All animal boarding establishments must comply with the Code of Welfare: Temporary Housing of Companion Animals 2018 and other relevant species-specific codes of welfare. <\/p>\n
Minimum Standard 7(g) requires that electronic training devices must only be used with the written consent of the owner, which was allegedly not done in this case. <\/p>\n
What happened?<\/p>\n
Archie\u2019s owner said her dog stayed at the Woodbury Kennels previously, with no problems or mention of issues from the kennel. <\/p>\n
She said the kennel had a \u201cgood reputation\u201d and she even recommended the facilities to others in the past. <\/p>\n
After Archie\u2019s Waitangi weekend stay, his owner said they didn\u2019t immediately notice the shock collar around his neck until they arrived home after picking him up. <\/p>\n
She said they received no communication about the collar throughout the stay. <\/p>\n
\u201cMe and my partner were just like wow, they\u2019ve f***ed up here,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n
She said her partner researched the regulations of shock collar use and wondered if the kennel would eventually ask for the collar back when it realised the device had gone home with them. <\/p>\n
On Monday, February 9, the day after Archie\u2019s pick-up, his owner said she received an email from the kennel that did not mention the collar. <\/p>\n
The email shared with the Herald said the kennel was reaching out regarding \u201cArchie\u2019s chronic over-energetic behaviour\u201d.<\/p>\n
His owner said his alleged behaviour issues had never been brought up in depth previously. <\/p>\n
Archie’s owner says she was never told a shock collar was being used on her dog while staying at the kennel. Photo \/ Supplied<\/p>\n
The email said the kennel was finding it difficult to accommodate him, while keeping other dogs\u2019 anxiety levels at bay around his behaviour. <\/p>\n
It said multiple tactics that had been implemented proved unsuccessful.<\/p>\n
The kennel went on to apologise and said it was no longer willing to accommodate Archie. <\/p>\n
It also provided some options, such as dog trainers or tools to help. <\/p>\n
Archie spent the long Waitangi weekend at Woodbury Kennels. Photo \/ Supplied<\/p>\n
Archie\u2019s owner said she replied and mentioned her disappointment with the shock collar. <\/p>\n
She said the first email from the kennel felt \u201cvery convenient\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s only since realising you\u2019ve accidentally sent Archie home still wearing a shock collar, that you have decided to email and say you\u2019re having behavioural issues,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n
Archie\u2019s owner said she received a response from the kennel, which said it \u201coccasionally used\u201d nano collars on dogs. <\/p>\n
She said Woodbury Kennels took accountability and apologised and told her a new worker was helping out during the busy period when the incident happened. <\/p>\n
Cocker spaniel Archie was reportedly fitted with a shock collar after concerns about his behaviour while staying at a kennel. Photo \/ Supplied<\/p>\n
Archie\u2019s owner said she couldn\u2019t trust this was the first use of the collar and was concerned the collar could have worsened Archie\u2019s behaviour. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe fact that if a new employee feels entitled to use a shock collar, it\u2019s obviously something that is sort of normalised,\u201d the owner said. <\/p>\n
Kennel \u2018mortified\u2019 by incident <\/p>\n
Woodbury Kennels spokesperson, Tanja, told the Herald the business was \u201cmortified\u201d this incident occurred and said what happened was not its standard practice. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe use of a stimulus collar is rare at our kennels. It is only used after discussion with the pet owner. As such, it is not part of our standard terms and conditions,\u201d Tanja said. <\/p>\n
She said on this occasion, there was a \u201cbreakdown in communication\u201d between herself and the pet owner. <\/p>\n
After this incident, Tanja said she \u201cimmediately apologised to the client\u201d and 100% owned responsibility for the mistake in not discussing the use of the collar before it was placed on the dog. <\/p>\n
She said she also provided a full refund for the dog\u2019s stay and invited the owner to come to inspect the premises behind the scenes. <\/p>\n
Electric shock collars deliver an electric current through contact points on the dog\u2019s neck. Photo \/ Supplied<\/p>\n
\u201cWe did possess two, small, Petsafe Nano bark collars that are designed for safe use on dogs 2kg and upwards,\u201d Tanja said. <\/p>\n
She said the first collar in question remains with the owner of the dog from this incident, and she has disposed of the second collar so it can never mistakenly be put on a dog without an owner\u2019s consent in the future. <\/p>\n
Tanja said that during Archie\u2019s previous stay over the Auckland Anniversary weekend, she attempted to speak with one of the owners. <\/p>\n
She said she asked if Archie was able to relax at home, as he was excitable and could be anxious during his stay. <\/p>\n
\u201cThis behaviour will often elevate the energy throughout the kennels and make other dogs also more unsettled,\u201d Tanja said. <\/p>\n
Tanja said the kennel takes this welfare situation seriously and is now taking steps to further improve how it cares for dogs during their stay.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis includes assessment to join the International Association of Canine Professionals, and to meet the criteria for the Association of Professional Dog Trainers,\u201d Tanja said. <\/p>\n
SPCA says shock collars cause \u2018negative long-term impact\u2019 <\/p>\n
The SPCA said it advocates for a ban on the production, importation, sale or use of electric shock collars for dogs because of the pain and distress they cause to animals. <\/p>\n
It said electric shock collars deliver an electric current through contact points on the dog\u2019s neck, which can cause pain and distress to the dog.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese are used as an aversive training tool that enforces punishment in an attempt to make the dog perform desired behaviours and can have a significant, negative long-term impact on the welfare and behaviour of a dog,\u201d the SPCA said. <\/p>\n
The SPCA said there are more humane and effective alternatives for containment and training, for example, physical fencing and reward-based training. <\/p>\n