Of Celebrities and Dogs

A lot of people have commented on sad story of Ellen DeGeneres and Iggy the dog. The basic gist of the story is that Ellen's partner adopted a dog from a rescue and didn't read the contract that the rescue had her sign. One of the tenants* of the contract is that if you decide that you can not give the dog to anyone else should you decide that you can not keep the dog.

Under the Mutts and Moms contract agreement (section 3H discusses the “NO RIGHT TO TRANSFER”), which Access obtained a copy of, anyone accepting a dog agrees to “NOT give or sell ADOPTEE to another person, company, organization, medical research, pound or animal shelter,” or, “If ADOPTER fails to abide by the terms of this clause, ADOPTER will pay all costs, including any legal fees incurred, required to secure the return of ADOPTEE to RESCUE and will, in addition, be required to pay liquidated damages in the amount of $500.”

Lucky, the worlds best border collie, is a rescue dog. Jack, the wild and crazy puppy, came to us from a breeder. When we purchased both dogs, we had to sign similar contracts. I understand why they do this. Unscrupulous people would go to shelters and rescues, adopt pets and then turn around and sell them to research labs and dog fighting rings. Not that we would ever do something like that, but it is to protect the dog and it is a very common practice

What bothers me is how people are handling this. The owner of the rescue agency has received numerous threatening messages...including one from DeGeneres' publicist.

A publicist for DeGeneres, Kelly Bush, also allegedly took matters a step further by leaving what seemed like a threatening message for Mutts and Moms. “We’re filing a legal case against you. We’re going to be contacting the media. This is not going to be good for your store or your organization,” Bush said on the tape, which was first played by “Good Morning America.”

In another interview, DeGeneres accused the agency of "selectively" enforcing their rules all the while asking that they do so in her favor when, on her program today, she pleaded that her hairstylist be given the dog because the hairstylists children had already bonded on the dog.

This really is one of those sad no win situations. Ellen violated a contract, granted she did not know what was in the contract, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. Mutts and Moms, certainly could have handled it better, but then again, we don't know what (if any) action they took prior to siezing the dog from the "new family". The real losers are the kids. Kids and dogs are a timeless combination. Dogs are good for kids and vice versa.

Perhaps the ladies that run Mutts and Moms can act like moms and give the kids a chance. I understand that not all dogs are kid friendly and not all kids are dog friendly, but if you really did care about the well being of the dog and the adoptive family the extra work is worth it. Just ask Lucky and Jack.

* - Thanks to reader and commenter J.Ewing for correcting my horrible spelling!