I’m hoping Ellen was just PMSing her brains out when she broke into SOBS about the issue, but I’m 100% on her side. The kennel overstepped it’s bounds with it’s Zero Tolerance rules that are based on nothing. How long is Ellen bound to that rule? What if the dog worked out fine but in 5 years they bring a child into the home? Can she get rid of the dog in any way she responsibly sees fit then? It’s ridiculous.
The death threats…we’ll there’s another group of people who need to put the cuckoo back in the clock. But the Kennel Kooks were definitely in the wrong, contract or not.
What’s more, the very nature of her show tends to emphasize emotional appeal. There’s nothing wrong with that per se, but in cases like this, a certain measure of dispassion is needed as well. It’s a safe bet that most of her supporters responded due to gut emotion rather than a measured consideration of all the legal issues involved.
I can’t imagine how the contract is enforcable. Once Ellen took possesion of the dog isn’t it her’s to keep and do what she wants with it? It’s not like she was leasing the dog.
It would be different if she put down a bond that was non-refundable if she violated certain terms, but how is it that a non-governmental dog adoption agency can remove a dog from someone’s home?
Ideally, she should try to handle these disagreements behind the scenes first.
The issue is between her and the agency, and not between millions of her fans and the agency.
Some nut-job calling in death threats to that agency is not all that hard to foresee as a potential outcome, considering that Ellen has been a veteran in the entertainment industry for a little over a couple decades now, and has received various threats and hate mail of her own.
IMO, it was not fair to the employees of that agency (who did not sign up to be public figures, and targetable by paparazzi and nut jobs) to expose them to that environment (especially since they probably don’t know how to handle it) without trying the other available options first.
The rescue group cannot afford to let Ellen ignore the contract simply because she is a celebrity. They would never have let the hairdresser’s family adopt the dog had they applied on their own; why make an exception now?
As **vetbridge **said, it is their rescue and their rules.
I work with rescue groups, and all of my dogs were acquired through rescue. They are *adamant *that you are not allowed to give the dog away. You must sign a contract to that effect. No exceptions. Potential adopters are vetted fairly strictly. Many volunteer hours are spent before a dog is adopted out. Why should Ellen get to bypass this process?
Hey, I’m a big fan of Ellen, but she fucked up here. I would be interested in knowing exactly what the issues were between the cats and the dog. I am fairly certain that as a puppy, he posed no physical threat to them. If the cats just didn’t like it, well, that’s normal. 99% of the time they get over it.
No, but she can return it to the rescue organization. It is standard for that to be in the signed agreement. Why would she not see that as a fit way to “get rid” of the dog. (A true dog person would consider ways to re-home the dog, not get rid of it.)
Why sign something if you do not intend to honor the contract?
The agency did have a policy, and they were considering the well-being of the dogs AND the kids.
The agency also severely over-reacted by sending the cops. It coulda been handled with a polite visit to the home at which time they could have explained to the family what the problem was, if they found one.
Ellen wanted what she thought was best for the dog. It did not occur to her that there might be problems. Obviously, the dog got along better with the kids than her cats so it would make sense to let the dog live with the kids instead of the cats.
Ellen also should have thought twice about what it might mean to the agency before she talked about the situation on the show. I hope she has someone from the agency on her show shortly to discuss the matter.
They weren’t very clear on the reason that the family couldn’t keep the dog, except that the children were slightly younger than her arbitrary age cut-off. Other than that I don’t know why they felt the need to control this adoption so inflexibly.
I don’t understand this thinking. How are they out of bounds on enforcing the rules that are very specific and spelled out on the contract?
Now, how they enforced these rules might be a valid question, but the simple fact that Ellen accepted those rules, then violated them tells me them wanting to enforce the mutually agreed upon stipulations is perfectly valid, not out of bounds.
The rules might be stupid, but then don’t sign with them. Don’t claim later that the rules were stupid.
yeah it’s obviously best to settle the matter without blowing it up, but that’s like telling a news reporter not to report something. oh, and if you believe Ellen’s side of the story, it’s the agency who first threatened to bring in the Media on Ellen. :smack:
No, sorry you don’t get to blame the recipient of the threats for having received the threats. :rolleyes:
Any threats or abuse that the agency is receiving is based on some idiots’ actions. Probably not Ellen’s, probably not Portia’s, but definitely not M&M’s.
In my experience with animals that I have adopted from shelters, I have gotten one phone call checking up on my status of being a “fit parent”, verbally asking for confirmation that I was providing the environment that I had agreed to provide. The language that I recall reading in the contract was that attempts could be made to confirm such things during the first 6-12 months after taking possession of the animal. I don’t know how affective such phone calls are in enforcing a damn thing, I’m guessing not so affective. I also don’t know if there was some sort of random selection process to determine who actually gets an in-person inspection versus who gets the phone call.
ETA: This was in the Atlanta, GA area, which may or may not make a difference.
Well, I’m sure if she didn’t find a suitable taker (suitable in the normal sense of the word), she would have gone back to the shelter. But she DID re-home the dog (I think the terminology is not nearly as harsh as it might sound). The dog was happy. The family was happy.
I don’t look at all contracts as automatically honorable. Some contracts are stupid and need to be broken. If there was a problem with the home, the contract would be in place to protect the dog. In this case there was nothing to protect the dog from. Their inflexibility is causing more trauma to the dog than leaving it in the home would have.
I’m sure Ellen didn’t think she would have to return the dog and probably didn’t dwell on that language in the contract. If she wasn’t able to provide a good home for the dog, based on the reality of the situation, I’m sure she would have returned the dog. The fact is she DID find a good home where the dog was happy and safe. The contract was begging to be broken. No one likes being talked down to.