When rescue organizations go too far - Page 7  

I provided a link to the article that says sources say the family did fill out an application.
And also a link to www.tmz.com where the mother is talking about an application. If you don't think it's proof or evidence, fine, but I've seen no definite proof that the family refused to fill out that application either, and it's has been stated here as a fact.
As for the fact that little girl is suffering is Ellen's fault, I don't think that.
While Ellen broke that rule, I believe that the rescue did not have to remove Iggy from the home.
Give me a good reason as to why the rescue had to take that dog from the child. The home had a yard and another dog for Iggy to play with.
The rescue woman came in and saw Iggy playing with the other dog in the back yard, according to the girl. Do tell me as to why it was necessary to remove the dog?

Generally speaking, dogs are often reffered to as "men's best friend."

My impression is that Ellen's behavior was irresponsible, and the child suffered as a result. I have a cat who won't get along with other cats, and have gone through a major conflict between two large dogs who couldn't tolerate each other. Trying to get pets to get along for 2 or 3 weeks isn't enough, even if you employ a professional trainer. That's the route you go after attempting to introduce them for 6 - 9 months, and failing. Since I hardly think that Ellen is living in a one or two-bedroom apartment, where it would be difficult to separate the pets, my sympathy is limited.

The link lunasmom provided shows where it is said that they refused to fill out an application form. Ok it is fox, but I will believe fox as much as ETonline and TMZ

[quote=jenniferd;2023554]I provided a link to the article that says sources say the family did fill out an application.
And also a link to www.tmz.com where the mother is talking about an application. If you don't think it's proof or evidence, fine, but I've seen no definite proof that the family refused to fill out that application either, and it's has been stated here as a fact.
As for the fact that little girl is suffering is Ellen's fault, I don't think that.
While Ellen broke that rule, I believe that the rescue did not have to remove Iggy from the home.
Give me a good reason as to why the rescue had to take that dog from the child. The home had a yard and another dog for Iggy to play with.
The rescue woman came in and saw Iggy playing with the other dog in the back yard, according to the girl. Do tell me as to why it was necessary to remove the dog?[/QUOTE

It is very simple, if the family filled out the application, all they have to do is show it. I assume if they have a computer and filled out an application, they must have printed a copy.

Jennifer, you asked for proof, how can M&M show proof that the family did NOT fill out an application?

If the family DID fill out the application, SHOW IT.

It doesn't matter anyway. I can give you many reasons but that doesn't matter. It is not for me or you to make the decision where Iggy should live, it was M&M's decision and they decided against the family, simple as that.
M&M obviously thought it WAS necessary

How can M&M show proof? Their lawyer says he has e-mails as proof that family refused to fill out an application. Why doesn't he produce these e-mails for public to see, the same way you are demanding the family produces an application as proof?
By the way Ellen is saying when she adopted Iggy she was not asked to fill out an application, and the rescue did not come and do home visit.

"She also said that contrary to the agency's stated rules, DeGeneres was never asked to fill out an application, nor was any inspection of her home conducted before she took possession of the puppy last month.

"I didn't say, 'You can't come to my home.' I didn't say, 'I won't fill out a form.' She didn't ask me to," DeGeneres said. "


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101702166.html

We can debate this until the cows come home, it all comes down to the fact that:

1. Ellen admitted this was her fault

2. This is the second dog she has has dumped.

3. Now she is causing dogs and cats to be killed due to her crying about this and getting her fans all riled up to the point they are issuing DEATH threats to the rescue. Very sad and irresponsible on her part, especially since she is such a big animal lover.

Thank you! That is my opinion, too!

Ellen didn't fill out the application because she didn't adopt the dog - her partner did.

Regardless, it is all a game of he said, she said, and unless it goes to court we will never know which one is telling the truth. But I do find it hard to believe that the family called the rescue and said they had the dog if the rescue found out through a follow up call to Degeneres.

Just because Mutts and Moms have not claimed any wrongdoing doesn't mean they didn't commit a wrong. It is not all Ellen's fault.

Rescues have the right to have any rule they want. People have the right not to adopt from them as well.

Petfinder has a good article on why rescues have the return rule. http://www.petfinder.com/statement.html However they also note that this is controversial and there is no evidence that heavily screened adoption and lightly screen adoptions have any difference in thier sucess rate. If, god forbid, I should have to rehome one of my cats I want to make the choice. I would know the family better than someone that just does a home visit and a questionaire. It has already been discussed in my family in case of illness,, finances etc. I would still want to visit, I love them. Now maybe this is just me but it would make me think twice about adopting from a rescue that require that I give the animal back to them.

This is not just about this one incident. If you read some of the comments out there in the web there have been other groups with rule that seem excessive to me. I wouldn't have even thought of these rules and frankly don't want to take the chance one would come back to bite me. And frankly about home visits, I wouldn't do it. Not because I have anything to hide, my pets are treated better than some humans.

I have not heard anything about the family claiming they call the rescue and said they had the dog. It is my understanding that Ellen got the dog from the rescue. Then she gave the dog to the family. The family had the dog, until the rescue called Ellen and Ellen told them she gave the dog to someone else.
The family is not claiming they called the rescue to tell the rescue they had this dog, as far as I know.

I for one am very glad this is out in the public. It is sad that many animals are not getting adopted because of this. But I believe this is going to open a chance for more animals to get adopted in the future. IMO rescues are being to strict and denying to many homes. Age limit on children is riduclous. Having a fence for a dog is ridiculous. I didn't have a fence when I first brought home my dog. I do now but I didn't at first.

Also I don't like that whole microchipping stuff. My husband and I just talked about how we would feel if both of our Somalis were microchipped to the breeders. I don't like it. I am a very responsible person and I would be very upset if some accident happened and the breeders were contacted first. When do the animals we care for and we love truly become ours?

Before this came up I was one who believed that animal should be returned to the rescue but now I am reconsidering. I to would have a problem returning an animal if I knew I had found a good home for it. Especially one where I would get regular updates on the animal.

It is pretty simple, know the rules before you sign.

I would never pass the stringent rules of a rescue, I know that. But that doesn't make me have a grudge against rescues. Good grief, it is their rescue and their rules, you don't like it, go somewhere else.

Just seems like we all just expect the world to revolve around us, newsflash, it doesn't. And it doesn't for that 12 year old girl either. It is called REAL LIFE.

called or filled out an application - it is still contacting them regardless, I was going by this post:

Hah? My post says absolutely nothing about family contacting the rescue before the rescue found out from Ellen she gave the dog away. The article says the family filled out an on-line application. It does not say the family contacted the rescue by themselves before Ellen told the rescue about the dog. I think you are misunderstanding what this article is saying.

By filling out an application, they are contacting the rescue, whether they say 'we have Iggy' or not - when the rescue called to arrange a home visit, they brought the police with them to take back the dog and therefore, if the family's account of 'we filled out the application' is to be believed, someone had told the rescue that Iggy was there at that point.

No, it does not mean the family contacted the rescue. It is my understanding from listening to Ellen and the family on tmz, once Ellen told the rescue that she gave that dog to the family, then the rescue asked the family to fill out an application.
So, that someone who told the rescue that Iggy was there would be Ellen, when rescue called her to find out how the dog was doing. That's when Ellen told the rescue she gave the dog away.
So, in my understanding, the sequence of events is as follows:
rescue calls Ellen, Ellen tells the rescue she gave the dog to the family, the rescue then asks the family to fill out an application for the dog. The family did not contact the rescue by themselves, it only happened after Ellen told the rescue she gave the dog away.

Just to add to yours Eithne, the family filled the application out ONLINE. As stated in your post jenniferd:

The quote you had in your post stated they filled out the application online. Since your quote continued to by saying that the agency said they would come out means that the family DID contact the agency and the agency responded.

Of course though with it being TMZ the opening phrase "Our sources..." could mean the drunken homeless guy recently released from the mental institution that lives in a box on the corner by their house.

Um, I'm just wondering....

What is it that is still being debated 17 pages later? One little dog that is in a good home now? Whether or not it is with the people that Ellen chose is immaterial, IMO. Is the debate still going because it was Ellen DeGeneres who adopted the dog and then didn't follow the rules? Would anyone be talking about this if it were a dispute between Jane Doe and Rescue A?

I'll be honest, I haven't read the whole thread. Reason? Because it seems like the same darn things that were being said on Page 2 are being said on Page 17. And the real truth is that we don't know the whole story and we never will. We know bits and pieces that Ellen, the family, and the rescue are letting out in the media. We don't know what really happened and we never will.

I don't know how many times I have to state this. No, it does not mean the family contacted the rescue. Ellen was the one who told the rescue she gave the dog away. The rescue then wanted the family to fill out an application.
The article does not say that the family contacted the rescue.

It says in your quote that the family filled out the online application when the dog took residence with them - two weeks before the whole saga in the media and the dog being taken. That is where my post came from

That is even WORSE IMO, neither Portia, Ellen OR the new family had the common decency to call the rescue to tell them that THEY broke the contract.


I remember saying earlier in this thread, if they filled out the online app, then they should show it. Not that it will matter at this point, it is done. V, you are right, we are beating a dead horse here. Sorry.

...and since there seems to be agreement on that, at least, I'm going to close the thread now. You've managed to keep your frustration from turning personal, for which many thanks.