Do you like this story?
Real challenges for real world adoptions
By Christie Keith
October 16, 2007
There’s a seat for every butt, they say… but is there a home for every dog, at least the ones who aren’t untreatably ill or dangerous?
That’s a debate that won’t be over any time soon, but two recent news items got me thinking about how that battle plays out in the real world.
One, or course, has been all over the blogs, email lists, and dog forums. It’s the story of how Ellen DeGeneres adopted a mixed breed dog named Iggy from a Southern California rescue group, dealt with some of his health and behavior issues, realized that he wasn’t a good fit for her family (apparently there were some problems with her cats), and found him a home with another family.
She didn’t auction Iggy off on Ebay or give him to the first person she saw on the street; she placed the dog with her own hairdresser, whose two little girls, she said, adored him.
What’s the problem? She’d agreed when she adopted Iggy that, if things didn’t work out, she’d return him to the rescue group. Ellen says she didn’t realize that was part of the agreement, and that the dog was in a good home, and she thinks that’s what matters.
The rescue group didn’t agree, and came and took the dog away from his new family — leading DeGeneres to make a very emotional public plea for him to be returned to their care:
I know that every rescue group or shelter that implements what seems to be a completely absurd requirement for its adopters has a reason for it. But this rescue group says they will not return the dog, and claim it’s not an appropriate home simply because they do not place dogs in families with children under 14. (The girls are 11 and 12, and have another dog.) The report in the video clip I included in this post says the group did not even do a house check before reclaiming Iggy.
Even if DeGeneres should have contacted them, even if she should have read the contract, even if she had demonstrated Britney-esque levels of celebrity “your laws do not apply to me” ego (which she did not), isn’t the important thing the well-being of the dog rather than the letter of the contract? What matters more, his happiness or some arbitrary age cut-off?
“She’s got a problem with me and she decided to teach everybody a lesson,” said DeGeneres. Which made me think about the undercurrent of punitiveness in a lot of animal placement and adoption evaluation done by rescue groups and shelters. I definitely believe they should have policies designed to protect the best interests of the animals they are placing, and prevent the animals from bouncing back into the system due to careless placement. But again and again, I see people turned down for adoptions who are offering homes that may not be perfect, but are perfectly good.
The second news item was about a businessman who was pretty sure there were homes for a lot of dogs in kill shelters if only people knew about those dogs. So he started up DogsInDanger.com, which matches dogs with limited time left in kill shelters with potential adopters.
In the three weeks since the site has been up, dozens of dogs have found new homes. Their photos are posted on a section of the site marked “Success Stories.” The images of dogs that didn’t make it adorn the site’s “In Memoriam” wall.
“It’s not the fault of the shelters,” said Alex Aliksanyan, a pet adoption advocate who made money in the Internet travel business. “They don’t like doing this, but they have to abide by the law, which requires a shelter to control its animal population.”
I know a lot of great people who volunteer in shelters, just as I know many wonderful rescue organizations. But I have to wonder how real that “it’s not the fault of the shelters” is. It reminds me of people I know who find new homes for retired racing greyhounds, who are scrupulously careful never to criticize the dog racing industry out of fear they’ll be cut off from access to the dogs.
Because I can’t think of any other industry or endeavor where the very people charged with meeting a goal are the only people given a free pass in the blame game when they fail.
Of course there are bad homes out there, and I’m not arguing for an adoption free-for-all. But in a world where DogsInDanger.com is running a little ticking clock counting down the minutes left for dogs in kill shelters across the country, it seems a bit ridiculous to take Iggy away from two little girls and a family who loves him, just to prove a point.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
This Iggy situation is going to bring attention to the whole idea of rescue - unfortunately NOT in a good way. Similarly, it will bring attention to the takeback clause used by many rescues and breeders - but again, in the worst possible light.
We don’t know if the hairdresser’s family would have passed a home check since the Mutts and Moms lady apparently decided she wasn’t even going to do one. So instead of seeing takeback clauses as a wonderful safety net for dogs - ensuring they will never want for a home when life circumstances change - instead, takeback clauses are being represented to the general public as draconian power plays by desperate rescuers with control issues.
Sad, sad, sad.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 16, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
I just updated with a link to a new AP story in which the rescue says they won’t give the dog back to the family because they don’t adopt to families with kids under 14.
FOURTEEN.
Those girls are 11 and 12 and have another dog, for heaven’s sake.
Meanwhile, tick tick tick at dogsindanger.com. :(
Comment by Christie Keith — October 16, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
I hate the kind of publicity this is getting. This is really, really going to do some damage to ALL rescue in the public’s perception.
Maybe these women will come to see some reason after they’ve had a day or so to cool down. One can only hope . . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 16, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
On the DeGeneres story:
This rescue group is, as the old saying goes, “cutting off their nose to spite their face!”
If Iggy had a good home (which is the ultimate goal of placing an animal, right?), then why in the heck take him out of it???
Sounds to me like a group trying to flex it’s muscles by saying, “If you don’t play by our rules, you don’t play.” They don’t really care about the dog, or they would investigate his situation with this family, no matter what that contract said, and if it is good for him…would let him stay.
Rules should always be subject to extenuating circumstances. Trees that don’t bend with the wind, tend to break.
Comment by Marcy — October 16, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
You might want to take a look at Ellen’s web site (ellen.warnerbros.com), 8,300 comments so far. Just about every one in favor of Ellen. A lot of sad stories about people trying to get a pet & turned down & some giving the pet back because they where always called and telling them what to feed & etc.. This is really sad, it makes me feel like crying. This story is touching a lot of people.
Comment by Jenny Bark — October 16, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
i have a HUGE problem with the no small dogs in homes with kids under 14 rule. yes, we had a beagle growing up. and that was the ‘largest’ pet that was ever owned by my family until about 25yrs later when my mom got her current beagle. we had doxies, cats and critters. all “small”, imo. there was no danger to them, ever. at one of the shelters i volunteer with, we have parents that bring their children on the weekends to walk and socialize with the pets. i was in the park one time training my dog when i heard a polite young voice ask if she could meet my dog. it was one of the regular kids from the shelter. i let her do a bit of training with dot and it was so cute. she had my body language down pat! lol!~ she was around 9yrs old. seems to me, this is the type of thing we should be promoting. not squashing with rules.
i understand the “take back” clause in contracts and i do have them in mine. but it is there so unknown future circumstances don’t land the pet homeless again. not so i can micro manage the situation. i like to think the homes i find are solid for both the pet and adopter and it’s a great match. sure, ellen should have contacted the rescue, etc, but it’s not like she handed the dog off to a stranger and never heard from them again. she see’s the woman everyday! and they were all happy!go figure.
i did a bit of digging and found an archive of the rescue’s site from april 07.
http://web.archive.org/web/200.....dmoms.org/
“We are committed to the well being of every single dog we rescue. We are financially responsible for that dog for as long as it takes to find their “forever” home. That can sometimes take as long as one to two years. We pay boarding for nearly all of our dogs (very few are in foster homes), at a minimum cost of about $300 per dog per month.”
hmmm . . .
Comment by straybaby — October 17, 2007 @ 12:11 am
How pitiful that the spitefulness of one woman is keeping Iggy from a home.
One wonders if the actions on the part of Mutts and Moms borders on harrassment or stalking. Apparently Ellen isn’t the first to have such a problem with these people. The Los Angeles dinnertime news interviewed one who also purchased a dog from this group. The woman was walking her newly adopted pet, sans leash [ok, that isn’t good] and who drove by. but one of the owners of this organization. She gets out of the car and takes the dog and drives off. This is stalking, isn’t it???
Just out of curiosity, these women run the rescue out of their store. Supposedly they have a non-profit status. One wonders about the other business under the same roof……how does this fit in? Am I being too cynical to think that the non-profit status is benefitting their other endeavors from a, IRS tax position?
I smell a rat. Maybe because I want to.
Comment by Lynn — October 17, 2007 @ 12:39 am
lynn, i think the store may donate space to rescues. but if not, you can do both. we have a shelter here that runs an adjacent pet supply business to help fund the shelter. a couple of my ‘kids’ are from there :)
Comment by straybaby — October 17, 2007 @ 12:50 am
What a passive-aggressive whine fest! Makes me feel like crying, too —- for the ordinary mortals who have to deal with these displays of celebrity entitlement.
I must try buying beer for underage kids sometime and see how that “But they’re _almost_ old enough!” routine plays with the cops.
Rules are rules, and if you can’t live with them —- don’t sign the damn contract.
You know what would have been incredibly cool? If the girls’ parents had said to their daughters, “The boss made some promises when she signed that contract, and she broke those promises. Now she’s saying bad things about the rescue, and she’d love for you to cry and pout on camera, but we’re not going to play that game. ‘Iggy’ is in good hands, and he’ll have a great home wherever he winds up, and the four of us are going to the local pound RIGHT NOW to rescue TWO most excellent dogs from certain death, one for each one of you.”
Meanwhile, the folks who run the rescue are on the receiving end of death threats and threats of arson. And the Cult of Celebrity rolls on…
Comment by Luisa — October 17, 2007 @ 1:01 am
I had also thought about the family (hairdresser) rescuing and adopting another dog (two would be great) since they seem to be willing and able to give another dogger a good home. Reminds me of two year olds stomping their feet and refusing to play out of pure stubbornness (Ellen and rescue). Cannot believe that these animals are better off being boarded . . .
I, too, worry about the impact on rescue organizations because of the press this is getting.
Comment by catmom5 — October 17, 2007 @ 5:42 am
This goes back to Gina’s thread from the other day on “Pet Placements: Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged” and the whole issue of realistic expectations for pet placement. (Remember the ones who won’t place if you have an all day job, or who require fenced yards even for Toy breeds, and so on?)
At the heart of it, I agree that Degeneres should have read her contract and is in error on that point.
But NO KIDS UNDER FOURTEEN as a requirement? And again we ask - what’s more important - getting the dog into a home where he’ll be well cared for, or enforcing a bunch of rules that have somehow lost connection with the real world?
As a side note - I was thinking about this situation this morning, and found myself remembering the contract a friend signed when he got his dog from a Responsible Breeder. Yes - there was a takeback clause. BUT - it included the idea that - in the event he couldn’t keep the dog and felt he knew of a good home for her - that he could present that to the breeder and she would do the evaluation of that home with the objective of re-placing the dog successfully.
Again - it was less important that the breeder controlled every step of the process than it was to get - and keep - the dog in a good home.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 17, 2007 @ 5:50 am
If that woman was so good a placing dogs in homes how did she overlook the fact there might be problems with Ellen’s cats. Seems to me that a clause having to do with other pets in the home might be more beneficial than a cut off age towards aimed at teenagers. Ellen must not have read the contract. Or maybe Ellen thought her celebrity status and good intentions should override a legal contract.
Comment by Concha Castaneda — October 17, 2007 @ 6:25 am
I understand that rules are rules, but I’m always uncomfortable with the inflexability of some people and organizations. The sad things is that this rescue group could have turned this into a win-win-win situation but now has turned into a lose-lose-lose situation. Sure, evaluate the home, but if they meet the criteria (except for the age), then waive the requirement. This would mean that 1)the dog gets a good home, 2)the children are happy and 3)donations would pour in. Instead you have a dog with no home, heartbroken children and an organization which probably does some good work being villified.
And I have to tell you - the organization coming with the POLICE - talk about bad, bad tactics. Hey, I was told I shouldn’t use clumping litter for my cats. Are the potty police patrol going to come to my house and take my cats away? It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
As Nathan Winograd says - the public can be your greatest ally. Perhaps he should have stressed the counterpoint - the public can be your biggest enemy if you behave like a prick.
And showing up at a private home with an armed cop is an invitation for bad publicity. So M&M, you’ll have to reap what you sow. Unfortunately, that means your dogs will be kenneled for a lot longer.
Comment by 2CatMom — October 17, 2007 @ 6:35 am
I signed a similar agreement when I adopted Scout.
The intent of the rule is well meant. It attempts to avoid the “straw purchase” of dogs for maybe not the best of reasons.
But certainly the rule could be modified so that in the event that a dog (or cat) does not work out with one family it could be transferred to another with the proper oversite.
I cannot imagine the heartless bureaucrat who went to the house to take the dog away from those kids!
No adoptions for homes with kids? When I was a kid our dogs were each in their turn my best friends and protectors. Ceasar, a boxer terrier mix comes to mind. When I was 9 we lived in a semi-rural area and the neighbor had a nasty black lab that was not well treated and was very territorial named Tauser. He was usually chained and as I walked through a weedy field to visit my friends he would bark and leap at me as I went by.
One day Tauser broke his chane and attacked me biting me on my side and knocking me down. When I looked up there he was growling and looked like he was going to come at me again as he loomed over me. I screamed.
Just as he took another step a brown and white blur hit him like a torpedo and he dissapeared into the weeds where a terrible dog fight took place with them both screaming and snarling in a high pitch.
My partents and Tauser’s owner came running and had to throw water on them to seperate them.
Ceasar, a much smaller dog had given as good as he got and Tauser never threatened me again. We could have had Tauser destroyed but my mom refused to do that even in that circumstance as long as it never happened again.
Where would I be without old Ceasar?
14 indeed!
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — October 17, 2007 @ 7:56 am
I can understand not placing a puppy in a family with toddlers — here in Southeastern PA, most rescues won’t place puppies with children under 5 and I can understand that, but almost all of them will place adult dogs with families of any age — and have a notation for dogs that they feel shouldn’t be placed with kids under 5.
I think it’s a horrible mistake not to place dogs (or cats) with families — I can’t think of a child (both when I was young and the kids I know today) who hasn’t become a better, more emotionally secure and has more empathy because they had a dog, cat or both.
There’s also the “kids who grow up with pets have better immune systems/less allergies/less asthma” if you want to bring in the health care benefits.
In Pittsburgh in the 60’s, it was legal to let your dog run loose and most people did so. A neighbor’s dog had puppies and although SusieQ was placed with another family, she always thought that she was my dog. She waited for me outside of the school building and walked home with me nearly every day, she waited for me outside the corner drugstore when I went inside and we walked everywhere together (since she wasn’t my dog — yes, this was without a leash). I was 9 years old and not very popular at school, but having a dog that adored me, always waiting for me wherever I went really helped me through that very difficult part of my life.
I can’t imagine denying another child that opportunity for unconditional love. Figure out which dogs or cats can be placed with children and encourage those adoptions. No, it’s not going to be every dog for every child, but ultimately, our society will be better for the effort.
Comment by Dorene — October 17, 2007 @ 8:27 am
I just noticed both Bernie and I had significant dogs in our lives at 9 years old. Must be something about the age — look at how great the two of us turned out! ;-D There must be some type of child development thing going on then that is really helped with a dog.
Of course, having Panda (my first Persian) in my life at 6 years old was very important to my development also! :-)
Comment by Dorene — October 17, 2007 @ 8:31 am
I was in 4th grade when our family got a little mixed-breed spaniel who ultimately lived to the ripe old age of 18. That dog and I went EVERYWHERE together! I had those obnoxious saddle baskets on the back of my bike, and I taught her to ride there (this was back in the day when a child as young as I was then could safely go cruising around the neighborhood unattended). When I wasn’t in school, that dog and I were together! I fed her, groomed her, bathed her, taught her tricks - you name it. She was my Best Friend in EVERY sense of the word!
Blanket adoption policies based on age alone are simply far too rigid.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 17, 2007 @ 8:45 am
Wow … I was also NINE YEARS OLD when I finally convinced my parents that I had to have both a dog and a cat. I’m allergic and the pediatrician said, “no way,” but I was a determined little girl where animals are concerned and my parents were helpless before my drive to get pets!
My first cat (whom I name Calico, even though his was a male tabby … go figure) I lured away from a neighbor lady and fed outside my second story window, sneaking him inside to sleep on the bed after my parents went to sleep.
My first dog was a poodle. I read that poodles would be OK for kids with allergies and so started circling ads in the paper, day after day after day. Finally, they got a poodle puppy for me.
Hmmmm … now that I think back, I sure feel sorry for my parents.
And oh yeah, I wrote little stories about my dog and my cat. Like you couldn’t see my career choice coming, huh?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 17, 2007 @ 8:52 am
The whole situation makes me sick and I must say the heartless cretins that spout off about rules being rules and that this is just another case of a public figure thumbing their noses at laws make me even sicker. Excuse me, but we’re not talking about drinking & driving or murder. We’re talking about a rescue that flexes their tiny muscles and don’t care who they hurt in the process.
In the middle of all this is a little dog that had a home where people loved and adored him. A little dog that is now being “boarded” somewhere just to make a point. I understand the need to have *guidelines* when adopting out a pet, but that’s all they should be, GUIDELINES. They should be *reasonably* flexible. The rescue in question have stepped over the line of reason and into the territory of tyranny.
Now they’ve dug in their heels to make their point, refuse to even consider the family for the poor little guy and I think it’s sickening. I’m sure they’ve done some wonderful work placing pets into homes, but I know I would *never* deal with them, donate a penny or speak in favor based on the evidence of their gestapo tactics with this case and those that are popping up since.
I hope their organization and the people running it rot in hell.
Comment by Nancy C. — October 17, 2007 @ 9:28 am
I find the whole situation unsettling. I really dislike the fact that Ellen went so public with the situation. Mob mentality and the harassing phone calls and emails that the rescue organization is receiving (not to mention threats of death and arson) is not okay. And really I saw that coming the second the pleas left her lips. The way that Ellen handled this has really caused me to re-evaluate my opinion of her. To me she doesn’t truly seem to be taking responsibilty for her actions, she seems to be saying what is necessary to get the public on her side in an effort to strong arm the group into doing what she wants, which then in turn made the group stick their heels in and say no. Not that the rescue group is “right.” They are definitely not doing what is right for the dog. Both sides should be ashamed of themselves for acting like children fighting over a toy.
As for the child age exclusion, I do know why a lot of rescue groups have them (especially for toy dogs). Fourteen in my opinion is too high. I also know that every child is different, I might not place a dog with a family that has a certain 13yo, but might place the same dog with a family that has a different 8yo. Parenting also plays a big part in the decision as well. Parents who supervise their children are more likely to be approved than parents who don’t correct their children from doing something potentially dangerous to the dog. I feel it would be in everyone’s best interest for each family to be look at on an individual basis, not a bunch of words on an application. And I’m not sure why Mutts and Moms feels that boarding is better than foster!?!
Comment by Jessica — October 17, 2007 @ 9:40 am
Jeez, all I can say is ditto, ditto, ditto to everything Jessica just said. Pretty much covers everything I was thinking and planning to comment. What a mess! Living in an apartment with two active dogs, I may not have been the ‘best’ choice for placement by some breeders/rescuers, but with agility, obedience, tracking, and at least two walks daily, I think my guys are more stimulated and better exercised than dogs that only go from the house to the backyard and back again. Thank goodness their breeders looked at me as an individual, not just at their set of rules.
Comment by Cardimom — October 17, 2007 @ 10:01 am
I was deprived; I did not get my border collie pup until I was ten. I do not at all feel that it balances things out that my sister was about 8 months old, or that my cousins that I spent most of every summer with prior to that had a Sheltie who went everywhere with us.
Comment by Lis — October 17, 2007 @ 10:02 am
This really is a tragedy and there’s no reason for not taking these special circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Seems as though emotions got in the way of common sense. In dog training terms, seems that M&M were using a rather hard hand. Perhaps they need to learn the fine art of positive behavior/reward to get the desired results? But then, who knows how the conversation went?
Comment by Nadine L. — October 17, 2007 @ 10:10 am
“For the record, we’re told the agency has greenlighted other dog adoptions with young children in the house”
http://www.tmz.com/2007/10/17/.....the-pooch/
Comment by wolfdogged — October 17, 2007 @ 11:30 am
Petfinder.com says “Mutts and Mom has chosen to temporarily inactivate their website on Petfinder.com because their email inbox and voice mail are overwhelmed.”
I wasn’t there to see what/who started the argument, but the idea of taking a dog away from little girls who love it just makes me sick! Unless there is evidence of animal abuse, I’m all for Ellen using her clout since she’s the one who created the problem and cares about the girls/dog’s feelings. Don’t know the true facts, but DeGeneres is quoted as saying she paid for neutering and training the dog — after she received it? I didn’t think any rescues let a dog go before they were neutered.
http://www.eonline.com/news/ar.....id=fd-news
“Owner Marina Batkis “is not going to give them the dog,” said attorney Keith A. Fink, who’s not representing the shelter but is speaking on Batkis and co-owner Vanessa Chekroun’s behalf. The women run the nonprofit Mutts and Moms out of their store Paws Boutique.
“[Batkis] doesn’t think this is the type of family that should have the dog,” Fink told the Associated Press. “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.”“
Comment by shadepuppy — October 17, 2007 @ 11:56 am
One of the posters on the TMZ site that wolfdogged asked about Ellen’s other dogs. Does anyone know if she still has them? I specifically remember on one of her first shows her talking about adopting a cute 12wk old border collie from a shelter. The dog would be around 3-4yo now. Someone implied she got rid of that one too. Anyone know for sure?
Comment by Jessica — October 17, 2007 @ 11:58 am
Sorry! My post should say “One of the posters on the TMZ site that wolfdogged LINKED TO asked about Ellen’s other dogs. Does anyone know if she still has them? I specifically remember on one of her first shows her talking about adopting a cute 12wk old border collie from a shelter. The dog would be around 3-4yo now. Someone implied she got rid of that one too. Anyone know for sure?”
Comment by Jessica — October 17, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
Rules should still make sense. I know dogs end up in the wrong home, but they also end up euthanised. So the rule should assure the home is a better sitaution than being dead.
Of course I am biassed as I tried *3* shelters and was turned down flat before getting my current dog from a unregulated ‘rescue’ kennel. My sin was working full time. Me and the dog have been together five years now and I get up at 6.30 am to give him enough exercise before work and pay for a dog walker before another long outing after work and the seems okay with it.
I tried not to be negative about the shelters but they each blew me off in second *after* I had met the dogs and spent time with them. My presence their seemed an inconvenience to them. It was horrible. the final place didn’t want to know anythign about me at all so long as I could pay, which was bad too — but I took it.
Comment by emily — October 17, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
In my opinion Ellen went way over the top yesterday. Her display of emotion was totally bizarre. She should have dealt with this in private. She screwed up. Why didn’t she just buy those kids another puppy??? She signed a contract, she needs to live up to it. But I also think that this rescue group handled this poorly as well. And I wonder about what rescue group has the funds to board all of their animals to the tune of $300 a month. What is this a bunch of rich LA types playing at rescue???? I will tell you this, I adopted a cat from a shelter/welfare group that included a promise not to declaw. They have never done a post adoption visit (yet), but the threat of one has been the motivation I need to not declaw her…Because if they did visit and found her clawless, I know they would take her away. My experience is that rescue people can be nearly over the edge. They have seen the worst of what humans can do to pets and they can become zealots from our perspectives. I suspect that is what has happened here.
Comment by Sam — October 17, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
From SFGate, September 13, 2003:
DeGeneres’ love of animals is a frequent theme on the show. This week there was much talk of a large bird that has been threatening her koi pond. Next week, Bay Area fans can expect at least some mention of a dog she adopted during her recent Bay Area trip.
While visiting KNTV’s Battery Street studios on Sept. 5, she saw another newscast featuring an Oakland SPCA orphan. A few phone calls later, and the 12- week-old female border collie was rushed to the airport.
The dog has since been adopted (DeGeneres is calling her “Oakland”), and is now a Los Angeles resident. Oakland has gone on an incredible journey, and in some ways, that makes her a better guest than whoever is on the cover of Vanity Fair this week.
Comment by shibadiva — October 17, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
Comment by Jessica — October 17, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
my understanding was she had that one for a couple/few months, but it also had issues with her cats and she re-homed it with a friend (this is working off of memory her) she seemed upset about it at the time, but felt it was best and the dog was in a good home. this was the pup she had a naming contest for.
i ‘think’ she has 2 or 3 dogs now and they’ve been co-existing fine with her cats.
Comment by straybaby — October 17, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
Emily—I had a similar experience with a rescue group about 14 years ago. I wanted a second shetland sheepdog. My first was about 7 then. I worked. The rescue groups were very chilly to me. I had a dog walker, but they thought it was plain wrong that my dog stayed by herself while I worked. My dog was happy and a perfect companion and housedog, she lived to be 16 years old. So I ended up buying a puppy from a breeder. I had my dog walker come in twice a day until the puppy could handle once a day. The rescue groups also wanted a “yard”, I live in a townhouse, but I religiously walked my dog in our community. Not good enough for the group. They were very short sighted. One of their dogs could have had a very good home, too bad!
Comment by Sam — October 17, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
DeGeneres and de Rossi currently live with 3 dogs and 3 cats. One dog is a Maltipoo named Wolf.
Comment by wolfdogged — October 17, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
Petfinder.com is owned by Discovery Communications (Animal Planet). Today’s press release:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yszqv9
Cached information on Mutts and Moms:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2y5x45
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yo6oo2
Comment by Nadine L. — October 17, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
Somewhat surprised how Craig’slist pet forum responded. Typically a savvy, emotional, pro-adoption group, one would have expected the forum to attack the shelter for taking dogs away from a home, from children. On the contrary, when the dust settled, the sentiment was that Ellen should have made the call to the shelter that she could not keep the dog. Also, Ellen should not have taken this public on her show.
Here is what one forum member said about the shelter. “we adopted our dog, Apple from Mutts & Moms 2007-10-16 15:52:14 I feel bad for the kids, but I know first hand that this rescue isn’t made up of crazies and I feel bad that she is being made to look like a villain. I don’t think it was right for Ellen to take it to national tv - a little over dramatic. The rescue is run by one woman out of a corner pet shop that sells high end dog foods and boutique type toys and dog accessories. (…}
Comment by PetMono — October 17, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
From the Petfinder notice about Mutts & Moms http://www.muttsandmoms.org/
The last sentence is interesting….
Finding a New Home for Your Pet
Some pet parents, who have the best intentions for their pets, feel that they can do a better job of finding a new home for their beloved pet than a shelter or rescue group. Their rationale is that they know their pet best, they can keep it in their home until the perfect new home is found, and they can help ease the transition for the pet. Often times, this is a natural transition - a family member, trusted friend, or a colleague gets to know the pet, falls in love, and the ownership of the pet is unofficially transferred to them.
This is a controversial point of view, even amongst shelters and rescue groups who may feel that they have more experience identifying pitfalls and risk factors when identifying new families. 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.
Comment by Laura — October 17, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
People Magazine: Ellen Shocked Over New Home for Her Former Dog
DeGeneres went on to suggest that Mutts & Moms enforces its rules arbitrarily. One such rule, she said, is that it does not allow families with children under 14 to adopt – a rule she said the agency has not always followed in the past.
Also, she said, she was never asked to fill out an adoption application and never had a home evaluation – also supposed rules.
DeGeneres said she had little recourse at the time the dog was taken back because the agency was still listed as the owner on the dog’s microchip.
http://www.people.com/people/a.....46,00.html
Rescue group finds new home for Iggy
Mutts and Moms doesn’t believe hairdresser’s family is right for pooch
Under the Mutts and Moms contract agreement (section 3H discusses the “NO RIGHT TO TRANSFER”), which Access obtained a copy of, anyone accepting a dog agrees to “NOT give or sell ADOPTEE to another person, company, organization, medical research, pound or animal shelter,” or, “If ADOPTER fails to abide by the terms of this clause, ADOPTER will pay all costs, including any legal fees incurred, required to secure the return of ADOPTEE to RESCUE and will, in addition, be required to pay liquidated damages in the amount of $500.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21336607/
Comment by wolfdogged — October 17, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
My personal opinion: Everyone involved is behaving like a twit. Ellen should have read the contract (if she signed one, which seems ambiguous) and kept her private life private. It doesn’t sound like she gave the situation much time, anyway. The rescue organization, however: FOURTEEN????? They truly believe a younger child is incapable of behaving responsibly around a dog? How sad. And showing up with a police officer to take the poor doggie…Sounds like more of a power struggle than anything else. I grew up with a poodle sleeping on my bed, too.
Comment by Diane — October 17, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
I agree with the notion that the dog should be with the hairdresser’s girls and that barring the dog from being with these kids isn’t a good idea. And I think both sides are out of control on this. The shelter should have met with the proposed owners and attempted to validate them as proper owners and let them keep the dog assuming they were otherwise acceptable. After all, the shelter’s purpose is to save pets and place them in good homes.
But the issue here should be a lesson about contract law, about property ownership (as pets are unfortunately property), and about reading what we’re signing instead of dealing with the contract contents after something happens. Consulting an attorney is something best done before the lawsuits are needed - before the contract was signed. I don’t like all the terms that some of these have in them either, but the proper response should be to walk away, not sign it, or negotiate fairer terms, instead of having to fight the terms later on. Pet rights, pet status as property, and limits on what a shelter can put in such agreements are all good topics to talk to the State Legislatures about for them to cook up some new Laws. Each State varies on this type stuff.
Depending upon the contract and the State Law, the property may have reverted in ownership when the original adopting party breeched the agreement. The shelter intended the contract language to permit them to rescue back a pet that wound up in a bad situation where it was no longer safe with the original adopter. The original intent was to protect the dog from abandonment and generally from being in bad situations after being abandoned. Of course, a good intention in this situation got lost in the press and emotions. A breech of the contract would mean seizure of the dog was simply taking back the shelter’s property because the parties to the agreement likely agreed to the ownership return in certain situations, one of which apparently occurred. Can they do that? Yes. Should they have done it? Probably not. And $500 damages and legal fees? Wow. I’d not sign that even thinking it would never happen…
BTW, we all missed that M&M screening didn’t catch that Ellen and partner had cats… pooch and cats? They didn’t do such a good job of matching Iggie to their home…
My bet is that after this is all over with, Ellen or the partner who signed the contract will find herself on a shelters black list unable to adopt any pets. Not that I think that is fair either.
…Don’t shoot the messenger…fix the Laws…
Comment by Dennis — October 17, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
To those who say Ellen was wrong to talk about this on the air, sorry, I can only say I think that expecting someone whose job is hosting a talk show not to talk about something that upsets them this badly on the air is frankly delusional.
Dennis, I suspect you could die of old age, searching for the person who consults an attorney before signing a shelter adoption contract, in all but the most unusual circumstances. Ellen and/or her partner should surely have read the contract, but that, too, is all too normal, although not as universally prevalent as not consulting an attorney.
They’ll certainly be on this shelter’s blacklist—but then, it’s on their blacklist, too. I don’t expect Ellen will be making any more donations to them! Some other shelters will surely feel the same way as Mutts & Moms; on the other hand, other shelter and rescue people are more disgusted with M&M’s mismanagement of this.
Comment by Lis — October 17, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
This has been blown way out of proportion.
Solution:
I feel that the court should order the dog to be placed back into the family (as long as they are approved by a competent pet adoption agency) and that Ellen pay a fair fine to a respected pet adoption agency for breaking the contract. WIN-WIN for the Animals. In my opinion, the animal’s welfare is all the matters here.
Comment by SMITH111 — October 17, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
Comment by SMITH111 — October 17, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
why should Ellen pay a fine to an agency. I’ve seen a few suggestions along that line. the woman donates to shelters and rescues, she paid a $600 “donation” fee, plus neutering/training/toys/beds /etc for this one, why should she have to pay more? she made a mistake and has admitted it. seems like she’s been through enough. i think she’ll stick to supporting rescues, but who would blame her if she didn’t.
i’ve done some cruising on an archived link for the rescue, they have a few things i would more than question, like boarding dogs for up to a year or 2 . . . .
Comment by straybaby — October 17, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
On Mutts and Moms website, Marina stated:
“To rescue a homeless animal is the greatest gift you could ever give or receive. The love and devotion of a dog that has been rescued is unparalleled. They know they have been saved.”
So, what this is saying is that Iggy must be gravely disappointed and seriously traumatized at this point because he thought he was saved twice, but no dice. Poor, poor Iggy.
Comment by Nadine L. — October 17, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
At $600, Ellen didn’t “adopt” the dog, she bought the dog. M&M supposedly gets dogs from LA shelters, which charge a $32 adoption fee, then sell the UNALTERED dogs to other people for $600. This is just so so wrong.
By reclaiming Iggy, M&M can now rip off another schmuck. Hey, the more Iggy gets passed around, the more “adoption” fees they collect.
It looks like Mutts and Moms forgot the “non” portion of the term “Non-profit status.”
Comment by Kiko — October 18, 2007 @ 1:48 am
Straybaby, the reason Ellen ought to pay a fine to the agency is because she actually did break the contract, which she ought to have read and known the provisions of. That she’s been generous to them in the past doesn’t exempt her from being bound by the contract she signed.
Mutts & Moms is morally wrong in not even considering the hairdresser’s family, and in taking the dog in the way they did. And Ellen was trying to do a good thing. That doesn’t mean that she didn’t screw up, or should be totally exempt from any cost for that failure.
Comment by Lis — October 18, 2007 @ 4:01 am
Comment by Dennis — October 17, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
“BTW, we all missed that M&M screening didn’t catch that Ellen and partner had cats… pooch and cats? They didn’t do such a good job of matching Iggie to their home…”
Apparently, Ellen and her partner were never required to go through a home screening or sign an application form. So M&M seems pretty inconsistent on when they require a home screening and when they don’t.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 18, 2007 @ 6:15 am
Why do people feel that cats and dogs cannot cohabitate? I’ve never had anything but cats and dogs living together. When any new animal is introduced into my home, sure there is an adjustment period (which by the way lasts longer than 10 days!), but they have always settled in just fine. And thanks Dennis for answering the legal aspect of the situation, I had been wondering about that. :-)
Comment by Jessica — October 18, 2007 @ 7:44 am
SOME dogs and cats can live together, but NOT ALL. Some dogs are just too prey-driven to get along with cats (rabbits, birds, hamsters, etc., etc., etc.)
And some cats (old, chronically ill, especially) are really too fragile to deal with the introduction of a Puppy From Hell.
You need to take this issues into account.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 18, 2007 @ 8:00 am
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 18, 2007 @ 6:15 am
Apparently, Ellen and her partner were never required to go through a home screening or sign an application form.
hmmm . . . . if they didn’t sign the app, wouldn’t this just be a straight up sale? thus no binding contract?
Lis, i guess i feel she’s ‘paid’ enough in grief and heartache from trying to do the right thing in the wrong way. i’d just noticed there were posts on various forums that she should give a large donation and felt that it was because of who she was. i doubt if you or i had made the mistake they would be calling out for a large donation. seemed a bit unfair to me to penalize her more.
Comment by straybaby — October 18, 2007 @ 8:39 am
also Gina, not all dogs can live with other dogs and the same with cats :)
i was very careful bringing my dog in as i had 7 cats, some who had never seen a dog. i tested her several times at the shelter and brought her by when i was walking her to see my cats’ reaction as i walked her through the apt on a leash. she was/is very cat friendly, but i was concerned about all the cats being able to adjust. i ended up bringing her home on a ‘foster’ basis for that reason. she was about 9-10months old with NO training. thankfully, she’s an easy trainer and very into pleasing, so she was controllable around the cats. there was no way in heck i was going to have any of my cats live in fear (or anger!) because i adopted a dog. this is their home. i also have the same rule for the bed. the dog sleeps in another room, as the cats owned bed rights before she showed up and didn’t deserve to lose those rights to a bed hog ;)
Comment by straybaby — October 18, 2007 @ 9:01 am
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 18, 2007 @ 8:00 am
“SOME dogs and cats can live together, but NOT ALL. “
True and that is very important to realize as a pet owner. You should know your animals’ limitations. Some large dogs with high prey drive shouldn’t even live with some smaller dogs. It is part of responsible pet ownership to make sure that your pet(s) are safe and that your pet(s) don’t pose a danger to others.
My comment, however, was responding to the comment that said “M&M screening didn’t catch that Ellen and partner had cats… pooch and cats?” As if people with cats shouldn’t have dogs. If it was said that she had elderly or frail cats, then it has baring. However, with all Ellen has said on the fact that the dog and the cats didn’t get along, she hasn’t said that her cats are elderly. Maybe they are, but I don’t know for sure. And really shouldn’t the OWNER of the cats take that into consideration when deciding to introduce a new family member? It appears that she has had this issue come up before.
Comment by Jessica — October 18, 2007 @ 9:05 am
Comment by straybaby — October 18, 2007 @ 8:39 am
“hmmm . . . . if they didn’t sign the app, wouldn’t this just be a straight up sale? thus no binding contract?”
The application and home screening would be part of the process of deciding if the animal is to be adopted into this home. It is when the home is approved that the contract (with the takeback clause) gets signed.
Apparently Ellen and partner didn’t have to go through any kind of application or screening process - just sign the contract and take the dog.
Separately - on the dog and cat issue - a lot of rescues do behavioral assessments on the dogs in their care and know upfront which ones are okay with cats and which ones are not (Greyhound rescue groups do this routinely). So part of the application/approval process involves making sure you don’t put a non-cat-safe dog into a home with cats.
If M&M never required an application or homecheck on Ellen and partner, then this issue most likely was never even addressed. Not to mention that if M&M is housing their animals in cages, it would make this kind of behavioral assessment pretty hard to do.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 18, 2007 @ 9:29 am
“Not to mention that if M&M is housing their animals in cages, it would make this kind of behavioral assessment pretty hard to do.”
yup. that’s what struck me. part of going to a rescue (imo) is getting a pet that is living in a foster home where they can tell you their observations. i’ve always felt it was a good option for parents who wanted to adopt a rescued dog as they would have more info on a dog with no known history.
Comment by straybaby — October 18, 2007 @ 9:43 am
“The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
These people are well-meaning incompetents. Welcome to the world of non-profits.
Has one of these take-back contracts ever been contested legally?
Comment by Bee — October 18, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Comment by Bee — October 18, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Maybe this is an opportunity to contest one?
Comment by Nadine L. — October 18, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
When I adopted one of my dogs from a rescue group, I signed some papers and received a letter that thanked me for the adoption and included the words “if ever you cannot keep your new family member, you must return him to…” There was also a change of address form to send if I moved. I understood that this was to prevent Tater from having to be rescued again and was thankful that the group cared that much about the animals. I never thought about the legal implications because my intention is always to keep my animals for life. Now I am wondering just what is happening legally when we adopt from such a rescue — do we NOT become the new owner, or are we simply a caretaker? We pay for all the food, vet bills, grooming, etc., but it sounds like the dog doesn’t actually BELONG legally to us? I have always kept all my many cats and dogs for their entire lives, but since this episode is gaining international attention, it does bring up a question to potential adopters — what are MY rights when I adopt a cat or dog? With a child, there is a certain time within which the adoption agency can choose to say the adoption is not suitable and the child is brought back to the agency, but there appears to be no limit to the time that a rescue (with these common stipulations in their contract) can take back custody. That doesn’t seem right or fair or even legal. I understood that the clause was there to encourage/ensure that adopters brought the dog back instead of taking it to the pound, but I’m not sure if I would have thought I needed to get permission if my dog had fallen in love with someone else and they wanted to be together. I’m all for breeders and rescue groups standing behind their animals forever if they need help, but this idea of their eternal custody when I’m paying the bills strikes me as unfair. I am not talking specifically about Iggy/Mutts and Moms/Ellen and Portia since this adoption was very recent and could be seen as not formally completed, but don’t we ever have the right to say “this dog is MINE!”?
Comment by shadepuppy — October 18, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
If Iggy was property that was SOLD to Ellen, he was illegally seized and should have been returned only by a court order. Martina was able to seize Iggy because the identified owner on the chip was M&M but were the police actions too hasty? BTW, how did M&M know the newest address and location of the dog? Wonder what the entire story is.
Comment by Nadine L. — October 18, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
BTW, how did M&M know the newest address and location of the dog?
i think the hairdresser or ellen may have given it. the rescue went over on the pretense of a home check, from what is being reported.
Comment by straybaby — October 18, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
Shadepuppy, I’ve been pondering the same question about pet adoption and property ownership. I don’t know if there are legal cases that have set any precedents. All the past year’s events seem to be leading to force legal clarification of domestic pets.
If in some cases, and many times unfairly, we don’t have rights to say “this CHILD is mine” how on earth will it ever come to pass that we would be allowed to demand “this PET is mine.”
It seems that the chip identified Mutts and Moms as owner of the dog. Is this all that is needed to prove ownership of a pet? Had Ellen micro-chipped as owner, would the police have arrested Marina for dognapping?
Comment by Nadine L. — October 18, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
BTW, how did M&M know the newest address and location of the dog?
Shadepuppy, If what you say is true, it would appear that Ellen was being up front and not trying to evade the dog police.
Comment by Nadine L. — October 18, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
I guess pet adoption under contract such as that one is more like a mortgage. You take care of the property, pay all the bills, keep it warm and dry, but miss one payment and they take it away. I understand the thinking behind the failsafe clause, but Ellen didn’t dump the dog. It sounds, more than anything, like Marina took a stance to show she is the Alpha dog.
Comment by Nadine L. — October 18, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Here’s a blog with some interesting additional observations:
http://glosslip.com/2007/10/17.....safe-home/
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 18, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
And another entry:
http://glosslip.com/2007/10/17.....eputation/
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 18, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Other Pat, thanks. Glosslip has some very good entries—-worth reading, everybody.
Comment by Nadine L. — October 18, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Wow, great commentary. I am an animal welfare person who does animal behavior and training for a living. I worked in a shelter run by animal rights fanatics—and it was SO frustrating when qualified homes were turned down because of minor “infractions” of the rules established for placement. The question is not whether or not someone is right or wrong on this issue but what is the best for the animal. Multiple placements impact animals whose lives have already been altered. The business of animal placements is a big one. There are problems all the way around and this issue is stirring lots of emotions that hopefully will wake people up and catalyze some change.
Comment by Diana Guerrero — October 18, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
“[Batkis] doesn’t think this is the type of family that should have the dog,” Fink told the Associated Press.
Does this phrasing creep anyone else out? I realize I may be oversensitive, and that the lawyer is just referring to the fact that the girls are under 14, but… “type of family”? It sounds an awful lot like “we don’t do business with their kind” to me. And then the reference to “the Ellen DeGenereses of the world”… Again, maybe I’m just paranoid…
In the end, okay, Ellen screwed up. And maybe it was a bit heavy-handed to take the issue on the air, but I agree with Lis when she says “expecting someone whose job is hosting a talk show not to talk about something that upsets them this badly on the air is frankly delusional.” But it really does seem like a power grab on the part of M&M, and it makes me so sad for everyone involved, but especially Iggy.
Comment by Liz — October 18, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
Ellen never even signed the original adoption contract, she sent a staff member to do it. Then the rescue did offer the new family to come down and apply for the dog, but they refused. And now the rescue is getting death threats.
Comment by Judi — October 19, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
The news reports I’ve read and seen say that Portia De Rossi, her partner, signed the contract, and I saw on the TV news myself that the rescue showed up at the house, refused to go inside, took the dog, and stood in the yard until the cops came. True or not, it’s being reported that they contacted Iggy’s new family, said they were coming out to do a home check, but refused to even go in the house.
I find it hard to believe they’re getting death threats, but if they are, it’s completely wrong no matter what they did or didn’t do. But I don’t think the facts you’re outlining here match up with what’s being said in the news.
Comment by Christie Keith — October 19, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Judi, if you look at some of the videos linked to in the blogs I posted a few lines above this, you’ll see some interesting information (for example, the rescue was a 2 hour drive from the hairdresser’s home - so the rescue told the people they could fill out an online application and they’d come to do the home check. But when they came, they basically just took the dog.) It’s interesting reading/watching, and comes straight from the mouths of those who were involved rather than being passed along second and third-hand.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 19, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
This is a post from a lawyer on my Dobe Rescue list. He gave us permission to pass this on. I just think we have two sides to the story and you aren’t hearing the side of the rescue.
>attorney for Mutts and Moms on. Ellen did not sign the contract -
> >apparently someone working for her did. When the organization
> >reclaimed the dog as was their right under the contract, Ellen’s
> >Publicist threatened the organization with their attorney’s wrath if
> >the dog wasn’t returned to her hairdresser’s home. They played a tape
> >of the threatening phone call. The rescue organization gave the
> >hairdresser the opportunity to come down and apply for the dog but
> >they refused. Ellen’s group refuse to follow through with encouraging
> >the hairdresser to comply with this request. There are two sides to
> >the story here and, as the attorney said, there is a real problem
> >with the so called “celebrity mentality” in LA that think they can do
> >as they please and get the public to feel sorry for them because they
> >can go on the air and cry!!>>>
I agree some rescues are all about control, etc, and turn down many loving homes. I am with you on that, but also, I feel that Ellen made a mistake and should have returned the dog to the rescue. She is not qualified to say who the dog should go to. As a fellow rescuer, any dog I rescue, care for, have vetted, fed, etc, I want to be the one who says where the dog goes, not anyone else. JMO.
Comment by Judi — October 19, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
P.S. The lawyer for M&M was on Bill Oreilly last night.
Comment by Judi — October 19, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
Here is a link to that story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303567,00.html
Comment by Judi — October 19, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
I started out looking at this academically – interesting but not personally relevant. Then I realized if I die before Puck (dog) Hek and Mouse (cats) the arrangement is my sister will take them. If she dies before Bean (dog) I will take him. My contract with the shelter and my sister’s contract with the breeder say the dogs go back to them (the cats are unencumbered). No way that would ever happen – the cop would have to shoot us first.
Comment by Carol PW — October 19, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
The hairdresser’s family filled out an ONLINE application (this was on the videotape from Saturday). Here is an archived copy from April 2007 of the Mutts and Moms Adoption Application:
http://web.archive.org/web/200.....dmoms.org/
Incidentally, I cant find anything anywhere on that site which states that dogs will not be placed in homes with children under the age of 14.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 19, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
Regarding “dogs will not be placed in homes with children under the age of 14”
I found the M&M write-up below in archived Petfinder adoption listings. Mutts and Moms themselves state here that the required age is 15(fifteen), not even 14!
They also state that they don’t have time to return phone call inquiries! How chilling that sounds. I would think not returning phone calls gravely reduces the number of potential worthy pet adopters. Sales is a numbers game. Reduce the number of opportunities to make sales and you reduce your sales. Do they REALLY want to place these animals? Now about that hoarding that was mentioned…
(From Petfinder archive)
“Mutts and Moms”
“Lamby got her name because she looks like a little lamb. Lamby is about about a year old and weighs 13 lbs. Lamby was a new MOM at the shelter and had 2 little puppies (they are Melvin and Marvin and look nothing like thier mother). They were going to be euthanized because the shelter can’t keep moms with litters so we rescued her. Lamby is a very sweet girl that loves to be on your lap to cuddle. She has been separated from her pups and is ready to be adopted.
Mutts and Moms does not place small dogs in homes with children under the age of 15.
Lamby will be groomed before placement. If you would like to give Lamby a loving home, please go to: http://www.muttsandmoms.org and read “how to adopt”. You will find our online application.
If you have any questions, please send us an e-mail. We are an all-volunteer rescue organization and do not have time to return phone call inquiries. Thank you.”
Comment by Nadine L. — October 19, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
Were you able to find the actual archived listing for Iggy? If the various “rules” are scattered around in individual listings rather than being collected in the pages available on the group’s website, then it kind of makes it hard for people to know just what the rules even ARE.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 20, 2007 @ 6:10 am
From:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21367733/
“According to the California Secretary of State’s Web site, the Mutts & Moms corporation has been suspended since December 2006, when they failed to file a ‘statement of information.’”
“As a result of the suspension, enforcing the contract with Ellen and Portia may be impossible for the agency, as both the original adoption of Iggy and the date the agency reclaimed possession of the pet happened after the suspension began.”
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 20, 2007 @ 9:34 am