Son of Lassie's Trainer: Give the Dog Back!

46. To prove my point, nobody questioned the 'dog is dead' statement, only the one about him being alive.

Posted at 7:29PM on Oct 17th 2007 by Me

47. There are lots of scams in California that involve designer dogs. Lots of them operate under the disguise of rescuing an animal. Within the past two years lots of puppies were born in Mexico in deplorable conditions, then brought into the U.S. and sold at pet stores for $$$$$$ profit.

Posted at 7:33PM on Oct 17th 2007 by Giselle

48. This group obviously does NOT have the best interests of dogs at heart and we should know if the dog is safe. Of course we all hope it isn't true, but we can't put anything past a heartless psychopath who tears a dog from a child's armsbecause of a contract disagreement.. When people act reprehensibly, then they are held to a standard to either show their mistake was a one time thing, or defend their mistake which means they very well could have put the dog to sleep.

I hope not because I hope Iggy ends up where he belongs with Ruby and the family. But the possibility is there. Nobody really knows where Iggy is except the woman who is "on medication" and hiding out because of the consequences of her awful actions.

Posted at 7:32PM on Oct 17th 2007 by WE SHOULD KNOW

49. I have an adopted dog too. And, I guess I got her "illegially" because our daughter adopted her and couldn't look after her so we took her in. We love her very much and she is a very happy dog. I am just so sorry for the dog and the child. Animals and children bond with each other and I am sure the dog "trusted" the child. Then, the dog was taken away. Now, the dog has to adjust again. This is not good. I think the adoption agency is self serving and truly do not have the dog's interest at heart here.

Posted at 7:37PM on Oct 17th 2007 by Beth

50. 32. Anti-Dog-Nazi - I guess you don't believe in rules, contracts and law.

Posted at 7:20PM on Oct 17th 2007 by thereisastory

____________________________________________________________


I guess you don't believe in reality, Marina.

The so-called contract was not honored even by the people who came up with it, therefore it is null and void. Mutts and Nuts have no case.

I guess you're not so distraught or under so much medication that you can't post here on TMZ pretending to be anonymous random supporters, are you?

Sucks to be a dog Nazi.

Posted at 7:35PM on Oct 17th 2007 by Anti-Dog-Nazi

51. Saying we don't know if it's true isn't saying we believe it. All I am saying is that it seems like a possibility based on the previous callous actions of these women. There is no way to know. For you or for the rest of us. It's a shame things couldn't have just been worked out but both Ellen and these Mutts peopl.e decided to duke it out in the media instead of working it out. However the dog never should have been taken from the family until the Mutts people followed proper procedure and went to court. It just seems they are capable of anything including killing the dog to keep it out of a home they deem unsatisfactory.

Posted at 7:36PM on Oct 17th 2007 by No idea what is true

52. Thanks for the picture of Bob & Laddie. I'm so glad the son is carrying on in the family business. I was employed for a year at my local SPCA as an Adoption Counselor. I left due to burnout, as do many shelter workers. The pay is not great, the hours are long, but the worst part of the job is seeing day after day the abuse perpetrated upon helpless animals by the absolute scum of humanity. Our shelter has a full-time Cruelty Investigator (God bless Steve.) An application is required to adopt an animal, a contract signed, and in some cases (such as placing horses, goats, exotics) a home visit is required. The contracts are in place for the protection of the animal, but every case should be reviewed individually.

That said, I love Ellen, watch her daily, and I know she would never do anything to intentionally harm a child or an animal. The Moms and Mutts had the opportunity to be heroic, allow the new family to go through the adoption process, and reunite the children with Iggy. Their Nazi-like tactics will surely backfire from the negative publicity, and sends a negative message about all shelters.

I can tell you all that if you open your heart to a shelter pet, you will be rewarded with a loving companion. I know, I have two adopted dogs, two adopted cats, and I'm fostering a horse that was starved nearly to death.

Posted at 7:36PM on Oct 17th 2007 by Anika

53. Having owned dogs my whole life, I am appalled by the actions of the agency...I also have kids. Right now I have two dogs, one of which is a rescue dog. To have an agency show up at my home with the police to take a dog away from my children would have invoked in me the same reaction Ellen had. They should have handled it with much greater compassion than they did. However, rather than death threats, hit them where it actually hurts, in the pocket book. If NO ONE adopted a dog from this agency and boycotted their business in its entirety....it would not be long before they were out of business. Right now I don't really care that Ellen broke her agreement (which she should not have done) . In the reall world, your talk first and sue for breach of contract....this was uncalled for. However, BOYCOTTE is the best action

Posted at 9:21PM on Oct 17th 2007 by Dog Lover

54. "We have a mole", I recommend less tv for you. It doesn't take a "mole" to understand who created this mess. You know, the same person who didn't give the poor dog time to adjust and broke a contract. Thank God, it wasn't a child she adopted. Nobody and nothing is perfect. Imagine being dropped off in another family or country and only being given two weeks to learn the ropes. Difficult for a human and impossible for an animal. What she did was wrong, but had she given the dog a chance I might feel a little bad for her. Still wrong, but at least I could say she tried.

Posted at 7:41PM on Oct 17th 2007 by Me

55. STICK TO TRAINING DOGS! what you people dont REALIZE is that EVERY agency has rules and one of the most important ones is that families have to be SCREENED and have to have interviews before an animal is placed with them, it takes a PROCESS. they want to make sure that the home is adequate for the animal and they need to verify that THEMSELVES. what happens if someone adopts a dog and then gives it away to someone neglectful? then what? you'd bitch about that TOO! so nothing makes you people happy? rules or no rules? allen signed a CONTRACT and there are consequences of breaking contracts. i am 100% behind the agency, they did the right thing. oh and btw death threats and arson threats are a GREAT way to make people do what you want aimrite?

Posted at 7:51PM on Oct 17th 2007 by hora

56. Contract or no contract, this could have been handled differently by Mutts & Moms. Could they not have checked the new family and okayed them having the dog? There are to many organizations with to much control over our society. The fact the the poor pup has now had to adjust to his third home must not be of any concern to them. And the children who loved him were definitely not thought of. What a nasty bunch of people!

Posted at 7:52PM on Oct 17th 2007 by kokomo

57. I guess I’m the only one who sees the irony in the name Mutts and MOMS. Seems to me Mutts and BITCHES (the canine type) is more appropriate since they are more interested in the dogs feelings then that of CHILDREN.

It’s just a dog; was it really worth already giving it to another family? The dog doesn’t know the difference, but two children are devastated and won’t get over it so easily.

Posted at 7:52PM on Oct 17th 2007 by jmo

58. Try a contract lawyer; that contract may not be enforceable. Especially one that rigid, with so many contingencies as if they still owned the dog.

The adoption agency has given a bad name to pet adoptions everywhere. What a blazing idiot the mutt mom is.

Posted at 8:20PM on Oct 17th 2007 by MichelleH

59. Sorry, but I agree with taking the dog back. I do animal rescue and the rule is, if the situation doesn't work out, return the pet. That is the bottom line. Ellen didn't do that so unfortunately I'm not in the majority here. It's up to the rescue group to decide if this dog is suitable for this family. I feel badly for the owners.

Posted at 7:55PM on Oct 17th 2007 by Dee

60. No one is going to take that rescue seriously any more and other rescues will refuse to associate with them because of the stigma attached.

I personally see them as a joke. I do not believe in priviledge for those with money - but they should have been more diplomatic in dealing with a celebrity. She had the power to make them a laughingstock and it happened and they deserved it. If they had said they would make an exception because the dog was already beloved by the kids and because it goes against their rules, the new owners would have to sign and agree to additional home visits etc or surrender the dog - they would have come off so much better.

Instead they look like money greedy *itches looking to ride Ellens shirt tails for a bit of publicity OR some "we hate people with money" fatheads.

I do find it hard to believe that Ellen didn't know about the keep it or surrender back clause. My shelter has that and its in writing and VOCALIZED.

Posted at 8:01PM on Oct 17th 2007 by Sharon