I'm with Ellen
NON-TRANSPORTATION!
Ellen DeGeneres is in hot water for a dog-adoption fiasco. Relatively few people are paying attention to the fact that this dog-rescue group will not place any dogs in families with kids younger than 14. Yes, FOURTEEN.
In our case, we badly wanted to get a pound dog, but it had to be small, and a good temperament. Our mighty beast was obtained from a breeder. Why? Because small-dog "animal rescue" groups have a stranglehold over the Austin pound (basically picking up small dogs as soon as they were dropped off, at least back then), and they will not allow adoption by a family with reasonably-aged children. Just like the ridiculous power-hungry idiots who think that a family with girls aged 11 and 12 aren't a good place for a puppy.
GMAFB. Most dogs are far better off with kids than with the typical single female that these dog rescue groups would place with, where the dog will be alone all day. Dogs like to play. Kids have the energy and the time to play with them. More attention on these ridiculous nitwits, please, and less on the fact that DeGeneres technically violated the contract. It was a bad contract to begin with.
Comments
I have to say, this is one of the most extreme examples of well-meaning stupidity I've heard of in a long time.
Posted by: Adam Rice![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 17, 2007 11:41 AM
It would be one thing if it was an older dog who had been abused and had some issues - but for puppies, to restrict like this is just absurd. The whole POINT of puppies, in my mind, is that they're good with kids.
Posted by: mdahmus![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 17, 2007 11:44 AM
Granted, I haven't seen the actual contract, and granted, this is in the mysterious bizzarro universe of California, but:
I'm not clear on why DeGeneres' friends actually let "Mutts for Moms" confiscate the dog. They should have just laughed in their face and told them to go away. I would think that any sort of "contract" signed during doggie adoption is, legally speaking, nothing more than a really fancy promise. Once they give you the dog, it's your dog. It's not like you can put liens on dogs or something.
(I guess I should also add "granted, I am not a lawyer" but I can spout off on things like this with the auxilliary studies I did at a law school)
Posted by: DSK![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 17, 2007 12:20 PM
Word on the news this morning was that the cops showed up to enforce the give-back (and it was presumably at her hairdressers' house, not hers). Hard for me to believe, too - what is this, some kind of dog lease?
Posted by: mdahmus![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 17, 2007 12:27 PM
Wow, sounds like those cops need to get a clue.
Let's say, for argument, that the promises in the "contract" were enforced via some weird no-payment lease that would permanently release the dog to the owners after a year or something (unlikely, but who knows what's in that contract). You still shouldn't be able to have cops come with you to repossess the dog due to breach of lease terms. You'd need a court order. I wonder if they did they get a court order of some sort?
Posted by: DSK![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 17, 2007 12:43 PM