For the past two days I've been immersed in conversations with several principals in the Ellen DeGeneres-Mutts & Moms-Iggy the Pup fiasco. And fiasco it is. I've spoken with Ellen's publicist, Ellen's dog trainer, the Vice President of Publicity for Telepictures (which produces Ellen's show), the attorney for Marina Baktis and Vanessa Chekroun (owners of Mutts & Moms in Pasadena, CA), and several respected animal rescue experts in the Los Angeles area — many who have worked with Mutts & Moms.
For readers who are unaware of the Ellen DeGeneres/Mutts & Moms fiasco, here is a video synopsis:
This past Monday, on her popular daytime talk show, Ellen DeGeneres dissolved into tears as she recounted her experience of adopting a puppy (Iggy) from a pet adoption agency (Mutts & Moms in Pasadena, CA — which to her credit, DeGeneres didn't name). After two weeks, Ellen and her partner, Portia de Rossi, decided Iggy was incompatible with their household and gave Iggy to Ellen's hairdresser (Cheryl Marks) and the hairdresser's eleven and twelve year old daughters. But the legal contract Ellen signed with Mutts & Moms forbade Ellen from giving Iggy away, and required Iggy to be returned to the Agency should Ellen decide not to keep him. By giving 7 lb. Iggy to her hairdresser and not returning him to Mutts & Moms as stipulated, Ellen broke her contract. As a result, Mutts & Moms went to the hairdresser's home, where, in the presence of the police, they confiscated Iggy, returned him to their agency, and found him another home.
Germane to this synopsis is the resultant vitriol that drove the HUMANS
involved to such an impasse that rational negotiation on Iggy's behalf
became impossible. Mutts & Moms failed to give the hairdresser's
family its fullest consideration as legitimate adopters, and used its
legal leverage to remove Iggy from a home where he was wanted.
DeGeneres used the full extent of her celebrity to ignite a fan-based
frenzy that resulted in death threats to the impoverished owners of
Mutts & Moms. In addition, Baktis and Chekroun have likely lost
their animal rescue business and small store. An online petition to Free Iggy has been launched by Ellen's supporters, while an earlier online petition, which asked petitioners not to adopt from animal rescue organizations until Iggy is returned, has rightfully been taken down.
Still the saddest repercussion of all is the potential for tens of
thousands of dogs and cats to go unadopted, and to be euthanized, due
to the anger engendered toward rescue groups as a result of this
debacle.
Below are are few clarifications of inaccuracies reported by the media on this story:
1. Iggy did not live with DeGeneres and De Rossi for the full two weeks
before he was given to hairdresser Cheryl Marks. Iggy was left in the
care of Los Angeles dog trainer, Zach Grey (UrbanTails.net), who
reunited Iggy with DeGeneres and De Rossi after 9 days of individual
and group training — at which time Degeneres and De Rossi concluded
that they didn't want a young puppy — UNDERSCORING THE NEED FOR THE
CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT TO RETURN ANIMALS TO THEIR AGENCIES IF THE
ANIMAL IS UNWANTED. The fact is, DeGeneres and De Rossi did what
thousands of adopters do. They wanted a puppy, but realizing the amount
of work a puppy takes, they couldn't make that commitment. Can one
honestly fault Mutts & Moms for enforcing a provision that protects
rejected animals? If Mutts & Moms were to PUBLICLY disregard this
requirement, it would pave the way for anyone to overrule this
safeguard and recklessly dispose of an animal.
2. Contrary to the negativity generated toward Mutts & Moms by the
powerful DeGeneres camp and biased media pundits, the animal rescue
experts with whom I've spoken were complimentary toward the
organization. Ricky Whitman, Vice President of Community Resources for
the Pasadena Humane Society (PHS), told me she was not clearly
represented in the press when quoted as saying "her group would've handled this [Iggy situation] very differently.
What Whitman actually meant is that since PHS has contracts to provide
animal control services to different cities, they would have been
required to remove Iggy in the presence of animal control officers and
under much more stringent conditions — hence "differently." Whitman
lauded the owners of Mutts & Moms for their rescue accomplishments,
stating, "We have worked closely and well with Mutts & Moms in the
past. We have honored them for their work." Whitman recounted the story
of a pit bull puppy who'd been raised in a small bunny hutch. According
to Whitman, Mutts & Moms was the only organization willing to
accept the difficult task of rehabilitating this unfortunate animal —
an accomplishment Whitman praised highly.
3. The DeGeneres camp's contention that Mutts & Moms went to the
media FIRST does not square with the timeline of events. On the evening
Mutts & Moms confiscated Iggy from the hairdresser's house, TMZ
(also a Telepictures product) had been called to video the visit.
According to Keith A. Fink, attorney for Mutts & Moms, it was the
DeGeneres camp who contacted TMZ — NOT the media shy, show-biz naive
owners of Mutts & Moms. Indeed, my own experience with the owners
of Mutts & Moms bears witness to their abject fear of media, since
their own attorney was unable to goad them into speaking with me or
with the other media attempting to make contact.
4. The "Moms" in the name Mutts & Moms doesn't identify Marina and
Vanessa as "moms" who rescue animals. The "Moms" in Mutts & Moms
denotes the organization's inspired mission to adopt mother dogs from
shelters once they have given birth and nursed their puppies — an
arduous undertaking, since mother dogs are often euthanized after
nursing their litter.
In the final analysis, this Ellen DeGeneres-Mutts & Moms-Iggy saga
is a private issue between private individuals that landed on the
national stage. If Ellen intended to use her show as the platform to
manipulate this matter, she has made a dangerous error in judgement.
She has crossed the regrettable line from comedy pulpit to bully pulpit
and used her mega platform to attack "the little guy" — or in this case
— "the little gals." And it's caused significant harm.
Yesterday on the phone, Laura Mandel, Vice President of Publicity for
Telepictures, described Ellen as "a real person with real emotion." On
this there is no doubt. But Ellen is also an incredibly powerful woman
able to influence legions of fans. Beyond her cameras are millions of
viewers she knows nothing about, capable of acts she can't control.
They worship Ellen and protect her with a vengeance — and right now
their vengeance is centered on two frightened rescuers who don't
deserve their wrath. I've read some fan comments. Their hatred for
Marina and Vanessa is shocking.
In the entertainment business, there is the long-standing concept of "a
pro." "A pro" is an entertainer who, regardless of personal travails,
faces the audience and does the job. In my opinion, Ellen is teetering
between a "pro" and a woman who's unclear about her "job." She's abused
her power by publicly challenging those less powerful. Rosie O'Donnell
took on the President. Rosie also took on Trump. Others take on
corporations, like Exxon and the airlines. But Ellen has challenged two
defenseless woman with no resources — no fame, no fortune, no accolades
and no ovations. Only attorney Keith Fink has come forth to champion
their cause.
Across the nation, because of this fiasco, animal rescue organizations
have taken an enormous hit — for which helpless animals will bear the
brunt. To help revitalize this noble profession, I'm calling on Ellen
DeGeneres to step up and intercede. I'm asking her to use her
brilliance, her compassion, and her enormous reach to convene a panel
of rescue professionals on her own show as quickly as possible to
discuss what these organizations do and how they do it. There are
lessons that need to be learned and rules that must be understood. My
hope (though far-fetched) is that if Ellen does choose to do this,
Mutts & Moms will participate — without the caviat that Iggy be
returned to Cheryl and her daughters. There's an important lesson for
Cheryl's daughters in all of this that has somehow been forgotten. The
fact is, a contractual rule was broken. Sometimes the greater lesson is
understanding the need to honor the rule — rather than the need to
circumvent it.
On a personal note: For those who believe I'm holding Ellen to an
unfair standard by suggesting she shield her personal issues from her
viewers, I'll answer with this. One of the greatest gifts I've been
given in my lifetme is the opportunity to teach. Every day I face rooms
filled to capacity with adult students who care a great deal about me.
I've faced them when I'm happy and I've faced them when I'm sad. I've
faced them after losing family members, losing beloved animals, losing
relationships, undergoing surgery, and more. But I neither share nor
show my burdens. It is not my student's job to bear them. Nor is it
Ellen's viewers' job to bear hers. We are simply there to serve.
The whole reason for those contracts is to protect the animals from people like Ellen. That is why resuce agencies do home checks. Sure she gave the dog to someone she knew, but remember not everyone does that. Some people just release the dog on the street. Also, this is a dog that has already been abandoned at least once before and now Ellen has done it to Iggy again. What if the hairdresser decides in a year they don't want Iggy. That is why there are rules in place everyone has to obey them. The fact that you are a star doen't change that. Ellen knew what she was doing when she went on air. She wanted to intimidate these women. I applaud them for not backing down. I am disturbed by all those that threaten these women for trying to do the right thing for an innocent animal. I wonder how many of them are animal owners and would let their animal move in with someone they knew nothing about.
1
October 20, 2007
Nancy: Dog and Cat Rescuer
Across the nation, because of this fiasco, animal rescue organizations have taken an enormous hit — for which helpless animals will bear the brunt.
And therein lies the real tragedy of this debacle - the hundreds, if not thousands, of dogs and cats on death row in animal control shelters that will die because rescue organizations will have difficulty placing the animals they've already rescued and won't have room for new intakes.
Thank you, Ms. Milazzo, for your objective and truthful article.
2
October 20, 2007
tj: golly!!
Gosh, problems, problems!!
If only Americans could get this excited about the genocide they are committing against people!
3
October 21, 2007
Teresa Osborn: The sad example set for our children
Excellent analysis, thank you.
The saddest thing of this entire fiasco is the example Ellen has set for the rest of the world. She has an opportunity, as a highly respected celebrity, to show the young people of our country how to act responsibily. But, instead, she showed them that if you disagree with a rule, a law, a legal contract, just ignore it and if someone challenges the rightness of your actions, use your money and power to crush them.
The reason there are so many animals put to death in shelters each year is that we live in a disposable society. If something is just a little too much effort, hey, just throw it away. Is it any wonder that our children think it too much trouble to work.
Teresa Osborn Lone Star Shih Tzu and Lhasa Apso Rescue www.shihtzu-rescue.com
4
October 22, 2007
HohnJonz: Ellen (Dorothy) Degeneres vs. The Wizard Of Oz vs. MaM's
If you want to adopt from or donate to a rescue, make sure that their license is current and ask for references.
Avoid grief by avoiding rescues with requirements you don't agree to.(Maybe petfinder can add an area where you can rate rescues if you have been verified to have filled out an application with them.)
If you have never adopted, or have a history of adopting animals that do not fit into your home, foster before committing to an adoption.
If you are a rescue, keep current on all legal requirements and screen potential adopters well.
If you are a rescue, make sure you only pursue legal recourses in enforcing your contract.
6
October 23, 2007
ereader: Ellen DeGeneres is still doing pet adoption segments. Really?
Does any one see the hypocrisy of someone who preaches tolerance and a strong women’s agenda but drives a non-profit run by two women who try to save female, mother dogs (I.e. the “mom’s” of mutts and moms) and their litters out of business?
Does anyone else hear some duplicity when? 1) Ellen, seemingly, has a long personal history of giving way many dogs she was supposed to have adopted. 2) Ellen won’t “speak” about the dog situation, but she will try to do some satire on her show about her crying fest. 3) Ellen won’t “speak” about Mutts and Moms she still has the audacity to continue to do “pet adoption” segments on her show less than a week from her closing down one and harming countless others.
7
October 24, 2007
LA DOG LOVER: GET ALL THE INFO FIRST !
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! IF THE RESCUE'S WERE NOT ABOUT THE MONEY, IT WOULD NOT MATTER WHO THE DOG WAS GIVEN TO, AS LONG AS THE DOG HAS A GOOD HOME. WHEN SOMEONE ADOPTS A DOG, THE DOG SHOULD BELONG TO THE ADOPTER NOT THE RESCUE GROUP. SINCE THE DOG HAS TO BE RETURNED TO THE RESCUE GROUP IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE DOG IS BEING LEASED AND NOT OWNED, HOW DOES THAT SOUND, IS THE RESCUE GROUP GOING TO REEMBURSE ELLEN FOR THE MONEY SHE PUT INTO TRAINING AND OTHER SERVICES GIVEN TO THE DOG. A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF PET PIMPING!!!
8
October 25, 2007
Write comment
Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
