Ellen DeGeneres' Doggone Nightmare

16. The adoption agency was and is out for the interests of the dog. Ellen was wrong this time, in not giving enough weight to the contract she signed. I am sure that if this home checks out and goes through the adoption process and signs their own contract, they will re-home this dog with the hairdresser. The reason for the contract is so the agency can follow the dog through his/her life and assure that the dog is safe. Rescues don't stop caring about their dogs after re-homing them. IF this new home were abusive, the rescue would have no rights to intervene on behalf of the dog down the road. Sorry, Ellen was wrong on this one!

Posted at 5:18PM on Oct 15th 2007 by SCDane

17. See that's the problem with these rescue groups! They don't care about the welfare of the dog, they care about getting another $400 out of someone to "rescue" "their" dog.

People, if you want to rescue a dog, go the LA County Shelter (or any shelter in the US). It's $30 and don't have to worry about unneccesary drama if you decide to give the dog to your sister, dentist, hairdresser, or maid.

Posted at 4:41PM on Oct 15th 2007 by Celebuspawn

18. thats ludacris! if the dog had a good home then why take it away. bad move on the pet adoption agency.

Posted at 4:40PM on Oct 15th 2007 by miss classy

19. wasn't that the point anyway - to find the dog a home???

Posted at 5:16PM on Oct 15th 2007 by Logo Designers

20. This is why people need to take what they sign their name to seriously...she signed a contract binding them. Its sad for the little girl and she really should get the dog BUT lesson learned hopefully to them.

Posted at 4:43PM on Oct 15th 2007 by Shell

21. #12 - KLM - YOU ARE AN A$$!

Posted at 4:45PM on Oct 15th 2007 by Britney

22. I live in LA and I'm never surprised by the amount of stupidity in this city. Yes, she probably should have informed the agency that she was giving the dog to a friend, but she's Ellen, not Michael Vick. Maybe this agency feels their dogs can ONLY go to famous people. Leno's done "Jaywalking" for 10 years because 99% of the people here are idiots.
Happy Monday!

Posted at 4:48PM on Oct 15th 2007 by Mark

23. Kristi,
These rescue organizations are obsessed beyond reason. The dog was in a loving and good home. The rescue group should have checked out the family and let them keep the dog. Instead, they got angry. Maybe they wanted to tell people that Ellen had adopted from them and now could not. Whatever, the rescue organization was wrong to have done what it did. It doesn't excuse Ellen, because she signed a contract stating she would give the dog back if she needed to get rid of it. But that issue aside, she did find a loving home. The rescue org should have mitigated the damages rather than escalate them by ripping the dog away from the family. It hurt the family and the dog!

Posted at 4:45PM on Oct 15th 2007 by jakie

24. You have NO CLUE what we rescue groups pay OUT OF OUR POCkETS for the welfare of these anmials. I spend MINIMUM of $250.00 per animla and I ask for a $100.00 donationtowards that. I certainly can't speak for all, but I can certainly speak for little ole me who does this to take care of the animals that simple minded IDIOTS who make comments like "their just dogs" DON"T take care of. Because of the sorry few (many) the rest of us pick up the tab!

Posted at 4:53PM on Oct 15th 2007 by Kristi

25. WOW ...I see America has idiotic, self-righteous, pretenious, animal rights bullies too ... I thought that sort of cruel, misguided, asinine, situations only happened here in Canada with our own little "DOGGIE NAZIS" .. smooth move, way to endear yourself to the public's heart ..

Posted at 4:46PM on Oct 15th 2007 by TWIST420

26. How did the agency even find out about this dog no longer belonging to Ellen?

I adopted a dog and the only way I can see this kind of issue is if someone ratted her out. Who did you hurt this time, Ellen?

Posted at 4:47PM on Oct 15th 2007 by Lesbian trapped in a man's body

27. Rescue Adoption agencies want a dog in a "forever" home; all their contracts stipulate to return the dog if not suitable. The kid could still have the dog, her mom just needs to fill out an application with the agency. Those of us that deal with rescue and know why dogs end up in rescue will understand this. Also, celebrities are not above the law. And in the case of the football dude..being a celebrity doesn't make you a proper dog owner. Did Ellen not tell the agency about the cats ? Did she not consider having a meet-and-greet with the other household pets before getting this dog? People are the irresponsible ones, rescue agencies are working hard with limited funds to put the dog first.

Posted at 9:28PM on Jan 3rd 2008 by LovesDogs

28. I agree with the agency. If these are the rules, these are the rules. Fortunately, this dog
was in a "good home". In many cases, "free to good home", only spells tragedy for
the animal involved. People tend to place little value on anything they get for "free"!
I know from sad first experience. I gave a dog away to what I thought was a "good home".
It , I found out later, was treated very poorly. It wound up getting hit by a car. Everyone likes
to imagine that "free to good home" guarantees a stray animal a life of bliss, but it is usually
not the case. These animals often wind up neglected, dead, and some in a lab for research.
While Ellen was more than likely well meaning, the agency probably knows all too well, the
dire consequences of "placing again" a dog that did not fit in. Perhaps the young girl and
family who had it, will be allowed to adopt it again-properly. That would be fitting.

Posted at 4:58PM on Oct 15th 2007 by Irma

29. Don't sign contracts you haven't read. Honor contracts you have signed. Don't deal with IDIOTS! Visit your local shelter. Eeeelllllleeeennn...... PAY ATTENTION!!

Posted at 4:47PM on Oct 15th 2007 by Some Faustkateer

30. I voted no again because the votes are not going the right way. It's wrong to break the rules people.

Posted at 4:48PM on Oct 15th 2007 by KLM