TheShermanator
Posts:277
 | | 10/20/2007 8:58 PM |
 Alert | First off, my bad for contradicting myself in my 1st post. What I meant to state was,
"This agency is a small rescue agency who most likely DO HAVE have the resources to handle returned dogs," rather than do not have the resources. My fault, sorry.
My biggest problem is the hysterics Ellen created. Did anyone see clips of her show? You would have thought someone killed the dog. Her little tantrum on TV in essence forced that rescue agency to close their doors, at least for now. What good is that? That's what she had, a tantrum. Poor little Ellen. Makes me sick. I'm more angry about that, than anything. How many animals are suffering now that her lovely fans have bombarded the rescue agency with so many emails and letters, and phone calls, they could not continue with their primary mission - animal rescue?
Adopting to children is difficult. It doesn't matter whether it is an attack breed, agressive breed or not. The rule was no children under 14. It didn't matter whether or not these kids were 11 or 12. The agency could not set a precedent by adopting to this family.
How did this agency demand, condemn, interfere or humiliate? Perhaps they did try to explain their reasoning why they were re-homing the dog. Did they? I honestly do not know. The problem was the this agency could not make an exception to their rule. If they adopted out to a family with children under 14, then they would have to adopt to all families with children under 14. What if they were not comfortable with that? Not many of us are. Even with the most docile animal, it can still be provoked to snap at a child, if the child is not supervised.
| |
Formerly known as 'greytxracers'
"My greyhound is smarter than your honor student"
| |
|
|
|
DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/20/2007 9:00 PM |
Alert | Posted By ilovesubway on 10/20/2007 8:53 PM
And so what if THIS adoption group has money in the bank.. It's not like the volunteers get any of it.. You seem like you begrudge them having money to help more animals..
LOL...no, I begrudge them for inserting themselves into the lives of people that didn't do business directly with them and upsetting two innocent little girls for no GOOD reason, over a dog that was NO LONGER their concern. | | | |
|
|
|
ilovesubway
Posts:53
| | 10/20/2007 9:02 PM |
Alert | | edited because this stupid forum engine sucks.. | | | |
|
|
|
ilovesubway
Posts:53
| | 10/20/2007 9:02 PM |
Alert | Posted By DesertNewbie on 10/20/2007 9:11 AM
They should give that dog back to the family and then close their "rescue" doors immediately. They obviously have no real clue as to their actual cause. These places, in my opinion, are no better than the puppy mills producing the unwanted pets to begin with.They are only in it for the "adoption fees".
Sad...very sad.
your words.. not mine.. | | | |
|
|
|
DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/20/2007 9:03 PM |
Alert | <div class='NTForums_Quote'>Posted By TheShermanator on 10/20/2007 8:58 PM
How did this agency demand, condemn, interfere or humiliate? Perhaps they did try to explain their reasoning why they were re-homing the dog. Did they? I honestly do not know. The problem was the this agency could not make an exception to their rule. If they adopted out to a family with children under 14, then they would have to adopt to all families with children under 14.
</div>
You're missing my point. They didn't need to break, bend or change any of their rules and adopt this dog out to the family with the two little girls...IT WAS NO LONGER THEIR DOG! They should have just stayed out of it.
| | | |
|
|
|
ilovesubway
Posts:53
| | 10/20/2007 9:04 PM |
Alert | | Except for that pesky contract that Ellen signed.. | | | |
|
|
 |
DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/20/2007 9:04 PM |
Alert | Posted By ilovesubway on 10/20/2007 9:02 PM Posted By DesertNewbie on 10/20/2007 9:11 AM
They should give that dog back to the family and then close their "rescue" doors immediately. They obviously have no real clue as to their actual cause. These places, in my opinion, are no better than the puppy mills producing the unwanted pets to begin with.They are only in it for the "adoption fees".
Sad...very sad. your words.. not mine..
About this place and places LIKE THEM.
You need to read the rest of my posts where I said good rescues that do good work have my total support.
| | | |
|
|
|
DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/20/2007 9:05 PM |
Alert | Posted By ilovesubway on 10/20/2007 9:04 PM
Except for that pesky contract that Ellen signed..
I don't care about the contract, and neither should you. Remember, you're in for the DOG? The dog was happy and well cared for where he was. He didn't need to uprooted again.
| | | |
|
|
|
DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/20/2007 9:06 PM |
Alert | Posted By ilovesubway on 10/20/2007 9:02 PM
edited because this stupid forum engine sucks..
Hey...we agree on that that! :-) | | | |
|
|
|
ilovesubway
Posts:53
| | 10/20/2007 9:07 PM |
Alert | I am in it for the dog.. but that still doesn't mean the adoption group should have stayed out of it.. They have a responsibility to the dog to make sure it is in a safe environment.. Their published definition of "safe" says "No children under 14" in clear, concise English.
| | | |
|
|
|
DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/20/2007 9:10 PM |
Alert | | And my point is that is a BS rule that shouldn't be cut and dry. This situation could have taken a very different turn had they just realize the dog was happy, the kids were happy, Ellen was happy and nobody was bothering anyone. To say cramming a stupid contract down someone's throat is "in the best interest of the dog" is a cop out excuse for playing God. | | | |
|
|
|
ilovesubway
Posts:53
| | 10/20/2007 9:12 PM |
Alert | | And like Shermanator stated, the rules are in place for a reason and to say that it's not cut and dry implies bending said rules to fit the situation. Once an allowance is made is puts the adoption group at the top of a slippery slope.. Where do you draw the line? | | | |
|
|
|
DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/20/2007 9:15 PM |
Alert | I think there SHOULD be exceptions to this rule. Not all kids under 14 are too irresponsible to have pets. I had one for as long as I can recall.
They could have easily drawn the line at "Ellen found the dog a suitable home". If anyone were to ever find out that this puppy originated from Mutts & Moms, but went to kids under 14, they would have no liability since THEY didn't adopt the dog out to the family.
They should have just stayed out of it...plain and simple. | | | |
|
|
|
ilovesubway
Posts:53
| | 10/20/2007 9:20 PM |
Alert | Liability isn't the issue.. for whatever reason, this adoption group made their policy about children. It was clear and concise and not up for review. If this adoption group feels like placing a dog in a home with young children in not in the best interests of the dog, who are you to argue or say they're wrong? Their policy is published on their website as well as their adoption contract.. which wasn't 50 pages long.. I doubt it was more than one page long.
The fact is, that adoption group didn't want that dog in that home with those children.. the reasoning doesn't matter. That contract that Ellen signed gives them the right to make the choice regardless of what the family wants.. Their interest in with the dog, and they decided it as in the dog's interest to not be in a home with children, and it is within their rights to make that decision. | | | |
|
|
|
DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/20/2007 9:20 PM |
Alert | <div class='NTForums_Quote'>Posted By ilovesubway on 10/20/2007 9:19 PM
Then we agree to disagree. </div>
Works for me....g'nite. | | | |
|
|
|
DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/20/2007 9:21 PM |
Alert | You can't say "wait"....LOL You already said "agree to disagree"!
I really do need to get off of here, but thanks for the debate. I like you. You're a firecracker. | | | |
|
|
|
ilovesubway
Posts:53
| | 10/20/2007 9:28 PM |
Alert | Then I revisited your word "liability" and it sparked my thought 
And I have nowhere to go.. LOL My husband is "out with the guys"  | | | |
|
|
|
DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/21/2007 2:22 PM |
Alert | | More editing due to board-ware suckage. | | | |
|
|
|
DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/21/2007 2:29 PM |
Alert | Posted By ilovesubway on 10/20/2007 9:28 PM Then I revisited your word "liability" and it sparked my thought And I have nowhere to go.. LOL My husband is "out with the guys"
I chose the word "liability" because Shermanator said:
"The problem was the this agency could not make an exception to their rule. If they adopted out to a family with children under 14, then they would have to adopt to all families with children under 14."
This indicates the rescue handled it as they did because perhaps they feared that:
a) They would have to change the rule for future adoptees so as not to have anyone come back and say, "You did it for Ellen's dog!"
or
b) The rescue was concerned that other families with kids under 14, who had been turned down in the past, could come back and make them change the rule.
My point is, had they just stayed out of it, nobody would have been any the wiser and this would be a non-issue. The end of the story would be...happy dog...happy kids...one less animal the rescue needed to worry about so they could concentrate on finding homes for the others they have. | | | |
|
|
|
eddie
Posts:67
| | 10/22/2007 12:38 PM |
Alert | Wasn't the group called mutts and moms? That would imply child friendly to me, the no one under 14 policy seems like overkill.
My take is that Ellen really messed up when dealing with the agency long before her hysterics on tv, she probably pulled a celebrity "I can get what I want" attitude and thats why the group decided to show her who's boss by taking the dog away. It was a battle of egos that got out of control, and hurt the kids in the process. | | | |
|
|
|