Ellen DeGeneres: I Never Had To Fill Out An Application Or Have My Home Inspected
In the continuing saga of Iggy the puppy (I won’t go into the backstory here, you can read it on the site), Ellen has told radio host Ryan Seacrest that Mutts and Moms are, at best, inconsistent with their agency policies:
In an exclusive phone conversation with E!’s Ryan Seacrest Wednesday, DeGeneres reiterated her dismay over the dog being taken away, and denied that she had been deliberately trying to disregard the agency’s policies, saying, “The whole situation is surreal.”
“I will say this: we never filled out an application. We never had a home evaluation,” she told Seacrest, indicating the agency was somewhat unpredictable about adhering to its own rules.
Aha. So all this crap about home inspections and applications is just that…crap. Yes, Portia signed an agreement that had Ellen’s name on it…but an agreement is a far cry from an application. MaM is making it sound like there are an entire series of hoops that have to be jumped through to adopt a dog, when in reality it seems like all you have to do is show up, pick out a dog, and sign an agreement.
I mean, get real…if this woman was so good at picking out the perfect home, couldn’t she have seen in advance that the dog and Ellen’s cats wouldn’t mix well? Or that the dog would be a bit too hyper for Ellen’s household? No? Right…because you can’t predict these things until the dog is actually in the home for a while. Which, wait a minute, he was with this other family for two weeks, and had blended in perfectly.
Even the local Pasadena Humane Society said they would not have removed the dog from the home. And apparently Marina Baktis has filed a police report because of the harassment (please, people, stop it…there are better ways…you’re endangering the whole process as well as breaking the law).
On the video located at Access Hollywood, you can hear dogs in the background barking. Not just one dog, but lots of dogs, many dogs. It also seems, from the video, that this woman shelters many dogs who have medical issues that require medication or they will die (her words, not mine). She’s had to have them taken to the vet and had a two thousand dollar bill for medical services for these dogs because she has not been able to properly medicate these dogs due to the stress of this case.
Now, these are just my thoughts, take them for what they’re worth. There is a very real problem among some people called “animal hoarding”. They truly believe they are doing a good deed, but in reality they are prolonging the misery of the animal. It ranges from one end of the spectrum, which is collecting many animals and trying to find them homes, but being hypervigilant about it, to the other end of the spectrum, which is collecting and keeping more animals than they can care for and ignoring their physical needs to the point that the animals are in real danger.
I am NOT saying this woman is putting any animals in danger. I am NOT saying she is ignoring their physical and medical needs. I am NOT saying that I know for certain that she has animal hoarding tendencies. What I AM saying is that she seems to be entirely too hypervigilant about where these animals go…attempting to pick out the perfect home, with no children under fourteen, and only she can be the one to make that decision. Nobody else can make that decision. She alone knows what is best for these animals. It is a form of obsessive/compulsive behavior.
Let’s face it. As much as we do not like to think about it, every animal reaches the point where keeping it alive is just cruel, due to physical ailments. And YES, some animals can live full and happy lives while taking medication every day, but for some it is just prolonging the suffering, and who is best to make that decision? Is this woman a licensed vet? Does she have some sort of animal degree? If you are prolonging an animal’s life who needs this amount of care every day, just who are you thinking of….the animal, or yourself? If you’re to the point of you have to give the animal medication or it will die (her words, not mine), are you doing it for their good, or to make yourself look good? “Look at me, without me these poor animals would not have a good home, without me these animals would die, aren’t I a good animal rescuer?”
I think Mutts and Moms needs to be investigated far beyond just the Ellen DeGeneres puppy. Is there a limit on how many animals one can keep in a residential area? I am interested in how many animals were behind that fence.
I am an animal lover, I have been involved with animals for years now, I even rescued my own cats as kittens, and all of this pains and angers me. This woman is acting in an obsessive, power trippy, uncaring, selfish way. Ellen screwed up. She apologized profusely. What more do you want? I know…she wants to make her point. Okay, you’ve made yourself sick, you’ve upset a family, you’ve upset Ellen, is that enough to get your point across? You made your point, lady, now be a decent person and just GIVE THE DOG BACK.
Pink Stripe WordPress Theme Designed by Joni Mueller &
Man k, you ARE the voice of reason in the den of iniquity!
Comment by D — October 17, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
You are right and it actually is a form of abuse not to give up the dogs that are loving homes. There is a gross overpopulation of homeless dogs and cats in this country–in this world. This woman has a serious problem.
For those that would like to peacefully support Ellen, the family, and Iggy, please go to the link below (and please pass it on!):
http://www.petitiononline.com/FreeIggy/petition.html
Comment by jenn — October 17, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
When all the sound and the fury eventually passes, Mutts and Moms will have set back the cause of animal rescue at least 20 years. What sort of idiot would choose to empower sanctimonious control freaks like these when they can get a dog for free outside of a grocery store?
Comment by David F. Prenatt, Jr. — October 17, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
#3: I think that Ellen, as so many of us have, hoped that by purchasing a dog from a rescue agency, she was both helping an animal and helping future animals find homes with the fee she paid.
It would seem that, in this case, neither of those things will happen.
It is sad, and as you pointed out, gives a huge black mark on animal rescue agencies everywhere. So many do good work, and are run by unselfish people, and then one like this comes along. Sad.
btw, I read your article, and thought it was excellent.
Comment by k — October 17, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
I TOTALLY agree with this story. It makes perfect sense.
Comment by Damon — October 17, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
#5: Animal hoarding is a very misunderstood and misdiagnosed problem. People do truly believe they are “helping” animals. And they may very well help some. But when they get to saying things like, “We are the only ones who can determine what is best for the animal,” and “We are the only ones who care, see how we saved their lives,” and “Nobody can do this job but me,” and “If it were not for us, these poor animals would die,” that is classic animal hoarding behavior.
It is a form of obsessive/compulsive behavior. There is help if one chooses to look for it.
And thank you for the comment, I appreciate it.
Comment by k — October 17, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
As someone who got my cats from a very strict agency that rescues strays in New York City, I know that some agencies have very strict rules about adopting their animals. The reason is simple - they’ve seen everything and know that many people are jerks. They want a dog until they have a baby, they want a dog until they find a place and it doesn’t happen to allow them, they want a dog and their kids break its legs.
So it’s not unusual for people in the pet adoption agency to be really strict. The problem here is, if this agency is a legitimate one, they’ve cut off their nose to spite their face. Who will give them any money now? Worse - who will adopt from them?
The way to handle this was, when the agency learned what had happened, called on the hairdresser’s family and explain their concerns, and have them sign something that says if it doesn’t work out, they would return the dog. Easy. Simple. Just. Now look what they’ve done. Iggy has no home, this stupid woman has filed a police report and is telling people that the Ellen Degenereses of the world aren’t going to push her around. If Ellen DeGeneres were Michael Vick, I could understand her concern. But this is a popular woman who has made it clear how much she loves animals. Ellen is in a position to have done a lot for this woman’s agency. Stupid, stupid people.
Comment by Lorraine — October 17, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
THE RESCUE PEOPLE ARE RIGHT.
ELLEN IS WRONG, AFTERALL, SHE GAVE THE DOG AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Marilyn Johnson — October 17, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
Oh yes, the rescue people are always right just because they are instantly ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ people because they are “rescue people”. How do you think someone becomes a rescue person? Go to school? Get certified? Regulated? Special DNA? Nope.
Go pick up a couple of stray dogs and make up your own contract and now you are a rescue person not to be questioned and granted the instant moral high-ground to judge ALL other people that might actually wish to be or ever have been a pet owner.
Give me a break.
Comment by roonie — October 17, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
What a mess. The purpose of rescuing a pet and adopting it is to find it a loving home. Ellen claims to have done so but the agency was quick to snatch Iggy back. The agency should have been a bit more patient. I just hope Iggy finds a great home. He’s a celebrity pooch now.
Comment by Celebrity Trashcan — October 17, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
Since when is having you publicist call and threaten to use “negative publicity” to get your way, qualify as apologizing?? A contract or agreement is binding to the signer whether they are Hollyweird elite or just us common folk.
Comment by Miz — October 17, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
I have adopted a dog from a rescue and it stated in her contract not to give the dog to another home. I have worked with several rescue agencies. If the dog is IN a good home why didnt the agency just run a app on the family that had her and left it alone? how hard can it be? everyone would be happy. Now I hear that the dog has been placed in another home alreaty. I think that it is pretty stupid mutts and moms to just work out something, after all it is about the dog getting into a good home, not breaking a rule.
btw– article was great I agree!
Comment by Nikki — October 17, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
Most of Southern California does have limits on how many animals can be kept at a residential property. I didn’t hear the video, but if it sounds like a lot of dogs, I would turn her into the police for being a collector. Unfortunately, a lot of these “animal rescues” turn out to be animal collectors instead. Having too many pets is a great way to spread disease and everything else.
Comment by Melody — October 17, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
It is time to take a good look at all the pet rescues. I have been a volunteer for a few. There are some very reputable rescues and more that are not. They pull in the volunteers and fosters that really care for the dogs and cats. Then you find out that they are really a for profit rescue. They use some one else’s 501c3 until they get caught, then use some one else’s. They usually use one from a reputable rescue. Some of them never give a copy of the contract to the NEW OWNER. That way they have no proof of what is in the contract. In many states a dog or cat is considered private property. And their contract will not hold up in court. But they still use it as a bluff that most people fall for. When it comes to the micro chips that are put in the dogs by the shelter or rescue. Some of the rescues do not send in the registration with the new owners as the owner, but as the secondary contact. And some do not send it in at all and it remains registered to the shelter, rescue or vet that purchased the micro chips. Then if a dog ends up in a shelter the rescue is contacted not the owner. Some rescues then never contact the owner, but adopt out the dog again, or have a different rescue do it for them out of the area. The application process is an area that is good for the most part. It is to make sure that a dog or cat is going to a good home and good match for the dog and that it will not end up back in a shelter. But some of the rescues are breed rescues that are more interested in if you deserve there breed. Many of the rescues will only take cash. That never seems to get put on there books. Some do home checks and some do not. I think that a home check is a must for a reputable rescue. If the rescue that you get your pet from dose not do a home check, then it is no better then a pet store, and most likely just in it for the money. When it comes to vet bills, some rescues will milk donations for many times the amount needed and for long after a dog or cat has been adopted. I have spent thousands of hours and dollars fostering and volunteering. I have seen it all and more. You tell your self that they are saving these dogs and cats, but you are really hurting the reputable rescues. Some times you have to go through a few rescues before you find one that is reputable and doing it only to save the dogs and cats. There are many good rescues out there, but there are just as many or more that are not. I think it is time that they were all looked at very closely.
Comment by Dog Lover — October 17, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
I would like to know why Mutts and Moms did not go by their own policy and do a home check on Ellen. Also on the application it asks about other pets. Why would they adopt out this pup to a home with cats? A reputable rescue would already know if the dog got along with cats and if not, would never have adopted the dog out to a home with cats. Their application, adoption procedures, contract and there responsibility to the dog all seem to have gone out the window when they could say they adopted a dog to Ellen.
It looks like Mutts and Moms will now fell what it is like on the other side of what goes around comes around. The sad part of this besides what she did to the little girl and her family is that Mutts and Moms have heart all reputable rescue. Hopefully future adopters will look close at the contracts and weather or not the rescue is a real non profit (with there own 501c3) before they adopt. Just because they say there a non profit, dose not mean they are.
If you are looking to adopt a pet make sure you are looking at a reputable rescue. They are out there.
Comment by Dog Lover — October 18, 2007 @ 2:20 am
Rescue agencies are all different. If you don’t like the rules and regulations of one, then go somewhere else. This group has the right to be selective on where “their” pets go. They are the ones that put their lives, time and energy on the line each and every day. Really…if it weren’t for Ellen crying and being a Hollywood star and pitching a little fit, would you care? There are thousands of dogs/puppies/cats/kittens that are killed each year because there are too many pets, not enough homes…maybe you should work harder at getting spay/neuter programs in place vs spending so much time bashing an agency that is trying to make a real difference.
GW
Comment by GW — October 18, 2007 @ 7:11 am
#16: Yes, I would care. Since you don’t know me or anything about me, please don’t presume to tell me how I feel or what I would do, or assume you know what I have done.
Mark my words, this story is not done yet. There is more that will come out.
Comment by k — October 18, 2007 @ 7:25 am
Rescue agencies look after dogs that have already been abandoned, and do so on an entirely volunteer basis. The dog had already been abandoned, and after filling out an application, Ellen had abandoned the dog a second time. She did so after a very short time for a very weak reason, before any training could kick in.
Rescue organizations make sure the animals will go to a loving home. If Ellen is able to give up an animal so quickly for such a sorry reason, she should give serious consideration before using her national exposure and access to media as a soapbox to espouse her virtues as someone fit to decide on the puppy’s wellbeing. She was unable (unwilling) to care for it herself, and has put a volunteer organization through hell in order to get her way.
Questions need to be considered: Why has the family who received the dog not bothered to apply for it on their own? Why didn’t Ellen personally try to smooth this over with the agency rather than go directly on her show and cry alligator tears?
It’s petulant behaviour. She should stop insisting the dog be returned to the family, apologize to the agency and use this exposure to do some good for animal rescue. Using the children of the family as emotional collateral in this scenario is cheap manipulation, and for all her claims to love animals, Ellen should realize that the end result of this will be one less animal rescue agency able to save pets once abandoned by people (like herself), and more animals needlessly destroyed.
Comment by Andy — October 18, 2007 @ 8:27 am
#18: Apparently you have not read my most recent article on the subject. The family DID fill out an app, at the agency’s request, but that was just a ruse for the agency to come to the house and forcibly remove the dog.
Also, Marina was first to say she would go to the press and expose this. All Ellen did was have the event taped to cover her behind and have a record of what happened.
Comment by k — October 18, 2007 @ 8:58 am
Okay, now I get it after watching the video. How many times did she mentioned her cash-strapped situation? At least six times. She implies that her terms for relocating the dog to Ellen’s hairdresser’s family were for them to adopt the dog themselves, and presumably pay some additional adoption fees: “if you have a friend who’s interested [in a dog you've adopted but can't keep] they can go through our [adoption] process.” So I’m wondering, would she have okayed the relocation of Iggy to Ellen’s hairdresser’s family if they had paid the adoption fees to ‘re-adopt’ Iggy?
See, Ellen, you did it wrong. You should have paid off the shelter at the same time you gave the dog away. They really need the money. Hmmm…if they’re so successful as a pet adoption agency(”ask any of our hundreds of adoptees”) then why are they so broke?
What’s missing in this situation is some basic common sense. Why did Ellen need to publicly humiliate the adoption agency? Like lots of people, I felt really bad for Ellen and especially for the hairdresser’s family. But public histrionics were not really the best way to deal with the issue.
But then, why didn’t MandM try to work with the family and Ellen to give Iggy a trial with the new family instead of using (what appears to me to be) these iron-fisted tactics? Baktis comes across in the video as a patronizing, overbearing authoritarian who thinks she is the only one who knows what’s best. Hey, there are thousands and thousands of people who are just as good, or better, with their pets than Baktis. And some of them don’t forget to provide the proper care to their pets even when they’re under extreme stress.
Comment by B — October 18, 2007 @ 9:12 am
She’s so broke, she obviously had to steal her Chanel glasses. And like I said elsewhere, if she had the money to pay $2000 to a vet, then she has about $1998.50 more in the bank than I do.
If you go to the front page of the site and read my latest article on it, you can see the links to the TMZ videos which show Marina in the backyard with the dog, holding it for two hours, not allowing it to eat, drink, or go potty. Oh, and she asked the family to fill out an app, but apparently only as a ruse to allow her into their home to take Iggy.
Comment by k — October 18, 2007 @ 9:24 am
How many dogs has Ellen had and then given away within 6 weeks? I know of at least 3 that she’s talked about on her show. Anyone remember the “name my puppy” contest? Ellen has a serious mental problem if she is constantly adopting dogs and then giving them away in a few weeks.
Comment by wetcnt — October 18, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Bureaucrats don’t even know how to give away a dog.
Comment by Matt — October 20, 2007 @ 6:41 pm