What cracks me up is how people think they know Ellen & can vouch for her, just because she's on tv. "Ellen's a good person!" "I'm with Ellen!" "Ellen would never do this or that!" We all have no idea who or what Ellen is, based on her public persona. With power comes responsibility. I don't see that Ellen acted with any sense of responsibility in giving the dog away or blubbering on tv to millions of people. Obviously being an intelligent woman, she's capable of reading a contract, writing an email, making a phone call. All of which she should have done before making an emotional plea that destroyed the work of this rescue. And certainly, if Ellen made the decision to give away a dog after 2 weeks' ownership (9 days of which where at a trainer's home), I wouldn't trust her judgement in selecting a home for this dog. That's not her job, but that job was provided for in the contract that Portia signed on their behalf. Think rescues are overzealous? Maybe at times. But I'm sure every rescue has come up against stupid people who think they want a dog or cat, and decide later they don't, and dump the animal back at a pound where it's euthanized. Ellen was the one with power here in this situation, and she misused it.

ellen should learn dogs are a dime a dozen an she should let it go,life goes on.

M&M should have followed the law and had the dog fixed before it was sold. So it works both ways here. Ellen is well known in the CA pet rescue community she gives her time & money to pets. If Ellen placed a animal we all knew it would be well taken care of. M&M knew Ellen reputation in CA they knew the pet was safe, but Marina wanted to get back at Ellen for not informing her of the household change. Plus Marina also does not like children so she was set off at the fact the dog was with children. This comes out to be a control issue, and her so called lawyer Fink is not their lawyer he is only doing it for publicity, he has stated if it goes to court he will want money. This is all a control issue and Iggy and the two girls are caught in the middle... Sad!!!

I can see both sides of this issue. Ellen thought she was doing a good thing, the hairdresser and her family love the dog= happy ending for the dog.

Mutts and Moms has the right and responsibility to inspect the home. Had they bothered to do that, they would have probably seen it is a good loving home for any dog.

They crossed the line and became kind of nutty in my book when they removed the dog from a good home because all of the rules were not followed. They were angry at Ellen. They made it about themselves, not this particular dog's situation.

I mean, removing a dog from a home with police force when the dog was clearly not in danger...c'mon. As a business owner, I cannot imagine a worse possible way of handling this.

The real losers are rescue groups and shelters who will lose donations and pet adoptions because of the actions of Mutts and Moms.

I think people are loosing track of the real issue at hand. That is that the dog was homeless and needed to be rescued. So things didn't work out for Ellen and Portia to keep the dog, the important thing is that is was given to a good family and would be well taken care of with lots of love. Ellen did the right thing. That is just bad business for them to take the dog away from the new family just because of a loop whole in the paper work. I believe that Mutts and Moms is money hungry and they are crooks. Ellen and her hairdresser and family are in my prayers. Mutts and Moms have lost track of what is important and that is really sad.

I love Dori-:)

Anyone else heard that this is not the first time Ellen has adopted a dog only to give it away again because it did not get along with her cats? I heard this happened at least two other times - anyone else know? I bet there is more to this story, the way she was crying. When you adopt a dog you make a commitment, not something to be done lightly.

All the dogs I've ever adopted have had the same rule plus that the dog must always wear the original id tag of the rescue organization in addition to the new tags. All the dogs I've ever adopted or considered adopting were in a 2-week foster care situation with me first. Many, many rescue organizations have this feature which allows you to see on a trial basis how the dog will fit into the family, and you're just responsible for continuing to bring it to adoption events but have first choice of adopting because of the fostering. More light should be shed on this great feature of rescue organizations.
Since Ellen only had the dog for 3 weeks I can only assume how helpful fostering would have helped them see what kind of special needs this puppy would need to fit with them. But, saying $3k was spent on training and spay/neuter just sounds ridiculous. They should get their money back from the trainer! A good crate does wonders and a puppy needs a full-time caretaker who's in the house nearly all day.

The adoption agency "sold" the same dog twice. I think they require the dog to be returned if it does not work out is for more than one reason. One of the reasons is they get to collect money twice on the same animal. This dog already had a loving home with Ellen's hairdresser. By giving the dog away to a new home, they denied one of their own dogs a chance to get adopted by adopting out Ellen's dog twice. Is that fair to keep one of their own animals in a cage when it could of been adopted out to the family they gave Iggy to live with.

It seems both sides did not follow proper procedure in this and are in fact both guilty... BUT I always thought Ellen had more class than to air her dirty laundry on the airwaves like this. It is stupid and ridiculous and I always thought Ellen was smarter and stronger than how she has been acting the past couple days.

good words, Jerry - we adopt all our animals and welcome the home visits - we spread the word 'ADOPT'. This woman very well may have scared others from adopting and saving an animal, she did so much harm to such a good cause.

After working in the Humane movement for many years I'm
sorry to see this woman go from trying to be a rescue group to become an over the edge control freak with an adoption especially when the animal has a good situation Family food , shelter and I do believe most of all LOVE .
I do know all the reasons that we do all we can but in the end PLEASE do not allow the Animal to suffer just because a small (in my opinion) was breached .
Please Ms Batkis drop the dog rescue ploy and get publicity in the usual Business model way but do not ever use an animal welfare to do this type of thing because it is despicable and shows what a sad person that you are .
and ALSO i SINCERLY HOPE THAT YOUR business PARTNER GET'S THE HECK AWAY FROM YOU .

calling each other names only cheapens this entire situation - I made a mistake in saying they receivd the full $3,000 again, it wasn't that much, but it was a double dip nonetheless.

I understand obeying rules, yet this group did not follow through on all their own rules - required forms were not filled out, and they did NOT perform a house visit prior to 'adoption'. They seemed more interested in the $3,000, which they have now received twice! I believe that may be against the law. It seems they have 'selected' rules for 'selected' people in 'selected' situations.

come on....Ellen is a good person. Stop bashing her. She doesn't seem to have a mean bone in her body. Why would she do something mean to a dog that she cared enough to take care of? I think that the media is bored and needs someone to pick on. If she was so mean, then why would she have gotten the dog in the first place? Dogs have personalities and they may not always fit. Don't pick on Ellen. She's a straight shooter and not full of cr-p.