Mutts and Moms: Ellen Ruined Our Reputation
(for the entire series of articles on Ellen, Iggy, and this whole situation, click here.)Â
One woman at the center of the Ellen DeGeneres dog controversy is finally speaking out. A bit of backstory…Marina Baktis and Vanessa Chekroun own Mutts and Moms, a dog rescue agency, where Ellen adopted little Iggy. After discovering that, even after training, Iggy just didn’t get along with her cats and was a bit too high-energy for her household, Ellen tried to give Iggy a good home by giving the dog to her hairdresser’s family. It hit the fan then, because she wasn’t supposed to do that as per the contract that was signed when she adopted the dog, and MaM eventually had the police come and take the dog away.
Apparently the owners are none too happy at all the attention this has received, even though they were the ones who initially threatened Ellen with going to the media:
“People are being so cruel to us. People are sending things that say ‘Nazi’ and words that I can’t repeat. You know so we can’t even review [adoption] applications because at this point we think [the threat givers] are just gonna come and try to hurt our animals.â€
[Marina] Baktis told Access that she’s worried for her safety and that her own dogs are being threatened.
“I haven’t eaten, I’m sick, and I’ve had heart palpitations,†she said.
She also claims that she’s losing business at her store, Paws Boutique, and that she’s had to remove Mutts and Moms Web site from the Internet.
“Now we can’t go to work because there is all this media… And so we’re losing business… Our reputation, they ruined our reputation,†Baktis continued.
I’d have to say you ruined your own reputation with your callousness and high-handedness, but I won’t say that.
Furthermore, they say that at this point there is absolutely no way that the family is going to get Iggy back:
Baktis has now said that she would never give back Iggy to the family that DeGeneres handed him off to.
“No, that is not a consideration at this point, no,†Baktis told Access. “Not after the way we’ve been treated, no. We have been terrorized, it has been horrible.â€
Attorney Keith A. Fink, who doesn’t legally represent Baktis and Chekroun (but is authorized to speak on their behalf), confirmed to The Associated Press that the women will not give back Iggy.
“She doesn’t think this is the type of family that should have the dog,†Fink told the AP. “She is adamant that she is not going to be bullied around by the Ellen DeGenereses of the world … They are using their power, position and wealth to try to get what it is they want.â€
Baktis claims that DeGeneres’ celebrity is the sole reason why she’s getting all of this attention.
“Celebrities you know, they, they get preferential treatment. They have lots of money. They go into a restaurant they get a table. And so you know, this contract was breached. It was breached. So people need to understand when you enter a binding legal agreement that you can’t just go, ‘And here you go, I don’t want you.‘â€
Marina adds though, that she has no plans to sue Ellen.
That’s nice to know. At least she isn’t going to sue. That should make Ellen and this poor family sleep better tonight. Marina even says in the interview here that if the adoption doesn’t work out and an adopter has a friend who is interested in their dog, the friend can then go through their process to adopt the dog. Um, HELLO?
You know, I was hoping that these women would turn out to be people who realized that they made a mistake, jumped the gun, acted hastily, and would allow this family to go through the steps and return poor little Iggy to them. It would appear now that they are too obsessively concerned with their own feelings in the matter to even consider that they made a huge mistake. Zero tolerance has no place in things like this. And if you’re so worried about your own precious feelings and the way you were treated, instead of being concerned with the happiness of a homeless dog, maybe you shouldn’t be in a business that rescues pets in the first place.
What about Iggy? What about the feelings of this poor little dog? Iggy bonds to this family, loves them, and then is torn away from them. Already a stray, an unwanted dog, now Iggy has been neglected yet again by the very people who are supposed to have a dog’s best interests at heart. Who will do business with these people now? I’d constantly be afraid they would call the Secret Police and come get my family member (and let’s face it…as pet owners, you know they become part of your family). Plus, this business about no family with children under fourteen can adopt. WHAT??? Two, three years old, that I can understand. But if you already have an application to fill out, you can weed out the crazies that way. FOURTEEN? Whatever…I was practically raising myself at fourteen years old AND I’d had a dog for two years at that point.
She makes a huge point in the interview of saying she feels like Ellen’s celebrity is being thrown around, that celebrities get preferential treatment and they throw their weight and money around and that she is just this little maligned pet store owner. Hmm…it sounds like someone has made a reservation at Bitter, table for one. And if she’s so worried about making ends meet, why did she do this in the first place? Ellen could have been the best publicity her little pet rescue had ever received. Had she worked with this family, Ellen could have used her influence and celebrity in a way that would have BENEFITED this rescue. I am not saying Ellen has purposefully tried to harm this woman’s business, certain rabid fans took that upon themselves. But this could have been handled completely differently with a happy outcome for everyone.
You know what, Marina and Vanessa? This was NEVER about you. YOU made it about you, but it was never supposed to be about YOU. This is about a dog and its family, and because of your obsessive behavior and questionable tactics, you created the very situation you are lamenting now. If you didn’t want publicity, then why did you threaten to go to the media in the first place? All of this could have been avoided had you just allowed this family to go through the adoption steps like anyone else LIKE YOU ADMITTED IN THE INTERVIEW PEOPLE COULD DO.
Ellen didn’t follow the rules exactly. This is true, and she should have. But now everyone has to suffer? And now you’re complaining that you can’t do business because of this? Sorry, you brought this on yourself. No, I don’t agree with people making death threats and arson threats, that’s just low and wrong. I am in no way advocating violence against anyone. But perhaps you should have stopped and thought before you acted like this was a matter of national emergency in swooping in and taking this dog away. This has nothing to do with Ellen being a celebrity and everything to do with you were pissed because your precious little rules weren’t followed to the letter. Now you’re getting all high and mighty and saying you’ll never return the dog. Well, I am sure that will make you feel so much better. Made your point now?
As a pet mom myself, I am completely outraged.
In the clip of the interview done by Access Hollywood, notice how she had to first go inside her yard and get a dog before she’d come out and do the interview. It makes for a better media op, you know, to be holding a dog. And not just any dog, but a dog with one eye.  Instant credibility!
UPDATE:Â According to Page Six, Ellen’s lawyer, Kelly Bush, contacted Mutts and Moms and left this message:
“This is Kelly Bush. We are filing a legal case against you. We are going to be contacting the media. This is not going to be good for your store or your organization. You did not do the right thing. You need to call back. There is no reason for you to take this dog. Please call back before this gets further out of hand.”
Hey, MaM threatened to go to the media first, so I don’t see why they’re all upset now. Lawer for MaM, Keith Fink, had this to say:
“Ellen’s lying,” said Fink. “She is using her power and her access to the media to destroy this agency in the media. This is a woman who has signed many seven-figure contracts. She knows what she signed.” [get your facts straight, lawyer, it was Portia who signed the contract, although Ellen's name was on it] [...]
Bush denied making threats. “I have not left any threatening messages at all,” she said. “The agency threatened to go to the media and I said that wouldn’t be a good idea. I told them there’s just no need to escalate this . . . They started this by wanting to take it public. I was the one who said, ‘Let’s talk about this.’ “
That’s not a threat, it’s the truth. It hasn’t been good for her store or her agency.
Ok so I read the whole story and I’m not a fan of Ellen nor am I a fan of celeb’s using their power to gain BUT Mutts to Moms threatened to go to the media………Ellen just beat them to the punch.
And I think their rule of not allowing homes with children under 14 is WRONG! I adopted a dog from Blue Dog rescue–I had to go through a HUGE application and wait process…and if their policy were the same—What if I were to adopt a dog then get pregnant?? Are you telling me I have to give my dog back–who is now a part of my family…..are you telling me to abort? Are you telling me I would not provide a good home? HELLO is right!
I think this agency should review their policy….It’s ignorant to assume a home with children under 14 would not be sutable!
Yes, Ellen & Portia were wrong BUT they were not doing anything bad–hello Michael Vick?!?!?
Comment by Stephanie S — October 17, 2007 @ 10:43 am
I hope the owners of the Mutts and Moms Dog Rescue will reconsider their policy regarding the adoption of Iggy and Ellen DeGeneres giving the dog to her friends. I feel it would be harder on the dog to be taken from the new family who love her and placed in another home. I realize the dog has already been taken, however, I feel returning the dog as soon as possible to the family would be in the best interest of the dog. When future pets are adopted from the agency, they could reiterate their policy that the animal must be returned if it doesn’t work out with the adopted family.
Comment by Jennifer Williams — October 17, 2007 @ 10:56 am
Report the sick people threatening them into the police… why would any person threaten this nice agency >_
Comment by Hi5 Codes — October 17, 2007 @ 11:26 am
What makes this persons judgement better than anyone else’s? Does she have some sort of animal placement degree? Is she the only person in the world who can recognize a good home? What a self-important a$$-biter!
Comment by SkumChiken — October 17, 2007 @ 11:39 am
This “nice” agency brought on this entire fiasco themselves with their need to leverage the situation for publicity. Too bad for them it backfired because they are continuing to carry on this “charade” of morality for what. Because Ellen D. didn’t follow protocol? Because she found a loving and suitable home for a pet who needed one?
While I don’t advocate the threats, and certainly not the level of threats, these women are getting, I do NOT feel sorry for them.
They ruined their own reputation with really poor and vain judgment. Pity the dog, pity the family, but don’t pity those women. They got exactly what they asked for, and deep down, they know it.
That’s EXACTLY why they are reacting the way they are. The whole *woe is me* routine doesn’t work when you cause the issue by being an a-hole.
If they were smart, they’d swallow their pride, pull their heads out of their asses and negotiate with Ellen for a peaceful and pleasant resolution.
Idiots. Don’t we have global hunger to solve? This is SO stupid.
Comment by D — October 17, 2007 @ 11:40 am
This is the best bit of writing I have read on this yet. I could not believe she ducked into her yard weeping then came out with a scruffy one eyed mutt and cradled him close to her the entire time. I almost laughed, but then I realized how sad I was for that poor little Winky being used by this weasel to make herself seem like a true animal lover. Sorry. You lost that when you showed up with the police to take a puppy from a little girl.
And what is this crap about kids not being able to have dogs? I grew up with dogs so I don’t get when allowing your child to coexist with a puppy became a major no-no. Don’t children and puppies kind of go together? I guess these people are boycotting The Little Rascals and Lassie as well as Ellen. What a bunch of losers.
Comment by Isa — October 17, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Give them the dog back!!! To use the dog like that is wrong. Give me a break.
Comment by Tami — October 17, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
I am very impressed with the detail and the fairness of this review. I agree that the entire matter is receiving entirely too much media coverage, but as we seem to all agree, these idiots brought this on themselves. Their one and only concern should be for Iggy. Iggy evidently has a lot of energy that did not abide well with the felines of the family. Ellen was doing what was best for Iggy. That was certainly NOT to return Iggy to cage in a non-loving environment. She found a loving home with children to enjoy the bundle of energy and all was well. These women evidently are control freaks and if they could not personally pick the family, nothing else was acceptable. How utterly stupid and inhumane. I think they should be investigated and not be allowed to take rescue pets. How and from what agency are they reviewed and licensed? I definitely think they are in the wrong business. They obviously do this as a job and not for any caring or humane feelings. I say, put them out of business and take Iggy away from them!
Comment by Pet Lover — October 17, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
[...] both Vanessa’s rep and Disney. And my response is: really, who cares? All I want to know is WHERE’S Iggy? Posted by DFiled under: Vanessa Hudgens Socialize this! var zorpia_story_url = [...]
Pingback by GlossLip » Vanessa Hudgens Dumped By Disney — October 17, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
It’s too bad that Baktis and Chekroun went ahead and placed the dog in another home, when a deal could have been struck with DeGeneres and company… a deal that could have involved money changing hands and apologies all around. Now the adversarial positions have hardened. Ellen can get her hairstylist’s children another dog, and they will eventually get over their disappointment, but “Mutts and Moms” will feel the effects deeper and longer. This is an excellent example of cold, logical, principled, justice-oriented thinkers clashing with warm, emotional, value-oriented, kind-hearted feelers. The cold-hearted thinkers are always going to come off looking like the bad girls. Hopefully Baktis and Chekroun will learn a lesson from all this.
Comment by peter — October 17, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
I really think that Mutts and Moms hurt themselves by acting so hastedly and for remarking that they are being “bullied” by Ellen. Shame on you! You are NOT being bullied by anyone. Ellen did not hurt you, you hurt yourself in the way you handled this entire situation. What is even worse is the fact that Iggy is the one who got lost in this whole situation. The purpose of your organization is to find the pups a home. Kids under the age of 14 can be extremely good for the pups and vice versa. Yes, Ellen made a mistake. We are human. We all make mistakes. Are you trying to tell the public that YOU never make mistakes. Can you not just for a moment put your own feelings aside and think of Iggy and how he was accepted into this family? What is more important to you, finding a home for Iggy or proving to the world that Ellen is wrong and you are right? Better recheck your priorities.
Comment by Nancy — October 17, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
what a b**** ~ a loving family and plenty of $ for vet bills etc. is a bad thing ~ marina you are in the wrong business ~ i hope your business is totally ruined ~ they are not YOUR ANIMALS ~ THEY ARE GOD’S ~ and god wants them to be loved even if you don’t like it ~ every bad thing that may happen to you as a result of your hard heartness is less than you deserve ~
Comment by skyz — October 17, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Get your “FREE IGGY” Shirts, Hats, Buttons, Mugs, and more here:
http://www.cafepress.com/myshirtsucks/3861942
Show your support for Ellen!!!!
Comment by Free Iggy — October 17, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
Is there a gas leak in here?
Comment by D — October 17, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Ellen is not ruining their reputation - they are - unless what Ellen has said about their actions are untrue.
It’s very interesting that they “seized” the dog from the hairdresser’s house. Very much like OJ’s “sting”. However, as a legal matter, Mutts & Moms may not have had the legal right to take the pet from the hairdresser’s family. They may be guilty of robbery or larceny. The hairdresser had no privity of contract with Mutts & Moms and, unless Mutts & Moms filed a Uniform Commercial Code statement with respect to their “property” it is quite possible that the hairdresser’s family was the legitimate owner and was robbed. In any event, a court order should have been issued. It is also quite possible that the laws in California do not permit such discriminatory agreements that pets cannot go to a house with minor age children (unless there is a public safety issue). It’s the same as saying that they can’t go to a house with lesbians.
Comment by Harry — October 17, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
SOMETHING’S SO WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE. AS AN ANIMAL LOVER, I CARRY WATER, DOG AND CAT FOOD, AND A LEASH IN MY CAR. IF I SEE A WANDERING ANIMAL, I’LL STOP AND TRY TO GET IT AND FIND THE OWNER (IF A TAG IS ON THE COLLAR). AT LEAST PUT SOME FOOD AND WATER ON THE GROUND. YES, ELLEN IS A CELEBRITY, BUT IT SEEMS THAT SHE HAS A HEART OF GOLD. SHE DIDN’T KNOW THERE WAS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM AFTER TRYING TO BOND IGGY WITH HER CATS. SHE DID WHAT WAS IN HER HEART AND LET IGGY GO TO A HOME WHERE SHE WOULD BE LOVED AND SPOILED. WHAT A LIFE IGGY COULD HAVE. FORGET THE CONTRACT. LET THIS POOR DEFENSELESS ANIMAL SPEND THE REST OF HER DAYS WITH A FAMILY THAT LOVES HER. THE ANIMALS THAT ARE IN THE CARE OF MUTTS AND MOMS WILL ALSO PAY THE PRICE AS THE PUBLIC IS NOW AWARE OF THE RIDICULOUS RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON ANIMAL LOVERS THAT ARE ONLY TRYING TO RESCUE AND HAVE A NEW FAMILY MEMBER. MUTTS AND MOMS, YOU’RE FIGHTING A LOSING BATTLE - THERE’S TOO MANY OF US THAT THINK YOU’RE WRONG. STOP NOW WHILE YOU’RE AHEAD.
Comment by RC CARES — October 17, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
Great for you. Stand up to the Hollywood bigshots. Her ratings were probably failing so she figured this is a way to get them back. Zero tolerance means that ZERO!!!!!!
Comment by William Harper — October 17, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
#8: Thank you very much, I sincerely appreciate that.
Comment by k — October 17, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
This is so sad and has totally ruined my opinion of Ellen. I have been a huge fan of her for years and this is breaking my heart how she has ruined an organization that is trying to help animals. Especially after reading posts like this and the comments with it that are just trashing a great organization like Mutts & Moms.
And the worst part about Ellen is she just gave up on the dog after three weeks? My pets are a part of my family. I wouldn never give one away just because I didn’t want to spend the time and love it takes to have the pets get along.
Comment by Bernice H. — October 17, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
NO! Ms. Baktis ruined Mutts and Moms reputation with her classlessness and cruel behavior. Ellen is just trying to help animals and Ms. Baktis is just trying to fix her life changing mistake. It’s her OWN fault! What dumb woman!
Comment by Nicole — October 17, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
ANIMAL LOVERS….BOYCOTT DEGENERES!and her products advertised
As a parent to 4 parrots who will need a trust fund and adoption through an agency when I pass on I resent her attitude that she can just pass on “her problem” to someone else. This is the exact reason that there are so many miserable parrots being rescued from flea markets etc. When I pass on and leave a trust, I will expect that my wishes be honored. Responsibilty will be a primary requirement and love a second one. Obviously Ms. Degeneres was a poor choice in both aspects!
Signed
Long time animal parent!
Comment by Margaret Martin — October 17, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Ellen made a mistake. Moms and Mutts made a mistake. Now let’s everyone take a big breath and calm the hell down. There is no reason that people should be treating Marina Baktis like this, but I don’t think for her to translate that into Ellen “bullying” her is the right thing either. The public needs to back off of everyone so that this situation can be resolved fairly and with consideration to all parties involved.
Comment by Nicolle — October 17, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
For God’s sake, Ellen didn’y shoot the dog! Mutts and Moms probably should be shut down due to their twisted logic and inability to make a logical decision.
Comment by Greg House — October 17, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Until people work inside a shelter I think they need to take a step back and close their mouths. If all the people that are posting evil comments loved animals as much as they did, they would not condem a place that tries their best to save animals. I have been in the shelter business for a long time and it is not as easy as everyone is making it out to be. We deal with difficult decisions and heart breaks every day. Too many people adopt animals and return them or abuse them. I think that it is funny that no one knows anything about this family, but they are defending them tooth and nail. They might be a very nice family, but you all dont know. The child rule is very important and there are reasons, reasons for the children and reasons for the animals. Ellen should not have taken this so far, if she loved animals she should have kept her mouth closed and dealt with it behind closed doors. This agency is now suffering and while you all condem them and worry about Iggy what about all the other animals there? Wait… did anyone think of that. AND YES THEY ARE OUR ANIMALS WHEN THEY COME TO THE SHELTER…. NO ONE ELSE WANTS THESE DOGS AND WE RESCUE THEM AND SAFE THEIR LIVES SO YES THEY ARE OURS
Comment by ashley — October 17, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
GREG … have you ever worked in a shelter .. how do you know anything about logic in a shelter… how is having rules and following them twisted logic?
Comment by ashley — October 17, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
The twisted logic is this….since Ellen found that the dog just did not work well in her home, she did the best she knew how and found it a home in which it DID fit in and fit in well. When MaM found this out, instead of going ballistic, they could have taken the dog TEMPORARILY while they ran their little tests and let the family fill out an app.
Yes, Ellen did the wrong thing, but so did this agency. Two wrongs make a right?
This woman strikes me as having control and obsessive issues far beyond just she doesn’t think the home was a good fit for the dog. This could have been handled MUCH differently.
And even the National Humane Society will let a family with children the age of this adopt a dog. Here are the guidelines from the National Humane Society for children and pets:
Comment by k — October 17, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
HERE ! HERE! I agree COMPLETELY that M & M brought this upon themselves by acting all righteous about their organization’s rules. I am the adoptive mother of 3 dogs from Petfinder.com,the website that M & M advertised on and have now pulled their info. because of the heat, as well as two retired show cats. I can tell you that locally we have had such self-righteous behaviour by our local humane society (not no-kill by the way) that Bob Barker, who grew up here and whose deceased wife, Dorthory Jo- a W
IDELY known animal lover and activist, long supported our local humane society and spay/neuter programs, stopped supporting the local HS in his wife’s name due to that very self-righteous behavior. Their goal should be to find acceptable loving homes and nothing else. Who are these groups to lose sight of their goals and JUDGE people by anything other than their ability to provide a loving home to these needy of God’s creatures??? It is absurd and very sad for the sake of the pets that these groups, especially M & M, can’t see the forest for the trees and short change the pets with their narrow mindedness. One question keeps coming to mind over and over, WHY COULDN’T THEY HAVE DONE A HOME VISIT TO THE HAIRDRESSER’S HOME AND DECIDED IF INDEED THIS WAS AN ACCEPTABLE HOME??? WHY ARE THEY BEING SO UTTERLY STUPID!!!! AND NOW BACKING THEMSELVES INTO A CORNER BY REFUSING TO EVEN CONSIDER THIS HOME???? THEY CALL THEMSELVES MUTTS AND MOMS- WHERE IS THE MOMS PART I ASK Y0U????? NO MOTHER WOULD DO THIS TO A CHILD, PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT UTTER JERKS! I hope that they get all that they have chosen to recieve and more.
Comment by mary ann — October 17, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
I work at an rescue shelter and this is absolutely terrible! They are going to lose us all business because of how they are acting. Why would anyone want to go through the same thing as ellen when they can adopt from a store with no strings attached! THAT WOMAN IS CRAZY!
Comment by jennifer — October 17, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Did you know Ellen back in dad a contest to name a cute little much which in the end was named Lucy. Lucy didn’t stay in Ellen’s home for long. She had to give it away - because there were too many issues with the cats. Lucy was given to a new - she had too much energy. Iggy was only a 4 month old puppy and it was only given 10 days to acclimate to a new home.
Read below:
“If there has been any discord in Ms. DeGeneres’s life recently, it has been the way her two cats reacted to Lucy, her mixed-breed puppy. They were ”not thrilled with having dog energy” around the house, she said, ”especially puppy energy.” So she had to find Lucy a new home.”
Comment by Madison — October 17, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Give me a break. Ellen didn’t ruin anyone’s reputation. M&M is looking for sympathy after rushing to take a dog away from a family who loved him. Was there no better way to handle this than showing up with the police and taking the dog away? Could they not have observed the dog with the family and made an exception in this case? The fact that they refused to give the dog back and quickly placed it somewhere else shows action out of spite to me. M&M got what they asked for.
Comment by Chelle — October 17, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
#29: And………? Your point is?
She found out that she could not keep Lucy, so she found her a good forever home. Win-win for everyone.
So she tried again with Iggy. So? Many people who are animal lovers want to add to their animal brood. It just didn’t work out so she tried to find Iggy a good forever home. I’m with Team Ellen on this one. (and no….I am not an Ellen fanatic, I disagree with some of her things, and I have seen only a handful of her shows…but I know wrong when I see it)
Comment by k — October 17, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
Great article. I read some the comments from those working at shelters and it is shocking that they are all control freaks.
Is it true she went to the door with the police? Is that how contracts are enforced?
Marina appears to be a drama queen. She has given all dog adoptions agencies a bad name. They are getting their just desserts.
My theory is that Marina did this for the publicity thinking, in her small world view, that everyone would understand (or maybe it was street cred with the rescue world) and that the donations to her rescue group as well as the sales in her pet store would come rolling in.
I suspect both businesses will be closed by the end of the month and Marina will move to some secluded town in Nebraska.
Comment by Chris — October 17, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
#32: Yes, unfortunately it is true that Marina went to the house under the pretext of doing a “house inspection”, then grabbed the dog and held it for two hours until the police got there. Since Marina had not yet changed the microchip info over to Ellen, the police allowed her to leave with the dog.
You can see the video of Ellen being interviewed and Marina holding the dog here.
You can also read other things I’ve wrote about this situation by clicking here.
Comment by k — October 17, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
Wow, I would have told Marina to leave my property. Who was recording the video?
Also, the employee probably has a good case for a lawsuit against M&M for trespassing. This woman is out of control.
Comment by Chris — October 17, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
Ashley,
If you view the rescue pets you help as YOURS FOREVER then you should take them home and make them actually YOURS. That is the damage that rescue groups do to themselves is use the rescue as their little center of power to judge all other people.
Since you apparently think you are the ONLY person on the planet that is worthy of being a pet parent, you have no business ever working in any group that is about adoption. It is that judgemental control-freak attitude that does the damage to legitimate rescue groups that have the emotional maturity to understand that animal rescue and adoption is about not only the pet but the PEOPLE doing the adopting.
Every true rescue group that actually loves animals enough to have love for the people that become the pet parents constantly have to battle the crap that control-freaks that view their rescues as THEIR lifelong possessions creates. Do all the mature and functional rescue groups a favor and keep your “I am better than every other pet lover ever” attitude to yourself.
Comment by roonie — October 17, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
#34: I don’t know who was recording, but apparently they got it on tape, so there is no question about what happened in the yard when she showed up to take Iggy back. And that’s good…at least there is documentation.
Comment by k — October 17, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
Just how is it that anyone knows who first threatened to go public? My money’s on Degeneres and her hired publicist. You’re gonna take the lawyer’s word? OK, I own this nice little bridge in Brooklyn that I’ll let go really, really cheap.
Ellen Degeneres and her over-the-top performance are just one thing that’s wrong with this picture. But for that, this matter would have remained private and there would be no talk of animal rescuers in general losing public support or pet store owners losing business. Another problem: The timeline. Degeneres got the dog less than a month ago.
Very few of you seem to get it. Degeneres (not DeGenerous, that’s for sure) is an actress and she used her acting skills in an attempt to get her way.
Turn your lights on.
I’m with the pet store broads on this one.
Comment by Walter Slezak Admirer — October 17, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
Unfortunately, as we are seeing, the problem of obsessive animal hoarding is more prevalent than one might think, as evidenced by a few of these comments.
Thinking of animals as “ours” and “we are the only ones who can truly rescue them” and “we are the only ones who know what is good for them” are classic signs.
There is help, though, if one only chooses to seek it.
Comment by k — October 17, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
#37: You have every right to your opinion.
Comment by k — October 17, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
the MaM people have just handled this in a fantastically awful way. and who names a one-eyed dog “Winky”?!?!?!
Comment by Emma — October 17, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
k,
You nailed it. It is a form of pet hoarding that is masked by the “good samaritan” role many rescue/shelter workers wear. It is an odd thing but I see it with the various groups I work with. There is no regulation or control over who can start and run a rescue society.
I always find it interesting that people defending the rescue groups assume that by virtue that they are a “rescue group” makes them instantly good and moral people. Anybody can make themselves a “rescue group”. Get a computer and printer for your contracts and start “rescuing” strays and you too are now a wonderful rescue worker!
I find it is this little fact that many people miss and it is the thing that hurts the truly great rescue groups out there. Interview your rescue group just as thoroughly as they are interviewing you as an adopter. The vetting of what kind of pet owner the person is goes BOTH ways - the adopter and the adoptee.
And thank you for such a wonderful blog on this topic. I think you did a great job of covering both sides.
Comment by roonie — October 17, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
Marina Baktis is really out of her mind….how hard would it be to let this family adopt this dog. The dog was happy and the family loved the dog. Rules were made to be broken. So GIVE IGGY BACK! In Marina’s interview she sounds resentful and mean. She’s making herself look bad and if her business goes down the drain- her own fault! She shouldn’t be in a position to decide where animals go! I’ll tell you what I’d hate to be her! I wouldn’t be able to show my face ever again.
Comment by Nikki Collins — October 17, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
This woman is an idiot and her business deserves to fail. Its really to bad for the animals but this woman is fucking insane to go up against a machine like Degeneres. Degeneres has done a hell of a lot more good in this country than this idiot woman. She needs to pull her head out of her selfish self serving ass and give the dog back.
Comment by Paul Sanchez — October 17, 2007 @ 9:16 pm
roonie: Thank you very much for your kind comments. They are most sincerely appreciated.
I’ve tried very hard to fair in this, and show where both sides have made mistakes. It could be so simply remedied, too. That’s really the sad part.
Such a simple, simple solution. Let the family fill out an app. Let an impartial animal worker, perhaps from the local animal shelter or Humane Society, review it. I’m sure Ellen would pay whatever fee was necessary (I believe the original price was $600, not incuding neutering and training……wait, $600 for a dog? From a rescue center?). Problem solved.
Comment by k — October 17, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
I am certainly disappointed in Mutts and Moms for their shameful reaction! They are trying to make a point and the ones hurting are the families and the poor pet, being snatched away by them. They behave like a child was given away, not a pet. If the home is a good one, then the age of the child living there should be irrelevant. My son is 21 months old and he treats our dog with respect and kindness beacuse that is what he have taught him to do. This elitist “rescue” group should be investigated. They give other animal shelters a bad name.
Comment by nicole winner — October 17, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
I thought O J / and Michel Vic held the record for stupid but I guess I have to put you on the top of the list(Mutts and MoM
Comment by loyd — October 17, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
Perfect sentiment; I agree with everything you have to say. Please, add the TMZ video to your article! It’s got great video: http://www.tmz.com/2007/10/17/ellen-portia-rush-to-home-where-iggy-was-taken/
Comment by John House — October 17, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
Hey, great commentary! I believe Marina has displaced her dislike for celebrities onto this situation, and it is clouding her judgement. Her handling of this issue is what is placing her business in danger. Mutts and Moms could have used this opportunity to demonstrate mercy, get their message out about dog rescue and their contract terms, promote their business, and be a feel good story. What goes around, comes around, so I hope that they don’t expect the empathy and good will of others when they are so rigid and unforgiving themselves. That said, death threats are NOT the way to handle this, and I do feel badly that they are feeling unsafe. Two final notes: 14 to adopt a puppy?! What?! Yes, puppies are only for teenagers who begin spending most of their time outside of the home, and working parents. And also, I know a lot of rescue groups and breeders with special clauses regarding not letting the pet outside of the home (cats), not declawing, giving back to the breeder if you can’t care for the animal anymore instead of finding it a new home, NOT giving it a rabies vaccine (which is actually illegal in some states and voids the contract with the breeder)…what exactly is an “adoption” then? It sounds more like a foster care situation, where the state has jurisdiction over the children, and can remove them from your home for non-abusive behavior.
Comment by Imogen — October 17, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
You guys; mothers and mutts are idiots. A dog needs a good home…period. And, this dog, secondhandedly found one. How sad this became about the ego of mothers and mutts; which should have conceeded to a secondary good home with a young girl and her family.
I have two adopted dogs; one (cocker spaniel) from the shelter and the other (jack russel terrier) from a Vietnamese lady at the Citgo.
Thank God we never met the Moms and Mutts society.
Robin Hankins
Comment by Robin Hankins — October 17, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
This Marina character is not acting in the best interest of either the dog or her business (more dogs). She is obviously not a smart or caring person, and has some inadequacy issues looking for an outlet. I am glad she will be forced out of the shelter “business”, she has a big ego and no compassion or common sense.
Comment by Ballhaus — October 17, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
It’s a difficult situation all the way around, but Ellen is the one who was wrong, and for her to use her power and fame to try to force her way so that she doesn’t have to follow the same rules everyone else does it just wrong and knowing it would hurt these people who are just trying to run their shelter is so, so wrong. I’ve lost all respect for Ellen…unless she does something to fix this and I don’t that would involve lawyers. Marina is very young and perhaps she didn’t use the best judgement. But we are all human and she certainly doesn’t deserve to have the resources and power of fame thrown at her just for trying to enforce the contrat. If I’d been in her place, I would have almost certainly ended up leaving the dog with the hairdresser’s family, but apparently the family was given a chance to fill out adoption forms and didn’t, at least I think that’s what was said. Has anyone else heard that? Marina’s lawyer said that on Gretta Van Sustern tonight and, in one of the tapes at the family home, one of the little girls might have hinted at that as well. She said something to the effect of the form being longer than her school application. Someone on the same tape said something like they’s said to come down there but Pasadena was too far away. If I were running a rescue and someone who took a dog didn’t return it to me but gave it to someone else, in violation of our contract which I’d read to them before they signed it, and then the people who had the dog wouldn’t co-operate with my process, I’d probably be concerned. It’s terrible that these people at Mutts and Mom’s are being badgered and threatened and ruined and very, very wrong. Ellen, who has so much more power and control in this situation, needs to decry the abuse of these people immediately, and in no uncertain terms. I don’t think it’s right to bash Marina and her partner at all, on any level. Everyone involved could have done better here. Ellen should step up, apologize–for real and genuinely try to see about doing something to fix the damage she’s done, with Marina as well as her hairdresser’s family, whether or not she was right about the girls being able to keep the dog and whether or not that can now happens at this point. Perhaps if she went personally to Marina without lawyers, she could work something out. I blame Ellen more because she really has used her media platform to, pardon the expression, set the dogs on the shelter owners. It may be too late to salvage anything at this point, but my heart goes out to both the family and to Marina and her partner.
Comment by limmo — October 17, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
#51: Marina’s lawyer is lying. I just wrote a new post on the subject. They were not only given a chance to fill out an application but they DID SO. And I can’t say as I blame them for not wanting to load up both dogs and drive two hours away, when the point is to evaluate the dogs in the HOME ENVIRONMENT.
They did everything Marina asked them to do. Marina ignored it, it was all a smokescreen so she could come to the house and take the dog. It is all on video which I linked to in the new article.
Comment by k — October 18, 2007 @ 12:04 am
I just heard on MSNBC that you have given Iggy to another family. Shame on you. I agree with Keith Olberman: your statment that “we’ve have been ruined” is a sure sign that, as Keith said, it is definitely all about you, Marina. To tear that little guy away from a family and two little girls that have bonded with each other is unconscionable. You don’t deserve to be in rescue: you obviously don’t care about the furkids; only about the glory you hope to receive and the “control” you so enjoy when you hold life and death matters in your dirty little hands. You need to give Iggy back to his family, and find another avocation. We in rescue don’t need grandstanders like you screwing up the lives of precious furkids like Iggy. I hope you live forever, and will be hated every minute of every day, and I hope you have nightmares about the hurt you have caused this wonderful family and this little boy.
It’s all about you for sure. God help the furkids that end up under your dirty little thumb.
Comment by Judy loudin — October 18, 2007 @ 12:04 am
“The child rule is very important and there are reasons, reasons for the children and reasons for the animals. Ellen should not have taken this so far, if she loved animals she should have kept her mouth closed and dealt with it behind closed doors”
Ashley, this is BS. Ellen did the furkids in need a favor when she exposed this controlling group of women. So you rescue furkids: that does not give you the right to use them as pawns because someone displeases you. You must be part of the group, and if so, I wish I believed in hell: I’ve reserve seats for all of you tonight.
Comment by Judy loudin — October 18, 2007 @ 12:09 am
It’s the sign of the times. No negotiation… just go to war! It’s the Bush cowboy way. Good for you.. go to war instead compromise. Why are these women allowed to rescue and adopt out animals? Power disguised as compassion. So sad. I hope they go out of business because you need to be flexible and fair. A mistake was made… so allow the family to go through the process.. but be fair.
Comment by Bonnie Redmond — October 18, 2007 @ 12:47 am
OH MY GAWD.
All the chaos you have caused due to taking this dog back is silly. Withh all of the wasted time and money, you could have saved 100 more dogs by now.
Thjis is the most ridiculous thing ever.
Why didn’t you check out the new people without ripping the dog out of their arms. Shame on you…..
Comment by Phyllis — October 18, 2007 @ 1:10 am
These two women deserve all the hell they have coming to them.
One severely greed driven decision has cost them all credibility. This wasn’t about a dog. It was about these two women with some sort of hero complex. Ahhh find a celebrity to extort to gain a better reputation. Talk about backfire! Out of all people, Ellen? Here’s a hint you two batshit crazies… Mrs. Spears is ALWAYS available for legal battle, custody battle, paparazzi fest, lunatic lash-out, or puppy carrying rumble.
Extortion plot gone awry!
Seriously, If these bitches were to drop dead tomorrow… I’d serve my puppy a 5 course meal and let her shit on their grave.
Comment by Lauren — October 18, 2007 @ 1:26 am
I had a dog as a child living in Brazil, we moved back to America and we had to leave him behind.
Breaks my heart to this day… that was 42 years ago.
These people have no business dealing with humans or animals, PERIOD.
They sowed the wind now they get the whirlwind.
Comment by David — October 18, 2007 @ 3:01 am
Yes #55!
Very well said.
Comment by David — October 18, 2007 @ 3:04 am
After hearing that the family DID fill out the application and that the home visit was a ruse, I think the family should sue Marina and the rescue group. They have a good case for torts like fraud (especially not transferring the chip information to the new owner), another count of fraud by having no intention of doing an actual home inspection, tresspassing and theft.
I’m sure Marina would try to sue Ellen at that point– but I bet you any judge would look at the contract and the actions of Marina and find it invalid and unconsciousable.
I don’t get where they (Marina and her partner) get the idea that once the custody of the animal is transfered, that they still own the animal. It wasn’t a rental agreement, but an adoption agreement. If they thought they had been wronged, they could have filed a lawsuit against Ellen for breach of contract.
And the hair dresser’s family signed nothing- so they had no agreement with the rescue facility. The way Marina talks, you would have thought Ellen gave the family to some homeless guy living in a cardboard shack who was probably going to eat it.
Also, I maybe should listen to it again — but does Ellen say the name of the rescue agency on her program? I don’t think so which makes me think that Marina outed herself as the person and the rescue agency.
Comment by Chris — October 18, 2007 @ 3:23 am
A very well written article. This is the first time I have been to your site. I love your writing and you did an excellent job on this article!
M&M really DID make this all about THEM and they did not consider Iggy. With the way they do things, they’ve got no business being a pet rescue organization. Being prison guards might better suit their personalities and egos. Poor Iggy.
Comment by Karina — October 18, 2007 @ 3:37 am
You fucking morons, and to the author who wrote this ridiculous article, shut the fuck up. You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what rescuing animals entails. You have not worked in over-crowded shelters pulling animals who were dumped with your own personal funds, you have no IDEA the amount of animals that come into shelters because the OWNERS made an impulse decision to buy a dog that they weren’t prepared to take care of, or had to give the dog up or dump the dog at a shelter because they “moved” or because of “inability to get along with children or other pet”. You fucking idiots. STOP SPEAKING AS IF YOU KNOW THE INS AND OUTS OF RESCUE and CERTAINLY, stop speaking as if you have had the experiences WE RESCUES have had when dealing with returned animals, or getting a call from a random vet’s office or shelter that the animal you adopted out 2 years ago is back. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Comment by Rachel — October 18, 2007 @ 5:55 am
AND HOW THE FUCK are the rescue not considering Iggy? Because they want to ensure that she is placed in a suitable home? Do you really know how often little dogs bite little kids? Do you know how often little kids get BORED with little pets once the pet is “old”? No, you don’t. How is preventing THIS from happening and preventing Iggy from being dumped at a shelter or handed from family to family not considering the dogs best interests? Again, you people do not know becuase you haven’t done the hard, cold rescue work yourself. So shut your fucking mouths. You are welcome to e-mail me.
Comment by Rachel — October 18, 2007 @ 5:59 am
#62 & #63: Since you know nothing about me, where I have or have not worked, or what I have or have not done with animals, I respectfully suggest you take your own advice.
There is absolutely no way that this rescue agency could have known the dog would not have gotten along in Ellen’s household, and for them to assume they would know how it would get along in this new household is ludicrous at best. This woman does not know for a definite. For her to put on her God act and say she does is reprehensible beyond words. Yes, perhaps the dog wouldn’t have fit in after all….but does she 100% know it will get along at its new home? It had already lived here with these people for two weeks very happily. Since these children already had a dog, they knew the commitment it would take. We aren’t talking two-year-olds here.
Again, you know nothing about me. So until you do, don’t tell me what I have or have not done.
Comment by k — October 18, 2007 @ 7:21 am
To the shut the fuck up crowd, your fanaticism is going to spike a resurgence in . . . no, not a thoughtful dialogue, but that’s right–puppy mills. Why are people going to continue to go to shelters with their rigorous policies to deal with charming people like you in order to have an outcome that obviously doesn’t consider the well being of the animal in a rational perspective. Oh, and I have volunteered at and adopted from good rescues, so I will not be shutting the fuck up.
Comment by Tracy — October 18, 2007 @ 7:33 am
For goodness sake give the dog back to the hairdresser and her daughters. Its unbelivable that its harder to adopt a puppy then a child. There are so many unwanted animals in the world and these people want to take this dog from a loving family. Its not like ellen let the dog out the front door and just ran. Mutts and Moms should be ashamed of themselves for their actions.
Comment by joyce — October 18, 2007 @ 8:51 am
OH, I am having HEART PALPATATIONS…waaaahhhhhh, maybe if you were NOT such a disgusting person then things wouldn’t have gone this way…this woman is a despicable individual, she is power hungry and WRONG for tearing that little dog from the children she had bonded with!!!! THIS whole idea that NONE of her DOGS are with families with children under 14, is a BALD FACE LIE! I know that many of the dogs adopted through Mutts and Moms live with families with kids…give the dog back and make this right!
Comment by Terri — October 18, 2007 @ 10:01 am
Exactly #67, I agree. Oh, the poor thing……she can’t sleep or eat…..boofrickinhoo. I must be an evil person because I’m GLAD and I sincerely HOPE she’s shut down and loses her business? She’s the one trying to use Ellen’s “celebrity”. And my, does she sound horrible with the comment -
Baktis claims that DeGeneres’ celebrity is the sole reason why she’s getting all of this attention.
“Celebrities you know, they, they get preferential treatment. They have lots of money. They go into a restaurant they get a table. And so you know, this contract was breached. It was breached. So people need to understand when you enter a binding legal agreement that you can’t just go, ‘And here you go, I don’t want you.‘â€
What a load of crap - Ellen didn’t just “I don’t want you” she found a great home. Pathetic. I wonder if she actually thinks people will be on her side because of all the celebrities lately who ARE getting away with stuff because of who they are? If so, she failed miserably. I say a boycott of Mutts & Moms.
Comment by tessieroo — October 18, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Rachel, #62 - I’m not a “rescue group”, but I’ve “been there, done that”. I agree with you - KUDOS!
Comment by CC — October 18, 2007 @ 10:58 am
If Ellen didn’t agree with the contract she shouldn’t have agreed to sign it in the first place. She should have gone somewhere else to adopt.
Why all this analysing of the situation, it is what it is, a breach of contract.
I’ve noticed that when people comment, they act as if they have all the facts. Unless you were there every step of the way, you really don’t.
Intelligence and emotion never mix.
Ellen should never have gone on TV like that, that was just wrong. She admitted she was wrong, but now she’s setting a bad example for those kids by insisting someone break their rules just for her.
It doesn’t really matter if you think the age 14 limit is right or wrong, it was in the contract. TS!
Comment by zsizsi — October 18, 2007 @ 11:11 am
Rachel #62 It scares me that you cared for and rescued animals with the vulgar way you express yourself. Do you actually eat with that mouth? Next time you feel passionate about a topic try using more eloquent vocabulary and if necessary use a dictionary. It will be more meaningful and will enhance your opinion. Now Excuse me, I have to shower after reading it.
Comment by Tom — October 18, 2007 @ 11:34 am
This whole thing is so stupid. I think the owners of this adoption agency are using this dog as a power pawn. It is a dog. A dog who found a loving family. What is the problem. I thought that was the business they were in.
They are acting like some sort of dictator on this whole issue. They had to take the dog back - no they will never give it back. This I win not matter what mentality. Sick - Ellen should nto stop talking about this.
Their business should be investigated and ruined.
Comment by Belinda — October 18, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
The GLOK version: DeGeneres and her sexy gay lover adopted Iggy, an ugly Brussels Griffon mix, on Sept. 20. But Iggy didn’t get along with the couple’s cats, so they decided to give him to DeGeneres’s hairdresser and her two daughters. Unfortunately, DeGeneres forgot to tell the pet adoption agency, which requires notification for any change of ownership, and when the agency learned of this transfer, it told DeGeneres she had violated their contract and repossessed the dog.
It’s just that simple.. Ellen loves PUSSY to much and didn’t really want IGGY.. Despite the surreal tears Ellen’s cry baby attempt at public sympathy was touching.. Confusing, yet touching.. Now “GET OVER IT PLEASE” and talk about some REAL SUBJECTS on your show.
http://www.myspace.com/iggyonmyspace
please “add” me. tnx for being my friend and not giving me away like Ellen did.
also see http://www.myspace.com/blackmafiya
Comment by IGGY — October 18, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
Rachel #62. Hi. I have rescued dogs. I have rescued dogs. If you don’t respect what the people here are saying, then listen to me, because they don’t know the INS and OUTS of shelters, rescue orgs, whatever, well, then, I probably do.
Mutts and Moms are wrong, and the writer of this blog is right on. The family who had adopted Iggy, and bonded with him after 3 weeks, are the casualties here. Mutts and Moms seem to be using a poor puppy to get back at celebrities and their perception of celebrity status. They never talk about that family, except to dismiss them because their children don’t meet some arbitrary age requirement that the set.
Mutts and Moms should be drummed out of the rescue business. They brought this whole thing on themselves by refusing to behave like reasonable people. Their complain might have been with Ellen, but they have harmed both Iggy and another family that only agreed to love a dog. Shame on Mutts and Moms.
Comment by Scott Safier — October 18, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
Scott#74 Thank you for an opinion that is well written and gets the point across without the use of gratuitous profanity. You didn’t even have to tell others to STFU for emphasis.
Comment by Tom — October 18, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
amen
Comment by Mary — October 18, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
Mutts and Moms is all about the money! First of all, why didn’t M&Ms have Iggy nutered prior to adoption.
That is usually what reputable agencies do prior to adoption! I think they knew that they could get another fast cash turnaround by snatching a dog from a loving home, and $$$placing it again! And what kind of shelter can’t adopt to a family with kids under 14?? , that’s insane. We’ve had dogs all our lives, from infancy on, and that is a crock of poop.
These two deserve to loose their business. I don’t agree with threats or violence, but I sure hope they end up in court over this situation.I think they were using Ellen’s celebrity status and not the other way around. They have brought the spot light on themselves.
Comment by melissa — October 18, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Where does the “Moms” aspect of this agency’s name come into play if women with children are not allowed to adopt dogs from them?
Something sounds very not right in the head about the way this business is run — with a dose of vanity and control issues thrown into the mix.
So now Marina is a celebrity too — in the Hall of Shame.
Thanks for the article. It’s incredibly well written.
Comment by Leslie — October 18, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
I can’t believe no one has commented on the Chanel glasses Marina was wearing. She goes out of her way to say how “poor” she is, how she has “nothing” and yet she is wearing just about the most expensive brand of glasses you can get. Hey Marina, If your so worried about how your going to feed your dogs why not sell your glasses and buy a less expensive/less flashy brand???
I’m sorry she’s getting threats. That’s wrong and who-evers doing that should be ashamed of themselves…..BUT she brought this on HERSELF! Also, she keeps saying that she will not give iggy back to her family because of all the threats and how badly she’s been treated. Neither Ellen nor that family has threatened or treated her badly! The only one acting badly is Marina herself. Why take out her anger on that family and those little girls? Her pride is keeping Iggy from being re-united with her family. She cares more about being right then she does about doing the right thing.
Comment by Allyson Foote — October 18, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
First of all I truly think it is terrible that Mutts & Moms are receiving hate mail and / or death threats. There is no reason for it!
Please know the reason for my e-mail is simply that unfortunately the animals and children whom are the ones most affected by this have no voice, can not nor will they be heard.
Mutts and Moms indicated on The Early Show that one of the reasons for not allowing the Iggy to remain in Ellen Degeneres’s hair dresser’s home was that they did not know the family. Get to know them! If Mutts and Moms would have done their home work upfront before letting Ellen (a celebrity) take Iggy home they would have realized the puppy was not suitable there and not getting along with the cats and they could have avoided this whole charade that is unfolding. Unfortunately for Iggy and the girls YOU made a mistake and permitted Ellen whom obviously you did not know to keep the puppy. Ellen put thousands ($3,000) of dollars into Iggy trying to get Iggy acclimated with the cats unsuccessfully. Unlike Mutts and Moms, Ellen found a suitable household to care for Iggy. You should be ashamed of yourselves. I am sure that you have plenty of animals within your shelter to find a suitable home for and could spend your time more wisely instead of wasting your time breaking up a situation that was handled much better without your interference.
You could have used this to your best interest, Ellen the generous person that she is could have aided your facility with mountains of donations. You have turned this matter against you. You have only yourselves to blame but unfortunately who will suffer – The animals.
Comment by darla — October 18, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
#74: Thank you very much. I sincerely appreciate your nice comments.
I only want what is best for the dogs, and if exposing this agency for what it is will do it, then so be it. They put a black mark on reputable rescue agencies everywhere.
Comment by k — October 18, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
#79: In the newest post I made, I did comment about her Chanel glasses in the comments section. Because I don’t wear anything by Chanel myself, I was unsure of the logo (and the video wasn’t super clear anyway).
I THOUGHT they were Chanel, but was not sure.
Comment by k — October 18, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
http://web.archive.org/web/20070401032435/http://www.muttsandmoms.org/
I was able to find Mutts and Mom’s website using “wayback Machine”. You can read all about “how wonderful” they are and how noble their cause.. YEA, RIGHT!
Comment by laurie — October 18, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
The way this agency handled the whole situation was so wrong. They are supposed to be concerned with the dog’s welfare and happiness. They could have easily checked out the dog’s new home and made a judgment then instead of just taking the dog and traumatizing all involved. The owners have proven they are in this for the almighty buck and could care less about animals. Their actions have spoken loudly. This agency deserves to lose all it’s business. These women are awful excuses for human beings. How could anyone who could hurt children like they did by taking Iggy away in such a callous manner be trusted with taking care of any animal? Both my dogs are from rescues and there is no way, if anything happened to me, i would bring them back to be locked in a cage. i would find a loving family member to raise my precious companions. And lets me honest…anyone who has a dog has a friend, another family member, not just a pet. But…the absolute saddest part of this whole story is now everyone will be afraid to go thru a rescue agency and will instead go to a store to buy a dog…which keeps the puppy mills in business. So more dogs at rescue’s will not be adopted and will end up being euthanized and more people will want dogs from stores which will mean even more dogs are born in the deplorable conditions of puppy mills. These women have done damage beyond what any of us can imagine. They should be ashamed of themselves as it seems the whole world is after hearing the whole story!
Comment by Monica Tyler — October 18, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Has anyone realized that the 911 system was used to take a dog from a little girl and that the dog was not fixed before they gave the dog to Ellen. Hmmm
Comment by sam — October 18, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
For 40+ years, I’ve done dog, cat and bird rescues.Have also taken in and officially adopted others until I could get homes for them. And I’ve even signed one of those bring-it-back-but-don’t give-it-away contracts. And I didn’t follow it either, here’s why.
At a not too well run shelter, I found a seemingly aggressive, restlessly pacing, barking dog. Not reallly the type of behavior you’re looking to adopt. But she was a purebred Australian Shepard, a breed known for their incredible intelligence. (And my favorite breed.)
She was just as unruly and frantic out of the cage and it was really clear to me that she would do anything to get out of that place. So I adopted her (I was right about her behavior, she was fine) and kept her for a few days while I found a rescue group for her.
By good luck and circumstances, they had a perfect home with a couple that had recently lost their elderly Australian Shepard, knew all about the breed and understood them.
No, I didn’t tell th shelter about the new home, and I, unlike Ellen, would have lied had they asked. My decision was based solely on what was best for the dog.
Comment by Su — October 18, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
I highly disapprove of Mutts and Moms, Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun’s actions. They acted on impulse with vengeance on the goodhearted-ness and best interest between a celebrity and deserving children; not with empathy or forethought. In researching the web, PETA, Humane Society, BBB, and SPCA historical information, these owners have not proven themselves respectful or caring. In fact they show spite, more than anything. Reviewing everything to date re. Marina. She still doesn’t show any emotion for the human bond between animal and a well deserving family. A reasonable human would not act on impulse driven by a bogus contract but allowed time for review and reasses the situation. A responsible business owner would have responded by now to the media, attorneys, and press with a RESOLUTION and not hiding and REACTING with negativity. When one appears as a villain one would naturally want to disarm the situation; not in this case. Nothing on the news has touched me in such a way that i would be actually reaching out and being an activist.
Comment by caesar — October 18, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
I’m not going to say Ellen was ok in breaking the contract, but M&M went too far on this one. I volunteer for a rescue group and I’m very familiar with the adoption process. What I’m not understanding is why this dog was not put on hold for this family while they filled up and application and went thru the whole process from the beginning? M&M should have done an investigation of the family and had them pay a new adoption fee. Is the issue here the broken contract or the well being of the dog????????
An by the way, I’ not even going to comment on the whole no puppies w/ children younger than 14years old….
Comment by Maggie — October 19, 2007 @ 1:13 am
I’d like to adopt Iggy. My other dogs would just love Iggy to death. Maybe President George W. Bush would consider giving Iggy a presidential pardon. Join with me on Saturday, October, 20, 2007…10:00-5;00 in the JUSTICE FOR IGGY MOVEMENT. We will be gathering in the local parks, Federal Bldgs., town squares, churches, synagouges, temples and mosques across the world to show our support for the most famous and possibly spiritual creature on the globe. Please join the Michael V. JUSTICE FOR IGGY MOVEMENT this Saturday. Bring your dog, we will be having games and competitions all day long.
Comment by Michael V. — October 19, 2007 @ 7:15 am
Who does this woman think she is???? Can she talk to Iggy? Did Iggy tell her he wanted a new home??? She needs to get off her high horse and look at the bigger picture! She is only hurting this dog and probably many others!!!! This is only prolonging the process of adoption and hurting this poor little animal as well as the families! This is all about poor little her and her control issues!
Comment by Bob Barker — October 19, 2007 @ 7:29 am
If celebrities are a problem, she has ensured herself that she will have no more of them as clients, along with plenty of other people.
She says she did not feel the other family was good for taking the dog. I’d like to know her criteria and I bet it borders on discrimination.
Comment by Lottalance — October 19, 2007 @ 9:14 am
Hey, everyone, there are new and updated articles on Iggy posted here. Thanks!
Comment by k — October 19, 2007 @ 9:19 am
This is why I, and I’m sure other people, are turned off from adopting a dog, even if it is a good thing to do for a needy pet. I’ve considered it twice and both times the adoption agencies were so overbearing and intrusive with wanting all these contracts signed and wanting to even come to my home and observe my interaction with my other dog, that it was not worth the hassle.
You don’t have to have to jump through that many hoops to have a human kid! Why would I put up with their self righteous attitudes and controlling behavior when I can go to a breeder and leave with a new puppy 20 minutes later?
Animal rescuers do a great service, but a lot of them are obsessed animal rights nuts at heart and letting them control the animal adoption process does more harm to the well being of these animals than good. They aren’t people people. Case in point above.
Comment by Jade — October 19, 2007 @ 9:57 am
To #62 and # 63;
If anyone here is a moron it is you. I’ve worked in the veterinary field for 8 years. I’ve worked with animal rescues for 7 years. You blatantly assume that people don’t know or don’t have experience just because they speak out against Mutts and Moms. Are you possibly one of the owners of Mutts and Moms? Your profanity laced tirade lashing out at people who have anything negative to say about Mutts and Moms doesn’t make you look like a responsible person or a reputable animal rescuer.
Comment by Karina — October 19, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
I still can’t believe that an agency (who claims it wants to find good homes for animals) could act in such a SELF serving manner. It’s ALL about the animal and NOTHING about the agency…the agency is simply a conduit for the trade. I have 5 rescue pets in my home and never once have any of the angencies called to see if their adoptions were going well… WHY? ‘Cause they are too busy finding good homes for the next dog or cat that needs shelter. JEEZE, I can’t help but think that this rescue group has some other motive in mind… And while I’m sure plenty of folks in Southern California have played their celebrity card, it’s funny that this situation should occur with Ellen Degeneres. Isn’t this the same woman who couldn’t get work for 5 years after telling people she was gay? Maybe Mutts and Moms is homophobic and doesn’t think gay people should have dogs? Ohhhh yeah, Ellen gave the dog to a straight woman… So it must be that Mutts and Moms is heterophobic! That’s it!!! lol
Comment by Sue — October 19, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
I must admit, I at one point in my life would have called myself a dog lover - a pet supporter, etc. I believe now that people who carry that name are often times total and complete over the edge nut-jobs. Mutt’s and Mom’s it the perfect example. I could not believe they took that dog from someone’s back yard. I was so amazed considering what I experienced just a few months ago. As the owner of a yellow lab for 9 years, we had over zealous neighbors that decided we were not providing our dog with appropriate affection who came over in the middle of the day (trespassed) and took our dog. No call to animal control, no call to the sheriff, no call to us, nothing, just took the dog. Long story short, we had to call the sheriff to get our dog returned but it involved us having our dog taken by the sheriff’s department (animal control apologized profusely to us for inappropriate handling of the case) our 4 year old son unable to sleep because he thought our neighbors were going to take him away and now a constant feud with the people who live across the street from us. All in the name of being an animal lover. CRAZY LADY. The good news is that our dog is home with us and just as happy as before. I don’t understand why some people go so far off the deep end and don’t think rationally about anything. Why couldn’t Mutt’s and Mom’s have talked to the family or Ellen. Why couldn’t our neighbor come over or even call Animal Control if she had such fears for our dog. No, instead you have the zealots that overreact and feel that they are above the law. I agree, death threats, etc. are out of line - but the loss of their business is nothing but their own fault. Just in the same way that the community around us has looked down on our neighbors for inappropriate behavior. Mutt’s and Mom’s will get their just due without any threats.
Comment by Jessie — October 19, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
“Great for you. Stand up to the Hollywood bigshots. Her ratings were probably failing so she figured this is a way to get them back. Zero tolerance means that ZERO!!!!!!
Comment by William Harper — October 17, 2007 @ 4:20 pm”
Do you know for a fact that her rates where dropping? or you talking out you a-hole. What a loser, this a pet adoption issue not drinking and driving, there is no room for zero tolerance policies when it comes to a living being. you must be the dumbest person on earth. nazi had a zero tolerance policy. By the way Ellen is not a big hollywood start, she is a television star. why don’t people as dumb as you just kill themselfs?
Comment by bob's your uncle — October 19, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Hey #62, you are making the rest of us animal rescuers look CRAZY. I have been doing rescue out of shelters for many years and I agree it is expensive, heartbreaking and damn hard work. However, the reason we do it is to find permanent homes for these animals. I know many agencies are super strict, and have a billion and one forms to fill out and policies and rules, and while i see the reasoning behind it I think it is just too much to ask of a person so they can help you save an animal. While I do have some rules for my cat adoptions (no declawing, no outdoors) these are for the benefit of the animals. I live in a very busy area where I see at least a cat a day hit on the road, not to mention the FIV outbreaks we have here, and I have had many declawed cats coming into the rescue due to health or behavioral problems that are caused by the declaw process. I have these rules, but I honestly never check up on a family after i make an adoption. I try to trust my initial decision, and move on to the next adoption. The families who adopt are welcome to come in at any time with any questions and we have a no questions asked policy if the adoption doesnt work out and they need to give an animal back (which has happened only once in 5 years).
Back on topic of this situation, I think the policy of no adoptions to families with children under 14 is insane, unless the dog was known to bite or be nervous around small children. If the dog had adjusted well, and the family filed the paper work I have no idea why MaM wouldnt want the dog to stay where it was happy.
What ive learned in this business is that you cant ever be sure any home is going to last forever, there is always that out of the blue variable that can happen. Its awful when an animal has to be surrendered. But with the policies of some rescues it makes it easier for a person to drop 1K on a puppy mill pet store puppy than to deal with some of the pretentious rescues out there. /end rant.
Sorry if this doesnt make much sense, Im fostering 6, 2 week old kittens at the moment and im not getting much sleep :-D.
Comment by Rescue Nut — October 19, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
Oh and I forgot to add that NO respectable rescue would EVER adopt out an animal that was not spayed or neutered. I cannot remember the age Iggy was adopted out at but if he was 5 months or older there is no excuse for the dog not to be fixed. Also why did Ellen have to pay out of pocket for it AFTER paying an adoption fee? Most rescues include the spay/neuter in the fee so they can guarantee the family will do it.
Comment by Rescue Nut — October 19, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
They should have given the dog back.
But more curious, why the age “14″? Do these women have children? 14 is the age that kids are entering into high school…this is a social time for kids this age…time for them to be wrapped up in themselves. I personally think that the ages of the kids should have not been an obstacle. We have had dogs and cats in the house since before my kids were born. My kids are 21,18 and 14 now. Having animals was NEVER an issue and wonderful learning experince for them.
As far as adoption agencies…I just adopted a lab in June. Same sort of contract. A very reputable organization. Not once has anyone followed up on our pup. Perhaps if your a celebrity and might generate publicity…you get more attention.
And last but not least, these women are charging twice as much as I paid for my adopted “AKC” purebreed lab. I paid for travel arrangements, vet fees and to spring our dog from a kill shelter down south. Adoption fees are to recoup those costs. My guess is that these ladies were doing more then recouping costs. Perhaps a little profit off of the backs of your 4 legged friends?
Comment by Christina — October 19, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
There is an issue I have not seen discussed yet. According to the owners of this non-profit (read: 501(c)3 as registered with the IRS) may be out of compliance with their charter as filed. Someone should look into this. Perhaps a formal report to the IRS to investigate? And what about the transaction itself. They gave Ellen the dog. Now Ellen is the owner. Even if she violated the terms of an agreement, that’s what COURTS are for. How do police take on the job of judge and jury and remove the dog? Was it being abused? I think not. They should have told the people at Mutts and Moms that since there was no abuse going on that they would have to file legal action and take her to court. Then a judge could have decided the fate of the dog based not only on the agreement in place but on common sense. I think the question one reader posed above (re: pregnancy of an owner subsequent to adoption) is very valid. Control over the dog needed to be reasonable in circumstances such as this. I question the ability of Mutts and Moms to run such a non-profit agency (connected to a profit making business) and suggest an investigation is in order.
Comment by Alan — October 19, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
Sure glad that I don’t live in California. When it comes to pets, the state obviously sucks. Our region is feral cat central, with Ally Cat Allies constantly doing catch, neuter, and release. If MaM were worth their cost, then they would have put the dog with cats to see how it reacted. Most animal shelters will gladly test a dog with a cat. Ellen got ripped off by these money-hungry witches. Ellen should sue for her time-loss and the frustration incurred by this incompetently ran agency. Every time I adopted a dog, and told the shelters in Nebraska and Maryland that I have cats, they always tested the dog with their cats. These women are clueless. MaM should be shut down, just for their lousy business practices.
Comment by Mary — October 20, 2007 @ 1:28 am
If you need a cat come to Waldorf, MD, and go drive around the backroads around dusk. Lots of kittens and larger cats wandering the streets. Every color. We got two kittens that my son found in the back of a hardware store where he worked. My other son found a kitten in a rolled up paper bag late one night in the Denny’s parking lot. We already had two older males, but we kept these females also. We now have 5 cats, with no adoption fees, just the normal costs of checkups to make sure they were healthy. They are indoor / outdoor and intimidated the dog into behaving. The women at MaM should have been worried more about how big Ellen’s cats were, with such a small dog. Our largest cat weighed 23 lbs. at one point in time. He is now down to a healthy 18, and he can beat up small dogs, and he has. I kid you not. When I take him into the vet, other pet owners are amazed at just how big he really is. Iggy would have been safer around small children than our cat. Pentium would have leveled him in one swift smack, and that dog would have fallen right in line with the rest of our cats.
Comment by Mary — October 20, 2007 @ 1:41 am
Gossip Lip,
Thank you. You have said it all. Your review of the situation, in my opinion, has been the most concise.
I totally concur with your evaluation of the media issue. With the threat by the private agency to go to the media in the first place, Ellen had every right to do what she did. It would have gotten to the media no matter what at that point. Everyone seems to have forgotten that Ellen’s plea was not about punishing this agency, but about recognizing her own mistake and pleading that this agency not penalize the family because of it.
And for the record, M&M may have committed fraud. My understanding is that the police allowed M&M to take the dog from the home because Iggy’s microchip still showed M&M as the owners. By not changing that micro chip to show Portia and Ellen as the owners, then letting the police think it was still their dog, that may be fraud or at least trying to obtain property under false pretenses.
Yes, Ellen may have used her celebrity status to plead her case. But M&M were willing to threaten Ellen because of her celebrity status.
Finally, M&M is not a rescue operation. They are a private pet adoption agency that buys the pets from the shelter then charges patrons a $250 mandatory “donation”. People do not realize that while this may have started out as a rescue, it is now a private agency. They do this in conjunction with their pet store business, where they make profit on selling stuff to the same people who adopt pets. It is a way for them to “sell” pets without having to be licensed as a pet store. Yes, they get their pets from shelters, rather than breeders, and that is a blessing. But the “non profit” status is bogus. They make money by doing this.
What surprises me also in this case? I checked with one of my local private adoption non profit agencies. Yes, they charge for it also, but they say it is a fee upfront. And the fee covers several things that apparently were not covered in Ellen’s case. One mainly, the neutering. This should have been done before the pet was adopted. That and shots. In the case of my local, there is a long list of stuff that comes with the pet. It is clear that they are truly not making much of a profit off of it. This was not so in the case of M&M, based on their website, making me feel that in their case, they were really just doing this for the promotion of their own pet supplie business.
I feel that the issue of M&M’s anger was that they felt that they were circumvented in this situation. Almost like their anger was about the loss of the next fee they could have charged.
Also, I could care less if the woman loses her adoption business at this point. Her actions tell me she does not need to be in this business. Her actions tell me she has become a bit too over zealous. (note the woman in the fox interview who talked about her snatching her dog on the street one day when she forgot to walk it with a leash.).
What bothers me more in this situation is that her actions, not Ellen’s, is going to tarnish the reputation of many of the good private adoption agencies. Because of the lack of clear ownership, pet lovers and prospective owners will now avoid these agencies. Hopefully they will still go to shelters instead of breeders.
Comment by cattymiss — October 20, 2007 @ 2:13 am
103: I sincerely appreciate your kind words. Thank you very much.
For everyone here who has posted telling us what idiots we are (and there are two of us, D, the main writer, and k, the n00b), there are so many of you who are concise, clear, and collected. If enough of you put your obvious intelligence to good use here, I think this story might uncover more secrets…and who knows, it might have a happy ending yet.
Comment by k — October 20, 2007 @ 2:39 am
i adopted my dog. when i got her she shook all the time. i seemed like she had been abused.so how do you know even though you investigated the new home that you gave iggy too.IS a good home? people change every-day !!!! and alot of people get animals for their children.that’s part of growing up and learning responsibilities !! i don’t feel sorry for the ladies at MUTTS and MOMS i feel for the kids and for the dog.
i don’t care what people think i know dogs have feelings too. Yes, they are dogs but just really look at a dogs face and you can tell when there happy,sad,sick.if you really like aniamls you CAN tell. so quit acting so high and mighty and give the dog back to the hairdresser and kids. your getting your 15 minutes of fame.that’s the only reason your doing this so your clientele can grow. (i think i got you there). well you want have my business !
i’m pretty sure you want see this message but i hope and pray you do.you need to change your policy !!!!!
Comment by w.v.c. — October 20, 2007 @ 6:58 am
and oh by the way.the place i got my sweet dog from gives you a voucher to take to a vet to have the dog or cat spayed or neutered. you knew who you were giving the dog too, so i think you took advantage of ellen. you must not have children of you own.and if you do i hope something like this ever happen to them.it can have an impact on them too.just think about that for awhile.
Comment by w.v.c. — October 20, 2007 @ 7:16 am
and by the way,my dog doesn’t shake anymore. now that she not pulled from one home to another.
Comment by w.v.c. — October 20, 2007 @ 7:28 am
Wow Makes you want to run right out and adopt a dog now doesnt it! I saw the taped statement by Ellen, I am by no means a fan of her, but the fact is the dog wasn’t working out in the house hold and she did the right thing and found a more proper environment for the animal. Which seems to me to be a better choice then to give it back to mutts and moms shelter. If I were to put 3000.00 into a animal and found it wasn’t working out I would find a proper home for sure to!!! I am a cat lover I had a Black Lab and the cats kicked its ass. I found a good home for the dog cause it did not work out, the dog would have bleed to death from the clawing. Now for the two females at Mutts and Moms and there business’s I feel you have done an injustice to all shelters, I have never worked in a shelter so I am not going to say I know what happens in these places. ( i just don’t want to be cussed out for my opinion)nor have I ever paid to adopt a pet! I am outraged that you two woman had the Balls to go and take that dog away from those two girls and the family! and taken a cop with you Wow!, ar’nt you the Rosie Odonnell type, and you see where shes at unemployed! If I ran my business like you run yours I would be out of business from all the law suits. Not that i feel that these people should be threatened in any way by others this is shameful. K good article you seem to be an intelligent person. Give the dog back to the rightful owners, boycott Mutts and Moms and show them that people can be pet owners to! to quote something I heard on the radio “the animals are turning on us there attacking us in every way invading are homes for there own gains” Unreal in this case its the other way around animal is adopted paid for I might add and given to another family and all hell breaks loose.
Comment by Ronald — October 20, 2007 @ 7:32 am
I am irritated that Marina is blaming her problems on Ellen. Ellen made a very human mistake. She did what a reasonable person would have done. There was nothing wrong with the family. It is disgusting that Marina has no words of condolence or anything for the overkill she did. That she won’t admit to any mistakes. A little humility goes a long way. Ellen was on her show taking responsibility for what she did, which is more than Marina is willing to do. Ellen was explaining why she wasn’t her usual self. She also asked people to stop persecuting the Mutts and Moms people. She merely wanted to share her feelings. Ellen was blaming herself. Marina and Co. as well as uncivilized people who are threatening her are responsible for her problems. Marina needs to swallow her stupid pride.
Comment by Rain — October 20, 2007 @ 10:01 am
HOW MANY OF YOU COMMENTING (OR WRITING ABOUT THIS SUBJECT MATTER) HAVE EVER WORKED IN RESCUE? HAVE EVER GONE INTO THE BACK ROOM OF THE BAKERSFIELD SHELTER???? THIS AGENCY HAD A POLICY. THEY ARE THE ONES WORKING 24/7 SAVING LIVES (NOT BUYING THEIR PRETTY DOGS FROM BREEDERS) ELLEN CHOSE TO AGREE BY THEIR POLICIES AND THEN VIOLATED THE CONTRACT. PERIOD. THESE ARE MUTTS AND MOMS DECISIONS- THEY ARE THE ONES THAT SAVE LIVES DAY IN AND DAY OUT RATHER THAN SIT ON THE BEACH OR GO SHOPPING.
Comment by Mary W. — October 20, 2007 @ 10:04 am
Wow, they should be called Mutts and Morons! They should have let this family keep the dog and go through an official adoption process rather than ripping the dog out of their hands. They give adoption agencies a bad reputation! What is with the idiotic rules? I agree with contacting the agency first if things don’t work out with the original home but not adopting to families with younger children is just being too selective and eliminating some great homes for dogs in need. Isn’t that what rescues are all about, to find great homes as quickly as possible so they can enjoy their doggy lives and then go rescue more? Why do they call themselves Mutts and Moms? You would think with a name like that they would be understanding of families with children.
Comment by Melanie — October 20, 2007 @ 11:00 am
This is insane. Ellen Degeneres did the right thing by finding a home that she felt would better care for and work better for Iggy. I heard from an internet posting that this Vanessa woman came in under the guise of doing a home check and just basically took the dog from the children. These people brought the threats upon themselves. Ellen Degeneres and the other family didn’t tell people to threaten them, these people threatened them because what they did was wrong and handled terribly. I hope Ellen and the family sues Mutts and Moms and I hope they win, which they probably will considering that Mutts and Moms was suspended when the contract was signed. Good Luck to Ellen and the family.
Comment by Brittany — October 20, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
Apparently there is not a screening process for those who wish to open agencies. If there were this would not have hit the headlines. Perhaps another rescue agency can march into the M&M and take the animals because the owners are not emotionaly stable enough to properly look after the pets. Maybe these two self righteous pet lovers should change the name of the agency to “BUTTS & BUMS”. I’m sure my 13 year old would be thrilled to learn the dog and cat she has had for 6 years have to move away until she turns 14 because the godesses of pets have decreed her as unable to properly care for animals. Both pets were obtained from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) with full knowlege of a 6 and 12 year old in the house at the time.
Comment by Adopter — October 20, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
Why isn’t anyone mentioning the fact the Mutts & Moms have been suspended since 12/04 according to the California Secretary of State website? Doesn’t that make the contract void? http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowList
Comment by Julene — October 20, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
#114: I have mentioned it. There is a whole series I’ve done on this, including NEW and UPDATED articles.
ATTENTION EVERYONE, FOR UPDATES ON THIS SITUATION, CLICK HERE!
Comment by k — October 20, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
#110: I have rescued animals. I have volunteered with animals. I don’t breed animals nor do I respect those who do for dollars, in a time when so many animals are homeless.
I don’t go shopping all day, I don’t have the money. And I don’t go to the beach all day, I’d have to drive too far (days and days). I know exactly what I am talking about.
I am an animal lover, which is exactly why I am OUTRAGED at this situation. Iggy was placed in a good home but Marina’s obsessive personality was ticked off because her precious rules weren’t followed to the letter, and by a celebrity at that.
Comment by k — October 20, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Maybe Mutts and Moms has a point somewhere, but they are not acting in a way that makes them credible. There are conflicting pieces of info in this. It is said that the family refused to fill out the paperwork. Whatever the case, Mutts and Moms is very lacking in compassion, both the the dog and the family.
Comment by Rain — October 20, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
#117: If you read the entire series of articles I’ve done on this, you’ll see that the family DID fill out an application, as requested by Marina herself, and opened their home to Marina to do a house check. That’s how she got INSIDE the home in the first place…under false pretenses.
Comment by k — October 20, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
After months of looking for a dog to adopt and filling out a zillion forms, I have discovered that in general the people who run these organizations are stuck up in the clouds without a clue. They are often rude, automatically assume you are evil and make the whole process so tough that I can not even imagine how many good homes end up buying a pet instead of adopting. I know they have to be strict but Mutts and Moms went off the deep end here. Advice: Use you heads. STOP being so bound up in rules that you don’t do what is best for the poor dog!!! PS. By the time I was finally approved (and found very desirable and qualified as a dog Mom) for a puppy mill rescue that I desperately wanted to adopt, I’d bought a rescued dog that the lady didn’t want anymore! Rules will only take you so far…
Comment by Maureen Malloy — October 20, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Ellen did not ruin this agency’s reputation. They ruined their own. Why couldn’t they have interviewed the family Ellen gave the dog to and gave them a fai chance. Instead they lied tricked and deceived the family then took Iggy. Theywere looking for publicity but OOPS, it back fired. My mother always said, “you do someone wrong, it will come back on you ten fold.”
Comment by jay — October 20, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
The fact is Ellen signed a contract and then she broke it. It doesn’t matter if she thought she was doing what was best for the dog. She should have contacted the rescue agency like the contract stipulated. If she didn’t agree with the terms of the contract or the policies of the rescue then she could have gone elsewhere to get a dog. It’s not like there’s a shortage of adoptable dogs looking for homes.
As for all of you who disagree with the rescue’s policies…who cares! It’s not your organization, it’s theirs. So quit your complaining. You don’t have to adopt a dog from them. They have every right to stipulate whatever terms/policies they want their organization to follow. No one is being forced to adopt a dog from them. If you don’t like their policies then go start your own organization and make your own policies.
(Yes, and for those of you wondering, I have decades of rescue experience and rescue animals of my own.)
Comment by Lisa — October 20, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
These animal rescue agencies are out of control. My husband and I were interested in adopting a dog from a rescue but chose a different route because we didn’t feel the need to have multiple interviews, list multiple references and have our home “inspected” by these people. It just seemed like a violation of our privacy. We wanted to do something good but felt like they were going to make it way too difficult.
Hearing about this story also makes me a little curious about why they would sell(becuase these animals aren’t free or cheap) a dog to someone with cats in the first place. Maybe its because she was a celebrity? Apparently these women are not the best people to be judging who should have an animal and who should not. And frankly how do they know that Ellen’s hairdresser and her family didn’t have an appropriate home for the animal? Did they try to talk to them or anything? Why couldn’t they have simply said ok, were not happy the dog was given to someone else but lets give these people the benefit of the doubt and see how the dog is doing in their home. The whole situation is appalling, these women need to be little more mature, they aren’t any more qualified to say who should have a pet than anyone else. It is terrible that they have been threatened by other people, but maybe it has something to do with karma.
Comment by Kim — October 20, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
#121: Ah, so by your reasoning, it’s okay to just let this slide since we aren’t going to adopt a dog from Ma