Here's where I stand: Every creature deserves the best home that can be found.
Maybe it's a rescue placing the creature. Maybe it's one person giving the animal to another. Maybe it's someone taking in a stray. Animals deserve a loving home. Period.
You've heard about the Ellen DeGeneres controversy, no doubt. She adopted a dog named Iggy from a rescue group called Mutts and Moms. The black Brussels Griffon mix terrier didn't get along with DeGeneres' cats and she gave the dog to her hairdresser and her two daughters.
That made the rescue angry because it violated its rules for determining the best home. So be it.
Many of us have taken in pets that others couldn't handle or couldn't keep for one reason or another. I took in my friends' cat Thyroid when they moved to London and didn't think he would survive quarantine. I gave Thyroid the best home I could.
That's what it sounds as if Ellen DeGeneres was doing, too - giving Iggy the best home possible.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Ellen, Iggy and What to Do Next
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
For crying out loud .. let the nice hairdresser and her kids keep the dog
The way the whole business was handled is shameful. I realize Ellen G. didn't follow the contract she signed because she probably forgot about that clause BUT the rescue people could have simply followed up with the family Iggy was given to, couldn't they? They could see whether or not the home was a good one and base part of that decision on someone they approved of (Ellen G.) thought it would be a good home. The rescue people overreacted big time.
Get a grip. Even though Ellen did not abide by the contract, the rescue should never have taken Iggy from the home. How much better where they in handling the situation.
This is not an uncommon clause for a rescue to have in adoption contracts. As a matter of fact, I think it's pretty normal.
I do understand why they have this arrangement. They spent time and money screening you to take in a new pet... if you turn around and give it to someone else, how do they know that person is capable to provide a loving home?
Taking it one step further, this is a way for them to keep dogs from being sent to dogfighting operations. What's to keep a dogfighter from getting his friends and comrades to adopt dogs and turn them over to him?
But in this situation, clearly the rescue should have just done their screening on the family who had already bonded with Iggy.
Ellen was wrong, wrong and wrong. First, Ellen was not the adopter, her partner was. Ellen never signed the contract-her name would have been on the contract since she lived with the adopter. Ellen, herself, had no more rights to the dog than a neighbor down the street. Second, rather than set an example and calmly admitting she was wrong and the rescue was right, Ellen went went on a tear-jerking, sentiment twisting sob story how the dog belong with the hairdresser's family. That's just bully tactics. Third, Ellen invited the girl to pout and whine on national TV instead of quietly explaining that there are dogs in the local shelter that will die if not adopted and to help one of those. The rescue took back the dog because it has a policy of not adopting any small dogs to any kids under 14. Maybe because small dogs tend to be treated like stuffed animals. Or maybe because small dogs have become a celebrity accessory. Maybe it's an unfortunately learned lesson. The reason wasn't stated. But a ridiculous amount of dogs that were acquired for children find themselves homeless when the child loses interest due to sports, boyfriends, etc. Rescues have a lot emotionally invested into each dog-for every one that they save, the rescue has to leave too many behind to die in shelters. Rescues just don't have the resources to save them all. Therefore, they try very hard for the dogs they do save to find a home that will be appropriate for the dog's entire life, not just the next few months or years. It's not a frivolous decision. Here's a thought-if Iggy had been an adopted human child-do you still think it would have been OK for Ellen to just give it away? Without telling the adoption agency? Doubtful.
Anyone who has dealt with rescues should know that a reputable rescue group ALWAYS has the clause about returning the dog if the adopter cannot keep the pet for any reason. Also, many rescues of small breeds have binding rules surrounding adopting small dogs to families with young children. This group had that in their contract. And kudos to the rescue group for now bowing down to TV celebrity!
Many rescues have stringent policies in place to ensure the dogs do not end up in shelters or medical research facilites, etc. And small breeds are not adopted out to families w/children because of the high number of injuries/death resulting from such children. I understand where they are coming from, but then again, as a mother, I would like to see rescues work on a case by case basis.
I understand that the children are upset, but Ellen should not be blaming the rescue, she should blame herself, she broke the contract. I am irritated that she used the public forum for something so minor..and look at the backlash on the rescue group. Death threats, threatening e-mails, phone calls. It's crazy. Let it go. Get the girl another dog. She'll bond just as strongly as she did with Iggy.
Running a rescue group is a thankless task, and it usually drains the personal resources and emotions of the group members. I know because I have a relative who is involved in an animal rescue group. For those who say that the group can simply can follow up with Ellen's hairdresser, how many bloody times should the rescue group have to follow up every time someone decides to pass the dog on? If Ellen and her partner were so concerned about the cats' reaction, they should have only taken a dog on a trial basis anyway. That's precisely why that clause is in the contract. If Ellen hadn't sent her lawyers after these people (their oh-so-nice phone call to the rescue group was televised), the situation might have ended differently.
Why do these rescue groups make it so difficult to adopt a pet? Many rescue groups are over run with kittens, cat, puppies and dogs. Is is more humane to keep these animals housed in cages or be adopted out to someone who can feed and water them and love them regardless of their income, job status, location, or age? Older people are turned down because they might not be able to exercise their pet as often as a younger person. No fenced yard and you are turned down. They want cats kept in doors. Most cats prefer to be outside sometime during the day or night, it is their nature. Sometimes I think no one is good enough to adopt a pet in some rescue shelters. I found my kitten the old fashion way, a road side ad that said FREE KITTENS.
I am coming in on this late, but wanted to give an opinion from a rescuer's perspective. I have been in rescue for 9 years now, have fostered and placed hundreds of dogs over the years, and we do have the third party clause in our contract as well. The first thing that caught my attention was the fact that neither Ellen or her partner read the contract before they signed it. We make sure that our potential adopters have a contact to read BEFORE the adoption takes place so they don't have to do that during the excitement of the adoption itself. And the major clauses are repeated to the adopter at the adoption - especially this clause. The point I am making here is that both parties are at fault here, Ellen for not reading the contract and the rescue for not making sure that Ellen and her partner had read and understood the contract. This whole situation might have turned out differently if Ellen had not taken it public like she did. In rescue, our main concern is the welfare of the dog we are placing. We want the dogs to have a wonderful home, but we want it to be the right fit for both the family and the dog. The clauses are in the contract for a reason. You have to remember that we not only have time and money invested in these dogs, but we are emotionally attached to them - we love each and every one. We want to insure that these dogs are not tossed from home to home. And that is just what could have happened here. Sure - the hairdresser's kids loved Iggy and were so very hurt when he was taken from them, but they had only had him for a very short time. What would have happened if they had had him for a few months? We will never know, but we will also never know if they would have passed Iggy on to someone else after they tired of him, as a lot of kids do when the novelty wears off.
It is just a sad situation that should never have been broadcast on TV. A situation that certainly puts the rescue groups in a bad light, all because we are doing what we feel is best for the rescued dog - insuring that he/she will never be unloved, unwanted, neglected, abused, or dumped again.
Molly Paes
Dalmatian Rescue of Delaware
Post a Comment