I know this video  has been circulating the Internet, but I had to post it here for you guys to check out.

This bird really knows how to get his groove on!

By now the video of Ellen DeGeneres sobbing on her daytime talk show has made the rounds in the media and on the Internet. If you haven’t seen it, click here to see the video on YouTube.com.

According to Ellen and published news reports on the story, Ellen and partner Portia DeRossi adopted a Brussels Griffon mix named Iggy from the rescue group Mutts and Moms, but found the dog wasn’t a good match for their home.

Mutts and Moms, like many good animal rescue organizations, required Ellen and Portia to sign a contract that required Iggy to be returned to Mutts and Moms if the couple couldn’t keep him. But Ellen and Portia didn’t abide by that contract and sent Iggy to live with Ellen’s hairstylist and family.

What happens? Mutts and Moms finds out and reclaims the dog. AS THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO. Now she’s pleading with Mutts and Moms to give Iggy back to her hairstylist’s family making the rescue group out to be the baddies.

I really like Ellen as an entertainer. I think she’s got a lot going for her. But she is in the wrong here.

I not only volunteer for an animal rescue group, I adopted one of my dogs from one. And I signed a contract. And that contract said that if I could not keep her I was required to relinquish her to the rescue group.

Rescue groups do not have these contracts in place to be mean or to make life harder for adopters. They do it because their first interest is the animal. So many times a dog will be bounced from home to home before reaching a rescue group and that is no way for a dog to live.

These rescue groups take time to make sure a dog goes into a good home. The group I volunteer with, the Italian Greyhound Club of America, not only fosters dogs in members’ homes, the volunteers read through lengthy applications, call references and veterinarians and visit the potential adopters’ homes to make sure the dog will be safe there.

Ellen, in sobbing on her talk show, pleading for Iggy’s return to his family, is demeaning this process. It’s making rescue groups like Mutts and Moms look bad. And it’s not fair. She is the one who didn’t follow the rules. That family’s pain and her own is not the fault of Mutts and Moms.

The blame is hers and hers only.

A new Web site, Dogs in Danger has been getting quite a bit of attention lately, even getting mentioned on the Today Show.

It shows users pictures and information on dogs that will be euthanized in the coming days in an effort to get potential owners to save them. Another page shows pictures of dogs that weren’t adopted in time.

It is a sad truth that millions of dogs and cats are euthanized each year. Many advocate for the creation of more no-kill shelters, but all that does is let dogs that no one wants for one reason or another to languish in a cage for years. That’s no life for them.

Dogs in Danger lists the most popular reasons given when owners dump their pets in a shelter. They include animal illness, having too many animals and moving. The problem is that so many owners think of their animals as disposable. They aren’t. When you bring home that cute puppy or kitten you are agreeing to properly care for it until old age.

Bringing an animal into your life, whether it be a fish, dog, cat or horse, should be be a spur of the moment decision, but all too often it is.

There are people who own dogs and then there are “dog people.” There are people who keep their dogs tied up in the backyard all day with a water dish as dry as the Sahara and there are people whose dogs are beloved members of the family.

I’m the latter example in both comparisons. My dogs are just as much family as any of the bi-ped relatives. They have traveled with me, they nap with me … we’ve even shared the same water glass. What? There have been studies that dogs’ mouths are cleaner than humans.

So Haverstraw’s recent approval of a law limiting the amount of dogs hit me really hard. I whole heartedly agree with this editorial written by Editorial Page Editor Nancy Cutler.

I don’t live in Haverstraw and I only have two dogs. But I really feel for those people affected by this.

I am a good dog owner. My dogs are vaccinated and registered with my town. They do not bark incessantly and are only outside in the yard when I’m out their with them. I’ve taken them to obedience classes and I pick up poop when we go for walks. I never let them off leash when not in my house or fenced in yard. They have never escaped and are both altered.

So why—if I take the care for all the above—would it be my town’s business to limit the dogs I can have? My dogs aren’t a nuisance and if I had three more (going over Haverstraw’s limit) they wouldn’t be a nuisance either.

Are there bad dog owners out there? Sure. I see them all the time. But why punish a group of good owners for the bad? Just go after the bad!

Other than maybe—MAYBE—cutting down on some noise and poop I don’t see what Haverstraw will gain from this. And let me tell ya—four dogs can make just as much noise as eight. And one Great Dane will poop a lot more than five chihuahuas.

So I’d like to hear from people on both sides of this issue. And to Haverstraw residents who are facing giving up a dog—what are you going to do?

What would I do?

I’d move.