I can't believe that came from your mouth!
Mutts and Moms Make Ellen Cry
Ellen Degeneres adopted a puppy from one of those whacky animal-rights agencies. When she found that the puppy just couldn’t get along with her cats, she gave it to her hairdresser, which had two children that loved the dog very much.
Apparently some people just aren’t meant to have pets according to the animal adoption agency. Moms and Mutts sent an employee to the hairdresser’s home and confiscated the puppy. How that was legal, I have no idea.
A very sad video of Ellen crying on her show is here.
From the AP here:
Ellen DeGeneres is in the doghouse with a pet rescue agency after giving a pooch away to her hairdresser because it didn’t get along with her cats.
The talk show hostess and her partner Portia de Rossi adopted Iggy, a Brussels Griffon mix, on Sept. 20. But when things didn’t work out, DeGeneres gave the dog to her hairdresser.
In doing so, DeGeneres violated an agreement with the Mutts and Moms dog rescue agency by not informing them of the handoff. When the agency called DeGeneres to ask about Iggy, she said she found another home for the dog. The agency sent a representative to the hairdresser’s home Sunday and took the dog away.
DeGeneres went public about the situation Monday while taping an episode of her show to air Tuesday. She admitted she didn’t read all the paperwork involving the adoption. DeGeneres said she spent $3,000 having the dog neutered and trained to be with her cats. But the dog had too much energy and was too rambunctious, she told her television audience.
“I guess I signed a piece of paper that says if I can’t keep Iggy, it goes back to the rescue organization, which is not someone’s home, which is not a family,” she said in a show transcript provided to The Associated Press. “I thought I did a good thing. I tried to find a loving home for the dog because I couldn’t keep it.”
DeGeneres said her hairdresser’s daughters, ages 11 and 12, had bonded with Iggy and were heartbroken when the dog was taken away.
“Because I did it wrong, those people went and took that dog out of their home, and took it away from those kids,” a sobbing DeGeneres said on her show.
Animals are property and as such, they can be transferred to whomever the owner wishes. If there was a contract dispute, it should have been handled by the courts.
You can check out the zealots at the animal adoption agency Mutts and Moms here. But I wouldn’t get any animals from them until they change their stupid policies.
Like This Post? Rate it and tell your friends! Click the Share button below.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Dr. Jones on October 16, 2007 at 1:08 pm, and is filed under Bizarre, Eco-Religion. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
Whacky animal rights agencies???????
How ignorent and biased can you be??
This is a rescue, same kind as the one I belong to – and thousands of other people who rescue homeless animals.
You don’t need to be “whacky” to care about the hundreds of thousands of animals put down every year in kill shelters because people like Ellen Degeneris consider them disposable property.
Have a heart here – rescues aren’t doing this for glory or money, the way Degeneris is, we use our time and own money usually to help animals find good homes.
Understand what you are talking about before you lump caring people as “whaky” – you are just plain cruel, clueless, and morally repugnant.
You side with Generis because she’s a “star” and the homeless animals are just what to you = throwaway trash??
about 4 years ago
Hi rebel, welcome to the blog.
Im very happy for homeless animal rescue organizations. I adopted two animals from such an agency in the past year.
But anyone who believes that they alone have the wisdom to determine who can own an animal is “whacky.”
Pets are property. All property can be transferred to another person in this country. I think you attribute too many anthropomorphic feelings on the animals you care for if you believe otherwise.
And don’t condemn me as morally repugnant over animal issues without searching the site for “vick.”
about 4 years ago
What an excuse for this agency-mutts and moms- to say a dog that small isn’t safe with children under 14,that is unheard of!!! I have a min pin who was 7 weeks,3lbs. when i brought him home to an 8 yr. old . He is still alive [and safe]at 2 and a half yrs. now. They could have at least left him in the home and checked this family out. instead of breaking children’s hearts!! I will be leary of rescue agency’s now[along with alot of others,i'm sure]
about 4 years ago
Suzyh, thanks for coming to the blog.
Yeah, I saw that outrageous article too. Its here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071017/ap_on_en_tv/people_degeneres
In it they say:
Is that not whacky? I think it is.
about 4 years ago
Tough to make a call on this one. (NOT!)
You have a very high profile person with Ellen DeGeneres.
This group feels that she hasn’t abided by their contract. We’re fine at that point.
So to resolve the issue what do they do? Contact Ellen, get her side of the story. Try to handle it in a quite way for the best interest of the animal involved?
Nope. They immediately contact their lawyer and then use Gestapo tactics to resolve the issue. THEN they have the audacity to complain that they’re are getting phone calls and email over the issue.
Gee if they would have handled this like compassionate human beings, none of this would have happened!
about 4 years ago
Right on, DogJudge.
This is the type of thing that happens when people care more about appearing compassionate than being compassionate.
about 4 years ago
i think you are all a bunch of jerks. you never should have done that. it was a mean thing to do. you should not be allowed to take care of any animal.
about 4 years ago
Contact info to Mutts and Moms=
http://www.muttsandmoms.org Email: pawboutique@yahoo.com
about 4 years ago
Wow! This is the saddest thing I have seen in regards to animal adoption agencies. It shows how little power those people at Mutts and Moms have in their own life that they feel that they must manipulate this situation as much as they can so they can FEEL powerful. What sad excuses for human beings these people are! They remind me of the people who want to be president of homeowners associations!!!
about 4 years ago
Bob, thanks for the contact info update.
TBGwog, nice analogy about the homeowners association busybodies! They are definitely taking a ‘holier than thou’ stance on this.
about 4 years ago
What a mess. The purpose of rescuing a pet and adopting it is to find it a loving home. Ellen claims to have done so but the agency was quick to snatch Iggy back. The agency should have been a bit more patient. I just hope Iggy finds a great home. He’s so adorable and is a celebrity pooch now.
about 4 years ago
I cant stand Ellen, but I have to say she did the right thing. There is no reason that Mutts and Moms (awful name btw) should have taken the dog back if it had a happy home. Their job is to find home for pets, it is not their business so long as the animal is properly taken care of.
about 4 years ago
Reading over comments on this and other sites, I find that most people’s reaction, for or against Ellen or Mutts & Moms, is so visceral and passionate and sometimes just really nasty. I think this is why, if you get involved with some of these groups – and thank goodness for the mostly great great work that they do – you do often (more often than not) encounter people who, frankly, are a little off kilter. I know of an animal trainer, so admired and seemingly levelheaded, who kept her deceased cat in her own bed for several days, unable to deal with it’s death. I mean, that is not normal. Friends finally had to intervene. Often these groups do have these little cabals of rebels wanting to overthrow the board, there are turf wars at some of their satellite adoption sites like PetSmart, etc…I’m sorry, but some of them are really not wrapped too tight. But most of them are these little grass roots groups that work tirelessly and give sacrificially to save animals and find them homes. That said…I do wonder about Mutts and Moms being so quick to dash over and “rescue” the dog from what seems to have been, at the very least, a potentially terrific match of humans and that dog. Why be so snotty about it? Did Ellen’s publicist, or whoever Ms. Bush is, try to throw her weight around? Maybe. If Ms. Batkis (what a name) got her back up at that point…shame on her. It’s not supposed to be about her and her authority…this is where the animal group fiefdoms get ugly. The rule Ellen broke is a legitimate rule…you don’t want to adopt an animal to someone and find out it was given to that guy down the block who fights pitbulls. But Batkis was so ham-fisted in the way she came roaring back to just snatch up the dog. That was not beneficial to anyone. Honestly, she did it so quickly that it’s a little suspicious, as is the fact that Iggy was so immediately placed in a new home. Maybe they are not one of the good animal groups in the first place (I’m on the east coast and have no idea). Who owns the PawsBoutique? Ms. Batkis and/or her friends? I’m just asking. This whole thing was handled really badly by Batkis and co. And for anyone, like her snotty attorney, to even attempt to paint Ellen DeGeneres as a power-hungry baddie, well that is just truly laughable. Who on earth buys into that? Life is busy and messy at times for all of us, even those with lots of money and their own tv shows! If I had adopted an animal and a good friend seemed to have a better home for the animal (no cats) I might consider making the same move Ellen did. And let’s also wonder, now that we’ve seen Ms. Batkis and her attorney at work, would they have been willing to allow the hairdresser’s family to even apply? NO. By their own admission. Ellen gave the dog to that family with the best intentions and it sounds like the kids were just nuts over the dog. Everyone was happy, that was a win-win…right? And what a stupid policy to say you and your child cannot have a small dog. Is a Presa Canaria ok or what? That is just plain ridiculous. I do hope Iggy (who is probably in Ms. Batkis’ basement right now) will be in a good home and I must say, if I were out in that area, I would not be supportive of her group, but would find another group that is good, and donate to them as someone always has to pick up the slack when an animal group folds. If Ms. Batkis sings the song of these kinds of animal people, “it’s all for the animals!” then let us watch as this goes forward, to see how she goes about trying to make lots of money off this unfortunate situation. Ka-ching.
about 4 years ago
Nancy, all of your points are good ones. But one thing I wanted to point out about the “doggie repo-”
The family should not have allowed anyone to take the animal without due process. Contracts included, no one should enter your property and take any possession without a valid court order.
Batkis may be touched in the head. It is for certain that she is not very smart or shrewd as a businesswoman. All of that free publicity, a simple apology, and she could have been the puppy-giver to the stars. Now it is more likely that her endeavors, no matter how well-intentioned, will be ruined by her mishandling of this incident.
about 4 years ago
Nobody can dispute that. Now that Mutts and Moms has been plastered across the world for essentially stealing a puppy away from 2 loving kids (see it how you wish, but that is the popular opinion) they will lose enough revenue to go out of business.
My wife and I adopted a kitten not to long ago and the only thing required of us is to make sure the cat is fixed, gets all her shots and is loved … not very difficult for a loving family. THAT is all that should be required and Batkis really screwed the pooch (pun intended) on this one.
about 4 years ago
I am shocked at the so-called animal lovers who are disputing the intentions of the people at Mutts and Moms. It is totally understandable why an organization devoted to the welfare of animals wouldn’t stand by while a pet is “transferred” to another home, based on the judgement of the people who originally adopted the animal. Were they to not take a stand on this matter, there would be even more abandoned animals out there who have not been qualified in a professional manner. Indeed, Ellen (whom I love as a warm personality who really makes me laugh), is a celebrity who believes that she is above the general public and doesn’t need to comply with such rules. A much more rational stand would have been to promote the agency for their diligence and dedication. I give Mutts and Mom credit for standing by their policies. They are made for everyone. Although she appears to be shedding tears for the young girls, it is really the dog she is upset about. She surely must have believed in Mutts and Moms when she first adopted the dog – now she is suddenly against what they stand for – carefully placing animals in appropriate and loving homes. How sad that this organization must now go undercover until the crazies out there stop making death threats! Cukoo!
about 4 years ago
I am not for death threats, so I hope you dont think that I support anyone who has done so the mutts and moms (or anyone else for that matter).
My stance on this is that their soul purpose is to find loving homes for pets.
The dog had a better home with the family that Ellen gave him to than with Ellen and Mutts and Pets decided that they would rather have the dog living in a cage than in a happy home because of a contractual agreement that is stupid anyway.
To top things off, they did this to a woman who is a talk show host and happens to empty her purse in front of the world on a regular basis. Ellen isn’t acting like someone who is better than the rest of the world, she is using her medium to show how disgusting this whole thing is. I don’t think there is a human in the world who would do different. I can think of multiple times that I have been wronged by a company and wished I had a national audience to share the story with.
Mutts and Moms will wind up hurting from this matter if they don’t do the right thing and give that dog back to that family. Not by matter of law, but because nobody in their right mind will support them or use their service.
about 4 years ago
Janetta,
Please go back and look at some of the comments and actions that were taken by the folks from Mutts and Moms. Especially view them in the light of you or I adopting an animal versus Ellen.
- Their first reaction was to get their lawyer involved.
- At NO time did they discuss the matter with the new family, they simply went in and confiscated the dog. (As an aside, that action is extremely questionable from a legal standpoint. No matter what type of contract I sign, YOU do not have the right to come on to my property and simply confiscate an animal, or any object. You have to go through the courts.)
- When questioned about this issue, one of the owners of Mutts and Moms continued to talk about how this was an issue for her, her problems, her issues, etc. At NO point in the interview did she EVER mention the dog’s welfare.
- Don’t you find it just a little bit curious that this dog was re-homed almost instantly?
about 4 years ago
I cant read your tone, so I am not 100% sure, but it seems like you are arguing with someone who already agrees with you.
about 4 years ago
I know I can’t win here, because nearly everyone believes that they know better than Mutts and Mom as to what pet adoption involves. I am simply stating that Ellen knew the rules of this particular organization when she adopted the dog. There are many other rescue organizations out there that she could have gone to as there are hundreds of thousands of abandoned pets. So, rather than validating what Mutts and Moms stands for (THEY choose the adoptive homes – right or wrong, that is what they do!!!)she chose to publicly chastise them for not making HER case an exception. I might also suggest that the quickest way for the two little girls involved to heal, is for their parents to rescue another homeless, needy doggie. There are many.
about 4 years ago
why are you arguing for both sides of the issue ?
about 4 years ago
My last posting….but I can’t resist asking
Jim, why do you keep saying that I am on both sides of the issue? I haven’t taken a logics class since college 30 years ago, but I know that I can still LIKE Ellen, I can still say the folks at Mutts and Moms might be a bit over the top in their beliefs, and still say that Mutts and Moms were totally justified in adhering to their policies! So, if you need to have it laid out this way – Ellen was wrong, Mutts & Moms were right. Have a great weekend!!!
about 4 years ago
My mistake, I read the post by dogjudge who started his/her post by addressing you… I misread it and thought it was your post. Sorry about that.
here is my opinion since you shared yours:
Ellen is a weasel dike, Mutts and Moms are an awful organization and I hope both of them disappear forever. They are BOTH wrong… Ellen should not have accepted the contract. Mutts and Moms shouldnt have written such a contract. they dont have the right to refer to themselves as people who are out for the welfare of animals because they obviously care more about their pointless contract over the actual welfare of the pets.
fuck em.
about 3 years ago
I have a very important issue that I wish Ellen could help. It’s not not about dogs or pets. But if she cared and cried about orphaned/abandoned pets, I am pretty certain she does help people also. Please help me reach her. Thanks a lot!