Ellen DeGeneres is in the doghouse with a pet rescue agency after giving a pooch away to her hairdresser because it didn’t get along with her cats.
The talk show hostess and her partner Portia de Rossi adopted Iggy, a Brussels Griffon mix, on Sept. 20. But when things didn’t work out, DeGeneres gave the dog to her hairdresser.
In doing so, DeGeneres violated an agreement with the Mutts and Moms dog rescue agency by not informing them of the hand-off.
When the agency called DeGeneres to ask about Iggy, she said she found another home for the dog. The agency sent a representative to the hairdresser’s home Sunday and took the dog away.
DeGeneres went public about the situation Monday while taping an episode of her show to air Tuesday (today!). She admitted she didn’t read all the paperwork involving the adoption.
DeGeneres said she spent $3,000 having the dog neutered and trained to be with her cats. But the dog had too much energy and was too rambunctious, she told her television audience.
I guess I signed a piece of paper that says if I can’t keep Iggy, it goes back to the rescue organization, which is not someone’s home, which is not a family. I thought I did a good thing. I tried to find a loving home for the dog because I couldn’t keep it.”
DeGeneres said her hairdresser’s daughters, ages 11 and 12, had bonded with Iggy and were heartbroken when the dog was taken away.
A sobbing DeGeneres said on her show:
Because I did it wrong, those people went and took that dog out of their home, and took it away from those kids. I feel totally responsible for it and I’m so sorry. I’m begging them to give that dog back to that family. It’s not their fault. It’s my fault. I shouldn’t have given the dog away. Just please give the dog back to those little girls.”
Mutts and Moms, a volunteer nonprofit organization in Pasadena, does not have a listed phone number and didn’t immediately respond to an e-mail request for comment.
What’s your take on the situation? Should Mutts and Moms give the dog back to the hairdresser and how wrong (or right) was Ellen in giving the dog to a friend instead of taking it back to the agency?
Update: Watch the video of Ellen talking about the puppy mishap!
Updates:
-Sign the petition to free Iggy!
-Mutts and Moms site appears to be taken down. Will this be temporarily until the heat dies down or permanently?
- Mutts and Moms receiving death threats - read it HERE
-Iggy is given to a new home - read it HERE
-LA Times weighs in on “Iggygate” - read it HERE
-New allegations against Mutts and Moms comes to light - read it HERE
Please give the dog back to the little girls. Ellen made a mistake, but at least she gave the dog to someone who would love and take care of it.
The little girls bonded with the dog and it’s not their fault that Ellen made a mistake. Please return the dog to the little girls as soon as possible. I know they are heartbroken. I know I would be and I’m 65 years old.
Thanks for all you do for animals that are not wanted - and an extra thank you if you return this little dog to the girls.
Dee Compton
October 16th, 2007 at 9:24 amSHAME ON YOU Mutts and Moms !
Good homes for rescued pets are hard to find. Even though it wasn’t handled as the contract stated, if the dog was happy and the family was happy, that is a good home. Unless the home was dirty and they were mistreating the animal, the doggie should be returned to that family. I suspect that there is a control issue here. Only if you can prove the family is unfit for adoption, resolving this issue will any other way will hurt your reputation.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:37 amSo many people out in Hollywood purchase dogs from breeders. Ellen went out of her way to ADOPT a dog that had been rescued. Rescue groups prevent dogs from being put down, so Ellen helped save a life. Adopting that dog gave the rescue group the opportunity to rescue another dog in it’s place. I understand that Ellen made a mistake in not reading the whole agreement. We all make that mistake sometimes. She obviously loved the dog very much which is why she tried to help it get along with her cats by getting it neutered and getting it rained, which cost $3,000. Nobody would do all that if they didn’t care. For the safety of her cats and for the love of the dog, she gave it to her hairdresser, someone she obviously trusted, plus this would at least give her the chance to still visit the dog.
I understand that the rescue group would want to check up on the family she gave it to. That is the right thing to do. But, once they realize that it is a family that loves the dog and that the dog is being cared for, the dog should be given back to that family. The little girls hearts are broken. If the family bonded with the dog this much, surely the dog must miss the family too and would be better off with a family that already loves it, rather than wait for another family to adopt it and have to learn to love a family all over again. I hope the rescue group gives that dog back to the family soon. If not, a family’s heart will be broken, the dog will have to wait to find another family to love it, a space is being taken up that could be given to another dog who could be rescued from being put down, and people will begin to fear that rescue groups are not as kind to dogs as they claim to be.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:53 amThe rescue organization did the right thing. Rescue organizations spend a lot of time and effort finding a great home for their dogs. They screen and verify all information.
If we could rely on any individual to pick a “good home” for a dog, there wouldn’t be thousands put to sleep in shelters each year.
The simple answer is for the family to apply to adopt the dog themselves. If they are a good home, the rescue agency would most likely approve them.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:49 amSHAME ON YOU MUTTS AND MOMS! Just have the paperwork corrected and give the doggie back to the family who loves him. Mutts and Moms, you have hurt your reputation by yanking Iggy from his forever home. Give him back, you are punishing Iggy for something that a person did! I’m sure he misses his family. Ellen made a mistake, but you all made a BIGGER one when you did this. SHAME.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:34 amMutts and Moms could have handled this SO much better. With the time and money they spent “rescuing” the puppy (even getting the police involved), they could have sent someone to visit the home, interview the family, and see firsthand how the girls and the dog were interacting. They probably could have settled this humanely in less than a half-hour, without all the grief.
Yes, Ellen didn’t follow their rules, and their rules are meant to protect animals from being adopted into abusive homes. Very admirable. But in this case, their strict adherence to the rules is backfiring. They look like they care ONLY about the animals, not about the people who want to provide a loving home for a pet.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:10 pmrE: Mutts and Moms
They’ve taken down their email address from their Contact Page on their website (no wonder). But it was still listed on a link on another page.
WE NEED TO LAUNCH AN EMAIL CAMPAIGN TO GET IGGY BACK HOME!
If anyone would like to express their displeasure with Mutts and Moms, just send your loving comments to:
pawboutique @ yahoo . com
WE CAN HELP THIS LITTLE GIRL IF WE ALL EMAIL THESE SCUMMY PEOPLE AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:43 pmMutts And Moms needs to look at Ellen’s track record on helping animals if they would they would find that she is all about doing just that. Now as for Iggy, I can not believe you took it away from a loving family with a child who had grown to love it. Maybe you should rethink your little contract. I guess what I am trying to say is ;
October 16th, 2007 at 12:53 pmGIVE THE GIRL HER DOG BACK!!!!
Now there is not a celebrity alive who is more about the animals. Of anyone around I can’t believe you did this unbelievably needlessly cruel thing to not only one family but two families. Both families are in pain because of your lack of foresight, maturity and professionalism. Do whatever is necessary to not only give the dog back but allow visitation to keep that bond alive.
If you are truly an animal welfare agency, then act like it. Please, act like it.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:33 pmMutts & Moms give the dog to the little girls!! I don’t think Ellen did wrong. She found a home for the dog that she thought was suitable. Other people probably just would have let the dog go somewhere on the side of the road or something, but she did not. She cared enough to get it a home. She spent all that money and you are going to profit from it by getting someone else to adopt it and tell them it was neutered and trained. SHAME ON YOU!!!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:50 pmThats awful! Shame on that group. I can understand contract issues, but its not hard to remedy the situation. Just go into the home and do the same checks every one of these groups does on a potential adoptive family. Seriously sad to think that they ripped that poor dog from that family.
Wouldn’t have been hard to keep all face and say, alright, understood. We need to update papers, can you all come in and we have a sit down.
Now most of the dogs in their care won’t get adopted because people will be afraid of them deciding that something was not to their liking and the dog will be taken away.
Poor Iggy back in the shelter limbo. Ellen was a good pet owner and found the pup a great home. Shame to see such horrid people who think they are better than others at caring for animals take something from a family that cares.
I’m so frustrated.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:56 pmThere was no reason to take the dog from a good loving family. Isn’t their sole purpose to find good homes for homeless dogs? DUH! You have defeated your purpose here, give the dog back to it’s adopted family and thank Ellen for being a loving caring person. Someone made a big boo-boo here and it wasn’t Ellen, I applaud what your org is trying to do but you have made a mistake.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:56 pmMutts & Mom’s obviously are not PR savvy. The media firestorm they have stepped into would not have happened had the original adopter not have been Ellen DeGeneres. But since the deed has been done, Mutts & Mom’s simply needs to have the hairdresser’s family fill out an adoption application form, submit to a homecheck, and hopefully be approved for adoption of Iggy. End of story…
October 16th, 2007 at 3:09 pmI feel so badly about those little girls and how this entire situation was handled. I own and operate a small 5 acre farmette dedicated to the health and happiness of all the loving animals I have here looking for their forever homes. I am NOT a 501.3c for a very good reason, when you go into the huge mess of setting up with 5 other people you are going to end up with a power struggle and the ones that lose out are the beloved animals. I have 35 years experience in Animal rescue and it just breaks my heart when the “Adendums” in a contract mean more than the welfare of the animals. I do understand the reasons for the rules and regulations attached to adoptions. I have seen things that nightmares are made of where animal resuce and control is concerned. I understand the absolute necessity for follow ups and followthroughs but to go to that house with the police and snatch Iggy away from a loving family without FIRST investigating the situation is stupidity. It gives all rescues a bad name and again… the ones that suffer are the animals. PLEASE do not BOYCOTT Mutts and Moms. Get those animals away from there and into loving homes where they belong and petition to yank their 501.3c status. Charge them the Police Man Hours wasted in this situation and do NOT allow this PUBLICITY work in their favor. Huge Hugs to Those little girls and to Ellen for standing up and taking responsibility and being a grown up about it. Hugs also to those involved with Mutts and Moms who are going to get slammed for this when they had nothing to do with it what so ever. If I had to take a guess I would feel safe assuming that it was one persons call to make the snatch. It was a publicity based call that places all the other beautiful animals in the hands of that rescue at risk. Rescues all across the USA are weeping over this. Blessed be the Beautiful creatures and those who care for them.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:09 pmThis is a sham!
Would anyone care to call or write Mutts and Moms?
Here’s their info:
Mutts and Moms
Email: pawboutique@yahoo.com
On the Web: www.muttsandmoms.org
Who We Are - Mutts & Moms is a non-profit organization that rescues dogs from Los Angeles City and County shelters. This rescue was started by Marina Baktis, a volunteer with Los Angeles city shelters, who saw all the beautiful animals that are euthanized daily and wanted to do something!
FOUND IT HERE
http://www.insidelocalcities.com/pets/pasadena-pet-adoption.php
PICTURE OF THE PERSON WHO RUNS THIS ORG: Marina Baktis
October 16th, 2007 at 3:14 pmhttp://www.insidelocalcities.com/pets/pasadena-mutts-and-moms.php
Mutts and Moms should not have been so heavy handed in their approach to enforcing their policy. Since Ellen had found a loving home for Iggy, they should have interviewed the family, checked out the living situation and left him with the family unless their home was not suitable. To uproot a pet from a home continually is NOT in the best intrest of the animal. The contract that Ellen originally signed could be transferred and re-signed by the family if they were providing a suitable home for him. There are many dogs and cats that do not have homes, so to take him from a good home is not a compassionate or wise thing to do.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:18 pmShame on Mutts and Moms! Their goal should be to find good homes for homeless animals. A good home was found. They need to do the right thing immediately!
October 16th, 2007 at 3:26 pmI cannot believe that an organization that states that it rescues dogs would take a dog from a loving home and put it in a shelter. How stupid is that! As a dog owner and dog lover I just cannot understand where these people are coming from. The people who make the decisions at that rescue organization need to be a little more loving and understanding. When they chose a contract over the welfare of a dog, they are not doing their job, in my opinion. Their main job should be to improve the environment for the animals there…not enforce contracts that do not always have the best interest of the dog at stake. My heart breaks for Iggy…as well as for the family that had given Iggy a loving home. Shame on Mutts and Moms.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:33 pmWas it really necessary to remove the dog from a LOVING HOME? Really…couldn’t anything else be worked out?? I hope Mutts and Moms will reconsider its stand on this situation and comes to their senses!!
October 16th, 2007 at 3:33 pmMutts & Moms email address is: pawboutique@yahoo.com - Please send a plea to help return Iggy to his rightful home. (Thanks babalu for the address)
October 16th, 2007 at 3:36 pmP.S. I called their phone number, ***-***-***, and received a voice mail box which is full. Please everyone continue to email and call to let Mutts and Moms know they have made a mistake and to return Iggy to his family. (Please be respectful - we all make mistakes.)
October 16th, 2007 at 3:42 pmEven if it is policy to take the dog away if the contract is voided, it should only be done if the home that the dog is in is unstable or harmful to the dog. Every situation is different and it should be up to the organization to fully investigate the situation and determine whether or not the dog should be aloud to stay. If this organization really wanted to help stray dogs wouldn’t they do everything in their power to find good homes for them? And not take them away from loving homes. Are they just in the business for the money? Pimping out dogs for the money, taking them back just to do it all over again?
October 16th, 2007 at 3:58 pmI am sure that the rescue group feels they did the right thing in taking this dog out of a loving home and probably placing it in a cage where it will stay until it is adopted again. What is wrong with these rescue groups? For the effort they put into pulling this dog out of a loving home, they could have found new homes for other needy pets.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:01 pmI am the former National Rescue Coordinator for the Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever Club of America but I do not speak here for the club but for myself. My wife and I are the owners of Cinnstar Retrievers and breed and train retrievers professionally with many years experience and a reputation that is beyond question for the dogs in our charge. Our personal placement policies are very strict also. I only have one side of this story so I am a little bias. Our policy’s are firm also about returning the rescue to the care of the club. But we have always tempered reason and the best interest of the rescue above all. It would seem to me that this particular rescue was in a place that was in his best interest. I have no idea what these peoples agenda was but it would seem that it was not in the best interest of the rescue, the family and certainly not theirs or further rescue placements as their web site has been pulled from Pet Finders. We are a very large breed rescue who makes placement nationwide and as I said before we have strict rules but fortunately we also have common sense. From what I have seen of Ms DeGeneres she would never place a animal in harm’s way and was acting in good faith. I would not hesitate to place one of our personal dogs in her care.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:01 pmContact information for Mutts and Moms
FYI
October 16th, 2007 at 4:11 pmMutts and Moms:
E-mail:
pawboutique@yahoo.com
Well Spoken Mr White
I just watched the update video and commented over on that page, but in a nut shell, the fact that Vanessa Picked up the little dog and paced the property for over two hours waiting for the police to arrive tells me that she was posturing and puffing for the publicity. The fact that she told Ellen that if she didnt get the dog back she was going to report Ellen and Portia to “The Media” makes the entire situation sticnk of a publicity stunt that not only backfired on them but drags those of us with rescues down in their wake.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:13 pmMutts & Moms - you should be ashamed! Yes - you should check out Iggy’s new home, but NO you should not have taken a dog out of a loving home. You are punishing children & an animal; not helping anyone in this case. Your purpose is supposed to bo to find good homes for abandoned animals; not to be Doggy-Nazis. Spend your time & energy finding a suitable home for another animal that has none. Confunded in Columbus
October 16th, 2007 at 4:15 pmThis whole situation is stupid. Whats the purpose of a dog rescue agency? To find good homes for pets. Ellen did that. She didnt hide or lie to the agency, she told the truth. Its not like she gave the dog to Micheal vick or his cousin. That agency is overreacting. All they had to do was talk to Ellen and told her what she did wrong. Then investigate the family she gave the dog to & make sure they are a responsible owner. Again this whole situation is ludicrous.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:16 pmCDW readers - we couldn’t have said it better than what all of you have said here today.
We hope this mess gets resolved and a wrong is turned into a right by Iggy returning to his new home
October 16th, 2007 at 4:20 pmThis ‘rescue’ is not about having a good home for the dog - apparently. If they had any sense at all they would have followed up with the new home, explained the problem and asked them pertinent questions about their home situation.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:23 pmStealing the dog from them opens them up for liability - they didn’t sign the agreement. I hope they lawyer up and sue the pants off of these reckless fanatics.
A home for the dog is supposed to be the priority - these fanatics apparently don’t really give 2 cents about the dog - just about having a celebrity on their reference page. They don’t deserve to caretakers of canines.
Hairdresser and family: Sue them for taking the dog from your loving home! I’m sure even more dirty work will come out and many other dirty secrets about the individuals of Mutts and Moms will be revealed. Are these the same people that had to be shut down and put in prison from the ‘Tiger Rescue’?
I hope everyone who has ever dontated them money puts the pressure on their horrific ignorance and gets them to do the right thing.
Please help these little girls and their family get back the dog they fell in love with.
http://www.petitiononline.com/FreeIggy/petition.html
You can also contact them directly to let them know your opinion on this matter(there website has currently been pulled):
Mutts and Moms
October 16th, 2007 at 5:24 pmPaw Boutique
Email: pawboutique@yahoo.com
www.muttsandmoms.org
It seems Mutts&Moms took their website down … how cowardly. They should appear on Ellen’s tv show and apolgise. I find it ridiculous that these organisations are so inflexible that some of them will let animals get put down rather than adopt them to a less than “perfect” family. I know people who have been rejected because no one could be home all day with the animal. How unrealistic! Meanwhile, someone in my neighbourhood put up a sign in a store for “buy one, get one free” kittens. Who knows where those kittens will end up? That sort of thing and worse goes on all the time. How ironic.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:00 pmI also just want to say that Ellen is one of the most humane people in existence! It seems obvious that Vanessa was miffed that Ellen didn’t follow their rules and was doing this out of vengeance. How very sad!
October 16th, 2007 at 7:06 pmI have 3 dogs, 2 adopted from “regular” shelters (one of which had been “returned” to be re-adopted) and one found us after he’d been abandoned. Thankfully, Ellen has enough sense to give the dog away to a loving home, not just turn him out into the street.
I don’t understand what kind of “rescue” agency would prefer locking the dog back in a shelter rather than confirming the new home is as good as the one they adopted it out to.
The poor dog - and all the others in the custody of “Mutts & Moms” - these critters are in the hands of folk with more concern for rules than common sense…
I know that if I ever had to give up my babies, I’d rather see them in homes of people I know who will love and care for them, then have to turn them over to a shelter - even shelters with the best of intentions…
October 16th, 2007 at 7:16 pmHere is an email address to email Mutts and Moms. I thought the whole purpose of an adoption agency was to find a good and caring home for the animals in need. There seems to be another agenda here.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:19 pmAnyway, here is the address pawboutique@yahoo.com
Hello Mutts & Moms,
I am a happy dog mom of 2 great American
Staffordshire Terriers (aka pitbulls) who I
adopted through pet rescue groups. They are
my children and there’s nothing I would not
do for them.
I just saw Ellen’s admitting her error in not
reading all the fine print to her adoption of
Iggy. (Yes, she’s wrong, but I need your help
on this: please return Iggy to his new home
with Ellen’s hairdresser and 2 little girls (who
are crying for their lost family member).
I know that when it comes to finding a good
home for a dog, it can be a challenge and you
may be siding on the ’super cautious’, but
please, let Iggy go to the new home and don’t
delay to have this situation escalate! There are
so many other dogs, cats and other pets who
need homes and your loving attention to their
rescue! (If you’d like my advice, I’d get somebody
from your group on Ellen’s show PRONTO and
make a public showing of reuniting Iggy with
his new family–it would be XLNT PR for you
and I think Ellen would be happy, too!!!).
Thanks for reading,
October 16th, 2007 at 8:04 pmP.
Mutts and Mom’s has put their tails between their legs and gone completely offline. Any website that references them now seems to be unavailable. What a bunch of chicken s**ts!! HOW DARE THEY do what they did to that family and adorable dog!?!? People like them do not deserve to “take care” of innocent animals. I sure hope they are proud of themselves. I do sincerely hope someone else goes into their organization and rescues any other animals they have, from them. I shudder to think what might happen to Iggy and all of the others now that Mutts and Moms seems to be going into hiding.
SHAME ON YOU Mutts and Moms!
October 16th, 2007 at 8:05 pmI think the dog should be given back to the family where it will be loved and cared for. With all the unwanted animals and the abused animals in the world, you would think your organization would be happy that the puppy was in such a good home. Is that not what your organization is all about??
October 16th, 2007 at 8:44 pmThe animals are the ones that will suffer becasue of all this
I tried to view their adoptable pets and that list has vanished. I hope the beloved animals have not vanished as well. The one that needs to express her HEARTFELT apologies is that Vanessa woman who made such a public fuss pupnapping little iggy from the arms of a loving family. She wanted Publicity… well she has it. Sadly the webpage I saw most often was Petfinders and I hope this nonsence doesnt harm their stellar reputation in the slightest. Petfinders.com is a wonderful organization that does so much good for the lives of animals and humans alike and they should in no way be made to suffer for the behavior of this Mutts and Moms bull pucky. I am sure there are also very innocent members of Mutts and Moms that do NOT share this womans commando attitude and they are all going to be slammed for this. I hope for their sakes they keep the spirit of Animal Rescue alive in their hearts and do not give up on offering their hope, heart and help to other rescues who need volunteers. One Self appointed commando can destroy so much good. To those in Mutts and Moms who are NOT in support of vanessas tactics, stand tall, stand proud, speak out! I speak from 35 years experience, there truely is “One in every bunch” Heh. sadly sometimes MORE than one. Vanessa you need to Apologize and get this situation under control. For the love of the animals and for their welfare.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:17 pmI have emailed them, and I hope everyone else does as well. I couldn’t agree more with all the postings. The world has gone mad when someone actually calls the police in to help them rob a family of a pet they love. This is utterly disgusting and inhumane, contract or no contract, decisions must be based upon the best interest of the dog. I hope the rescued centered gets sued until they reach bankruptcy because they are already emotionally bankrupt. I can’t stand idiots.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:29 pmBOY WHAT A WAY TO SHOW YOUR AUTHORITY AND PROBABLY MESS UP A GOOD P.R. RELATIONSHIP MOMS AND MUTTS YOU GUYS HAVE TO BE ABOUT THE BIGGEST HALF- WITS OUT THERE.ARE YOU REALLY IN THE BUSINESS OF FINDING PETS HOME OR IS IT JUST A POWER-TRIP.THE DOG HAD A GOOD HOME GO ON TO THE NEXT ONE IF YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT ANIMALS.FORSHAME!!
October 16th, 2007 at 11:40 pmMutts and Moms have truly done a disservice to Iggy and to the girls who were caring for him. I’m assuming that the intention of this adoption was to place Iggy in a loving and caring home. That being said, what right did Mutts and Moms have to take this dog from a loving environment. If they really had Iggy’s best interest in mind they would return Iggy to those two heart broken little girls. I am sure there is NO other animal adoption agency in the WORLD that would have handled this situation in this manner!!!!!!!
October 17th, 2007 at 12:01 amI understand the contract weeds out homes that are not acceptable. I think this needs to be done.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:01 amThis whole situation could have been settled by the “Moms and Mutts” going to the home and redoing the contract with the new owners. What I really don’t understand, most good shelters will have the vet work done, including the spay or neuter BEFORE adoption. All this drama and they , in my humble opinion, as a adoption service were wrong from the get go.
The wise Solomon had the solution thousands of years ago: suggest cutting Iggy in half and give half to the Paw Boutique and half to the little girl. I suspect Paw Boutique would think that solution is fine.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:39 amThe mission for most rescues is, or they claim to be, to place the animal into a safe and loving home. Which is what the end result was until Mutts and Moms decided to instigate a ego pissing contest. They went to the hairdresser’s home claiming they were going to conduct a home inspection, but then physically took the dog out of the home. I agree that certain breeds should be carefully evaluated before being placed with “children” however, from the photos I’ve seen, Iggy isn’t what I would consider a “small” dog. A chihuahua, or other small terrier type dogs certainly don’t need to be placed in a home with “children” but Iggy doesn’t seem to fall into that category. Those two girls are not what I would consider “children” either, not in the sense of most rescue orgs that try to ensure that small boned fragile dogs do not go to homes with small children. This family has another family dog that apparently was getting along with Iggy, a full family that loved the dog, and most importantly, Iggy seemed to be happy and safe as well.
What this seems to boil down to is these two rescue peeps got their feathers ruffled because they were not in “control”. In my experience with animal controls and rescues, there are a huge percentage of women that seem to take offense if anyone tries to out control their decision(s). This seems to be just another classic case. They get so angered at someone else taking their control, they run in, not stopping to consider the welfare of the animal, and act upon their own rejected ego rush, and ultimately, make the wrong decision. This should be a wake up call to all of the rest of these ‘power hungry’ rescues out there that are only in this for their own ego nourishment.
Give the dog back to it’s family - and recheck your ego. People like this do not need to be in animal rescue - because they simply cannot make the right decisions for the best interest of the animal.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:01 amThe folks at Moms and Mutts said that their policy was to not give small dogs to families that have children under 13. This is to protect the safety of the dog (according to Momsadn Mutts). I will tell all readers that that is the lamest excuse that I’ve ever heard! When I purchased my first teacup poodle (weight: less than 2 pounds), my children were 13, 6 and 3 years old. They loved the dogs and the dogs loved the children. Everyone survived unscathed. Moms and Mutts-you are despicable!!
October 17th, 2007 at 10:20 amIf the “rescue” agency screens its adoptive owners so closely, wouldn’t it stand to reason that it has already determined that anyone it approves has good judgment and will always act in the best intest of the adopted pet? Ergo, if Ellen passed the agency’s screening requirements, why wouldn’t it continue to consider Ellen a good pet owner and acting in the best interest of her dog by placing it with a family she has screened far more closely and knows far better than the agency ever could know any of its adoptive families? Mutts and Moms has screwed the pooch on this one. Pun intended. Hope everyone who ever contributed to this agency finds another cause to support. This one has its “mission” really upside down.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:25 amWhat a shame, this is a prime example where a technical procedure followed to the letter of the law has overruled common sense.
Mutts & Moms, SHAME ON YOU!!!
This could have easily been handled without causing all the PAIN that you have caused. I support many organization such as yours, but it sounds like you are extremely arragont. Believe me, if I ever hear anything of your organization, I’ll completely be turned off. This is an example where STUPID ACTIONS on your part has tarnished any good that you may have done!
October 17th, 2007 at 10:34 amRobin
October 17th, 2007 at 11:27 amYou people at mutts and Moms are truly wicked.
As a mom who has adopted several dogs from
shelters over the years I wish you would take the
word “MOMS” out of your name…..You people
give Moms a bad name.
To everyone who LOVES animals:
October 17th, 2007 at 12:34 pmBoth parties involved have made a huge mistake. I LOVE ELLEN & I LOVE all animal RESCUES. First off, Ellen did make the mistake, but she did it unknowingly & she did it with the best of intentions. Secondly, the rescue organization jumped the gun a bit, but they did because their mission is the welfare of the dog. Rescue agencies trat adoptions very seriously as they should. What needs to happen now is Ellen needs to make a statement on behalf of herself & MaM, she needs to ask the public to stop the threats. Then Ellen, Portia & MaM need to have a serious heart to heart. Obviously everyone loves Iggy & wants the best. WORK TOGETHER PEOPLE! DO this right, take the proper steps…now that Ellen & Portia know it was a mistake MaM need to help them make it right. Don’t withold Iggy from the new family out of spite toward Ellen. Interview the new family, liek you would any other…..I’m an adopter of animals from rescue as well. PLease EVERYONE, get on the same page & stop the insanity. PLEASE. DO THE RIGHT THING.
This is one of the most awful things I ever heard of. People look the other way all the time if its not criminal and a good thing that they are loking away from.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:41 pmThey couldn’t have just interviewed the family?
This evil woman deserves all she gets for trying to “show a star she can’t push her around”.
Poor dog is back in a cage, worrying about the people he was pulled from.
They are sure mutts, but they don’t act like moms.
Nothing is too bad to happen to these folks, nothing.
So many people fail to understand what “adopting” an animal means. It does NOT mean that you own that animal and can do whatever you want with him/her. It means you have “adopted” him/her from an organization that approved YOU as an adopter. It is not your right to choose another home if you cannot keep the animal. Mutts and Moms had every right to do what they did and I commend them for not giving in to pressure. Their main concern is the well-being of the animals that they spend time helping, not the potential adoptive families.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:53 pmI rescued my dog;who in return has rescued me(disabled) & my disabled son. She is our heart. I back Ellen’s decision because she did it out of love. The dog is loved & in a loving home. There was no reason to do this to the family Ellen knew well;except publicity for Mutts and Moms. So many animals suffer & concentration should be given to them. Not villianize a celebrity who took the time,money & heart to care for this puppy. My belief is Mutts and Moms deceived the family and took the action they did out of greed & not a true assessment of the puppy’s best interest. Not to mention 2 little girls are broken hearted. Being an animal advocate as Ellen is,I share her distress in this matter. And,I plead with Moms & Mutts to give the puppy back. This makes Moms and Mutts look very bad to me. Ellen,next time, go to the Humane Society. I signed I would keep my pet no matter what her ailments/problems. I got her w/ respiratory issues & dysplasia.HUD is representing me because of fair housing dispute that originated when my son & his emotional support service dog were discriminated from public place because of other owners not picking up their dog’s defecation. These things escalate, and so I got discriminated afterwards. And,all I was trying to do was keep my son’s emotional support service dog w/ him. Long story; but, evidence was given that our dog is a service dog by doctor. Yet, the greedy landlord’s let in a 100 lb weimeraner (for deposit),while saying my lease wouldn’t be renewed (after 8 yrs of being timely paid & good tenant) because my support dog was over 30 lbs. Animals are family to some of us. To others, their just a business…..
October 17th, 2007 at 7:32 pmOnly a few people with some sense commenting on here. Aimee said:
October 17th, 2007 at 8:09 pmTo everyone who LOVES animals:
Both parties involved have made a huge mistake. I LOVE all animal RESCUES. First off, Ellen did make the mistake, but she did it unknowingly & she did it with the best of intentions.Maybe she should have taken the adoption serious enough to read the contract. Secondly, the rescue organization jumped the gun a bit, but they did because their mission is the welfare of the dog. Rescue agencies take adoptions very seriously as they should. What needs to happen now is Ellen needs to make a legitimate statement on behalf of herself & MaM, not some acted out scene. She needs to ask the public to stop the threats. Then Ellen, Portia & MaM need to have a serious heart to heart. Obviously everyone loves Iggy & wants the best. WORK TOGETHER PEOPLE! DO this right, take the proper steps…now that Ellen & Portia know it was a mistake MaM need to help them make it right. Don’t withold Iggy from the new family out of spite toward Ellen. Interview the new family, like you would any other…..I’m an adopter of animals from rescue as well. PLease EVERYONE, get on the same page & stop the insanity. PLEASE. DO THE RIGHT THING.
Bottom Line - A contract is a contract. Too many “celebrities” get special treatment and national media play. It’s absurd. As a veterinarian who has worked for years with adoption groups, I understand and fully support Mutts and Moms for sticking to their contracts. They have a right to enforce (which they decide to do for good reasons) and they have a right to not be harrassed. Leave them alone and stop interfering with their group so they can get back to the good work they do. Every day that goes by that they are closed due to threats is another day a pet goes un-adopted. Who is being inhumane then? Leave them alone.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:46 pmI understand where the adoption agency is coming from about not wanting people to adopt dogs and then just give them away, but Ellen found a good home for this dog and now I think that Mutts and Moms are just being selfish and are doing all of this to bring attention to themselves. The bad thing is it’s not the right kind of attention they should want. They have a perfect chance to turn Ellen’s oversight into an opportunity to bring animal adoption into the spotlight in a positive light. Now all they have done is alienate a lot of animal lovers who may have adopted from them. They will be lucky if they don’t go out of business for this. Get the paperwork straight and let Iggy go back to the family who already loves it. That is what animal adoption is all about…matching animals to families who will love and care for them and that is exactly what Ellen did.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:44 pm“I understand and fully support Mutts and Moms for sticking to their contracts. They have a right to enforce (which they decide to do for good reasons)” (Arlen)
The issue here is they did NOT follow their own rules for the actual adoption. When they SAW the celebrity, they saw they never asked her for the adoption forms and she never filled them out. they didn’t go over the papers with her as they should have and point out the fine points as a reputable rescue would do. They told her hey sign here and the dog is yours. I have been a rescue for 35 + years and not a single application goes through without me sitting down and makeing certain that each applicant reads each and every word and understands the policies. and YEAH I have had certain celebrities adopt and they had to do it all by my book and not a single one asked for “Special” treatment. These women were bragging about how Ellen had chosen them and using it as a badge of honor. “OOOO guess who just adopted a Dog from US….” IF you cannot follow your OWN policies then you cannot expect those who are lead by your example to do otherwize. If you point OUT a rule that rule is enforced before it is broken. Do it right…
October 17th, 2007 at 11:54 pmOf course, Ms. DeGeneres publicly states she didn’t read the fine print - admittedly difficult on a “non-existant” contract. However, contracts may be legally verbal. Death and other threats are narrow-minded and petty, but hardly insignificant. Two wrongs never make a right, do they?
October 18th, 2007 at 8:02 amI watched in astonishment and anger as Ellen broke down on national television. My anger was at the arrogance of Mutts and Moms in thinking an absolute animal lover like Ellen was incapable of picking a suitable home for a dog. My astonishment was at Ellen for taking full responsibility for the Militant attitude of the Mutts and Mom’s director. It shows the content of Ellen’s character that she chose to blame herself for the Militancy and heavy handedness of others.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:24 amIn the course of their activities, the people at Mutts and Moms have foolishly allowed their (justifiable) anger toward the mistreatment of animals to cloud their judgement. To posters Arlan and and Teresa, understand that being Militant in ANYTHING is a mistake, it makes you the Bad Guy every time and only hurts your cause.
As of Today, Thursday October 18th, Iggy has been officially adopted by another family.
And, to add insult to injury the news media has confirmed from sources inside and close to Mutts and Moms that puppies have been allowed in other homes with children under the age of 14. It appears that Marina Baktis enforces the rules only when it can be used as weapon to get even with a celebrity.
I’ve always had the utmost of respect for people who rescue dogs as a life long avid dog lover, adoptive parent, foster parent, and volunteer. But, sadly Marina Baktis has changed that view. I can not condone her rigid holier than thou attitude and failure to simply admit she was wrong too.
And, I can not condone her statements immediately upon yanking the dog from the girls that she will never allow them to adopt Iggy (and that was stated long before the story hit the media too). If Marina had any intention of trying to compromise and work this out, she would never have immediately placed the dog up for others to adopt. She would have placed Iggy temporarily in a foster home until things could be ironed out in an amicable fashion. She was vindictive, unprofessional, and simply a poor sport. And, I’m saddened by her inability to be rational in her decision making processes concerning this adoption. She had an axe to grind because Ellen was a celebrity. And, doubtful Marina would have gone to such extremes if Ellen was an average unknown person.
Marina had every opportunity to do the right thing, and the public at large would have been more than accepting and forgiving….to error is to be human.
The local Pasadena Human Society President has made public statements stating she was appalled and saddened by Marina’s handling of this adoption. And, famous Lassie trainer and canine expert Robert Weathermax has also made statements stating how saddened he was by Marina’s inability to use sound, prudent judgment before taking the dog back.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:43 amThe rule is good, but not having the flexibility to handle an unintentional violation is more foolish than I can imagine an organization would ever be.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:48 pmAccording to the California Secretary of State’s Web site, the Mutts & Moms corporation has been suspended since December 2006 when they failed to file a “statement of information.”
Access Hollywood has verified the corporation is still suspended as of today.
As a result of the suspension, enforcing the contract with Ellen and Portia may be impossible for the agency, as both the original adoption of Iggy and the date the agency reclaimed possession of the pet happened after the suspension began.
Access Hollywood has placed a call to Mutts & Moms, as well as their attorney, for comment. No response was received at the time of publication.
*******************************************
October 19th, 2007 at 1:40 pmIf Mutts & Moms was operating under a suspension status, that opens up a whole nother can of worms. If they were not operating legally in the state of California, then any written contract, signed or not, would not be valid.
What has happened to Ellen’s other dogs? There are several blogs on this site that show both her and her partner with different dogs that they own. Did those dogs get along with Iggy? This makes me wonder if not everything is being communicated to the public. Was there something in Iggy’s past that would not allow him to be placed with children under 14? If so, I think the rescue did the right thing. Could they have handled it better? Sure. I have rescued dogs for several years. In a few cases, the dogs have been taken back…usually due to neglect, abuse, lack of vet care or violating terms of the contract. I have had the police come with me one time when I had to take a dog back. The person who had this dog was keeping it locked in a store room. This is not a good situation for a dog. Because of the personality and nature of the person involved, I had a policeman come with me to the house to get the dog. It was a tough situation, but I did not want to get into any sort of struggle over the dog. And, the dog had to be removed for its well-being. I am not saying that Ellen, her partner or the family she gave the dog to did any of these things. I just wish some people would realize there is always more to a situation that what we are told. Rescuing dogs in not a glorified business. It is hard, emotionally exhausting, difficult and, at times, VERY sad. If you only heard half of the reasons why people give up their dogs, it would make you sick. Then, there are back yard breeders, puppy mills and people that abuse their animals. It would make the happiest person in the world depressed. So, give a little credit to people that do this work, including Mutts and Moms. It is well deserved!
October 19th, 2007 at 3:04 pmAgencies must have rules, I understand that…but I also understand that each situation should be handled on an individual basis–most noteably in a humane organization. The cavalier attitude of this organization toward the second adoptive family and toward Ellen–the attorney showed no class or understanding when he said Ellen was ’sitting on her yacht’ while they took phone calls. First of all I am pretty sure Mr. Fink (yep, that’s his name) didn’t take any of those calls from his private office and second–that is Not how Ellen was handling this. SHE was trying to do what was best for the dog. My money will NOT go to this organization UNTIL they change the management who is responsible for this! In the long run, that is what will serve these animals best.
October 20th, 2007 at 1:44 pmAnyone who has done any rescue work knows one or two horror stories about a person who gave away an adopted pet to a “trusted friend” and the dog was hurt, mistreated or worse. I get that most of the commenters are Degeneres fans, but please remember that Ms. DEGENERES is the one who didn’t follow her contractural obligation regarding Iggy. Had she done so, the home could have been vetted. Some rescues have policies against adopting small dogs into homes with small children, citing rough or hurtful treatment by the children. You all need to let up on Mutts & Moms. They do good work with admirable intentions. I find it sad that Ms. D feels that public pleas and tears should change the rules for her - what - because she is famous? Dogs don’t care about famous. The rules are the rules and they are there to protect the animals. Period. I don’t believe she broke the contract wilfully, but she did so and then assumed it would be forgiven because she is Ellen? I feel for the kids and I’m sorry Ellen is sad, but quit dumping on women who do work most folks wouldn’t have the heart for. God bless you Mutts & Moms. Maybe it could have been handled differently, but they in all likelihood have too much work for too many fur-kids and not enough time to do it. Ellen should just gut it up, apologize and maybe make a hefty donation to help more animals. That’s my feeling and I’m sure I’ll get blasted, but I care more about animals and their welfare than celebrities.
October 20th, 2007 at 4:32 pmWhat the hellWrong You sell a dog and right their if they really cared about dogs they would take donations…no no they want money these women want to get rich to hell with who take the dogs its all about who can pay the most…They are money hungry people and need to be shut down. Please do not support these people who claim to be helping dogs. Have you any ideal how many loving good hearted people want a gog to love and spoil but cant afford the fees this place wants…sad sad sad. Its not about the animal its money. Ellen was not thinking of money she did not ask for money she asked that the dog be loved cared for and wanted…..but the mutts lady wanted money. Now they need to refund all the money Ellen gave them…They wont because its not about loving homes for animals its all about the money honey………DO NOT GET ANIMALS FROM THESE WOMEN
October 21st, 2007 at 10:45 amI’m sorry to say that I really can’t understand why everyone is so determined that the puppy go to the family that DeGeneres chose. If the “new” family is so wonderful, why on earth won’t they bother to go through the adoption process? It would require a quick trip to the “new” home to ensure that the situation is a good fit for Iggy and would make everyone happy.
Mutts and Moms does, really, a thankless job (though I’m sure they’d tell you, heartless as they are, that the knowledge that the puppies they save are safe and in good homes is thanks enough), and they have the animal’s best interests at heart.
What’s shameful about the whole situation is that although Marina handled the situation (if you’ve seen the e-mails - if not, go to The Smoking Gun) professionally, kindly, and compassionately, she was made out to be the “bad guy.” The situation was CLEARLY manipulated by Madame DeGeneres (and yes, I USED to be a fan), and Ms. Batkis was SMEARED unfairly.
Personally, I would consider it to be poetic justice if M&M, sued DeGeneres for defamation of character. At the very least, DeGeneres shouldn’t be sympathized with as much as these women who work so hard to save the very animals you’re “watching.”
November 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pmMutts & Moms:
If you’re taking the time (and the risk of stress) reading this, please know that there ARE people out there that know what you’re doing is selfless, kind, and just.
You are NOT in the wrong here. Degeneres is, for using the media to vilify you because she wasn’t able to get her way. You are HEROES. And by God, you should be treated as such. You do what very, very few people would ever have the stomach to do. Not just picking up dog doo, but finding animals who are injured and nursing them back to health. Seeing the abuses that man heaps on animals and still managing to find homes for these animals (I’d never trust another human again, if I saw what you have, I’m sure). You’re amazing people!!
I wish you the best of luck and best for the future. And for the animals’ sakes, I hope you go back to doing the miracles you do. God Bless you all!!
Hugs!!
November 5th, 2007 at 1:18 pmCMP