MuaPetahl said:

That's true. I just think it's not so bad that they have a screening process, and take the adoption process seriously.

And they ended up giving in & apologizing, right? So that's good. Maybe Ellen's hairdresser will get the dog back.

I think this is the rescue society.

Mutts and Moms
523 S Raymond Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91105
626.394.0946
Email: pawboutique@yahoo.com
www.muttsandmoms.org

View Map

On the Web: www.muttsandmoms.org

Hours of Operation: Monday - Saturday: 9 - 6 / Sunday: 11:00am – 5:00pm
Mutts and Moms

Who We Are - Mutts & Moms is a non-profit organization that rescues dogs from Los Angeles City and County shelters. This rescue was started by Marina Baktis, a volunteer with Los Angeles city shelters, who saw all the beautiful animals that are euthanized daily and wanted to do something! Mutts & Moms rescues mixed breed dogs (mutts) and Moms with the occasional litter, taking them out of the shelters and into foster homes and boarding kennels, where they are groomed, cared for, and then adopted into loving homes.

Adoptions - every Sunday 11am-3pm at the Paw Boutique. To request a specific dog be there, please email pawboutique @ yahoo.com. You may also request to meet one of our dogs by appointment, once you have followed the steps in How To Adopt and your application has been approved.

See all our dogs for adoption by clicking here.

About Mutts & Moms and Marina Baktis

Marina Baktis began her rescue efforts by volunteering at North Central shelter in 2002. Week ends were spent at the shelter matching families with the right dog for their home. Frustrated with the number of dogs euthanized weekly, Marina began volunteering with private rescue organizations. Hundreds of dogs have been saved due to her efforts. Calls were made to different rescue groups, bailing dogs out of the shelter and transporting them to safety became a weekly endeavor.

Finally, Mutts and Moms was formed. Marina was in love with the mutts and just loved their original look and personality. Every Mutt is one of a kind. Breeds all look alike but find two mutts that look the same... impossible. Month after month, Marina would see moms come into the shelter, her puppies always getting adopted and the mom being destroyed because her droopy sacks of milk were unattractive to the public. Marina would take them home, let the milk dry up, spay the mom and she would be a brand new dog. The other scenario that upset her was the mom and litter being destroyed because the shelter did not have room to keep them. It was an outrage to her that a mom could go through giving birth, caring for her pups and then being destroyed. This is why she formed Mutts and Moms.

In 2005, Mutts and Moms received non-profit status. All donations are tax-deductible and the money is spent caring for and treating sick and injured mutts and post-lactaing moms. Mutts and Moms is all volunteer, no one receives a salary.

Even though hundreds of dogs have been saved, there are too many being destroyed daily in our shelters. Please spay/neuter your pets and encourage everyone you know to do the same. Please do not breed or buy while homeless animals die. There are many wonderful dogs in our shelters and available through rescue groups. To rescue a homeless animal is the greatest gift you could ever give or receive. The love and devotion of a dog that has been rescued is unparalleled. They know they have been saved.

"Mama Noel was going to be destroyed on December 23, 2004. I had sworn off dogs for the holidays but when I went to bring the shelter employees their annual holiday lunch, the kennel supervisor showed me Mama Noel (I named her that) and she would have been destroyed in just a few minutes so I took her. Once she regained her pretty figure she was adopted by a wonderful woman in Pasadena. Mama Noel is an example of what happens to the mom dogs in our city/county shelters. They are destroyed because no one wants to adopt a dog with a sagging belly. Mutts & moms is here to rescue dogs like her and give them their well-deserved second chance." -- Marina Baktis



I am only one, but I am one.
I cannot do everything
but I can do something.
And I will not let what I cannot do
interfere with what I can do.

--Edward Everett Hale
Link: http://pasadena.insideloc...n-moms.php

What was the reason that she did this when the camera's were rolling?? Ellen can't pick up a phone and call the agency and try to resolve the issue?

Sorry but going on Television and crying over a child having her puppy taken away just screams PR stunt/Ratings.

TheResistor said:

Really??? Wow!

OVERKILL on all sides!

lazycrockett said:

I think it was too heavy on her heart to hide it. Clearly she was upset over this and now she has to go on the air and make everyone laugh and want to dance? Those who watch her religiously would have noticed something wrong..plus it had been on the news. Her ratings are huge (for daytime tv)...there's no need for her to pull a stunt.

..

jesus!! they should just give her a break,,,the puppy has a home!! isnt that all that matters???

Listening to Mark K. Jermaine show on Air America and people are coming out of the woodwork with horror stories about shelters and activists. I'm telling you, that agency isn't innocent in this

And let me add that Anx and M are exempt from my tirade on animal lovers. Don't even go there guys!

Ugh what a sad situation. I understand that there are rules for a reason, especially with adopting animals. But really....can't they just let this one slide? She knows she fucked up, slap her with a fine or make her donate to an animal shelter...I dunno I just think this was extreme when clearly the dog was in a great home. They could have gone there to check out the conditions of where the dogs new home was.

I hope they reconsider and give the dog back to the family. It's going to be traumatized now and have to be retrained all over again.

That's sad, but I guess it's like adopting a child, you can't just pass it on to someone else.

VANITYSprisonBYTCH said:

Lucky!!!!

I actually got to go on Will & Grace as well. It was a Thanksgiving Special. We only got to see one part though. They filmed it seperately. It was great because they played around a lot. Sean Hayes busted up laughing at one point and then he got on the piano that's on the set and started playing the theme song. I didn't know that he was a classically trained pianist. I was so happy to see Bobby Canavalee.

Link: http://tv.yahoo.com/contr...__ER:11495Ellen's Rescue Agency: No Doggone Return Policy
By Natalie Finn
Yesterday at 12:57 pm

Rules are rules.

So says the rescue agency that Ellen DeGeneres adopted a puppy from, only to have it confiscated after she and partner Portia De Rossi handed it over to a pooch-less family.

A spokesman for Mutts and Moms, the Pasadena-based organization that has been the target of death and arson threats and calls for a boycott since DeGeneres' emotional retelling of the doggy dilemma on her talk show Tuesday, said that his client has no plans to return the four-month-old Brussels Griffon terrier mix to DeGeneres' hairdresser and her two young daughters.

Owner Marina Batkis "is not going to give them the dog," said attorney Keith A. Fink, who's not representing the shelter but is speaking on Batkis and co-owner Vanessa Chekroun's behalf. The women run the nonprofit Mutts and Moms out of their store Paws Boutique.

"[Batkis] doesn't think this is the type of family that should have the dog," Fink told the Associated Press. "She is adamant that she is not going to be bullied around by the Ellen DeGenereses of the world…They are using their power, position and wealth to try to get what it is they want."

The attorney explained that Mutts and Moms has a policy of not allowing families with children younger than 14 to adopt small dogs. The stylist's kids are 11 and 12.

Although DeGeneres said on TV that she was the one who erred by signing an agreement that prohibited her from sending the dog—christened Iggy—to another home without first notifying Mutts and Moms, Fink said that De Rossi was the one who signed the form.

DeGeneres' publicist, Kelly Bush, confirmed that account.

"She was wrong by not reading the agreement," Bush told the AP. "She thought she was doing a good thing. She's notorious for rescuing animals and finding them good homes. She found the dog a wonderful, wonderful home."

DeGeneres said that she and De Rossi had spent $3,000 to neuter and train Iggy to get along with cats, the latter taking place at the Los Angeles pet store UrbanTails.

Nevertheless, Mutts and Moms removed Iggy from the hairstylist's house on Sunday evening after learning that the pup had changed hands without permission.

"It's very upsetting to hear that someone is getting those kind of calls," Bush said when asked about the threats of violence leveled at the rescue agency. "Ellen just wants the dog reunited with the family."

"I thought I did a good thing," a tearful DeGeneres said Tuesday during Ellen. "I tried to find a loving home for the dog because I couldn't keep it…

"I feel totally responsible for it, and I'm so sorry. I'm begging them to give that dog back to that family. It's not their fault. It's my fault. I shouldn't have given the dog away. Just please give the dog back to those little girls."

But apparently the kids are going to have to wait a few years if they want to do business with Mutts and Moms.




..

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/a..._degeneres
By BETH HARRIS, Associated Press Writer
46 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES - Ellen DeGeneres' doggy drama intensified Tuesday after her tearful plea on her talk show led to death threats against the rescue group that took back her adopted dog for violating the contract, according to a spokesman for the agency's owners.

DeGeneres explained on her show that the Brussels Griffon terrier mix didn't get along with her cats, so she gave it to her hairstylist's family. The owners of Mutts and Moms claimed that DeGeneres violated the adoption agreement by not informing them that she was giving the dog away and removed Iggy from the hairstylist's home Sunday.

Batkis rejected DeGeneres' plea to give the dog back to her hairstylist's family.

"She (Batkis) doesn't think this is the type of family that should have the dog," said Fink, who is not legally representing the owners but is authorized to speak for them. "She is adamant that she is not going to be bullied around by the Ellen DeGenereses of the world ... They are using their power, position and wealth to try to get what it is they want."

DeGeneres' attorney, Kevin Yorn, did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

"It's very upsetting to hear that someone is getting those kind of calls," DeGeneres' publicist Kelly Bush said. "Ellen just wants the dog reunited with the family."

On her talk show taped Tuesday and airing Wednesday, a serious DeGeneres reiterated to her audience that "the dog needs to go to the family."

It "just needs to be in a good home," she continued, according to a transcript given to The Associated Press. "All that you're supposed to do is put a dog in a loving home."

DeGeneres had said her hairdresser's daughters, ages 11 and 12, had bonded with Iggy and were heartbroken when the dog was taken away.

Fink said Moms and Mutts has a rule that families with children under 14 are not allowed to adopt small dogs.

"It's for the protection of the dog," he said.



.-.-.-.-

My lord people sending death threats now
Ellen should have done all this in private these fruit and nut cases may actualy do those threats and could risk human and animal life

spokesman for Mutts and Moms, the Pasadena-based organization that has been the target of death and arson threats and calls for a boycott since DeGeneres' emotional retelling of the doggy dilemma on her talk show Tuesday

wow!

Wow- humans...they are be so wacked out some times.

It seems that the adoption agency has lost sight of what is best for the dog which I thought was the purpose of such a group.
I think the agency took it a bit too far, as Carrie said they should fine Ellen for breaking the rules/contract and make her donate a huge chunk of $ to the organisation to further help the cause.
This is why animal groups get a bad rap, they get carried away with the cause.

Ellen appears to have taken advantage of the situation as well by doing what she does best..drawing attention to herself.

All the death threats aside...where does this place get off..saying that family wasn't good enough??? Was the dog hurt, or was that dog loved, and cared for? Sounds like this place is a stuck up agency, only wanting to cater to the rich and famous!!!!!

Some good could come of this if they all work together say if the centre could do a home visit to the hairstylist's home if the home is suitable bend there rules and allow them to have the dog.
Ellen then could bring the rescue centre on her TV show to air the plights of the animals and why they have strict policies etc. Ellen could apologise both sides give loads of cuddles tears etc, case close many animals then may find a forever home.

MoniGram said:

A lot of rescue centres do not allow animals to go to a family if they have children of a certain age but many do relent and allow adoption to happen if the children are mature and act responsibly around the animal. All they need to do is a few home visits to see if the family is suitable, this is why this case puzzles me

katt said:

Exactly...it sounds like the agency didn't even bother to get to know the family or the children in the home. It also sounds like the dog was happy, so in an odd way, they really didn't do what was best for the puppy!

But..once again..those are just my thoughts.

I knew that they were going to be targets now.

Good for them for not giving in and bending the rules. That clause was in there for a reason. No passing dogs from person to person and no families with children under a certain age. Ellen signed that binding contract. There is no leg to stand on to try and dispute it. Let one slide and then you have to let everyone slide.

Just because this one client can go on tv in front of millions, pulling on people's heart strings doesn't mean that they should make an exception for her. Now that I think of it...she totally backed them against a wall and now I wonder if it was more just to garner sympathy than anything else. She HAD to know that this organization would now be targets like this. If she really loved animals and had their best interest at heart should would not have put this organization at risk....especially when SHE is the one that made a mistake here.

People are so immature sometimes. Death threats? I mean, come on really.

That's so fucking ridiculous.

First of all, I don't believe that signing that piece of paper is a particularly sturdy legal contract. I'm very familiar with those 'return' promises that people sign, and I've never heard of one actually being forcibly enforced until now. The dog was her property, and once she gave it to the other people, it was their property. They didn't have the right to remove it from the new family (unless there was an actual local law giving them that right). The family could have said no and I doubt that the rescue organization would have had any recourse.

But what really pisses me off is the massive powertrip that so many animal rescue people get on. I've known a BUNCH of them. They are trying to do something good. But you know, there are a lot of animals in the world who need homes. To take a dog out of a good home to return to a shelter is insane.

I suspect they were trying to make an example out of Famous Lady.

HereToRockYourWorld said:

I guess it is like any kind of organisation that is run by humans.Some times some sort of power trip takes over. I experienced it with the ACD Rescue that I adopted a dog from. They made me fill out and sign 10 forms and then had 2 different ppl come out to my home, checked references, then made us wait as they looked everything over several times. Once they gave us the ok, we drove 3 hours to the foster home where the dog was that I picked out online. The foster home was HORRIBLE, I wish I had a camera with me that day. There was no way in hell that I was going to get there and not take her once I saw the conditions her and the other 15 dogs were living in. She had obviously gotten into a fight with her crate mate, we got her home and she had some issues then we discovered she had frequent seizures that were never brought up to us. Probably because the foster situation was so bad that she was outside in the Florida heat with no shade, I am sure they had no idea that she was aggressive and has seizures.
They told us we could take her back to the foster home and pick another dog. There was no way..I told them about the foster home and what it was like. I assumed that since they came out to my house twice that they had looked at the foster home as well seeing as she had 6 of their dogs fostered there but they had not.
I know it costs a lot to rescue dogs but we paid $275 to the organisation and we decided to keep the dog because we knew she was better off with us then to go back there.
Not all of them have the best interest of the dog in mind it seems.

I hope that Ellen is responsible enough to do another take live and ask to stop threatening the place. Because she should have been smart enough to know what her first act would bring. She's still being irresponsible in my eyes for doing that live. Using the media and her fame for her personal shit.
[Edited 10/17/07 8:08am]

HereToRockYourWorld said:

Just done a little nosey on the law and animal rights in the USA this is what I found:

Ability to transfer an animal to another party—Background checks may be required to ensure that transfer of an animal from one guardian to another is in the best interest of the animal. Transfer of guardianship from one guardian to another, for profit, may not be legal. Third parties may have the opportunity to impede transfer proceedings if they deem such action to be in the best interest of the animal.


It also says:
a)(1) Upon relinquishment of a dog to a public or private shelter, the owner of that dog shall present sufficient identification to establish his or her ownership of the dog and shall sign a statement that he or she is the lawful owner of the dog.

(2) Any person who provides false information pursuant to this subdivision about his or her ownership of the dog shall be liable to the true owner of the dog in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000).

Did the animal rescue show proof 2 new owner that they where the real owner

Lost and Found: Humane Societies' Rights and Obligations Regarding Companion Animal Ownership
Patricia A. Bolen
Animal Legal & Historical Center

Adoption procedures and transfer of title to new owner

When a person “adopts” an animal from a shelter, that person is really buying the animal; the transaction is covered by the Uniform Commercial Code, which regulates the sale of goods. Although humane societies can place conditions on the adoption of animals,[63] such conditions are difficult to enforce once the animal is placed with the new owner, as title then transfers from the shelter to the owner.[64] More than half of all states now require that animals be spayed or neutered before being adopted,[65] and contracts for adopting an animal that is too young to be fixed may include a clause requiring the new owner to get the animal fixed once it is old enough.[66] In such cases, the owner usually must leave a deposit with the shelter, which is forfeited if the owner cannot provide proof of spaying or neutering within the designated period of time.[67] Shelters are able to make extensive inquiries into an animal’s future living conditions before agreeing to the adoption of an animal. For example, shelters can inquire about the animal’s access to a backyard or other exercise;[68] other animals or children in the home;[69] and whether the animal will be kept indoors or out.[70] Shelters can call to check-up on an animal soon after an adoption;[71] however, the shelter generally cannot investigate or follow-up on the animal without cause. Shelters have cause to investigate an animal if there are reports of abuse or neglect, or if the animal is found running at large or otherwise abandoned in a public place. Such investigations are usually done by animal control. Of course, if the owner is suspected of animal cruelty, the animal control can also instigate criminal investigations.

[63] State legislatures usually give animal shelters the ability to devise their own policies regarding the adoption of animals; many state legislatures have enacted statutes stating that the shelter does not need to adopt an animal to a person unwilling to comply with the shelter’s policies or conditions. See, for example, V.A.M.S. § 273.405, which is the Missouri statute. See also the Louisiana statute, LSA-R.S. 3:2475, which further states that if the conditions agreed upon are not upheld, the shelter is able to bring a court action.

[64] Such conditions help the shelter to ensure that the adoption will be final, and that they will not end up taking title to the animal again due to unfit conditions.

[65] Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, DC, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia all require that animals be spayed or neutered before leaving the shelter. Dog Law, supra note 1, at 2/20.

[66] See, for example, M.C.L.A. 287.338a (Michigan); West’s Ann. Cal.Civ.Code § 1815 (California).

[67] Id.

[68] For example, most shelters will inquire about a prospective owner’s living conditions, and may not allow the person to adopt if she lives in an apartment unless she can show that the landlord allows pets.

[69] Some shelters require that all animals living in the same household meet before an additional animal is adopted; for example, the Kent County Humane Society in Michigan.

[70] Shelters may have policies that allow them to decline adoption to a person who intends to keep the animal solely out-of-doors. For example, in Michigan, local humane societies allow adoption of dogs only if they are to be housed indoors; however, in South Carolina, shelters will adopt to families who intend to have the dog be an outdoor-only animal.

[71] Several shelters in Michigan have a policy of making follow-up calls a week after an animal is adopted.

Link: http://www.animallaw.info...oc93072402
it does seem the new owners did not need to hand over the dog.

.
[Edited 10/17/07 9:54am]

Christopher said:

I so don't agree with this but seriously, that is how much they mistreat the general public to the point that they want to burn down the building with all the animals in it

NDRU said:

Exactly, from what I saw she got the dog on a whim and the people at the adoption agency prolly let her just cos she's Ellen, then realised they'd get hit for it and got all power-trippy.
[Edited 10/17/07 11:24am]

Teacher said:

They say she only had the dog for 10 days that is not enough time for the dog 2 settle.

katt said:

I think it was even less but I'm not sure. You know me though, I saw her talking about getting the dog on the show and I was thinking "girl I like you, but you're a dumbass when it comes to dogs cos you don't know a damn thing" and well, I was right Btw hi sweetie, how are you?

Teacher said:

it looks like u are right. What also gets me 2 is this going on about how much money that has been spent on the dog thats what you do when you bring a pet into a household. 10 days is not long enough to know how things are going 2 work it she needs a good kick up the behind the victim here is the dog

I'm doing well, hows u

These people break rules as they see fit.. They didn't make Ellen fill out an application for the dog.. read below

Just in: The attorney for Mutts & Moms tells ET that ELLEN DeGENERES' formerly adopted dog has been placed in a new home.

On her show Wednesday, Ellen addressed the importance of micro-chipping pets to insure proper ownership. She contends that the reason she cannot claim ownership of her adopted dog, IGGY, is because his identity chip was still registered to the rescue agency.

Sources tell ET that while the agency claims Ellen broke her contract by giving him away to a trusted co-worker, the Mutts & Moms owners themselves have not followed all the rules set by their company. They allegedly did not require Ellen or her partner PORTIA DeROSSI to fill out an application, nor did they change the registered owner information as they said they would.

Additionally, it is said the contract in question does not contain an age clause, another reason given by Mutts & Moms for taking back the dog.

Our sources also tell us the family Ellen gave the dog to -- her hairdresser, her husband and their two pre-teen daughters -- did fill out an application online when the dog took up residence with them. It was at that time the agency said they would come out to inspect their property as part of the adoption process. Instead, they reclaimed the dog and calling the police. As Mutts & Moms were officially registered as the owners by the chip, authorities turned over custody to them.