When does one really take ownership of an adopted pet?

[Bassetluv]

I'm really musing over this one after seeing an upsetting video on Yahoo today. It was a clip from Ellen Degeneres' show, and Ellen had broken down and began crying on camera. Apparentlya while ago she adopted apuppy from a local shelter and had every plan to keep him...took him to the vet, had him neutered, etc., but the dog didn't work out for her. He was lively and active, and since she decided she couldn't keep him, and knew that her hairdresser was looking for a dog for her children, Ellen gave him away. The woman who took him was sending her updates on him, telling Ellen how well he'd bonded with the children, how happy he was...but then Ellen received a phone call from the shelter asking how the puppy was doing. When she told them that he hadn't worked out for her, but she had found him a loving home, the people at the shelter got very upset, went to the woman's house and seized the dog. And that is what led to Ellen breaking down in tears on her show...she was sobbing, admitting that she had inadvertently not followed their protocal, and she was begging the shelter to return the puppy to the family, as the woman and her children were devastated.

I know that shelters have clauses when you adopt a pet, stating that if you cannot take care of it, you are to return it to the shelter, and I understand that the clause is there to protect the animal...but I do have to wonder sometimes. Why could they not have simply monitored the family and let the puppy stay? Or signed the adoption papers over to them? Unless there is more to the story than has been revealed, I find this rather upsetting.

I know that when I adopted my dog 10 years ago, the shelter herealmost didn't let me take her, despite the fact I was one of their volunteers, and despite the fact that Kaya was being considered for euthanasia because she was going to be deemed 'unadoptable' due to separation anxiety issues (she had been adopted out twice and returned both times)...that and the fact that they were overflowing with dogs coming in and were being forced to put some of them down. The reason they initially denied me the adoption? My son, who was 16 at the time, was out of the province for the summer, and they didn't want me to adopt Kaya without her first meeting all the family members. It took a great deal of pleading on my part for them to allow her to come home with me. Had they not given in to my pleading, Kaya - who is an absolute blessing - probably wouldn't be alive now.

Sometimes I think either rules are just too strict, or they need to make exceptions...

 

[Luvmyzoocrew]

hmmmm good question, i understand there clauses that they have is to insure the animal is ok, but like you said why couldnt they just have the new owners go through the adoption process too. What i dont get is in a court of law (i am not a lawyer so i dont know if i am completely correct) isnt an animal considered property? So if it is property and Ellen owned the property isnt "hers" , and doesnt she have the right to do what she feels is best for it. IF it is her property and she decides on a new owner isnt that her right to do that?



Secondly dont you think it was kind of stupid on there part to do that because of the media attention that she can get for ,or against , them? Not that she should get away with something just because of who she is, but it would have been a little wiser of them to go about it differently , dont you think.



I think it is crazy now they have another dog in there shelter , that could have been in a really nice family, and nowit is in a cage taking up space for another dog in the shelter. they could have just gone through the adoption process and given her the dog, had they felt she would be approved, and then been done with it.

 

[Leaf]

It was a breach of contract, pure and simple.

99.9% of the time if you contact the shelter you adopted from and explain the situation, go in with the animal and proof of all of its vetting - they'll gladly allow you to rehome the animal once they see records of the spay or neuter and have a chance to update their own records.

In cases where hoarding becomes an issue or severe abuse or neglect (for example) -if an unaltered shelter animal is found in said home - the shelter itself can be held responsible for not enforcing adoption policies.

Wouldn't that suck if as far as they knew "their" animal was tucked away safely in its recorded adoptive home?

In a worst case senerio it can ruin a shelter, causing closure of the facility and the death of many, if not all of the animals in it.

The protection of one animal is important in so many ways - in saving the lives of many others.

Shelter personell has access to many files, and can cross check backgrounds to see if there are any offenses against people in animal neglect/cruelty sense. They also have a good idea of who the bunchers are in the area, another thing the public in general probably wouldn't know off hand.You don't know who your "neighbors" are in life and by having individuals rehome adopted pets serious issues can arise.

Contracts are made and enforced for a reason and I'd have to say I'm VERY glad this came to light because it can be a prime lesson to others who decide to do the same, whether their intentions are good or not.

It'll be a reality check for Joe Public in general I believe.


Sad for the people involved I guess, but a good lesson all the same.

 

[Leaf]

I want to add something that'll be hard for some to read.

I'm an ACO and here's an example of how people are, believe it or not.



We got a call from some people - a report of abandoned dogs. When the two of us (ACOs) went to the house the stench was horrible.

What had happened was simple. Neighbors saw the lady move but didn't see the woman take her dogs. Within a few days they heard barking from the basement. The neighbors, not liking the breed of dog known to live in the house, ignored the situation.

Eventually they felt bad for the dogs and broke the basement window, where they were able to toss food down into the room, and run a water hose in once in a while to give the dogs some relief when they thought about them.

Out of sight, out of mind until the SMELL got intolerable.

When we got to the house we knew it was bad. The police department had to be called in order for us to gain access to the house.



In the 3.5 month time period the dogs had been left in the house, a litter of 5 pups had been born. Four adult dogs were chained to pallets in the corners of the basement.

All survived - pups so ill they could barely walk, scurvy being one of multiple problems they had.

Filth was so deep on the floor we couldnt get chains off pallets to lead the dogs out.

The pups were easy enough to round up as they werent very mobile. The 70lb male was too ill to walk much so we had to carry him out. A female was easy to walk outside and to the truck. One female was pretty fearful and agressive. The last female we had to use a control stick on. NOT because she was mean - but because the chain led up to her neck but was nowhere to be found. Some things you just don't pull on.

All were checked in to the pound, the one female taken to the vet for emergency surgery, where a choke chain, padlock and the end of her chain were removed from inside her neck.

We had to hold the dogs, all 9 (in a 10 run facility) while the lady was found and charges were brought up. We eventually got permission to euthanize the 5 pups before the case was over due to their extreme ill health and total lack of socialization.

Once the case was settled 3 of the adults were euthanized due to fear, agressiveness, poor health and breed restrictions in the area.

One dog was adopted out, got spooked within hours of being brought home and disappeared for the night after jumping the fence. The next day he was found dead on the road.

The lady who abandoned the dogs had moved and wasnt ready to take her pets with her, so they were left behind. Since all of this took place she has moved futher away since publicity made hers a common name, but she is still out there and you know she isnt telling all of her new neighbors and friends what horrors she put the animals through.

She had a nice house, nice cars, a good job - very respectable as far as appearances go.



Of course, shelters know who she is. The public will eventually forget. Shelters can keep her from adopting animals - individuals who don't know better - well, she WAS always SUCH a nice lady...

 

[m.e.]

Leaf wrote:

It was a breach of contract, pure and simple.

<snip>

Contracts are made and enforced for a reason and I'd have to say I'm VERY glad this came to light because it can be a prime lesson to others who decide to do the same, whether their intentions are good or not.

It'll be a reality check for Joe Public in general I believe.


Sad for the people involved I guess, but a good lesson all the same.

I agree, and I have to side with the rescue on this one.

It's a nice sob story, but we don't know if this new home violated any of the requirements that would have made them ineligable to directly adopt the dog.

You better bet I'd be steaming if one of the kitten's new homes had decided to rehome them without letting me know :nonono:

 

[Bassetluv]

You guys brought up great points, and I'm glad you did. After watching the video clip I found myself very upset, mainly because I hate seeing people who are distraught over situations where animals are involved. And that one just tugged at my heartstrings. I know that we don't know the full story...whether the woman with the children was providing the puppy with a proper home, but the way the story was presented, the viewers were led to believe that she had given him a wonderful home. And that was where I was upset...if the puppy did wind up in a good home, then could the shelter have looking into that and, instead of removing him, simply done paperwork to ensure they were covered legally, and the woman would have rightful ownership? Was the woman denied rights to adopting the puppy because of Ellen Degeneres's mistake in not following proper procedure, or was there another reason? I guess it's kind of the same as adopting a child...adoption agencies have full rights to remove a child from the home if they suspect anything that could potentially harm the child. It's a fine line though, where what is determined potentially harmful actually is so, or where following guidelines may be more interference than help.

I will admit that I tend to look at animal shelters in two lights...they absolutely do a great service for the animal community - and often it is a thankless job - yet sometimes I get upset over decisions that are made within them...sometimes bureaucratic ones, sometimes not. I did volunteer at a local HS for almost 2 years a while back, and I think that's where some of my mixed emotions come in. Back when I volunteered, it was not a no-kill shelter, though they advertised it as such. The massive numbers of animals euthanized every year was astounding. And while the onus on so many abandoned/neglected pets being put down lies squarely on the shoulders of those who did the abandoning, sometimes sweeping euthanasias took place to control disease outbreaks. It just broke my heart to go in there to walk dogs only to find 3/4 of the cages empty, because they discovered one case of parvo...during such times any dog with even a slight sign of diarrhea was immediately put down.

In one instance I recall a beautiful older dog who had been at the shelter for a while; he loved everyone, but his one fault was that he did not get along with other dogs. One day one of the volunteers was entering the shelter after walking a dog, at the same time that a new volunteer was taking this particular dog outdoors. The dogs met (a big no-no that the volunteers did) and immediately a fight broke out. The new volunteer tried to stop the fight by putting her hand in front of the older dog (another huge no-no) as he was snapping at the other dog, and of course, she was bitten...he had lunged at the other dog and got her hand in error. He was immediately euthanized, as the rules stated that any dog who bites anyone is considered dangerous. And I do often watch shows such as Animal Cops...seeing sometimes horrific conditions and/or treatment of animals...which is why I do applaud the workers and the societies...yet, with so many things I guess, sometimes there are decisions made that I find heartbreaking. In one example, on one show a dog was picked up by an animal control officer, a young, very healthy-looking labrador. He'd been hit by a car and his hind leg was pretty mangled. In many of these cases they usually rush the animal back to the vet's for immediate assessment and care; but in this case, the control officer put the dog in her truck, gave him a painkiller and then talked about the dog's owners, stating that they could not have cared about him very much to have such a thing happen. The dog had been trailing a leash that had been severed...she suggested it had been chewed, and she assumed that the dog had been tied up somewhere and left on its own, chewed the leash, and then ran away, leading to the accident. She then chastised whoever the owner was to have been so negligent, turned to the dog and euthanized him on the spot. What upset me about this case was: the dog was young, probably a year or so old, and very healthy-looking...well-fed, gleaming coat, which indicated he had been pretty well taken care of; how was the control officer to know how the dog had wound up running loose? There could have been numerous reasons, any of which might not have been the fault of the owner; and, why did she not take him in for assessment? His leg most likely would not have been saved, but dogs can and do get along very well on three limbs, and this dog was extremely friendly and young, with a full life ahead of him. Anyway, it's just things like that which bother me.

I know that rules are there for a reason, and I understand there is probably a huge stream of red tape that goes along with those rules. It just is so sad when such things occur. So I guess in the end I just get frustrated sometimes, and/or react even before all the facts are presented. I really don't want this to sound like I am anti-animal shelters at all...the service they do for animals is so desperately needed, and the benefits are immense to the animals involved. But I do sometimes get frustrated at the rules...even if they are well-grounded and are there protect the animal. This is why I could never organize or run such shelters...I'd be an emotional mess over every story...:?

 

[TrixieRabbit]

The people of this rescue are being waaay too literal in following their "rules" at the expense of all involved.
The bottom line is to provide a loving home to this dog. Now he is in a shelter, again, taking up space.
I understand why the rules and laws are in place. I understand (and despise) the overabundance of instances of animal cruelty - BUT- I believe in this instance, Mutts & Moms are making a BIG mistake. This shelter is now in the media spotlight for NEGATIVE reasons and this will do more harm than good in the long run. NOW what's going to happen to the rest of the animals in the shelter? Will people not adopt from them now b/c of all the bad publicity?
This shelter should take advantage of the publicity and use it IN THEIR FAVOR. Instead, this is just being used against them. I heard they are even getting death threats.
The right thing to do, IN THIS CASE, is to evaluate the new family and transfer the adoption rights to them *if* they deem suitable.
This is not an everyday situation. It's now a media debacle and thus should be handled differently.

Again, this is only my opinion.

 

[m.e.]

TrixieRabbit wrote:

The bottom line is to provide a loving home to this dog. Now he is in a shelter, again, taking up space.

Actually, I'm fairly certain that the dog is in a loving foster home

And, in my opinion , Ellen should not have gone public with such an emotional display because she did not read the contract (which she admits!) Shelters and rescues work SO HARD to make sure that all of their animals go to loving 'forever homes'. Now a public figure has basically whined and called them meanies for sticking to the agreement that she signed. Whatever bad press they get is solely on her shoulders :disgust:

 

[Luvmyzoocrew]

i agree that she shouldnt have come out on her show like that and gotten the whole world involved, this could have been settled privately. But i feel now for the animals in that shelter because now they have gotten bad press, and there name is now being splashed all over the news and such,t his cant be good for there adoptions.

 

[seniorcats]

m.e. wrote:

TrixieRabbit wrote:

The bottom line is to provide a loving home to this dog. Now he is in a shelter, again, taking up space.

Actually, I'm fairly certain that the dog is in a loving foster home

And, in my opinion , Ellen should not have gone public with such an emotional display because she did not read the contract (which she admits!) Shelters and rescues work SO HARD to make sure that all of their animals go to loving 'forever homes'. Now a public figure has basically whined and called them meanies for sticking to the agreement that she signed. Whatever bad press they get is solely on her shoulders :disgust:

Amen to that! Ellen should be ashamed of herself for such a despicable performance. In my opinion it was her intent to cause harm to this shelter and an attempt to force them to do what she wanted. It's no different than the statment made by another (drunk) celebrity, 'I'm a celebrity and I can do whatever I want.'

Who on Earth believes Ellen did not read the contract? If you believe, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you. Every shelter I have volunteered with over 30 years reads the contract to the adopter and checks off each point. The adopter is repeatedly asked if they understand or have questions. Then they are given the contract to read themselves, again asked if they have questions and then they can sign. Maybe she didn't read when it was given to her but you can bet money it was read to her.

Thanks to Ellen, the shelter is receiving death threats. What's next? The place gets fire bombed by an encited to anger fan? The shelter had to remove their Petfinder listing as the sites were being bombarded and crashed. See Petfinders statement on the issue. it's very informative.

http://www.petfinder.com/statement.html

So what is the end result of Ellen's whiney, self-serving, statement - the shelter and it's members now live in fear of life threatening harm, the shelter cannot keep it's web site up or it's Petfinder site thus loosing much needed exposure for animals in need, the shelter will have to spend more money on security against the nuts, they will probably loose donations and may have to spend precious resources needed for animal care defending themselves from law suits filed by the high and mighty celebrity, Ellen Degeneres. Now that's a mighty fine job by someone who claims to be all about animal rescue.

 

[Bassetluv]

This is turning out to be a very sad story for many, I think. From what I saw on a local tv show tonight, (it appeared that) the woman running the animal shelter absolutely refused to even consider the woman with the children as a potential adoptee because she was upset with Ellen...while on the other side, a representative for Ellen phoned the owner of the shelter, telling her they were going to take legal action against her and spread the story throughout the media - which has obviously already happened.

It's just so sad all around. The negative press could result in the woman losing her shelter, animals losing potential placements, and yes, shelters overall getting a bad name. As I said earlier, there are times when I disagree with the way some shelters do things, but their benefit and need far outweighs the times that decisions I necessarily wouldn't make are made by them...and I take my hat off to all those connected with the rescue and rehoming of animals. It is never an easy job, and can be highly emotional at the best of times. I do have to agree that this was handled terribly...after seeing the small coverage tonight on tv, Ellen's heartfelt plea on air has probably done a great deal of harm...and I do now question if it was all genuine, or if there was a gleam of anger and 'I'll get you for this' at the owner of the shelter behind Ellen's actions. As for the shelter owner, I do also still wonder why the she suddenly became adamant that this family would not be allowed to keep the dog. Again, was it because the family wasn't suitable? Or...perhaps the dog had already been rehomed before Ellen began her pleas to have the dog returned to the other family, and it was simply too late. However, if either of these reasons was the case, she never said so...in the clip I saw of her being interviewed, she simply said that the dog would never go to that family. Was it her anger with Ellen that led her to that decision? None of it is very clear.

In the end, what is saddest of all is the fact that the ones who truly suffer because of it are the animals.

 

[seniorcats]

The shelters contract included a clause they do not adopt small dogs to families with children under the age of 14. They stated they included the clause based on many past bad experiences and a high return rate. Ellen's hairdresser has 2 children under the agelimit which is why the shelter will not consider them for this dog.

Our shelter has a similar policy of not adopting to families with children under the age of 6 because the return rate was over 80%. About 1/2 of the returns came back abused, injured and without having received medical treatment. It was sickening so we solved the problem with a rule we keep in every adoption.

 

[Bassetluv]

I just read the link you posted, seniorcats...that is so sad. I cannot comprehend some things, I guess...because a celebrity such as Ellen puts out an emotional plea - and verbally attacks the shelter involved - now people are threatening to bomb it? I just don't understand the logic.

As for shelters, it sounds like they might be better regulated in the U.S. than here...orat least better than the one in my area, anyway. (In my experience) when an animal is adopted from the shelter here, the contract is given to the person adopting a pet, they give them a few minutes to read it over and sign it, and they don't ask whether anything wasn't clear. I've adopted a cat, a dog, and a rabbit from the shelter here (all at various times), and was barely given enough time to read the papers they presented me with each time. They also do not do any follow-up with the animals...once the person walks out the door, the shelter never contacts them again. Nothing is checked...the person could write anything down on the adoption application and it is all taken as truth. The shelter does have a website, and I went there once after adopting Anna. The site encouraged people who adopted pets to send them pictures and updates so they could post them, which I did...but they never responded to my submissions, never acknowledged the updates I sent in or any of the pictures. And I have had many difficulties in the past in even contacting them by phone, as it is often hard to get through to them, and they never answer queries sent via email. I just wish it was managed better.

As for Ellen Degeneres and this whole fiasco...I do hope she at least tries to do some damage control for the sake of the animals and the workers involved at the shelter. If her statements have that much influence on the general public, she could still turn this around by going public with an apology - at the very least - over the backlash that this has all had. Unfortunately, if she does hold a bitter view of shelters now because of her anger at the shelter owner, then I doubt that will happen. So what started out for me as being upset over a tearful plea on television by Ellen, the entire thing is heartbreaking, because so many innocents will suffer over a needless airing of a personal dispute.

 

[Bassetluv]

The shelters contract included a clause they do not adopt small dogs to families with children under the age of 14. They stated they included the clause based on many past bad experiences and a high return rate. Ellen's hairdresser has 2 children under the age limit which is why the shelter will not consider them for this dog.

Okay, so that explains the reason why the dog could not go back to the woman and her children. (I wish the shelter owner had stated that in the interview...or maybe she did, and the show didn't air her entire statement.)

Thanks seniorcat...

 

[RunnyBabbitRabbitry]

I am sure I am going to offend a few of you with my statement, but that is why we have our rights to our own opinions.

I think it is crazy to take a pet away from a child ever. I think that most pet adoption agencies have too many rules and regulations, in fact I think it would be easier to go out and adopt a child than adopt an animal in some cases. The easiest place near me to adopt a pet is our local animal shelter, the second most high-kill shelter in our state. I do not understand why someone wouldn't go to the pound pay the fee and get the dog, no crazy background checks here. Instead they go to pets mart on Saturday and buy dogs and practically need a criminal background check. Our animal control believes that possession's is 9/10, so if you take in a stray and it doesn't have shots or so on, you can be charged with whatever violation plus you will be charged with harboring an animal. So if you take in a pet, then you are taking on the responsibility and if you can't handle it you don't give it back to the pound, not if someone wants to give it a nice home.Why not give an animal a good, steady, forever home rather than move it over and over again? I think it is more stressful on a poor animal to move it from home to home than keep it in one, unless it is being abused. In this case I think they should haveleft the dog. Glad local adoption shelters here do not have rules on age or my young cousins would never know the joy they have in owning dogs and cats for pets. I also would never have had the joy of growing up with pets - how can you put an age limit on having pets ?

 

[m.e.]

seniorcats wrote:

Who on Earth believes Ellen did not read the contract? If you believe, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you. Every shelter I have volunteered with over 30 years reads the contract to the adopter and checks off each point. The adopter is repeatedly asked if they understand or have questions. Then they are given the contract to read themselves, again asked if they have questions and then they can sign. Maybe she didn't read when it was given to her but you can bet money it was read to her.

Well, what I meant was Ellen never read the contract because her partner was the one that actually signed it From what I understand, Ellen wasn't even there. But still - don't you think her partner should have said something when she decided to rehome the dog?? :?

 

[bat42072]

I agrre with both sides to a point... Ellen should have read the contract and she should of contacted the rescue and took the dog and the family who wanted the puppy in to the shelter so that the family could have went to thru the proper adoption procedure.... but the rescue should also work with the family to see if the puppy would be in an acceptable home ... its not the familys fault or the puppies fault that ellen did not read the contract... I also wonder if the shelter people went over the contract with Ellen... because in that case they are both responsile on that point.. just my opinion

 

[Luvmyzoocrew]

i really hope Ellen doesnt take legal actions. first off she admits taht she didnt follow the contract, so it is really her fault. Everything could have been done differently , we all admit that. If she takes legal action this could close this shelter doing much more harm in the long run, if the shelter closes thent he animals are going to be homeless and wind up at a shelter that will PTS.

 

[Pipp]

Just popping in for a sec, I'm sort of working on this..

Mytake? Degeneres was playing it for all it was worth, butphonyor not, her message wasright --it was a good homefor the dog.

Maybe I've seen more than others here, I've gone through the rawfootage online and have other sources..

- DeRossihad the dog for two weeks, it wasn't working out with the cat, so they sent to dog to the hairdresser to see if he'd get alongwith the existing dog.After two weeksdecided it would work, andwere about to inform the agency when the agency called them.

- The rescue person got very snippy and officious, words were exchanged,the rescueplayed nice for a bit, got the infirmation and went in and took the dog. In front of at least one of the kids. An outraged Degeneres pulls out all the PR stops. Yeah, celebrityweight.

- The rescue person I think saidthey don't adopt to homes withkids under 14, the girl who owned the dog was12, her sister 11. Not a wide gap here.It was a smallish, calm dog.

- The hairdresser's home has a very nice fenced yard.

- They had another dog that had also bonded with 'Iggy', thetwo were playing together in the yard when the rescue people came.

(EDIT TO ADD: Can you imagine being a 12-year old girl, a big celebritygives you apuppy,you naturally fallin love with it and two weeks later someone takes it away?)

This is just a stupid battle of egos and righteous indignation on the part of the rescue (Degeneres can be as indignant as she wants, she doesn't have the dog),.

I'm seeing this time and time again locally. There are some really angry people out there in rescue who invite this stuff. They thrive on negativity.And they'drather be right than do what's best for the animals.

Very sad.

sas

 

[Pipp]

PS: This is a quote form the rescuer:



"If Ellen wants to place dogs and decide what's a good home, then she should start her own rescue group," she told "Inside Edition." "But I'm the one doing this and I know what I'm doing."



This is actually likely to happen. Degeneres knows she has to do damage control for the people who see it as a vendetta, and she's mad enough and rich enough to start her own rescue. Or at least donate bigtime. She'll be a goodspokesperson. (And maybe she can learn to call the dog 'he' instead of 'it').:rollseyes



And Mutts and Moms are probably getting all kinds of donationsfrom Ellen-haters, oddballs and the righteously indignant.



The only thing hurt are feelings.



sas


PPS: If the rescue spends it all on lawyers and court costs, that will be so wrong...