Iggy to Ellen:

"I ain't gonna be your dog."

Here's how it is - Ellen signed a contract with these people. That contract said that she was going to own the dog, that she wasn't going to pass it off to someone else. That's it. That's the legal stuff here. Yeah, it totally sucks that these people busted in and "stole" this dog back from some innocent children that loved it. But when I got my cat, I signed a contract that said A LOT of stuff - that I wouldn't declaw the cat, that my apartment building approved it, so on and so forth. And I honored that contract. I'm sick to fucking death of people who don't obey contracts THEY SIGN and then try to turn it around. I feel for those kids, I feel for that dog, and I love Ellen - but I don't think she's in the right here.

Right, shmight. She's got an army of television viewers who are willing to commit federal crimes when she gets a little weepy! If I worked for Moms & Mutts, I'd be leaving for a long vacation right about now.

I'd be pretty freaking scared, too. This is the sort of thing that destroys businesses. It's sad and totally absurd.

While I still think the shelter should have left the dog in place while they investigated the new owners, now that I've seen yesterday's actual show and Ellen's performance in context, it really was very irresponsible for Ellen to sic a national army on these people. There could easily be a lot of ugliness, including vandalism, violence, etc.

From what I understand about her from those who've worked on her show, this is par for the course. She's a fucking nightmare.

Blubbering on national television about a personal matter smacks of Oprah-ism.

Maybe her hairdresser will send Ellen 21 pairs of Loubs to thank her for the effort??

If this so-called animal rescue organization was really all about placing animals in good homes, their only concern would have been whether or not this new home was a good one. From what I understand, Mutts and Moms found out about Iggy's new home when his new owners filled out an online application for adoption after receiving him from Ellen. In other words, they notified the organization of the change, which is exactly the opposite of what Mutts and Moms is claiming. They claim they were never notified of the change in homes, and that is why they removed him from the new home. This appears to be a lie. Mutts and Moms received the application, then called Ellen to confirm the information. When the information was confirmed, Mutts and Moms contacted the new family to set up what they called "a home visit" to ensure that Iggy was in a good home. The family agreed wholeheartedly, having no inkling of what was to come. The behavior of their representative when arriving at the home can only be characterized as immature, irresponsible, and certainly uncaring about the people involved in this situation and the dog. The organization never changed the dog's legal registration into Ellen's name, as is required by their own contract with an adopter. That is the only reason they were able to remove the dog from his new family. So, even though their rules were followed (not to the letter since it was the new family that contacted them about Iggy's new home, not Ellen), they ignored their own contractual obligation, and in doing so were able to tear this animal away from a loving home. That doesn't sound like an organization that cares about animals and people -- it sounds like someone who has personal issues and has used their tiny amount of power simply to prove that they can. I also read somewhere that this organization has lost its license in the past....does anyone really wonder why after all this?

Melodrama at its most entitled & egregious.

She could have made it an educational opportunity about the importance of animal-placement and why these sorts of businesses take such an intensive (if perhaps a bit over-scrupulous) approach to their work.

The Mutt Store would probably have welcomed a sane clarification and everyone would've walked away, wrapped in the same kind of blissful, saccharine, rainbows-out-the-ass haze that Ellen cultivates on her show.

Instead, she caused a ridiculous scene that only made her look like yet another neurotic Hollywood dipshit. Albeit, because an animal is involved, all bets are off in the Rational Empathy Dept.

Personally, I think we need to get "Sugar Pie" Smith's take on all of this.

I tried to adopt a dog from Mutts and Moms. They are very hard to work with. Even after you pass an extremely rigorous and intrusive screening process, they don't return phone calls or emails. They just don't want to give up the dogs.

This is not about the animals, it's about ego.

So Mutts and Moms gets to be "right". Good for them. I'm sure the dog that's now living in a cage again at their shelter is very grateful they enforced the contract.

Is it possible that they don't want to give the dog to a family that can't blow $3000 on a puppy? Perhaps they are holding out for a better prospective customer for their nazi boutique...

Okay so Ellen tried to give a dog a home where it's loved. I'm not getting why Mutts and Moms won't work with the new family. Ellen apologized and took responsibility for not following the rules, was forthright in what she did, so why the big stink? Are they like this with everyone or is it because it's Ellen? I think if Mutts and Moms business suffers it's unfortunate, but it seems to me it could have all been avoided if they would have taken the time to work with the new family. No winners here, Ellen is crying, her fans are upset, the dog is locked up in a cage, the new family is heart broken, Mutts and Moms animals will have a less chance of getting a family. Well there might be some winners, the attorneys. Crying Shame!

I wish I could have seen Ellen do this in front of Martha, while they were making fried PBJs or something. Also, why did Kelly not call Mutts and Moms "disgusting little pigs"? That flack has a lot to learn about threatening.

Puppies caught in the crossfire. Oh, what a world.

Poor Portia.

@neifer: No, Publicist/Lawyer/Producer (Ellen? Is that you?), I do not wonder why they lost their license! Harumph!

You know who would never do this? George Clooney.

A lawyer named Fink and a publicist named Bush who doesn't want anyone to use the media? Who needs writers?

Above: Larchmont backyard resident Oscar dry-tests a spanking-new Devellen™ costume Wednesday following water, a biscuit and a brief nap. Oscar, a good boy, walked all the way to Aah’s!! in Westwood Village to purchase the costume, one of five left in the city at the time of purchase.

Why does Ellen care? She gave the dog away; what does she care who it goes to, really? Thank god she doesn't have children.

This, I believe, is the number one reason why celebrities irritate me. Even more than the money. (And boy I loves me some money)

Ellen SUCKS! She had the dog in possession 10 fucking days and then because it was "too energetic" she gives it away. Give me a break. Maybe it the publicity of rescuing a dog was all she wanted...she got that. She just never mentioned to her freaky fans that she gave it away. But she it back on the pulpit now! So what doesn't she get about trying hard to bring a dog into one's pack? And what doesn't she get about a contract. I bet her staff all signs confidentiality contracts. Doubt she'd back down if one of them violated the terms and talked about things about that house. Guess Iggy didn't live up to the standards of her PURCHASED designer morkie...(maltese/yorkie)...

Wow, finally a story that makes me wish I was reading about Paris Hilton.

Ellen, the cache curve begins its' descent.

Just another celebrity who thinks they're above the rules and laws we "average" people have to follow.

Thankfully, Iggy has now been placed in a loving home, and it should be all about the dog, should it not?

Meanwhile, Ellen's hand-wringing has done nothing to further the animal causes that she so espouses. On the contrary; in this David-and-Goliath story, she has hammered a small agency pretty much out of existence.

Even Wayne Pacelle of HSUS has reacted by blogging that rescue agencies ought to lighten up. Perhaps we can look forward to a follow-up blog about how it's not nice to threaten the folks that are actually doing the work at the ground level. And especially using one's media power to incite the masses and shut down some good efforts on behalf of animals.