This is an issue that *should* have been resolved quietly between Ellen/her partner and the organization. This was a private matter and Ellen abusing her power as a celebrity has done nothing but continue the downward slide of this tragic event.
Rules are rules as far as dog placement is concerned and there was a signed contract between the rescue organization and Ellen's partner that was breached. This may be a case where not enough education was provided regarding the stipulations in the contract. When our organization rehomes a dog we make it absolutely clear that while ownership is transferred to the individual and it becomes their dog, we require them to return the dog to our organization prior to giving it to someone else. With adequate education, this situation may have been averted but it may not have been and there may have been education about the contract. We can all sit back in our arm chairs and say that Ellen and her partner are not good pet owners, not only because they violated their adoption contract but they have a habit of acquiring and rehoming dogs they either adopt or purchase. Ellen and her partner have had at least 9 puppies over the past several years, none of whom appear to be living with them now and had previously returned a dog to this rescue prior to getting Iggy. We can all agree that Ellen appears to feel very badly about this issue from her tearful pleas on the television - which I personally feel is an abuse of her power and may not have been an attempt to bully the rescue but it appears that way. Regardless it has resulted in death threats to the organization as well as its founders. I am not saying that Ellen is not a dog lover but perhaps not a committed dog lover.
We can also pass judgement on the rescue which clearly adopted out a dog that had not been fully vetted (or even neutered!) or evaluated to see if it would get along with cats. Who knows if this situation could have been avoided if they had tried to assess the dog's personality and temperament. Or if they had done a hands on introduction to the cats in the home at the time of adoption and continued to troubleshoot with Ellen regarding the cat issue - maybe they did and it originally went well. We can say that no rescue should ever adopt out a dog that hasn't been altered - it's the only way to curb pet overpopulation. We might say that the adoption contract was a little weird that the adopters never gain ownership?
The rescue may have been able to act more diplomatic and had a discussion with Ellen and her hairdresser but they didn't have to be. The contract was violated. Adoption contracts are written with the best interest of the animal in mind and I think that's what everyone is forgetting. Those clauses are in there so that the rescue gets the dog back and it isn't given to just anyone. Which is not the case here but it could have been and if you start making exceptions for one person, you need to make them for all persons.
The ideal situation would have been for Ellen and her partner to have read the contract, have contacted the rescue for additional help the minute things weren't working out between the cats - before she spent all of the money on the trainer and certainly before she gave the dog away. She should have established with the rescue that she was having problems and they could have discussed what was in the best interest of the dog and at that time, Ellen could have recommended her hairdresser and perhaps they could have discussed the adoption policies and worked around the "no small dogs to homes with kids under 14yrs rule.
This situation was tragic on all levels and the blame lies with how it was handled all the way around.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Just be nice : )