Having worked in dog rescue for more than six years, I can only say that there may be more to the story than we know, and it's not a good idea to second guess the rescue group. I've heard plenty of people gripe about rescue policies, but it's out of ignorance. Once the reasons are explained, people accept the policies for what they are.

I always make a point of explaining the 'return' policy on dogs from our group. I also explain why we have the policy. People sign the contract and they should abide by it. Their failure to abide by the contract should not be held against the rescue group. Ellen has said as much and I applaud her for her honesty.

From the outside it seems that they could have handled it better, and used this situation as a way to open dialogue about rescue and adoption, and why policies are the way they are. I do think they have the dog's best interest at heart, but they probably could have handled things differently and had a more positive impact on the rescue community as a whole.

Ultimately, though, there are hundreds of thousands of needy dogs and cats and other animals in the world. All this fuss over this one dog is sort of overshadowing the bigger problem and I feel that it may negatively impact people's willingess to work with rescue groups in the future.