@Jennifer: Yes. That is the way I interpret this. I personally find that disturbing. Caring about pets is one thing, forcing people to jump through legal hoops just to have them is stupid.

I was a t a pet adoption agency several weeks ago and saw an older female dog who looked very sweet. She had a skin condition and would have to be given daily medications.

My wife and I discussed it and I began talking to the agency rep. She said that she would need me to fill out an application: OK., they would call my vet to see how I take care of my other pets: um, OK., they would need to come to our house to see the environment the dog would be living in: OK. I agreed to all of these. she then asked about my two other dogs and if they stayed indoors or outdoors. I told them they were outside during the day till we came home from work, then they came in and slept indoors at night.

She said they couldn't let me adopt the dog - or any other dog because they had a strict policy to not allow their dogs to stay outside unattended. Despite the fact that we have a well fenced yard with locks, the agency rep would have preferred I keep the dog locked in a crate inside our house for 8 hours each day. I told her that that policy was absolutely absurd. She didn't seem to care.

Unfortunately, that poor dog will probably live out its days in a cage instead of with a family that really wanted another dog.

I will never adopt a pet from an agency in the future due to their arcane policies.

And Dcer, there's an enormous difference between a minority's right to have a roof over his head, considered a basic right as a human being in this country, and the right to own a pet, which is wholly discretionary, both on the part of the adopter to choose the appropriate agency and the agency to work with an adopter.

Adopters have choices and so do the agencies. Both parties have valid complaints here and both dropped the ball in terms of how they handled the problem.

FWIW, we adopted 2 dogs from a rescue that holds that same policy. Their personalities were matched with ours and with each other since we adopted them at the same time. The people who run the rescue from which we adopted have gone to shelters to retrieve dogs that were surrendered there in violation of the contract signed. But, I know them pretty well and I think they would evaluate the new home before they'd remove a dog from a re-home situation. A good home is a good home, after all. They also don't have rigid rules about the ages of the household members; it's decided on a case by case basis. Maybe it helps that they also have kids.

And yeah, rescue people are fanatical. Who else would devote their own money, time, energy, and home to helping animals? I, for one, am glad they do. It's what they're passionate about and, usually, it helps make this a better world. What's wrong with that? Being rigid and/or hostile doesn't help anyone, though, in *any* situation.

I'm also a minority and a lawyer. Age discrimination actually has a fairly narrow application and doesn't apply to a private agency that offers pets for adoption.

Additionally, each group is an independent organization. What one group does should not negatively impact the view we have of other organizations. Review their policies and contracts, and if it's too much for you, don't adopt from them. An awful lot of animals DON'T die in shelters thanks to the hard work of private rescues who pull their animals directly from those shelters. They invest a lot of time and money to do what they do; trust me, they aren't making any money.

ADOPTION AGENCIES -- they are as a whole, fairly decent and well-meaning folks, though some individuals appear to be too "pro-pet" and make no effort to mask their resentment of would-be pet owners. Regardless of a feeling of zealotry throughout the pet-rescue world, their efforts are humane and only in response to the millions of mistreated, neglected and finally destroyed animals (annually).

THE PUBLIC -- most folks think it's great to own a pet and think of pet ownership as a God-given right and part of the American Tradition. However, as the pet-rescue folks know, all too often even "good" families are terribly irresponsible and though they had good intentions, all too often, "Spot" or "Fluffy" is given away or worse and the animal winds up at a shelter scheduled to be destroyed. People like Ellen who have the eye of the media establishment AND the public have an opportunity to help promote public awareness about the greater issues of animal abandonment and pet care. The lessons that can be gained from this one unfortunate case are lost if one only reviews the case-specific elements instead of the larger and more complex social issues.

The agency wanted 2 references, checked our credit, and made us fill out a 4-page application. All this for a truly un-adoptable little hellion. I understand their attitude, but inflexible policies are just not productive. The reason we have brains is to allow us to make exceptions based upon knowledge and reason. Blindly following 'the rules' is just lazy and stupid.

BTW, we tamed our little dog by taking her away from there in a 2-seat sports car, and stopping for burgers on the way home. She loved her cheeseburgers!

Ellen/Portia shouldn't be adopting dogs until they are SURE there will be harmony in their home. They do allow dogs to have sleep-overs at people's homes to make sure they all get along. I know Ellen is an animal lover, but she strikes me as the kind of "oooh, they're so cute!!" animal lover, not a responsible, do-what-is-right, animal-lover. True animal lovers do what is best for the animal.

Pet adoption agencies usually work with the local pound. It gives the pet a more stable environment and, where I am at least, costs little more than the pound does (about 20 dollars difference). Volunteers typically take the pet into their home as a foster family.

They all make you sign a contract and one of the stipulations is that instead of giving the dog to another home they must be returned to the agency to find a new home. Everyone who adopts through an agency signs this. I got my first dog through an organization like this and I couldn't be happier with him.

It's unfortunate, but she signed into it.

Each case has to be decided individually. Hell, I've had dogs (and many other pets) since I was two years old.

If the dog nips, so what? The kid learns to be more gentle. The dog learns to avoid the kid.

I have to disagree with those who are defending Mutts & Moms because they didn't consider the facts of the situation.

I get so frustrated by people who think they have the right to dictate to others. If the kid's happy and the dog's happy, what's the problem?

a good way to prevent all these animals being put down would be to screen potential adopters to find responsible pet owners who won't just add to the problem.

So it really doesn't make sense to say that as long as a pet gets adopted it helps solve the pet overpopulation problem.

Hi, I'm from a "third-world" country (Philippines) and I see it in the same light as you do : another triviality. Nice of you to think about us... but please, get off your horse and back to the topic.

what if the contract isn't legal? When I investigated my house history I found in the 1940s there was a restrictive covenant saying the owners weren't allowed to sell the house to Jews or African-Americans- that was a signed contract that's illegal.

The idea that kids can't be around puppies is nothing short of illegal discrimination. Of course a large percentage of us, including myself, had puppies as kids and the puppies were our companions and good friends.

Mutts and Moms is wrong and they deserve everything they created for themselves. They're guilty guilty guilty!

I would NEVER deal with a restrictive pet adoption group and neither should you.

In some cases, this is probably a good policy, to ensure that people are serious about adoption. And look at that dog - I bet it doesn't like kids at all.

I suspect the agency was miffed because they charge per contract, and it wasn't able to make money on her simply giving the dog away to another person.

This is a travesty of what agencies are there to do: help animals.

I think this is a classic case of idealism gone awry: the adoption agency's fanatical pursuit of the letter of the contract ultimately does more damage to the spirit of placing dogs in good homes. Why not be a little flexible and see how the kid and the family interact with the dog before being high-handed and take the dog from a loving home?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I have 4 dogs, 3 of which were "adopted" off of the street, and the other was taken from a poor family that had just had 10 puppies (they obviously couldn't afford to feed the pups--there were just too many of them). Just about anything is better than execution or rotting in a shelter.