The daggone dog belongs to Mutts and Moms. Stop the crocodile tears already. Not even newsworthy.

Has any thought about the dog? How bad it is for that innocent dog to be shuffled from place to place to place??? Shouldn't that be the real isue?

Ellen should get Iggy back! They are being ridiculous and childish.

1. the dog didn't get along with their cats. 2. 'rescue' group refuses to let the family keep dog, prefering to have it homeless 3. they showed up at hairdressers home and yanked the dog away from crying kids 4. yes, there's the fine print but who reads it! and if the 2 women running the group think they are the ultimate authority on what's a good home, it was their fault in the first place for placing the dog in a home with cats

Somewhat surprised how Craig’slist pet forum responded. Typically a savvy, emotional, pro-adoption group, one would have expected the forum to attack the shelter for taking dogs away from a home, from children. On the contrary, when the dust settled, the sentiment was that Ellen should have made the call to the shelter that she could not keep the dog. Also, Ellen should not have taken this public on her show.

Here is what one forum member said about the shelter. “we adopted our dog, Apple from Mutts & Moms 2007-10-16 15:52:14 I feel bad for the kids, but I know first hand that this rescue isn’t made up of crazies and I feel bad that she is being made to look like a villain. I don’t think it was right for Ellen to take it to national tv - a little over dramatic. The rescue is run by one woman out of a corner pet shop that sells high end dog foods and boutique type toys and dog accessories. (...}
For more details visit http://www.petmonologues.com/pet022207/?p=427

Who made the rule that children have to be 14 years of age to adopt a dog?

My family has owned dogs since I was six years old. I loved them so much I became a veterinarian.

Mutts and Moms should give the dog back to the little girls. I understand having rules; however, there are exceptions.

Ellen had the best interests of the dog at heart. She placed it in a wonderful home - and if Mutts and Moms is truly a humane organization, theywill return the dog to the little girls.

Humanity should be extended to people as well as pets.

Give Iggy back to the kids! Ellen admitted she made a mistake, but kids don't have to be 14 to love and care for a dog. At this point, it just seems like a power trip for the shelter-owners, instead of what is best for the dog.

Does it make you happy to take a puppy away from a loving family? Do you wake up in the morning with a smile on your face and a feeling of well being knowing that a 12 year old and an 11 year old cry themselves to sleep at night? Your parents must be so proud of you! The ages of these two children is perfect to start leaarning the responsibility of dog ownership. They will not only learn about taking care of some other living being but they will again an interest in animals and animal welfare. As narrow minded as you both seem to be, I'm surprised that you allowed a gay person to adopt the puppy in the first place. I guess it's better to allow a puppy to languish in a cage at your facility than to adopt it out to a loving family. Perhaps you should rethink your approach to animal welfare. Perhaps you should get into another line of business.

That pup needs to be returned to the LOVING FAMILY Ellen found for it.

NOT back in a cage waiting for more cash to get it OUT !!

I stand beside Ellen on this one.

The dog needs to be returned to the hairdresser and her kids.

The dog needs to be returned to the hairdresser and her children!

Ugh! I can see both sides of the picture. On the one hand, the rescue group doesn't want to go through rescuing the dog, fostering it, and placing it out for adoption only to see it end up abandoned or in a pound or shelter. That does happen.

On the other hand, it looks as though this particular dog has received all the best care and has been placed with reliable people who will love and care for it. That should count for something. I would think a sternly worded lecture, followed by a home visit to the new home, would certainly be enough to keep this little fellow in a home and out of a shelter.

A favorite book of mine is "What the Dog Did" by Emily Yoffe. She adopted her Beagle from the same local rescue group (BREW) where we got ours. They have some pretty strict rules, but they're not meddlesome or officious. They're interested in finding good families and loving homes for the dogs. Emily does paint a fairly unflattering portrait of other rescuers run amok, and unfortunately I think that portrait may be pretty accurate for some groups and individuals. They can get into a "my way or the highway" mindset in which nobody, no matter how good-hearted, no matter how loving, is good enough to provide a home for one of their dogs or cats.

My advice to anybody wanting to rescue a dog or cat (and I hope everybody does) would be to pick your rescue group carefully. If they make you feel unwelcome or unwanted, or uncomfortable, or somehow not good enough, then look for another group. A group that relies on a kennel situation (except for temporary overflows) may not be as good as a group that tries to place their dogs or cats with foster families.

Once you've found your group and your ideal pet, read the agreement carefully and follow it to the letter.

Give the puppy back to the family. How crule and stupid to remove the puppy without even talking to the new family and using your common sence to see that it is loved and well cared for.

Ellen did the right thing for the dog. The agency, "moms & muts" or whatever they are called are assholes. Granted there was a contract between Ellen and the agency but she told the truth and now the dog is in the agency care and not with a family who loves it.

We adopted four dogs in our partnership together and two we returned to the agencies they came from. One because he bit over 21 people and the ASPCA-NY was the agency we got the dog from and we returned him because they are a "no kill" and I know someone took him home that was from that agency. The 2nd was returned to an agency down in Arkansas where the dog was from. We over-adopted but if Ellen just put it on the street I could see where the agency would be annoyed. However she gave it to a family who love the dog and have bonded with it.

This is a no-brainer and to have Ellen and that family go through all this crap is ridiculous. Just give the dog back to that family - they adopted it and loved it for 2 weeks not to mention the time Ellen had it because I am sure Ellen had the dog with her around the hairdresser and her family and that is how they came to know the dog in the first place.

Don't drag this stupid situation through courts - think about the dog who is without a loving home and the humans who love it. Give the dog back to the family now.

I think this is ridiculous. The woman in charge of Mutts and Moms has some serious control issues! She's playing this entire power trip and the only thing she's doing is taking a dog away from a loving family that truely wants the dog, and giving her organization and her name a HORRIBLE and heartless reputation. If she were smart -which she clearly is not - she'd agree do to a meeting with Ellen's hairdresser and the family and evaluate them and see if this dog is really in danger. Small dogs can do just fine in a home with children. These aren't very small children either and it's highly unlikely that they would harm the dog any more then an adult would accidently. I bet that this Mutts and Moms woman has pushed alot of people around with this control thing and she finally bit off more then she can chew. I hope she gets everything that she deserves, if that's the case.

This is rediculous the way the rescue agency is behaving and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Yes, Ellen may have violated her contract - however, she did take the time to find her pet a loving home as soon as she realized there was a unresolvable issue. In addition, Ellen did try to work past the issues and did not just get rid of the animal at the first signs of difficulty. If the new family is a loving one what is all the fuss about - isn't the most important thing finding a loving home for the animal??? This endevor will cause undo stress on the animal and the agency should already understand this if they have the animals best interest at heart. I wonder what the real motivaton is behind this rescue agency... it sounds like they are more worried about the social status behind the adoption families rather than have the best interests of the animals... I hope this rediculous endevor causes the rescue agency their license - sounds like these animals would be better off without their representation.

Small dogs should not be allowed to families with children under 14????? Give me a break!!!!! I have had many dogs in my life and 3 children and 5 grandchildren. Currently I have 2 Yorkies and my grandchildren all under the age of 8 are VERY good with them. If you teach children to respect animals and supervise them when around animals, you will not have a problem. This puppy HAD a loving home, GIVE IGGY BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its sad what happen but I would do same thing like ellen did, to give to a love family, to take care. I dont think back to shelter was a good Idea. You see so many unwanted animals suffer. LEAVE THE DOGS TO THOSE GIRLS WHO LOVE HIM!!!!

What possible reason would Mutts & Moms have for denying Iggy to the hairdresser's family? If they truly care about rescuing animals and finding them a good home, the oversight is just a formality. They could quickly assess the suitability of the hairdresser's family to care for Iggy and make the decision based upon those findings. This has brought nothing but bad publicity to an otherwise valiant effort to find these animals homes. I agree with many of the comments that state that this has been "over-discussed" because Ellen is a celebrity. I have to say, I doubt that they would have followed up or known about the change of owners if she were NOT a celebrity.

What a joke this company is, There # 1 concern should be for the animals, Ellen has put so much money into the puppy that is why they want it back they are cowards. Also someone like Ellen who is totally for anilmals would never let anything happen to that puppy. I think the comapny is a big joke and they are making it hard for other organizations now, The mutts for moms are cowards that they cant even keep there sight up and ready.

The dog belongs technically to Ellen. She adopted it and got all the medical things taken care of--shots, neutering, etc. Then she had it housebroken. So this organization prefers to leave a dog in their shelter than to have it have the love and the home it deserves with Ellen's friends? This place is f-ing ridiculous! They should lose their business over this. I wouldn't adopt a pet from these nutjobs ever!!

Whatever their reasons, the folks at M&M look like cruel egomaniacs who took a doggy away from a couple of little girls - give em hell Ellen!

It is amazing to see how many comments reflect the opinion of "its okay" to by-pass a rule or break a contract.
It seems that here in America the rules are broken constantly from our leadership that cannot obey the Constitution to a "simple" rescue facility that has a contract that must be adhered to. Also, amazing is that DeGeneres admits not reading the fine print. Would De Generes do the same, not look at the fine print, if it has to do with her own livelihood?
All the family would have to do is go to the rescue center with DeGeneres and fill out the proper papers and then, they would become owners of the dog.
Instead, DeGeneres does what she wants to do and cries publicly about her dissatisfaction with the rescue center.
By the way, if DeGeneres is such an animal "lover," why did she give her dog away? She states because it was rambunctious. Now, come on, she has enough money to have someone "fix" the problem. Or perhaps, is DeGeneres, rambunctious!

Get your "FREE IGGY" Shirts, Hats, Buttons, Mugs, and more here:

http://www.cafepress.com/myshirtsucks/3861942

Show your support for Ellen!!!!

As a Greyhound family, we understand the needs of this special x-racer. We also understand that this animal needs a stable home in order to adapt to society. If the current atmosphere is improper, then change is needed. The question is, who determines the next home? The adoption agency is supposed to be the expert, but they obviously made a mistake in the first placement. Therefore, the family that determined the error should be a better judge as to who next gets the animal. Rules or not, the DeGeneres situation has been completely mishandled.

I know rescue groups do great things; we have a rescue terrier we have grown to love and thank Bones Pet Recue for their work. However, some in the rescue world take the "savior" tag too seriously. Their word and their contracts must be gospel. And if their rule prevents families with children under 14 from adopting, they are doing the next generation of strays no favor. Fourteen is too late to instill a loving and caring attitude into a child.

Mutts & Moms would hand the dog over to the hair stylist if she would fork over some $$$$. This so-called "rescue" lady just wants to collect a second "adoption" fee and a feeling of POWER.

Give the dog to Michael Vick - he needs a friend, he's been through a lot!

Shame on you Mutts and Moms, for removing the dog from a loving home and caring family. The first and formost rule of a rescue group is to find homes for their animals. Here was a dog with three loving people who wanted him and what do you do? You take him away and put him back in a kennel, alone, frightened, and totally confused. Shame on you Mutts and Moms.

I also too think this rescue group is on a power trip. Maybe you this rescue woman should interview the family and see how the dog interacts with the girls and then make a decision on what is best for the dog. If you "Rescue Moms & Mutts" are reading these comments, obviously you know you are not making friends with animal lovers across America. I think it is clear that America (for the most part) stands with Ellen who adores animals and would not do anything to jeapordize their heath and/or welfare. I hope you will soften your hard hearts and give the dog back.

I totally agree with poster SonicBuffalo.

I'm appalled at this situation -- but not because of the AGENCY's actions...of ELLEN'S. And her "people." I know people who have adopted from these agencies before, and the agencies are trying to do a good thing by handling the process almost as carefully as a regular adoption agency would handle a baby. People agree to return the dog to the agency if for whatever reason they cannot keep them -- that ensures that the dog will NEVER be dumped anywhere, or placed with a bad home, etc. A friend of mine adopted his dog after two previous familes returned him to their agency -- and thank God they did! These organizations are run by GOOD people, who are there to LOOK OUT FOR THE SAFETY AND BEST INTEREST OF THE DOGS -- NOT to look out for self-involved celebrities who like to think that the rules don't apply to them. I am so sick to death of these people trying to play the "celeb" card, especially in the way Ellen is doing...when SHE is the one in the wrong here!!

And don't get me wrong -- I've always been an Ellen fan, but in this case, I think she is 150% OUT OF LINE. SHE made the mistake, and while it might seem easy enough to just "work out the details" and let the agency formalize the new arrangement with this family of Ellen's choosing, that is up to the AGENCY. NOT Ellen, and NOT Ellen's hairdresser. And most importantly, NOT the American public. I am appalled that Ellen, in an effort to absolve herself of her own guilt, stoops to using her television show to try to make the AGENCY look like bad people, simply for doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO. The agency has not misrepresented themselves here, and they have done nothing wrong. And if in the end, this hairdresser's family doesn't fit the agency's criteria for adoption of this particular dog, then that's just too damn bad. I'm sorry that the daughters of these people are heartbroken, but you know what? Nobody died here...we're talking 2 WEEKS they had this dog. Suck it up, get over it, and take it as a lesson in disappointment, girls. It won't be the last time in your life you have to face it, so enough with the tears, already -- despite the bad example you have in your hysterical Auntie Ellen. (Overreact much??? My God!)

I'm sorry, but Ellen is going to have to shoulder ALL of the responsibility for this one herself (Portia, too)...and I just think it's BEYOND disgusting that she gave such a hysterical, weepy plea on her television show to try to sway the "Ellen-ites" of the world to get on her irresponsible bandwagon here.

Now these poor women who run this GOOD organization are now receiving death threats from Ellen's idiotic fans? I'm sorry -- but THAT is what's wrong here. NOT the actions of the agency. If Ellen wants to have guilt about something, why doesn't she save it for THAT. If anything happens to this agency or the people who run it, Ellen can consider herself 100% responsible for causing it. Do you suppose she's going to break down on TV about THAT, too? If anything, I want to see her get her S together and go on TV to APOLOGIZE -- not just to the girls that she disappointed, but to this agency -- she should say she's sorry for giving their efforts a bad name, and for setting them up to be a target for violence. She should ENCOURAGE the efforts of agencies like this, and urge her viewers to adopt from them, NOT to threaten them. Give me a Goddamn break. She, and everyone else who is rushing to take Ellen's side in this, need to GROW THE HELL UP and pay attention when there are rules/contracts involved with something like an adoption. I'm sick of all the bellyaching over this from people who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Ellen is so wrong on this one. I have had dogs my whole life and have never had to give one away! Ellen has more financial resources than any pet lover I know... I am sorry, I can't buy the "can't get along with my cat" line. If that was the case, standard procedure for all rescues is contact the rescue when you have an issue FIRST! I am sick of these cry baby stars thinking they are above the rules. Puts her right up there with Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton in my book.

Anne is totally right about choosing the shelter carefully.

Here in San Francisco, there is a vet hospital rescue that I use a lot for vet services. When it came bring a new dog into my family I naturally made my first stop to their shelter.

Mistake! I came out of the shelter feeling like I should never have responsibility for another living thing. I asked around and found out that many other people had experienced the same thing at this shelter. I came to realize that although they have a good reputation, they believe too much in their own press and it affects their adoption processes.

I ended up adopting a great little guy from SFSPCA, which has stringent standards, but also has understanding of diversity and compassion for people.

Worse for the first vet hospital/shelter, I now feel a little resentful each time I bring my pets in for their very expensive services. As soon as I find a good vet, I'm gone.

ellen seems a little unstable here...She breaks the contract and does not inform the shelter of the action, and now she wants them to do what she wants because she feels bad...i thought lesbians were suppose to be a little tougher than this...should give pause to those backing hilary...smells fishy

I think it is rediculous of the rescue shelter to come take away a dog form a loving home. After all, is'nt the point to try to find a good home for iggy??? If iggy was happy and not being abused why put the dog through more pain than needed. I think the rescue lady has overreacted! Maybe she is just plum greedy! 2 adoption fees is what it seems like what she wanted and not the interest of iggy. After all, could she not see iggy was being taking care of and was already in a loving home? iggy is the one that was robbed of a good home and no one else benefitted (except for rescue shelter getting a extra fee). If the rescue place was caring and compassionate they would have tried to work it out with iggy's new parents. What makes me real mad is I saw the woman in charge of running the shelter on the tv stating "how do i know iggy isnt going to be giving to someone else again and again and then end tied up to a tree" . Get a life ! You did the exact thing you said you did not want iggy to go through-----jerked out of another home and placed again. WHY? MAKES NO SENSE!

I say give the dog back to loving family that Ellen gave the dog to. By being so mean Mutts and Moms is really discouraging further adoptions from their rescue. Ellen found the dog a kind loving home so give the dog back.

I think it is ridiculous of the rescue shelter to come take away a dog form a loving home. After all, is'nt the point to try to find a good home for iggy??? If iggy was happy and not being abused why put the dog through more pain than needed. I think the rescue lady has overreacted! Maybe she is just plum greedy! 2 adoption fees is what it seems like what she wanted and not the interest of iggy. After all, could she not see iggy was being taking care of and was already in a loving home? iggy is the one that was robbed of a good home and no one else benefitted (except for rescue shelter getting a extra fee). If the rescue place was caring and compassionate they would have tried to work it out with iggy's new parents. What makes me real mad is I saw the woman in charge of running the shelter on the tv stating "how do i know iggy isnt going to be giving to someone else again and again and then end tied up to a tree" . Get a life ! You did the exact thing you said you did not want iggy to go through-----jerked out of another home and placed again. WHY? MAKES NO SENSE!

I am another of those who think Ellen is the one in the wrong. I am sure that the paperwork she signed saying that she would return the dog to the shelter if she couldn't keep it was not written in fancy legalise. She should have read what she was signing. What is the point of having an agreement if anyone can decide to make an exception because they think they know of a good home for the pet they cannot keep?

I also had to sign an agreement to return my dog to the shelter if I couldn't keep him when I adopted him earlier this year. Yes, I thought it was intrusive to tell me what I should do with a dog that was technically mine, but I agreed and have to admit that knowing he will go back there if something happens to me gives me some peace of mind.

Not all shelters are like a jail with dogs in small kennels and on death row if they aren't adopted fast enough. If I cannot care for my dog he will go back to the no-kill shelter and have any medical care he needs, plenty to eat, a warm place to sleep at night, and other dogs to socialize with for the rest of his life if no one adopts him. That is better than some people have!

I think this is all a little crazy...ok Ellen didn't read the contract...fine, now she knows, so the agency should check out the new home, realize that children under 14 (or whatever the age is) is subject to judgement. PLENTY of children are kind and caring. If these kids weren't going to abuse the dog, in fact were loving and responsible, it makes no sense to take the dog away. Instead make Ellen pay for the new adoption and move on. NOT A BIG DEAL. All of the people suggesting that Ellen is spoiled, or in ANY way like Britney Spears are just ignorant and judgemental, those that are harassing an organization that is probably good, even if the owner is intensly insensitive and punitive, isn't so mature either. So clearly the best interest of the dog has not been considered above all else. Frankly anyone who's an adult know that sometimes pets don't work out and I think Ellen was just trying to do a good thing. The puppy was probably alot happier not being harrassed by cats....isn't it time to move on?!

I personally think that the rescue group does not have the best interest of the animal. If they absolutely needed a contract for the dog with the family it was at, I am fairly sure the family Ellen gave it to, would look at one and sign because they loved the dog. They were a loving family that had the right place for the dog. The dog was happy at the home. If the dog did not get along with cats, the shelter should have ALREADY known this and told the adoptee about the issue. If the rescue group thinks it has been treated bad, what about ripping the dog from the kids, that isn't bad treatment? Also, dogs are very humble they dont need riches or high class things, they love to simply be loved. They love their familys and love people (generally). Why would you keep changing a family when the dog is feeling loved there, is fed, treated well, played with. If the shelter had a question at the home, why not inspect the home, get a contract, and decide to keep the dog in the family Ellen gave it with if they did pass screening. They could have always done screening while the dog was there quickly to get the dog placed. It seems pritty LOW for a shelter to take dogs from a family that can love, feed, and shelter a dog to the dogs standard. Also, the shelter should Refund the first adoption fee, instead of pocketing it. As they were not able to provide what was in that contract.

Give Iggy back to the the family.

Every rescue group I have dealt with TOLD me that if there was a problem the dog was to go back to them. They did not assume I read the fine print (which is good, 'cause I don't). The family that Ellen gave Iggy to, already has a small dog (according to Inside Edition video footage). The children are 11 and 12. I understand the under 14 rule, however, these kids aren't toddlers for crying out loud. From what I've read, the rescue group seems to be doing this on principle alone. They don't want to be "bullied" by Ellen. I'm sorry, but in the world of celebrities, Ellen is one of the last I could see using her power in a negative way. And I'm not a huge fan, she just doesn't strike me that way.

In the best interest of Iggy, I say give him back to the hairdresser's family, slap Ellen on the wrist for making an honest (good-intentioned) mistake, and call it a day. I don't think that will happen tho, according to Inside Edition, Iggy has already gone to another family.

good god there are people dying in wars, children getting molested by family members, and kids killing kids, im a dog lover if someone is going to love it and take care of it whats the problem?

Marina Baktis.is unbelievaabe. She needs some compassion.

The peoples court says Iggy should belong to the hairdresses's family, unless the very very despicable Marina Baktis can articulate a concrete reason why
Iiggy would be disserved..

i think the hair dresser should get iggy they have no right to take iggy away i feel so sorry for the hair dressers family, ellen, and most of all iggy

...yawn...

nice bullying...make it happen the way I want it to, or I will embarass you and your non-profit organization on my show...

This shelter should be shut down. This woman obviously has a problem with Ellen and is taking it out on an innocent dog and an innocent family.

Hmmm...If the home was so unsuitable for Iggy, then perhaps Mutts & Moms should have fought to remove the other dog from the hairdresser's household as well. Wouldn't it be irresponsible to leave the other helpless animal at the mercy of the heartless and cruel children? By the way, I am a professional dog groomer of many years. My daughters have been grooming with me since they were 10 years old. My oldest daughter, who is now 16, is an internationally recognized certified groomer. Maybe Mutts and Moms should rethink their "children" policy.

As a pet owner, one who has adopted all of the pets in our family through rescue situations... not rescue groups, this is tough. I place myself in the shoes of Ellen and I think about how quickly we fall in love withe our animal who becomes one of the boys and the effort it takes to place a pet in a new home--whether the original intention was to find the pet a home or keep it and it didn't work out-- it's always hard, heartbreak and unforgettable to realize that sometimes finding a pet a new home is necessary to ensure they are given the attention and care they need to strive. Does that make it hurt any less? Absoslutely not, but it's never about us, it's about understanding human limits and realizing that animals needs can sometimes be met better being with another family.The fact that this "rescue" agency wasn't pet/people orientated enough to hear Ellen out, visit with the new family and leave the animal in a loving home is heartless and really makes me doubt their ethics. At least when this happened, it should have been temporary... aka upon a 24 hour time period and a review of your home life, we'll be returning your pet if you meet such and such criteria, which it seems this family meets without a doubt. I mean, when I go to petfinders.com and see that there are 6000 dogs in one breed in driving distance from my home for adoption and I hear welcoming families have their pets taken away it makes me want to throw up in my mouth for every animal in a cold ass cage waiting for a place to call home. GARRRR... and RUFFF..

I live in Australia with 4 kids, 2 cats and a dog. the eldest child who is almost 9yrs old, takes full care of Mojo, he feeds him, takes him to the park even taught him how to fetch. If we couldn't handle a dog, we would give him away to a family we know could. So I am on Ellen's side, she found Iggy a nice loving family with kids who will love and take care of him, so GIVE IGGY BACK is what I say.

Give the dog to the loving caring family that would love to adopt and care for a puppy in need. Let there be justice once and for all.

I cannot believe that a rescue group would take a dog from a loving home..... don't they have other dogs that need good homes??????

As an animal lover with lots of pets, I can certainly understand where Ellen is coming from. However, this is a situation that could have been handled without all this national attention. I can also understand the need for rules and careful screenings for adoption agencies. There are a lot of crazies out there. Perhaps Ellen or Portia should have read the fine print, but honestly, does anybody ever do that right down to the gnats ass? In their excitement to get the new puppy, they were probably anxious to sign the bottom line. Nobody ever knows ahead of time if animals are going to get along. It always takes time and sometimes it doesn't work out. I'm speaking from experience here. Ellen was probably thrilled to have found such a good home for Iggy and that in some ways he can still be a small part in her life. I find it very short-sighted of the agency to enforce their rules so strictly. All they would have had to do is request to see Iggy's new home, or at least interview the new owners to determine if, in fact, this is a good match. Some situations are better determined on a case-by-case basis. This is one of them where the problem would have been solved by now. I think the agency's hard-nosed attitude is what forced Ellen to bring it to the media's attention. (it does make one question the agency's motives - hmmm?) There is no other reason that she would have done this. She felt pushed in a corner and came out fighting. I keep looking at my little dog, whom I totally bonded with in less than a month. You know what - I would have done the same!
Those two little girs are not too young for a little dog. My 6 and 4-year old granddaughters love my little dog and know to be very gentle with him. That rule is nonsense. It's the adults who need to be responsible for teaching their kids care and respect for animals.

I think both parties are at fault ... news is now, that this rescue shelter has placed the dog with a third family, these shelter people aren't terribly bright, are they? I agree, although Ellen handled this the wrong way, an exception should have been made accompanied by a very stern warning about their policies and why... I seriously doubt Ellen placed the dog with a family that couldn't take care of the dog, let's be reasonable people, it's not like her hairdresser was homeless, living under the interstate bridge and feeding the dog table scraps while teaching it how to fight steel cage style.... - it's Ellen Degeneres's hairdresser, geez...

That said, I have a feeling much more happened than what the news is picking up.. - because I can't see why Ellen would use her show in this manner unless something fairly nasty was exchanged between the two parties - and she is not letting up carrying the drama over to the next day- she is effectively ruining this ladies livelihood - she owns a high end pet boutique along side this rescue shelter? Not anymore... I see a 'for sale' sign in their very near future. Anyway, either that is mighty catty of Ellen to ruin someone's business or something else went down that we're not hearing about - Personally, if I was the rescue shelter owner, I would have turned the dog over yesterday after the tearful Ellen monologue and put out the flames... but now after holding out this long AND THEN giving the dog to another family -- she has effectively ...'%$&# the pooch'

I think I feel more sorry for the rescue shelter owner's... they really fouled this up. Sorry, but no dog is worth my life and living... and if you want to make it all into a stand on principles, it wasn't even a life or death for the dog situation. So, what were they thinking?

this is crazy while that nutty rescue group harrasses Ellen and a family that loves that dog hundred, if not thousands more that are so loveable and in need of homes are being killed. If that rescue group had 2 brain cells they would thank the new family and follow up with them, but no, controlling issues, their own egos and priority give all animal rescuers a bad name of being nutty and stupid. Thanks much mom's and dogs, get a background in business and common sense before you enter a world of rescuing.

Have to say that a "signed agreement" is just that an agreement - Ellen should have called and told the "rescue shelter" lady that she had found a new home for the dog. Simple to do.

Having said that, I do believe that the woman (shelter) has over reacted - the dog had found a new and loving home frm all accounts - what is the proble with returning the dog to these people.

Okay it has brought to everyone's attention that the "rules" were not adhered to, and will stand the organization in good stead for the future - right now - send that darling little dog back to the people that Ellen gave him to. She meant well, yes, should have read the fine print...hey we ALL make errors...

Other than Ellen's word, what proof is there that this really was a good home?

I think Ellen is being a huge bully in trying to use her celebrity status to make it "ok" to break a contract.

I'm also disgusted that she gave the dog less than two weeks to try to adapt to a new home before dumping it off on someone else instead of returning it to the rescue.

What is not being said is that the family applied to Mutts and Moms to adopt Iggy a day before the dog was removed from their home. They attempted to go through proper procedure and get the dog transferred over to their ownership Sunday. Instead Mutts and Moms used the information on the application to find their address and take the dog away. Also, the owner of Mutts and Moms claims she must inspect a home before allowing the dog to live there, however Ellen's home was never inspected. Therefore this person is picking and choosing who's home she will inspect and who's home she will not inspect. Sharon Sandival is another person that purchased a dog from Mutts and Moms and claims that her dog was taken away after the owner of Mutts and Moms learned she walks her dog without a leash. (The dog was returned six weeks later.) On TMZ Sharon claims she feels the owner of Mutts and Moms, Marina, has gone off the deep end.

Tuesday afternoon Marina's lawyer says the family is not going to get the dog back, "Never. Never. Never." and that the dog adopted by another family.

If the rescue organization is made up of one woman, Marina, then certainly there should be more personalized attention and consideration for situations case by case? More humanity?

How sad is it that Ellen tries to do the RIGHT thing, by giving a dog a loving home; and it backfires. Would it have been better if she lied, instead of told the truth?....if she lied, the dog would still be at home, where it belongs.....Is that the message we're sending out????? to lie?????
Or is it that because someone adopts a dog, then, for the rest of it's life, EVERYTHING you do with that dog has to be reported?....It's not like she gave it up to a shelter, she put it in a loving home!!!!

I agree with a couple people on this forum, "Is that worker running the Mom's and Mutts organization???" She is on a total power trip! This happens all the time in the human world. VOLUNTEERS are supposed to be so wonderful ... but this is a great place to overpower those who are disadvantaged and needy. SOME of these people like to exert their authority and have no other way to do it. I know this from experience working for a non-profit organization ...COULD SHE BE ANY MORE MEAN TO THAT POOR LITTLE DOG ... NOT THINKING ABOUT WHAT IS BEST FOR THE FAMILY OR THE ANIMAL. GIVE THE DOG BACK FOR GOD'S SAKE. DON'T BE SILLY!

Mutts and Moms should redo the paperwork for the hairdresser and give it to her legally. Give the dog a chance to live a normal and happy life wit a loving family

Mutts and Moms should redo the paperwork for the hairdresser and give it to her legally. Give the dog a chance to live a normal and happy life wit a loving family

Ellen saves a lot of dogs, she needn't keep them all, just find good homes for them, which she does. She gives money to shelters. She cares. Few people do as much. Maybe she's legally wrong on this one, but perhaps a loophole can be found. After all they breached the contract first - they didn't inspect her home. .Also, maybe she was waiting to find out how Iggy faired in its new home before making it legal.

The argument that Ellen found a new home for the dog doesn't negate the fact that she breached the contract she had with the rescue society.

If the timeline I've found is correct, Ellen had the dog for less than two weeks ($3000 for "training" seems quite the claim if you consider this) and took it upon herself to give the dog away... something that was in direct opposition to the agreement she made. Who makes the rules about placement? Well, obviously, the person that is licensed as the rescue. If Ellen wants to rescue dogs, then my suggestion would be to apply for licensing, volunteer her time and hours and then she can place dogs wherever she likes.

Relying on her celebrity status and televised temper tantrums to circumvent the rules is not only disingenuous, but jaw droppingly childish behavior. After all, I wouldn't really consider someone that would dump a puppy because it's behavior isn't perfect after a whole two weeks?!? to be someone with the acumen to place a dog in a permanent home... the arrogant assumption that she knows better than the people that spend their lives rehoming dogs and screening homes is over the top.

All this said, if I were to fault Mutts and Moms for something.. it would be the fact that they clearly didn't do a good job of screening Ellen and her partner or they'd have figured out that 10 days in, if the dog wasn't perfect, that it would be booted out the door..

Does anyone really believe that Ellen would give an animal to anyone she didn't know would provide it a very good home? NO WAY!! She cares for animals way too much!! My sons have been raised with dogs, cats, puppies and kittens...none of our pets have ever been harmed in any way. Give Iggy back to that family and stop trying to prove a pointless point!!

I'm with Ellen and common sense. Return the dog to the kids that have bonded with him, and forget about the fine print for once. Owners can make exceptions to their own policies, I've seen it happen before.

Give me a break, from a rescuers point of view, Ellen signed a contract and almost immediately broke it and just because she is "Ellen" she thinks she can use her celebrity to make it all better. Not only would she loose the dog if she were dealing with my rescue, she'd be on the Do Not Adopt list. We work rescue for free because we want to make a difference, we don't have the time or funds to fight someone like this and if she'd done this to one rescue organization, she'll do it again.

mutts and moms have no fwd thinking this so called adoption agency should have its license taken away.... there cutting off there nose to spite there face.... get over your pompas self's and do whats right..... investagate the other family.... and then all save face..... RETURN THE DOG ....

No. 1: Ellen did tell the truth to the organization instead of "fibbing."
No. 2: The organization should have gone to the new home of Iggy and taken an application, etc., and gotten the new home approved instead of taking it from a home that had bonded with the dog. I am sure Ellen would not have agreed to let her hairdresser's familhy have the dog if it was not a good home.
THE END

It seems that if Ellen would be that emotionally involved then she wouldn't place the puppy with bad people. MuttsnMoms should have just gone over, seen if the puppy was being well cared for, if he had a good home and left it alone. But I have seen on the news this owner is a nut case... in another case, she removed a dog after hearing that someone walked their dog without latching a leash... she sounds crazy and militant...

I hear that the dog has already been adopted by someone else.

I would think it is possible that the rescue agency took more than one application for the dog, as the shelter where I got my dog does, and if that were the case, then if the dog came back the next person in line would have first consideration, not the hairdresser who applied later...

You've got to be kidding me...I thought their job was to find homes for unwanted dogs??? Iggy had a good, loving home, so what is to be served by taking the dog away? It must be that this organization, “Mutts and Moms” has more money than it knows what to do with. It's not rocket science...give Iggy back.

The "rescue" should not have adopted Iggy out again, but should have allowed the hair dresser's family to adopt him.

This whole saga just goes to show that it's better to adopt a dog from a publicly funded "Kill shelter" where people are more interested if finding homes for pets so they will have fewer to have to kill at the end of the day.

Stay away from these FrouFrou self-righteous private "non-profit" rescues with ludicrous rules -- SOME of them are run by crazies.

If the owner of Mutts and Moms was such a stickler for the rules, then why did she not follow them with Ellen, she just handed it over without a house inspection, which she claims is one of her rules,
Now all of a sudden, she is saying that a rule was broken when Ellen did not imform the so-called animal shelter when she couldn't keep the dog.

COULD IT BE A RACE ISSUE? WHAT RACE IS THIS HAIRDRESSER AND HER FAMILY?
AND WHAT RACE IS THIS MARINA B%#*H?

Rescues have rules in place to make sure they do what is right by the dogs and cats they give all of their spare time to help. One of these standard rules is that the animal goes back to the shelter in the event the new owner can't keep it. Not reading the contract is not an acceptable reason for being upset. Ellen had no right to give that dog away. Perhaps Mutts and Moms should have given the dog back to the new family after investigating them. However, the Mutts and Moms owner is now receiving death threats and Ellen is threatening to sue her. Celebrities can't always have their way just because they reach a larger audience and people think they can do no wrong. The dog will find a good home and it will happen soon. Why aren't any of you asking what happened to the border collie she adopted last year? Did she give this one away also because it was rambunctious? http://network.bestfriends.org/losangeles/news/1671.html
This isn't the first time she has done this. I stand 100% behind Mutts and Moms.

Take it to Judge Judy!

Emergency show. Prime Time. Proceeds to animal shelters.

This has got to be one of the stupidest stories I have ever read and head about.

The dog has gone to another home and is bonding again with another family. It is not fair to the dog to keep uprooting it.

I love Ellen but she messed up. I know M&M gave her both a copy of the contract and verbally stated the condition. It is a very standard part of the whole rescue movement. Then for her to take this public and bring public opinion to bear against this organization was a low move on her part.

All this attention is hurting alot of people including that hairdressers children. They now think there is a chance they will get Iggy back and how fair is that. It is look.. a mistake was made. if they were looking for a puppy before then they look again. things happen and sometimes things hurt.

Get off the M&M. The rules are there to protect the animals. As it should be. If you get mad get mad with the one that broke the rules. That is Ellen I am sorry to say

The dog should of been able to stay with Ellen's hairstylist and her family. This is ridiculous...Mutts and Moms should be closed down for good. They can act like they have the dogs best interest in mind but they do not. They are complete weirdos.

Ellen is wrong, it's common sense to read what you are signing before you sign it. She broke the rules and unfortunately the dog had to suffer for it. Yes the dog is now back and it is sad. But other people would be interested in adopting the dog. Soon the dog will be in another home with another loving family. It's sad for the kids to lose something like that. But the contract is right if you can't keep the dog you need to return it to the pound. If Ellen broke the rules others would think that it is okay to give away a dog that they couldn't keep. Now people are bad mouthing the shelter, people who heard about this are less likely going to want to adopt from there. All of the other dogs and cats will be there for a longer period of time. It would have been better if she kept it between the people who were involved in it and maybe they could come up with a better way to handle this. Rules are rules and everyone including celebs need to follow them. Thats all I have to say about this.

All I can say is that just because somthing is legally right doesn't make it moratly or ethically right. Many of these shelter groups are run by holier than thou's and no one could totally please them. You can write anything into a contract. Dosen't make it right.

I think the shelter should have given the family the opportunity to file for adoption of the dog instead of taking the dog and then adopting it to someone else. I understand that they want to make sure the dog is in a good home, but it sounds like they didn't even give that family a chance to do that. Instead, they waisted a good opportunity to have adopted out 2 dogs. One to the hairdresser's family and the other to the family that now has Iggy. Isn't that the whole point of shelters?? I think Mutts and Moms should be ashamed on losing sight of the bigger picture.

I highly disapprove of Mutts and Moms, Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun's actions. They acted on impulse with vengeance on the goodhearted-ness and best interest between a celebrity and deserving children; not with empathy or forethought. In researching the web, PETA, Humane Society, BBB, and SPCA historical information, these owners have not proven themselves respectful or caring. In fact they show spite, more than anything. Reviewing everything to date re. Marina. She still doesn't show any emotion for the human bond between animal and a well deserving family. A reasonable human would not act on impulse driven by a bogus contract but allowed time for review and reasses the situation. A responsible business owner would have responded by now to the media, attorneys, and press with a RESOLUTION and not hiding and REACTING with negativity. When one appears as a villain one would naturally want to disarm the situation; not in this case. Nothing on the news has touched me in such a way that i would be actually reaching out and being an activist.
This is Marina's quote: “Celebrities you know, they, they get preferential treatment. They have lots of money. They go into a restaurant they get a table.”
Look close at her glasses >. I try not to be judgemental but something doesn't seem right.

(Deep breath).......

Ok......pet adoption has many facets to it, whether you are the facilitator, guardian or even the adoptee.....pets are pets...........little animals we look after, bring into our lives to enrich, and so forth..............they bring out the humanity in us 'humans'........looking out for the underdog, please excuse the pun-like reference...........sometimes, people act or react in ways that seem unusual to the masses...............or legal teams, but I believe that their hearts are in the right place.........On my way home from work tonight, I narrowly missed a cute, albeit wild, bunny with the tires on my auto.....a bunny like that might make a great pet..........but I digress..................

Rules exist in order to keep control of the masses in the face of possible chaos without rules............yes, a contract is still a contract, but ( dictionary may be required after this point) extenuating circumstances sometimes need to be considered.....yes the contract may have stated that 'pet' must be returned if irreconcilable differences exist between 'pet' and 'pre-existing kitty'......has no one ever acted impulsively out of passion? ....Passion and/or hope for a happy environment in which to exist...........yes, "LEGAL" steps may have been sidetepped, however inadvertantly..........(exhale).......... for the lady, whom I can't be bothered to 'Google' her name, that runs Mutts & Moms to not grasp this and not to give her and her legal teams head a shake ( in the event that they might have seized upon this opportunity to gain some FREE publicity ) and be the reed in the wind that bends while still having strength.......no death threats from me...........just barbs..........I suspect you may already be slightly dead inside .............you must be single........or really miserable if you are already involved with some myopic fool who just can't see it either.........................

All the best to you.....

Hope you are pleased with what you see in the mirror.........side view............stretch..........nice......

Sleep well.............

Cheers.

P.S. - If you ever need to chat with someone about just mellowing out a little and not sweating the small stuff, feel free to drop me a line,

Chris
swayveguy@hotmail.com

As a breeder, I put a stipulation in my contract saying that should something happen to the new owner at any point in time that prevents that specific person to care for the dog, the puppy is to return to my care. This is put in place to prevent a dog from being shuffled as unwanted estate of a decesased person and to prevent the dog from falling into a liquidation war over money-grubbing beneficieries. This is to ensure the safety and care of the dog is top priority. The policy of thefoundation is legitimate - preventing animals from being put into improper places without their consent, but once the home is confirmed as an appropriate placement there should have been no need to remove the dog and put it through yet more stress and potentially a new home.

I believe that iggy belongs with the hairdresser and her 2 daughters. I have one question.....would the owners have taken the dog back if it had been the president of the United States? I think the owners need to apologize to Ellen Degeneres, the hairdresser and her daughters and to the public and then give iggy back.

She signed a contract for a dog. She broke the contract. Sounds simple enough to me. The rescue group didn't make the dog homeless by taking it back. If the family wants the dog back let them go through with the adoption procedure like anyone else. I am impressed by the rescue group. They stood by their rules even though the situation became public and involved a public figure.

This comment comes all the way from Winnipeg, Manitoba and I cannot believe how unyielding Mutts and Moms are being. It seems that Mutts and Moms is penalizing Ellen first for being Ellen and second for telling the truth. Why don't they just interview the hairdresser and her two children and see how Iggy interacts with the family and let the poor animal stay in a loving home instead of in a kennel environment waiting to be adopted again. Some people might try to adopt the dog just because he is now "famous". I am sure that Ellen gave the dog to someone she knew she could trust and would take care of Iggy. The sad reality is that no matter whether an agency such as Mutts and Moms interviews the person wanting to adopt an animal, or a person who has adopted an animal gives it away to someone else, there are no guarantees that the right choice has been made. So to Mutts and Moms, interview the hairdresser, make them go thru the proper procedure and then give the family the dog as all this drama is starting to seem like a publicity stunt for the Company.

The agency so screwed up this. I mean going into the home & taking the dog. They could have gotten so much good exposure form Ellen. Instead they get death threats from the wacko's. I bet Iggy would have given the family a chance.

Talk about a lose-lose situation for everyone... bad decision by Mutts and Moms.

The whole point of the pet adoption and the contract for it is to ensure iggy gets a happy home. Why can't an exception be made and get a new contract written in this case?

More questions....So for what length of time does M&M think it has control of any pets already adopted from the agency? What happens if the adoptive owner has emergency? passed away?

The happy and right solution for everyone, especially Iggy and the two teens, is to let Iggy re-unite with the hairdresser family. If this does not happen, then I wonder about the real motive behind Mutts and Moms.

give the precious dog back to the hairdresser. Good Good, famous people/media make such a big deal about things....do whats best for the dog..and i dont think keepign him couped up in a damn cage is remotly right! Ellen was just trying to be a good person...god people!

Look, there are rules in place to protect animals that are placed in adoptive homes. In addition, rational - not irrational people - should be running these facilities. Mutts and Moms needs to apply a heavy dose of common sense in every circumstance like this. This is quite clearly a power-play because Ellen is a celebrity; one that will not bode well for them in future fundraising efforts. Vanessa [Mutts & Moms] should have interviewed the family, done a site-visit and concluded, after rational, professional behavior, that this was the correct family for Iggy. She is obvioiusly unprofessional.

I am new to the whole Ellen/Iggy situation. I just learned of the whole situation. I saw pieces on the 'Mutts & Moms' lady first. It really seems that she gets completely OVERattached to the animals that she is rescuing. Yes Ellen made a mistake by signing something without reading it. Obviously she feels bad for what has happened. She didnt abandon the puppy in a box on the street. She didnt just leave it somewhere because she didnt want it. She made sure that dog had a home, which is more than a lot of people would do.

Mutts & Moms could have handled this much better by not freaking out. She could have explained the situation and inspected the home to see that it was fit. If the woman is so worried about her financial situation then she should try a bit harder to keep her charges in loving homes. Everyone makes mistakes.

I do think that we need more people with the passion for children that these people are showing for the dog, though.

In my opinion, Iggy should go back to those little girls who are crying and begging him to be returned. I agree with Ellen, and the death threats against the Mutts and Moms organization should stop. I know people are mad, but it's even more inhumane for people to threaten rather than just peacefully express their opinions.

These rules and regulations regarding pet adoptions can sometimes be a bit stupid. As long as an animal, a dog or a cat is in a good home and not being mistreated, starved to death, or abused, there should be no issue as to who has the animal. Children bond to animals, and it's good for kids to learn to take care of pets, and it's unfair to them to have their new puppy brutally taken away like a child being taken from a mother.

its not fair! This company is F*** Stupid. Mutts and Moms really made bad publicity for themselves. Ellen wanted to give the dog to a nice family with kids who the dog got along with! I mean The Company claims they have their policies for "Security reasons" Well I think Mutts and Moms employees KNOW WHO ELLEN DEGENERES IS.. Who doesn't??? I mean C'mon. They couldn't have just made an exception for Ellen? This whole mess could have easily been solved if the damn Organization would get a heart and let the kids get Ellen's dog.
JEEZ>

It's very stupid that she's so distressed about this whole thing... I mean, it's a cute enough dog and all, but it's still kind of ridiculous that it's more important than Global Warming or the war.

there once was a rescue for mutts
some moms with their heads up their butts
they acted like nazis
and loved papparazzis
but ended up hiding in huts