Ellen DeGeneres Should Not Get Her Dog Back

Ellen Degeneres's tearful plea on television probably has most people fooled. But don't let the tears sway you into thinking that the adoption agency, Mutts and Moms, is in the wrong for confiscating the dog she adopted.

According to DeGeneres, the Brussels Griffon terrier mix dog she adopted from Mutts and Moms did not get along with her cats. So, she gave the dog to her hairdresser. Seems pretty harmless, right?

Au contraire. There are several issues at stake here. One of which is that DeGeneres signed an adoption contract that clearly stated if DeGeneres could not keep the dog, she was to notify Mutts and Moms and they would take the dog back.

This clause is fairly common in pet adoption contracts, and the reason is that responsible adoption agencies don't want to place an animal in a home, only to lose track of it because the adopter hands it off to someone else. Many agencies have strict policies on who can adopt their animals, such as the rule restricting families with children under 14 years of age from adopting with Mutts and Moms.

A responsible pet adoption agency wouldn't be serving the welfare of animals if they allowed adopters to give away their pets when the adoption arrangement didn't work out. The first adopter might give the pet to a complete stranger who may abuse, neglect or mistreat the animal.

The fact that DeGeneres thinks she should be exempt from this clause in her contract is appalling. If the hairdresser's family truly wants the dog, they should apply to adopt it, just as anyone else would do. DeGeneres should be happy that Mutts and Moms is looking out for the wellbeing of her former pet by interviewing and screening potential owners.

Instead, DeGeneres has turned this into a publicity stunt to boost her ratings and make people feel sorry for her and this hairdresser's family because "the big bad adoption agency" won't let the family have their dog back.

DeGeneres needs to take a step back and put on her objectivity glasses to learn about why this agency has adopted such policies. If Mutts and Moms, and other adoption agencies, did not have this policy, what would prevent a puppy mill operator from sending in a "qualified" candidate to adopt dogs and then give them over for breeding, neglect and mistreatment? What would prevent a pit bull breeder or dogfighter from sending someone in to adopt dogs for his fighting operation?

Instead of educating herself and the public about why these policies exist, she has caused this agency and its management to receive death threats and unneeded negative media attention, which will only cause poor results for animal adoption agencies in general and could cause many animals to be euthanized because there won't be a place for them.

Grow up, Ellen.