Letters to the Editor
-
It's not all or nothing
First off, I abide by contracts in my job all the time. But your know what, if I have a $150 dispute with a large client on something, I do not stand on "principle" or the "rule of law" and get rid of/lose a large, profitable client. At times you need to be practical, rules or no. Mutts and Mom's seem to be lacking common sense in this respect.
Ellen was probably a very good reference for them, and now she's the exact opposite...and not because she was abusive to puppies or anything else harmful which I would have understood.
Still. Why can't Ellen get herself worked up about the war? about Africa? Animals must take a back seat to humans.
Oh come on. I loved my deceased dog with all my heart and can still work myself up to tears over her. I still can love my husband, my family and my friends, too. BTW, I can donate to City of Hope at the same time as the Humane Society all the while while protesting the war. It doesn't have to be one thing or another.
-
honoring contracts is a fetish now?
I'm pretty far from an advocate of "zero tolerance" but based on the views expressed in these letters, I wonder why anyone bothers to sign any agreement at all. It seems that no contract is a match for the love between a little girl and a puppy.
There are some cases in which the judicious use of discretion can be better than following rules slavishly. And compassion is certainly merited when the alternative is lasting harm to a human being. But I don't really think the stakes are high enough in this instance to give Ellen DeGeneres an easy way out. The dog shelter may be acting unreasonably, but only a fool enters into a contract with the expectation of the other party will act reasonably. Your only expectation is that they honor the stated agreement.
I'm not sure about all these claims of the shelter entering the house under false pretense or whatever. If they acted within their legal rights, that is the beginning and end of the story. They are entitled to take back the dog, maybe entitled to euthanize it. At some level, they might be bad people for doing that, but Ellen DeGeneres really doesn't have the standing to pass judgment. If they acted illegally in any way, she can sue them. She has the money, and she has public opinion in her favor.
This is just not a very complicated situation. I don't "fetishize" contracts. In fact, I generally avoid them unless there's a good reason (e.g. home purchase, job offer, loan). I make sure the terms are not onerous, and if I need to break them I might hope that the other party will allow it on favor terms, but I don't expect it as a right.
-
Some rescue organizations are nice!
Having heard many horror stories about insanely picky animal rescue people, I was a little nervous when we decided to adopt a dog through one. But our darling golden retriever came from a rescue organization whose representatives were friendly, helpful, and kind. Thanks to their efforts, we have a sweet, gentle dog who fits into our family perfectly. Bonus: We didn't have to housetrain her! Our youngest cat also came from a rescue organization whose policies were reasonable and whose staff were friendly and helpful. So if you're thinking about adopting through a pet rescue organization, don't be put off by the the bad press. There are some good ones out there.
-
Heather, you're absolutely right......
I have also had negative experiences with pet adoption groups. I have two dogs, and both came from pet adoption groups. Both groups were sane and sensible, and I didn't have to go through extensive screening to get either dog. However, before I wound up with my current canine family, I visited several of the more rigid shelters and was very turned off by their rules and requirements. There were some charming dogs, but I did not want to participate in an invasive process where a stranger could visit my home following the adoption to check on me. What I noticed, which is sad, that the same dogs showed up for a very long time on these websites and newspaper ads - meaning that a lot of people - good potential adopters - felt just like me. I've noticed it's even worse for cats.
-
Rules do not rule out thinking
I'm dumbfounded at the number of people creating a false dilemma here. Either you have firm policies that you follow like a robot, or rancid, toothless hillbillies will capture all your dogs and sell them as jerky. Is there really no room for a little thought about the dog's welfare?
Yes, Ellen violated the letter of the contract. However, she kept to the spirit of it in finding what she thought was a good home for the dog. Taking the dog away without investigating the home and making an actual judgment call benefited nobody and nothing. It was certainly traumatic for the dog, and you can bet that family will not be getting their dog from a private shelter.
We make rules to make decision-making easier. It means we don't have to think a decision through from first principles every time. Rigid adherence to rules for their own sake, even when you violate the principles that motivate them is small-minded idiocy.
-
@AnnieW
I agree with you that the dog shelter acted against their self interest. It also might surprise you that I would not have criticized them for modifying the terms of their contract for Ellen DeGeneres if they wanted to.
My problem is this notion that somehow DeGeneres has the right to expect it, or that the remote diagnosis by letter writers of the little girl's suitability as a pet owner is any more compelling than attempts to diagnose Terri Schiavo's brain activity from videotape. I don't have the facts at hand, but I do know that the shelter is entitled to force their policy.
It's a matter between DeGeneres and the pet shelter. They can settle it between themselves, but there is no legal or moral standing by which DeGeneres is entitled to give the dog to her hairdresser without the permission of the shelter with whom she has made a contractual agreement.