Ellen Degeneres and Iggy: Whose Side are you on?

[StGermain]

These are exerpts from the contract to adopt a mustang from the US Government:

Adopters must not transfer animals for more than 30 days to another location or to the are of another individual without the prior approval of the BLM;

Adopters must make animals available for physical inspection within 7 days of receipt of a written request by the BLM;

Title will remain with the Federal Government for at least 1 year after the Private Maintenance and Care Agreement is executed and until a Certificate of Title is issued by the BLM.

Failure to comply with these terms may result in the cancellation of the agreement, repossession of the animals, and disapproval of requests for adoption of additional animals. In addition, violation of any term of a Private Maintenance and Care Agreement is a prohibited act.

So apparently in the eye of the government it’s okay to have such clauses in an animal adoption contract.

StG

[CarnalK]

@StGermain

These are exerpts from the contract to adopt a mustang from the US Government:

So apparently in the eye of the government it’s okay to have such clauses in an animal adoption contract.

StG

Here’s the PDF of that: Application for Adoption of Wild Horse(s) or Burro(s)

Seems a pretty special case to me though. I’m sure you don’t think that the Mutts&Moms people can slip this into their contract :

Any person who commits a prohibited act is subject to a fine of not more
than $2,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, for each
violation.

simply because the government did.

[Miller]

@CarnalK

Seems a pretty special case to me though. I’m sure you don’t think that the Mutts&Moms people can slip this into their contract :

simply because the government did.

Why not? If I sign a contract with you, where I indicate that I will give you money if certain preconditions are (or are not) met, why shouldn’t I be expected to honor that contract?

[Contrapuntal]

@jsgoddess

What part of “quite often, in my experience” is baffling you?

The part where you said “quite often,” and supported that with one example. Thousands of adoptions take place each year. Is one out of thousands “quite often?”

[CarnalK]

@Miller

Why not? If I sign a contract with you, where I indicate that I will give you money if certain preconditions are (or are not) met, why shouldn’t I be expected to honor that contract?

Did you read what I quoted? I’m pretty sure Mutts&Moms can’t send you to jail for violating the contract.

[Miller]

@CarnalK

Did you read what I quoted? I’m pretty sure Mutts&Moms can’t send you to jail for violating the contract.

Oops. I did miss the bit about prison. Sorry about that, should have read closer.

[Contrapuntal]

@Kalhoun

What do you mean “checking out” the homes? Most don’t make a visit to the home. They have you fill out forms. They do interviews. They meet the family members. Does that mean you can’t move? That your family situation can’t change? Sorry…there’s a difference between taking reasonable precautions and going control freak on the adoptive families. You might know 100 agencies that do SOME follow-up in person, but they don’t follow up forever, nor do all good agencies consider the dog “theirs” once it’s placed an animal. P.A.W.S., where my sister volunteers, has no home visit policy that I’m aware of. I’ll see her later today to verify that.http://www.pawschicago.org/adoption/dogs/dogadopt.htm

Another one, Helping Paws http://www.helpingpaws.net/ where we placed my SIL’s cats when she died, has rules, too. No home visit, though. And none of which are as ridiculous as Mutts and Moms. I fully agree with the neutering/spaying rule, though I imagine it’s pretty tough to enforce.

OK. That’s one example. Do you have nine more?

http://chicagocaninerescue.com/adopt.html Chicago Canine Rescue. They do a home check, but they mention nothing about forcing a family to return the dog if it doesn’t work out. They interview…they discuss possible family or home changes…they allow people to think about the responsibilities inherent with pet ownership and how that fits into their lifestyle.

That’s who Ellen should have dealt with, then.

Mutts and Moms treats everyone like a six year old. It’s insulting.

THEN DON’T SIGN THE CONTRACT. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

I know enough to spot an unreasonable agency when I see one.

THEN DON’T SIGN THE CONTRACT.

You just don’t get it. I said she could have handled it differently, but that no harm was done to the animal to move it into her friend’s home. Rather than sticking by the arbitrary rule, the agency could have done one of their precious home checks and seen for themselves that the dog was being well cared for.

It is not your call to make. It is not Ellen’s call to make.

And what’s this about “someone else’s” dog? Was she fostering or adopting? If she adopted, it’s *her * dog and the silly contract probably wouldn’t hold up in court.

Once she abandoned ownership of the dog, it reverted to the agency. This is not a difficult concept.

Don’t tell me they’re going to follow her around and snoop around her house for eternity. I’m against the whole Nanny State mindset.

Again you confuse legislation with contract law. What does the Nanny State have to do with it? A contract is an agreement between two individuals.

Ellen broke the contract and did no harm by doing so. It’s not about the contract; it’s about the dog. When someone can prove the dog was harmed by her actions, then Moms and Mutts will have a reason to enforce their contract.

I get it. You have no clue why contracts exist, or how they work.

Please stop talking to me like you’re an expert on the subject or that this whole tiff is actually about the welfare of the animal. She BROKE the contract because it was obvious to her that the agency was going to deny the dog a happy life with her friend if she played by the rules.

Now you are just making shit up. Can you support any of this?

The agency is on a power trip here and has lost sight of its mission.

See above.

The world is not black and white. I can put anything I want in a contract, but that doesn’t make it sensible, enforceable, or fair.

THEN DON’T ASK ANYONE TO SIGN IT. Unless you prefer to be a duplicitous liar.

And she decided to do what she felt was best for the dog. It’s all a matter of opinion. Like I said, the agency may have the CONTRACT but that doesn’t make them experts on what was best for that dog.

It most certainly is not a matter of opinion. And you know it, as your refusal to answer my question about a re-modeling contract proves.

That doesn’t make them any more noble than most other agencies out there. Most of them want the dog to be placed in a home where it’s wanted. So did Ellen. I believe she should have kept the issue off the air, too. That has nothing to do with her concern for the dog’s welfare. She made a statement about their pointless and rigid rule that refuses to look at the situation as it is and would rather look under the bed for monsters that aren’t there.

All Ellen had to do was return the dog and recommend her friend. That’s all. Instead, she broke the contract, bawled her guts out on national TV, and subsequently brought all this upon herself. If Ellen, or you, for that matter, want to start a rescue agency, go right ahead. make whatever rules you want. You have no standing in making the rules for anyone else, however.

[DiosaBellissima]

@Archergal

Ok, I despise Bill O’Reilly, but did you see what the rescue organization said?

N.B.: Fink is Keith Fink, Mutts & Moms Attorney

It’s my understanding that the woman from the agency called up Ellen’s hairdresser and said she’d be willing to work with them on the situation, but they’d like to come out and take a look at the house first. No problem, right?

Apparently, when the woman from the organization got there, she IMMEDIATELY grabbed the dog and tried to leave. The woman went into their home under false pretenses when she knew all along she’d just be taking the dog back. That’s shady.

And as to whether or not the 11 year old kid is responsible, TMZ had a video interview up with the younger child and she was quite seriously one of the most articulate little girls I’ve ever seen. I have no doubt in my mind that the little girls were responsible enough to handle the dog in a kind and loving manner.

While I understand the background checks involved with adoption agencies and why they are in place (I just helped my dad fill out a TWELVE page application for a great dane rescue), ultimately the happiness of the dog should trump the details of the contract. The operative word here being “should”- legally, of course, the contract is enforceable, but as a person running such an agency you would think they would focus on whether or not the dog is happy.

Ellen has gone on the record (also on TMZ) talking about how much she cares about animals and how she’s a huge contributor to a ton of different animal rescue organizations- the point of saying which was not to make her look like a big nice celebrity, but just to show she really does care about the welfare of animals and wouldn’t have ever placed it with a harmful home.

Personally, I think the chick from the rescue organization just felt like she was being bullied by some know it all celebrity, so she went all nutty. TMZ has the video of her trying to take the dog from the house- whenever the little girl would walk up to try to just PET the dog, she’d turn her back on the little girl. The woman was just trying to make a point, which I think is really the antithesis of what her work ought to be.

[Biggirl]

@Kalhoun

I’m appalled that you would put the contract before the welfare of the dog, quite frankly.

Nothing happened to the dog. The dog is fine. It wasn’t as if the contract stated that if you return the dog, the rescue home would barbeque it.

However, I do agree with you that conditional ethics makes life a whole lot easier.

[zenith]

I agree with all the posts critical of animal shelters.

We have one that would rather put dogs to death than allow them to become farm dogs because living in a barn and free roaming an unfenced farmstead where the road sees less traffic in a month than a suburban street sees in a day is so much worse.

Ditto cats if they find that they’re used more as mousers than lap kitties.

So long as the animals are fed, regularly vaccinated,and have someplace to get out of the weather,why the Hell should the “Humane” Society "care ?

This bunch of control freaks has even convinced the Omaha city council to outlaw giving away puppies and kitties and to give them ticketing authority.

[Khampelf]

@saoirse

“Now I wanna…”

Well, OK, but if it doesn’t work out, I have to give you back to the agency.

Any part of the M&M contract say you can’t have your hairdresser dogsit for you?

Indefinately?

[elelle]

This popped into my mind in the middle of the night in thinking about this thread, on autopilot, I suppose: That Ellen( who I do like, from her talk show, I think she is a genuinely decent person) could have easily just given Iggy back to the adoption agency because it wasn’t working out for the dog to be in her home. Easy enough, problem solved.
Instead, she did what she could to find a home with someone close to her, because she cared about Iggy, and having a friend adopt the dog would allow her to still be close to the dog as well, and see that he was thriving, in the sphere of her life. This makes so much sense, emotionally.

But, it still wasn’t right within the contract, and I understand why those contracts are made with animal adoptions. I worked for the APS, and, there are all kind of sad cases when you have to protect the pets seeking homes. That said, I also saw a few people who work in animal protection that went overboard, and were Control Freaks. Some, I think, that went into it precisely because it was easier to control animals than people,in their life, and they would become very inflexible with any sort of situation like this, viewing people in a rather mean-spirited way. Often, these folks would also be so very devoted to doing the very hard nitty gritty work with the animals, and needed with that. It’s very hard work, messy by nature, and often, heartbreaking in seeing animals abused. I, often, though, thought they needed to gain some perspective, and have as kind a heart to humans as they professed for the animals.

I suspect that sort of dynamic is going on here, and, hope it will work out by all parties talking about it, without a legal, and media festival.

[CarnalK]

I guess the question everyone in this thread should be asking themselves right now is whether they think Kyle should suck Cartman’s balls- pretending for a moment they aren’t minors. Reading the love of binding contracts expressed so far in this thread, I can only imagine it’s a slam dunk in most people’s minds.

[Cicero]

The difficulty for me is her raising it in front of so many viewers- did she think it would not cause a reaction? Hardly.

[CarnalK]

@Cicero

The difficulty for me is her raising it in front of so many viewers- did she think it would not cause a reaction? Hardly.

While it may be naive of her, I doubt she expected death threats. She probably expected perhaps a letter campaign and/or a threat of boycott on donation. If you think she was horrible for instigating that, then fair enough, but I don’t think she’s responsible for every nut–job that acts in her name.

[Monster104]

I won’t side with either party in this retarded mess, because it pisses me off to no end that this has been headline news here in Utah since the spat started.

I did run across this article though which pretty much shows that Mutts & Moms might not be able to enforce the contract because their company has been suspended since last year.

JUST MAKE IT END, PLEASE!

[Weirddave]

@Monster104

I did run across this article though which pretty much shows that Mutts & Moms might not be able to enforce the contract because their company has been suspended since last year.

Oh Jesus, please make it true. I hope they get raped.

[DiosaBellissima]

There was another article I came across (can’t find though, so call me a liar if ya want) which had another case of a Mutts and Moms reposession.

I guess the adopter was at work or something and a friend was there looking after the dog. The friend had the dog out in the front yard to play, without a leash, when the lady from M&M decided to do an impromptu check in.

Seeing the dog off leash and saying the contract said that could never happen, the woman took the dog back right then and there.

Now, she took the dog out of a home where the owner was so dedicated to their dog that they had a friend come over middle day so the dog wasn’t alone all day while they were at work. Yet, because that friend took the TRAINED dog into the front yard without a leash, this woman steals the dog back.

Insanity.

[PunditLisa]

The animal rescue lady is a nut, not to mention a poor business lady. Instead of capitalizing on her association with deGeneres to raise money and awareness for her cause, she’s alienated a lot of people against her. Sounds like a recipe for a failed business.

[ArizonaTeach]

@CarnalK

I guess the question everyone in this thread should be asking themselves right now is whether they think Kyle should suck Cartman’s balls- pretending for a moment they aren’t minors. Reading the love of binding contracts expressed so far in this thread, I can only imagine it’s a slam dunk in most people’s minds.

Well, recognizing tongue firmly in cheek, Kyle was more than happy to take Cartman’s money, so it’s ok to be bound by a contract as long as it’s favorable to you? Not to mention he is a minor. Ellen is not a minor, nor was the contract unreasonable (no matter how many people want to claim that it is).

As far as “property” rights - you’re damn right there can be stipulations on how one disposes of property. You’re not allowed to sell an Oscar, for example - you have to let the Academy buy it back. Think about what you throw in the trash - there are laws about that (“but it’s my garbage!”). Hell, if I don’t get my dog’s papers in order every year, the government can fine the hell out of me or even take him away. Maybe if I give him to a hairdresser he doesn’t have to get shots each year?