. It's not like

What would they have
done of DeGeneres had decided to move to New York, or somewhere else
favored by entertainers?

The right thing for DeGeneres (or anyone else adopting a pet) to do then
is to contact the rescue group (per the contract) and see what arrangments
could be made.

Usually, when you
adopt a dog from a shelter, you pay the license and vaccination fees,
plus whatever they add on to cover their "costs", and the animal is
yours.


Both our rescue group and the one we share space with at Petsmart have
contracts specifying that the animal must be returned to the group if the
situation does not work out. Then they may get a refund or pick out a
different animal if they wish. You'd also wish that people would call the
rescue group and ask for advice if they are having problems before they
give up the animal. It is up to the individual rescue groups' contracts to
specify what their requirements are and there are many other places people
can adopt from should they not want to comply with the contract's
requirements --- also, one shouldn't sign a contract without reading it
first.

After all, if Degeneres did not turn out to be a good match for this
dog then maybe her judgment and experience regarding the dog's placement
would not have been in the best interest of the dog. I think the dog's
welfare comes first.

Which is apparently why she rehomed it! If the dog was happy with its
new family, and its new family was happy with the dog, why would any
responsible "rescue" organization interfere?

For one thing, we don't know all the circumstances...
Did you think that maybe there were other people who might have been on a
waiting list for this dog originally -- shouldn't they have had the chance
to adopt, too?

Not to say that this family might not have been a good choice for the dog,
but there are people who come in to adopt and probably think they would be
a great home for a rescued animal but after talking with them you find out
there are issues regarding care of the animal that your organization and
the potential adopter might definitely disagree on (e.g., an example of a
hot issue with a cat rescue group might be allowing declawing or not --
there are probably hot issues re dogs, too, but since I'm not familiar
with those...although I guess ear cropping might be one...)

I have to say that maybe if DeGeneres had gone about this the right way
and contacted the rescue group like she should have maybe something could
have been worked out with the hairdresser people; I know that sometimes
our rescue group makes exceptions on their usual requirements depending on
the situation and the people involved. But "trying this in the media" now
has backed both parties into a corner.

I am very sorry for the hairdresser's family who knew no better. I'm sure
Ellen Degeneres has realized she made a mistake that has consequences
despite any good intentions. I am sure she will read all contracts more
carefully from now on but I wish she hadn't made a media event out of this
as by polarizing the issue with so much negative publicity she may
actually now have made it harder for that rescue group's animals to be
adopted -- and who does that ultimately hurt? The animals...

Christine


(Other than some self-righteous idiot wanting to
see herself on the "Nightly News"?)

"Christine Burel" wrote in
:


"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in
message ...


Magic Mood Jeep wrote:


Current flap w/ Ellen DeGeneres. She adopted a dog from them. Says
she spent $3,000 on spay/neuter & training to integrate the dog w/
her cats. Dog was too hyper, so she gave the dog to her hairdresser.
Hairdresser's kids totally bonded w/ dog - dog was happy.

Then rescue agency found out. What Ellen did was against their
policy. Ellen admits she did not read all through the paperwork that
she signed when she adopted the dog. Rescue people took the dog
away from the hairdresser & her family.

Ellen is admitting what she did was wrong - but since the dog was
happy, and so was the hairdresser & her family, rescue agency could
be lenient and let the dog stay with them...

And five will get you ten, if DeGeneres were not a celebrity, the
rescue people would never have done a thing! (Some people go on the
assumption that ANY publicity is better than none.) IMO, she behaved
in a responsible way, so what's their point? They wanted the fees
for "placing" the dog a second time, never mind that she'd already
found it a good home?

I think the responsible thing for DeGeneres (or anyone who adopts an
animal for that matter) to have done would have been to contact the
agency and explain her situation and then suggest her hairdresser as a
potential adopter and let the hairdresser fill out the appropriate
paperwork, interview with the rescue group, and sign a contract.
After all, if Degeneres did not turn out to be a good match for this
dog then maybe her judgment and experience regarding the dog's
placement would not have been in the best interest of the dog. I
think the dog's welfare comes first.

I am beginning to find out from working with the cat rescue group I'm
involved with how many people think they are qualified to be a good
pet owner, who aren't...also most rescue groups are not flush with
money and you have no idea what kind of expenses the rescue group
incurred in taking care of the dog before it was adopted (not to
mention all the other expenses for dogs they rescue) so I don't think
it unreasonable that they should ask for another adoption fee from a
potential adopter.

(My .02) I don't know this for sure, of course, but I would think the
rescue group would follow the same policies no matter if an adopter is
a celebrity or not because they care about their rescues; it's a huge
responsibility to try to find the best home for their rescues.

Christine






Exactly.

"Granby" wrote in
:

I can't get past this. I know they charge "them that have it more
but...". $3,000 on spay/neuter & training I have worked with
training/house breaking and traveling doge before and can't see unless
again, the more you have the more they charge.
"Christine Burel" wrote in message
...


If it seems so unlikely to be true perhaps it's not.

Andy