I was beyond disgusted at the way Ellen DeGeneres used her show and the media to attack this rescue group.

This rescue group saved dogs from high-kill shelters, and nursed them back to health.

Now thanks to Ellen, they are receiving death threats and arson threats.

They can't save animals now, because Ellen had a temper tantrum and got the crazies all worked up.

What's worse, Ellen DUMPED this dog, and apparently she has a long history of dumping dogs (plus she's bought dogs from puppy mill breeders.)

I think she's one of those people who claim she loves animals, but doesn't act like it.

I would love to see her prove otherwise.

Posted by: kelly | October 18, 2007 05:20 PM

I am really confused, Ellen claims to be such an animal lover,m yet she continues to eat and wear them? I say, if show fits, get it in the Vegan style!!!

Posted by: Donna | October 18, 2007 05:31 PM

I beg to differ. Ellen did break the contract. This is not the first time she has adopted and then "rehomed" dogs. She did not get her way and then used her celebrity (uh-hmm like somebody else we know) to try to get what she wanted. She repeated referred to the dog IGGY as "IT" -- very strange considering the big, tearful show she put on.

AND THEN, her crazy fans started threatening the rescue! Not until today did she call off her henchmen/fans.

Ellen claims to just "LOVE LOVE LOVE" animals... sure, preferably fried on a bed of rice.

I think, perhaps, PETA, is getting a little bit starstruck here. I'm disappointed. Not as disappointed as when you published the story of Michael Vick attending your course ... but getting there.

I am tired of celebrities being above the law. In Ellen's case, I find her objectification of animals highly offensive.

Posted by: VestaGirl | October 18, 2007 06:04 PM

I think that the animal rescue group should have made an evaluation of the home before they took the dog from the family.This could have, and should have, been resolved peacefully. I personally believe that the rescue group took the dog from the home out of hard feelings and not from a clear frame of mind. Ellen clearly loves animals and would not put the dog in harm's way.The group should see that now and not keep the dog out of spite.

Posted by: Melanie | October 18, 2007 06:25 PM

BUT the shelter deceitfully took the dog, saying they were there to do a "home check".

The head of that rescue is on a power trip. Pure and simple.

They have never given that hairdresser's family a chance to apply for the dog. Even though the children are under 14, from what I have seen on tv they are mature enough to handle this dog.

Ellen released a statement today. Here is part of it:

DeGeneres said several agencies had offered to provide the family another dog, even one that looked like Iggy.

"And unfortunately, Ruby, the little girl, doesn't want another dog, she wants Iggy," said DeGeneres on the show to air Thursday. "It's not a toy that's broken that you can replace. It's a dog."

Ellen has it right and understands.

She knows the dogs have individual personalities etc.

Like I said, this power-tripping rescue director has never given them a chance.

Posted by: Tamara | October 18, 2007 06:55 PM

I wholeheartedly agree. We need, though, to help folks understand why animal rescues have these rules in place. Everyone isn't Ellen. They may knowingly or unknowingly give a pet to a second hand lab dealer or a bad home and then what? People have really gotten riled up about this. The rescue has gotten death threats. That is wrong on so many levels. Thanks PETA for stepping up and telling both sides.

Posted by: Michelle | October 18, 2007 07:03 PM

I am dismayed by PETA's comments and viewpoint regarding the news item posted on PETA web page: "Ellen Degeneres' Puppy Troubles". Evidently threatening an animal shelter with a lawsuit because Ms. Degeneres believes she is above the rules, fits your (PETA's) agenda.

Posted by: Karen M. | October 18, 2007 07:13 PM

Ellen has a very good heart. It's just an unfortunate situation (for everyone involved). But I hear they've placed Iggy in a new home. I'm sure it's a loving family and Iggy will be happy---the shelter obviously screens people and takes the whole process seriously (which is a very good thing).

Posted by: J | October 18, 2007 07:35 PM

I am very disappointed in you PETA!! I would still like to hear the WHOLE story with all the details. Did Ellen not read the entire adoption contract?? Did the rescue PRESS the issue of returning the dog to rescue if things did not work out?? Did the rescue allow the (hairdresser's) family to apply for adoption and go through the whole adoption process?? Ellen REALLY took a cheap shot by making it an issue on her television show! She has done a great deal of damage to a rescue that is a non profit organization and only operates to save lives. I do rescue and foster and I can appreciate what this rescue must be suffering. We save animal's lives at our own expense and the reward is to see the dog go to a loving, permanant home. I will never understand Ellen DeGeneres!!!! She may be a TV personality, but she knows nothing about finding a good permanant home for Iggy. I have the feeling that she thinks it is all about how SHE is feeling. I also don't think she has the best track record for adopting dogs. Also, why did the rescue place the dog in a home with cats?? I would NEVER place my foster dog in a home with cats. This whole thing is bigger than ELLEN and it is really a shame because she has done a great deal of harm to the rescue! I have lost all respect for Ellen DeGeneres.

Jacquie Nielsen
Versailles, KY

Posted by: Jacquie Nielsen | October 18, 2007 08:25 PM

Ellen is not an evil person; neither is the pet shelter. As "J" said below, it's an unfortunate situation. Regardless, I applaud the animal shelter for sticking to the rules----even when there's a celebrity involved. The rules are there for good reason. We know that people abuse dogs, and while the hairdresser's family was obviously a good one, if you make an exception for them, you'd have to make them for everyone. Again, just because a celebrity is involved doesn't mean the rules can be broken. Michael Vick is also a "celebrity", after all. While I think Ellen should have handled this differently, my opinion of her hasn't changed; I still like her and think she's a well-meaning person. I just hope some of the hardcore (crazy) fans will calm down and stop threatening the shelter. That's totally uncalled for.

Posted by: August | October 18, 2007 09:12 PM

I was also disappointed in PETA after hearing their spokesman on TV basically rave on about Ellen while offering no support for this Rescue group who did nothing wrong. I run a Rescue Org and have the same rules and people try to get out of certain aspects of the contract to save a buck etc. The mother knew full well she was to return the pup and she didn't do it so why would the Adopters try and deal with her any other way and why would they adopt to her after that. I wouldn't. That pup will have it's share of excellent PERMANANT homes to choose from and I think they have found one and it's been rehomed again. Ellen did not try very hard with this pup, 2 weeks?? That is great she gives $$$ and adopts I hope she does better with the others she adopted, but sounds like maybe not? But just because she gives $$ does not mean she is a suitable home for a pet. PETA seemed like they were trying to get a few bucks by raving on about her. You let us little guys down out here PETA that work out TAILS off and spend $$$ far more % wise to our salaries then Ellen ever will. I think PETA needs to throw their support the way of the agency. The public talk about PETA wackos, Ellen's fans are the ones out of touch with reality. What a bunch of kooks.

Posted by: Advocate in Iowa | October 18, 2007 09:26 PM

Can we cool it on the "likes her animals fried on a bed of rice" comments?

And all the other vegan, etc. comments?

That's not what we're talking about here...

Posted by: Tamara | October 18, 2007 09:49 PM

Just another celebrity who thinks they are above everyone else. Ellen didn't follow the same procedures that everyone else has to. She'd rather make a big production about it and try to take down an honest business that didn't let her have it her way. Yo, Ellen, this ain't Burger King, you don't get to have it your way this time.

Posted by: Barbara | October 18, 2007 10:34 PM

Isn't it funny how there's a box of tissues next to Ellen during her tantrum? I looked at a dozen random past tapes of her show on YouTube, and alas, no tissues. Guess the crying was planned. Rescue groups needs contracts and rules. It is sign of disrespect for Ellen to violate them. If she wants to rescue dogs, then set up a rescue group yourself with your own rules. I'll bet she reads her tv contracts and doesn't treat them so cavalierly.

Posted by: Robert | October 18, 2007 10:46 PM

To: Tamara | October 18, 2007 09:49 PM

I stand by what I wrote.

Ellen holds herself out to just LOVE, LOVE, LOVE animals. She's even done commercials featuring animals (and we know how most of feel about using animals in show business).

Ellen obviously believes she is above the law. She believes that her celebrity entitles her to break the rules.

I, for one, applaud the rescue for standing their ground ... this despite all of the death and arson threats.

THEY are the ones in the trenches RESCUING the animals. NOT Ellen. Who merely adopts them and then ditches them when they become inconvenient.

I mean, come on: 2 weeks! She gave the puppy 2 weeks to fit in with her cats. That she threw $3,000 at the dog means nothing to me.

All of these fake tears ... and the entire time she referred to Iggy as "IT". At least 9 times (go ahead - count).

She called him IT a few times today, as well.

No, sorry, she is a hypocrite. And she has done far more harm than good here.

And I hope that PETA will not be too quick to take the side of this faux "animal loving" person. Like I wrote before ... sure she loves animals, especially those who land on her plate.

Posted by: VestaGirl | October 18, 2007 10:58 PM

She violated the rules of the contract. It's just that plain and simple. There are rules/regulations and surprise surprise, even celebrities should abide by them.

Posted by: Ingrid W | October 18, 2007 11:15 PM

Please remove Ellen's photo from this blog.

She makes me sick to my stomach.

Posted by: Barbara | October 18, 2007 11:23 PM

Those who dislike Ellen's "crying behavior" ought to realize that this open show of emotion, bringing much attention to the plight of homeless animals. Tonight on Access Hollywood, a spot is being done on puppy mills. This exposure may help to stop some of the public from buying pets that come from these mills. I meet people all the time who know nothing of the horror of this type of business, and I want the world to know. Personally I thank Ellen for being so open. The rescue people at Mutts and Moms are doing the right thing. There needs to be lots of background checking on people taking an animal out of a shelter. I don't think Ellen was doing anything but trying to give Iggy a good ,safe, loving home. The entire situation is sad for everyone involved, but lets hope this media attention helps other animals in the future.

Posted by: Carol McGinnis | October 19, 2007 12:00 AM

Ok, the first thing I would like to say is that Ellen does not wear fur. and not all people that love animals are vegetarian. Lets get that straight. while I am a vegetarian, I know many people who adore animals that do in fact eat meat...so theres that. personally, I agree with PETA on this one. there are two sides to every story, and ellen, bless her heart, was only trying to do what she thought was best. do you really think she would have handed iggy into an uncapable family. and also..how rude is it that the organization just literally barged in? I do applaud the organization for taking care of their animals, though. I just hope they all make peace...for Iggy's sake.

Posted by: Naissa | October 19, 2007 12:04 AM

why does everyone just assume Degeneres eats meat? from the information I've found on IMDB etc. she is a vegetarian... Also, she did not attack this shelter at all, she simply wants the dog and the little girls to be back in each other's lives...

I totally agree that PETA over does the celebrity thing and chooses the wrong celebrities to endorse the movement (pamela anderson, steve-o etc.) but this time it is definetly not the case...

I think Degeneres is very sincere about what she tried to do, and I can bet she is horrified that people are threatening the shelter etc... I'm sure she knows why there are rules, and I agree with the rules, however all rules can be bent, and this is one case where they probably should be...

Peace.

Posted by: Hitchjr | October 19, 2007 12:12 AM

Ok, the first thing I would like to say is that Ellen does not wear fur. and not all people that love animals are vegetarian. Lets get that straight. while I am a vegetarian, I know many people who adore animals that do in fact eat meat...so theres that. personally, I agree with PETA on this one. there are two sides to every story, and ellen, bless her heart, was only trying to do what she thought was best. do you really think she would have handed iggy into an uncapable family. and also..how rude is it that the organization just literally barged in? I do applaud the organization for taking care of their animals, though. I just hope they all make peace...for Iggy's sake.

Posted by: Naissa | October 19, 2007 12:31 AM

IDIOTS!!!

All of you criticizing PETA and Ellen.

Laws are not BLACK and WHITE and the bitch who runs the shelter knows that.

She could have told the family how to legally adopt the dog.

And anyone who had the same forum Ellen has would have done EXACTLY what she did.

I applaud PETA and Ellen.

From Brian: Lineba20@aol.com

Posted by: Brian | October 19, 2007 01:12 AM

Hey Tamara.

Here's an idea.

You go to high-kill shelters, pull some dogs that are near death, nurse them back to life, health, and happiness in your home.

Then you place the dog.....and see how you feel when the adopter whimsically gives that dog away to some employee of hers like a toy.

Ignores the contract she signs with you, lies to you. Goes on national television and smears you and gets the crazies to attack you.

Then you see how you feel about this.

It sounds like you are just a little starstruck with a selfish celebrity who dumps dogs while claiming to care about them. And then dumps on a rescue group that saves some of the neediest dogs in this country.

(And while you are at it- visit some of those hellhole California pounds and shelters that this group has rescued dogs from. Maybe if more people like Tamara did something about it, things could change for dogs in a big way.)

Posted by: kelly | October 19, 2007 01:40 AM

Below I found a description of one dog that this rescue group has saved that I found cached online because they had to take their website down due to death threats.

One among many.

Thanks to Ellen DeGeneres, now this rescue group can't rescue other Chrissies.

I just cry to think of what Ellen has done to this wonderful rescue group!

"Chrissy had NO hope at the shelter. She was emaciated, sick with kennel cough and had a broken tail that had heal like a "J". She faced the back wall of her kennel and had given up. No one was stopping to look at her except to make fun of her tail. We kneeled down and called her over, she came, slowly, unsure of us. We began to pet her though the bars and she rolled over on her back for a tummy rub. We took her out of her cage for a walk and she was so sweet and loving. You could tell she'd been through alot in her life. We bailed her out and took her to the Vet who said she should put on 10 lbs which would bring her up to 50 lbs (she is 2 years old). He said her tail had healed and nothing could be done. We just wanted to make sure she wasn't in any pain. We think her tail gives her character. Chrissy loves people and other dogs. She is a little shy at first and more on the timid side so only homes with another well-behaved dog (or no dog) will be considered. Chrissy is a loyal girl that follows her foster mom around and loves to be petted; it's as if no one ever touched her before and she's so grateful for the attention. We love Chrissy and are so happy we were able to save her precious life. "

Posted by: kelly | October 19, 2007 01:45 AM

I don't disagree that Ellen should have contacted the rescue group first, but I think they went way to far. Why did they not make the new family fill up an application and do an interview and home visit to discuss the well being of the dog? They could even have made the family pay a new adoption fee. Taking the dog away from them was too much. I volunteer for a rescue group and I'm very familiar w/ the adoption process. The well being of the dog comes first- always! And hosnestly, to say that a 4 month old dog cannot be with children under 14???
Get real!

Posted by: Maggie | October 19, 2007 01:50 AM

I am very disgusted that Ellen used her show to gain sympathy. It is unfortunate that this happened and I do think that she thought she was doing what was right, but every rescue agency has to have these rules in order to Protect the animal. I too, have adopted a dog from a rescue agency and I have to comply with those rules just like everyone else and that applies to celebrities as well. The big loser in this is the dog, he's getting tossed around like a towel, I really hope this new home he's in will be his forever home.

Posted by: Megan | October 19, 2007 02:17 AM

Here's where I stand. The rules are in place to protect animals, right? She broke the rules, sure. And the rules must apply to everyone. But there surely should be a way to transfer ownership, it shouldn't be hard and fast seizure of animals. She was going to give it a loving home, surely that is better than a shelter. But the rules are in place for a reason.

Posted by: AnimalLib | October 19, 2007 02:23 AM

If peta really cared about animals they would side with Mutts & Moms not Ellen.

Who made Ellen queen?

Posted by: Stella | October 19, 2007 04:11 AM

that is horrable of that animal shelter to lie and steal someones pet,we have an animal shelter out here that seems to thank if someone gets an animal from a breeder or from someone, they can take and tell the owner they have to pay them for their own pet

Posted by: Lynn | October 19, 2007 04:14 AM

Bravo for the shelter; all shelters should have such standards. Ellen's hissy fit has caused the shelter so much harm in more ways than one. The shelter ascertained that the hairdresser's background check was not acceptable by their standards and stepped in and took the puppy back. Because a puppy is adopted and you sign papers agreeing to the shelter's conditions, the shelter can retrieve the puppy once those conditions are not met. I, for one, am tired of the glorification of celebrities and Ellen is no exception. PETA needs to make a stronger statement in defense of the shelter. Ellen, with her deliberate temper tantrum, has done more damage for those shelters, such as this one, who are doing their best in the interest and care of the cats and dogs they are there to protect. Please STOP the glorification of Ellen Ungenerous.

Posted by: Ana | October 19, 2007 09:01 AM

Rescue groups can NOT bend their rules just because some celebrity made a mistake. Ellen probably does have a good heart, but Ellen also used her TV show to gain sympathy for an issue that should have been between her, the people she gave the dog to, and the rescue group.
Rescue groups CAN go too far, but their rules are there for a reason, that reason being that the there are many, many unsavory people out there who will take a "free" dog whether they're suited for it or not, and the dog can end up in a lab,or as bait for dog fights.
The use of her TV show to further her own cause seemed shoddy to me. Ellen would seem to be falling prey to "Oprah syndrome", i.e., the conviction that the entire world is about HER, what she does, who with, what she thinks, feels, wears, right up to details about her private life, a tour of her new home, her Emmy, etc, etc. She's not quite as egotistical as Oprah, not yet, but she's working on it, by all appearances.
As is often the case in disputes about animals, the animal ended up being the one who suffered most, not Ellen who had her entire TV audience for a "support group." The dog, though, lost TWO homes now instead of one. And why did Ellen re-home this dog after only two weeks anyway? There are plenty of trainers, et al. who could've helped her get the dogs used to the cats. Her "love" of animals seems more sentimental than real, to me, based on what I've read, so far.

Posted by: Susannah S | October 19, 2007 09:58 AM

The animal shelter's actions were over-the-top. I used to stand behind PETA but it has become apparent to me that it is one fanatical fucked up organization.

Posted by: Dell | October 19, 2007 10:02 AM

There are no villains in this story, so stop pretending there is?

Ellen did the right thing by adopting from an animal shelter in the first place, and then when she realized that Iggy (dog's name?) didn't get along with the cats, she took it upon herself to do the responsible thing (in her mind at the time) to find a loving home for him instead of dumping him off at the side of the road (which happens a lot across this "great" nation).

Mutts & Moms did the right thing by sticking to their policy. Standards have been set up in order to insure that the animal involved ends up in the best situation (for the animal).

Yes both parties made mistakes. I agree. Ellen should have gone through the proper channels. Mutts & Moms should have done an assessment at the home and made the decision to approve or disapprove of the adoption to the family right then and there, no matter how long the assessment took. Or the family could have signed up to be a foster family while Mutts & Moms went through the proper procedure.

Either way, neither party should be put in a bad light. All these despicable comments about Ellen and those death threats to Mutts & Moms from the general public just shows how disgraceful we (as human beings) really are. We’re always looking for some kind of way to express our anger even though some situations do not warrant it.

Regarding these comments about PETA: People are always criticizing PETA for being extreme and when their view is neutral they can’t handle it either. PETA is allowed to be on the fence with some things. It’s all about the animals and what’s best for the animals (that’s what the “A” in PETA stands for BTW). Regardless of what people may think of PETA they’re making the world a better place for all living beings along with other Animals Rights and Wildlife Protection organizations. It’s a positive and peaceful difference.

When looking to complain about things, look at yourself first. Think about your actions. What are YOU doing to make the world a better place for all living beings? What are YOU doing (directly or indirectly) to cause the problems or letting the problems continue from generation to generation?

“Be the change” Ghandi once said.

EAS
We ARE only human. We need more EVOLUTION.

Posted by: EAS | October 19, 2007 10:09 AM

From home to home, typical! What's gonna happen to the dog now?

Posted by: Carla | October 19, 2007 10:24 AM

This issue has such a gray area... However the ONE thing I definetly disagree with is people who claim that you can be a true animal lover and still eat animals... I conisidered myself one of those people until I became a vegetarian and I can say for certain that I was wrong before, and that I was unrealistic to think that way at all... If you love animals, you cannot eat them, PERIOD.

Not that this involves DEGENERES, considering (as I already stated) this information I have found leads to her being a vegetarian...

Peace.

Posted by: Hitchjr | October 19, 2007 10:47 AM

The hate and vile displayed by many here is truly disturbing. As a recent vegetarian convert of 6 mos, I certainly don't think I was some kind of animal-hating monster 1 year ago, just because I ate meat. I educated myself and made a choice. Ellen made a mistake. The rescue group (I volunteer for one myself) is trying to make a point and I think they took their policy too far. Any group that says children under 14 years of age can't have dogs is suspect. What would my early childhood have been without my beloved pets?

Posted by: S | October 19, 2007 10:51 AM

The shelter was 100% correct.She signed a contract and she broke it. Too bad for her. The shelter did investigate the other family and found them unsuitable and removed the dog.

Why didn't she give away the cats?

Posted by: Mars | October 19, 2007 11:07 AM

Well, well...Ellen is taken to task for using her television show to fight for the pup. I agree Ellen should have followed the adoption rules; rules apply to all of us. 'Tis just sad her name isn't Orpah...then none of this would have happened!

Posted by: Susan Bortell | October 19, 2007 11:13 AM

funny someone would say that she got the crazies all worked up when this is posted on the peta web page the organization that has a history of poking it's nose in situatipons it does not belong for once peta needs to back off and let the situation resolve itself and quit trying to cause more hype and hysteria over the whjole situation

Posted by: Anonymous | October 19, 2007 11:23 AM

I understand that some people believe that all celebrities use and abuse animals, but I think Ellen did the right thing by ADOPTING a dog, instead of purchasing one from a pet store. Not only that, but she REALIZED she would not be able to care for it, and therefore took a responsible action in that she found a good home for Iggy. Let’s think of the other possible options she could have done: a) give him up to a pound or back to the rescue organization, or b) left him at home all day while she worked and didn’t have the time for him. He probably wouldn’t be receiving the proper amount of care, love, possibly exercise or nutrition.

I think Ellen was responsible in this way, in that she cared for the dog and she wanted him to be with a good family. Just because she is famous doesn’t mean she will treat her animals like the majority of stars we see with their little “designer” dogs in People magazine (who shouldn’t be allowed to have companion animals in the first place). What would you have done if it was you, and you had rescued a dog and realized you could not care for it?

Although I believe Ellen did a commendable thing on her part, especially because she told the agency the truth where the dog was now living, I also agree that the agency was correct on their part. They have policies that cannot be broken. They can’t bend the rules for one family and not the other. They want the best care for their dogs. I do believe that Ellen was trying to use publicity from her show to get the agency to see how upset she was, and possibly give the agency a bad rep, and this shouldn’t have been done; it should have been a private matter between her and the agency.

Posted by: Zoe | October 19, 2007 11:37 AM

Ellen needs to watch a good episode of The Dog Whisperer the next time she thinks of adopting a dog. I read that she gave it up because it was too hyper and boisterous. I'm sure that poor dog wasn't getting adequate exercise, or the proper discipline it needed from her. I'm sick of celebrities being completely clueless about animals and parading about as if they are the biggest animal proponents out there. How much time do you think Ellen actually has on her hands to devote the right amount of attention to a dog? Dogs are a lot of work, and if you can't provide the leadership they need, then you shouldn't be getting one in the first place. The adoption agency has every right to be pissed and re-claim that dog. I wish every adoption agency out there were just as strict. Ellen was an idiot for going on national tv and complaining about them, and giving out their names. It's terrible to just pass off a dog because it's overactive. No dog would be that way in the first place if the owner was taking proper care of it. Boo to her, and boo to PETA for kissing her ass just because she's a liberal.

Posted by: Aimee | October 19, 2007 11:55 AM

Looks like PETA doesn't want to offend a celebrity (unless he/she is wearing fur, of course). Nauseating.

Posted by: Brandy | October 19, 2007 12:12 PM

lets assume that was a baby the one who was adopted by Ellen.
would she give it away just because he wasn’t getting along very well with her other kids?

Even a monkey knows that friendship between humans c/o animals takes time.

Posted by: Gabby | October 19, 2007 12:14 PM

To: Hitchjr | October 19, 2007 12:12 AM

I have an idea for you. Go to Ellen's website and look for her "Welcome to My Lunch" blog/section.

Please do enlighten me as to how she is a vegetarian, yet eats pigs, cows, chickens, fish (any kind of animal really) EVERY DAY. Please. She goes into GREAT detail on how her daily meals are prepared. Great detail.

And yes, I actually do know plenty of people who (unfortunately continue) to eat meat ... they too, "like" animals. BUT, they do not go around the world shouting "I LOVE ANIMALS, I LOVE ANIMALS, I LOVE ANIMALS"..."Animals are my life" blah blah blah.

And they do not adopt animals and then break the adoption contract, ditch the animal and then run a smear campaign on the rescue that actually went out and RESCUED said animal. I found it interesting that "somehow" the TMZ Ellen-loving camera people were involved...hmm. Wonder how that happened?

Ellen is not the one out in the trenches doing the hard work. The rescue and shelter workers are the ones doing all the rescuing. They are the ones actually doing the hard work. Ellen is the kind of person who will say that she has "rescued" a dog from a "rescue"! I think she means "adopted". Where are all of Ellen's other "adopted" dogs? What happened to them?

Moreover, $3,000 to somebody like Ellen is like .03 cents to me. No amount of money could have convinced IGGY/IT to become the perfect dog in 2 weeks. Give me a break.

She is NOT a vegetarian and she is NOT this true animal lover that she holds herself out to be. She says those things only to get kudos, attention, whatever.

And, yes, whilst it's, I suppose, great that Ellen's temper tantrum somehow led to a story on puppy mills ... well, she could have just as well devoted a few shows -- hell, maybe a week -- on the plight of homeless animals. Instead, we get 2 minutes on puppy mills on ET or whatever. That will stick in most people's minds for ... oh, 2 days or so. And this at the price of destroying a rescue that has undoubtedly rescued hundred, if not thousands, of animals in need. And destroyed their personal reputations. And led to death and arson threats.

Oh, but that's OK -- because it's the Mighty Ellen. And she just LOVES LOVES LOVES animals (pan-fried on a bed of rice - so there).

Posted by: Anonymous | October 19, 2007 12:21 PM

For the record, you purchase a dog from the shelters not adopt.Breeders can just as easily call their fee an adoption fee and be just as correct for it.

Posted by: Mars | October 19, 2007 01:03 PM

PETA isn't "siding" with Ellen...their stance was clearly objective. They agreed that the shelter has the right idea, but come on, a little sympathy is in order! Not making exceptions for celebrities is a good idea, but when it gets to be this big an issue, the animal shelter should just let it go. There are obviously extremists on both sides; death threats are uncalled for, but so is flaming PETA and Ellen for trying to be fair and compassionate. I personally am not very sympathetic to celebrities who make a scene on TV, and maybe it was faked, but it's not as if Ellen doesn't have the right idea. If her "fake" tears work, then good for her for trying to do what's best for the dog. Everyone needs to step back and take a look at all sides of the issue.

Posted by: Whitney | October 19, 2007 02:05 PM

FOR CHRIST SAKES THE NAME OF THE FREAKING SHELTER IS MUTTS AND MOMS!!!!!

How could you first of all name a shelter that. It's a awful name!!!

Secondly, Ellen did not use her show as a "Publicity stunt" as some would say. She is an huge animal lover. She bought the dog thinking that the dog would get along with the cats and vice versa. That wasn't the case and decided to give the hairdresser the dog. The fact that the shelter said that the family wasn't "capable" of having a pet cause of the age of the girls. ONE OF THE GIRLS WAS ALMOST 14!!!!!!!!! Obviously, this shelter don't understand that young kids can show all size dogs the attention that they deserve and need. If you think that Ellen was wrong that's your opinion but I stand by Ellen 100%

Posted by: Lateefah Douglass | October 19, 2007 02:21 PM

Hey KELLY:

Do not challenge me to do anything for animals. Did I strike a nerve someplace?

Perhaps when I said the shelter did not give the hairdresser's family a chance? WHY were they NOT given a chance? Seems a little biased to me.

Even though I do not feel I should defend myself I will.

I work for animals but I do not go to kill-shelters, etc. I work to get the chain pet stores to stop selling animals.

THAT to me is just as important as dogs and cats. Go check out the "PetsMart" section on PETA's site. It'll explain to you how birds, etc. are raised in mills. Mistreated when they reach the store, etc.

I have witnessed obviously ill animals in pet stores and tried to get them vet help only to be put off by the manager. I have called Animal Control, state animal offices and all the way to the USDA and could not get any help for this bird. I am certain it was put in a back room left to suffer and die.

I also was active on the PETCO campaign and organized protests in the STL area.

Do you know what it's like to be told by a member of the *only* animal-rights group in St. Louis that they will not help you protest because they were "asked not to protest by the rescue groups who receive money from Petco." ?????

Alot of times it was only ME out there.

So before you speak and accuse, I could say something. But I will be civil and say think before you speak. I know of which I speak. Does that disappoint you?

Posted by: Tamara | October 19, 2007 03:17 PM

No, you adopt, that is why shelters/rescue groups can take the feline or canine away from you if you break the contract that you signed at the adoption. Breeders do not even consider that; once the money $$$$ is handed over it is a done deal. It is a purchase. I adopt out my feline rescues I do NOT sell them.

Posted by: Ana | October 19, 2007 03:29 PM

I believe that this is a good case of helping the 'underdog' for Ms. Generes to use her show to cause these people such grief is kind of monstrous. As lovable as she is, she wields a lot of power and good get somebody that is doing good work seriously hurt by using that power so spitefully. She has lawyers on staff, you know! She could have accomplished what she wanted without the effects she had on the animal people.

Posted by: Frank Smith | October 19, 2007 03:30 PM

I believe that this is a good case of helping the 'underdog' for Ms. Generes to use her show to cause these people such grief is kind of monstrous. As lovable as she is, she wields a lot of power and could get somebody that is doing good work seriously hurt by using that power so spitefully. She has lawyers on staff, you know! She could have accomplished what she wanted without the effects she had on the animal people.

Posted by: Frank Smith | October 19, 2007 03:33 PM

Personally from what I have seen I truely believe that Ellen is an animal lover. She is constantly telling stories about the wildlife in her yard, and her own personal pets. I think saying that she "ditched" Iggy is totally off. She recognized that she didn't have the time the dog needed and sent it to a loving family that could offer the dog more than she could. She put his best interests above her own. That's a lot better than I've seen over the years. Most people just give them back to the shelter, which compared to a nice loving home, sucks, or they keep the animal, neglect it and don't give it the attention and exercise it needs and in turn the animal develops behavioral problems, which most people again don't want to deal with. I would imagine that Ellen is a good judge of character and that the home Iggy was placed in was a great home. I completly support shelters, and I love that this particular one does in home inspections, I wish they all did. I can totally understand the signed contract, but it would seem that ultimatly that was meant so that someone couldn't be paid to adopt a dog for a lab, or an unfit family. It does seem that it could have been handled better on the shelters part, but then again we wern't there were we? I don't think Ellen was using her show and throwing a big tear fest to make the world feel bad. People use what they have, she has her show, it's her "blog". There is nothing wrong with that.

Posted by: Jessica | October 19, 2007 03:57 PM

"Now thanks to Ellen, they are receiving death threats and arson threats."

Haha this is the most ignorant statement I've heard in a while. So, Ellen held a gun to unstable individuals' heads and made them present death threats?

Whatever. Those people were obviously off to begin with. Rational/sane people don't act out like that.

But seriously, I'm sure Ellen was just overly emotional as any animal lover would be in this situation. She knew she ultimately messed up and felt horrible about it.

Now can we please move on to real issues?

Posted by: Tammy | October 19, 2007 04:32 PM

Oh My Goddess...I just re-read my post and I typed the spelling of OPRAH's name incorrectly. Sorry for such sloppy editing on my part. I do not, however, apologize for the intent of the message.

Posted by: Susan Bortell | October 19, 2007 04:33 PM

Naw. It's not thanks to Ellen that the shelter is recieving death threats. That's rediculous. It's thanks to the people that made death threats. Stupid.

Posted by: Amanda | October 19, 2007 05:10 PM

To: Tammy | October 19, 2007 04:32 PM

What part of:

Now thanks to Ellen, they are receiving death threats and arson threats."

do you not understand? Oh, I guess it's Elvis' fans who are threatening this rescue, huh?

Perhaps you should try to look at the other side of this story. You can search online for the police report(s) if you wish. Not all of the facts are out on this story.

I would feel better about everything if somebody could tell me what happened to all of Ellen's other "adopted" animals. Can YOU tell me?

Didn't think so.

Posted by: VestaGirl | October 19, 2007 05:41 PM

I odn't have a problem with PETA'S positive comments about Ellen, I have a problem with PETA having nothing to say in a positive light about the Rescue Org. They had no opinion of them at all. PETA should have stuck to talking about what is best for the pets we foster in our Rescues. Instead they were a platform about how great Ellen is.As one of the little people that does Rescue work and not a big TV star I was VERY insulted by PETA, as when you don't back that Rescue group, you hurt all Rescue groups that are reputable like this one certainly appears to be.

Posted by: Di | October 19, 2007 06:12 PM

Thanks anonymous I loved your post to hitchjr. I do Rescue/Foster work here in the Midwest, over 20 years and I have the same policies in my contract and get damn ticked off when people mess with me on it and have not gotten one dog back due to a gal from WI that is not only a wacko (found out later), she called herself a behaviorist for animals and I was gulliable and I am now kicking myslef but sometimes your hands are tied and you hope for the best once that animal leaves. I also am the one that doesn't go on cruises, a short vacation is a nighmare to set up, all hours of the day and night we take calls from pet owners and help out the Shelters with overflow and behavior troubles with wonderful animals that deserve a second, third or fourth chance. WE are the ones pulled over rendering and aid and paying for that injured pet due to a jackass of an owner and we get no hourly fee. Ever!
Potenial adopters are all agreeable like Portia was and then bam they don't want to drive that far to bring the pet back, or I wany my money back though it states clearly no adoption fee will be returned as this is to be a permanant family companion. I also have pets that I won't adopt to seniors, kids, college students etc etc etc. Each pet is different and I will decide which home is right for it not the ones that decide they can't handle it anymore and then pass it on to another. 2 weeks Ellen had that pup, I tell my people unless that dog is salivating and has you in a corner I expect you to give this no less then 30 doays and work everyday on the issue if problems arise, you will be surprised at the strides made when you go by months and not days and weeks when looking at progress especially for a puppy or kitten. And if that person cannot/won't keep said pet any longer the pet COMES back Here at their expense and time. I rarely run into problems as we have a military, strict criteria before they ever leave and I get plenty of people tell me to F off, as they don't like the rules or they are the perfect home and I just don't think so, and they are denied. But you do get pets back now and then and run into problems as people lie and become lazy and lose their commitment to a pet THEY chose to be a part of THEIR life. WE don't have crystal balls, we do our best to get them the best life we can and most of the time it works and when it doesn't it is the fault of the adoptee not us! We are their voice and try our damndest to do right by them. But we still make mistakes and error in judgement at times. That's what being human is, and yes Ellen could have done worse things but there is no way I will believe that they were not tyring to pull a fast one, and get the mother out of paying an adoption fee. They were told to return the dog, they refused they brought all of this on themselves. And I don't care how great they may be if they pulled that crap on me I would not trust them to adopt to them for fear of future troubles. Now please go out and adopt a med-lrg mixed breed black dog or a black cat, the first euthanized, last adopted and face death far more often then other colors or sizes and then SPAY and NEUTER!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 19, 2007 06:35 PM

I shouldn't have said what I did about Ellen - she's not egotistical and that was wrong. She was mistaken and didn't read the fine print when she adopted the dog. But hurray for her for adopting to begin with! The rescue group, though, doesn't have access to the media the way Ellen does and that did seem unfair to me.
My apologies, though, to Ellen.

Posted by: Susannah S | October 19, 2007 06:50 PM

I'm not buying the "Ellen-is-so-kindhearted" theme. Kind-hearted people don't tell their staffers to threaten the businesses of homeless pet volunteers. Threatening people with financial ruin is simply not kind.

Posted by: Robert | October 19, 2007 06:53 PM

People Like "VestaGirl" and Barbara crack me up. Before you open your mouth and let all that hot air out you should really learn to do a little research. She supports (donates) to numerous foundations, both animal AND human. Let me make it easy for you, here is the link www.looktothestars.org.
Ok and this issue with ""LOVE LOVE LOVE" animals... sure, preferably fried on a bed of rice." Some people are such drama queens. I have adopted two cats, both of which cost me $25 a piece NOT $600 and I have yet to BBQ them. I also have a horse and I haven't sold him for glue yet either. However, I eat chicken, pork and steak. I also drive a car, ware shoes, clothes etc. What does that have to do with anything you say? Well, let me just enlighten you...I am sure you don't walk everywhere. Therefore, you are contributing to pollution, which in turn effects global warming, which effects animals etc. Do you get the point (probably not)? Do you ware recycled or hemp clothes and shoes? Uumm my guess is NO! I'm sure you'll say that has nothing to do with animals. I beg to differ THINK ABOUT IT, it's ALL RELATIVE - FULL CIRCLE. But people like you are hard to argue with because you are what we call "blind followers." Take in only the information that you agree with. So, don't imply that people who love animals have to be vegetarian or they really don't love animals. PLEASE.
One last thing Ellen never said "GIVE" the dog back. She "asked" the shelter(by the way, initially she never mentioned the shelter. people figured that out on their own)to "please"give the dog back. There is a big difference.
Uugh I'm done I have cat to BBQ.

Posted by: Nick | October 19, 2007 07:08 PM

First of all, I was a 8 yrs.old when I saved my first AKC Dog.I when to a place that did not kennal or cage thier animals.I'm a vegan @ age 10 yrs. ages and not cause of aniamls rights @ all cause of the tastes. But this has nothing to do
with being veggan and my dog.
PETA you attacking labs. and other places that kept animals in cages or not clean kennal,why not attack any agency with kepting animals in cages or place in a kennal for 1 day or yrs. on end? You do know it's not the right place for any animals to be lock up and the harm that comes from this? Anyone who loves animals will save it from being hurt or kill or locked up!
As far for Ellen, she was doing both. Iggy was going to be place {meaning a good home} that was not going to hurt or kill Or put him in a cage. Ellen I'm not a big fan of you, but my heart goes out to the little girl and dog. I saw me there when my dog bite me and my parents gave him away. Ellen did tell mutts and mom where the dog was and why.Mutts and mom had the family put papers in and took off the paper their address to steal and lied to the family.They did not care to see if he was care for or if the mom and dad was going to support them, the parents was there for 2 girls. 2 girls was there for Iggy. Iggy you are lucky and loved is by all. After all said done you put Iggy in cage again until a new person want him. All Iggy wants is to be loved and care for him that family was it.I know rule CAN BE BEND in this case. Even if he was put in a new home. That's not right for Iggy. Mutts and mom is putting the dogs and cats in a cages and PETA needs to tell them to stop cause it's wrong! Have them take a class on cages and kennal what it does to the animals! I'm not mad about what people said, or what they are saying but when it comes to onebody talking or writting about the animals in cages and kennal of what it does to a cat or a dog 1 day or yrs. being place in lock up is not good for them. Please look at IAMS video see how they act in a cage. Ellen you have a great heart for animls please made it clear if you did not want Iggy in a cage again? PETA please tell people how to save or recess animals and the right places for them to go to and not to buy animals from a store first and the harm that comes with this? Anyone who loves animals will save it from being hurt or kill.After all said done Mutts and mom does cages PETA needs to tell them to stop cause it's wrong! Have them take a class for the way house and not cages or kennal and what it does to the animals!
I'm not mad about what people
said, but what they are not saying or doing about cages and kennal of what it does to a cat or a dog 1 day or yrs. being place in lock up is not good for them.Please look at IAMS video see how they act in a cage. Ellen you have a great heart for animls please clear it up if you did not want Iggy in a cage again? PETA please tell people how to save a recess
animal that is right place for them to go to and not to buy animals from store first?
Ellen did have dicipline classes for Iggy and gave it to the family.Before you say anything get infor. right THANKS! Seriosly get over Ellen and Iggy, let them handle it the right way!
Sonya
P.S.Save or recess animal today, you be loved.

Posted by: Sonya | October 19, 2007 07:22 PM

PETA--I agree with you on this. I think Ellen tried to do the right thing but anyone dealing with a rescue MUST respect their rules and regulations which are in place to protect the animal. I think the saddest part of all of this is that the animal rescue has been made a villain for enforcing its contract in the best interests of the dog. I commend them for that and stand by their decision that the hairdresser's family was not suitable. We do not know all the facts and should not make the assumption that they took Iggy out of the home for spite.

Posted by: Kathy | October 19, 2007 07:25 PM

PETA--I agree with you on this. I think Ellen tried to do the right thing but anyone dealing with a rescue MUST respect their rules and regulations which are in place to protect the animal. I think the saddest part of all of this is that the animal rescue has been made a villain for enforcing its contract in the best interests of the dog. I commend them for that and stand by their decision that the hairdresser's family was not suitable. We do not know all the facts and should not make the assumption that they took Iggy out of the home for spite.

Posted by: Kathy | October 19, 2007 07:25 PM

Why does Ellen continually refer to Iggy as "it"?

Posted by: kelly | October 19, 2007 08:11 PM

i don't buy the "Ellen loves animals" line either. One look at here celebrity food blog will tell you otherwise. And Ms. Degeneres used her celebrity to harass the pet rescue org, even though she knowingly broke the contract. Also she showed no real emotion beyond greed and selfishness, making a tear-fest out of her missteps and bad judgements.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 19, 2007 08:51 PM

i think ellen degeneres is a wonderful kind sweet person that just wanted to do the right thing by giving iggy a good home because she was unable to herself as far as mutts and moms is concerened i think that they should be more concerened in just finding animals good homes instead of such strict rules and wonder if they went after ellen degeneres just because she is a celebrity and they could get money out of her. and also i think that some of the comments that other people have left on this web page are mean and this is supposed to be a website that is for the animals(people for the ethical treatment of animals) does not sound like what some people care about at all and even peta's statement that was posted is unkind. get a life

Posted by: jennifer whitson | October 19, 2007 08:58 PM

Weeping with the cameras rolling is a choice. A stunt. A (pardon the expression) dog and pony show. Ellen could have done her weeping off camera and kept this whole thing more rational. And you don't adopt dogs and then give them away like you would a lamp that didn't match your sofa. Dogs have feelings.

Posted by: Martin Whitman | October 19, 2007 09:02 PM

I love the way the hairdresser does Ellen's hair.......so I believe Ellen can give the rescued dog to who she knows will provide a good home gor the dog. Noe If Ellen's hairdresses would do my hair like Ellens i be so happy. nothing to do with dog but hairdresses.....had same hair style 30 yrs + I am 56 and entering a new and scary phase of my life...kids out of house, husband left before kids. I could not accept his lower standards in our marriage. I would love a new make over.....and bet that dog would have strutted down the street with the BEST LOOKING HAIRCUT!!!

MARGARET MORGAN

Posted by: margaret morgan | October 20, 2007 02:49 AM

Mutts is a very degrading statement. If Mutts and Moms is so wonderful why did they
place a puppy with cats.Was it the large donation Ellen made? Has this rescue place been checked out to see the conditions these animals are living in until they are placed? PETA needs to check out Pet Barn It is always smelly and dirty food dishes and cages unkept babies.

Posted by: Maltese Lover | October 20, 2007 04:14 AM

Nope Ana, shelters sell animals just like the breeders. The contracts are almost the same thing. The only difference is a breeder contract does not condone surgicaly mutilating the animal that shelters call nuetering or spaying.

Posted by: Mars | October 20, 2007 08:38 AM

Ellen broke at least one contract if what I am reading here is correct. Any adult knows to READ contracts before signing them. If she was unable to keep Iggy and the contract she signed agreed to return dog to rescue group if she was unable to then thats what she should have done. Dog rescues struggle daily to save lives of dogs who would be killed and need to know before hand where their dogs are going. Ellen messed up......... and the dog will be placed in a loving home. Period.

Posted by: Gail | October 20, 2007 08:47 AM

As a staunch PETA supporter, I am stunned that PETA would condone Ellen DeGeneres’ behavior. I also think that the author of this convoluted piece should get the facts straight before writing such a trivial and celebrity-worshiping response. Mutts & Moms is not an agency or a shelter. Mutts & Moms is a grass-roots rescue group and Ellen has been the responsible party for allowing this to get out of control. Ellen has made this situation into a battle that is ALL ABOUT ELLEN.

I am so disappointed in PETA for criticizing Mutts & Moms and I think it is a sad day when a former (PETA) grass-roots organization chooses to align themselves with a manipulative, irresponsible and ego-driven celebrity. C’mon, Ellen cried on television, then decided that she wasn’t going to talk about Iggy until he was returned to HER hairstylist and further, in an unimaginable fit of pique, she did not appear on her own show because she was overwrought. Can you say “Drama Queen?”

Ellen and her gal pal did not have the authority to give Iggy away. I have seen so many posts, on various sites that state, “The dog was in a loving home,” and I truthfully wonder how anyone knows that Ellen's hairstylist's home would be a loving and PERMANENT one. Because Ellen says so? Rescue groups pour their hearts and energy into every rescue and if a prospective adopter cannot live up to the stated clauses within a legally binding contract -- go elsewhere.

Exceptions to any adoption can be made but the rescue group has the right to make that choice. Had Ellen approached Mutts & Moms, they may well have allowed the adoption. However, Ellen circumvented the process by giving the dog away. Rescue groups are not humane societies or animal shelters and they take extra care to place their dogs in permanent homes. Ellen’s home was merely a pit stop and M & M did not expect this. M & M should not be persecuted because they choose to enforce what is again, a LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT.

I continue to back Mutts and Moms’ decision and I think Ellen and PETA should be ashamed for vilifying this group. Rescue groups choose to be careful about adopting their animals and if again, if you don’t like their "stringent" requirements, please go to an animal shelter and save a life. Don’t bash a group because of media hype and Ellen’s disrespectful and bullying attitude – the volunteers at M & M have better things to do with their time. Shame on you PETA and you have lost my respect and you have also lost, perhaps more importantly, an advocate of your organization.

Posted by: Joan M. | October 20, 2007 02:14 PM

For those of you who don't know / read / watch the videos etc. M&M did try to get this family to do the application, they refused. They did try to do a home evaluation and application.. they refused. The hairdresser then threatened the rescue with the police and bad PR etc. Their policy is no small dogs to families with kids under the age of 14. The rescue didn't snatch Iggy from anyone. The police heard both sides , read the contract and told everyone the dog belongs with M&M. This rescue DID try to work at letting the family have Iggy. But the holier then thou and above the law refused to do what EVERY other person has to do to get a rescue or even a breeder dog. Wake up people.

Posted by: Gail | October 20, 2007 02:51 PM

On TV last night, TMZ who first condoned Ellen's actions and treated her like a victim are now talking about all the dogs she has had that no one sees anymore, they showed them as well. In the last few + years they counted 9 with only two still being seen/around? This is the second dog that she got from M+M they said, the first one went back due to the cat problem too. This is the latest on the deal and is probably why she shut-up about it, she got far more then she bargained for when she had a cry fest, real or fake, I mean she is an actress and certianly let it all out with the camera's rolling. You know what they say don't bitch too much you may get what you ask for and a whole lot more! And Portia signed the contract not Ellen but since Portia evidently can't speak English or is mute or is camera shy, Ellen will do all the talking. Peta screwed up when barking about how great Ellen is without offering any support for the Rescue, guess money is PETA'S idol, not animals!

Posted by: Advocate in Iowa | October 20, 2007 11:44 PM

Unfortunately, the one who ends up suffering the greatest loss is the dog because it had bonded with the new family and the children and then got its heart ripped out again, only to end up back in the shelter for X number of days before being placed in a new home. Yes, Ellen messed up, but I think the shelter was clearly wrong in removing the dog without at least letting the new family apply. Another thing that irks me is that this is Ellen DeGeneres who placed the dog in the new home. I'm not her biggest fan, but my point is it's not like some unknown person who you have no knowledge of and whose motives you can't be sure of, who adopted the dog and then placed it in a new home. I can see the shelter getting upset when they don't really know the motive behind it, but after all this is Ellen DeGeneres. Do they think she is just going to be reckless? Not saying I am a big fan of hers, what I'm saying is that the one who suffered the most was the helpless dog (the one who supposedly the shelter should have had the bests interest at heart). The children can get over it because they have the capacity to reason and someone can explain to them why things happened the way they did. But the dog doesn't have the same capacity for reason and all he knows is that he has been in and out of a shelter yet again, got attached to a family only to be ripped away from them again, and has no idea why. SHAME on those shelter administrators. Ellen was wrong but so were they and the one who came out the loser was the innocent dog who thought it found someone to love it and who it loved. And also since it was Ellen's hairdresser and she had a relationship with them she could have also continued to visit the dog so that it wouldn't feel totally abandoned. But not now. Really a bad move on the shelter's part.

Posted by: Roland | October 21, 2007 12:39 AM

To "Nick":

You're amusing ... in a quirky kind of way.

When you wrote "Some people are such drama queens" ... uh, I'm guessing you were referring to Ellen and her girlfriend who went on NATIONAL TV, TMZ, no less, to attack the rescue?

As far as "full circles" are concerned ... sorry pal. If, in your little world, you believe this to be a competition, I beat you and Ellen hands down. 'nuff said.

I think that maybe you're not so much WEARING the hemp, but smoking it.

Since you're so knowledgeable, please do tell me what happened to all of Ellen's adopted animals. Where are they?

As I wrote on another post, I'll stop posting if somebody can answer this question.

On a final note, you surely fancy yourself to be a comedian ... but it's probably best to stick to your day job. I have a suspicion that you're the kind of "joker" who writes things like: PETA-people eating tasty animals. Hysterical -- ha, ha, ha, snigger, snigger, snort, snort...-not. (boring)

Yeah, you're a real wit.

More or less.

About half.
******************************
Take a look at this, if you dare: www DOT opednews DOT com

You'll find an interesting article about this whole drama.

Posted by: VestaGirl | October 21, 2007 01:19 AM

ELLEN DID THIS WITH CATS FROM VIVA, ANIMAL ORG. INLOMPOC, CA ASK THEM WHAT HAPPENED.

Posted by: KITTY | October 21, 2007 02:28 PM

I understand why rules like this are put into contractual agreements between shelters and people getting their pets from these shelters. Although Ellen missed a step in the process of giving the dog a new home, the correct procedure should have been for the agency to inspect the home of the people Ellen gave the dog to, not come in and rip it away from the children who fell in love with it! Both sides are wrong, but think of those poor kids who fell in love with the dog and are obviously good people who will be dog/animal lovers for life!
Their home should have been inspected, and upon clearance, the dog should have been allowed to stay with this family.

Posted by: Lauren | October 21, 2007 03:12 PM

We (Pet Rescuers) are human you (potential adopters etc) try and pull a fast one, or think because we are just lowly volunteers we deserve little respect? Piss us off we react like most humans and say to heck with it and you and move on to another potential adopter. Don't have to like me but don't attempt to step all over me to save a buck or because you may think you know what is best for this pet.
All wrong, we have some of the widest shoulders (we have too as we see and have to take a lot of crap) and biggest hearts (smallest bank accounts) on the planet. We protect our fosters fiercely, like we would our own. Until you have extensively done Rescue work with animals you haven't a clue what you speak about. We are either saints or sinners depending upon how you have to deal with us. In the end we are gifted humans whom use our gift for the good of homeless pets, no more no less. Mutts and Moms are the Alphas of their pack, not Ellen or Portia or the Hairdresser. I still believe the hairdresser was trying to get out of paying an adoption fee and is why this went down like it did, I believe that was their motive at the beginning and then maybe they fell in love with the dog. Ellen has passed along more then just 1-2 dogs she's adopted. That is wonderful she gives $$ but maybe she is just not cut out for being a dog owner, stick to cats Ellen they're easier to care for.

Sooner or later we all discover that the important moments in life are not the advertised ones, not the birthdays, the graduations, the weddings, not the great goals achieved. The real milestones are less prepossessing. They come to the door of a memory unannounced, stray dogs that amble in, sniff around a bit and simply never leave. Our lives are measured by these!
Author: Susan B. Anthony
Spay and Neuter your Pets!
"The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people."

--MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.

Posted by: Di | October 21, 2007 03:43 PM

Please lets just think about the animals.

Posted by: pat | October 21, 2007 04:36 PM

Ana,
As always, you are right.
Shelters take in homeless/ unwanted dogs, feed, and take care of them. (at least the good ones take care of them properly). The dogs must be spayed/neutered before they are adopted or at least have definite arrangements for the procedures, plus the adoptee must sign a contract. The contract I signed for my dog was VERY clear, and that was the only "paper" I received, besides the proof of his neutering. My adoptee fee went towards his neutering and included a donation for his entire stay, and that was under $100.
Irresponsible, money-loving breeder$, on the other hand, intentionally "produce" liters of pups, only with the intention of SELLING them for the almighty dollar. Then they can sleep good at night when they get their $800 or so for one pup, priced mostly because the puppy has "lineage papers."
So contrary to what anyone would like to believe, rescuers try and do find homes for the dogs/pups to be adopted; breeders try and do find prospective buyer$ ONLY for pup$. And also contrary to what anyone would like to believe, spay/neutering is not mutilation. It is taking responsibility so that there will be that much less unwanted pups/dogs ending up in shelters - to be among the thousands that are euthanized daily - and they also adopt them out AS IS.

Uncaring breeder$, on the other hand, mutilate certain breeds of pups by having vets clip their ears and/or tails. Otherwise, they are not "sell-able."
And I agree with you and everyone else who sees this as nothing more than a "poor CELEBRITY Ellen" issue. Anyone who has adopted rescues before as she supposedly has, shouldn't even have to need to read any more following contracts in order to know the rules. I feel really bad for the rescue shelter getting a bad rap and for all the dogs/pups who may not get adopted now because "poor celebrity Ellen" was treated so-called, unfairly or harshly.
To all the rescuers and foster pet parents on this forum: THANK YOU for all that you do!

Posted by: Ariel | October 22, 2007 10:04 AM

Mars,

Isn't it time you returned to your home planet?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 22, 2007 12:42 PM

Hi Ariel!

Thanks for your support and kind words.
Someone I know who bought a cat, was also charged TAX on the purchase. No questions asked about the home, responsibilty and no follow-up calls to see that all is well with the cat. So the cat is an object to be TAXED NOT A BEING. WHEN I ADOPTED MY CATS FROM SHELTERS I HAD TO SHOW PROOF OF ADDRESS AND THAT I HAVE A VET THAT HAS TAKEN CARE OF MY previous and present cats. I needed to supply names of people that could vouch for my responsible care of cats and both the shelters and rescue groups that I considered adoptions with denied cats to those who would declaw the cats/kittens. Spay/neuter is necessary because of the many reasons you stated and also because there are simply not enough responsible and loving homes. I think the mutilation referred to is the scarring from the lobotomy it received on Uranus. Apparently that surgery has not been perfected there.
Keep fighting the good fight!

Posted by: Ana | October 22, 2007 03:47 PM

We have two cats and a dog, all adopted from shelters. The "I didn't read the fine print" thing makes me laugh. The fact that you have to bring the animal back if things don't work out isn't in fine print. It's the main thing you are signing, and the shelters I have dealt with emphasized the fact verbally as well.
Oh, our cat didn't get on with our pup after two weeks either. That's why we were still keeping them separated and introducing them slowly. A year later, it's one big happy, furry, family. Two weeks and you give the pup away? Please.

Posted by: kelly's mom | October 22, 2007 07:52 PM

Ariel posted;

"Uncaring breeder$, on the other hand, mutilate certain breeds of pups by having vets clip their ears and/or tails. Otherwise, they are not "sell-able."

You mean the same animals you claim, and can't back up, are flooding shelters who in turn sell them to the next person?

FYI, the breeder I bought my Bloodhound from,under contract, did a criminal background check as well as a residence check and did not require that I surgicaly mutilate the dog against his will but trusted me to be a loving, responsible owner who would not allow it to breed out of control.Paying $1000. for a animal tends to make a person take care of an animal instead of the dime store,discount, shelter animal.
Also, my "shelter dogs" only required I pay the $65. "adoption fee" and sign I would have it mutilated by a vet.No checks,nothing. Pay,sign,go.

Posted by: Mars | October 23, 2007 08:16 AM

Can anyone tell me what part the space cadet (MARS) doesn't understand to my quote concerning:
"UNCARING breeder$...mutilate CERTAIN breeds..." (the last I heard, no one clips the ears or tails of bloodhounds - but for one example, they do with dobermans) AND once again, the s.c. made ANOTHER claim I was SUPPOSED to have said about "flooding shelters."
Concering the s.c.'s comment: supposedly(?) the breeder took the time to do a background check(?), criminal investigation(?), and TRUSTED(?) the space cadet to be a loving(?), responsible(?) owner(?) who would not allow "him" then "it"(?) not to breed out of control(?). (what does "out of control" mean?) And the space cadet paid $1,000(?), which of course wouldn't include or call for the b/h to be spay/neutered? Hmmmmmm. (LOTS of questions to be answered/proven there) And for $1,000, I guess any irresponsible breeder would leave the PURCHA$E to chance without doing any background check AFTER the PURCHA$E.
Paying a $1,000 or for free doesn't guarantee the care and love a person has for his/her dog(s).(just ask any child or adult who has lost one that they treated like a family member - on the other hand, how much does it cost the vicious dogfight promoters to purcha$e pure-breeds to train them to fight, OR do they get them for nothing, OR do they get them from irresponsible shelters, OR from "for free to good home" ads?)
Since I don't concoct things like the s.c. does, the space cadet should ask the rescuers on here how many times they came across pure-breed dogs that they had to rescue, especially since there are specialized rescuers who take in greyhounds, borzois, mastis, etc., OR go to pure-breed rescue websites.
Ask the shelter care-takers how many time they came across pure-bred German Shephards, Jack Russells,* dalmations,* etc. The last two breeds in particular were "purchased" because of fads, ie, Frasier tv show, and Disney. I've seen them in our local shelter, and/or know about them.
Now, having written all of that, I wonder what the s.c. does when "its" dog(s) go into heat, which causes unspayed/un-neutered dogs to undergo a lot of stress? (wow, that's a lot of "love" and being "responsible")
And $65 for pay-sign-n-go shelter dogs. (wow. a real "responsible" shelter)

Posted by: Ariel | October 23, 2007 11:46 AM

When everybody thought she was a fabulous person, inside and out.

Posted by: Kara | October 23, 2007 01:09 PM

There are breeders who require documentation of a spay/neuter or they will not give the papers indicating the history and breed of the cat/dog. Trusting anyone that their dog/cat will not breed is both foolish and irresponsible.
There are many "pure" breed/bred cats/dogs in the shelters so money is no indication that a cat/dog will receive a lifetime home. Also, I am involved with adoptions for rescued Siamese cats whose "owners" decided they no longer want their expensive cat. Again, paying several hundred or over a 1,000 $$$$$ did not guarantee a responsible and loving caregiver in a lifetime home.

Posted by: Ana | October 23, 2007 01:21 PM

"VestaGirl"

Thanks for the grown up "bantering." I'm glad you took the time to address some of the issues that I brought to your attention (note the sarcasm).
I will gladly engage in web blogs with you if you will actually READ what I have to say. Did I say anything pertaining to the fact that I disliked PETA or that I agreed with Ellen's actions? aah NO, I did no such thing. I attacked YOU and your childish posting(s). The only thing I said about Ellen was that she didn't demand the dog be given back, she asked for the dog be given back. And I gave you and Barbara a site to check out about her donations.
So, until you actually READ what people are posting and have an actual response. Do us all a favor and stop posting. Oh and by the way I did check out the article. Very one sided, but full of information.
And who knows what she did with the other dogs she adopted. (See, that is how you have a "grown up" debate)
WOW so you do walk everywhere and wear recycled clothes! I'm impressed...really. Tell me, how long does it take you to walk to Florida? Oh and does your computer run on solar power?
Please don't bother posting back to me if you don't have anything adult to say.

Posted by: Nick | October 23, 2007 02:31 PM

Nick:

Put down the pipe ... put down the pipe.

That you believe yourself to capable of "grown up" banter, OK, if you say so.

I believe you are the one who is a "blind follower" -- blinded by celebrity (ooh look how much Ellen gave to XYZ -- she must be the bestest person on earth).

And, per your original post, nope, as I write this, I'm not "waring" hemp and have no intention on doing so.

Thanks for your instructions to stop posting. I'll keep that in mind.

Posted by: VestaGirl | October 23, 2007 04:31 PM

Well, I'm a big fan of Ellen Degeneres and I think that she just made a mistake. I love animals and hate to see them hurt so that's why I've chosen the lifestyle of being a vegetarian. But to say just because your not veg means you can't love animals doesn't make any sense to me. I think that you can love animals just as much as a vegetarian does. Just because you choose to eat and wear animals shouldn't mean you don't love animals. I think that Ellen does a strong love for animals and that she simply made a mistake. So like Peta, I can see both sides of the story but I don't think that people should bash Ellen for making a simple mistake that anybody could have made.I also don't think that Ellen used this as a publicity stunt because everyone knows how much Ellen loves animals.

Posted by: Jacqueline | October 23, 2007 06:23 PM

Ariel,
You said, I wonder what "it" does when it's pup's come into heat?
As crazy and sick as this wacko is, I can hardly
fathom what this pervert might be capable of doing to these poor pup's.
LOVE YOUR POSTS.
Keep them coming.
Judith

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter | October 23, 2007 06:33 PM

I am very disappointed that PETA sides with Ellen Degeneres on this. As the truth comes out, it appears Ellen is no better than a collector. The only difference is, she doesn't keep the animals.

Posted by: Cathy Jones | October 23, 2007 07:22 PM

" Again, paying several hundred or over a 1,000 $$$$$ did not guarantee a responsible and loving caregiver in a lifetime home."

Nope, it doesn't. Nor does any kind of a background check. Ellen passed that check and it doesn't look like it turned out so well. Nonetheless, it is fact that the more something is worth the tendecy is to take better care of it.

Ariel posted;

"Since I don't concoct things like the s.c. does, the space cadet should ask the rescuers on here how many times they came across pure-breed dogs that they had to rescue,"

I did ask that question and have as yet to recieve a factual answer. Probaly because shelters are filled with way more mutts that people let breed out of control and "lovingly" let run around the neiborhood.

" I guess any irresponsible breeder would leave the PURCHA$E to chance without doing any background check AFTER the PURCHA$E."

After? It was done by the breeder BEFORE the purchase. The shelter purchase didn't even ask for residency.

"I wonder what the s.c. does when "its" dog(s) go into heat,"

Easy, don't breed them.

"which causes unspayed/un-neutered dogs to undergo a lot of stress? "

So what? Stinks to be a female animal of any specie in that regard, including human.I suppose you have been spayed so you don't undergo stress each month and don't produce mutt offspring.

Posted by: Mars | October 23, 2007 07:39 PM

There is no such things as a responsible breeder. Most people know to avoid puppy mills and "backyard" breeders. But many kind individuals fall prey to the picket-fence appeal of so-called "responsible" breeders and fail to recognize that no matter how kindly a breeder treats his or her animals, as long as dogs and cats are dying in animal shelters and pounds because of a lack of homes, no breeding can be considered "responsible."

Posted by: Aleasha | October 24, 2007 01:21 AM

VestaGirl

WOW you are truly incapable of having an adult debate. What are you 12? Here's some advice: READ,READ,READ the actual postings.

Posted by: Nick | October 24, 2007 11:58 AM

Nick,
Refrain from trying to bully VestaGirl.
Her intelligence far supasses yours.
Just leave it be and try to be a good boy.
Judith

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter | October 24, 2007 12:55 PM

Nick,

I'm sorry, did you say something?

Posted by: VestaGirl | October 24, 2007 01:07 PM

Ana,
I completely concur with your final dx that "it" had a botched lobotomy. That would be consistent with "its" lack of reading comprehension, distortions, concoctions, and irrational outbursts. The procedure could have only been performed by the prominent Dr. Colon I. Wreckedum, a graduate of Uranus U., school of non-medicine. Credits also include: Ass. Professor of Crapology, and a graduate of Juvenile Deliquent High School (cum laude). Literary credits include: "How to be a Hemorrhoid." (which seems to be required reading for the "anti" establishment)

**************
Judith, Freedom Fighter,
"It" probably at least gets "excited."

Posted by: Ariel | October 24, 2007 01:37 PM

juvenile humour at it's best, how long have you been out of high school?

Posted by: rojo | October 24, 2007 06:34 PM

Judith wrote;

"Ariel,
You said, I wonder what "it" does when it's pup's come into heat?
As crazy and sick as this wacko is, I can hardly
fathom what this pervert might be capable of doing to these poor pup's."

What a moron to believe a "pup" goes into heat.

Posted by: Mars | October 25, 2007 03:54 PM

Ariel

Thanks for the laughs!!!! The haters always seem to respond to your comments most especially when you describe their "attributes". You seem to touch a nerve! LOL! I applaud the manner in which you offer substantial intelligent comments to support your position. You and Michele demonstrate both your intelligence and courage even when bombarded by insipid and utterly ludicrous comments. Keep fighing the good fight.

Posted by: Ana | October 25, 2007 05:49 PM

Did the shelter do a back ground check on Ellen or did her status convince the shelter to allow adoption? Having the Passion to save helpless animals does not always balance or match "doing the right thing". I commend the Shelter for taking the steps to insure the animal was taken care of.

Posted by: Cheryl Ortega | October 25, 2007 06:43 PM

Thanks for backing me up, Judith.

Nick is, shall we say, a "special" kind of person.

I would invite everybody here to go to www thesmokinggun com.

FINALLY, the other side of the story vis-a-vis email exchange.

Hmm. Sorry to report to all of Ellen's sycophants here that Ellen's account of this saga was less than forthcoming.

I guess those rescue ladies aren't the bad guys after all.

Shame on Ellen.

Posted by: VestaGirl | October 25, 2007 10:58 PM

Go to thesmokinggun.com for the email exchange.

It's all there.

Posted by: VestaGirl | October 26, 2007 11:46 AM

Ellen did the right thing. I find it sad that a rescue bashes a family for having two children under the age of 14. They were 10 and 12, they aren't 3! Any dog who has a loving and caring home should be there. Better than being killed for food and clothes, right?

Posted by: Yuki | November 1, 2007 11:09 PM