TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › When rescue organizations go too far
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

When rescue organizations go too far  

post #1 of 203
10/15/07 at 10:15pm
Thread Starter 
Ellen DeGeneres apparently adopted a dog from a rescue organization, when it didn't get along with her cats, she gave it to her hairdresser and children. She admitted to not reading the fine print on the contract, about how she was supposed to return the dog to the rescue if it didn't out. Even though DeGeneres found a good home for the dog, with someone she knew well, the organization went out to the hairdressers home and took the dog away from them, breaking the hearts of the children.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071016/...VVaeX0CbhkM3wV


Now, I admit DeGeneres broke the contract, but this action by the rescue seems overly cruel to me. Yes, I understand there have to be rules, but I'm sorry but to just take the dog away from a good home, and away from children who loved it, just shows how there is little to know humanity in a lot of rescue organizations.

Ellen should have been reprimanded because she didn't follow the rules set out by the organization, but to break the hearts of children, and probably the dog as well, is just too cruel in my opinion. Things is life aren't always just black and white, sometimes their are areas of gray in life as well. This to me, seems like one of those gray areas.

I wish I didn't harbour so many bad feelings for Rescue's but this just reinforces my negative feelings for the majority of Rescues. I mean if the dog is happy and well placed, then it seems just heartbreaking that they would take an animal out of the home, and away from the people who love it, and leave it once again homeless, and without a family, just because every rule wasn't followed to th "T".
post #2 of 203
10/15/07 at 10:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker View Post
Ellen DeGeneres apparently adopted a dog from a rescue organization, when it didn't get along with her cats, she gave it to her hairdresser and children. She admitted to not reading the fine print on the contract, about how she was supposed to return the dog to the rescue if it didn't out. Even though DeGeneres found a good home for the dog, with someone she knew well, the organization went out to the hairdressers home and took the dog away from them, breaking the hearts of the children.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071016/...VVaeX0CbhkM3wV


Now, I admit DeGeneres broke the contract, but this action by the rescue seems overly cruel to me. Yes, I understand there have to be rules, but I'm sorry but to just take the dog away from a good home, and away from children who loved it, just shows how there is little to know humanity in a lot of rescue organizations.

Ellen should have been reprimanded because she didn't follow the rules set out by the organization, but to break the hearts of children, and probably the dog as well, is just too cruel in my opinion. Things is life aren't always just black and white, sometimes their are areas of gray in life as well. This to me, seems like one of those gray areas.

I wish I didn't harbour so many bad feelings for Rescue's but this just reinforces my negative feelings for the majority of Rescues. I mean if the dog is happy and well placed, then it seems just heartbreaking that they would take an animal out of the home, and away from the people who love it, and leave it once again homeless, and without a family, just because every rule wasn't followed to th "T".
We have that policy in our contract....although I doubt if we knew that an animal went into a good home that we would actually take the animal back. It is more of a measure to keep animals from potentially ending back at a shelter.

Katie
post #3 of 203
10/15/07 at 10:32pm
I don't have the greatest feelings for militant rescues either.
When I was 11, we went to adopt a dog, we went all over looking for just the right dog.
I fell in love with an older small dog.
We had a household where there was always someone there, 24/7, and have never believed in tying dogs out, or releasing them to do their 'thing'.
We've always walked our dogs.
We provided references from our family vet, and from several long term neighbors.
We were denied the adoption because of my being a kid.
A responsible, 11 year old kid, who had already made a connection with the dog we wanted.
We ended up buying a dog from an oops litter instead.
post #4 of 203
10/16/07 at 12:17am
I have to say i have issues with rescues who have such strict rules but please dont tar all rescues the same - there is a rescue near me that have very strict rules, and as a result, we get a lot of people who have been rejected from them - but we know not to, as they wont home with people who have kids under the age of 5, yet we see how the kids and parents interact with the kids, and take each case on its merits, I have homed a few with kids, and they have been really happy, yet if they had gone to the other rescue, they would have missed out. Rescues really do need the support, we can't keep helping animals without homes and the finances to do it, and just imagine what life some of them would have if it weren't for rescues.
Another thing to remember is that there may be rescues who would have left the pet with the new person, but they might not get the media coverage, as it isn't an 'interesting' story - we do seem to read more negative stories than positive, so it could be a skewed version of that rescue and its policies.
post #5 of 203
10/16/07 at 12:50am
I certainly don't paint them all with the same brush.
And I definitely agree with the kids under 5 rule.
But I also think some things need to be taken case by case.

In my case, I was an older kid, and it was an older dog.
In this particular case, would it not have been better to let him come home with us?
I know for certain the poor guy was still locked in his tiny kennel 11 months later, and I as far as I know, may never have gotten adopted due to his age.
post #6 of 203
10/16/07 at 1:40am
I think the term "cruel" isn't fitting. IMO to say it was cruel is if the org came out beat the dog and family and Ellen for breaking the contract.

The term plain stupid is more appropriate.

Besides the org couldn't be contacted so I'd like to see their side of the ordeal before I pass judgement; for example perhaps the family Ellen gave the dog to had a red flag with rescues and couldn't adopt for one reason or another.
post #7 of 203
10/16/07 at 4:19am
It could also be as simple as the rescue is going through the process of getting an animal back from a not so good family when an owner rehomed it themselves and can't afford to be seen as one rule for one and another for someone else (especially someone on TV)

I find it strange they even knew she rehomed it, unless there was a problem too, we usually don't call to follow up like that, but I guess all rescues are different. It also says she has to inform them of the handoff - not that the dog could not be rehomed.

So I am waiting for a comment from the rescue before passing judgement - no one wants those animals to be living in the shelters, so I can't see them taking the dog back for no reason
post #8 of 203
10/16/07 at 4:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
I find it strange they even knew she rehomed it, unless there was a problem too, we usually don't call to follow up like that, but I guess all rescues are different.
I don't know much about the shelter, but probably the fact that someone wanted to be able to speak to Ellen was the excuse to call.
post #9 of 203
10/16/07 at 5:35am
While shelters have rules, sometimes it can cause more harm then good. If we had to go by the rule of "fenced in yard" on dogs, shelters would have never adopted to us. We had a tie out, we walked the dogs, played with them in the yards and were responsible for the dog at all times.

When you have too strict rules, no wonder people just go and adopt out of the newspaper or local person who's dog got pregnant and we need to find homes for the pups.

I've adopted a few cats from shelters (no problem) but never a dog. We got most of them from newspaper ads or neighbors. I just wonder if Keno was sitting in a shelter would they have adopted her to us living on a farm with NO fences????
post #10 of 203
10/16/07 at 6:20am
Our cats were all adopted but not our dogs. We did look into it, but we were being quite breed-picky as we knew what we could offer in terms of care and we knew that the majority of dogs in Australian shelters are Kelpies, Border Collies - very high maintenance breeds that would not adapt well to our lifestyle and we wanted to be the best owners and carers we could be.

Of course, after having got them (from a pet store shock horror) we started learning all about puppy mills and backyard breeding and so forth and have sworn from this day onwards we will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever again get an animal in our lives, EVER, without it coming from a shelter or rescue organisation.

We did the wrong thing, we know, and at that stage we didn't know any better. We do now, and we educate as many people as we possibly can so that they won't make the same mistake that we did, and hopefully, gradually over time these awful mills and overpopulation problems will have more community awareness.

We wouldn't swap or change our dogs for the world, we love them dearly no matter where they came from, but we know more now and all of our animals in the future will be rescues, without any exception.
post #11 of 203
10/16/07 at 8:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlyn View Post
I certainly don't paint them all with the same brush.
And I definitely agree with the kids under 5 rule.
But I also think some things need to be taken case by case.

In my case, I was an older kid, and it was an older dog.
In this particular case, would it not have been better to let him come home with us?
I know for certain the poor guy was still locked in his tiny kennel 11 months later, and I as far as I know, may never have gotten adopted due to his age.
I think that, totally, sucks BAD. Stories like yours infuriate me.
post #12 of 203
10/16/07 at 8:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
It could also be as simple as the rescue is going through the process of getting an animal back from a not so good family when an owner rehomed it themselves and can't afford to be seen as one rule for one and another for someone else (especially someone on TV)

I find it strange they even knew she rehomed it, unless there was a problem too, we usually don't call to follow up like that, but I guess all rescues are different. It also says she has to inform them of the handoff - not that the dog could not be rehomed.

So I am waiting for a comment from the rescue before passing judgement - no one wants those animals to be living in the shelters, so I can't see them taking the dog back for no reason

The comment from the rescue, from what I heard, was, "No comment"
Sorry, but that lack of comment speaks volumes and none of it good.
post #13 of 203
10/16/07 at 9:24am
The comment from the rescue was that they have no phone number listed and were not immediately available
post #14 of 203
10/16/07 at 9:30am
Thread Starter 
As far as them knowing the dog was re-homed, Ellen told them when they called her, that she re-homed the dog, because it didn't get along with her cats, and the people from the rescue, went straight out and took the dog from the family, because Ellen re-homed the dog herself, instead of calling them and telling them she was going to do so, more than likely getting their permission. I'm assuming the rescue wanted to investigate the new family before approving or not approving.

The article said that Ellen was sobbing on her TV show, because she failed to read the rules, and now because of her failure to do so, two children were heartbroken. She begged the rescue to please give the dog back to those children.

I don't think there was any investigation on Ellen's hairdresser at all. I just think they were mad because Ellen gave the dog to that family, without their permission, and IMO taking a dog away from heartbroken children is cruel.
post #15 of 203
10/16/07 at 9:33am
They may well give them back the dog, but they have to follow those rules otherwise if someone gave an animal up to a bad family they wouldn't have the legal standing to get it back.

It could also be the case that the 'great' family she rehomed to are on the shelter blacklist and the dog should be taken away
post #16 of 203
10/16/07 at 9:38am
Thread Starter 
I hope they do give them back the dog, I hope there is a follow up. Apparently Ellen spent a lot of money on the dog, getting it fixed as well as trying to get it some training. Anyway, I hope Ellen follows up on what finally happened to the dog.

I doubt the family is on a bad list, but it IS possible. I just think they were angry because they didn't have any say so as to where the dog went.
post #17 of 203
10/16/07 at 9:41am
It only takes one member of the family to be on a blacklist I know of a case where a family can not get an animal because the father's ex-wife threw her dog out in the winter and it died. The whole family was listed and even though he was away travelling for work when his ex did it, his new family can not get an animal because of the list, at least through the shelters.
post #18 of 203
10/16/07 at 9:46am
If the same situation came up here, we would have to pull the dog out of the home. The family would then have to go through the adoption process. We do not bend the rules for anyone, no matter how crappy we feel doing it.

As the rescue org has made no statement on their side, I will not say anything.
post #19 of 203
10/16/07 at 9:50am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
It only takes one member of the family to be on a blacklist I know of a case where a family can not get an animal because the father's ex-wife threw her dog out in the winter and it died. The whole family was listed and even though he was away travelling for work when his ex did it, his new family can not get an animal because of the list, at least through the shelters.
That doesn't seem fair. This lady isn't even a part of that family anymore. That's like saying if my ex husband was found to be cruel to an animal at some point in his life, that I would be blacklisted for life, just because I was once married to him.

I don't think this rescue had much time to check out Ellen's friends, because Ellen said they went out there right after talking to her and removed the dog. If rescues want to find homes for the animals they should at the very least deal with the people that are involved in the family and not a long gone former relative. Just because ex wife who is no longer even in the family shouldn't mean that everyone who has ever been connected with her, should be blacklisted. It's just not right.

I'm sure there are nice caring rescues, but my personal experience with them has not been so pleasant. I've found them to be judgmental, and Holier than Thou, and they treat people like they're all potential unfit pet parents.
post #20 of 203
10/16/07 at 9:53am
But according to the shelter, THEY adopted the dog and THEY put it out. He can say he was away on business but that doesn't mean that legally he didn't know about it, and it is in the best interests of another animal not to be rehomed with them just in case.

As it is, I know I can trust him and their kids come and play with my cats (supervised of course, Mags can be nasty to kids) and they feed them and scoop boxes if I am away. But he and I understand the shelter's rule
post #21 of 203
10/16/07 at 9:53am
Removing the dog immediately, then checking out the family, doesn't seem odd to me. If they were bad & you started checking out the family, they could well harm/kill the dog before you realized they were bad & pulled the dog outta there. I guess, IMO, they are ultimately thinking of the dog's safety.
post #22 of 203
10/16/07 at 9:55am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by white cat lover View Post
If the same situation came up here, we would have to pull the dog out of the home. The family would then have to go through the adoption process. We do not bend the rules for anyone, no matter how crappy we feel doing it.

As the rescue org has made no statement on their side, I will not say anything.
Would you once again charge them, whatever Ellen paid to get the dog, once they were approved?
post #23 of 203
10/16/07 at 9:58am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
But according to the shelter, THEY adopted the dog and THEY put it out. He can say he was away on business but that doesn't mean that legally he didn't know about it, and it is in the best interests of another animal not to be rehomed with them just in case.

As it is, I know I can trust him and their kids come and play with my cats (supervised of course, Mags can be nasty to kids) and they feed them and scoop boxes if I am away. But he and I understand the shelter's rule
Does this mean that the kids will be blacklisted as well? Or will they be able to adopt from the rescue when they grow up?
post #24 of 203
10/16/07 at 10:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker View Post
Would you once again charge them, whatever Ellen paid to get the dog, once they were approved?
Yes. However, here if the dog isn't the right fit, we have a return policy, etc. We do lower adoption fees sometimes for families who really cannot afford them & would be excellent homes.
post #25 of 203
10/16/07 at 10:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
They may well give them back the dog, but they have to follow those rules otherwise if someone gave an animal up to a bad family they wouldn't have the legal standing to get it back.

It could also be the case that the 'great' family she rehomed to are on the shelter blacklist and the dog should be taken away
And we ALL know that people get put on DNA lists every day by vindictive people. Those lists mean nothing. I have spent enough time on Petfinder to know that for a FACT.

They sure were able to comment when they threatened to call the Media and they did call the Police.

Plus, if they were a really reputable rescue they would NOT adopt out an
animal that was NOT neutered. This animal was adopted out INTACT.
post #26 of 203
10/16/07 at 11:08am
Those lists mean a lot to the shelters I have encountered, I know because someone reported me for animal cruelty when they seen Scully and it took calls from my vet to have my name removed. So yes your name can appear on them for vindictive reasons, but if you can prove you did not abuse an animal you can have your name removed but regardless, the shelters still use them.

There is also no indication of the dogs age so it may not have been neutered due to being too young, as I said before, not placing any blame until I hear both sides of a story
post #27 of 203
10/16/07 at 11:28am
I am one of those people that believe rescues (reputable rescues) do NOT adopt out intact animals, no matter what age. If the rescue cannot obtain a pediatric spay () then keep the animal until it is old enough to be neutered. End of subject for me.

I have known more than one person that got put on DNA lists for vindictive reasons. Just because you get taken off one list doesn't mean it trickles down. Yes, I can see the need for the lists, but because of vindictive, judgemental people that get people put on the lists for non valid reasons, it makes the lists meaningless IMO.
post #28 of 203
10/16/07 at 11:40am
Thread Starter 
Here's another link re: Ellen DeGeneres and the dog. This one includes a video of her sobbing an pleading with the Rescue to please return the dog to those little girls.

http://www.eonline.com/news/article/...rss_topstories
post #29 of 203
10/16/07 at 11:53am
I don't understand why they did that. This family did nothing to deserve that kind of treatment. If they punish anyone they should punish Ellen, not these kids. Geez people give the dog back.
post #30 of 203
10/16/07 at 12:33pm
I saw that sobbing video, I thought it was kind of lame. Overkill I think.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
This thread is locked  
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › When rescue organizations go too far