Welcome!

The GaySocialites are bonafide gossip queens.

At gaysocialites.blog, we gossip about celebrities, politicians, nightclubs and every thing in between!


Categories:



Your Ad Here

« HUGE event announcement coming!! | Main | Ugly Trump says he knows beauty »



October 17, 2007

Call Mutts and Moms (even at home) and tell them to give Ellen's dog back!

 

This is a rare situation where I can voice my opinion about something I truly believe in while doing my job covering entertainment news.

Today, I want to send out a message to the Mutts and Moms "animal rescue" to give that dog back to Ellen Degeneres' friends who were obviously stable enough to house this poor homeless animal.

For those of you who aren't up to date on the story, talk show host Ellen Degeneres adopted a dog named "Iggy," but soon realized he didn't fit in at their house.  Instead of returning the dog back to the rescue, Ellen and her partner Portia de Rossi gave it to their hair dresser who they knew could take very good care of the dog.  They are a stable family with kids who really love "Iggy."

When Mutts and Moms got word of Iggy's relocation, they yanked the dog out of his new home without considering Ellen's hair dresser as a possible family to adopt him.  Since Ellen didn't go by the fine print on the adoption application, Mutts and Moms flexed their muscle by making Iggy homeless again.

If Mutts and Moms truly cares about the animals they are trying to place, they need to give that dog back to that family.  Ellen is pleading, and she has proven that the family meets the requirements to adopt the dog.  Instead of just giving the dog to a deserving home, the selfish people behind Mutts and Moms (Marina Baktis and Vanessa Chekroun) have decided to put the dog back in a cage without anyone to love him.

Now, Baktis and Chekroun have pulled their organization off of Petfinder.blog, a website used to locate homeless animals, and say they are afraid to place anymore dogs.

Mutts and Mom has chosen to temporarily inactivate their website on Petfinder.blog because their email inbox and voice mail are overwhelmed. Petfinder has 11,000 shelters and rescue groups posting over 260,000 pets that need homes. We do not dictate the adoption policies of our members. We do work with them to educate their volunteers and hope to professionalize the industry as a whole, providing a positive experience for adopters. Petfinder advocates for all parties: the pets, the adopters, and the shelter and rescue group workers and volunteers.

Baktis and Chekroun also say they are flooded with calls and e-mails even getting death threats.

So why don't they just give the dog back?!  Because they're "crazy dog people," and I can call them that because I'm a crazy dog person myself.

I ask that you please try to call and e-mail Mutts and Moms and nicely ask them to return the dog to the family.

Mutts and Moms
523 S Raymond Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91105
626.394.0946
Email:

On the Web: www.muttsandmoms.org

I also found the home phone number for co-owner of Mutts and Moms, Vanessa Chekroun, on Yahoo People Search.  Please call her home at this number:  (323) 848-9108,  and ask her to do the right thing and give that dog back to the family that loves it.




Want more on this topic? Look around!
Google




Comments

I think although you believe in this.....encouraging others to criminal harras these people should is highly irresponsible.....

A phone call -- even a nice one -- will not change the minds of the two women behind Mutts and Moms. All it will do is harden their resolve. They just don't get it, and they won't get it until someone close to them clues them in.

I think although you believe in this.....encouraging others to criminal harras these people should is highly irresponsible.....

The dog is already adopted out. Nothing we can do at this point is going to make it better.

There's absolutely nothing wrong posting this information or calling/writing these two obviously callous individuals and expressing our views. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as does withholding donations...

Thanks Charles for taking the time and doing the legwork.

There's absolutely nothing wrong posting this information or calling/writing these two obviously callous individuals and expressing our views. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as does withholding donations...

Thanks Charles for taking the time and doing the legwork.

Please tell me how you are so sure that this family is right for that dog? Just because Ellen says so? Perhaps you should read the statement on Petfinder's website and step back and wait and see what the rescue's side of the story is before fanning the flames and encouraging people to jump on the bandwagon and harass the rescue.

Also agreeing with the poster above. Passing out the home phone number for one of the rescuers is extremely irresponsible.

I to tried to adobt a dog from this organization. We are avid animals lovers our application checked out great . But when they found out that sometimes our two large shephard mixes sometimes like to stay outside at night we were told that it was cruelty to animals alowing them to sleep outside, and that we were know on a list to not allow us to adopt . Funny it is o.k. for the shelters to keep animals in cages and outside!!! GO ELLEN

Mutts & Moms is right. Just because Ellen is a celebrity, and not Michael Vick, does not mean that she can write her own rules. Any responsible adoption organization requires return of the animal if he/she doesn't work out in the adopter's home. NO EXCEPTIONS! A dog is not a toaster, to be passed around and then discarded when people don't like the model. Ellen should have used better judgment, and should not have resorted to using her television program to further her selfish agenda. Animals are not disposable, period!

Mutts & Moms is right. Just because Ellen is a celebrity, and not Michael Vick, does not mean that she can write her own rules. Any responsible adoption organization requires return of the animal if he/she doesn't work out in the adopter's home. NO EXCEPTIONS! A dog is not a toaster, to be passed around and then discarded when people don't like the model. Ellen should have used better judgment, and should not have resorted to using her television program to further her selfish agenda. Animals are not disposable, period!

While I may personally disagree with a policy of this organization that states that small animals should not be adopted by a family with children under 14, this website and Ellen need to step up and be responsible for the actions that they are inciting. First off, Ellen should know, as an entertainer with a huge fan base, that her actions on air would illicit an enormous response by her watchers and anyone who heard about the incident from various news and entertainment sources. And this website posting someone's personal contact information was wildly unprofessional and irresponsible. A large amount of negative and violent response should have been foreseen, and I believe that this website fully knew what kind of reaction would happen. I hope that anyone who reads this will have the decency to boycott this website (gaysocialites.blog) as being criminally responsible for the actions that resulted in posting this info and telling people to call the agency heads at home in response to what has happened and demand that the pet agency give the dog back. In todays society, so many people are emotionally and mentally unbalanced, they had to know the type of actions that would happen by doing this. I am not surprised that the agency received death threats in response to Ellen's outburst and this website's post. For a website that seems to dedicate itself to a portion of the population (gays and lesbians) that is already viewed negatively by certain other factions of our country, like the religious sectors that think homosexuality is immoral, they are creating more negative and hateful views of the gay community by telling people to call the agency at home, rather than just through emails or the public phone number of the agency. I urge gaysocialites.blog to step up to the bat and use their "powers for good, not evil", and retract this post and ask those that have taken the vigilante road, to stop and think of how criminally insane it is to make these death threats and other such actions.

As I've previously stated...A FORMER DONATOR. Sorry, even though a signed contract is in place...I didn't realize both women were appointed as God! Please keep your resolve, and I'll donate my money to a different charity.

This story is so overblown. Let it go Ellen, you don't make the rules.

I agree with Charlene Inglis, for the most part. So, we should support Ellen because we're gay and so is she? She is behaving like someone with entitlement. She signed a contract, and the fact that SHE DIDN"T READ IT SHOULD NOT BE THE FAULT OF THIS ORGANIZATION. It is not unusual for a new pet to NOT get along with existing pets, so she should have expected that possibility. This is her own fault, and her own doing. Children are very resilient and will find some other little dog, but what Ellen, her people, and this website is doing is causing HARM TO THE PEOPLE at MUTTS and encouraging threats. No DOG is worth that. I don't like Ellen anymore. I think she is abusing her celebrity.

Mutts and Moms appear to be another "rescue" group on a power trip of their own. I doubt seriously that Iggy has been placed with someone else. More likely, they passed it over to another rescuer to hold until the heat died down. What baloney this is, to take a dog from a little girl who loved him. What happened to Mutts and MOMS heart? Are they really Moms? It sure doesn't seem like they are. Whatever grief the rescue group is getting, they brought it upon themselves.

I am appauled and deeply offended by your actions....concerrning the puppy of eleen's that she gave to the family that should have it. AND NOW I HEAR THAT YOU GAVE THE PUPPY TO SOMEONE ELSE......SHAME, SHAME, SHAME SHAME ON YOU.....HOW DO YOU THINK THAT THOSE LITTLE GIRLS FEEL....????
THIS ACTION IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE

I SIMPLY CANNOT BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE OF ONE STUPID PHASE IN THE THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS OVERLOOKED THAT YOU SHOULD TAKE SUCH AN SAD VIEW ON THE ISSUE. ONCE AGAIN ......SHAME, SHAME, SHAME ON YOU.....AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED YOU SHOULD BE OUT OF BUSINESS......DO YOU NOT HAVE ANY COMPASSION!!?? GUESS NOT!!!!!!!

You guys are terrible. Ellen is totally abusing the power she has as a celebrity and this site is just buying into it to kiss her butt. Gross.

I am appauled and deeply offended by your actions....concerrning the puppy of eleen's that she gave to the family that should have it. AND NOW I HEAR THAT YOU GAVE THE PUPPY TO SOMEONE ELSE......SHAME, SHAME, SHAME SHAME ON YOU.....HOW DO YOU THINK THAT THOSE LITTLE GIRLS FEEL....????
THIS ACTION IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE

I SIMPLY CANNOT BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE OF ONE STUPID PHASE IN THE THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS OVERLOOKED THAT YOU SHOULD TAKE SUCH AN SAD VIEW ON THE ISSUE. ONCE AGAIN ......SHAME, SHAME, SHAME ON YOU.....AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED YOU SHOULD BE OUT OF BUSINESS......DO YOU NOT HAVE ANY COMPASSION!!?? GUESS NOT!!!!!!!

Mutts and Moms is a member of petfinder.
Petfinder is promoted by Purina.
Everyone just contact and boycott Purina.

This is in response to Brian's posting that Ellen used her super powers as a celebrity to destroy the reputation of Mutts and Mom's....

I think Mutts and Mom's should take responsibility themselves for part of their reputation going bad. Mutts and Mom's could have avoided conflict by doing the most sensible solution for themselves, the dog and everyone else. Instead, Stupid Marina, had to go the hard way and she destroyed herself...SHE made things worse than they had to be.

I applaud Ellen for nationally making people aware of this organization and their very unusual policies so that people can think twice about adopting from them...

There was even a woman who made a comment that she adopted from that same agency and Marina took her adopted dog away for 6 days when she was not wearing a leash...

Nazi Adoption Center needs to be controlled...Say no to Marina's Hitler ways!

Does Mutts and Moms received payment for each adoption or readoption? Are any rules ever bent?

I am glad you posted her phone number. They are acting ridiculously, and they should be held accountable. I also agree that I don't really believe the other dog has already been adopted.

The hell with that charity & that hell with that MUTTS & MOMS. I hope they go under after this crap. That should have never happened, that dog went from one good home to another & now it's back in a cage & only God knows where it's going to end up. I can see if the dog went to Michael Vick but it didn't. Vanessa & (what ever the other ladies name is)... are both stupid if you ask me. GO ELLEN!!!

Ladies, You've brought this on yourselves... How could you possibly make a decision like this, that is so igorant on so many levels? You have undermined eveything that you supposedly stood for. As my grandmother would have said, "you have cut off your nose in spite of your face!"
Not only was the decision to take that dog away from that family (without caring to find out if it was in a good home) morally wrong, it was petty, heartless, and just plain stupid! Did you really not have clue about the potential for a media shit-storm?! You did know that Ellen is a celebrity, right?
Honestly, you deserve to loose your business after a stunt like this. You obviously can't be trusted to watch out for the best interests of the dogs or the families who adopt them. Perhaps you will learn not to be so arogant in the future.

Mutts and Mom's should thank God that Ellen gave the dog to somone that would take good care of it. What about the dogs that are out there that are not taken care of by anyone or abused. Get a LIFE you have WAAAAAY too much time on your hands MUTTS AND INSANE. You no common sense pucilatamous
Shame on you!!!!

Go get them! People should be held responsible for their stupidity. If Darwin had his way, we could get rid of idiots that take puppies form little girls because their ego has outgrown their brain.

The issue here is power, abuse of it. Mutts and Mums has the power to consider placing the dog with the family that Ellen found for the dog and that the dog has bonded with, they have chosen not too. Why? The children are under age 14 years? If the family attended seminars on living with pets would this solve the issue? Would lie detector tests to see if the girls really love the dog suffice? Who knows. There appears to be a lot of abuse of power involved with Mutts and Mums, pet adoption should be about good loving homes not red tape. As Petfinder is one of, perhaps their main source of funds (?)send a message to Purina Petfinder. Tell them YOU will not be funding Petfinder/Mutts and Mums by no longer buying Purina products ie Friskies etc. Tell Purina they need to fund pet adoption agencies that care more about the animal and less about their own egos. Contact

Nestlé Purina PetCare Company
Checkerboard Square
St. Louis, Missouri 63164

(314) 982-1000

or email: info@petsforpeople.blog

The issue here is power, abuse of it. Mutts and Mums has the power to consider placing the dog with the family that Ellen found for the dog and that the dog has bonded with, they have chosen not too. Why? The children are under age 14 years? If the family attended seminars on living with pets would this solve the issue? Would lie detector tests to see if the girls really love the dog suffice? Who knows. There appears to be a lot of abuse of power involved with Mutts and Mums, pet adoption should be about good loving homes not red tape. As Petfinder is one of, perhaps their main source of funds (?)send a message to Purina Petfinder. Tell them YOU will not be funding Petfinder/Mutts and Mums by no longer buying Purina products ie Friskies Pussi etc. Tell Purina they need to fund pet adoption agencies that care more about the animal and less about their own egos. Contact

Nestlé Purina PetCare Company
Checkerboard Square
St. Louis, Missouri 63164

(314) 982-1000

or email: info@petsforpeople.blog

The issue here is power, abuse of it. Mutts and Mums has the power to consider placing the dog with the family that Ellen found for the dog and that the dog has bonded with, they have chosen not too. Why? The children are under age 14 years? If the family attended seminars on living with pets would this solve the issue? Would lie detector tests to see if the girls really love the dog suffice? Who knows. There appears to be a lot of abuse of power involved with Mutts and Mums, pet adoption should be about good loving homes not red tape. As Petfinder is one of, perhaps their main source of funds (?)send a message to Purina Petfinder. Tell them YOU will not be funding Petfinder/Mutts and Mums by no longer buying Purina products ie Friskies Pussi etc. Tell Purina they need to fund pet adoption agencies that care more about the animal and less about their own egos.

Contact

Nestlé Purina PetCare Company
Checkerboard Square
St. Louis, Missouri 63164

(314) 982-1000

or email: info@petsforpeople.blog

ELLEN IS IN THE WRONG and bullying people only makes this pathetic situation even worse. Rescues are charged with protecting animals which is what they are doing. Three cats recently adopted off Craigslist were all brutally killed. THAT is what can happen when you don't responsibly screen pet recipients.

GO MUTTS AND MOMS AND KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK !!!!!

Ellen did spend over $3000 on the dog, I would venture to say she has a right to say where the dog should go. Yes, yes I know she has lots of money, but that's not the point. Just my humble opinion.

This isn't about who is right and who is wrong. This is about the welfare of Iggy. If Iggy has found a loving home, why snatch him from there? This makes no sense. It's time people put other's welfare before their their self-rightous motives.

This isn't about who is right and who is wrong. This is about the welfare of Iggy. If Iggy has found a loving home, why snatch him from there? This makes no sense. It's time people put other's welfare before their their self-rightous motives.

Memo from the home of
Richard Lee “Buck” Cartiere
P.O. Box 641 Calistoga, CA Napa Valley 94515-0641

Home phone: 707.869.3472 / Fax: 707.581.1770 / Email: rcartiere@gmail.blog
****************************
TO: LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL CONTROL and CARE
Marcia Mayeda, Director
5898 Cherry Ave.
Long Beach, CA 90805
Phone: (562) 728-4610
Email: animalinfo@animalcare.lacounty.gov

RE1: Demand for IMMEDIATE license revocation and investigation of a Pasadena animal “rescue” organization known as Mutts and Mom under procedures outlined in the Los Angeles Civil Code Chapter 10 [cited below] for licensed individuals having “conducted the occupation or other activity licensed in an immoral or disorderly manner.”

Dated: Oct. 17, 2007
Via fax to: Fax: (562) 422-3408

_______________________________________________
CC1: Los Angeles County Counsel's Office
Ray G. Fortner, County Counsel
648 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles 90012

reply@counsel.lacounty.gov
(213) 974-1904
Fax: (213) 687-7300

CC2: Marina Batkis - Mutts and Moms
523 Raymond Ave.
Pasadena, Ca. 91105
pawboutique@yahoo.blog

RE2: Batkis' possible careless, disruptive and disorderly seizure of animals adopted out of her “rescue” operation, most recently to Portia di Rossa and Ellen Degeneres involving a dog by the name of Iggy, which Batkis caused to be seized in a disorderly fashion on Sunday, Oct. 14, 2007. Complainant is, from news reports, aware of at least one other alleged case in which a Pasadena woman had her dog seized when Batkis drove by her house, only to have the dog kept for five days before it was returned by Batkis, who was described in a television interview by this woman of having overstepped normal boundaries of behavior.
Authority citation: The ordinance set forth in Division 1 of Title 10 of the Los Angeles County Civil Code commonly cited and referred to as “the animal control ordinance.” (Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 1 § 101, 1946.)
Note: by separate letter fax I will be requesting copies of inspection reports, the license issued to the above individual and organization and other public materials.

To Whom it Concerns:
I hereby demand that you immediately revoke—for an initial period of 60 days—the license issued by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Control and Care [“The Department”] to a Pasadena organization known as Mutts and Mom, an allegedly 501c non-profit group whose address is identified above and that allegedly functions as an animal “rescue” organization. Such immediate action is contemplated and authorized by Los Angeles County “animal control ordinance.” [citations below].
This county ordinance authorizes the director of The Department 1) to immediately and initially revoke the license following allegation of suspected prohibited behavior; 2) conduct an investigation and then, if requested, 3) after a hearing that makes a determination in favor of The Department, 4) permanently, revoke the license of any operator of an animal “rescue” operation that has been determined by investigation to have “conducted the occupation or other activity licensed in an immoral or disorderly manner.” Without an investigation, it is impossible to determine whether or not the behavior exhibited was immoral, although it is hard based upon media reports to consider this anything but a per se demonstration of immoral activity. However, it is clear beyond doubt that the two behaviors identified in the header above were conducted in a disorderly fashion.
The “animal control ordinance” states, in part [section numbers identified]”

10.28.180 Revocation--Grounds.
A license may be revoked on any one or more of the following grounds:
A. Any facts exist because of which a denial of the license would be authorized;
B. The licensee, or any agent or employee of the licensee, has violated or has been convicted of violating any of the provisions of the ordinance codified in this chapter or any other county ordinance, or of any regulation adopted pursuant thereto, or of any law, statute, rule, order or regulation of the state now or hereafter in force regulating the occupation or other activity for which the license was issued;
C. The licensee obtained the license by fraudulent representations;
D. The licensee has conducted the occupation or other activity licensed in an immoral or disorderly manner;
The remedial action demanded of The Department is authorized by the following civil code section:
10.28.170 Suspension or revocation--As condition of license grant--Procedure.
Every license granted is granted and accepted by all parties with the express understanding that the director may prepare and file an accusation, and cause the parties to be notified, and a hearing held before the business license commission as prescribed in Section 10.28.140. If, from the evidence introduced at such hearing, the business license commission finds that any ground of revocation exists, it may revoke or suspend such license. Pending such hearing and decision, the director may suspend such license for not more than 60 days. (Ord. 10638 § 1 (part), 1973: Ord. 10087 § 1, 1970: Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 8613 § 1 (part), 1964: Ord. 8043 § 10 (part), 1961: Ord. 7829 § 4 (part), 1960; Ord. 7351 § 3 (part), 1958: Ord. 6937 § 6, 1956: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 610, 1946.)
If any applicant requests a hearing, the director shall prepare and file an accusation in the manner prescribed in Section 7.10.210 of this code, on business licenses. The parties will then be notified and a hearing held by the business license commission in the manner prescribed in Sections 7.04.280 and 7.10.200 through 7.10.390 of this code. At such hearing, all parties may be heard and the business license commission shall determine whether the license should be issued, issued subject to conditions, or denied. (Ord. 10638 § 1 (part), 1973: Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 606, 1946.)

Code Table of Contents and further representation:
Title 10 ANIMALS


Chapter 10.28 LICENSES FOR OTHER ANIMALS
10.28.010 Application of Chapter 10.28 provisions.
10.28.020 Initial license--Application required.
10.28.030 License--Form and information required.
10.28.040 License fee not refundable.
10.28.050 License requirements--Inspection prerequisite to issuance and renewal.
10.28.060 License--Required for certain activities and animals--certain animals exempt.
10.28.061 Keeping and breeding pygmy pigs--License required.
10.28.062 Pygmy pigs--Breeding prohibited when.
10.28.090 License--Expiration date.
10.28.100 Display of license.
10.28.120 License--Issued subject to conditions when.
10.28.130 Denial or conditional grant--Notice to applicant of right to hearing.
10.28.140 Denial or conditional grant--Hearing procedure.
10.28.150 Exception to waiting period following license denial or revocation.
10.28.160 Renewal procedure.
10.28.170 Suspension or revocation--As condition of license grant--Procedure.
10.28.175 Reinspection.
10.28.180 Revocation--Grounds.
10.28.190 Revocation--Notice to tax collector.
10.28.200 Revocation--Forfeiture of fee.
10.28.210 Imposition of additional conditions authorized when.
10.28.220 Change of conditions at licensee’s request.
10.28.230 License--Preparation, numbering, recordkeeping and other procedures.
10.28.240 License--Information to be shown.
10.28.250 Renewal procedure--Report from regional planning commission required when.
10.28.260 Report of zoning land use regulation violations required when--Contents.
10.28.270 Animal facility grading--Bases for grading.
10.28.280 Display of grading card--Violation.
10.28.290 Consequences of failure to achieve minimum grade.
10.28.010 Application of Chapter 10.28 provisions.
This chapter applies to all licenses required by this Division 1 except licenses for individual dogs. (Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 601, 1946.)
10.28.020 Initial license--Application required.
Every person desiring a license to operate an animal facility or to keep a wild animal under Section 10.28.060, shall file an application with the department upon a form to be provided by the department, and at such time pay the required fee and any applicable penalty as set forth in Section 10.90.010.VII. A person who possessed or owned a wild animal or who operated an animal facility without the required license, shall pay the penalty set forth in Section 10.90.010.VII.C.4., in addition to the license fee. When a person applies for more than one license for animals at the same premises at the same time, the cost of the licenses shall be reduced by the amount set forth in Section 10.90.010.VII.A.1.k. (Ord. 2004-0036 § 8, 2004: Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 602, 1946.)
10.28.030 License--Form and information required.
Each application for any license covered by this chapter shall be upon a form to be furnished by the department, and shall contain such information as the director may require. (Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 622, 1946.)
10.28.040 License fee not refundable.
No part of the license fee is refundable in any case. (Ord. 2004-0036 § 9, 2004: Ord. 93-0002 § 6, 1993: Ord. 85-0204 § 14, 1985: Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 621, 1946.)
10.28.050 License requirements--Inspection prerequisite to issuance and renewal.
Upon the filing of any license or renewal application covered by this chapter, the director shall inspect and make such investigation as he deems proper. The director may issue a new license or renew the license if the following requirements are met:
A. The maintenance of the animal or animals at the location set forth in the application will not violate any law or ordinance of the county of Los Angeles or any law of the state of California, or constitute a menace to the health, peace or safety of the community;
B. The applicant has received approval from the director of the regional planning department that the maintenance of the animal or animals as defined in this chapter, at the location specified in the application for the license therefor, will not violate any provision of any zoning ordinance or other specific plan of land use; and
C. The applicant has not had a license, covered by this chapter, denied or revoked within the county of Los Angeles within twelve months prior to the application. However, the director may issue a license within the twelve month waiting period if the applicant is able to make the showing required by Section 10.28.150. (Ord. 2004-0036 § 10, 2004: Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 623, 1946.)
10.28.060 License--Required for certain activities and animals--certain animals exempt.
A. Any person, including a new owner of an existing organization or business, shall not conduct or operate any animal facility listed in Section 10.90.010.VII., or keep any wild animal, within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles, without first obtaining a license from the department, except as otherwise provided in this Section 10.28.060. Any person who has not applied for a license within 30 days after the expiration date of a license must obtain a new license, in place of a renewal license. A license is not required for the keeping of the following animals for personal use:
1. Canaries;
2. Chinchillas;
3. Chipmunks;
4. Finches;
5. Gopher snakes;
6. Guinea pigs;
7. Hamsters;
8. Hawks;
9. King snakes;
10. Marmoset monkeys;
11. Mynah birds;
12. Parrots, parakeets, amazons, cockatiels, cockatoos, lories, lorikeets, love birds, macaws, and similar birds of the psittacine family;
13. Pigeons;
14. Ravens;
15. Squirrel monkeys;
16. Steppe eagles;
17. Toucans;
18. Turtles;
19. White doves;
20. Tropical fish excluding caribe;
21. Domesticated mice and rats.
B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Division 1, the director shall waive the license requirement for a cat kennel (as defined in Section 10.08.090) or dog kennel (as defined in Section 10.08.130) when an animal permit has been obtained pursuant to Ordinance 1494, the Zoning Ordinance, (Los Angeles County Code Sections 22.52.330 and 22.56.420 through 22.56.530). (Ord. 2004-0036 § 12, 2004.)
10.28.061 Keeping and breeding pygmy pigs--License required.
Any person owning or having the custody, care or control of a pygmy pig as defined in this title who keeps or maintains any such pig, whether as a pet or for personal use, or breeds such pig for pay or other compensation, shall first pay a fee and obtain an animal license or animal facility license from the department, except that no such license shall be issued unless:
A. The person keeping or maintaining a pygmy pig in a residential area, as permitted in Los Angeles County Code Section 22.20.030 as a pet or for personal use, has provided proof from a licensed veterinarian that the pig has been neutered or spayed and such proof has been submitted to the department;
B. The person owning or having custody and care of the animal has obtained any and all licenses and zoning permits required pursuant to this county code or any other ordinance or statute and has submitted proof of such to the department. (Ord. 2004-0036 § 13, 2004: Ord. 92-0110 § 2, 1992.)
10.28.062 Pygmy pigs--Breeding prohibited when.
Any person owning or having the custody, care or control of any pygmy pig, and who keeps and maintains a pygmy pig in any residential zone, shall not engage in the breeding of such animals. (Ord. 92-0110 § 3, 1992.)
10.28.090 License--Expiration date.
All licenses covered by this chapter shall automatically expire twelve months following the date of issue, unless sooner revoked or unless licensee changes the location of his establishment or the animal for which the license was issued, or the licensee sells, assigns, transfers or otherwise disposes of such establishment or animal or his interest therein. (Ord. 2004-0036 § 14, 2004: Ord. 10638 § 1 (part), 1973: Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 607, 1946.)
10.28.100 Display of license.
Every person having a license issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall keep such license posted and exhibited, while in force, in some conspicuous part of such establishment or, in the case of a wild animal license, affixed to the cage or enclosure wherein the animal is kept, or in the case of a pygmy pig such license shall be affixed to a harness or other device and worn by the animal at all times. (Ord. 92-0110 § 4, 1992: Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 627, 1946.)
10.28.120 License--Issued subject to conditions when.
If the director finds that the facts are such that any one or more of the provisions of this Division 1 relating to the denial of the license under consideration would apply if the license is issued without conditions, but that conditions can be imposed which will eliminate any such ground for denial, the director shall direct that the license be issued, subject to such conditions. (Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 604, 1946.)
10.28.130 Denial or conditional grant--Notice to applicant of right to hearing.
Before the director denies any license, either new or renewal, or grants any license subject to conditions, except the renewal of a license containing only those conditions to which the license renewed was subject, or conditions to which the applicant has agreed, he shall notify the applicant in writing that he intends to deny the license or to grant the license subject to conditions, which conditions shall be specified in the notice, and that the applicant, if dissatisfied with the decision of the director may, in writing, request a hearing before the business license commission within five days after receipt of such notice. (Ord. 10638 § 1 (part), 1973: Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 605, 1946.)
10.28.140 Denial or conditional grant--Hearing procedure.
If any applicant requests a hearing, the director shall prepare and file an accusation in the manner prescribed in Section 7.10.210 of this code, on business licenses. The parties will then be notified and a hearing held by the business license commission in the manner prescribed in Sections 7.04.280 and 7.10.200 through 7.10.390 of this code. At such hearing, all parties may be heard and the business license commission shall determine whether the license should be issued, issued subject to conditions, or denied. (Ord. 10638 § 1 (part), 1973: Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 606, 1946.)
10.28.150 Exception to waiting period following license denial or revocation.
If a license has been denied or revoked, the director shall not accept a new application by the same person for a license for the same activity at the same location less than twelve months after such denial or revocation unless the applicant affirmatively shows, and the director finds, that the grounds upon which the first application was denied or the license was revoked no longer exist. (Ord. 2004-0036 § 16, 2004: Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 7829 § 4 (part), 1960: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 609, 1946.)
10.28.160 Renewal procedure.
Within 30 days after the expiration of any license or prior to the expiration of the license, the licensee shall apply for a renewal of the license and, with his application, pay the required fee set forth in Section 10.90.010.VII.B. When a person applies for more than one renewal, for animals at the same premises at the same time, the cost of the renewals shall be reduced by the amount set forth in Section 10.90.010.VII.B.1.i. An animal facility which has not applied for a renewal within the 30 day grace period must obtain a new license in place of a renewal license, and pay the fees applicable to an initial license. If the applicant has not applied for a renewal within six months after the expiration date, the penalty provided in Section 10.90.010.C.4. must also be paid. (Ord. 2004-0036 § 17, 2004: Ord. 87-0036 § 15, 1987: Ord. 85-0204 § 16, 1985: Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 6937 § 4, 1956: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 608, 1946.)
10.28.170 Suspension or revocation--As condition of license grant--Procedure.
Every license granted is granted and accepted by all parties with the express understanding that the director may prepare and file an accusation, and cause the parties to be notified, and a hearing held before the business license commission as prescribed in Section 10.28.140. If, from the evidence introduced at such hearing, the business license commission finds that any ground of revocation exists, it may revoke or suspend such license. Pending such hearing and decision, the director may suspend such license for not more than 60 days. (Ord. 10638 § 1 (part), 1973: Ord. 10087 § 1, 1970: Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 8613 § 1 (part), 1964: Ord. 8043 § 10 (part), 1961: Ord. 7829 § 4 (part), 1960; Ord. 7351 § 3 (part), 1958: Ord. 6937 § 6, 1956: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 610, 1946.)
10.28.175 Reinspection.
When a reinspection of the premises is necessary to determine compliance with all licensing requirements, or when a person requests a reinspection in order to improve a grade, or for any reason, he shall pay the reinspection fee set forth in Section 10.90.010.VII.C.1., provided that any applicable initial license fee or renewal fee has been already paid within the preceding twelve months. (Ord. 2004-0036 § 18, 2004.)
10.28.180 Revocation--Grounds.
A license may be revoked on any one or more of the following grounds:
A. Any facts exist because of which a denial of the license would be authorized;
B. The licensee, or any agent or employee of the licensee, has violated or has been convicted of violating any of the provisions of the ordinance codified in this chapter or any other county ordinance, or of any regulation adopted pursuant thereto, or of any law, statute, rule, order or regulation of the state now or hereafter in force regulating the occupation or other activity for which the license was issued;
C. The licensee obtained the license by fraudulent representations;
D. The licensee has conducted the occupation or other activity licensed in an immoral or disorderly manner;
E. The licensee is an unfit person to be entrusted with the privileges granted by the license. (Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 613, 1946.)
10.28.190 Revocation--Notice to tax collector.
The director shall give notice of such revocation to the tax collector. (Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 615, 1946.)
10.28.200 Revocation--Forfeiture of fee.
On revocation of the license, no part of the money in the hands of the tax collector shall be returned, but the said license fee shall be forfeited to the county. (Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 8043 § 11, 1961: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 614, 1946.)
10.28.210 Imposition of additional conditions authorized when.
A. If, at any time, it appears to the director that there are grounds for the revocation of a license, but that such grounds could be eliminated by the imposition of conditions, or of additional conditions, or by the amendment of any existing condition to such license, he may notify the licensee in writing that he intends to impose or amend such conditions and that the licensee may, within five days after receipt of such notice, request in writing a hearing before the business license commission.
B. If, from the evidence at a revocation hearing or at a hearing held pursuant to this section, it appears to the business license commission that there are grounds for revocation which can be eliminated by the imposition of, or amendment of, conditions, the business license commission may impose or amend such conditions. (Ord. 10638 § 1 (part), 1973: Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 611, 1946.)
10.28.220 Change of conditions at licensee’s request.
If a licensee applies in writing to the director for a change in the conditions to which his license is subject, the director may grant such application in whole or in part, or may deny such application, based upon facts found by him. (Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 612, 1946.)
10.28.230 License--Preparation, numbering, recordkeeping and other procedures.
Each license issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be prepared, numbered, signed, delivered and accounted for in the manner provided by law for other licenses. (Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 617, 1946.)
10.28.240 License--Information to be shown.
In addition to any other matter required by law, each license shall state the name and residence address of the person to whom such license is issued, the amount paid therefor and the character thereof, the date when issued, the date on which such license shall expire, and shall specify the address at which the license permits the maintenance of the animal or animals. (Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 618, 1946.)
10.28.250 Renewal procedure--Report from regional planning commission required when.
If the tax collector has not received any protest against its renewal, he may issue a renewal of an existing license covered by this chapter at the same location, without any report from the director of the regional planning commission. Otherwise, the tax collector shall not issue any license until he obtains from the director of the regional planning commission a statement signed by such director that the maintenance of the animal or animals, at the location specified in the application for the license therefor, will not violate any provision of any zoning ordinance or official plan of a master plan of land use. (Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 619, 1946.)
10.28.260 Report of zoning land use regulation violations required when--Contents.
If the director of the regional planning commission finds that the holder of any license covered by ordinance or official plan of land use, or has done, is doing or threatens to do any act, because of the doing of which no license should be issued or renewed, or any other circumstance because of which such license should not be renewed, he shall report such fact in writing to the tax collector. In such report he shall give the number of the license, the name and address of the licensee, the location of the animal or animals, the reasons why such license should not be renewed, and such other facts as the tax collector may require. (Ord. 9454 § 1 (part), 1967: Ord. 4729 Art. 6 § 620, 1946.)
10.28.270 Animal facility grading--Bases for grading.
A. The purpose of the Animal Facility Grade Card is to provide notice to the public of the grade earned by an animal facility at the time of the most recent inspection of the facility. The grading standards are set forth in the Animal Facility Inspection Report, which is available upon request from any county shelter.
B. The letter grade reflected in the Animal Facility Inspection Report is based on the facility’s level of compliance with applicable state statutes and local ordinances and policies relating to the care of animals. The grade shall be issued on the animal facility’s final score as follows:
1. Grade of A: Final score of 90% and above;
2. Grade of B: Final score of 80% to 89%;
3. Grade of C: Final score of 70% to 79%. A final score of 70% is the minimum grade required to maintain a license in good standing. A score of less than 70% will result in recommendations by the department regarding licensing or legal action to be taken as set forth in Section 10.28.290. (Ord. 2004-0036 § 19, 2004.)
10.28.280 Display of grading card--Violation.
A. Upon issuance by the director, the facility shall post the Animal Facility Grade Card at every animal facility, so as to be clearly visible to the general public and to patrons entering the facility. For purposes of this section, “clearly visible to the general public and to patrons” shall mean:
1. Posted in the front window of the facility within five feet of the front door;
2. Posted in a display case mounted on the outside front wall of the facility within five feet of the front door; or
3. Posted in a location as directed and determined in the discretion of the director to ensure proper notice to the general public and to patrons.
B. In the event that an animal facility is operated in the same building or space as a separately licensed or permitted business, or in the event that an animal facility shares a common patron entrance with such a separately owned or permitted business, or in the event of both, the facility shall post the Animal Facility Grade Card(s) in the initial patron contact area, or in a location as determined in the discretion of the director.
C. The Animal Facility Grade Card shall not be defaced, marred, camouflaged, hidden or removed. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, it shall be unlawful to operate an animal facility unless the Animal Facility Grade Card is displayed as required by this Section 10.28.280. A violation of this subsection C is a misdemeanor, and is punishable as a misdemeanor under Penal Code Section 19.
D. The director may waive posting of the Animal Facility Grade Card when the animal facility consists of animals maintained solely as personal pets which are not used to breed, show, sell, adopt or to transfer ownership or custody of the animals by any other method. (Ord. 2004-0036 § 20, 2004.)
10.28.290 Consequences of failure to achieve minimum grade.
The department shall make recommendations as to licensing or legal action to be taken when an animal facility does not earn a final score of at least 70%.
1. Licensing Consequences. Licensing consequences of an animal facility’s failure to attain a final score of at least 70% include the imposition of conditions, denial, revocation or non-renewal of the license.
2. Other Consequences. Other consequences include referrals to local prosecuting authorities for criminal prosecution under local ordinances or state statutes. (Ord. 2004-0036 § 21, 2004.)

Just wondering if all the Ellen bashers can figure out what "the point" I stated is? If you can please let's see a post.


From USA Today Forum
"There is something fishy about Mutts & Moms. They claim to be a tax-exempt charitable organization, but the California Secretary of State has suspended its license."

Submitted by: opinionated
9:34 PM PDT, October 17, 2007


From USA Today Forum
"There is something fishy about Mutts & Moms. They claim to be a tax-exempt charitable organization, but the California Secretary of State has suspended its license."

Submitted by: opinionated
9:34 PM PDT, October 17, 2007


From USA Today Forum
"There is something fishy about Mutts & Moms. They claim to be a tax-exempt charitable organization, but the California Secretary of State has suspended its license."

Submitted by: opinionated
9:34 PM PDT, October 17, 2007

Hey Opionated, if the California Secretary of State has suspended Mutts & Moms its tax exempt charitable organization, why are accepting donation checks for $ 600. for Ellen?

Just Wondering,
Nick

Mutts & Moms reminds me so much of another so called animal rescue group -Raven's Hope Animal Sanctuary in Preston, MS.
How people like this end up in charge of anything is beyond me.

Thanks for the contact information on Mutts& Mums. I have sent this email asking that they return Iggy to the family:
Please return Iggy to the family! I cannot understand why you have not already done so. If your mission is to find good homes for abandoned pets, then I find your behavior totally irrational. It seems like your ego is more important than your mission, or could it be that you want to receive another fee for re-placing the dog????

Dog Owner/Breeder & Dog Show Exhibitor

Thanks for the contact information on Mutts& Mums. I have sent this email asking that they return Iggy to the family:
Please return Iggy to the family! I cannot understand why you have not already done so. If your mission is to find good homes for abandoned pets, then I find your behavior totally irrational. It seems like your ego is more important than your mission, or could it be that you want to receive another fee for re-placing the dog????

Dog Owner/Breeder & Dog Show Exhibitor

Too many replies here already, so I'll keep mine super brief....

GO GAYSOCIALITIES YOU - BRAVO FOR THIS ONE!!!!!!!!

Ellen has enough money to buy every dog of that type in the world and give it to the family who you have determined is a perfect family for owning a dog. Problem solved.

This is a good lesson for Ellen and her enablers to learn how to play by the rules and not cry and wine when she doesn't get her way. Not to mention blowing things so incredibly out of proportion it isn't funny. Then you have lying to get her way "I only want what's right for this dog". Yeah right. She wants to get her way.

Lots a dogs in the world. That family can make another one happy. Way to encourage harassment of people saving dogs. Makes you look real good people.

"I also found the home phone number for co-owner of Mutts and Moms, Vanessa Chekroun, on Yahoo People Search. Please call her home at this number: (323) 848-9108, and ask her to do the right thing and give that dog back to the family that loves it."

Call her an whine like Ellen and say "You took back the doggy per your agreement - that's not right. You need to let cry baby Ellen have her way. I will harass you until cry baby Ellen gets her way."

Ellen should be jailed. She knows that many fans are of low intelligence and easily influenced. Look at how George Bush was reelected. This is disgusting seeing Ellen pull a Karl Rove.

I was very disappointed when I started hearing about all this. Obviously Ellen made a mistake when she went against the contract. So she should face the consequence of making that mistake.

What about these children that lost their new friend? This dog must have been loved or else these children wouldn't have cared about losing they're new dog. This family should have been allowed to keep the dog since it had been there long enough to be well cared for and had bonded with the family.

I thought the ultimate goal was to place these animals in loving homes? It sounds like Mutts and Moms are being counterproductive.

These reasons are exactly why I will not adopt from any shelters. I prefer to get an animal from a family hoping to find a good home for their pet. At least in my own way I'd be giving that animal a home before it has to see a shelter or ends up in a dog pound.

Somebody needs a reality check here. Just because she is a celeb doesn't give her the right to sob all over America over a mistake she made, not others.

I adopted a dog years ago that I adored. She had been abused. The agency I adopted her from put me through all the ropes and hoops to make sure I was the right place for her to be. I never resented that. And I was deeply grateful when I passed all the tests.

The fact is, just because Ellen wants something, doesn't make it right. The family she gave the dog to was given the opportunity to apply for adoption. They didn't. Case closed. ... Except for one thing: I have loved watching Ellen. I have now changed my mind.

Somebody needs a reality check here. Just because she is a celeb doesn't give her the right to sob all over America over a mistake she made, not others.

I adopted a dog years ago that I adored. She had been abused. The agency I adopted her from put me through all the ropes and hoops to make sure I was the right place for her to be. I never resented that. And I was deeply grateful when I passed all the tests.

The fact is, just because Ellen wants something, doesn't make it right. The family she gave the dog to was given the opportunity to apply for adoption. They didn't. Case closed. ... Except for one thing: I have loved watching Ellen. I have now changed my mind.

California has suspended "Mutts and moms' obviously they find some type of illegal stuff going on. IE calling 911 to remove a dog, Not getting the dog fixed before giving it away. DO NOT THROW STONES WHEN YOU LIVE IN A GLASS HOUSE.

California has suspended "Mutts and moms' obviously they find some type of illegal stuff going on. IE calling 911 to remove a dog, Not getting the dog fixed before giving it away. DO NOT THROW STONES WHEN YOU LIVE IN A GLASS HOUSE.

California has suspended "Mutts and moms' obviously they find some type of illegal stuff going on. IE calling 911 to remove a dog, Not getting the dog fixed before giving it away. DO NOT THROW STONES WHEN YOU LIVE IN A GLASS HOUSE.

Again to all the Ellen bashers, I've always heard that if you don't have a good argument; attack someone personally. I see lots of that going on here.

Apparently Mr. Ronnie Hokanson can dish it out but can't take it.

If you don't think it's right to incite people to call and criminally harrass Ms. Batkis and Chekroun, let Mr. Winters know:

Ronnie Hokanson
109 Washington St. #11
NY, NY
917 482 2673

Apparently Mr. Ronnie Hokanson can dish it out but can't take it.

If you don't think it's right to incite people to call and criminally harrass Ms. Batkis and Chekroun, let Mr. Winters know:

Ronnie Hokanson
109 Washington St. #11
NY, NY
917 482 2673

Apparently Mr. Ronnie Hokanson can dish it out but can't take it.

If you don't think it's right to incite people to call and criminally harrass Ms. Batkis and Chekroun, let Mr. Winters know:

Ronnie Hokanson
109 Washington St. #11
NY, NY
917 482 2673

Are you nuts, posting someone's home phone number on a website? That is a violation of privacy.

And it's BS that "California has suspended Mutts & Moms." Suspended them from what?

People who aren't in animal rescue have no concept of what makes a good rescue group. (And stop referring to the group as a "shelter." It is not a shelter. They rescued the dog from a shelter.)

If you spent 5 minutes at a real shelter, you would realize why responsible rescue groups have such stringent adoption requirements. It's a sad fact of life that many people with pets don't know how to care for them properly.

In Ellen's case, there are right and wrong ways to introduce a puppy into a household with cats. You can't just throw them together. Of course the cats will be spooked. It can be a slow, painstaking process. And Ellen isn't used to waiting for what she wants. It sounds as though she's used to immediate gratification. This is at least the third dog she has got rid of after adopting it. Every time, the reason has been that the dogs don't get along with her cats.

Perhaps her cats don't want a dog in the house so maybe she should stop trying to force one on them.

The group was 100% right in not allowing the woman who complained not to adopt from them because their two shepherds sleep outside. People have such outdated notions of what it means to have a pet. Pets are part of the family. Would you make your kids sleep outside?

Ellen has behaved abominably through this, wielding her celebrity clout like a petulant child would stamp its feet.

What all the Ellen apologists here seem unable to grasp is that the rescue group saved this dog's life. They have every right to control whose home it goes into since the dog belongs to them. Animals are still property.

Given that, Ellen gave away someone else's property when she had no legal right to do so. Leave these two responsible rescuers alone.

Vanessa Chekroun (323) 848-9108 1234 Havenhurst Dr,West Hollywood, CA 90046

Even though you disagree, how responsible was it for you to post someone's personal and private home telephone number?! What is YOUR home phone number??

leave mutts and moms alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
they are an animal rescue!!!! how insane are you people. you would drive people who rescue dogs out of work!? terrible stuff!

pgzm pznfugb jurfq jtnzqmwa pecay vqpkswf cbnawkle

pgzm pznfugb jurfq jtnzqmwa pecay vqpkswf cbnawkle

Post a comment


Top Recommended website for: gossip

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://gaysocialites.blog/magazine-mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2547

blogadsgay.gif




[copyright 2007, GaySocialites Media Group | New York, NY | All Rights Reserved.]