Knowing When to Break The Rules is a Smart Business Strategy-Sometimes

as someone actively in "the dog fancy," who has also worked in breed rescue and fostered dozens of dogs for a rescue org. for more than a decade, I'm just stymied by this whole debate. I have never, EVER worked with ANY rescue organization whose standard contract did not prominently feature a clause plainly prohibiting the adopting family from transferring the animal anywhere except BACK TO THE RESCUE ORGANIZATION. And I've never worked with a group who didn't keep their OWN information registered on the animal's microchip, which is something else Ellen objected to. There are reasons for this--we go through a lot to make sure that, especially when an animal's been in foster care (sometimes multiple homes), that its next home is a forever home.

The simple fact is, when this dog adoption didn't work out, all Ellen would have had to do was adhere to the contract that she signed, and contact Mutts and Moms. Let me tell you how this would have gone with every rescue organization I've worked with:

"We're finding that Iggy is not happy here, and we don't think we can keep him. BUT, we know of a fantastic home who would love to have him, and they have all the right references."

"OK; thank you for letting us know--we can't make any promises, but have them fill out our adoption application, and we'll start the homecheck process so that they're at the top of the list. Do we need to have Iggy picked up right away?"

Let me explain something about most independent "rescue organizations." They're not "shelters." The one I've worked with most often is huge, and rehomes hundreds of animals each year, and while they do have a storefront where they sell merchandise to help cover costs, and they fund a mobile free spay/neuter clinic in low-income areas, they do not own or operate a "shelter" in the sense of any location where animals are warehoused. Each and every animal, once cleared by a veterinarian, goes directly into a foster home, with a family. This is done for several reasons, including acclimating the (let's say dog in this case) to a "normal" life in a home, evaluating how the dog reacts to men, women, children, cats and other small pets, and usually teaching house-manners and housetraining, since those are common reasons that dogs are surrendered to shelters in the first place. This is why Ellen's comment about how Iggy was just going to be stuck "back in a crate," offended me so much. The whole point of rescues as opposed to shelters is about getting the dog OUT of a cage and into a home.

Ugh. This is long-winded enough. My point was simply that, if Ellen had just adhered to the contract that she signed, this whole mess could have been avoided. Would Iggy have wound up living with Ellen's hairdresser? Maybe, maybe not. But you can bet that the rescue would have found him a more suitable home (now armed with a "no cats" caveat) very quickly--hopefully one where he wouldn't just get pawned off on someone else after a short time.

I have always, always been a HUGE Ellen fan. I suppose I still am. But having worked "behind the lines," I really hated the way she handled this situation. This is also why, when I volunteer with rescues, I only do what I do best: fostering. I did one stint as a case-worker (screening applicants, home-checks, etc.). ONE. I admire the people who can do that end of it. I can't. Just let me work with the animals, and leave the people to someone else!

Belinda ( http://www.ninjapoodles.com )

There are few opportunities as powerfully educational for children as caring for pets. hamsters, cats, dogs, (in our case chickens and 60,000 bees), all offer children a way to learn compassion,r responsibility, nurturing - and even about death and disease. i have ALWAYS had pets, and always had to be responsible for them. and i am raising my daughter the same way. at the age of 9, she feeds our pets, walks our dog and is very aware that taking care of those unable to care for themselves is part of our "duty" in life. that is a lesson that i hope she carries with her into the human world, and treats others with steadfast compassion and generosity. the idea that children under 14 shouldn't be around dogs is asinine.

indeed, being unexposed to things different than us is what perpetuates fear and misconceptions. a lesson that also extrapolates nicely into the human world.

that said, parents are primarily responsibility for teaching children how to handle animals - and people for that matter - and isolation, fear, segregation and judgment is NOT the way.
___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com ( http://www.JustCauseIt.com )

But if anyone's looking for some more information about the Mutts and Moms/Ellen situation I just linked to a Petosphere round-up of posts on the topic ( http://www.blogher.com/ellen-degeneres-mutts-and-m... ) in the forums.

As I write there, it went down the day after I posted most recently about pets, and I won't do so again until next Sunday...So let's hope this does the trick if anyone cares to discuss the issue (civilly...this pet editor has high enough blood pressure. ;)) somewhere else.

Laurie
LaurieWrites ( http://lauriewrites.typepad.com )

I think people are either unaware of the fact that this (the family was initially afforded a opportunity to go through due process) is what the rescue attempted to do ( have the family go thru a screening process and fill out a application) which was met with defensiveness because possibly they knew they would not meet the rescues critera or either people do not want to hear it or believe it.

I think the key question is ....was the new family asked to fill out a appllication?

would this then matter to some people..somehow I do not think so.

I would hope that the kids learn something also and that is that there are rules and processes to follow and if you cannot always have something just because you want it unless you go about getting what you want the right way.

cheers

I just have to wonder what you are thinking. I can not believe you could even think about keeping children away from dogs. I believe all children should be exposed to dogs and those who can have one should. Dogs can teach children so much about life and caring. Dogs give unconditional love and for some kids that is the only conditional love they may be receiving. Dogs also teach kids how to be kind. You said your dog was tramatized by a 4 year old, for one that child should have been taught how to treat animals and should have had adult supervision until he/she could treat the dog kindly. Dogs also teach kids about responsibilty since the child should be the one who takes care of the dog. Dogs can also teach children about life and death and that it is better to think about the pain a dog is in and what kind of life it would have after being hit by a car (in our driveway) instead of I don't want to put him down cuz I will miss him. Dogs teach kids to think of someone else besides themselves. Dogs also can be used to help children who have siezures by alerting them and adults to the oncoming siezure.

My children have always had dogs. They have been their best friend when the world seems like it is ending. They were always at home waiting for them when they got home from school with kisses and tails wagging when I had to work to keep food on the table. My daughter learned to think about someone else than herself when her dog was hit by a car. One dog we had was protective of her and other kids so I never had to worry about someone kidnapping her or hurting any of the kids that were with her. My son learned to take care of his dog before he ate and it was more important to play with Blackie before sitting in front of the tv.

I adopted a dog from a rescue organization and even drove 400 miles to get her. She goes every where with me and even to school. The kids love her and I use her to teach the kids about kindness and giving them responsibility. She has never bitten nor even attempted to hurt any of the preschool kids. In fact she is very protective of them and if one starts crying she goes over and tries to kiss them to make them feel better.

I am sorry for what happened to your dog but there should have been adult supervision. With that said don't judge all children by one little boy. That is kind of like destroying all rotweilers because one was mean...does that mean all are mean? No it means that one was mean and thats it. I also take it that your dog was a small dog...well most small dogs do not feel comfortable around young children because they fear getting hurt. One question I have about your dog was his temperment not a good match for kids? Some dogs are naturally aggressive while some are very passive...makes me wonder if your dog felt like an alpha dog.

These kids have shown they love Iggy and are taking good care of her. Why go into a home under a lie? I feel the Mutts and Moms was wrong for doing what she did. She could have gotten alot better PR if she would have contacted the family and set up a meeting and see if they are a good family for Iggy. What she got was bad PR and I for one will not donate a red dime to people who are so uncaring that they take a dog from a loving family.

I just pray that one lesson the kids do NOT learn is not to care and love something or someone for fear it will be taken away from them.

I have to agree with the rescue agency. As the rescuer of a dog that is now terrified of young children due to its incounter with them when she was young, I agree children under 14 have no business being around dogs. If you look at how many incidents involve a child being bitten by a dog, when the dog is doing nothing but responding to instinct. My dog was scared in her young life by a small boy of about 4. She ended up biting him. (could have been a death sentence for her) Children, and most adults for that matter, do not understand that a dog does not think or feel the same way we do. I applaud the owners of the rescue agency for sticking to their policies. Shame on Ellen for thinking she is above rules. There are many good reasons for not allowing a house with children to adopt an animal that may have a questionable background. If a dog brought up in a perfect environment is still ruled by instinct.

As anyone knows who is familiar with the acquistion process of a responsible,ethical,reputable breeder or rescue it is manditory that all potential owners be screened according to a list of critera to include management style and the environment in which the dog is to reside in.

As anyone knows who is familiar with a responsible,ethical,reputable breeder or rescue it is manditory that the potential owner/s understand and sign a contractual agreement to such details in maintaining care and management to include that in the event should said dog no longer be cared for as described or can no longer be kept ...the person will return the dog . This does NOT mean that such person is to turn the dog over to another home without the rescues or breeders consent.

Thier are logical reasons for such a process, the screening, and the written/signed contract... realistically no one can guarantee the new owner will follow the guidelines and adhere to the contract but it is the responsibilty of the reputable breeder or rescue to perform a reasonable screening and set critera to be followed....regardless of ones social status. If it substaniated that Ellen did not have to go through the details of the screening process , was not educated on the rules, and was not required to sign a contractual agreement then nor should anyone else including the person to whom Ellen handed over the responsibilty of the dog to. I would agree that if special arrangements were made to circumvent the screening process for ellen then why not that other person/family?

Ellen obviously violated the terms of the agreement/signed contract ,disrepected the organization in her actions, and then so it appears used her celeb status and platform to in effect influence, attack ,and inflict a form character assination on this organization.

In addition it has been substantiated that the organization offered to accomodate the situation by requesting that the person to whom Ellen "gave" the dog to simply fill out the apllicable forms and be screened according to the same critera as would anyone else in the process to which was refused. In a nut shell it possibly could be that it had to be Ellens way or no way and/or I will make you pay.

Without the official/accurate details on what took place in the timeline various convesations in this case I will refrain from judgement and reflexing to emotional sound bites.

Let this case serve as a warning and lesson to be learned for all reputable,responsible,reputable dog breeders and dog rescues who rely on thier processes to understand the ramifications of what you do and to whom you allow acquistion.

cheers.

Elana,

Mutts and Moms may not survive the negative publicity because of the number of people that support Ellen and or the negative way that this organization handled the situation. However it may survive because they did already change their name to Pawboutique.com and you need a password to get into the site. All business aside the bottom line is the shelter (any shelter) with real interest to finding homes that will care for these animals long term should hold up their rules and principles on a case by case bases. NO! Ellen should not be treated any different than a middleclass citizen but Mutts and Moms should at least work something out with the family that is opening their hearts and home for Iggy. These "rules" should apply in serious cases were the dog was left in the hands of an irresponsible family. This adoption process could have been passed over to the interested family and be processed the same way as Ellen was and they (shelter) could have had the family follow through some classes and visits made by a representative by the shelter.
The fact that this shelter entered into this family's home with a lie that they were just coming in to check on Iggy and his new home is disgusting!!! The family clearly had nothing to hide. I HATE deceit and lies!! Mutts and Moms had the contract at hand and knew by law that they had a right to Iggy. They should have just done it the legal way and not enter into these people's home on a lie. Anyway, as Elana said if the shelter bent the rules for Ellen then they should have done the same for this family and stop acting like it's impossible to negotiate.
If Ellen knew before hand or thought about what her story would do to this shelter by telling her story, I am sure it was an emotional decision to share the story but I think that by telling the story it brings attention to all those that plan to adopt an animal. READ the contract that you are signing and ask lots of questions. It happened to Ellen, it could happen to anyone.

If I were younger, I'd be rolling on the floor, laughing... Have you ever gone over to a neighbor and asked him to keep his cat-killing dog chained up? Asked the father of a bully to keep his son from hitting your child? Told some woman she cut in front of you in a line? (Just examples, of course.) There are many, many nutters out there, and many many unreasonable people who aren't nuts. I used to like to post on the message boards at Yahoo before they took them away. I've been called a Nazi, a stupid bitch, a moron...well, you get my drift. Just because I disagreed with someone. People who love a celebrity tend to get very emotional about that celeb. They forget that all are human, and most of us have little flaws. Sometimes the celeb forgets it too. :o)

Oops. Sorry. I was not thinking gay when I used that word. I heard it on a TV program as said by Ellen or someone for her. I was thinking of the everyday life Ellen put Iggy into. I understand he had a problem with her cats. Well, I have had 2 pit bulls who got along with my cats, and my daughter has a 90 pound Walker coon hound that adores her Russian blue cat. A good shock collar soon reforms the worst dog--my daughter's dog used to own that title. I'm with Barbara Woodhouse who said: There are no bad dogs. (Just dogs who need to wear a shock collar for awhile. And no, you don't zap them till they're unconscious. It has different strengths, and also has a warning sound before it gives them a nip.)

But my remarks had nothing to do with Ellen's sex life. I'd be just as outraged if it had been any other superstar who did this.

I believe adoption of an animal is as important as adopting a child, and should be for life. Just my opinion, of course. And I don't believe that a superstar should bad-mouth a dog rescue organization on her television show. That was dirty pool. And I am disgusted with the television rag mags that keep fueling the fire.

BTW, I wrote Ellen a letter and told her how I felt.

I agree, these discussions of business ethics and rules are fascinating - and they cannot, in a diverse and living environment, be black and white, much less static. The question, for me, is alwyas one of intent and "spirit."

I have NO DOUBT that the woman at M & M crated her business to do good work. And that the rules she created were the ones that she felt necessary - in the broadest sense - to protect her furry charges.

But that spirit was lost with strict adherence to her rules, rules that, in this case, betrayed the principle she was trying to uphold.

These are the fine lines that often decide success or failure - in almost any relationship. And the success - of almost any relationship - depends on the ability to read the situation and think on your feet.

The missed opportunity is always the hardest to bear - Had M & M done what most reasonable people would do - evaluate the new home, declare it okay and re-adopt the pet - they would have had an advocate like no other. Ellen, of all people, is known for her animal advocacy. She could have sat on that state, told peoplel how important the work was, raised tons of money and awareness and put everyone in a better position.

Thanks for looking at this as a case-study. My guess - it will be taught in PR classes for years to come. I know i'll be using it as i discuss decisions made on the fly while running a business.

As for the hate mail, no big deal. As i said, i don't listen to people who behave that way. If you have something intelligent to say, say it intelligently.

___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com ( http://www.JustCauseIt.com )

while ellen may or may not have been abusing her "power" as a celebrity, i don't think it would occur to any reasonable person that this kind of violent outpouring would have resulted. how could it? people who send death threats and hate mail are not reasonable people, and as such, it would be hard for reasonable people to think that way.

it would never have occurred to me. the behavior is just sooooo outlandish!
___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com ( http://www.JustCauseIt.com )

"What kind of person adopts a dog and then gets rid of it because it didn't adapt to that person's lifestyle?"
Duh.., it had nothing to do with Ellen's lifestyle. The problem was with her cats & cats are not a lifestyle. Besides.., It's not like Ellen just dumped the dog on some strangers doorstep or turned it into animal control to have it destroyed. She acted responsibly & I'm sure that it wasn't an easy thing for her to do.
You make it sound like she was careless & shallow minded.
I've met Ellen in the gay scene & there are two aspects of her life that I know to be factual.., one: she LOVES animals! two: Ellen does not just have "friends." If you're Ellen's friend you are also considered to be "family." Once someone is in her life they are there forever! She is very close to her staff & her hairdresser is no exception to this. By giving Iggy to her she was keeping him in the family & that puppy would have been well provided for for the rest of its life.

First, Alyssa thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and sharing your experience with the sender of the hate mail. It absolutely saddens me that anyone would send an inflammatory email on this discussion. For that matter, any discussion.

As someone who writes about business culture, my primary focus on this post was on the options and choices the owners of Mutts and Moms made. They fascinate me because it appears by sticking to her policies, she may have destroyed her rescue shelter.

From a business culture perspective, I am intriqued when companies talk about ethics and values as if they are non negotiable. I personally believe I have solid values and ethics but I also realize that circumstances can make them stretch.

If I had been the owner of Mutts and Moms I would have allowed the hairdresser and her daughters to keep the dog on the condition that they passed the house inspection and I would have asked Ellen to help educate the public on how to abide by the rules of a rescue agency or something to that effect.

While I admire the owner of Mutts and Moms for not being intimidated by a Movie Star and sticking to her principles, I also think she was short sighted and not consistent. It appears from multiple news sources that in the past she bent her own rules. She didn't have Ellen go through the standard house inspection and evidently in other cases she did allow pets to be placed with kids.

Why she wouldn't bend and stretch her principles in this situation when she apparantly had bent and stretched in the past is the real question.
In the end, is she upholding the mission of her organization if she can no longer do business? She is paying a huge price for not giving in to Ellen.

While she may have been offended by Ellen's threats (via her publicist) the reality is that Ellen DeGeneres has power and in business many of us make compromises with our values on a daily basis in order to cohabitate --in a business sense--- with those in powerful positions.

There are no winners in this situation. Ellen is looking like a vindictive prima donna who used her power to destroy an agency that didn't let her have her way.

It is doubtful that the rescue agency will survive ...at least under the same name.

The kids don't get to keep Iggy and Iggy is bounced around to yet another home.

elana
Blogher Contributing Editor,Business&CareersFunnyBusiness ( http://funnybusiness.typepad.com/funnybusiness )

I just wonder what Ellen was thinking when she went on nation-wide television and emotionally told her little story amid a flood of tears. Did she once stop to think of the flood of hate mail she was going to be subjecting Mutts & Moms to? Did she deliberately try to ruin this organization because they had defied _her_? Did she give a toss for the animals who would probably have to be put to death if this rescue organization goes down the drain?

Hate mail is never appropriate, but unfortunately lots of people do it. That's because they don't take the time to try to disagree with logic, or present a coherent other side of the argument, whatever it is. Sorry you got hate mail. It's upsetting to be flamed.

Yes, there are many animal shelters out there, but alas, there are not enough. The streets, highways, and countryside still teem with stray dogs and cats, and animal cruelty (remember the Vick case?) is an enormous problem in the USA. Every rescue organization counts, even Mutts & Moms.

Yes, rules are broken every day for someone. I'm thinking of the nanny who was found guilty of shaking a baby to death but was let off by a judge who saw her as a pretty girl and thought she'd learned her lesson.

I see Ellen Degeneres as a woman who thoughtlessly used her superstar status to try to ruin a dog rescue organization. I think it's sad that so many people can't see that.

ust my opinion, of course.

Wow. i just got my first ever hate-mail. I'd frame it if it weren't electronic... Someone who read my above post about rules vs. principles went to JustCauseIt.com, found a contact link and sent me hate mail calling me all sorts of names. It was interesting. But a nice reminder that when we let ourselves get reduced to name-calling and other infantile behavior, our messages get utterly obfuscated.

I have to think that if the Mutts and Moms people had been able to step back, look at this situation (or any) on a case-by-case basis, this could have been avoided. I'd be willing to bet that, had they not been driven out of business, they would probably do just that. It could have been a great opportunity to learn a lesson - for everyone.

BUT, she had to close her doors because of rampant hate and threats sent to her by strangers, who's responses were so out of control and disproportionate to the situation that it was impossible for her to function. And there is no excuse for that.

These rabid - and perhaps well-intentioned - people made it impossible for her to run her business and live her life. Who was served by that?

Ellen? No. Mutts and Moms? No. Animals that need shelter and homes? No. The only thing that happens is that 2 well-itentioned people who could have worked together to come up with a solution that would impact change for years to come, were instead forced into a tempest that was created by over-zealous people who lashed out irrationally.

It is, for me, part of a larger discussion on exactly how we "activate" change. All too often, people with a "cause" allow themselves to lash out in an abusive and irrational manner. And when they do, no one listens.

It's like when a kid has a temper tantrum and is just yelling and screaming. It's impossible for anything to be understood, change. Most parents will say something along the lines of, "i understand that you're very upset, if you can calm down and use your words to tell me what is wrong, then we can talk about it."

But adults do the same thing,and they call it "protesting" and "activism." Often, however, they shut down dialogue. By calling each other names and lashing out, no one listens to what you have to say. You make it very easy for someone to label you "crazy" and thereby justify NOT listening to what you have to say.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is fine and dandy to not only disagree, but to do so vocally and ardently. In fact, disagreement is the only way we change, really, because when we disagree, we are forced to engage, think, discuss - and from that can come learning and changing. Disagreement and active discourse is necessary for change.

If, you can calmly engage in dialogue, listen to all sides, it is likely that all parties may make a subtle shift towards understanding.

I don't know Ellen, nor do i know the Mutts and Moms woman, but i would venture to bet that both of them really wish that all the rabid fans had kept to themselves and behaved in a more civilized manner.

With any luck, that will the the lasting "take away" here. We will all be able to look back and remember that dog and those families and that well-intentioned woman who was driven out of business because people simply could not behave themselves.

Everyone made a mistake here. But the people who let it degrade into an all out battle are to blame for shutting down a no-kill shelter.

You can't fight for peace and understanding. It doesn't work. All you can do is engage, share, learn and work together to create something better than the mess we currently find ourselves in.

Thanks for the email. I can, however, assure you that I am not a "stupid idiot," and I will not be changing my name to that, as you requested. We do not allow such language on our site, as i believe it to be violent and counterproductive. Says so in our Terms Of Use (pretty much everything I just said is there.) Our lawyer replaced my initial phrasing which was something like "name-calling and general ignorance will not be tolerated because that's what causes most of the problems we are trying to fix." But, I think these are all pretty good rules to live by: http://justcauseit.com/about/terms-of-use

As for my original post. She made a fatal business mistake. No doubt about it. But that doesn't make her mean, stupid, cruel - and she certainly does not deserve the treatment she has received.
___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com ( http://www.JustCauseIt.com )

I support a no-kill pet shelter, and I am in awe of the selflessness of the volunteers who give their time and knowledge to rescuing and finding homes for cats, dogs, horses, or any animal that needs help. Most, including the two women who founded the shelter, receive little or no reward except the love and grattitude from 60+ cats and dogs. So I am appalled by Ellen Degeneres using her celebrityhood to attack Mutts and Moms. Did she once think of the dogs that are living there, awaiting homes? Did she think of the death threats and harrassment her devoted (and sometimes crazed) fans would aim at the founder? I don't think so. I cannot understand such unthinking, unprofessional behavior. (And yes, I have written to Ms. Degeneres and asked her to please think of the animals at Mutts and Moms. ) Yes, rules are a pain in the butt, but Mutts and Moms had every right to stipulate that their animals went into homes with all children 14 or older. It sounds to me as if Ms. D. didn't really have much to do with getting Iggy (or keeping him) What kind of person adopts a dog and then gets rid of it because it didn't adapt to that person's lifestyle? Actually, her bawling on her show strikes me as (1) immature (2) unprofessional (3) overreaction. The hairdresser and her family will get over it. They already have a dog. I don't doubt that they would have given Iggy a good home--but that's not the point. Ellen and Portia didn't keep their word to Mutts & Moms. And Ellen is using her superstar power in a very bad way. I might not even like the lady who runs Mutts & Moms, but I applaud her for having the heart and the energy to rescuing dogs. Heaven knows--there are thousands upon thousands of little guys out there that need rescuing. Both my cat and my dog were strays. And I adopted a cat from my favorite no-kill pet shelter till she died of old age. Sometimes Missy was a pain, but I never once thought of passing her on to someone else. Adoption of a pet to me is like adopting a child--for life.

I would assume that her guiding principle is - or at least should have been - find loving homes for the animals. Which is not what she seemed focused on. She was obsessed with her rule - and, i might add, stridently, self-righteously and without any regard to the situation as it presented itself. A loving home, a celebrity who could have helped her raise thousands of dollars to serve her supposed principle.

It's ridiculous. Patently ridiculous.

She put herself out of business. It's Darwinian, and that's about all there is to it.

I would be more concerned d for her had she shown an ounce of humanity or care ofr anyone other than herself. And if there weren't thousands of really good organizations out there who really do it for the animals.
___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com ( http://www.JustCauseIt.com )

There seems to be some backstory here. But what is it? What did "Ellen" do that everyone seems to know but isn't at all obvious to me. Help!

Alanna Kellogg, A Veggie Venture ( http://kitchen-parade-veggieventure.blogspot.com/ )

I don't understand why Mutts and Moms didn't just interview the new family as new adoptive parents and if they passed the test, signed a new agreement with the new family to adopt the dog and charge the fee. That way they would have been sticking to their probable rules for the adoption process and kept the dog in a good loving home. They could have then gone on to scold Ellen for breaking the rules.

The issue of whether rules should never be broken is a tough one but I can tell you from personal experience, even courts when administering justice, break their rules by letting people slide on things of minor or no consequence. I think in most non life or death situations, rules should be general guidelines that, under the right circumstances, can be set aside for the greater good of humans and their dogs.

Mutts and Moms - give the dog back to those little girls!!!
Helene
http://themodernwomansdivorceguide.com/blog

It's really quite fascinating that despite the avalanche of bad publicity the head of the agency is sticking to her "principles." You have to ask yourself, does she not have any friends in PR? To make matters work, TMZ is reporting that the agency has allowed dogs to be placed in homes with younger children from time to time.

This is a great case of demonstrating how wrong you can be when you are so sure you are right.

elana
Blogher Contributing Editor,Business&CareersFunnyBusiness ( http://funnybusiness.typepad.com/funnybusiness )

You make great points, Megan. And if it were somebody without Ellen's beloved celebrity status it wouldn't be an issue and many would view it through exactly the perspective you've provided.

But, I saw the owner of Mutts and Moms interviewed and her stance doesn't seem to be the reasonable one you describe but rather, it's my game, I demand you play by my rules (including the seemingly arbitrary one that there must be no children under the age of 14 in the adopting home) and Ellen's people are being mean to me so (pouting and arms folded) that hairdresser and her 11 year olds won't get my dog!

In my eyes she is exacerbating her own PR nightmare. At this point, given the spotlight and scrutiny, I suspect that the hairdresser will (with Ellen's support) provide the most fabulous home ever for that dog. Relenting after Ellen's tearful plea might have earned the woman who owns the dog rescue (and I question that term, I know rescue is hard work but a $3,000 adoption fee? Perhaps her rules are more designed to earn a second placement fee) a ton of goodwill and lots of donations but as her sour response is circulated I suspect she's put herself out of business for good. After seeing her side I would not feel inclined to support her work especially given how many other seemingly more caring rescue organizations are out there.

Kleenex® Let It Out™ Blog ( http://www.kleenex.com/blog.aspx )
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ )

Unfortunately a lot of rules these days are adhered to mercilessly because of the fear of the dreaded lawsuit. Even if as Kathy Sierra said they "never made sense, no longer make sense, make sense but only in a different context."

In the case of the Ellen DeGeneres doggie to do, without any of the public knowing much more than that Ellen is upset and cried on her show about this, Mutts and Moms may be doing exactly the correct thing. The public doesn't know anything about the people Ellen gave the dog to and whether or not they are suitable to adopt the dog, but she did break the rules of the adoption. If something had happened to the dog in the care of the new owners, or the dog had injured someone in the family, Mutts and Moms might have come under severe scrutiny for allowing the transfer to take place.

With the celebrity of Ellen involved it would probably be a big celebrity story and they might have come under severe criticism.

As it is, for people to be leaving Mutts and Moms death threats is just nuts. A lot of that I believe is a gut level reaction to how much people like Ellen. But in this case, it's entirely possible Ellen wasn't the correct person to make the judgement about where the dog belonged.

Megan
Megan's Minute ( http://www.megansminute.com )