Ellen's Emotional Plea- Page 3

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:44pm

You're telling me the shelters you got them from didn't background check at ALL? Unless things have changed THAT significantly within the practice in the past ten years, I find that hard to believe. They don't just up and hand you a pet. There's a difference between a fair amount of background checking and being harrassed by batsh*t crazy animal people (of which I, as indicated in earlier posts, am very well aware).

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:44pm

Or people should understand what they sign before they sign it.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:45pm

"most of thes rescue groups are run by a bunch of batsh*t crazies."

what a crock of crap.....sweeping generalizations which help nothing.

[Patronus]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:49pm

I also feel like Ellen made a 2nd mistake by going public with this in the manner that she did. I believe that she feels she is doing the right thing and that her heart is in the right place, but she is essentially using her celebrity to force the hand of this shelter, because they will now be harrassed by the nuts and loons of the world and they will look like the bad guy in this when in fact they were simply following policy.

We may not agree with the policy, but that's a different argument.

I feel for Ellen and the family and the puppy in this situation because it is indeed sad for all involved. However, I also feel terrible for the shelter in the situation because when all is said and done they are probably going to be the ones that come out this situation with the most damage done and this will overshadow all of the good work they've probably done.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:53pm

Why does this stipulation exist on an animal adoption contract in the first place?

because rescue org's make a lifetime commitment to the animal,
not the adopting family.

[cooperross]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:57pm

"You're telling me the shelters you got them from didn't background check at ALL? Unless things have changed THAT significantly within the practice in the past ten years, I find that hard to believe."

when I got my dog from the L.A. animal shelter all I had to do was fill out the paperwork and pay the fee and a refundable deposit for having her spayed. I took her home right then. The only change they have made in recent years is that you pay the fee including the cost of spaying or neutering and they take the dog or cat to one of their contracted vets for the surgery and you pick up the dog or cat after the procedure has been completed.

Updated On: 10/16/07 at 04:57 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:58pm

& its not "fine print", its something you have to agree to before you will even be considered.

& besides a home visit, you have to submit your finacial records before you will even be considered.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:59pm

So people who want to avoid any rigamorole can just go to a shelter. It still doesn't negate the aims of the rescue groups.

And don't let anyone from orangeskittles family adopt your children. They seem preoccupied with giving them to other people.

[robbiej]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 5:02pm

'besides a home visit, you have to submit your finacial records before you will even be considered.'

Seriously?

[Patronus]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 5:03pm

I would hope so. You should have to prove that you are financially capable of caring for the animal.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 5:05pm

Adoption processes SHOULD be extensive. Wanting a pet alone doesn't make you a qualified owner. If someone thinks questions about previous pets, what happened to them, vet references, etc. is an annoyance, then they can suck it up and not get a pet.

Not necessarily an annoyance, but they make it really difficult to get a FIRST dog. How is someone supposed to *get* experience, unless they resort to some inbred puppymill spawn? Are only people whose parents let them have pets growing up are allowed to continue the tradition?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 5:06pm

Once again, people - it's a rescue. They want to make sure that the animal will have a better life than the one it had before. As noted earlier, some of the pets have lots of stipulations - whether or not you have other pets in the home, children, etc. If it's troubling to you, get a dog some other way.

ETA: My roommate never had a dog before and got one from a rescue a few years ago. Updated On: 10/16/07 at 05:06 PM

[artscallion]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 5:07pm

"I also feel like Ellen made a 2nd mistake by going public with this in the manner that she did. I believe that she feels she is doing the right thing and that her heart is in the right place, but she is essentially using her celebrity to force the hand of this shelter, because they will now be harrassed by the nuts and loons of the world and they will look like the bad guy in this when in fact they were simply following policy."

This is my problem with the whole thing, regardless of how I feel about shelter policies. I wish I had a TV show that I could use to put pressure on people. I generally like Ellen. But I don't like her using her celebrity influence to try and get something ordinary folk can't get.

If I made that mistake, I'd be forced to deal with the consequences. I feel for Ellen but does she really have that big an aversion to dealing with the consequences of her actions that she has to cry and beg on TV? Sheesh! Life must be tough at the top.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 5:09pm

& most likely the puppy has gone back to the foster home he was in before Ellen's, so dont think he's in a cold lonely shelter.

foster homes have to go thru the same rigorous screening as adoptive homes.

[Chita1933]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 5:09pm

I grew up in Arkansas so when I moved to NY I was surprised at how much information animal adoption agencies require. In Arkansas you're lucky if the contract stipulates that "you can't leave the dog on the side of the highway if things don't work out."

ETA: contracts in Arkansas don't really say that.

Updated On: 10/16/07 at 05:09 PM

[LaurenB]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 5:11pm

Cooperross - Your experience is probably similar to mine. I have a great deal of respect for the work done by rescue organizations in general. When I lost my last pet (died of old age), I decided I would like to get a rescue.

My animals in the past have been healthy, lived long wonderful and happy lives. I have always marveled at how happy and adjusted, sociable, healthy, and non-destructive they were. When I contacted a particular rescue group last fall, they had an "attitude". I don't mind answering the questions and the reference checks, and providing information about my vets, etc. But this particular person was on a power-trip. Attitude-extraordinaire. It was so off-putting. I thought it was such a shame, because I have a GREAT home, and wanted to give a good home and a great life to an animal that needed rescuing. But the interviewer was so obnoxious, I couldn't stand the prospect of giving her any of my confidential information. So I went elsewhere.

I actually never talked about it to others. But in a random conversation with someone that I had recently, I found out that my experience was not unusual, and that some rescue organizations do have a reputation for behaving like, well, fill in the blank.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 5:12pm

Exactly, skittles. In some ways those particular processes make it hard if you've never had a pet before, but well-run shelters don't make it impossible. The decision then is quite a bit more subjective because it's just up to the staff to decide if this person is suitable, but if you are well-informed and capable, it shouldn't be impossible.

(But in terms of the quote, I was referring to people who think those kinds of questions are too excessive -- I didn't mean that you can't get a dog if you can't answer those questions, but that there's nothing wrong with asking them.)

[robbiej]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 5:12pm

I guess I'm just surprised by all this (the passion, the arguments) because, as I'm realizing right now, I guess I'm just not a pet person. I grew up with a great dog. I've lived with a great cat. But this issue just doesn't strike me at my core.

I certainly understand the concept behind 'rescue'. And I get that rescue agencies should be very careful to make sure these animals get a good home.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 5:16pm

And we're back to what I said earlier. If they bend for Ellen, won't they have to bend for all other people who violate the rules? Unless it was proven that Ellen really didn't have this information (ie, it wasn't in the paperwork that had her signature), I just don't think she has a leg to stand on.

Not only that - but she got a dog from a rescue, went through all their tests and regulations and then proceeded to give it to someone else. As norn said, they're looking out for the dog's best interests. I'm sure Ellen is a very nice person, but whatever her reasons, she still gave away an animal that that rescue had entrusted to her.

[Chita1933]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 5:20pm

My neighbor wanted to adopt a cat. We saw an ad in (on?)Craig's List for adoptions in Manhattan. It was for two days only. When we got to the place it was one man with a clip board and a table and 3 kittens that did not look very robust. He informed me that this was for applications for adoptions and that no actual adoptions would be processed today. I told him that it would have been nice to include that in the ad and his response was "I'm here for the animals. I can't worry about you."

Ouch.

Updated On: 10/16/07 at 05:20 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 5:21pm

I only watched that video clip once, but do we KNOW that this was a rescue and not a shelter? I mean, are we sure it was that (as we've seen, VERY specific) type of organization and that she didn't just misuse the term? I don't know one way or the other but it IS possible. People substitute one for the other all the time -- considering a shelter a TYPE of rescue organization and all that.

Updated On: 10/16/07 at 05:21 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 5:24pm

It's called Mutts and Moms, and everything I've found on the web calls it a resue. (Finding stuff has been hard, though. It looks like they may have gone into hiding, which could have been to avoid the harrassment the Ellen show would have undoubtedly caused).

[Chita1933]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 5:24pm

"Mutts & Moms"

I think SHORT TERM this organization is going to come out loosing.

I don't think most people are in support of leasing pets.

Updated On: 10/16/07 at 05:24 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 5:48pm

Then they shouldn't go to a rescue. Or they should follow the rules to which they implicitly agreed.

Of course they're going to lose out. A likeable tv personality cried about them on tv.


Which one of you did this? Updated On: 10/16/07 at 05:48 PM

[Patronus]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 6:00pm

Which one of your hundreds of pets did it?