ForumGarden

And is taking some heat for it:



DeGeneres

Thats is ridiculous. She found a good home for the dog. Does this Mutts and Moms have some kind of agenda where they only want celebrities to own their rescued dogs? And $3,000 to fix and adopt a dog is also ridiculous. Doesn't sound like a non profit organization to me.

Part of the adoption process, involves a home check - checking for suitability, environment, other pets and children etc. Some pets, through their personalty, or caused by previous abuse are not suitable in certain environments - like maybe a house with children. Also, pet adoption agents will check for previous abuse cases on a 'would be owner'. No animal shelter wants to rescue a dog from a bad/abusive home and then throw them back at abuse. If the 'hairdresser's' checks come back ok, I'm sure the shelter would consider allowing them to adopt the dog. :-6

How sad for the kids. The whole situation could have been handled differently. Myself, I would not give a pet away unless I felt it was going to a good home.

Mutts and Moms .... Adoption Process...

http://members.petfinder.org/~CA711/web ... d_moms.htm

Quote: 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.

Really! it took me less than 1 min. to find listed phone number!.....

http://pasadena.insidelocalcities.com/pet-care.php

I'd be interested in what RG thinks about this.



I know rescues want to make sure of the dog and where it is since

a lot of times dogs get passed hand to hand and then eventually end

up in the shelter.



What makes me wonder the most is the time line, doesn't seem like

she gave the dog and/or her cats much chance to get alomg.



Ellen is known for her care of animals, though.

I'm agreeing with YZGI. If Ellen found a good home for the dog, then it shouldn't of been removed.

Sheryl;709261 wrote: I'm agreeing with YZGI. If Ellen found a good home for the dog, then it shouldn't of been removed.


I agree, it could of been handled a little differently, to lessen the trauma to both children and dog. However, the home, the occupants and their history without a doubt should have been checked. In this case, she may have found a good home for the dog - but there are many cases where a dog could have been transferred to an unsuitable home.

I would come out with a clean history in the 'adoption process' , BUT whats to stop me from adopting dogs from many different agencies, then selling them on to, say a dog fighting ring or something like that? Only follow-up checks and re-homing rules can prevent this from happening.

Both history checks and follow-ups have to been done - this process cannot be missed.

I was just discussing this with a friend today.

The $3,000 also went toward training, not just neutering. I don't know how much Mutts charges as their adoption fee. That's a hard task. The fee has to be reasonable enough so as not to put the pet out of market for most people's budget, yet still be high enough for the adopter to think of it as an investment in their pet. An adoption fee is just one of many screening tools.

We used to give cats and dogs away for free until we convinced the shelter that we needed to charge something. When people knew they had to pay a reasonable fee to have the pet fixed, they would turn away. So right there we learned who was serious about it and who just wanted something free.

I do understand the return agreement. It is necessary like Pheasant said. I instituted one too in our adoption program because someone would adopt our pet, couldn't or wouldn't make it work out so they'd just give it away. And maybe the friend they gave it to had no business caring for animals. There are a lot of flakes and bottom feeders out there.

Home checks should be mandatory. We did them as well. In fact we'd deliver the pet ourselves or I'd come by later with a treat bag or paperwork I "forgot" to give them, just to check on the pet. This way you can see how the pet reacts in the new home and how the family interacts with it. Also safety. I remember one guy who told me he was all set up to adopt my boxer mix and when I went to his house, he had planned to put her in a chain link enclosure big enough to store a lawn mower and that's it. There were fishing poles in there with big hooks attached and all kinds of broken glass and nails on the ground. We left with the dog.



I wonder if the dog just chased the cats or would have caught them? How much time did she give them to get used to each other? And why didn't she just go to the pound and get a dog there? I don't know. This guy could have been a pound puppy too before Mutts took him in.

Having said all that, we're talking about Ellen DeGeneres who is reknowned for being an animal lover. This should have been considered and the Mutts folks should have gone to the new home and seen how the dog was doing and made their judgement call then. Not just yanked the dog away. Did they even consider what was best for the dog? I'm assuming the home was a good one, maybe it wasn't but I'd be surprised if not.

I read last night that the reason the dogs were removed was because the children where under the age of 14. Apparantly thier policy is not to adopt out small dogs to families with children under the age of 14. But these kids where 10 and 11 and I think that would be old enough for a small dog.

Did anyone see her show yesterday? Very moving, she was very upset.

It seemed more honest than any of the other "My mistake I'm sorry"

things you hear from people.



I bet footage of that will show up somewhere soon if any of didn't

see it.