Someone explain the big stink about Ellen Degeneres and the dog?

[LynneSin]

Hey, at least she found a home for the dog when she realized that the dog and her cats were not getting along. Not like she was breeding the dog for dog fighting or using the dog as a soccer ball being kicked around all over the place.

Am I the only one not getting it?

[flvegan]

1. Lots of folks aren't getting it.

Both sides of the issue were wrong, and for different reasons.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. seconded.

[Arkansas Granny]

12. That's the way I see it too.

[CTyankee]

Well, the way I see it is that the animal shelter is a rescue organization and

there are active animal rescuers here on DU. I think, altho I am not sure and someone is free to set me straight, that they defended that shelter against what they saw as a big media star disregarding the rules, the contract that she (or someone acting on her behalf) signed agreeing to give the dog back to the shelter if the arrangement didn't work out.

In the meantime, there were death and other threats made to the shelter owners, who went on the record publicly about their fear.

Now we have information that there was something amiss with the shelter, perhaps a licensing infraction (?), at the time the contract was signed, that made the contract invalid.

At that point and going forward, the thing certainly has settled down. Ellen tried to make up for her emotional display on the air and asked for calm and for anyone making threats to stop. I think that calmed the waters also.

[Iris]

30. Right. And rescue groups are a sure fire way to keep dogs AWAY from dog fighting rings.

I took 4 puppies someone had dumped at my apartment's dumpster to a small dog rescue group. They found suitable homes for the puppies even though they appeared to be pit-bull mixes and were definitely NOT going to be small dogs. It took months to get all 4 placed because they were very selective about who they would give them to - they were NOT to be used as "watch dogs" under ANY circumstances.

While sometimes people who do this work may come across as zealots, they have seen a lot of abused animals and they are trying to do what is right for each animal they help.

[CTyankee]

37. Well, they were on a mission and I understand that. I think they felt pushed around

this big TV star and that must have also hurt.

OTOH, I can't see Ellen D. being such a monster. Maybe I'm naive, but I think of her as being kinda fragile herself.

[Iris]

40. yeah. I think she just did something without thinking about it.

and was kind of shocked at the outcome. I don't think she feels entitled or anything. It think it was just a bad situation.

If the hairdresser decided she didn't want the dog, and gave it to someone else - the group would have eventually lost track of what happened to him.

[Dr. Strange]

2. Read the whole article! Stop being such an authoritarian!

I'd love to explain it to you, but the more I found out about it, the less I was able to care. Like flvegan said, both sides were wrong.

[Coyote_Bandit]

4. My Take On It

She rescued a dog and made the mistake of thinking it was her dog. Wrong. Why? She did not have the ability to gift or sell the dog - something which is a hallmark of ownership. Turned out the dog wasn't a good fit and she found it another home where the dog apparently was well cared for. The only criticism I have heard was that the kids were only 12 years of age instead of 14 which this particular rescue group used as their adoption criteria. Give me a break. Disqualifying a twelve year old from caring for s small dog? The rescue group found out Ellen had given the dog to the family and repossed the dog because they had a surrender clause in their adoption contract. Ellen then breaks down on her tv show.

I find surrender clauses offensive and the groups that use them arrogant. Such a clause presumes that only the group or breeder placing the animal has the ability and desire to make a lifelong committment to the animal. Folks who have cared for an animal for a period of time know the needs, desires, personality, behavior and circle of human interaction of the animal. They are better suited to make decisions regarding care of the animal and its rehoming should it becone necessary. Surrender clauses are clear indications that the rescue organization or breeder that is placing the animal really does not trust the individual with whom they are placing the animal (often after a lengthy and personally intrusive application process) and that distrust is manifested through an effort to maintain lifelong control over the animal. My opinion.

Some folks are upset because the rescue group removed the dog and placed it elsewhere. Some folks are upset because Ellen broke down on her tv show and they think that was manipulative. There might be plenty of blame to go around - but the real problem started with that surrender clause, IMHO.

Yeah, as far as newsworthy stuff it ranks right up there with Britney and Anna Nicole.....




Edit to add:
Animals are legally treated and considered to be property. Maybe they shouldn't be but they are. Most animal rights activists disagree with that classification. That disagreement is reflected by rescue groups that "adopt" animals - in much the same way that children are adopted. They and their contracts treat the animal as something other than property. Meanwhile, the person who has "adopted" the animal is often told that it is "theirs". Small wonder that tghere sometimes is a bit of confusion. Those contracts are not negotiable and those surrender clauses don't have sunset provisions.

[LynneSin]

5. So in a nutshell Ellen isn't the spawn of Satan everyone is trying to make her

figures

[flvegan]

6. Offensive and arrogant?

Your entire second paragraph is nonsense.

[Coyote_Bandit]

7. We've

discussed this before on another thread.

My opinion hasn't changed. You don't have to agree.

As I said before I will not ever take an animal from a group or breeder that thinks it has the right to usurp my ability to care for the animal at some indefinite point in the future. There are many other non-traditional sources to obtain good animals that need homes (and usually they come without an adoption fee).

In my opinion it is impossible to make a lifelong commitment to care for an animal when someone else retains rights over that animal. Apparently, some rescue groups and breeders think the individuals with whom they place animals are unable to make such a commitment. That is arrogant.

edit for bad typing by burned fingers

[flvegan]

8. I think you're misunderstanding the intent.

And, so long as you insist on posting your opinion, which I respect, when I see it, we'll continue to have these discussions.

[Coyote_Bandit]

9. I

will not avoid stating my opinion simply because I need to defend it. If I need to assume the role of DU animal adoption surrender clause critic then so be it. We both probably have better things we could do with our time.

The meaning and intent of a contract is governed first by its language. There are other more acceptable (i.e., less arrogant and offensive) contract terms which could be used besides that which specifies that an animal must be surrendered to the organization or breeder from which it was obtained should the animal need to be re-homed. The animal's current caretaker (i.e., the person who obtained it from the organization or breeder) should have the right to determine its future care. That is particularly true if the current caretaker has had custody of the animal for an extended period of time. The only right anyone should have to interfere with that is if those arrangements are clearly inappropriate. And even though some rescue groups and breeders actually operate that way that is not what the terms of their contracts specify. It is not something they are obligated and committed to do. They are not even obligated to consider input from the caretaker.

Perhaps you would like to explain what is so unreasonable about such arrangements? Why shouldn't those surrender clauses be modified in such a manner?

edit for more bad typing by burned fingers...

[cuke]

10. Some people adopt dogs

and then sell them for medical research. If the contract does not say that the animal must be surrendered to the rescue org, then there's nothing to prevent this from happening.

[Gormy Cuss]

11. And there's nothing to prevent it even with the clause.

Someone who thinks selling dogs for medical research is a good way to treat them will do it regardless of the language in the agreement.

All that the clause does is give normal people a clear cut reason to place the dog back in the care of the rescue org when it becomes apparent that the placement isn't working out or when circumstances change and the household can no longer include a dog.

[Coyote_Bandit]

15. Absolutely

Anybody that wants to adopt animals and place them for medical research can easily do so. Many rescue groups place animals in an extended geographic area. Most have no way of knowing if the applicant has repeatedly adopted animals from other rescue groups. Most do not (and often cannot) verify cause of death for animals they have previously placed. Same is true of previously adopted animals that are said to have been stolen or reported to have run away.

On the other hand these clauses do give breeders and rescue groups the opportunity to remove animals from homes - sometimes from homes that are providing appropriate care for the animals. When that happens (and apparently Ellen is proof that it does happen) it is a power and control issue. Everybody including the animal losses in that situation.

[Critters2]

17. The Humane Society where I sat on the board,

required vet references for adoptions. If it was a first pet, we required a home visit and four references.

A vet reference is a good way of finding out whether the person has repeatedly adopted from other agenices, and to verify the cause of death of previous companions.

You imply that people may or may not abide by a contract, so they serve no purpose at all. That's nonsense. Unscrupulous people will avoid rescues and breeders who ask for references and do background checks. This makes it harder for them to get animals.

It's not about power and control. It's about animal welfare.

Would I be right in guessing you've been turned down in attempts to adopt?

Critters
guardian to one breed rescue dog, two shelter cats, and a rescued stray cat

[Coyote_Bandit]

31. I have not been turned down in an attempt to adopt

The only time I ever applied for an animal from a traditional rescue group (which was many years ago) I was approved. But, hey, I appreciate the fact that you think so highly of my ability to commit to and care for animals. A conclusion that you base on nothing more than the fact that I find unrestricted surrender clauses arrogant and offensive.

A home visit to verify that I can offer a reasonably safe and clean environment and calls to four of my best buddies who I've told to expect your call? Do you think if I have previously provided poor care that I am going to list a vet as a reference who might be able to confirm that? I can completely omit that vet name and you can come visit and call my four buddies. And just how are you going to know that I omitted such information? Or other relevant information? How do you know that I haven't already adopted from any of the other dozens of rescue groups that place animals within a hundred mile radius? Or from an online or breed rescue group? How do you know that I don't use multiple names and residential addresses? You don't. As an applicant I can manipulate the information I provide knowing that you have few resources to find it untrue. Sorry. I have no problem with rescue groups and breeders doing a thorough investigation before placing an animal. But they are foolish to think they cannot be deceived.

My objection to surrender clauses, which I have stated repeatedly, is that they clearly suggest that the organization/breeder does not trust the person with whom they have entrusted the animal and that distrust is manifested through the unrestricted future ability to control decisions regarding the care of the animal. You trust me or you don't. My position is very simple: It is impossible for me to make a lifelong commitment to an animal if my commitment will always be secondary to that of the breeder or rescue group that places it. As the individual who cares for the animal and has custody of the animal I am unwilling to voluntarily agree to substitute your judgment for my own. Those surrender clauses need some restrictions - a sunset clause perhaps or the provision that the breeder or rescue group will adhere to my directive unless they can show my directives to be clearly inappropriate. But, no, those surrender clauses rarely carry such limitations.

You can keep your animals. I will not darken your door. Promise. There are many other needy animals that come without restriction that I can fully commit to care for. I cannot make that commitment to your animals. Whether you recognize it or not your own contract prohibits it.

[Critters2]

33. Just as well.

You don't provide a vet name, we don't let you adopt. Simple as that.

[Coyote_Bandit]

35. Really?

From your post 17:

".... If it was a first pet, we required a home visit and four references ...."

Hard to provide a vet reference for a first pet now isn't it?

[Critters2]

36. Yes, but you aren't a first time guardian. nt

[Coyote_Bandit]

44. You won't know that from my application

unless I voluntarily tell you that I have previously owned an animal. How would you know that I have previously had an animal if (1) I don't volunteer the information and (2) you haven't previously placed an animal with me and (3) my four references make no mention of me owning an animal? You don't know.



The animals I own have been well cared for. Promise. I think more of them than most of the people I know here in red state fundie hell. The dogs routinely see the vet at least once every three months. Shots including kennel cough vaccine. Three months later we go for routine bloodwork to monitor renal function. Three months later we are back for kennel cough boosters. Three months later we are back for bloodwork. And three months later we start all over with annual shots. We have seen the same vet for over five years and I have followed all vet recommendations. We've only made two emergency visits. One for a torn dewclaw and one for a minor sprain (occurred while leaping and chasing a bird in the backyard) that I wanted x-rayed. Between vet visits we routinely see the groomer that shares the same space. We go to the groomer tomorrow. But you cannot accept that unless the vet confirms it. Guess I'm SOL if my vet dies (can you say skydiver and sole practitioner? really). But, hey you might even disqualify me based on those vet records. Why? Because I had the dog's dewclaws surgically removed earlier this year. It was vet recommended and it followed a couple of injuries one of which was very painful. Nonetheless, some groups consider this procedure to be something that disqualifies one from adoption. And in some countries it is actually illegal.

[Critters2]

34. As a single person, I appreciate these clauses.

If something should happen to me, all three of my adopted pets will go back to the rescues or shelters where I adopted them. This is firmly established by the contracts. No question about what will happen to them. This is actually a great relief to me. My family and my assistant know of these arrangements, and will contact the rescues if that becomes necessary. The shelter that I helped to start has also agreed to re-home my self-rescued stray, if it should come to that.

Far from feeling like they are still claiming ownership of my pets, I see them as partners in my care for these animals. And I'm grateful for the back-up.

[Coyote_Bandit]

39. I too am single

My animals know and are familiar with (1) my parents and their home and (2) my brother and his home and family. I know my family would care for and want to care for my animals and I know my animals would interact well with all the people in my family. They live in agricultural areas (different areas in the same county) with no restrictions regarding animal ownership. Their homes have regularly been included in the circle of activity and human interaction of my animals - sometimes for periods of a week or more. When I visit my animals go with me. When I travel my family cares for my animals. The only time my animals are boarded is when the family travels together to a place where the animals are prohibited. And at least once a year we travel together to some cabins in a remote area where they are welcomed. My parents are elderly (the youngest is mid 70's) and my brother has children under the age of ten. Many rescue groups would find both homes unacceptable. Oh, well. In my case it simply isn't relevant because no rescue group or breeder has the contractual ability to seize the animals. Incidentally, both my parents and my brother have agreed to take the animals should it become necessary. There would be more continuity, less trauma and a greater level of predictability for my animals to go to either of these homes should I be unable to care for them. Familiarity with the home is particularly important and relevant with respect to the dog that is visually impaired. I also have extended family members and friends who have indicated a willingness to care for my animals should that become necessary.

Bottom line: my animals know and recognize all of these people by name. All of the ones who have expressed a willingness to care for the animals are better qualified in my opinion to do so than a stranger. There is a lot to be said for continuity, predictability, and commitment. Without exception I have known all of these folks for decades and I have had ample opportunity to observe how they care for animals.

[Critters2]

41. Well, bully for you.

My family members all have animals in their homes...most have the maximum their communities allow by law. And I know and trust the people who run the rescues from which my pets came. I have no concern as to whether my animals will be well-cared for. I will not place one more burden on my family when they are dealing with my loss (which I assume they will see as a tragedy, and perhaps as a trauma). My pets will be returned to people I trust, and those people will work to place them in good homes. I feel good about this.

[Coyote_Bandit]

45. Good for you - however

those surrender clauses you defend might very well prohibit my family from havng the opportunity to care for my animals. I am unwilling to substitute the judgment of somebody who does not know my animals and their circle of experience and human interaction for my own. I am responsible for the lifelong care of my animals and I think it irresponsible to surrender that responsibility. I am unwilling to accept any innuendo that my commitment is in any way less than or inferior to that of a rescue group.

[Critters2]

47. I have not surrendered the responsibility for my animals.

I know who will care for my animals if I am unable. It won't be overwhelmed family members, who have pets of their own. It will be organizations organized for the purpose of caring for animals, staffed by trained people who do the work because they care. I trust them, because I know them. My circle of friends extends beyond my family. I have friends who know and care about my animals....and many of them do animal rescue work.

I'm done with this one-ups-man-ship. Suffice to say, you would not be adopting from any group I was involved with.

[Coyote_Bandit]

51. If somebody else is able to determine

what is and is not appropriate care for your animals then you have allowed them to substitute their judgment for your own. Whether or not you trust them is a separate issue.

If I had a child I could dictate in my will who was to care for it in the event of my death. But I can't do that with a dog that I get from a rescue group that includes a surrender clause in their contract.

Sorry. I am not willing to allow anyhone to substitute their judgment for my own. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. But if you are really interested in placing animals in homes then you might consider that I am not the only person that finds unrestricted surrender clauses unacceptable.

Don't worry. I will not seek to lease an animal from you. And don't look for a check in the mail. I will not support or patronize an organization that presumes me and my judgemnt to be inferior to their own.

[Coyote_Bandit]

14. So

as I said earlier, it comes back to the simple fact that the organization/breeder does not trust the person with whom they place the dog and as a result they wish to maintain control over the property (the animal is legally property).

I have no interest in "leasing" an animal (and that is all a pet "adoption" is if the incidents of ownership are not transferred to the new caretaker). Or in patronizing an organization that does not trust me. I too am capable of making a lifelong commitment to caring for an animal. To assume otherwise implies that you (the breeder or rescue group) think you are capable of something I am not. That is arrogant and offensive to me.

I can find another needy animal that comes without restriction - and without the ego investment and control issues associated with some rescue groups.



Damn, it's hard to type with burned and blistered fingers.....

[cuke]

25. Then adopt from somewhere else

No one says you have to subject yourself to these onerous clauses. There are millions of animals that need homes.

But some people like to get their dogs from someone who cares about dogs enough to make a life long commitment to them

[Coyote_Bandit]

29. Exactly

I have two dogs. They are "rescues" and they came from sources other than traditional rescue groups. I am responsible for them. I know that should I be unable to care for them that I can designate one of two homes to care for them - knowing that my dogs are familiar with those homes and the people that occupy them - and knowing that those people will provide suitable care for the dogs. I don't need anybody else (particularly somebody that hasn't observed the dogs for a period of time) to rubber stamp or consent to my decision.

I got my dogs from vets who had taken them in and cared for them. In each case these vets voluntarily took in the animal without compensation and cared for it. Every vet I have ever known has done that kind of thing. Repeatedly. It is elitist lunacy to pretend that only rescue groups or breeders are the only ones committed to animal welfare. They are not the animal welfare police.

One puppy was 5 months old, had a history of pancreatitis, was in renal failure and another vet had already recommended he be euthanized. Before the vet took him in the dog had already been DNA tested and had had an ultrasound that was sent to a veterinary urology professor for further examination. His best prognosis was "wait and see." It was not until sometime after he became an adult dog that his renal function began to stabilize. Not likely many rescue groups would have taken him in or made an effort to place him. He is now nearly 6 years old. He still has renal disease and requires a prescription diet - but all of his renal values have been within normal range for the past several years. Aside from his diet, he lives a normal life.

The second dog was nearly a year old when the vet took him in. He had been attacked by another dog and had significant eye trauma. Prior to that he had never been inside a building of any kind, had had only minimal human interaction, and had had no medical care or immunizations at all. He was a wild boy. He will be 8 years old early next year. He is visually impaired but has socialized well. Because of his visual impairment combined with his nearly complete lack of socialization many rescue groups would not have made an effort to place him either.

The issue isn't one of commitment it is one of control. Either an "adopter" is entrusted to care for an animal and given the authority and ability to do so or they are not. Retaining control is a symptom of distrust. On the other hand, relying on the future ability to surrender an animal back to a breeder or rescue group is an indication of lack of commitment to the animal. It is a dysfunctional relationship.

[Midlodemocrat]

20. How did you burn your fingers?

[Coyote_Bandit]

24. I've been learning

how to do glasswork with the intention of relocating and starting my own small little shop in another state. Eventually I am going to have to relocate there to help care for aging family members.

I was soldering a foiled stained glass piece. Unbeknownst to me a small area of foil had separated from the glass (probably overheated) and solder had puddled underneath. When I turned the piece to work on another area I drug my fingertips through the molten solder. I was using an 800 degree tip so the blisters appeared immediately. The burns are second degree on the pads of 2 fingers on my left hand. I figure it will take about a month or so to fully heal.

Thanks for asking.

[Midlodemocrat]

26. Holy Cow! That sounds painful. Hope you are feeling better soon!

:hug:

The glasswork sounds interesting. I love hand blown pieces. There is a craft show here that I go to every year and this one guy sells this beautiful blown glass ornaments. They are to die for. I've been collecting them for years. Beautiful pieces of work.

My very first piece of blown glass was a replica of Cinderella's castle at Disney when I was 10. My dad bought it for me. I love that stuff.

[Coyote_Bandit]

27. I love blown glass

and would like to learn how to do it. But that will probably have to wait. Right now I am concentrating on learning leaded and foiled stained glass (including large architectural projects) and some of the warm glass skills (fused glass and lampworking).

Because of the interplay between color and texture and light and transparency there really isn't any other medium that compares. I enjoy it. I aspire to become proficient and professional enough to eek out at least a modest living doing work I love.

Thanks for the hug...

[Midlodemocrat]

28. I am contemplating putting a stained glass window in my family room.

It currently doesn't have windows on one side, and I think some stained glass would be simply gorgeous in there. I have leaded glass in my front door and it is beautiful when the sun comes up.

[Coyote_Bandit]

32. I think it is beautiful stuff and

there are so many ways it can be used.

If you don't want to use it in a window you can backlight it and get the same effect. Or you can use opaque glass. I've seen some peices recently that combined traditional stained glass methods with metals and fused glass. Really neat. Some artists have even recreated classic artwork in glass.

http://chantal-stainedglasspatterns.com/2starrynight.html
http://free-stainedglasspatterns.com/2thescream.html

There are a lot of free pattern sites on the net. You could look through them and get an idea of what you might like and then take it to a shop and get an estimate on what it might cost to have built. Cost is usually related to size, number and size of pieces, type and color of glass and the skill of the artist.

[redqueen]

13. Ellen screwed up... the rescue org punished the kids out of spite.

That's it in a nutshell.

[Mugu]

16. You could be right,

but the attorney for the agency claims that Ellen threaten the agency with having a herd of attorneys make their life miserable. When the agency asked that the new family (the one that Ellen picked) fill out the usual adoption forms they refused. So the dog was given to a new family. I don't know what the truth is, but that is what the agency attorney claimed.

Regards, Mugu

[redqueen]

23. Too bad for that laywer... some lady with the rescue org already

answered a reporter thusly, when asked about allowing the new family to keep the dog (not exact but close):

'After the way we've been treated, that's no longer a consideration.'

She might as well have poked her tongue out after saying that. :rofl:

[Deep13]

18. The dog was wet.

That's the likely source of the "big stink."

[SeussTree]

19. Hahahahhaa!

[Midlodemocrat]

21. Or, like my puppy, it pooped in the sunroom.

[LSK]

22. filler because nothing else is going on?

:shrug:

[Capn Sunshine]

38. You're sophistcated, Lynn. It's the weekly "Iraq? What War?" story for distraction purposes

They fixate on something like this every week. I really think Brittany Spears gets a check from the Ministry of Propaganda monthly.

[gmoney]

42. Don't like paperwork? Get a puppy from the grocery bulletin board...

People just giving away litters probably wouldn't take the dog back if you begged them.

[redqueen]

43. I wonder if more people will stop even trying

to use rescue agencies as a result of this story.

That would be sad.

[Coyote_Bandit]

46. Or call a vet

Every vet I have ever known has maintained an ever-changing menagerie in need of homes. They are usually very well cared for, have good personalities and come without fees. And I've known a few vets that will negotiate their veterinary fees if you continue care with them.....

[Critters2]

48. The vets I know turn stray animals over to rescue groups

and shelters.

[Coyote_Bandit]

50. Perhaps not all vets do that

they don't have any obligation to work with rescue groups or place animals with those groups.

[mondo joe]

49. There's still one big shocker in the whole story that no one has brought up.

Ellen has a hairdresser?