A Scam By NSAL? Revisiting The Story Of The 3 Senior Dogs Who Were Supposedly Adopted.

Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by tv910, Mar 4, 2015.

  1. tv910

    tv910 Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    71,124
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    17,975
    Reading some of the current threads about NSAL reminded me of a mystery I don't think was ever solved. In the summer of 2013, Howard and Beth spoke about 3 senior dogs ("The Texas Trio" - Joshua, Ivan, and Domino) who were looking for a home together because their owner went into a nursing home. NSAL used them in their publicity campaigns and in the fall they were supposedly adopted. It got a lot of press coverage and NSAL touted it as a success story for their "Safe Haven" program where owners pay between $10,000 and $15,000 for the first dog (and $5000 - $7500 for each additional one) to ensure their dogs find a new loving home. The new owners appeared on Rachael Ray and were given an award.

    Then last March, Howard told the exact same story about the same 3 dogs needing a home because their owner went into a nursing home. It was puzzling because there was no mention anywhere about the dogs being adopted previously and then returned. It was discussed here and someone called NSAL and was told the dogs were NOT available. The story was removed from Howard's website and neither he or Beth mentioned it again.

    Recently I noticed a mention on NSAL's website about 2 of the dogs in a profile of a shelter employee. Apparently they are back at the shelter, NOT in a home as the owner requested and paid for:

    "A typical day for Chris starts at 9am. Once she opens the door to her office in the Ark, she’s all business. After tending to Ivan and Domino, the two senior dogs who have become her unofficial office pets, Chris makes her rounds through the facility. "

    This brings up several questions. What happened to Joshua? Why did the adoption fail and why wasn't it disclosed? Did Beth inadvertently "spill the beans" when she had Howard announce the dogs were available (again)? Why haven't they been placed in another home together since that's what the owner wanted and paid for? Without knowing the answers, it seems like NSAL covered up the failed adoption, pocketed the cash, and didn't keep their promise to the owner.
     
  2. killallposers

    killallposers VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    152,617
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    13,401
    Likes Received:
    21,395
    Very good questions and I'd love to know the answers. Something fishy happened. It would be pretty despicable to break those dogs up if they were paid all that money to keep them together. Maybe one has since died, but there's still the question of what happened with the adoption. Also, this is what you get when you turn animal adoption into a celebrity fuckfest. People come out of the woodwork to not help the animals, but to help their own desires to be close to celebrity. You get involved with Howard Stern and get to go on the Rachel Ray Show. Not saying that's what happened here, but you gotta wonder. I adopted a senior dog recently and I can assure you that I would've had no desire to appear on Rachel Ray had that been offered. Beth has the same thing going on with people who've adopted multiple animals from her and just love facebooking and tweeting that they are somehow connected to the woman who's connected to the AGT guy.

    This "Safe Haven" thing. Does any of that money go to the people adopting the animals or does NSAL swipe it all? Even if it does go to the adopters, that sets an iffy scenario. Hell, we had a neighbor who was taking in foster children like there was no tomorrow and a number of things made it pretty obvious it was for the money, because they sure weren't using it on the children. And the guy was also molesting one of them. To be fair, she was an early developed hottie, but that's still not cool, of course. So a money incentive to adopt animals doesn't necessarily mean they get a good home. Maybe promotes the opposite. NSAL was given between $20-30,000 to take in these 3 dogs and place them together in a good home? Wow. And now at least two are back at the shelter? Sounds like an example of a failure to me. And there's a whiff of shenanigans along with it.
     
    reno and tv910 like this.
  3. tv910

    tv910 Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    71,124
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    17,975
    At the least NSAL took advantage of the positive publicity and hid the fact that the adoption failed. At the worst they took money under false pretenses. Makes me wonder if they were so anxious for a fairy tale happy ending they could exploit for fundraising they didn't adequately screen the adopters. If they're a "no-kill" shelter shouldn't they care for ALL of the animals indefinitely until they find suitable homes? Why are they charging some people thousands of dollars extra for something that should come out of their normal operating budget? I'm sure the woman who forked over $20,000 - $30,000 didn't envision her dogs living in an office.
     
    blindbella likes this.
  4. blindbella

    blindbella Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    86,655
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,355
    Likes Received:
    15,618
    This smells like dog shit.
    I don't like it.
     
    tv910, reno and Ganggreen87 like this.
  5. reno

    reno VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    322,885
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,688
    Likes Received:
    40,478
    All NSAL is to Beth is a photo Op. and getting her name mentioned in the media. There's probably lots of shenanigans going on there everyday. How come there is nothing said about the progress of the kitten ranch?
     
    Thelma and blindbella like this.