New debate re:dog adoption

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

TV viewers in the US will be aware that there's been a controversy about a dog adoption involving Ellen DeGeneres. (I'm avoiding my inclination to drag this into the concern people display about the adoption of children, here. )Here's a link for people who actually watch "news". http://television.aol.com/news/story...16225309990004

My question is, if the problem actually is that the family has an 11 year old and a 12 year old, what do you think about rules that prohibit the adoption of certain dogs by families with younger children? How would this have affected your family?

[The Telcontarion]

Yeah I remember hearing something about this and Helen was crying on her show.

The way I originally saw it was what stupid crap was this where you take away the animals from kids who are bonded to them. why? According to your article, it turns out there are rules that this animal rescue agency has in place for the protection of the animal; I still think it makes no sense what so ever and now the children suffer - why can't children under 14 cannot own a dog, the way I see it that is the perfect age for a dog. A child under 14 has time to run and play and spend time with the animal (just as I did at 3 years old and up with my dog). After that age with increasing responsibilities, social life, school hobbies etc. the purpose for a child owning a dog becomes more now sentimental than practical, a family member as appose to a play mate. There should at least be an exception; it's a policy, not frickin law. Where is the humanity in this decision, I see known.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Yeah I remember hearing something about this and Helen was crying on her show.

The way I originally saw it was what stupid crap was this where you take away the animals from kids who are bonded to them. why? According to your article, it turns out there are rules that this animal rescue agency has in place for the protection of the animal; I still think it makes no sense what so ever and now the children suffer - why can't children under 14 cannot own a dog, the way I see it that is the perfect age for a dog. A child under 14 has time to run and play and spend time with the animal (just as I did at 3 years old and up with my dog). After that age with increasing responsibilities, social life, school hobbies etc. the purpose for a child owning a dog becomes more now sentimental than practical, a family member as appose to a play mate. There should at least be an exception; it's a policy, not frickin law. Where is the humanity in this decision, I see known.

Amen, brother.

Although, their policy is that children under 14 cant have a dog, and was probably in the agreement. But once the dog is adopted, wouldnt the person who owns it be the person to make the decision of who it goes to? There's really no reason for taking the dog away. I, like The Telcontarion, have had a dog since I was born, and see no reason for children of the age that these kids are not to have a dog. To me, it really is ridiculous.

[The last sane person]

How...daft.

I am assuming that once they signed the contract, responsiblity for the dog passed over to the new owners. It is up to them as to what happens to the dog after that. Or, that is how it normally goes, seeing as the actual contract isnt there to be read.

And no small dogs to children under 14? What kinda bullshit is that? If you are over fourteen, why do you want a small dog? I think small dogs are actually better for small kids, seeing as the kids would be able to more handle something terrier sized rather than german shepherd size. "For the safety of the dog" my ass, if some little kid didn't take a shine to dogs just like that one they'd be dead in a matter of weeks in a pound.

I really dont see what all the fuss is about.

[Earniel]

I'm thinking, a contract once signed, should be followed. And if the contract states that the dog-adopter should return the dog to the agency should he or she no longer want to care for it, and that no dogs can be adopted through this agency by families with young kids, she should have complied.

If an adopting-agency deliberately broke its own rules, people would have gotten on its case too. No matter how unreasonable the rules sound, they were clear from the beginning and the first owners agreed to them. It is a pity both the dog and the second family are now at the short end of things. But I don't think we can fault the agency for following its own rules.

I also think it's rather irresponsible to go complaining about this on television, resulting in death threats at the address of the agency, and no doubt a drop in prospective dog-adopters. Especially when you're the one at fault. Personally I would just have gone to an agency with less of such limiting rules, and adopt a dog with less hassle.

That said, I find the rule of no small dogs for kids below 14 rather strange. If they were dangerous dogs, then it would make sense, but 'small dogs'? Of all dogs that sort should be safe to kids. To reverse that reasoning and say that it's for the dog's protection, thus implying that kids below 14 are a possible danger to those dogs, is just far-fetched. I don't think I want to know what sort of kids they were thinking of when making that rule...

I know plenty of children younger than 14 being able to care perfectly for pets. I've had several pets when I was that age, although most of them were strays and not adopted (that only happened afterwards) so the situation wouldn't have applied. But being around animals when you're young can only be beneficial IMO, for both children and animals. A lot of animals may not have been adopted if not for companionship for kids, and kids learn a lot from and about animals when they can come in contact with them at home.

[brownjenkins]

I agree with Eärniel, a contract is a contract, eventhough the rules about kids are kind of strange.

That said, I wouldn't get a dog for my kids for it's own safety. With the damage they do to one another, I can't imagine how a dog would fare.

[Rían]

The age limit seems very high, but I can understand the other part (about not passing on the dog to someone else). These agencies really DO have the best interests of animals in mind - come on, it's volunteer! - and we went through one for our first dog, and they had the same rule about if we don't want it, give it back. I can see why - some jerks could just keep coming, getting cute dogs, and then selling them on the street to any jerk that comes by for some cash. That's what they told us that the rule was for, and it makes sense. I think the kids' age thing is way out of line, though - the place we got our dog from didn't have that, and we ended up having our first kid a few years after we got the dog, and they just loved each other.

I agree with Earniel that complaining about this on tv was not classy - just arrogant prima donna behavior. Another innocent group who did nothing wrong getting penalized by a powerful person who did something wrong (even if she didn't know it then, but she did when she complained on tv).

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by The last sane person

And no small dogs to children under 14? What kinda bullshit is that? If you are over fourteen, why do you want a small dog?

I'm 19, and I wanted a small dog because I wanted a lap dog . Something to cuddle with and hold in my arms--she's my little baby.

Also she eats less, poops less, would have more trouble physically harming me by purpose or accident, isn't hard for me to control if she gets scared or wants to chase something, and in general I've found that the few scared-of-dog people I've met have been somewhat less frightened of my small dog.

That's why people over 14 might want a small dog .

[BeardofPants]

Smaller dogs are more likely to have the 'small dog thinks its a big dog' syndrome. There's a reason why chihuahua's are known to be vicious little ****ers.

[Lotesse]

That dog-adoption agency woman is ridiculous. I wouldn't trust her to place a cockroach. She knew full well that the dog was safely and happily and VERY well placed again in DeGeneres' co-worker's home with the 11 and 13 year old daughters who bonded beautifully with the dog, everyone was happy, and why did the utts agency decide to take the dog away WITH POLICE INTERVENTION and cite contractual small-print as a reason why? They couldn't make a humane, kind-hearted, caring exception, seeing the dog very happy and extremely well placed in his new home with his new family? Dirty, pathetic maneoeuvering on the part of this private animal adoption agency. They obviously did NOT care about the well-being and happiness of the dog. And to bring police to this family's home, to retrieve an adopted little dog?? Talk about posturing and attention-seeking ego-blown publicity/strong arm tactics, all with the excuse that a contract was not observed - a contract about a living animal who needed a happy, good home and found one. That Mutts woman did NOT have the dog's best interest at heart.

http://www.celebitchy.com/6734/ellen..._someone_else/

Says J. Harvey in her blog re: this Dog Debacle:

"The Ellen DeGeneres story about her dog is incredibly heart breaking. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone melt down in such a raw, emotional way on television. It just made me ache for her, and anyone that would be so heartbroken. You can tell that she really is a good, honest, decent person to be so upset that she accidentally caused pain to children. I feel terribly for her.

I also am pretty pissed off at the adoption agency she used. They sound disorganized, unethical, and incredibly vindictive. The lady who runs the adoption agency lied to the family Ellen gave the dog to. She told them she was just coming over to look at their house and make sure it was okay for the dog, but then called the cops and took the dog away. The only reason she was even able to do this was that the family did the right thing and filled out an adoption form online. And because DeGeneres has given the dog to a nice family, the lady was infuriated and vindictive and did what made her feel good instead of what was best for the dog or the family. Apparently she’s now getting death threats.

(quote)The attorney for Mutts & Moms tells “The Insider� that ELLEN DeGENERES’ formerly adopted dog has been placed in a new home. On her show Wednesday, Ellen addressed the importance of micro-chipping pets to insure proper ownership. She contends that the reason she cannot claim ownership of her adopted dog, IGGY, is because his identity chip was still registered to the rescue agency.

Sources tell ET that while the agency claims Ellen broke her contract by giving him away to a trusted co-worker, the Mutts & Moms owners themselves have not followed all the rules set by their company. They allegedly did not require Ellen or her partner PORTIA DeROSSI to fill out an application, nor did they change the registered owner information as they said they would. Additionally, it is said the contract in question does not contain an age clause, another reason given by Mutts & Moms for taking back the dog.

Our sources also tell us the family Ellen gave the dog to — her hairdresser, her husband and their two pre-teen daughters — did fill out an application online when the dog took up residence with them. It was at that time the agency said they would come out to inspect their property as part of the adoption process. Instead, they reclaimed the dog and calling the police. As Mutts & Moms were officially registered as the owners by the chip, authorities turned over custody to them.


This is so sad. I worked at a vet clinic for a year, and came across a lot of different people that dealt with animals. Though most of them were really nice and caring, there was this bizarre subset of people that were really stuck up and full of themselves and very, “I know what’s best for your dog, not you.� Like I said, there weren’t many of them, but they tended to be so rude and arrogant and similar to each other that they really stuck out.

When I adopted a cat a few years ago, the shelter explained to me that she had already been microchipped, and that they had a policy of not changing the name and address on the chip to the new owners. Their reasoning was that people move a lot and rarely remember to update Home Again (the microchip company) with their new address. Thus if the dog is lost and found, the chip is useless. The shelter’s logic was that they would keep the address in their name, so that if the cat was lost, she’d at least be returned to them instead of euthanized. And then, theoretically, I could call the shelter and get the cat back. Slightly convoluted logic, but it works. But they also made a point of telling me all of this, even thought it was in the very long contract I signed. They also made me sign that I wouldn’t give the cat away to anyone, but would bring it back to them. Again, because the contract was so long, they pointed out these important things so I knew them. It sounds like no one did that for Ellen, and why in the world would you know that if you don’t work with animals all day long? It’s just not something a person would think about; when you take on an animal as your responsibility, you naturally assume it’s your job to find them a new, good home if it comes to that.

I really hope this doesn’t turn people off from how great it is to adopt shelter pets. It is a wonderful thing to do, you’re saving a life and bringing something fluffy in to your home. Don’t let one bad place scare you off. "

http://www.celebitchy.com/6734/ellen..._someone_else/

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Tessar

I'm 19, and I wanted a small dog because I wanted a lap dog . Something to cuddle with and hold in my arms--she's my little baby.

And how is lil' Rosie these days?

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Smaller dogs are more likely to have the 'small dog thinks its a big dog' syndrome. There's a reason why chihuahua's are known to be vicious little ****ers.

There's some truth in that. The only dogs that ever attempted to bite off my ankles (on numerous occasions I might add) is that little white monster that lives a few houses down the street. But I have yet to hear of someone being mauled by a gang of yorkshires while stories of big dogs wounding and killing children are pretty much rife.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

But I have yet to hear of someone being mauled by a gang of yorkshires

*pictures a scruffy looking group of Yorkies smoking cigarettes and sporting chains, hanging out at a street corner looking for trouble*

Well, I hope the new home works out for the dog, and the hairdresser's family gets another good dog. Sounds like just one of those bad situations where everyone gets hurt ...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

*pictures a scruffy looking group of Yorkies smoking cigarettes and sporting chains, hanging out at a street corner looking for trouble*

Well, I hope the new home works out for the dog, and the hairdresser's family gets another good dog. Sounds like just one of those bad situations where everyone gets hurt ...

Rian, do ya want to hear my theory? And I'm totally talking through my hat, here.

I think the adopt lady thought Ellen was a 'perfect" home for the dog, because she's in a "double income no kids" house. I'll bet she networks a lot through the woman's community. She was outraged that her prejudice against families wasn't shared by Ellen.

14 is ridiculous. Being concerned a small dog would be mauled by unruly toddlers is one thing. I think this is just discrimination against families...and going to the house with police (and possibly under false pretenses) is just plain shocking.

Civil recourse in contract law doesn't include showing up at a stranger's house with the cops.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I think the adopt lady thought Ellen was a 'perfect" home for the dog, because she's in a "double income no kids" house. I'll bet she networks a lot through the woman's community. She was outraged that her prejudice against families wasn't shared by Ellen.

14 is ridiculous. Being concerned a small dog would be mauled by unruly toddlers is one thing. I think this is just discrimination against families...and going to the house with police (and possibly under false pretenses) is just plain shocking.

Civil recourse in contract law doesn't include showing up at a stranger's house with the cops.

Yes, YES!! Exactly. I think also it was a petty power-thing, like J. Harvey said, incredibly vindictive, and for that agency woman to lie to her about why she's coming over to the house and then - surprise! - arriving there with police?? When as you say, Sis, it was a minor and petty civil matter, not some terrible criminal matter. Not only that, but:

Sources tell ET that while the agency claims Ellen broke her contract by giving him away to a trusted co-worker, the Mutts & Moms owners themselves have not followed all the rules set by their company. They allegedly did not require Ellen or her partner PORTIA DeROSSI to fill out an application, nor did they change the registered owner information as they said they would. Additionally, it is said the contract in question does NOT contain an age clause, another reason given by Mutts & Moms for taking back the dog.

Idiots.

[Earniel]

Nevertheless, I'd be careful about branding people based on hearsay from a blog. The blog-writer was smart enough to include 'alleged' and 'it is said', so don't go taking that as facts immediately.