SO you haven't had enough Ellen-dog-crisis?

Interview with Denise Flaim of Newsday.com on "Poochgate" (Online ONLY audio).
The audio was bumped from show 413 because of breaking Southern California Wildfire news. Producers decided it would no-longer be timely - however, your email says you haven't had enough yet.

What you had to say

Hi Animal Radio!

I heard the 'tail' end of your program this past Sunday for the first
time. The last comments were about Ellen and the Rescue group that
took back Iggy. The hosts of the program asked for comments from the
listeners so if this is overdone, I apologize.

As I understand it, Ellen erred in giving Iggy away and the response
from the Moms & Mutts owner was to threaten Ellen with lawyers and
police. This threat seems a bit excessive for a rescue group. From
my perspective, M&M made the original, UNNECESSARY threat and Ellen
played right into her hand. Both sides are wrong, but when M&M
decided to dig her heals in and make sure Ellen didn't break the
rules -- for the rules sake -- she was basically begging for trouble.

Ellen didn't mean to activate death threats and I'm sure M&M didn't
mean to create the trouble she did, but the fact that Iggy was placed
so quickly in another home smacks of nothing more than vindictiveness
on the part of M&M. M&M stated that she wouldn't be "pushed around"
by Ellen, simply because she was a star. So tell me M&M wasn't being
vindictive and couldn't have handled the situation (happy Iggy in a
happy home) WAY better!

A simple investigation on the home of Ellen's hairdresser would have
ended the situation with EVERYONE happy. All this controversy
happened because M&M insisted on demanding punishment for a broken
rule (which injured no one), neither person nor dog yet the
'punishment' from M&M has injured many more than just the hairdresser
and her daughters.

Shame on Ellen and Portia for not following the rules and shame on
Moms & Mutts for insisting on punishment for a small error. How sad
that a well-intended business was ruined because of someone demanding
her own way. You know who loses, right? The animals. So sad.

Sincerely,

Tricia Guy
Animal Lover and part-time animal shelter volunteer

Hal,

I love your radio program. I hear it every Sunday morning on KOST 103.5
FM. I agree with what you said about Ellen DeGeneres. She used her
program to complain, etc. when the adoption agency didn't have that
same opportunity -- and I wouldn't have listened to either side of the
story. A contract is a contract.

The reason that I'm writing you, though, is that my understanding is
that it is typical for agencies to adopt out pets but retain the
ownership of the pet. I recently saw a contract that said that the
adopter would pay $150 to adopt the pet, but the pet would remain the
property of that agency. When the adopting parent dies, the dog would
go back to the agency. If the adopting parent goes on vacation, the dog
would have to be lodged at the agency's facility with no other option
(relatives, etc.). I don't think I would ever use that type of an
agency, but are all of them like that?

Debbie Hjorth
Senior Secretary
Fullerton School District

Have you seen The Smoking Gun? they have the emails between Mutts and Moms
I wanted to see evidence and its pretty clear evidence.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1025072iggy1.html

Ellen has gone on to try to fix some things with putting ASPCA on the air
but she needs to help Mutts and Moms start over.

I believe Ellen was sincere in her grief over the taking of the dog from the family. There should be exceptions for each case...the young girls in the family that Ellen gave the dog to were not children...they were almost 14. Ellen did tell the 'other side of the story' on her show and admitted they had gone against the contract knowing what a good home the dog would be in.

Karen
Support America - Buy American

What do you think? Email YourVoice@AnimalRadio.com

Animal Radio® Shows with more Ellen drama:
Show 412
Show 413