Iggygate: So much more than just a dog's tale

It started out lightheartedly enough: a custody dispute involving a TV comedienne, a hairdresser, a tiny mixed-breed puppy and the overzealous dog rescue organization that rocked their worlds.

[TwoEvils]

Ellen DeGeneres was wrong, wrong, wrong to give the dog away! Marina Baktis was right to take the dog back. The hairdresser hadn't been vetted. Who knows if she and her pre-teens could provide a good home for this dog, who is very small. The kids will get over it if Ellen stops her publicity stunt to deflect blame from her onto Baktis.

Ellen, you should be ashamed for taking your adoption responsibilities so lightly! Your arrogant "celebrity" has caused pain on all sides.

(It's in our Will that our rescue dog goes back to the rescue organization, per the contract we read and signed!)

[The King of all Posters]

To the author, Chris Lee: it is obvious that you have chosen sides rather than being an objective journalist. The first statement of your non-news article indicates that a custody battle between (your words) " a TV comedienne, a hairdresser, a tiny mixed-breed puppy and the overzealous dog rescue organization." First of all, everything I've read and heard states that a contract was signed by Degenneres and Mutts & Moms. Not a Hairdresser. Not a tiny mixed-breed puppy. But that is less important than your biased report. The Mutts & Moms organization does not seem to be "overzealous" by my estimation. They have specific rules and policies regarding adoption. Ellen was aware of these policies when she signed the contract. She violated the contract. But Ellen took the unfair advantage of a national television show, and exploited it. Rules should be followed, even in Hollywood, by popular talk show hosts. Dolt.

[Ellenissolame]

This whole thing is her fault. She and her partner f'ed up and broke the rules. Other people got hurt in the process....that's Ellen's fault and no one else's. Rules are rules and they even apply to celebrities....if you can call Ellen that. At best she's a halfway good stand up comic. Her show is a joke and is only watched by fat broads anyhow.

[gofer]

TwoEvils wrote:

Ellen DeGeneres was wrong, wrong, wrong to give the dog away! Marina Baktis was right to take the dog back. The hairdresser hadn't been vetted. Who knows if she and her pre-teens could provide a good home for this dog, who is very small. The kids will get over it if Ellen stops her publicity stunt to deflect blame from her onto Baktis.
Ellen, you should be ashamed for taking your adoption responsibilities so lightly! Your arrogant "celebrity" has caused pain on all sides.
(It's in our Will that our rescue dog goes back to the rescue organization, per the contract we read and signed!)

I don't care what the circumstances. If someone came into my house and tried to take ANYTHING I would have blown their a$$ away! These people want you to go through more to adopt a dog than a child.

[Pete]

I think everyone in this whole situation is trying for the Oscar award for who screwed up last.

However I think the rescue could have handled taking the dog back with better grace. Like talking to the family first before you go storming over there to take the dog back.

[WTF]

Just shoot the mutt

[Marsha]

I have always liked Ellen, but afer Tuesday's performance on her show I have lost all respect I had for her. first of all she broke a contract, I'm surprise her lawyers and entourage did not read the contract out loud to her before her or her partner signed it, second, she should have never mention the rescue group's name, she knew when she came to do her show she was going to put a performance and she knew people were going to act stupid on her behalf. Rescue groups know where and wehn to place these animals, and if their policy is not to have placed this particular dog with children under certain age is for a reason. I applaude the rescue group for not falling for hers and the hairdresser's daughter's fake tears.
Every time I have adopted I have been made aware of the same clause, and by the way Ellen and Ellen lovers I have never given away any of my adopted pets, I have 2 dogs and 3 cats, I taught them to get all along.

[Cruelty-Free]

The King of all Posters wrote:

To the author, Chris Lee: it is obvious that you have chosen sides rather than being an objective journalist. The first statement of your non-news article indicates that a custody battle between (your words) " a TV comedienne, a hairdresser, a tiny mixed-breed puppy and the overzealous dog rescue organization." First of all, everything I've read and heard states that a contract was signed by Degenneres and Mutts & Moms. Not a Hairdresser. Not a tiny mixed-breed puppy. But that is less important than your biased report. The Mutts & Moms organization does not seem to be "overzealous" by my estimation. They have specific rules and policies regarding adoption. Ellen was aware of these policies when she signed the contract. She violated the contract. But Ellen took the unfair advantage of a national television show, and exploited it. Rules should be followed, even in Hollywood, by popular talk show hosts. Dolt.

Was Ellen aware of the policy in the contract? Did she sign the contract, or did her partner? Anyway, Mutts & Moms owner stated that Iggy was taken from "the hairdresser's" home simply because they do not place small dogs with young children. That is unreasonable. Firstly, the children are not that young. Secondly, a well known dog trainer (interviewed on TV last night) offered her services, pro bono, to train Iggy and the hairdresser's children, in the home.
The bottom-line of this case is clear. That is, Mutts & Moms are in a power struggle, because of what the owner stated herself, i.e., they are not giving Iggy back to the hairdresser family "after how we have been treated." So basically, is it out of spite and ego that they took Iggy out of the home. Not in what was the best interest of the dog.

[Cruelty-Free]

Marsha wrote:

I have always liked Ellen, but afer Tuesday's performance on her show I have lost all respect I had for her. first of all she broke a contract, I'm surprise her lawyers and entourage did not read the contract out loud to her before her or her partner signed it, second, she should have never mention the rescue group's name, she knew when she came to do her show she was going to put a performance and she knew people were going to act stupid on her behalf. Rescue groups know where and wehn to place these animals, and if their policy is not to have placed this particular dog with children under certain age is for a reason. I applaude the rescue group for not falling for hers and the hairdresser's daughter's fake tears.
Every time I have adopted I have been made aware of the same clause, and by the way Ellen and Ellen lovers I have never given away any of my adopted pets, I have 2 dogs and 3 cats, I taught them to get all along.

With a world filled with precious dogs that need a good, safe, and loving home...Mutts & Moms acted highly unreasonably. The clearly were not thinking in the best interest of Iggy when the yanked him out of this clearly appropriate home. The age issue of the kids is bull. They are just trying to make a point...at this dog's expense.
If Iggy could speak; and could say if he wanted to be taken from the hairdresser's home...he most definately would have said, "NO...I want to stay!!!"

[Cruelty-Free]

WTF wrote:

Just shoot the mutt

We know what kind of low-life evil loser that you are! No one cares about what you have to write. I loathe the fact that people like you are on this planet.

[a teacher]

a contract is a contract. who would better know this than an entertainer? it wasn't as if the kids had the dog for years. if ellen feels guilty, then she should give them the money to buy or rescue another dog that they have been screened to adopt.

celebrities with animals crack me up. most don't even take care of them. they hire people to train them, walk them, clean up after them, and feed them. the celebrities spend very little time with their animals, they shouldn't even be considered as acceptable adoptive parents by a rescue league.

maybe the agency just wanted to say that they have celebrities who are on their adoptive parent list.

[obama]

The King of all Posters wrote:

To the author, Chris Lee: it is obvious that you have chosen sides rather than being an objective journalist. The first statement of your non-news article indicates that a custody battle between (your words) " a TV comedienne, a hairdresser, a tiny mixed-breed puppy and the overzealous dog rescue organization." First of all, everything I've read and heard states that a contract was signed by Degenneres and Mutts & Moms. Not a Hairdresser. Not a tiny mixed-breed puppy. But that is less important than your biased report. The Mutts & Moms organization does not seem to be "overzealous" by my estimation. They have specific rules and policies regarding adoption. Ellen was aware of these policies when she signed the contract. She violated the contract. But Ellen took the unfair advantage of a national television show, and exploited it. Rules should be followed, even in Hollywood, by popular talk show hosts. Dolt.

YOU REALLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT CONTRACT? really? I bet you can't even tell me who violated the contract first?#1 Mutt and Moms did not do a home inspection on Ellen's home.#2 they gave Ellen the dog without being NEUTERED that A BIG VIOLATION ! Ellen took the dog to be neutered. You never leave the spaying/neutering up to the adopter ! Oh, I guess they were thinking how rich she was then, right?#3 yes, they are overzelous they could have done a home inspection on the family and NOT made a big deal out of it. What they would have gained was another good family a probably more recommendations from somebody (ELLEN) that knows millions of people. And when the time for begging for more money for your rescue group comes guess who would be the first person who would have probably given you lotsa lotsa money? DUM B A S S E S

PS. I'm a rescue group, and I think they went overboard.

[Labradoodle Rescue]

THE RESCUE GROUP VIOLATED THE CONTRACT FIRST ! PEOPLE PLEASE READ ! WE RESCUE ALL TYPES OF ANIMALS, AND WE DON'T GO STRICTLY BY EACH WORD, OUR MAIN CONCERN IS THAT THE ANIMALS DON'T GO FOR DOG BAITING, and yes, that it is a good family. This family appeared to be good, and they knew who they were.

[Not the First Time]

This is a bunch of crap.. who really gives a shyt!!!!!!

[Velma]

gofer wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't care what the circumstances. If someone came into my house and tried to take ANYTHING I would have blown their a$$ away! These people want you to go through more to adopt a dog than a child.

It's people like you who don't deserve a dog ... blow away someone, indeed. The humane society is responsible for the well being of the dog and they are not even able to check up on him if they don't know where he went. How does the humane society KNOW they are good people?? Watch Animal Cops on Animal Planet sometime and see what the laws are.

[Velma]

Cruelty-Free wrote:

<quoted text>
With a world filled with precious dogs that need a good, safe, and loving home...Mutts & Moms acted highly unreasonably. The clearly were not thinking in the best interest of Iggy when the yanked him out of this clearly appropriate home. The age issue of the kids is bull. They are just trying to make a point...at this dog's expense.
If Iggy could speak; and could say if he wanted to be taken from the hairdresser's home...he most definately would have said, "NO...I want to stay!!!"

Ha, ha. I didn't know you could read the dog's mind!! And I don't understand what you mean by ..."at the dog's expense." Iggy now HAS a loving home. Let's all drop this idiocy now that it has been settled, OK?

[Billy Bob]

Cruelty-Free wrote:

<quoted text>We know what kind of low-life evil loser that you are! No one cares about what you have to write. I loathe the fact that people like you are on this planet.

You aren't so welcomed yourself.

[Cruelty-Free]

Velma wrote:

<quoted text>
Ha, ha. I didn't know you could read the dog's mind!! And I don't understand what you mean by ..."at the dog's expense." Iggy now HAS a loving home. Let's all drop this idiocy now that it has been settled, OK?

No. NOT OK!
You clearly do not have the come sense of heart and intuition; to know that if Iggy demonstrated being happy and content in that home...which he did...then he would not want to be taken away from it. Even a simpleton as yourself should be able to comprehend that.

[Cruelty-Free]

Billy Bob wrote:

<quoted text>
You aren't so welcomed yourself.

Based on what?

[Cruelty-Free]

Typo Correction: "common"