Ellen DeGeneres told Ryan Seacrest this morning that she was concerned over reports that Iggy, the dog at the center of her adoption controversy, had been given away to a new family – not her hairdresser’s.
Seacrest got DeGeneres on the phone during his KIIS-FM radio program in L.A., and said to her, “I heard this morning that this dog, Iggy, is now with another family.”
DeGeneres replied: “Yeah, that’s what I just heard, too. The statement was, ‘Finally, it’s in a safe home.’ Which is an unbelievable statement. I mean, the whole situation is surreal. I can’t even begin to tell you the disbelief.”
Citing the attorney for rescue agency Mutts & Moms, The Insider reported Wednesday that the dog has indeed been placed in a new home.
Seacrest asked DeGeneres, “Why did they place the dog somewhere else without figuring this out?” She replied: “I guess so that people would just leave them alone. I don’t know.”
DeGeneres reiterated to Seacrest that she had made a mistake in not following the rules in giving Iggy to her hairdresser’s family. But she claimed once again that the rescue agency was punishing the dog and her friend’s family for that mistake.
She also agreed with Seacrest when he suggested the agency had a personal vendetta against DeGeneres herself.
“I don’t even understand the latest statement in the press, which is, ‘I won’t let the Ellen DeGenereses of the world get away with this,’ ” she said.
DeGeneres went on to suggest that Mutts & Moms enforces its rules arbitrarily. One such rule, she said, is that it does not allow families with children under 14 to adopt – a rule she said the agency has not always followed in the past.
Also, she said, she was never asked to fill out an adoption application and never had a home evaluation – also supposed rules.
DeGeneres said she had little recourse at the time the dog was taken back because the agency was still listed as the owner on the dog’s microchip.
Asked what she would like to happen next, DeGeneres said, “I want Iggy’s health and safety, number one. I would like Iggy to come back to that family, because I gave Iggy to that family, and that family has now had their hearts broken, and I feel responsible.”
Then she added: “But the bigger picture is, everyone [needs to be] aware of your rights, and that you have to make sure that the microchip has your name on it, someone can come at any time and take your dog away.”
Updates:
-Allegations against Mutts and Moms come forth
-LA Times weighs in on Iggygate
[Source]
pawboutique@yahoo.com
October 17th, 2007 at 6:09 pmVery well written update! I’m following the story too (partly cuz I watch her show all the time) and this has the info I’m looking for. Team Ellen. Haha.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:26 pmI hope it is not true that the gave the DOG to a New Family because that would be MEANT especially because Ellen’s name was never ADDED to the Microchip like she was told.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:16 pmIf this is the case I would suggest for Mutt’s & Mom’s to PUBLICLY apologized to ELLEN and the Hairdresser’s Family and reimburse Ellen for all the $$ she had to put out and for Pain & suffering an furthermore everyone should write
a complained letter to the Marina & The Better Business Bureau for the way Marina BAKTIS from Mutt’s & Moms
4610 Cerrillis Dr Woodland CA (pawboutique@yahoo.com) HANDLE this situation and Do NOT EVER ADOPTED AN ANIMAL from this place.
I too feel that the public should not adopt any other animals from this “rescue” organization. This is the most awful thing I have read in awhile. What about the children? Is what they feel less important than a dogs feelings? Where is Cesear in all this. I would like to know how he feels.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:41 pmEveryone wants to get all self righteous as soon as a celebrities tears begin to roll. So now you want to crucify the very people who have been serving the mission of rescuing animals? and why? Because they took one dog back due to a breach of contract on Ellen’s behalf? Talk about surreal.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:18 pmMarina is a self centered, self rightous angry, foolish woman. She should have approached Ellen civily and evaluated the hairdressers actual situation and let the gift of the dog stand. Do you really think that a woman who is on retainer with a mutimillion dollar production company can’t give a dog a decent home? If handled respectfully instead of confrontationally she would have ended up accomplishing her stated mission of finding the dog a new home and probably gotten a nice donation to their shelter. Ellen is so motivated to make her friends children happy that may still be possible if she would just get a clue and stop thinking its all about me for a change.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:28 pmEllen D. has admitted that she is responsible for breeching the contract, and she feels responsible for the dog being removed from its new home and for the sorrow of the family who lost him. She never tried to cover up the fact that when things didn’t work out between Iggy and her cats (she spent thousands of $ trying to train him to be able to adapt) that she searched for a good home for him. I feel that the rescue agency was right to let her know that she had broken the rules but they should have evaluated the home and spent some time seeing how the dog was adapting and responding to his new digs. If the family and the dog were happy and the situation was not dangerous to the dog, I don’t understand why he couldn’t stay. To go in guns ablazin’ and rip that dog from his new home is damaging to the family as well as to the dog. Iggy finally had a real loving home…what a shame that it didn’t follow the guidelines of the rescue agency. It seems to me that Mutts and Moms are more interested in controling the situation than they are in the welfare, security and happiness of Iggy.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:28 pmI can’t believe anyone can stand behind this nutball of a rescue. If they’d done their jobs in the first place and done a home visit they’d have known about the cats. Then, if they are true to their word about caring for the animals they claim to help, they’d have known Iggy was a bad match for Ellen and Portia. Then this whole ugly mess could have been avoided.
They were willing to bust every rule to have a celeb take one of their dogs then then want to cry foul when someone else breaks the rules. Idiots. They don’t deserve to be in the rescue business. What rescue worth anything would place a puppy that doesn’t like cats in a home with cats? I’m glad Ellen outed these people because they certainly are operating under some shady conditions.
Go Ellen!
October 17th, 2007 at 9:30 pmI hope there is a proper hell awaiting some of you. Esp. the poster who put the woman’s address and phone number up. That’s esp. thoughtful since the media has been reporting that they are getting death threats.
Really nice. I’m glad you Ellen fans are so nice to provide information to other unstable nutbags out there in the world.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:05 pmCDW was just alerted that home addresses and phone numbers have been posted regarding the owners of Mutts and Moms - therefore, if you leave a comment with any phone number or address of any kind, it will be deleted.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:10 pmIf I paid $3000 for a dog, then I bought my pet. Where else in the universe can you purchase something only to have the previous owner come in and take it back. That is insane.
And then to not refund my money. I call that criminal. Who regulates these type of agencies? By the looks of this incident, anybody can call themselves “rescue agency” and play God.
My donations will never go to a “dog rescue” since most of these agencies clearly feel they are better than everyone else.
The negative things being said about this agency are well deserved since I am quite sure they had no problem using Ellen for publicity purposes to promote their agency. Good for her to not let them use her like that and for pointing out the clear lack of respect they have for the rest of us!
October 17th, 2007 at 10:41 pm“”By the looks of this incident, anybody can call themselves “rescue agency” and play God.
My donations will never go to a “dog rescue” since most of these agencies clearly feel they are better than everyone else. “” (Julie)
Please do not penalie legitimate rescues because of these women and their tactics. MOST of these agencies are legitamate and are the reason why many loving homes are graced with wonderful animal members because of rescues dedicated to the welfare of all parties involved. Ellen was never even ASKED to fill out an application by these women… she was not asked for a fee but she made a generous donation. She went in there expecting to fill out an application but since the ladies KNEW who she was THEY let their precious rules slide. When you have a Legitamate animal rescue and sanctuary you have bylaws and have to qualify for the 501.3c status. In order to gain one of these certifications you have to provide extensive documents and have a board of members consisting of a President, vice president, treasurer, secretary and three or more board members to insure no scams occur. You also have to file a mission statement, provide an adoption contract that passes the state/national regulations and you have to provide budgets and financial information as well as qualified vet support and personal references. Before adopting or donating to any “rescue” request all this documentation and contact the vets and the references to make certain that the 501.3c certificate is genuiine and not generated on a color copier or computer. It is very easy to gage the honorability behind the intent just spend a few days doing the research. Not all of us (Yes I am a Rescue, with 35 years in the trenches and still going strong and proud)
Be aware, get the “down low” from the vets and animal controls in the area and check out any rescue you feel the desire to donate to. Don’t blame the entire concept and those of us who have devoted our lives and hearts and souls to this calling by the behavior of these two women.
Blessings and be well and happy.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:43 pmThey comitted fraud. The dog should be removed and given back. M&M got more money off the dog. That was not right or fair.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:07 amSo Sad! I am not really an Ellen fan but this is wrong those kids must of bonded with that dog,and the rescue is clearly not in the rescue business for the right reasons. $3000.00 for a rescue!!! I myself have resuced my current dog and yes i had to be checked out for the welfare of my sweet dog, but this is above and beyond wrong. sounds to me like mutts and moms have a racket going on, and there last concern is the best home for a dog!! It makes me sick! You can truely see Ellen cared for the animal, and you can see that was her last resort to plead for the dog. After you have an animal for a time you and the animal become bonded, how can you turn this poor dogs world upside down once again and take it away? ok sorry folks just very sad and had to vent! Find a good rescue there are a FEW out there.. Notice I say a few.. check them out, I have found the rescues that have foster homes where the current care takers know the animal are the best way to go. That is how i have found my perfect fit!! My dog is great with my kids and sooo happy!! and it only cost me 150.00!! But because i love the resuce so much i still donate yearly!
October 18th, 2007 at 4:19 pmFirst off, Ellen did not pay the adoption agency $3000 like some of you apparently think….she paided that amount AFTER the adoption to have the dog neutered and trained. The agency’s mistake was only in that they allowed Ellen to adopt the dog supposedly without signing the adoption contract and doing the home inspection…although several of the news stories I’ve read state that Ellen said she DID sign something (aparently without taking the time to read what she was signing). I am a veterinarian, and as such, I’m well aware of what can happen to animals that are adopted to homes that “don’t work out” for any number of reasons. Iggy was one of the lucky ones, although I’m sure that the hairdressers family probably wasn’t a bad fit for him, or for that family. However, what if Iggy was a dog that didn’t do any better with children than he did with Ellen’s cats? Perhaps one of the children could have been bitten when Iggy got scared by their rough play, or any number of other reasons. Many dogs, puppies included, just don’t do well with young children. And sometimes young children just aren’t responsible enough, or careful enough, to be around a small dog. Good adoption agencies have rules like this in place for VERY good reasons. I’ve seen too many instances where unwanted animals are euthanized, neglected, undersocialied, abused, fearful, or passed from home to home because no one took the time to place the pet in a suitable home. The hairdresser’s home may have been suitable for Iggy, maybe not. But if indeed the contract was signed, then Mutts and Moms had every right to take Iggy back, and find him a new home. While it is upsetting that the young children involved had to have Iggy taken away, and I do feel for them, I still feel that Iggy now having been placed in an approved home is for the best. Perhaps M&M could have investigated the hairdresser’s home for suitability before removing Iggy, but again, part of their policy is to avoid homing dogs with children under 14…for what may be a good reason. I don’t know Iggy personally, and I don’t know that family either, but I do know that the adoption agency acted in the best interests of the dog, despite what many others seem to think. And again, it may have been in the best interests of the family also: if Iggy is a dog that doesn’t do well with young children, he could have bitten one of them out of fear. Then Iggy may have been euthanized for showing “aggression.” And who would want that?!
October 18th, 2007 at 5:03 pmLISTIN MARINA YOU CAN’T GIVE AWAY ANOTHER PERSON DOG WHAT YOU DID WAS SELFISH A DOG IS LIKE FAMILY
October 18th, 2007 at 7:58 pmHello All, Lets be for real now. Was Mutts & Moms Wrong YES. Second was Ellen Wrong YES. Two wrongs dont make it right. What about the 2 little girls what kind of trama does it do to them. Reports state Mutts and Moms did not check out the home of Ellen to make sure it was suitable for IGGY. Why maybe becuase of Ellens TV show she may have plugged them so they would be able to get what $$$$. Lets be real. Yes they help animals that need homes. it costs MONEY. So lets not take that away from them. Ellen seems to be a caring person becuase she would not have spent the 3000 plus on IGGY. She has enough money she can get any kind of animal she wants. Come on you can get a PURE BREED for alot less. No she decided to get one from a Animal rescue. WHY because she hates animal I think not. She did breach the contract, But did Mutts & Moms tell her this ahead of time no all they wanted to do is find a home. So this question goes out to MUTTS & MOMS or who ever can answer DID YOU CHECK THE HOME OUT OF THE HAIRDRESSER AND WHY DID YOU TAKE IGGY OUT. Was it becuase you did not check the home out yourself or did you feel that IGGY could be at harm or is it becuase you were hurt of the chance of you not getting the free Air time. HMMMM. I am not a Ellen fan but lets be real. Reports state that the dog was taken out of the litttle girls hands who were 11 and 12 how heartless are you MUTTS & MOMS. Also did you check the new home out It seems very quick to give the home to a new family did you really check the new family out??? Or were you hoping with IGGY out of the Picture this would all die down. I dont think DEATH THREATS on MUTTS & MOMS is RIGHT. All she was trying to do is find a home for IGGY. MUTTS & MOMS is trying to do what is right. But is taking IGGY away from 2 little girls right??? ELLEN has already stated she was wrong. What about MUTTS & MOMS. I think the best thing is MUTTS & MOMS check out the home and talk to the little girls and explain what is going on and see if IGGY should stay with the girls or if something could be worked out. All please reply to my comments
October 18th, 2007 at 8:52 pmI have been involved with canine rescue groups for quite some time, and trust me when I say that most of them are decent groups and would NEVER do what Marina Baktis has done.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:01 pmI don’t think Marina Baktis should be involved with any kind of animal rescue, clearly she has neither the compassion or the sensitivity, nor ethics that should determine reaction in situations like these.
Bottom line, I think what she has done has cost animal rescue groups to suffer a huge blow, and has changed the way people are now going to perceive other groups.
Shame on you Marina Baktis, I hope you realize that your idiocy has done nothing but make the innocent suffer.
So kids under 14 are unfit to own dogs. What a bunch of elitist scum.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:34 pmThis is still America right??I too tried to go the rescue shelter way to find a new member of my family, but the hoops that some of these groups make you jump thru is insane. You just about have to sign over your first born.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:05 amI would not deal with an agency that has the right to take my pet back. The i.d. chip would have been changed first thing, as they no longer ‘own’ the dog. I would agree to give the pet back if i could not find it a home, and the pound was the only option left, if something happened to me, and i could not care for them.
I ended up going thru the classifieds instead, dealing directly with the former owner!What this rescue place did was wrong, breaking kids hearts is not in the best interest of the pet.This is America, not a gestapo-run nation.
Shame on you Marina for not taking a step back and looking at things rationally. Ellen not only gave a sizeable donation to your organization, but she went overboard to try and make things work in her home for Iggy. When things clearly would not work, she tried to do the next best thing by giving him to a home she KNEW, a home that was already dog friendly, had children that were 11 and 12 who clearly loved IGGY. The two weeks that he was there everyone bonded wonderfully. Why would you NOT step back and look at this situation, discuss things with Ellen, go into this home and do your ‘own’ evaluation. Was your ego too big? Your need for control too much? Your mystery vendetta against Ellen clouding your judgement? Maybe you wanted 15 mins. of fame? Sorry sweety, but you get what you deserve from this point on. (minus the threats) You had an opportunity to do the right thing. Ellen clearly apologized. These are rescued animals in need of good homes! What are you thinking? You have trashed your own industry my dear and if your business fails, it WILL NOT be Ellen’s fault as you will try to claim, but your own selfish doing.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:40 amThere are several false assumptions being made throughout the media coverage on this conflict, so I want to rectify those here.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:11 am1. Ellen’s contract didn’t actually stipulate any age limit (ie. no kids), so it’s reasonable to assume she was unaware of the M&M policy.
2. Ellen never actually signed this contract–it was signed by Portia.
3. Ellen gave a $600 donation to M&M, then spent additional monies to neuter/train Iggy.
4. M&M never transfered the registration of the microchip in Iggy to reflect Ellen as his new owner, despite the fact that he had been out of their possession for a month before this incident occurred.
5.M&M encouraged the hairdresser’s family to apply to adopt Iggy–which they did file–and scheduled a home visit as part of that process.
6. M&M (Marina Baktis) fraudulently used the access given for the home visit to seize the dog upon arrival in the family’s home, used the 911 emergency line to call in the police, and constrained the dog for two hours before leaving with him.
7. M&M claims to have immediately placed Iggy with a new owner, despite having misled the family into believing they were in the process of adopting the dog.
8. Despite M&M’s claims, Ellen did not identify them as the shelter when she discussed the conflict on her show; the media must have found out from another source (which may well have been M&M).
These facts point to M&M doing more to break their own rules than Ellen has. While M&M represents itself as a nonprofit animal welfare agency, it appears more and more to be a cover for animal hoarding and/or defrauding adoptive owners of fees (how many times have they collected fees for this one dog?). Moreover, their requirement that placed animals be returned to them rather than the current owners finding a new home is not justified by their screening practices as evidenced by:
A. they must never have done a visit to Ellen’s home with the puppy or they would have noted the incompatibility with Ellen’s cats
B. they never actually evaluated the home of the hairdresser’s family, despite having falsely gained access to the home for that purpose
C. the immediate placement of Iggy in a new home after his removal from the previous family (where is the home visit before he is turned over to another owner?).
These details are troubling enough to raise serious questions about M&M’s fitness to to serve as an animal rescue, leaving aside questions of whether their policies on things such as a minimum age of 14 and requiring the return of the animal for readoption, rather than allowing the present owner to carefully select an appropriate home. Legally, M&M is on very shaky ground, as they have both broken their own contract, and could well be charged with theft and fraud for their dealings with the hairdresser’s family. If they wanted to redress Ellen’s breach of their contract, they should have followed the legal process.
For more information, see articles at http://glosslip.com/2007/10/17/ellen-degeneres-shocked-to-hear-that-iggy-has-new-safe-home
This is one of the most mean-spirited, self-centered acts like this I have ever heard of. And why, to prove a point that your organization can do whatever they want with this dog? And now they have placed the dog with another family? How do you think these little girls felt when they heard that you gave the dog to another fanily? And why, to prove that you can, and that you can one=up a celebrity? Well, good for you, aren’t you special!. I hope your business folds, you nasty freaks! You have no right to be in the animal rescue business! The problem with nut jobs like you is that you just don’t get it–PEOPLE COME BEFORE ANIMALS!!! Although I am a dog lover, PEOPLE ARE HUMANS__ANIMALS ARE NOT! Or maybe you are just ‘children-haters…’
October 19th, 2007 at 5:16 amDid anyone else hear about M&M not being licensed….they did not turn in some ko=ind of paperwirk in Dec and it suspended their license….so until they get their license back any contract they sign is null and void…..they should not even be able to do any business…..let me know if anyone else has heard this
October 19th, 2007 at 2:57 pmThanks
From watching all the clips on TV, I find what Marina Baktis’ actions despicable and hateful. Isn’t the goal of Mutt’s and Moms to find good loving homes to adopt these dogs out to. It seems like mistakes were made all around by Ellen DeGeneres, Marina Baktis, Mutt’s & Moms, and the police department. Ellen DeGeneres found what she felt was a good home with a good family. Marina Baktis should have attempted to resolve the matter in a professional and civil manner, but instead she made the decision to be unprofessional and hateful with no respect for the hairdresser’s daughter. I think Marina Baktis and Mutts & Moms owe the public an apology. I also think the public should boycott Mutt’s & Moms. Marina Baktis, there is a thing called ‘karma’ - what you have put out to the universe will come back to you. I don’t think people should be threatening Marina Baktis, but I do think people have a right to express their opinions.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:04 pmI really wish people would put a little time into researching a topic before jumping up on a podium and screaming as loudly as they can into the microphone just for the sake of being heard. Ellen breached the contract not only once, but TWICE. She breached it first by giving the dog away without informing the agency, and secondly by giving it to a family with children under the age of 14 which it specifically said in her contract which she SIGNED WITHOUT READING admittingly. For all you posters who think that the rescue center is doing all of this for promotional reasons ITS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION. Its not a business, and they aren’t trying to make any money, just helping dogs in need. Think about it for a second, do you really think that they can get MORE people to adopt pets by having Ellen yell about how they took away a pet from a family with children? Also there are those who said ‘but Ellen spent $3000 on the dog so she MUST care about it’ how much money do you think that Ellen makes every day? $3000 to her MEANS NOTHING. Ellen has almost garunteed the destruction of this animal shelter which there are not enough of to begin with in the U.S. I have adopted multiple animals both from shelters and the pound and they all have very similar rules and contracts that must be obliged in order to adopt to ensure THE SAFETY OF THE ANIMAL. The bottom line is that the damage has been done and all Ellen is trying to do now is get the dog back to the hairdresser’s family so SHE won’t feel bad anymore, even though that would mean ripping it away from ANOTHER family who would go through the same emotional stress that her hairdresser’s family has. All of this could have been avoided if Ellen had taken 10 minutes to read the stupid contract like everyone else and not think that because she is a celebrity that everyone has to bow down to her and brake all the rules. She is a hippocrite who needs to drop this situation and let everyone live out their lives before she messes them up worse than she already has.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:35 pmYou people who are criticizing the rescue group are mean and ignorant! These are people who give their time and effort( more important than money) to match pets and families. Breaking the rules, especially for celebrities, just shows the rules are meaningless! Ellen is totally wrong, she is too powerfull( as shown by her nasty supporters). The rescue groups focus was on the animal, as it should be, not on the children, who at that age usually get bored , and don’t understand the responsibility of pet ownership. Most of you people have been acting just horribly! You should think and act like adults!
October 20th, 2007 at 8:40 amI do not feel sorry for the owners of Mutts and Moms AT ALL. They should have visited the new family and found some way to work this out. I wonder if either of these two heartless women have any children? The feelings and emotions of the children involved should have been at the forefront of this situation.
All these tearful appearances by the owners do not make me feel sorry for them at all. They are getting what they deserve. Do either of them think anyone feels sorry for them because they claim they can’t eat or sleep and one says she is having “heart palpitations”? What did these two women think would happen when the ripped the family pet away from innocent children????
Mutts and Moms thought that they had a contract, it had been violated and they were in control. Well, I’m so happy to see that their business is destroyed as well as their reputation.
I’m now reading that they aren’t even up to date with the Secretary of State. I hope that the full force of the State of California comes down on these two women and their questionable business practices!
October 20th, 2007 at 11:54 amI think the hairdresser’s family should file for custody of the dog in court.
It’s come to light that the license of the rescue orginazation was expired, so that would make the contract non-binding.
There were mistakes on all sides- but this rescue is making all rescues look bad because of how this matter was handled.
I grew up with dogs and my child is growing up with dogs- she was 5 when we got our current… there is no reason for kids not to have a dog in the home as long as the parents are responsible owners and make sure the kids learn to treat the dogs properly.
October 20th, 2007 at 2:18 pmYou folks who are criticizing Mutts and moms, are just pathetic star gazers who care nothing for animals! The dog is just a toy to two little girls- they will get over it quick! When most of you commentators grow up and have children yourself you will realize that pandering to young children is a losing proposition! I can’t believe I live in a country of such ignorant,immature brats!
October 21st, 2007 at 8:02 amPeter, my understanding is that the contract did not state the age requirements. That’s part of the problem. They did not do a home check, and they were not asked to fill out an application.
And now it’s out that Mutts and Moms don’t have a license to operate, which most likely makes the contract null and void.
When I was 7, I trained my dog Sarge and we were inseparable. I was very kind to him and was the beginning of a love affair with dogs that led me to be a trainer and rescuer. I have the same clause - that the dog must be returned. I am not HAPPY if someone fails to do that, but for the sake of the dog I would certainly check out the new home and give them an opportunity to adopt. It’s about doing what’s best for the dog, not about egos or control or retribution.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:24 pm