Clearly this is not the case; not by this rescue agency or many others that have been mentioned in this thread. I don’t think you have universal agreement on your use of “reasonable person”.
The agency doesn’t consider the family that the dog was put into to be in the dog’s best interest. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, it seems rather foolish to dismiss it so casually.
Really. Rescue organizations place dogs without checking out the home first? Often? Could you give me maybe ten examples?
Please, I mean no offense, but you appear to have no idea how such organizations operate. The ones I know do follow up checks. So they do know whether the homes were good or not. And you seem to be arguing for no restrictions at all. The bottom line is that if the adopters are uncomfortable with the restrictions, they are free to find their own dog.
It is abundantly clear that you just don’t get it, and never will. It was not Ellen’s call to make. If she wants to start a group that gives dogs away for a quarter, she is free to do so. She is not free to do so with someone else’s dog, however, your peculiar opinions about contracts notwithstanding.
Please stop spreading ignorance about contracts. How can someone decide which points are “hard and fast” and which ones are not? How in the world can one party to a contract alter the conditions of the contract without the consent of the other party? Do you even know what a contract is?
You never answered my question about a remodeling contract. Would it be OK for me to decide not to honor a remodeling contract with you? Could I decide to change the paint color? Blueprints? Materials specs? Completion date? Job cost? After all, as a (hypothetical) contractor, I know more than you do.
A reasonable person would abide by the letter of the contract. The adoption contract says that you cannot give the dog away, and must return it to the agency. It is quite clear on that point. All Ellen had to do was return the dog. If she wanted, she could have recommended her friend. But she had no right to place the dog herself, and she really had no right to make a national issue out of it. Dogs get returned to rescue every day, with absolutely no drama. Ellen chose to go back on her word, and she chose to make a big deal out by breaking into gutwrenching sobs on national TV. That makes her a liar and a manipulator in my book. And certainly not a person to decide the fate of a puppy whose only offense was that the cats didn’t like it.
My rescue group takes dogs back no questions asked. All the time. No need to make a national case out of it. Are they bound? Sure. But that’s not why they do it. They do it because they are concerned about the dog’s welfare, and do not want it to be where it is not wanted.
Can I have it when you’re done?
This is not a case of “Zero Tolerance”. This is a case of breach of contract. There are no shades of gray. The contract spelled out in very clear, concise language, what should be done if the animal could not be kept by the signer. Quite frankly, I’m appalled at your lack of integrity. Seriously.
I haven’t read this whole thread, so forgive me, but I used to work at the Humane Society. We had to turn down 20 dogs a day at times. Triage. It sucks.
If the family can keep a dog, LET THEM.
just spay or neuter it please… please
Let me clarify. It’s not only Kalhoun who has appalled me.
Surely the shelter could have decided not to hold Ellen to the agreement she signed and that would have been fine. It probably would have been the better course of action. But to not only excuse, but to claim that Ellen was right to break her agreement because she no longer felt like doing what she freaking signed a contract to do.
Not only that, but she used her considerable influence so that she could continue to go back on her word. . . how can anyone with an ounce of integrity agree with that?
There are plenty of things that I have agreed to do that I later regretted. That does not absolve me from having to fulfull my obligations.
Actually, since you said NEVER, I’d just have to give one.
I don’t have a rescue dog. You said “rescue organizations” and I do have rescue cats. I have never had any sort of “check out” of my home. Not once.
I’m asking for a cite for “quite often,” which were the words you used. Do you really think that one out of thousands and thousands of adoptions constitutes “quite often”?)
Who said you did?
Is it too much to ask for you to read the words you actually quoted? See that part where it speaks of placing dogs?
You do know that the topic of discussion in this thread is canine rescue, don’t you? Is it really necessary for me to belabor the obvious?
But, to make you happy, substitute “extremely rarely” for “never.” I plead guilty to injudicious use of the absolute. My larger point obtains. As I suspect you know.
What part of “quite often, in my experience” is baffling you?
This makes me sad.
I read 88 posts, and I opened the post thinking Ellen Degeneres had had a dust up with Iggy Pop. That would have been funny.
And, to clarify, most rescue organizations seem to have these same rules about how they will check out the arrangements for animals. The cat organizations also say that they do it, yet in my experience they don’t. I don’t assume dogs would be completely different.
Briefly, because most of what I think has already been said. With that, lemme say:
Neither side behaved(or is behaving) like angels. Briefly then, I’m for Ellen because I’ve dealt with rescue organizations mainly as a potential owner, but my sister’s mother(my dad’s first wife) runs the humane society across the river so I’ve helped her out some, and more than that, she’s told me stories about the people she deals with. I have no doubt the Mutts and Moms people are good people, but they’re the sorts who love animals far far more than people, with good reason.
They were in their rights to remove the dog from the hairdresser’s house, but they should be more flexible. And their triumphant claim that the dog has already been adopted again. Oh really! The dog’s gotten more screen time than most hollywood actors. I’m sure there was a lineup to get him. That doesn’t say anything about pet adoption rates in general.
-Lil
I hope this drags on and on. I hope it winds up in court. I hope Ellen BREAKS those fuckers and the court finds that such clauses are unreasonable and unenforceable. I hope that this goes all the way to the SCOUS and the justices rule that dogs are property, and once a shelter or other placement group places a dog in a home that they have relinquished all claim to the animal by doing so. IME about 95% of all of these “rescue” groups are self righteous prigs on petty power trips jerking around caring people and denying dogs good homes just because they can. Most of them would rather euthanise an animal rather than place it in a loving, capable home because the potential adoptees “don’t have a fence” or “live too close to a school” or any one of a number of arbitrary bullshit rules that they slavishly follow. Fuck them all.
Agreed.
It’s not as if we have so many adoptive homes out there that we should get so hysterically picky and let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Neither side has behaved well, but the family who wanted the dog are the people being screwed. And the dog, too.
I met one guy in rescue who insisted that only horrible, lazy, stupid people would use clumping litter for their cats because it simply couldn’t possibly be safe. It couldn’t! He had seen the clumps that formed in the litterbox, so imagine the clumps that would form inside the cat! NO one should be allowed to adopt if they are going to use clumping litter! NO ONE! shriek shriek
Which just would have meant more cats without homes as more and more potential owners would be driven off by the hysteria.
How would a SCOTUS ruling that dogs are property make such clauses unenforcable? If I buy a house, and as a condition of purchase, I have to sign a contract promising not to tear the building down and turn it into a parking lot, I’m pretty sure that’s a legally binding contract. Is there any particular Constitutional reason that the Supreme Court should rule otherwise?
Well, I suppose there are a lot here who think contracts are unbreakable and made of iron, but I remember one I made—something about "til death do us part—that was dissolved. Contracts can be broken or renegotiated. Happens all the time.
And probably the dog agency could have handled the situation differently, if only to try for better public relations. I keep thinking of them as The Dog Nazis—“No puppy for you!”
That’s not a very good comparison. There is a specific legal remedy for anyone who wants to break a marriage contract: divorce. For most other types of contract, there is no equivalent legislation, and they cannot simply be dissolved by one party regardless of what the other party wants.
The reason I chose that example is because marriage is supposed to be sacred. “Sanctity” is a word that’s thrown about a lot. And yet half of us are divorced. Huh. How about that? Shows what we really think of contracts doesn’t it?
And come to think of it, I don’t think I ever read the contract or the vows all the way thru. Just signed on the dotted line.
So with that in mind, where does a contract regarding a dog’s living arrangements measure up?
No, it shows us what we really think of marriage, in that we’ve specifically crafted the law to make that particular kind of contract easier to break.
Much harder to get out of, apparently.
It sounds like a “First buy back option” that I believe is fairly common in many small partner/co-op ownerships, so the remaining partner doesn’t get stuck with a dud just because the other guy wants to leave. However, I’m having trouble seeing how it would be considered reasonable in a situation like this where the person demanding the dog back doesn’t face any hardship or loss over some complete stranger taking the dog.