doggie-site

Rescue, Compassion and Courage vs Recklessness, Cruelty and Cowardice

Mon, 01 Jun 2026 12:40:55 GMT

Compassion vs Cruelty . . . Spot the Difference

Today, I was in the process of checking on the background of several rescue and rehoming organisations for “ The Harry Homing Mission: A Home for Every Pet” initiative launched to save lives in response to Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital"'s Dr Steffi Jalava and associates having intentionally, heinously, unspeakably cruelly, and deceptively, taken the life of my own pet . . . my beloved little papillon, Harry.

The rescuers in many of these organisations can only be described as angelic beings disguised as human beings, but with an inner core of steel.

I’ve worked in a voluntary marketing support capacity for the pet rescue world on and off since 2003, when I launched Operation Toby . . . a much larger and much more comprehensive (but exclusively Australian and New Zealand) version of what I intend the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics’ (IIIVE.org’s) Harry Homing Mission to become – albeit the Harry Homing project will be a global index. (After several years and a massive database, Operation Toby, in the “Web 1.0” environment, finally succumbed to the overwhelming then-expense of having to pay commercial website development fees every time a listing needed to be added.)

A video on one of the rescue group’s (Los Angeles's Hope for Paws https://www.hopeforpaws.org/ ) website, depicted in heartrendingly graphic detail, one of the worst cruelty (yet thankfully, successful rescue) cases I’ve seen for a while, and one of the most heroic rescue missions. Yes, there are many worse, but this puppy had not only been brutalised in general, but had also had one of its back feet hacked off, before being thrown 30 feet down a culvert into a body of water.

Remarkably, little Jordan (yes, you read that right) survived that. And even more remarkably, witnesses or passersby called the Hope for Paws rescuers in time for them to get straight there and conduct an equally remarkable rescue mission . . . which was followed by an equally swift and remarkable life-saving veterinary mission . . . surgery, blood transfusion, intensive care, and recovery.

Rescuers' Determination to Save the Almost Unsaveable vs Massey's Determination to Destroy the Perfectly Viable

And I marvelled . . . and not in a good way, at how the smarts, strategy and commitment of those rescuers and that veterinary crew, were equalled in a wickedly counter-opposing way, by the cunning, guile and determination of Dr Steffi Maja Jalava and the “team” (whose identities I have had to research for myself, given Massey's systematic redaction of names from all thus-far-extracted records) that she "led" as they c atastrophically and repeatedly overdosed with a contraindicated, unnecessary cocktail of potent sedatives , then sadistically conducted invasive student participation procedures on (against my numerous-times forbiddance), and psychopathically filmed in the resultant state of pharmacological collapse, my precious little blind Harry – torturing him for the entire 15 hours of his fated “stay”.

At the end of which, Jalava got me in a room by myself and – with absolutely no disclosure of Harry’s sedated state whatsoever – hammered me mercilessly with a wickedly constructed false diagnosis and all manner of “prognoses” until she found the one that would finally get me to sign a “euthanasia” “consent” form . . . heinously misrepresenting his desperately over-sedated state as some vague “neurological” decline or event .

And I further marvelled, at how – by extreme contrast – those rescuers were running on the smell of an oily rag of goodhearted donations and quite likely their own personal funds . . . while Massey’s Companion Animal ‘Hospital’ practice manager, Pauline Nijman, presides over a billing culture that takes every opportunity to inflate a client's invoice —including after they’ve already killed the client’s pet.

Imagine what the $1236.84 I paid for the 15 hours of “care” (with no food, water or toileting, and being billed for a 24-hour rehydration protocol they disconnected him from after 8.5 hours for their invasive student activities upon him and cell phones filming of it ) that resulted in Harry’s torture and equally torturous and totally-without-cause, fully intentional killing, could have done under the prudent and ethical stewardship of a rescue organisation like the one these brave, responsive and heart-of-gold rescuers give their time and devotion to.

It’s the cruelest of ironies, isn’t it?

Those who are paid handsomely (and make sure they extract even more than they are legally entitled to take ), are those who operate with reckless abandon, cruelty and no accountability and get to do so strictly behind closed (ICU) doors . . . while those who operate almost pennilessly, with compassion and courage in its most unadulterated form, operate with a degree of transparency that is on open display for the whole world to see.

Hey, Masterton 'Mayor Bex': So You Handed the Issue Back to the Same Council Officers Whose Discrimination I'm Complaining About?

Tue, 26 May 2026 04:50:16 GMT

The Real Answer Is the Mayor Has No Answer. How Do You Pass Off Active & Overt Ratepayer Discrimination, When that Ratepayer Takes It Up to You So Directly . . . And Publishes All the Evidence, Worse Still?

DoggieMamma readers following this story about local government discrimination won't need any explanation of what's wrong with the email received this morning from the Mayor's PA . . . which is just about everything. Actually, everything . Literally.

But for readers new to this shameful saga of Council staff irresponsibility , ratepayer discrimination , freewheeling, outright antagonism of the members of a community that actually pay their salaries - and an open demonstration of the appalling culture created by the management of the Masterton District Council specifically - I'll provide a commentary underneath the below email from said mayoral assistant:

From: Debra Clark <debrac@mstn.govt.nz>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 May 2026 11:29 am
T o: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: RE: Formal Meeting Request - Discriminatory Enforcement of Dog Control Act

Mōrena Jordan

Thank you for your follow up email.

I have spoken with Mayor Bex and she is not prepared to meet with you regarding a situation that she considers is outside of the scope of her governance role. She has every faith that Council Officers will investigate your complaint appropriately.

Ngā mihi.

DEBRA CLARK

Executive Assistant to Mayor Bex Johnson
and Chief Executive, Kym Fell

The most fundamental problem with the above "your complaint will be passed back to the staff you're complaining about for them to investigate your complaint" is exactly that. They don't even need to conduct the "investigation" to produce the response they've already decided on i.e.: "We have investigated ourselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing."

I've previously written about the Government agency and local government "5D's playbook ". Rarely have I seen it deployed with such blatant arrogance, open antagonism, absence of any sophistication and an equal absence of any visible sign of a functional intellect.

That will be obvious to those following the matter.

For the benefit of those new to it, here are the key points:

I formally requested a meeting with the Masterton District Council Mayor, Rebecca ("Bex") Johnson , to discuss discriminatory enforcement of the Dog Control Act .

Council's mayoral and CEO assistant, Debra Clark, has been engaging in the game you will read about here , here , here , and here , about the matter documented in detail, along with my solutions to it (including as kindly provided by an independent, professional dog trainer), here and here .

Today I received the latest response from the Mayor (as above) . . .well, not really from the Mayor, of course. This Mayor doesn't lower herself to engage despite we ratepayers paying her a salary to do so:

As you read:

"Mayor Bex is not prepared to meet with you regarding a situation that she considers is outside the scope of her governance role. She has every faith that Council Officers will investigate your complaint appropriately."

Mayor Bex Johnson's continually relied-upon point of wilful ignorance is that this isn't a governance matter.

But if staff's and management's open and antagonistic discrimination towards a ratepayer is "outside the scope of her governance role" . . . just what is the "governance role" she is being paid by ratepayers to perform?

Or is it just to be advised by glib, self-satisfied Masterton District Council staffers and their up-the-lines that they're handling this unexpectedly pesky ratepayer by way of passing her (governance) complaint back to the same staff who've been overseeing and greenlighting the discrimination in the first instance, and who actively foster the culture of antagonism towards ratepayers that created it?

Discriminatory Enforcement of A Bylaw IS A Governance Matter

The Mayor's role includes oversight of how Council officers exercise their statutory powers. When those officers apply the law selectively — resolving some complainants and denying others — that is precisely the kind of conduct that requires governance-level accountability, not just operational investigation.

But Masterton District Council's Mayor Bex Johnson has been advised to hold a conveniently different view, to justify h anding the complaint about council officers back to council officers. That's not investigation — that's self -investigation . . . whether it's a different office-holder or not, because the greenlighting of the conduct, and the culture, is coming down from the top anyway .

How can Gordon Crawley, Gary Hardgrave and Clare Williams (or their up-the-lines who told them to do exactly what they've done) independently investigate a complaint about their own conduct?

Debra Clark, please advise "Mayor Bex" of her statutorily-obligated duties to ratepayers:

Under Section 14(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002, a local authority is required to make itself aware of, and have regard to, the views of all of its communities. "Mayor Bex's" refusal to meet with a ratepayer raising a formal discrimination complaint appears to be in direct conflict with that statutory obligation.

In the meantime, the following request for a Masterton District Council precedent, that I made on May 15, still stands.

I await whatever they manage to come up with, with great and detailed interest:

From: Jordan Kelly
Sent: Friday, 15 May 2026 1:40 pm
To: 'Ruth McEwen'
cc: ' Animal Services'
Subject: Official Information Act Request - Barking Complaint Precedent

Dear Ms McEwen

Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following information:

All previous complaints received by Masterton District Council relating to nuisance barking from dogs, from January 1, 2015 to the date of this request, in which the council required the complainant to provide witness contact details and submit to witness interviews conducted by Animal and Bylaw Services Officers or other council representatives before any action was taken or considered – notwithstanding the prior provision of multiple audio recordings of the barking, the likes of receipts for barking deterrent devices purchased in direct response to the barking in question, signed witness statements, and additional items and instances of evidence as, or similar to, those documented at https://www.doggiemamma.com/nuisance-barking-mdc-selective-hearing , and as in all correspondence and attachments submitted to the council to date in relation to this pre-existing matter.

For each such complaint identified in item 1: the reason/s for the requirement of this extensive amount of evidence and supporting material in prior complaints;

The outcome of the council's investigation and any action taken or not taken following those witness interviews additional to evidence already provided in similar volume across multiple months;

The current written policy or standard operating procedure governing the evidentiary requirements for nuisance barking complaints – specifically, but not limited to, whether witness interviews are a standard requirement before any action is taken, and if so, under what circumstances this requirement applies.

I request a response within 20 working days as required by the Act.

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly

News for Masterton Mayor Bex Johnson: Discriminatory Enforcement of the Law IS A Governance Matter

Fri, 22 May 2026 08:24:15 GMT

You're Gutless, Ms Mayor. It's This Brand of 'Leadership' That Is Precisely Why So Much of the Local Government Constituency Holds their Local 'Leaders' in Deserved Derision & Objects to the Phenomenal Wastage of Our Rates.

Readers: This is the ongoing (which I sincerely wish wasn't, since I have better ways to deploy my time and talents) bullshit going on with the childish characters over at the Masterton District Council (who clearly do NOT have better ways to deploy their time and "talents") as I continue my now 18-month campaign for peaceful and productive enjoyment of my property. Or even tolerable inhabitation of it.

Which, as a ratepayer, I pay the salaries of these clowns - and whatever this Mayor and her Councillor colleagues get paid - to ensure, in accordance with their statutory obligations.

If you haven't been following this shameful saga, here's its evolution:

Don't Let Yours Be 'THAT Dog': What Works, What Doesn't, and What Every Dog Owner Needs to Know About Barking

Before You Fall In Love with That Face: Choosing the Right Dog for Your Life, Your Home & Your Neighbours

Nuisance Barking & This Council's Selective Hearing for Selected Complainants

MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL: When Just Doing Your Job Would Be A Whole Lot Easier

Ratepayers Actually Fund these Freewheeling Childish Clowns’ Salaries

And before you embark on a read of the latest Council shame, it's worth doing so with the benefit of having first taken, or afterwards taking, a read of the standard public service '5Ds' playbook . It's rare, though, that it's deployed with such extraordinary blatancy and spectacular psychological immaturity.

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Friday, 22 May 2026 12:59 pm
To: 'Debra Clark' <debrac@mstn.govt.nz>
Cc: 'lucy.cooper@stuff.co.nz'; 'Mayor Bex Johnson' <mayor@mstn.govt.nz>; 'gary.caffell@mstn.govt.nz' <gary.caffell@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Craig Bowyer' <craig.bowyer@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Waireka Collings' <waireka.collings@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Tim Nelson' <tim.nelson@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Jamie Falloon' <jamie.falloon@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Stella Lennox' <stella.lennox@mstn.govt.nz>; 'David Holmes' <david.holmes@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Brent Goodwin' <brent.goodwin@mstn.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: Formal Meeting Request - Discriminatory Enforcement of Dog Control Act

Dear Ms Clark

Thank you for your response.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of this matter, the contemptuous and obstructionist intent behind it, and the internal Council management and organisational culture that produced it.

If your response was appropriate, and my request for a meeting with the Mayor was inappropriate, how come the party recommending I take this action was my own lawyer – who would be expected to have a clear legal understanding of the distinction between governance and operational matters?

Any ratepayer should be able to request a meeting with the Mayor, given that your and the Mayor's salaries are paid with our rates.

Jordan Kelly

From: Debra Clark < debrac@mstn.govt.nz >
Sent: Friday, 22 May 2026 9:51 am
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: RE: Formal Meeting Request - Discriminatory Enforcement of Dog Control Act

Mōrena Jordan

Thank you for your response.

We respectfully disagree with your assessment of this matter. This is a regulatory matter, i.e. animal control, and the Local Government Act is clear of the required separation between decisions that are a matter of policy and therefore governance rather than regulatory, which is prescribed by legislation.

The concerns that you have raised effectively amount to a complaint about the Council’s response to your matter, which therefore must be dealt with in accordance with the procedure outlined in our Complaints Policy ( Masterton District Council Compliments and Complaints Policy ).

The matter has therefore been referred to our Group Manager Strategy to investigate.

Ngā mihi.

DEBRA CLARK

Executive Assistant to Mayor Bex Johnson
and Chief Executive, Kym Fell

debrac@mstn.govt.nz

@MastertonDC

www.mstn.govt.nz

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Thursday, 21 May 2026 8:11 pm
To: Debra Clark < debrac@mstn.govt.nz >
Cc: lucy.cooper@stuff.co.nz ; Mayor Bex Johnson < mayor@mstn.govt.nz >; Gary Caffell < gary.caffell@mstn.govt.nz >; Craig Bowyer < craig.bowyer@mstn.govt.nz >; Waireka Collings < waireka.collings@mstn.govt.nz >; Tim Nelson < tim.nelson@mstn.govt.nz >; Jamie Falloon < jamie.falloon@mstn.govt.nz >; Stella Lennox < stella.lennox@mstn.govt.nz >; David Holmes < david.holmes@mstn.govt.nz >; Brent Goodwin < brent.goodwin@mstn.govt.nz >
Subject: RE: Formal Meeting Request - Discriminatory Enforcement of Dog Control Act

Dear Ms Clark

Thank you for your response.

I must respectfully but firmly disagree with your characterisation of this as purely a regulatory matter. It is no longer a regulatory matter at all.

What I have documented over 18 months is a consistent pattern of discriminatory and selectively biased application of the Council's statutory obligations to one ratepayer in particular. That is not a regulatory matter. It is precisely the definition of a governance matter – and one that falls squarely within the Mayor's role.

I look forward to hearing from you with some afternoon appointment time options at the Mayor's earliest convenience.

Jordan Kelly

From: Debra Clark < debrac@mstn.govt.nz >
Sent: Thursday, 21 May 2026 4:13 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: RE: Formal Meeting Request - Discriminatory Enforcement of Dog Control Act

Kia ora Jordan

Thank you for your email to Mayor Bex this morning.

Because this relates to a regulatory matter, your email has been forwarded on to the Group Manager of that department, and has also been raised as a complaints service request (as advised to you via email from MDC Admin at 1:09pm today).

The Mayor’s role relates to governance, therefore it is not appropriate for her to be involved in Council regulatory or operational matters.

Ngā mihi.

DEBRA CLARK

Executive Assistant to Mayor Bex Johnson
and Chief Executive, Kym Fell

debrac@mstn.govt.nz

@MastertonDC

www.mstn.govt.nz

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Thursday, 21 May 2026 6:28 am
To: 'Mayor Bex Johnson' < mayor@mstn.govt.nz >
Cc: 'lucy.cooper@stuff.co.nz'
Subject: Formal Meeting Request - Discriminatory Enforcement of Dog Control Act

Dear Mayor Bex Johnson

I write as a resident of (MY ADDRESS), Masterton, regarding Council’s discriminatorily selective application of its statutory obligations to ratepayers .

The matter relates to an ongoing nuisance barking situation involving two neighbouring properties that the Masterton District Council has failed to adequately address (or address at all) – one of them since December 2024.

I am writing again, this time in the wee small hours of Thursday 21 May 2026, having just been woken – again, as I am now almost nightly – this time at 4.45am (but you can also see by the much earlier example timestamps on the below emails to my solicitor , the sort of pattern of multiple even earlier awakenings) by the hunting breed type dog at (ADDRESS CITED) barking directly adjacent to (and just a few metres from) my bedroom window. This property's new owners moved in around Easter this year and the barking has been disturbing my sleep throughout the night, regularly, since then.

This is in addition to an 18-month history of nuisance barking from the spaniel at (ADDRESS CITED), which borders my property at the side/rear, and regarding which I have made multiple formal complaints to the Council since December 2024.

My multiple attempts to seek the Council’s assistance over this matter are documented and published here, along with the extraordinary lengths I have gone to, to collect evidence for the Council and also to attempt to address the matter myself: https://www.doggiemamma.com/nuisance-barking-mdc-selective-hearing and here: https://www.doggiemamma.com/masterton-council-when-just-doing-your-job-would-be-a-whole-lot-easier

I have this week, through my solicitor at (NAME OF FIRM) issued formal legal letters to both neighbouring properties under the Dog Control Act 1996. I am taking this private legal action because the Council's response to date has been wholly inadequate. Those letters are attached, for your information.

And again, I am also finally resorting to this because, as the above-linked published articles clearly demonstrate, the council appears to be acting in a plainly discriminatory manner towards me as a ratepayer, and practicing selective enforcement of its legal obligations.

And I am also writing to formally advise you and put on the formal record, that there have been very real health consequences to me of the cumulative sleep deprivation, and general high-intensity sustained stress and daily disruption, caused by this ongoing situation.

I am requesting a formal meeting with you to discuss the Council's obligations under the Dog Control Act 1996, to see what steps the Council intends to take to fulfill them, to see why it has not done so, and to discuss why it continues not to do so in my case specifically.

I also cc this meeting request to local journalist, Lucy Cooper, as I believe the discrimination that appears to be at the root of this overall situation, would be of interest to her, as a local government issues specialist.

Further, I am also currently awaiting a response to an LGOIMA request filed on 15 May 2026 (now acknowledged by Ruth McEwen, Governance Advisor) regarding the Council's evidentiary requirements for nuisance barking complaints and its standard operating procedures, and seeking a precedent that can demonstrate the need for the extent of evidence I have already provided to the Council over barking nuisance complaints: https://www.doggiemamma.com/masterton-council-when-just-doing-your-job-would-be-a-whole-lot-easier .

And again, here are the lengths to which I have already gone, to achieve Council’s resolution of this matter: https://www.doggiemamma.com/nuisance-barking-mdc-selective-hearing

I look forward to hearing from you with some optional dates. Please offer afternoon dates, as clearly, I am unable to obtain much sleep during the night as explained above, and I will not exactly be sharp and shiny in the mornings as a result.

Yours sincerely
Jordan Kelly
(Street Address & Phone Number)

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Wednesday, 20 May 2026 6:39 am

To: Lawyer’s Email Address)
Subject: (Street Addresses of Two Barking Nuisances)

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Wednesday, 20 May 2026 2:42 am
To: (Lawyer’s Email Address)
Subject: (Street Addresses of Two Barking Nuisances)

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Monday, 18 May 2026 4:05 am
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: Barking log – (Nocturnal and Early Morning Barkers’ Street Address)

Ratepayers Actually Fund these Freewheeling Childish Clowns’ Salaries

Fri, 22 May 2026 07:22:01 GMT

Imagine If the Average Private Sector Employee Acted This Childishly, WIth this Degree of Extraordinary Irresponsibility & With Such Total Impunity . . . and With the C-Suite's Blessing.

For those DoggieMamma readers following this display of local government employee childishnes s and apparent free-wheeling retaliation , here’s the latest . . . best read by first scrolling down to the Thursday, May 21 email from myself to the generic council email address, then dropping down to the bottom of the trail (where you’ll see timestamped emails that provide a sample insight of the current state of sleep-deprivation the nuisance barkers have me in, followed by a request for a meeting with Masterton’s - in my opinion, all-talk-and-no-action - Mayor, Rebecca “Bex” Johnson. (For more on the hijinks the Council is resorting to, to avoid that one, go here .)

If you’ve ever wondered what a huddle of under-worked nasty little bureaucrats sniggering in self-satisfaction looks like in email form, scroll down.

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Thursday, 21 May 2026 2:02 pm
To: 'Animal Services'
Cc: 'lucy.cooper@stuff.co.nz; 'Mayor Bex Johnson' <mayor@mstn.govt.nz>; (my lawyer's email address); 'gary.caffell@mstn.govt.nz' <gary.caffell@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Craig Bowyer' <craig.bowyer@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Waireka Collings' <waireka.collings@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Tim Nelson' <tim.nelson@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Jamie Falloon' <jamie.falloon@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Stella Lennox' <stella.lennox@mstn.govt.nz>; 'David Holmes' <david.holmes@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Brent Goodwin' <brent.goodwin@mstn.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: Undertaking Recorded - Dog Control Visit Promised to My Property ASAP Today

Mr Crawley:

Have you ever heard of the tort of Misfeasance in Public Office?

Jordan Kelly

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Thursday, 21 May 2026 1:40 pm
To: 'MDC Admin - used for public queries' <mdc@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Animal Services' <animalservices@mstn.govt.nz>
Cc: 'lucy.cooper@stuff.co.nz'; 'Mayor Bex Johnson' <mayor@mstn.govt.nz>; (my lawyer's email address); 'gary.caffell@mstn.govt.nz' <gary.caffell@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Craig Bowyer' <craig.bowyer@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Waireka Collings' <waireka.collings@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Tim Nelson' <tim.nelson@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Jamie Falloon' <jamie.falloon@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Stella Lennox' <stella.lennox@mstn.govt.nz>; 'David Holmes' <david.holmes@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Brent Goodwin' <brent.goodwin@mstn.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: Undertaking Recorded - Dog Control Visit Promised to My Property ASAP Today

Would you please be clear.

I was just told by “Daz” that you will be sending someone to my property in the next short while today. I am sitting waiting for that visit. And the dog is going off while I sit waiting, for the record.

Is someone going to be conducting that promised visit today or not? If so, please provide an ETA. Or be clear that you’re not coming after all, despite the very clear and definite undertaking given to me by Daz that you would be.

Alternatively, if this is an ongoing situation where you are just going to go generically to (OTHER STREET) sometime (when the dog might or might not be barking, and where you certainly will NOT hear anything like the degree of impact I am experiencing on MY property and in MY home and that I have been since December 2024) and repeat your entire dishonest scenario that has been going on for the past year and a half, please state that plainly for the record.

Further, from Gordon Crawley’s May 8 email where he otherwise dismissed all my supplied complaints and evidence out of hand, he at least committed to this:

From: Animal Services < animalservices@mstn.govt.nz >
Sent: Friday, 8 May 2026 1:53 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: Barking Complaints

. . .

If there are other incidences of barking please call our call centre at the time the barking is occurring and a member of the Animal and Bylaw Services Team will attend.

. . .

At this point, I am going to be very frank and say that it is also my view that additionally contributing to MDC’s conduct in this ongoing matter is retaliation for a past complaint I made about the Council’s Chief Executive, Kym Fell, albeit of course that would be denied.

See below email from you about the matter back in July 2025 in which Gordon Crawley admits to the fact that nuisance barking has most certainly been going on, albeit minimising it substantially, without due cause for such minimisation (see three-email exchange. Note also that Clare Williams and Bex Johnson were cc’d on this way back then also, as they have been by me in many emails since):

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Friday, 25 July 2025 1:10 pm
To: 'Animal Services' animalservices@mstn.govt.nz
Cc: 'Clare Williams' clarew@mstn.govt.nz ; 'Rebecca Johnson' bexj@mstn.govt.nz
Subject: RE: Barking dog complaint

This loud and agitating thing over the back corner has now been barking incessantly for approx. the last two hours, Gordon.

So it seems to me the only effect your visit of this week has had on the matter is to give the owner the impression she should take absolutely nil notice of the aggravation it’s causing.

I’ve called this morning and registered another complaint via your receptionist.

Jordan Kelly

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Wednesday, 23 July 2025 12:02 pm
To: 'Animal Services' < animalservices@mstn.govt.nz >
Subject: RE: Barking dog complaint

That’s making it sound like a one-off or an occasional thing, Gordon.

It’s not. It’s regular and increasing in frequency, as per my earlier comm’s.

What is especially annoying about it, is that the tiniest noise in the back of my own house (e.g. the toilet flushing or my saucepan cupboard doing a minor clang) sets it off. It’s invasive.

As for the “dog trainer”, that was the supposed remediation back at Christmas time. Obviously hasn’t worked. And obviously the story of the supposed owners (who were going to be organising for its export to wherever they’ve moved to) was a bunch of baloney.

The thing is majorly annoying. Especially given the volume and sharpness of its barking.

So, to be clear, it wasn’t just a fleeting one-off on Saturday night, much as it is convenient to endeavour to pass it off as such.

And also to be clear:

1) You’re clearly preferring the commentary of the dog owner over mine – and what’s wrong with that picture is obvious.

2) You don’t live here, so how can you make an authoritative judgement over whether it’s excessive or aggravating or not?

Jordan Kelly

From: Animal Services < animalservices@mstn.govt.nz >
Sent: Wednesday, 23 July 2025 11:33 am
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: Barking dog complaint

Good morning,

Thank you for reporting your concerns to the afterhours call centre.

The Animal and Bylaw Services team have looked into your complaint about the barking dog on Saturday evening. The owner of the dog acknowledges that the dog was barking. The owners have engaged the assistance of a well-regarded dog trainer and have been employing the strategies the trainer gave them to mitigate barking by the dog.

Given the explanation provided by the owner of the dog to the team I do not consider that the dogs barking was excessive in the circumstances.

The owner is aware of the impact barking dogs have on other residents and is doing all the right things to mitigate any disturbance that might be caused.

Warm regards,

Gordon Crawley

Team Leader Animal and Bylaw Services

@MastertonDC

www.mstn.govt.nz

From: MDC Admin - used for public queries < mdc@mstn.govt.nz >
Sent: Thursday, 21 May 2026 1:09 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com ; MDC Admin - used for public queries < mdc@mstn.govt.nz >; Animal Services < animalservices@mstn.govt.nz >
Cc: lucy.cooper@stuff.co.nz ; Mayor Bex Johnson < mayor@mstn.govt.nz >
Subject: RE: Undertaking Recorded - Dog Control Visit Promised to My Property ASAP Today

Kia ora Jordan,

Receipt of your email is acknowledged.

We have raised a Complaints service request with the appropriate team for their understanding and consideration.

A response will be provided in accordance with our Compliments and Complaints Policy, with an expected response timeframe is 15 working days.

Ngā mihi,

Clare Williams

Customer Service Manager

@MastertonDC

www.mstn.govt.nz

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Thursday, 21 May 2026 2026 12:26 PM
To: MDC Admin - used for public queries < mdc@mstn.govt.nz >; Animal Services < animalservices@mstn.govt.nz >
Cc: lucy.cooper@stuff.co.nz ; Mayor Bex Johnson < mayor@mstn.govt.nz >
Subject: Undertaking Recorded - Dog Control Visit Promised to My Property ASAP Today

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to confirm and document my phone call to MDC Animal Services at 11.39am today, Thursday 21 May 2026, reporting active nuisance barking from the spaniel at (ADDRESS CITED), that has already been going on and off for several hours this morning, and follows yesterday’s on/off that went for the majority part of the day.

I was advised by “Daz” that an officer would attend as soon as possible and certainly that it would be very soon today.

I wish to place the following on the written record ahead of that visit:

I have ready at the door for your officers:

Copies of two formal legal letters from my solicitor awaiting delivery today to both neighbouring properties under the Dog Control Act 1996 (see attached), and
Paperwork documenting serious physical health consequences I am experiencing as a direct result of the ongoing sleep deprivation caused by the barking at both properties.

I am also attaching to this email an audio recording – a snippet of the on/off barking that continued for a large part of yesterday. Please note that even further to the already loud volume of this recording, even so it was being made only on a small mono-directional handheld office dictaphone which I held out my office window, and does not convey the full volume or impact of the barking. The battery on the device died at the end of this recording and I was unable to capture any part of this morning's barking. However, you will remember the sample recordings already published here along with the multiple I have previously sent the council and councillors: https://www.doggiemamma.com/nuisance-barking-mdc-selective-hearing

I wish to reiterate – as you will hear from your recording of my call this morning (and as I tell you every single time I write or call) – that your officers must come into my back yard, which shares a fence line with (ADDRESS CITED). This is where the dog stands and barks. Coming to the front of the property or to the street will not demonstrate the issue.

Also as per the call, I will not hear my front doorbell. Your officers must come to the small conservatory glass doors down the driveway on the right-hand side.

For a broader context of the matter, I also refer you to the formal meeting request I sent to Mayor Bex Johnson earlier this morning, a copy of which is below.

Jordan Kelly
(Street Address & Phone Number)

Dear Mayor Bex Johnson

I write as a resident of (MY ADDRESS), Masterton, regarding Council’s discriminatorily selective application of its statutory obligations to ratepayers .

And again, here are the lengths to which I have already gone, to achieve Council’s resolution of this matter: https://www.doggiemamma.com/nuisance-barking-mdc-selective-hearing

Yours sincerely
Jordan Kelly
(Street Address & Phone Number)

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Wednesday, 20 May 2026 6:39 am

To: Lawyer’s Email Address)
Subject: (Street Addresses of Two Barking Nuisances)

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Wednesday, 20 May 2026 2:42 am
To: (Lawyer’s Email Address)
Subject: (Street Addresses of Two Barking Nuisances)

The Accountability Black Hole at the Heart of Veterinary Teaching Hospitals . . . and Why Your Pet Has NO Protection

Sun, 17 May 2026 06:41:53 GMT

This Was My Deeply Beloved Harry . . . Who Was A Completely Normal Little Dog Just 15 Hours Earlier When I Arrived At Massey's 'Companion Animal Hospital' With Him for A Straightforward Rehydration Procedure. Just 15 Hours Earlier, He Had Been Standing Up In His ICU Cage Crying for the Comfort Massey ICU Attendants Refused to Give Him . . . and Medically, Needing Nothing More Than the Urgent Rehydration He'd Been Admitted for . . . and That They Charged Me For But Didn't Give Him . . . Drugging Him (CATASTROPHICALLY) Instead, for A Student Filmfest . . . Which Was Easier for Them and More Profitable for the University.

This Is What Non-Accountability Looks Like . . . the Handiwork of New Zealand Massey University's ICU 'Nurses', Students, 'Teaching' Staff, and 'veterinarians' Stephanie Rigg and 'Dr' Steffi Jalava . . . Catastrophic, Repeat Drugging for Usage in Student Activities and Filming . . . and So - When 'Finished With' - Harry Could Then Be Deviously Presented to Me As Having Suffered from A Fabricated Sudden 'Neurological Decline' and Requiring Immediate 'Euthanasia'.

Note to international readers: This article references New Zealand's veterinary regulatory framework. However, the accountability gaps described here are not unique to New Zealand. The unregulated status of veterinary nursing, the diffuse supervision chains in teaching hospitals, and the closed-door (or, in Massey's case, non-existent) complaints processes that protect institutions over patients are features of veterinary systems in many countries. Check the regulatory framework in your own jurisdiction - you might find it closer to what's described here than you'd expect.

Here's something the veterinary industry doesn't want you to know. And something New Zealand's Massey University and its "Companion Animal 'Hospital'" and its management, " Dean" Jon Huxley and Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman , most certainly don't want its private fee-paying clients to know.

When you leave your pet at a veterinary teaching hospital - or any veterinary practice, for that matter — you assume the people handling him or her are qualified, registered, and individually accountable for what they do to it.

They're not. At least, not all of them. And in some cases, not any of them.

Don't believe me? Ask Google yourself . . . Here's what it says about New Zealand, specifically:

"New Zealand has no legal regulation of veterinary nurses or other allied veterinary professions.

"Professional titles for veterinary nurses/technicians and allied animal healthcare practitioners are not protected by law in New Zealand.

"You can legally work in a veterinary practice in New Zealand without a formal qualification."

To be clear - qualifications exist, and some practices prefer or require them.

But here's the point: none of it is required by law . The title is not protected. The register is voluntary. Anyone can call themselves a veterinary nurse. And if something goes wrong, there is no statutory body with the power to hold an unqualified or unregistered veterinary nurse individually accountable for what they did to your animal.

They could have been a cleaner or a receptionist the week before. And in the case of these bitches who slammed my precious little dog with repeated catastrophic doses of a convenience sedative - that their own recent records show he had previously suffered profound adverse reactions to (there at Massey itself) and that, additionally, is firmly contraindicated for the very kidney condition the blood tests they had that very night performed on him and could clearly see he had - there is no way I can believe they had qualifications. Or, if they did, Massey should be investigated for giving them to them.

Which, by the way, Massey is. Massey's Companion Animal Hospital is currently under active investigation by the Ministry of Primary Industries' Animal Welfare Investigations Unit . And reader feedback conveyed to me indicates it's been a long time coming. I've conveyed that feedback to the MPI investigation team, too.

Where Cruelty Starts . . . and Doesn't Stop

On the night of November 30, 2025, I walked into Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital ICU and found staff huddled in jovial social conversation, completely ignoring a screaming, blind, senior dog in crisis — my dog, Harry .

He was not only in emotional crisis and desperate need of human comfort - he was blind, acutely dehydrated following a short burst of very hot temperatures and our temporary accommodation crisis related to an insurance disaster - but he was also standing up strongly on his little back legs with his front legs stretched out fully through the grid of the cage door . . . and at any moment, being blind, if he'd have come down sideways from his standing position, he would have snapped his legs in the grid.

And they didn't give a shit . I was almost in tears of uber-frustration trying to get a completely impotent, deer-in-the-headlights, couldn't-wait-to-get-me-out-of-there-so-her-shift-could-finish Stephanie Rigg (whose name, fascinatingly, appeared on a pre-populated "euthanasia consent" form forced on me the next day , after a two-hour coercion session by her "colleague" " Dr" Steffi Jalava . . . whose dastardly deeds that next day you can read about here .

May she rot in the richly deserved state of hell herself, that she intentionally and wilfully induced Harry into before pulling off her "he's had a neurological" event and "needs to be euthanased TODAY" stunt . . . on confused, sleep-deprived me (as it was clear on the intake notes that I had declared myself as being) and that she finally achieved after emotionally blackmailing me (with what has now been proven to have been utter bullshit) for two long and intense hours (between a coercive, lengthy phone call she made to me earlier in the day and that she has conveniently written out of her 'Clinical Summary' but that phone records will clearly show she made, and an intensive "consulting room" session that I have requested but that Massey refuses to release their footage of).

But I digress, with apology to my readers . . . as this article isn't meant so much to be about Harry as it is a warning to you for the sake of your own beloved pets. Except that, clearly, the two topics are inseparable.

Yes, I'm still furiously angry (and I always will be) about what was done to Harry, and by extension, to me - and about the fact that, if not for this gaggle of psychopathic, unaccountable bitches and their supposed "management" and "teaching supervisors" (and you can see clearly exactly what students are being "taught" ), I would still have Harry beside me, here at home, right now. And yes, I'm furious about the intense suffering and cruelty they put him through (some of which can be seen clearly in certain images I've been able to extract , although most I haven't) from Massey under legal provisions, indicating there was a degree of real enjoyment by staff and students in the cruelty they inflicted upon him .

Proof Positive: As Always, I Come with Full Receipts

And before I move onto answering the question any loving pet owner will be left answering ( How can I protect my pet, proactively, if he or she ever ends up in an ICU, especially Massey's? ), let me press home two further facts. One a point of evidence that Massey's management has full understanding of what has been going on behind its closed doors all this while, and the other, absolute proof that, the complete non-accountability stretches from the cleaner-turned-"vet-nurse" scenario right through to the highest levels of the actually qualified :

Firstly, if Massey's management had nothing to hide, they wouldn't scrub and falsify hospital records . Because that's a crime with serious ramifications under a variety of different sections under the Crimes Act 1961 . . . but, in Harry's case, they did it anyway . And now they have a police filing as a result . . . with "Dr" Steffi Jalava's name attached . . . albeit, in reality, the gutless upper management who were no doubt also involved and/or directed it, should have their names attached to that police filing as well. And they will. Give me time and the benefit of my ongoing deep-dive investigative work. That they once thought I was just bluffing about. But don't think any more.

Secondly, the rigged system that is the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's "complaints process" has been its best-kept secret for years . And the collusive relationship between Massey and the Veterinary Council has been even more well-hidden.

Not any more .

How the 'Accountability' (or Rather, the 'Non-Accountability') Game Works

But in the meantime, here's what pet owners need to know about how the accountability - or, rather, non-accountability - game works:

Something goes wrong with your pet. You complain. The institution points you to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

Perhaps, as in my specific case, even threatens you with legal proceedings if you dare speak outside of those closely-managed channels.

Which was a ploy that didn't go well for Veterinary School "Dean" Jon Huxley when he pulled it on me.

And that has continued not to go well for him ever since - with The Killing of Harry Kelly expose series now extending well past the shores of New Zealand and reaching all corners of the globe (and into places I never even knew existed), and with the campaign now having given rise to the establishment of the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE.org ). All outcomes for which I've been called a range of names by courageous anonymous emailers (who appear to very clearly be) affected Massey insiders, of the intellectual ilk of "Hugh Janus". (Bring it on. You are serving to provide graphic warning to my readers as to the level of ethics, compassion, and intelligence possessed by those who are handling their pets behind closed doors at Massey's "Companion Animal Hospital " - from the lowest rungs of the ladder to the "highest" . . . and above .)

But back to the system.

The Veterinary Council of New Zealand, very conveniently for the sector, deals only with registered veterinarians — it has no jurisdiction over veterinary nurses, students, technicians, or any other staff. (And, by the way, the Veterinary Council's "uphold rate" for complaints across the past 24 years, has been 1.5 percent . . . that's one point five percent . . . and that's only of those pet owners who thought it was worth the frustration of trying to complain. And, it's worth additionally noting that Jenny Weston, Massey's Academic Program Director of the BVSc program, is ex officio member of the very Veterinary Council of New Zealand committee that reviews all complaints assessment decisions — including, potentially, yours.

So if the person who actually harmed your pet wasn't a registered vet, you can't even go there . . . for whatever it might have been worth going there for at all. And if the registered vet who was nominally "supervising" (example being the young intaking whatever-her-qualification-might-have-been, Stephanie Rigg on the night of Harry's sadly and totally unnecessarily fatal admission ) can credibly claim they weren't directly involved in the specific act that caused harm — well. Good luck proving otherwise.

Side Announcement: Don't give them all the benefit of this cunningly-engineered non-accountability system. If your pet has been hurt, or if you have been severely wronged, by anyone at or associated with a veterinary practice, whatsoever, including "after care" cremation companies and the like, by the way, whose industry, and its "ethics" are set up to be equally unaccountable . . . please use the easy contact mechanisms at the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE.org) website.

How Massey Gets Away with (What, In A Human Hospital Would Actually Be) Outright Murder

At a teaching hospital, add another layer.

Students aren't registered. Interns might or might not be fully registered.

At Massey, the chain of supervision on the night Harry was admitted was so diffuse that the clinician on duty — who I later established was almost certainly still an intern — either had no, or was too scared by the Hospital's culture to exercise any, authority over the ICU nurses who were ignoring a patient in distress .

So . . . on Massey's heavily-redacted records ( with a black box over every single name and role ), "nobody" specifically decided to sedate Harry into near-comatose collapse . "Nobody" specifically disconnected his IV fluids eight and a half hours into a prescribed 24-hour protocol (which even in its own right had been highly inadequate and clearly prescribed by someone with no specific or detailed knowledge of rehydration requirements). "Nobody" specifically filmed him in that state for multiple student training videos , in direct contravention of my repeated written and verbal instructions.

It was a team effort - and that "team" remains comprised of totally unnamed players.

When I stood in that ICU watching my precious little blind dog scream in terror with his legs outstretched through the steel grid of his cage door, the person nominally in charge told me, impotently (and at a volume that ensured the two cackling ICU "nurses" wouldn't hear her, such appeared to be her fear of them): "I can assure you everyone here loves animals" . . . while the distinct evidence to the direct contrary was right beside me .

Six months later, not one of those people has (YET) been named, charged, or held accountable by any regulatory body.

A Protection Racket With A Letterhead & Funding It Shouldn't Have

Now here's the part that applies to every pet owner who does know the name of the vet involved and lodges a formal complaint.

You lodge it. You name the vet. And then the process disappears behind closed doors. The assessment panel is not disclosed to you. The outcome — if there is one — is typically a private reprimand that the public never sees. You are not told what was decided or why. And across 24 years, VCNZ upheld just 1.5% of complaints.

That's not a regulatory body. That's a protection racket with a letterhead and funding it shouldn't have .

Massey University has gone one further. By redacting every single name from every document provided under Privacy Act and OIA obligations , they have made it impossible for me to even get to the starting line of the normal complaints process.

You can't lodge a Veterinary Council complaint against a person whose name you don't know. Massey knows that. That's why the black boxes exist.

Six months of Privacy Act-obligated information-release requests. Six months of redacted names. Six months of black boxes over every individual who had any involvement with Harry's admission, his treatment, his filming, and his death.

Despite all accepted international veterinary profession protocols and standards, Massey's OIA response received this week advised that Massey intends to release staff names only to the Veterinary Council (Readers: The expose on that specific issue is coming very shortly.) Being pressed from all directions now, and probably knowing those names are going to be compelled by an external source sooner or later, they have finally said the names will be released.

Except not in reality. Because they're only going to be released to their mates over at the collusive Veterinary Council . Released to t he closed-circuit with jurisdiction over registered vets only — rather than released to Harry's owner, who is entitled to know the identity of every person who handled her property without authorisation . . . as clearly declared by Senior Standards and Advice Officer & Solicitor at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) Ky Richardson, with whom I confirmed standard international practices on identity disclosure.

Not that the average pet owner would want to know the names and roles of personnel handling their precious pets anyway, and for which they're usually paying astronomical fees, of course.

And . . . Back to the Second, Back-Up Accountability Trap Door

Meanwhile, any staff member who isn't a registered vet disappears entirely from the accountability architecture.

No register. No complaints body. No individual liability. Just an employer with every incentive to keep their name out of the public record.

Here's what all this means for you.

The next time you leave your pet at a veterinary teaching hospital — or any overnight veterinary facility — remember this:

You have no way of knowing who will handle your animal during the hours you're not there. You have no way of knowing their qualifications, their registration status, or their individual accountability if something goes wrong. You have no way of knowing whether they were the cleaner last week. Or maybe still are.

Your local vet is not going to tell you this.

The teaching hospital is most certainly not going to tell you this.

And the Veterinary Council of New Zealand is not going to tell you this.

So I am .

Before you leave any veterinary consultation — every single time, no exceptions — insist on being given a print-out of, and check the detail of, the clinical record for that visit.

Make sure the name, position and role of every person who made a decision for your pet, carried it out, or handled your pet in any way, is recorded in there. Every time. Before you walk out the door.

Actually, given the self-interested practice of presumptuously handing you the EFTPOS terminal when you approach the counter after a consultation, with the total (often into the high hundreds and even thousands of dollars) already entered and a flippant "Do you need the invoice emailed to you?", to which you're meant to respond, "No, it's OK, don't worry about it" . . . GET AND CHECK THE RECORDS FIRST. READ THE RECORDS FOR THAT CONSULTATION. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, IF EVERYTHING LINES UP , PAY.

That's how it works in any other service provision industry, and that's how it should be working in this one, too.

LOOK WHAT HAPPENED (READ ABOUT IT HERE) WHEN I DIDN'T. They make you feel like a heel, untrusting, holding up the queue.

And because I fell for the clinical attire and the "stethoscope hung around the neck" authority/"expert" image.

Because I trusted the very last people that I should have ever trusted with the most precious thing I owned. And I use "owned" very deliberately. Because Massey doesn't see it that way. They think THEY own your pet and can do what they want with "it". And, unfortunately, unbeknownst to you, they DO .

And one last critical point of warning - make sure you read this article - and that, if a vet or a staff member of a veterinary practice is the one pointing you towards euthanasia of your pet, and it's not your idea and especially if it comes out of the blue - ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, SEEK A SECOND, FULLY INDEPENDENT, OPINION . That's a right you have and an obligation they have . Just like the many, many others Jalava and her "colleagues" breached . (Very, very serious breaches that I alerted the Veterinary Council senior leadership team to way back as early as January 7, just a month after Harry's demise, as I was beginning to piece together the truly horrific truth and its multiple horrifying components . . . and that the Council's CEO Iain McLachlan has not only done nothing to indicate his concern over, he's worked actively to protect Massey and its staff from any accountability - and, as a result, has now found himself the subject of an active Law Society of New Zealand investigation. )

If "Dr" Steffi Jalava had not engineered the logistics of that fateful day (pummeling me with her " this has to be done today, and before I leave" strategically fabricated urgency ) and prevented me from being able to leave Massey with Harry and seek an independent external assessment of Harry's presentation . . . any vet I'd been able to leave there and take him to see in that condition, would have immediately seen what I didn't - as a non-vet and in a heavily stressed and sleep-deprived state:

That the reality was, Harry was catastrophically overdosed with sedatives and other potentiating substances .

A little dog who - just 15 hours earlier - had performed the complex moves and fine motor co-ordination of standing up on his hind legs, and even while blind and in a foreign, caged environment, outstretched his front legs through the tight grid squares of an ICU cage . . . and directed his cries straight at me, despite his blindness, as I walked through those ICU doors . . . that was NOT a "brain failing" animal.

What he was (when the ICU "nurses" and Rigg, Jalava, "teaching" staff and co. - almost certainly with the blessing of Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman , to whom I had already, for some time, been a thorn in the side for my flagging to her of the woeful standards of her "ICU" staff , finished drugging him and using him for astoundingly cruel student "teaching" purposes and film productions) was a piece of inconvenient evidence that they were NOT going to let me leave with, alive.

And they didn't. (And in my view, they were glad to see the back of me, and if they did what they did to Harry, and derived the multiple benefits from it - including financial fraud (and the many components thereof ) and student training activities and productions - that they did, that was a real bonus for them. And they did. And it was. Until now. (Now . . . not so much. They should have done the background check of me that their high-profile lawyers have been doing ever since . . . and found that I'm a tenacious investigative journalist bent on accountability of publicly-funded institutions.)

In closing, my final two recommendations are this:

NEVER allow yourself to be in a situation like I was taken full advantage of having been in i.e. where you are totally alone and are placed under intense pressure to make an irreversible decision.

And ALWAYS trust your intuition. To the last. Because you may be in a situation - as I was - where "the last" wouldn't have been "the last" for Harry, if I had have trusted mine.

NOTE TO READERS : You may also be interested in reading those articles relating to Harry's case that are specifically germaine to educational and ethics topics, over at the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE.org) and the specific Harry Kelly Case Study section there .

MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL: When Just Doing Your Job Would Be A Whole Lot Easier

Fri, 15 May 2026 07:44:58 GMT

Following the Fiasco ? Here's the Latest Progress Had When No Progress Has Been Had

For those who have been tracking the Masterton District Council's antics , here's today's update:

So Gordon Crawley, Masterton District Council's 'Team Leader Animal and Bylaw Services' thought - probably on ratepayer-funded legal advice - that he'd take the smart-assery to a whole new level.

Here's how it went for him . . . and for the Council at large (email trail displayed, of course, in reverse chronological order, but I saved the best for last . . . so read right to the bottom):

From: Jordan Kelly
Sent: Friday, 15 May 2026 1:07 pm
To: 'Animal Services'
Subject: RE: Witness details

I will relay your position to my witnesses, who may or may not wish to be further involved.

I will have my cleaner sign her existing statement at her next attendance here.

I note the following:

This is highly unusual – and I strongly suspect, unprecedented – treatment of an already well-documented, well-evidenced, multiple-format-evidence-provided complaint;

You persist in your refusal to attend the primary place of effect, which speaks for itself;

Your own staff, contractors, actions/inactions and statements, combined with the provided existing multiple recordings – as documented in this published account: Nuisance Barking & This Council's Selective Hearing for Selected Complainants - provide further evidence of a degree, and in multiple formats, that I do not believe you would have encountered before in this context. I would suggest that, taken together, these and the many components of my to-date-published account, underscore my case as regards your extraordinary treatment of myself and of this matter.

I note your intentionally insulting use of the term "alleged" barking, which should actually, of course, be the "recorded" barking.

I request your provision of a detailed Masterton District Council precedent with regard to your treatment, and extraordinary ongoing and increasing evidentiary requirements, of this ongoing, long-term, well-evidenced complaint.

This complaint will remain in the public domain until it is ethically and properly addressed. I reserve the right to publish any and all further correspondence and to distribute it as part of my ongoing coverage relating to this matter.

Jordan Kelly

From: Animal Services
Sent: Friday, 15 May 2026 11:58 am
To: Jordan Kelly

Subject: RE: Witness details

Until the Council has had the opportunity to interview the witnesses ourselves I will not commit to a course of action. Once we have statements from the witnesses we will assess the information and then make a decision on next steps.

The account provided by your cleaner was received by the Council in an email sent by you to Animal Services. The account is unsigned by the maker, so until Animal and Bylaw Services Officers have the opportunity to interview your cleaner that information will be noted and no further action will be taken.

The information contained in the statement of Mr (editor has redacted name for privacy purposes) is limited in detail in terms of the alleged barking, so we would like to interview him ourselves.

Until you provide the information requested so the Council can interview these witnesses there is no further action that can be taken.

I am happy to revisit the witness information if you provide full contact details to the Council so they can be interviewed by an Animal and Bylaw Services Officer.

Warm regards,

Gordon Crawley

Team Leader Animal and Bylaw Services

@MastertonDC

www.mstn.govt.nz

(Editor's Note: Sits back smirking in deep self-satisfaction after masterminding sardonic first-time insertion of his "Warm regards" punchline in his final "take that" missive.)

From: Jordan Kelly
Sent: Friday, 15 May 2026 10:58 am
To: Animal Services
Subject: RE: Witness details

Thank you for your response.

I note you have not answered my question regarding what specific action the council intends to take and on what time frame.

I will await that confirmation before approaching my witnesses.

Jordan Kelly

From: Animal Services
Sent: Friday, 15 May 2026 10:45 am
To: Jordan Kelly
Subject: RE: Witness details

Your witnesses are already involved Jordan. They became involved when you sent the brief accounts of what they witnessed to us. Until we have had the opportunity to speak with them I am not in a position to say what action will be taken.

Gordon Crawley

Team Leader Animal and Bylaw Services
@MastertonDC

www.mstn.govt.nz

From: Jordan Kelly
Sent: Friday, 15 May 2026 10:34 am
To: Animal Services
Subject: RE: Witness details

Thank you for your email acknowledging the witness statements, including the one that had remained unacknowledged since it was first provided (May 4).

Before I approach either witness (who may or may not want to become involved given the very obvious nature of the council's long-term evasion of this matter, and given that one of them has been my cleaner for the past six months and has an understanding of the vast amount of information and evidence already in council’s possession, and given the public attention the issue is now attracting and is set to do so increasingly from this point), I would ask that you first confirm what specific action the council intends to take following any such interviews, and on what time frame.

Given the history of this matter, I want to ensure that any further inconvenience to my witnesses is with good and specific cause, and will result in concrete action, rather than the conduct of yet another administrative exercise with disingenuous intent.

Jordan Kelly

From: Animal Services
Sent: Friday, 15 May 2026 9:10 am
To: Jordan Kelly
Subject: Witness details

Thank you for providing the witness accounts. We would appreciate it if you would provide contact details for those people so we might interview them ourselves. We would be interested in obtaining some more detail about the barking.

Gordon Crawley

Team Leader Animal and Bylaw Services
@MastertonDC

www.mstn.govt.nz

From: Jordan Kelly
Sent: Friday, 15 May 2026 1:40 pm
To: 'Ruth McEwen'
cc: ' Animal Services'
Subject: Official Information Act Request - Barking Complaint Precedent

Dear Ms McEwen

Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following information:

All previous complaints received by Masterton District Council relating to nuisance barking from dogs, from January 1, 2015 to the date of this request, in which the council required the complainant to provide witness contact details and submit to witness interviews conducted by Animal and Bylaw Services Officers or other council representatives before any action was taken or considered – notwithstanding the prior provision of multiple audio recordings of the barking, the likes of receipts for barking deterrent devices purchased in direct response to the barking in question, signed witness statements, and additional items and instances of evidence as, or similar to, those documented at https://www.doggiemamma.com/nuisance-barking-mdc-selective-hearing , and as in all correspondence and attachments submitted to the council to date in relation to this pre-existing matter.

For each such complaint identified in item 1: the reason/s for the requirement of this extensive amount of evidence and supporting material in prior complaints;

The outcome of the council's investigation and any action taken or not taken following those witness interviews additional to evidence already provided in similar volume across multiple months;

The current written policy or standard operating procedure governing the evidentiary requirements for nuisance barking complaints – specifically, but not limited to, whether witness interviews are a standard requirement before any action is taken, and if so, under what circumstances this requirement applies.

I request a response within 20 working days as required by the Act.

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly

Nuisance Barking & This Council's Selective Hearing for Selected Complainants

Sun, 10 May 2026 09:47:27 GMT

Two Years of Recordings, Independent Witnesses & the Council's Own Frontline & On-the-Ground Staff Acknowledging Nuisance Barking. Management, However, Requires Complainants to Possess A Penis.

In last week’s article, ‘Don't Let Yours Be 'THAT Dog': What Works, What Doesn't, and What Every Dog Owner Needs to Know About Barking’, we looked at the reasons dogs become problem barkers and what actions responsible owners – and despairing neighbours – can take to alleviate the problem.

In terms of the former, it assumed that owners, in general, would want to either avoid or address a situation whereby the latter situation become necessary i.e. the affected neighbours having to take actions to alleviate the problem.

In that article, we largely investigated barking deterrent devices – be they high-frequency collars or frequency pitch-projecting boxes. The expert we quoted made a closing point that, first and foremost, it remained a dog’s owner's responsibility to address its associated behavioural issues.

In today’s article, we’re going to address the unfortunate reality that – unlike the vast majority of we dog owners who are responsible and considerate regarding the impacts of our pets on those around us – some owners (if I may be frank and somewhat unjournalistic) really don’t give a crap about those who live around them and have to tolerate dogs that, in all honesty, they are not qualified to own.

It’s in cases like this that impacted neighbours – which includes responsible owners who wouldn’t dream of letting our own dogs destroy the peace and productivity of our broader neighbourhood – should be able to look to our local councils and their animal control departments to do what they are paid via ratepayers’ rates, to do i.e. address the problem.

Lazy, Dishonest & Mysogynistic Council Culture As Problem Force Multiplier As Opposed to Solution Provider

But when the Council in question is as deliberately in denial, as lazy and as recalcitrant as the dog owners in question . . . and have an especially unhealthy misogynistic culture when it concerns their ratepayers – they become a multiplier force for the problem rather than the solution they are actually paid to be.

Such is my own battle with New Zealand’s Masterton District Council, which – having long since run out of my own efforts to quell neighbouring nuisance barking – I have been appealing to for the past two years for assistance . . . the assistance my monthly rates fund them to provide. But that they’re not providing.

So, readers . . . unfortunately this article isn’t going to provide you with the solution to this sort of problem – a problem that I hope will be very much the exception rather than the rule for most of you. But I will offer you one core element of advice in any situation like it: Document EVERYTHING. If yours is like the local council in question, you’ll find that ensuring you have the facts to hold up to their untruths is your first important action. Particularly if you have to pursue legal action either against the owner or the council.

‘Nothing to Hear Here,’ Says Gordon Crawley, Whose Animal Control Personnel Have Already Admitted the Problem on Multiple Occasions . . . While Doing Nothing to Solve It

On Friday (i.e. May 8) Gordon Crawley, Team Leader of Masterton District Council's Animal and Bylaw Services, emailed me to advise that he was simply “closing” my two years’ worth of repeated nuisance barking complaints.

Ironically, as I was attempting to concentrate on reading his email half an hour after its 1.53pm arrival in my inbox, I was prevented from doing so by the continual agitating barking of the dog he emailed to tell me wasn’t a nuisance barker.

The second audio recording above captures a sample of what I can hear from my office and is recorded between 2.30pm and 3pm i.e. as I tried to concentrate on Crawley’s “not a problem” email and some other work that I also couldn’t focus on with said highly agitating barking volleys and howling going off anything between every 10 seconds and few minutes - and that goes off most days for hours , that is, on a daily basis, in the near background.

When I say “in the near background”, it’s actually hardly the background at all. The recording you hear is taken on a tiny handheld, mono-directional device designed for office use . . . so the recording isn't exactly reproducing the full volume or indication of proximity and sharp and jarring nature of the actual noise type and levels.

Maybe Crawley and Co. at the Masterton District Council don't consider it a "nuisance barker" because there are gaps of a few seconds or minutes in between each volley in the four- and five-hour-plus barking marathons . . . but I would challenge them to want to work within close earshot or live beside that for a full afternoon and half the evening every day of their lives.

To get that picture, you really have to listen to the full 15-minute sample, and especially the latter half. And that recording wasn't even a particularly "bad" day . . . it was just what was randomly going off as Crawley's "not a nuisance barker, so I'm closing the case" email dropped in. The email that indirectly but very effectively indeed, calls me a liar.

Further, the dog – a spaniel, many sub-breeds of which are known for their unprovoked barking and especially keen hearing – is fascinated by the sound of anything I do in the entire rear half of my house: close a cupboard, put a pot on the counter, open the window to let the shower steam out, or flush the toilet. It stands against the fence neighbouring my property and just barks. And barks. And barks. And barks. And stops for a bit. And barks again. And stops for a bit. Then barks again. Then repeats the cycle all over again for the next hour. Or four. Like today . . . when it started somewhere around 2pm and is still going as I type this article at 7.44pm. And yes, it's owners are home. They usually are. They just don't care.

As far as actually enjoying my beautiful park-like back garden, I don’t . . . any more. Since the dog arrived two years ago. It already sounds – from my house – like it’s in my actual back yard, without me having to be out there, essentially with it.

And that’s a big part of the three-pronged problem, with regard to where it barks:

1) The dog barks right up against MY fence – as close, if not closer, to my house than to the owner’s house.

The owners have been observed – not just by me but also by my cleaner, who provided a named, independent witness statement to Gordon Crawley (cc’d to all the Councillors , who are happy to collect their annual stipends to represent ratepayers they don’t bother to represent) – consistently taking no action, even though home, to do anything to quell it.

She wrote:

"I was gardening in the rear yard of (my address) from approximately 9.15am. The spaniel at the neighbouring property (their address) was barking continuously for approximately 15-20 minutes for no apparent reason. It was just sitting in the sun and barking. The owners were visibly present in the house throughout the barking. No attempt was made to stop the dog barking until they eventually let it inside."

Her statement remains completely unacknowledged.

(Half the problem is that their dog is closer to ME than to THEM. So if you’re an inconsiderate ass-hat, why would you care? Keep reading.)

And per my own January 26 email to the Masterton District Council's animal "control" officer Garry Hardgrave and every Councillor:

"I went out and looked through the fence — the panels are staggered and I can see through them if I put my face up to the fence — and the owner was calmly doing her gardening just metres from this dog, as the dog faced into MY property going off its face without ceasing for many minutes at that point. The dog's owner was completely unmoved by the ongoing, loud, incessant, aggressive/distressed barking of her own dog within metres of her. Even if perhaps she is deaf, she could SEE the dog's behaviour — she was that close to it and doing nothing."

2) Crawley and his “animal control” personnel claim to have “monitored” the property and have asked “the neighbours” to fill out “barking logs” and that the "few they got back" indicated it wasn't a problem barker.

Well, have a go at that second-to-top audio at the beginning of this article . . . and again, listen all the way through, especially to the second half, and see what you reckon about living with that sounding as much or more like it's coming from your own back yard as it does the owners' property. And listening to it for hours and hours and hours . . . EVERY. BLOODY. DAY. Then imagine being a writer as your profession.

Here are just some of the reasons that the other neighbours whom Crawley, Hardgrave or whoever they selected for their apparent visitations (assuming they actually did, and assuming they visited any that are actually within geographic earshot of the dog - see Point 3) might either be not troubled by its barking or might be unwilling to make an issue of it.

This is hardly an exhaustive list, but - among other highly pertinent considerations - it does serve to highlight the fact that what is greatly disturbing to one resident's situation and circumstances might be just "background noise" to another's:

They simply don't want to fall out with a neighbour in a very small and tight-knit cul-de-sac community in a tightknit regional town.

They're not home during the day — the prime barking hours (although certainly it also barks unrestrained into the evening regularly).

They probably don't work from home.

They might be home but have TVs, radios, or general household noise that masks it . . . and certainly that is the case with their immediate neighbours, who are a multi-generational, boarding-house style abode with multiple young kids.

Some might have dogs that also bark (as is the case with the above household; listen to the recording at the bottom of this article) and don't want to draw the Council's unwanted attention to it.

**** The dog isn't barking directly at their fence line the way it barks at mine. ****

(Closely related to the above bullet point, and to Point 3 below) They can't hear it as sharply from the street frontage as I can from MY back yard . . . because the dog, to all intents and purposes, effectively IS in MY back yard.

Filling out a council bark log and putting their name to it feels like more trouble than it's worth - both in terms of the physical and logistical effort, and in terms of its lack of anonymity.

Some may not have even received the log, or may have received it and binned it without reading it.

And here's perhaps the most telling reason of all. The audio recording at the bottom of this article (please scroll down and have a good listen) was taken mid-morning on the day I'm publishing this article i.e. today, Sunday, May 10. It's a recording of the dachshund in the above-mentioned multi-generational house over the back - the other most immediate neighbours of the spaniel property - standing on that neighbouring property's upstairs balcony and barking unabated out over the neighbourhood.

If you've got an uncontrolled barking dog yourself, you probably don't want to alert the local council to the broader problem, do you?

While you're back in listening mode, pop back up to the top of this article and have a listen to the first audio recording . . . that's the canine cacaphony that the spaniel appears to be actually attempting to get rolling . . . with, in that recording, the new neighbours' two dogs happy to oblige it - as you can clearly hear. Not that you'd want to.

But remember, according to Crawley and Hardgrave, I'm imagining all this. Maybe it's actually me doing the barking. All three of them at once. I'm very talented like that.

Notwithstanding, let's look at my rights as a ratepayer, property owner, and resident. L et's address whether I have a right to peaceful enjoyment of my property . . . which is indisputable:

Under the Local Government Act 2002, councils have a statutory duty to promote community wellbeing. Under the Dog Control Act 1996, Section 55, a dog owner commits an offence if their dog is found to be a nuisance — defined as causing a nuisance by persistent barking or making a noise that is disturbing to people in the neighbourhood. The council has the power to issue a Nuisance Notice and, if not complied with, seize the dog.

Masterton District Council has done neither despite my equally persistent and consistent, evidenced and documented - and extraordinarily patient - complaints.

Crawley advises that barking logs were delivered to neighbouring properties and that "the few responses we received indicated that the dog you complained about was not a nuisance barker."

Per my points above, the neighbours in this small, tight-knit cul-de-sac — accessed via a private driveway — may simply not want to fall out with one of theirs. That's New Zealand neighbourhood culture and it's entirely understandable. But it does not make the dog less of a nuisance. It just means fewer people - or maybe no-one - in that tight little community, wants to speak up about it.

And again, many of these neighbours are not home during the day. The dog's prime barking time is mid to late afternoon.

Those who are home may have televisions, radios, children, or generally noisier households than that of a professional writer working in silence. As per my bullet points above, the most immediate neighbour is a large multi-generational household with multiple young children – just by way of example.

Their tolerance of this situation is their choice and their circumstance. It is not mine.

And crucially — none of them share a fence line at the exact point where the dog barks, at the far end of a long private section , pointed directly into their property in response to their movements inside their own home.

And again - with reference to the sample from the spaniel's other immediate neighbour's barking-on-the-balcony dachshund (recording at bottom of article), if you've got your own barker, you don't want the council hanging around, do you?

Which leads me to the council staff's most dishonest treatment of the matter, of all.

3) Crawley, Hardgrave & Co's Most Dishonest Omission of All: Where the Dog Is Barking and Where They're 'Monitoring'

Now let's address the other element in the equation regarding (a) why the neighbours who apparently aren't troubled by the spaniel's incessant barking are (apparently) far less troubled by it than I am, and (b) why Crawley's "monitoring" claim is, effectively, bogus:

The house in question is at the end of a small cul de sac with a very long driveway down from the street which opens into a large section . . . at the very end of which the dog parks itself and barks merrily . . . at nothing or at me and my activities inside my house. The dog is barking far closer to my house than it is to the street, where said "monitoring" activity has supposedly taken place.

In other words, the council’s “monitoring” activities – if they genuinely have taken place or have taken place at any relevant time – are, the geography of the street and the sections, would distinctly suggest - intentionally designed to NOT capture the barking . . . or the actual impacts of it on ME and MY home.

To be even more clear: the dog barks down the end of a property that, in turn, is at the end of a long driveway, and that CAN’T EVEN BE SEEN FROM THE STREET (AND MOST CERTAINLY NOT HEARD AS SHARPLY AS IT CAN BE HEARD FROM MY PROPERTY BECAUSE IT’S THE SAME AS THOUGH IT WERE GOING ON IN MY ACTUAL BACK YARD).

I know that sounds incredibly repetitive, but after the numerous times I've pointed out the obvious to the council staff, it either still hasn't sunk in . . . or, in reality, continues to be strategically ignored.

Yet, their own front counter staffer (among others) have clearly recognised the issue. When my phone and email-based communications continued to be ignored and I'd gone in to the Council buildings to make an in-person complaint, staff member Sandy Hewitt exercised due logic and stated it plainly:

She asked me to sketch the lay-out of the properties, and show the location from which the dog barks. The moment she looked at it, she said: "The team need to come around and stand in YOUR back yard. That's the only way they're going to understand what's going on."

So to Messrs Crawley and Hardgrave: If you're not even "monitoring" in the affected or directly affected location, all your supposed "monitoring" doesn't mean jack shit. But, I suggest, you are fully and conveniently aware of that.

As I've pointed out to you numerous times - or attempted to - In my back yard, and in my house, with the fenceline it shares directly with the back end of the spaniel’s property, the impact is intense, agitating, de-focusing, and inescapable. The effect is no different than having the dog in my own back yard. Except that I have no control over it.

So, yes indeed, the logical thing for the Council to do is to come TO MY PROPERTY and go into MY back yard – so that it can be assessed for its real-time impacts on MY LIVING ENVIRONMENT:

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Friday, 30 January 2026 12:02 pm
To: 'Terri Mulligan' <terrim@mstn.govt.nz>; 'Animal Services' <animalservices@mstn.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: Further recording from my office window - attached

Please feel free to come down my driveway and into my back yard.

It’s currently stopped – but if you go into my rear garden, that will almost certainly set it off again, and you’ll see exactly what I’m dealing with.

My office is down the driveway, but if I’m on the phone or elsewhere in the house and don’t hear you knock – just come onto the property anyway. You are most welcome, as it will help you understand the situation better than from around the street side.

Jordan

I’ve made that request, to multiple parties within the council, to the point of insistence, on multiple occasions this past two years. All have been ignored.

Why?

When Dealing with the Masterton District Council, Balls Aren’t Enough; A Complainant Also Needs A Penis

Because then it would completely dissolve the insulting inference that I'm some woman (who for that fact alone is) not to be taken seriously and is making it all up.

Garry Hardgrave has, in fact, been here and into my back yard once, you see . . . when he addressed the barking complaint by the BLOKE next door regarding another dog that troubled HIM i.e. said MALE neighbour (and which Hardgrave addressed for HIM promptly on the spot on that day) .

When Hardgrave was here, he heard clearly that the dog at the property next door to ME was just as much of an issue to me as the one my MALE neighbour was yelling at that was an issue to HIM.

What was the difference? Nothing other than the gender of the complainant.

And the easiest way to dismiss the female complainant is to ignore her multiple requests - verbal and in writing - to come to where the problem and its impact can be genuinely and honestly assessed.

The numerous call centre operators (when I’ve called on weekends or after hours) and the council's front counter staff (when I’ve gone into the council following the realisation of fruitlessness regarding all the recordings they have told me to make and all the emails on which I’ve sent the multiple recordings attached, none of which have ever even been acknowledged) have proactively themselves made the point that their Animal Control team needs to come into MY back yard to get the true picture.

The last time that suggestion was made (proactively) was by - as you read above - the council's front counter service staffer Sandy Hewitt, on April 24 . . . but it has resulted in nothing other than Gordon Crawley’s vindictive May 8 “case dismissed” email.

Or was the vindictive email triggered by my Official Information Act request, Crawley?

Or, more likely, both annoyed you . . . and so you simply "case dismissed" me . . . because you can.

There is no question in my mind that if I were a man making these complaints, this problem would have been solved long since. As was my male neighbour's . . . on the spot.

Particularly noteworthy is the fact that on my recent recorded call with a staff member named Janet, she observed rightly:

"Your complaints should be taken as seriously as everyone else's."

You're right, Janet. But I bet the cowardly and dishonest culture there doesn't facilitate your communication of that to management.

Why Has A Problem That Was Known & Admitted to Be A Problem Suddenly Become Not A Problem And Apparently Never Has Been?

Ironically, the very first time I called the Council about the dog, it wasn’t because of the barking per se . As an animal lover, it was (and is) the frustrated sound of the dog’s barking that had caused me concern that it was possibly tied or caged and that welfare issues might be the root cause.

Actually, Hardgrave did claim back then to have visited the dog’s owners on two occasions in full recognition that it was a problem, but for reasons best known to he and Crawley, now apparently the dog has never been a nuisance barker at all. Even though Hardgrave has heard it with his own ears. Just as he'd heard the dogs that were a problem for my MALE neighbour.

In fact, all parties - including the owner - readily admitted to it back then . . . and it's gotten worse since and certainly not better.

The neighbours gave Hardgrave the story (which he bought hook, line and sinker as he relayed to me in a “the resolution is imminent” manner) that this then-new addition to the neighbourhood was actually owned by the adult children of the property owners and would be being exported to them “when they have gotten settled" in their new overseas home. "Six months maximum."

After six months had long passed but the nuisance barking hadn’t, and my frustrated pleas to the council for help continued, Hardgrave's and the owners' story changed: Yes, we know it’s a problem, but we’re hiring a dog behaviour trainer to address the issue.

The dog has never gone anywhere.

The "animal behaviour trainer" never happened either . . . or if it did, that animal behaviour trainer whose existence I doubt, should give them their money back . . . but again, I don’t believe a word of it. But it suited Hardgrave to buy the tale, and from that time onwards, Hardgrave's own story has changed simply to accusing me of fabricating the whole barking problem in its entirety.

Go figure. T he owners themselves admitted there was a barking problem — enough to claim they were addressing it with an animal behaviourist — but now the illogical, arrogantly dismissive, and openly disingenuous Gordon Crawley tells me the dog is not a nuisance barker? Crawley's direct report, Garry Hardgrave's, own previous visits produced admissions from the owners. he accepted those admissions, conducted no follow-up, and now Crawley is using the absence of a result as evidence that there is no problem.

As I pointed out to Hardgrave (on a rare occasion when I was put through) and before he hung up on me two months ago when I called him cap-in-hand to "PLEASE HELP BECAUSE I CAN'T TAKE IT ANY MORE" and he conveyed his new "you're making it all up" position, who the hell do they think is doing the barking on the multiple audio recordings I’ve been emailing he and Crawley and they’ve arrogantly and misogynistically been ignoring . . . along with their equally arrogant, unconcerned and impotent Councillors ?

‘That Street Is A Known Nuisance Barking Trouble Spot’

Those were the exact words spoken to me by the security service contractor that the Masterton District Council hires to carry out its after hours animal control duties on one of my calls (weekends are the dog's most favourite of all barking marathon times).

When I’d given the usual amount of complex detail (regarding how any monitoring needs to be conducted from MY property and why) to the after hours call centre operator on one particular occasion, the operator had recognised that somehow this detail didn’t seem to be being properly conveyed in my calls to date, or they weren't actually being attended at all, and suggested they put me through to the security bloke to explain the geography directly.

Said security bloke sounded agitated that he was being asked to go and address what was – in his words (PULL THE RECORDING AND LISTEN, CRAWLEY) a known nuisance barking trouble spot . As in, why was he being asked to address something the council damn well knew had long since been a problem in general rather than leaving it to him to do after hours when his powers were more limited?

To be equally noted, is that I HAVE ONLY EVER COMPLAINED ABOUT ONE DOG. So to the Council's gaslighting specialists, Crawley, Hardgrave & Co. . . . it's NOT just me that's complained, IS it?

Three Anti-Barking Deterrent Boxes Later

In an April 24 email that I know was received and forwarded to Crawley, I attached the receipt for three barking deterrent devices that I’ve purchased and had located at my fence line and that – despite the general efficacy of those devices – the spaniel is so determined to bark regardless thereof that it just ignores (these devices emit a high-pitched frequency only audible to the canine ear).

I also had the retailer, who is herself an experienced independent dog trainer write a useful explanation in a letter intended for me to forward to Masterton District Council (which I did and, of course, it too was ignored), regarding how barking deterrent collars are an inexpensive and very effective solution that the dog’s owner can deploy directly:

Hi Jordan,

Thank you for your time on the phone earlier. I have attached the invoice for the Barkmate Ultrasonic Barkbox for your reference.

I can confirm this is the third Bark Box purchased within the past month to help manage barking dogs neighbouring your property on both sides. The first was purchased on 31/03/2026 and the second on 07/04/2026. Your third unit will be dispatched to you tomorrow morning.

If the issue continues, we advise speaking with your neighbours or your local council to explore additional solutions.

Bark control collars are a very effective tool for reducing excessive barking and are commonly used as part of a broader management approach in situations like this. I’ve included links below to a couple of collar options we would recommend and you can pass onto your neighbours/local council.

Dogtra YS300 (Small dogs)

https://www.dogmaster.co.nz/dogtra-ys300-bark-control-collar-small-dogs/

Dogtra YS600 (Large dogs)

https://www.dogmaster.co.nz/dogtra-ys600-bark-control-collar-large-dogs/

Kind Regards,

Gabrielle McFall

Sales Representative NZ

07 855 4799

Free-call: 0800 DOGMASTER | 0800 364 627

The idea was that Crawley or Hardgrave – who it could be argued, in their jobs, should already actually know about the existence of these options – could use this information to educate the nuisance dog’s owners. That is, take the simple action of recommending to the spaniel's owners that they spend $200 on a special barking deterrent collar that would solve the problem the phantom "animal behaviour trainer" had failed to solve.

But did Crawley, Hardgrave or anyone else on that large and apparently otherwise redundant council team do that? NO.

Instead, they decided it was easier - and far more entertaining for them - to simply insist that I’m making it all up.

Like I'm apparently making up the phantom dog that’s barking on all the recordings I’ve sent (none of which have ever been acknowledged despite the gaslighting strategy of having actually instructed me to make and send them) . . . including the one in this article that I recorded while literally reading Crawley’s email essentially telling me I’m fabricating it. Or imagining it. Or something.

As, apparently, so is the person who wrote this (named) independent witness statement to them:

Would it help if I had a male independent witness write to you, Messrs Crawley and Hardgrave?

But surely . . . isn't the witness of the Council's own front counter staff member, Sandy Hewitt, who was a rare Council staff member who actually returned one of my phone calls and proactively observed that she could plainly hear the dog barking while on the phone to me . . . (PULL THE CALL RECORDING, CRAWLEY) isn't that credible, either? Your own staff member?

Or is your own staff member's witness also not credible on account or her likewise absence of a penis?

Gordon Crawley

Actually, I interviewed Gordon Crawley previously for this DoggieMamma article .

And if I speak frankly now, from the cooled-down distance of 17 months between that interview and today's article, I did find the man a curt, bordering on rude, misogynistic prick. I never let something like that come across in the resultant article that I've interviewed someone for, and thankfully it's rare, but this man was a pig .

Having now received his email shutting me down and closing out approaching two years of documented, multiple audio recording-evidenced, independently-witnessed complaints while the dog in question was actively barking, I find nothing in his May 8 "complaints dismissed" correspondence to revise that assessment of him.

I would also note that female frontline staff have promised me callbacks from Mr Crawley on multiple occasions. I have yet to receive a single one of those calls — the most recent promise having been made by the "Janet" on the recorded call I submitted to the council last week. If Mr Crawley would like me to resubmit that recording, I'd be happy to do so.

The Councillors . . . Our Elected 'Representatives'

Every email I sent to Animal Services was copied to Mayor Bex Johnson, Craig Bowyer, Waireka Collings, Tim Nelson, Jamie Falloon, Stella Lennox, David Holmes, Brent Goodwin .

The sum total of councillor responses, across coming up for two years of correspondence, was a brief email from Tim Nelson advising that he and Stella Lennox had "responded to other councillors" about my email.

That was it. From any of them. Apart from the one who replied ridiculing me. That was so despicable I won't even bother going back into my inbox to find it. But it did provide a window into the general level of intelligence of certain of our "elected representatives".

One councillor provided a ray of hope for the presence of some level of functional intellect around the council table. That councillor wrote in private in support of me, saying he was as frustrated with the lot of them as I was.

In January 2026 I wrote to the councillors pointing out what many in this community have pointed out to them repeatedly:

"Councillors nowadays appear to have become nothing other than an ignorable joke to staff and the management suite of councils like we have here in Masterton. You're toothless, impotent and apathetic. And the staff laugh in the face of any instruction you may be so bold as to give them."

Having since cc'd them on almost every subsequent email pleading for the Council's animal control management and personnel to do their job, complete with the multiple audio recordings I've been gaslightingly instructed to provide, I continue to stand by every word of the above, widely-shared sentiment.

Council's Questionable Managerial Culture Permeates Down the Ranks

A note on something that's concerned and disappointed me in equal proportions:

From conversations with the front line staff, whom I can never get past (and some of whom don't even bother to hide their mirth), I get the distinct impression that a far wider-than-necessary gaggle of them has entertained themselves with emails not intended for them.

Most disappointingly of all, that includes the personal detail I took the risk of including, in my desperation, in the email to their front counter staffer, Sandy Hewitt, who assured me she had some apparently magical powers to finally bring about a resolution to the problem, if I emailed her my case i.e. to her own specific email address.

To be noted, her direct email address, volunteered to me, was the ONLY one I'd used for that email, and yet "Janet" (on my subsequent phone call made to follow up its receipt) had been part of its apparently unintended broader audience.

I really AM disappointed, because I thought "Sandy" - whom I had actually met when I'd come in as frustrated as hell to try writing up a complaint at the front counter - seemed sufficiently trustworthy that I could explain some of the very real impacts this bloody spaniel and its recalcitrant owners are having on my life.

I guess that was naive. The culture of the Masterton District Council is all-pervasive from top to bottom.

The OIA

On April 30, 2026 I filed an Official Information Act request with Masterton District Council for the full documentation relating to all the barking complaints, all monitoring records, all communications between all parties, and all decisions made in relation to the address in question.

Just so he knows: Gordon Crawley's "complaints dismissed" email does not cancel that request. And this article should be included with it.

If it isn't, I'll be sending it in again as a "Correction" (under Principle 7 of the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020) of my personal information held by the council.

A Note on the Breed

The uncontrolled barking spaniel in question is a textbook example of exactly what dog trainer and behaviour specialist (as in, one that really does exist) Gabrielle McFall describes in this other DoggieMamma article : Before You Fall In Love with That Face: Choosing the Right Dog for Your Life, Your Home & Your Neighbours

That is, that a breed with significant energy and drive, like certain sub-breeds of spaniel, placed in an environment where those needs are clearly not being met (as this spaniel's are clearly not), with owners who are either unwilling or unable to address the resulting behaviour (as this spaniel's owners are clearly not), is a recipe for the exact problem that council at first acknowledged but now un-recognises.

In that sense, much as the dog is the vessel, it's not the real villain of the piece. Or the peace. The owners are. And the council is enabling them.

PS to Crawley: The spaniel started barking in its regular consistent bursts somewhere around mid-afternoon as I wrote this article i.e. on Saturday (albeit it is being published the following day i.e. Sunday). It's now 7.19pm Saturday night as I make this PS addition to this draft article that I will be publishing tomorrow, Sunday. . . and it's still going. FOUR HOURS . And still going.

Oh, and it barked at 10.55pm last night (Friday night i.e. the same night as you sent me your "it's not a nuisance barker" email) as I loaded the dishwasher IN MY OWN KITCHEN before bed. Its hearing is that bloody acute, as I've multiple times pointed out . . . and it requires me to tiptoe around in my own house if I don't want to set it off in consideration of all the other neighbours.

Then the dog belonging to the new neighbour woke me up at 6.45am this morning.

Oh yes. Crawley, Hardgrave & Co.: If you would like - again - some of the numerous shorter recordings I've made of the spaniel during its marathon barkfests, at your request . . . I'd be happy to provide them. But better still, maybe you could more simply go and read some of the many emails you've ignored that they've been attached to . . . because I'm altogether tired of you calling me a liar.

YOU liar.

UPDATE: MONDAY, MAY 11, 2026:

So Crawley and the rest of the mysoginistic management at Masterton District Council require complainants to be in possession of male genitalia to generate any result regarding their complaints?

OK, fine. This should be what you need then - from a garden waste removal guy who arrived today and found the spaniel extremely annoying . . . and more to the point, extremely close . . . and has made the following specific, very logical recommendation to Crawley, Hardgrave & Co.:

TO: GORDON CRAWLEY, COUNCIL DOG CONTROL TEAM MANAGER

Monday, May 11, 2026

My name is (STATED IN EMAIL AND HARD COPY).

I understand there is an ongoing unresolved barking complaint situation here at this property, where I have been this morning removing a large amount of green waste.

When the spaniel in the neighbouring property was barking, it was just as though it was in my customer’s own property.

There was no difference in the proximity or the intensity of the dog’s barking. It was just the same as though it was in her own back yard, and just as annoying as if it was.

I suggest to the Council that they put their monitoring equipment / noise control equipment at her back fence, where she currently has the barking deterrent devices installed, but that are clearly not working for this particular dog.

FULL NAME (MR)
LOCATION

Before You Fall In Love with That Face: Choosing the Right Dog for Your Life, Your Home & Your Neighbours

Fri, 08 May 2026 02:31:05 GMT

High-Value Advice from Someone Who Really, Really Knows Dogs . . . Ignore It At Your Peril

Doggie Mamma asked Gabrielle McFall — sales representative at Dogmaster NZ and independent dog trainer at New Zealand's Hamilton-based ADH Dog Training — the questions every prospective dog owner should be asking before they choose a breed or a blend. What follows is largely her article . . . and is very much worth reading before getting carried away with pure aesthetics.

__________________________________________________

One of the biggest mistakes people make when choosing a dog is making their selection based on looks rather than lifestyle compatibility.

That's Gabrielle McFall's opening observation, and it's the thread that runs through everything that follows. McFall works in dog training aid retail and is a dog behaviour training specialist in her own right, which means she sees both ends of the equation — the excitement of choosing a dog, and the reality of what happens when the choice doesn't fit the property and the lifestyle it is introduced into.

"Neighbourhood barking is rarely just a 'bad dog' issue," she says. "It's usually a communication issue, a management issue, or a mismatch between the dog's needs and its lifestyle. With the right tools, training, and realistic expectations, most barking problems can be improved significantly."

The Most Common Mismatches — And Why They Happen

"One of the most common examples of a mismatch is guarding breeds being placed in busy homes with frequent visitors, close neighbours, or townhouse environments where barking, territorial behaviour, and reactivity can quickly become an issue," McFall says. "Likewise, working breeds are often chosen for their looks or intelligence, without owners realising how much daily exercise, structure, and mental stimulation they require. When those needs aren't met, the result is often destructive behaviour, frustration, or ongoing behavioural problems within the home."

Spaniels are a current example.

"Spaniels are also becoming an increasingly popular breed, yet many owners under-estimate how much energy some of them have," says McFall. "Depending on the type of spaniel, some were bred to work, flush, and hunt, meaning they often need an active lifestyle and regular outlets for their drive. Others can be more laid back and may suit lower-energy households far better."

(EDITOR'S NOTE: I can attest to this. For the past two years, I've been plagued by a neighbouring vociferous spaniel that neither the owner refuses to control and the local council refuse to even acknowledge.)

The consequences of getting this wrong are not trivial.

"When a dog is placed in an unsuitable environment, the consequences can be serious. The dog may become stressed, frustrated, anxious, noisy, or destructive, and in some cases the relationship breaks down entirely. Sadly, that can lead to surrender, re-homing, or worse — which are preventable outcomes with better research, informed breed selection, and meeting the dog's needs from the start."

She advises that if someone lives in a dense suburban neighbourhood with houses nearby and works full time, then a lower-drive, calmer breed or an adult rescue dog with a settled temperament may be a better fit than a high-energy working dog or vocal breed. Good ownership, she says, starts before the dog comes home.

What to Look for If You're In A Suburban Environment

"For suburban households with close neighbours, limited space, and owners who work full or part time, I would look toward breeds known for calmer temperaments, moderate exercise needs, and the ability to settle indoors. Of course, every dog is an individual, but some breeds are more commonly suited to this lifestyle than others," she says.

Her list includes Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, Greyhounds — "especially retired racers, who are often surprisingly relaxed at home" — Bichon Frise, Shih Tzus, French Bulldogs with health considerations in mind, Whippets, and many older mixed-breed rescue dogs with established temperaments.

Labradors can also work, she says, but with a caveat:

"Some Labradors can suit this environment if they are mature and from calmer lines, though younger Labs are usually far more energetic."

"The key traits to prioritise are not just breed labels, but dogs that are less vocal, adaptable, sociable, able to cope with routine downtime, and content with regular walks plus companionship rather than constant stimulation. Adult or senior rescue dogs are often an excellent choice because their energy levels and personality are already clear, making it easier to choose a genuinely suitable match."

And on the question of lower-maintenance breeds, she's careful to draw a line:

"It's also worth remembering that 'lower maintenance' does not mean no maintenance. Every dog still needs daily exercise, training, enrichment, grooming, and companionship — some simply require less intensity than others."

The Case for Rescue — And Why It's NOT A Compromise

Rescue dogs and mixed breeds are often overlooked in the breed selection conversation.

Many dogs in shelters and rescue facilities have ended up in there precisely because of a breed/lifestyle mismatch in their previous home - not because they're a "bad" or "uncontrollable" dog, she points out.

McFall, who is a strong advocate for rescue, wants to correct the whole misperception about adopting a surrendered dog . . . and also about mixed breed versus pure breed dogs.

"While rescue dogs don't always come with pedigree papers, they still have genetic tendencies, personality traits, and exercise or training needs that matter just as much as a purebred dog. Many dogs end up in rescues because their previous home wasn't the right match for their energy level, temperament, size, or behaviour needs."

Mixed breeds, she points out, have an under-appreciated advantage.

"One of the advantages of mixed breed dogs is they can carry positive characteristics from more than one breed. For example, a dog may have the friendly, gentle nature often associated with a Labrador, combined with the smart and eager-to-please nature of a border collie. They are not limited to one breed profile, which can create a wonderful balance of traits. Of course, every dog is individual, so personality should always be assessed in front of you rather than assumed from breed mix alone."

For prospective owners considering rescue, McFall recommends looking beyond appearance and asking practical questions.

"What is this dog like to live with day to day? How much exercise do they need? Are they social or more independent? How do they cope being left alone? Are they confident, sensitive, vocal, high energy, or laid back? What was this dog originally bred to do? A good rescue organisation can often provide valuable insight into these traits."

"For many households, a rescue dog can be a better choice rather than a compromise. Adult rescue dogs often already have established temperaments, so it's easier to match them to the owner's lifestyle than the as-yet 'unknown quantity' of a puppy. Many are past the intense puppy stage, may already have some training, and can settle beautifully into suburban homes, families, or quieter environments when matched well."

Her conclusion on rescue is simple:

"Choosing a rescue can mean getting the right dog for your life, while also giving a deserving dog a second chance. That's a win for everyone."

Testing the Fit Before You Commit

"One of the best ways owners can assess compatibility is through fostering, foster-to-adopt programs, or spending quality time with the dog in different settings before making a final decision. This gives both the owner and the dog a chance to see if the match works in real life, rather than relying on appearance or a brief first meeting," McFall recommends.

Real-life exposure reveals things a single meeting won't.

"A dog might seem calm in a kennel environment but be much more energetic in a home, or they may appear shy at first and then become very affectionate when settled. Time and space allow their true personality to shine through."

She recommends working with rescue organisations that are honest about a dog's needs and willing to support trial periods where possible.

"Even a few walks, meet-and-greets, or overnight stays can provide valuable insight."

"Choosing a dog should be about compatibility, not urgency. Taking the time to test the fit can prevent mismatches, reduce returns to rescue, and lead to more successful long-term homes."

If You've Already Made A Mismatch

If you already have the dog, you love the dog, but the fit isn't right — Gabrielle's first message is not to panic.

"The first thing I would say to someone who has already made a mismatch is not to panic or assume they've failed. Many people choose a dog with good intentions and only realise later that the dog's needs are different than they expected. What matters now is being honest about the situation and making responsible decisions from that point of realistic assessment."

The first step, therefore, is to assess whether the gap can be bridged.

"This might mean increasing exercise, adding mental enrichment, using dog walkers or daycare, adjusting the home environment, committing to training, or bringing in professional support. Sometimes small changes can make a significant difference. Often the issue is a lack of appropriate outlets for their energy."

But if the situation is more serious — if the dog is chronically stressed, developing behavioural problems, and the owner genuinely cannot meet its needs despite real effort — re-homing may be the kindest option - preferably through an active foster-based re-homing group or a shelter with a strict "no-kill" policy.

"Re-homing should never be seen as a failure when it is done thoughtfully and responsibly. In most cases, giving a dog a better suited environment is the most loving decision an owner can make."

"The key is to act early, seek advice, and be realistic. Dogs do best when their needs and home life are in balance, and sometimes that balance can be created. But sometimes it does, in fact, need a different home to achieve that."

In summary, good ownership starts before the dog comes home. But it's most often never too late to get it right.

Don't Let Yours Be 'THAT Dog': What Works, What Doesn't, and What Every Dog Owner Needs to Know About Barking

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 04:16:37 GMT

Don't Let Your Source of Joy Be Your Neighbours' Source of Agitation & Despair

For a responsible owner, there's a particular kind of dread that comes with leaving your dog at home and wondering — is mine " that dog"?

The one the neighbours are fuming about? The one making someone's work-from-home day a misery?

The one that woke someone's baby . . . again ? Th e one that jolted the shift worker out of his only four hours of sleep?

The one that's quietly destroying someone's health, because the science on chronic sleep disruption is not ambiguous: it raises cortisol, suppresses immunity, worsens anxiety and depression, and over time, does serious physiological damage.

Excessive barking is one of the most common neighbourhood complaints globally — and one of the most misunderstood.

I spoke to Gabrielle McFall, a specialist at DogMaster Trainers in New Zealand, to get the expert view on what actually works, what doesn't, and what responsible dog owners need to understand about barking before it becomes everyone else's problem.

One approach — when it's desperate (and it doesn't take long for affected neighbours to become exactly that) — is the deployment of bark deterrent devices.

First — What Are Bark Deterrent Devices, and How Do They Work?

Many dog owners aren't aware that bark deterrent devices exist — or that they come in several forms.

The two most common types are:

Ultrasonic box devices: F reestanding units placed in or near the area where barking occurs. When they detect barking, they emit a high-frequency sound audible to dogs but not humans, which interrupts the behaviour. These are typically used outdoors, in kennels or crates, or near fence lines where a dog tends to bark.

Bark control collars: W orn by the dog, these activate directly in response to the individual dog's bark. They may use ultrasonic sound, citronella spray, or vibration to interrupt the behaviour. These should definitely not be confused with electric shock collars, which are a different — and far more controversial — category of product entirely.

Many modern bark collars offer both vibration and adjustable static stimulation. While the term “static” can sound concerning, it’s a low-level, controlled electrical pulse and feels like a mild muscle stimulation rather than a painful shock. Newer collars are far more refined than older models, allowing owners to set an appropriate level for their dog.

Both the above types of device — the ultrasonic boxes and the collars — are designed based on the same principle: interrupt the barking in the moment and create a window for the dog to make a different behavioural choice. Neither is designed to cause pain.

Are These Devices Cruel?

It's the first question most owners ask — and the answer is no, not when used correctly.

"An ultrasonic bark deterrent device emits a high-frequency sound that is unpleasant or distracting for the dog and does not cause physical harm in any way," McFall explains.

"The goal is not to punish the dog, but to interrupt the barking behaviour and create a moment where the dog can learn to make a different choice. For many dogs, it simply acts as a pattern breaker."

At What Age Is It Appropriate to Use a Bark Deterrent Device?

McFall recommends avoiding bark deterrent devices on puppies under nine months:

"Puppies are still developing emotionally, socially, and cognitively — and barking is a normal part of communication and learning."

For young dogs, the better approach is positive training, structure, enrichment, and reinforcing calm behaviour.

The key question for the owner of any barking puppy, she says, is: Why is my puppy barking?

"Often the answer is boredom, fear, loneliness, over-tiredness, or lack of guidance."

A dog behavioural specialist herself, McFall provides the following helpful advice for employing alongside any devices — and in the case of puppies, before the nine-month mark at which the devices would be added into a strategy, if they're still required:

Here are a few things you can do to address these common root causes of barking:

Boredom: If a puppy is barking out of boredom, the solution is finding more appropriate outlets for their energy. This means daily walks that are suited to their age, short training sessions, food enrichment (such as puzzle toys or scatter feeding), and interactive play (hide and seek or tug toys). Puppies need mental stimulation just as much as physical.

Fear: When a puppy is barking from fear, the focus should be on building confidence around their trigger rather than avoiding it altogether. However, you should also be cautious not to flood the puppy with what is scaring them as that can make them shut down. Instead, gradually expose them to the trigger from a distance and at low intensity and pair it with something positive, like treats or play. The goal is to change how the puppy feels, not just how they behave.

Loneliness: Puppies that are left too long or too suddenly can bark due to distress and confusion. The solution to this is to build up independence gradually. Start with very short absences and slowly increase the duration, while giving the puppy something safe and engaging to do like a kong or food toy. Crate training and using a puppy play pen is also very useful to get your puppy used to being separated from you. Making departures and arrivals low-key also helps reduce anxiety.

Over-tiredness: An overtired puppy can become more vocal and reactive, much like an overtired child. Puppies need a lot of sleep, often 16-20 hours per day, so keep play and training sessions short but frequent. It's a good idea to have a separate space that is calm, and quiet to put them in such as a crate.

Lack of guidance: Sometimes puppies bark simply because they haven’t been taught what is expected of them. In these cases, owners should focus on teaching calm behaviour by rewarding quiet moments, being consistent with boundaries and manners, and introducing cues like “quiet” or “settle”. Clear communication from owners goes a long way in preventing future barking habits.

Do All Dogs Respond the Same Way to Bark Deterrents?

No — and breed, temperament, and the reason behind the barking all matter significantly.

"Sensitive dogs respond quickly because they notice the noise more," McFall says, "compared to dogs with higher drive levels, who may be less responsive — especially if they are deeply focused on what they are barking at."

By "higher drive", she explains, this means dogs that have a naturally higher level of energy, motivation, and responsiveness to their environment. They have strong instincts to work, chase, or react to movement or noise. These are dogs that are likely to develop behaviours like excessive barking "because they're constantly looking for an outlet for their energy".

Naturally vocal breeds — terriers, spitz breeds, herding breeds, and most spaniels — may find an ultrasonic device insufficient on its own. ( NB: Spitz breeds refer to a certain group of dogs that share a common look and ancestry. Examples include Huskies, Pomeranians and Akitas — but there are many more dogs in this category. They were bred for working or hunting and need a lot of enrichment. This is a particular issue in New Zealand, where these dogs are popular for their visual appeal, but they're known for their barking.)

"These breeds are triggered easily by environmental stimulation and excitement, so an ultrasonic bark system may not resolve the barking permanently."

Dogs barking from anxiety or fear need a different approach entirely.

"They may have underlying emotions that need to be addressed rather than simply suppressing the barking."

When barking is driven by fear or anxiety, says McFall, the goal isn’t to stop the noise. It's to change how the dog feels.

"Start by identifying the trigger e.g. being left alone, strangers, noise, cars — and reduce your dog’s exposure to it where possible. Then slowly re-introduce that trigger at a low, manageable level and pair it with something positive such as food or play. This will help your dog build a new, calmer association over time.

"To manage the trigger, you can block it visually (fences or windows), provide a safe, quiet space, and use calming enrichment to help him or her relax; that can make a big difference."

When Nothing Works

If barking has been rehearsed for months or years, it can become deeply habitual and self-reinforcing.

"In those cases," McFall warns, "devices may reduce barking — but they won't solve the reason the dog is barking."

Again, common underlying causes include separation anxiety, barrier frustration, boredom, territorial behaviour, lack of exercise or stimulation, and reinforced attention-seeking behaviour.

"The next step is a proper behavioural assessment. These bark control tools should always be supported with training — and in some cases, a dog trainer or behaviourist may be required to assess and provide a plan."

"But if the barking persists, escalates, or is linked to pacing, destruction, or intense distress when he or she is left alone, you've really got to bring in a professional. A qualified trainer or behaviourist can create a structured plan, and in more severe cases, a vet may also need to be involved to support a dog's anxiety through medication."

Box Device or Collar — Which Is Better?

Both have their place — and understanding the difference helps owners choose the right tool for their specific situation.

Box devices, like the outdoor Barkmate unit made by DogMaster Trainers, are designed to cover a defined area.

The Barkmate operates on the ultrasonic principle described above — detecting barking and emitting a high-frequency sound to interrupt the behaviour — and is effective within 15 metres of the dog as long as there are minimal obstacles between the device and the animal. Fences, walls, wind, and background noise can all reduce its effectiveness — so positioning is critical.

"The best scenario is positioning the bark box in a kennel, crate, or directly in the bark zone area," McFall explains, "rather than expecting it to cover a large property."

Bark control collars, however, are significantly more reliable in most situations.

"The biggest difference is consistency and precision. The collar activates directly from the dog wearing it, so it is much more reliable — because it responds specifically to that dog's bark in the moment. You can also adjust the settings on collars to suit your dog."

McFall recommends collars for dogs with higher drive levels, for multi-dog households where one dog is the primary barker, and for situations where there isn't one specific location where the barking occurs. (Again, "higher drive" means dogs that have a naturally higher level of energy, motivation, and responsiveness to their environment. They have strong instincts to work, chase, or react to movement or noise.)

"Collars are much more accurate and have a higher success rate for reducing barking than box devices."

A range of bark control collar options is available at DogMaster's website .

The Bottom Line

Bark control devices are tools, not solutions.

"The device is designed to interrupt barking — but it's the owner's job to teach the dog the correct behaviour ," McFall says.

"Owners should reward calm behaviour using food, physical or verbal affection. Rewarding calm behaviour, teaching a 'quiet' cue, providing regular exercise and mental stimulation — these are what actually build lasting change.

"A good way to think about bark control devices is that they create an opportunity for learning. It's up to us as owners to teach our dogs — and the best way to use these devices is as a tool in the training toolkit."

A Note From DoggieMamma

This is not a sponsored piece.

I've published this article because I was impressed with the quality of advice — and the time invested by Gabrielle in providing it — when I was personally forced to seek solutions to the incessant barking of multiple neighbouring dogs.

My local council, Masterton District Council in New Zealand, has failed to provide any meaningful resolution to what has now been an ongoing, documented, and formally complained-about situation for two and a half years.

Three separate anti-barking box devices purchased at my own expense have not solved the problem — because, as Gabrielle McFall explains above, they are tools, not solutions. The solution requires action to be taken by the owners and, where they are unwilling, the council. So far, those parties all remain completely unconcerned about the significant and frequent disturbance caused by the dogs in question.

If you're in a similar situation — as a sufferer of a neighbour's barking dog, or as an owner wanting to make sure yours isn't causing misery — I trust this article gives you some where to start.

'From Great Evil, Must Be Made to Come Great Good' . . . Announcing the Harry Homing Mission

Mon, 30 Mar 2026 03:46:58 GMT

Harry's Story Can't Be Left At What Was Done to Him. Out of the Senseless and the Cruel, Has to Come the Sensitive and the Compassionate: A Home for Every Pet. A Legacy Worth Living.

Hi Readers.

Doggie Mamma here . . . Jordan Kelly, the human behind doggiemamma.com . . . also Harry's mamma.

Or I was, until a veterinary teaching facility - albeit of which Harry was a full fee-paying private patient (and who had entered for a simple rehydration procedure) - decided Harry was more important as a live student experimentation opportunity and filming project for the day (which he wasn't intended to emerge from alive, and they made sure of it), than he was to his deeply loving owner.

I've gone forward to found the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics ( IIIVE.org ) and will from hereon create a close link between Doggiemamma.com and IIIVE.org so that I can bring you, my DoggieMamma.com audience, the best of both worlds . . . the heartfelt and the head-driven.

Thus, the following IIIVE development, which I feel sure will be of interest to you, is the subject of the below announcement, as published on IIIVE.org .

______________________________________

When the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) was founded in the aftermath of the cruelties suffered by treasured pet, little Harry Kelly, at the hands of Massey University's "Companion Animal Hospital" staff and the unnecessary and senseless death they premeditated for him , its purpose was clear: to document, expose, and drive improvement in veterinary ethics internationally.

Aside from the obvious need for an overhaul in the way veterinary teaching facilities apparently view private clients' pets as teaching resources to do with as they please , the need for improvement becomes more and more evident every day . . . in multiple ways across the veterinary landscape:

Large purely profit-driven commercial groups, for example, are buying up small, independent, vets all over the Western world, resulting in significantly increased prices and, at the same time, lower and genericised standards of "care". Vets working for the big chains are being asked to be salespeople first, vets second, recommending high-end and often unnecessary, or unnecessarily frequent, procedures.

Pets Before (Obscene) Profits . . . NOT (Obscene) Profits Before Pets

Vet bills are rising out of all proportion to the commitment to genuine "care" . . . which is one of (although far from the only) key drivers of animals being surrendered to pounds and rehoming centres all over the world.

At the same time as new generations of veterinarians are being trained in profit maximisation , including outright fraudulent billing practices , IIIVE is committed to tackling the problem from both ends: campaigning for vastly improved ethics in veterinary practices (used here both as a noun and a verb, by the way) to greatly reduce the number of pets surrendered regretfully by their owners simply because they can no longer afford the often quite unjustifiable fees across the sector at large . . . and then at the other end, where the problem has already manifested by way of new homes needed. And usually, urgently.

No Hypocrisy Here

Every pet IIIVE's founder and Executive Director, Jordan Kelly, has owned in her adult life has been been a "re-home" . . . a better term for which is probably, an "adoptee".

Harry was, arguably, the exception . . . in that he did come from a breeder, but was that breeder's "own dog", and had never been bred from. One day Harry (then called Harris) needed a new home. And he found his new home waiting eagerly for him at the Kelly household, where he joined his big brother, Vette, an earlier adoptee - a cheeky papillon / border collie cross who lived to be 19.5 years old.

Massey's Companion Animal "Hospital" and its staff had plans to ensure Harry, however, didn't have the opportunity to experience similar longevity .

' . . . Out of Great Evil, Great Good Must Be Made to Come . . . '

Harry's legacy has to be more than just a case study . His death was senseless, cruel and without justification or excuse.

It was without truth and it was without compassion . . . not withstanding the very institution that "trains" each new generation of veterinarians it dispatches into veterinary clinics around the world should, conversely, be a bastion of high ethical standards - not the reverse .

It is out of the spirit of genuine compassion that the Harry Homing Mission is born, to bring light into the darkness that prevailed when New Zealand's Massey University veterinary teaching hospital (aka "Companion Animal Hospital") decided to teach their students in the lowest level of "ethics" imaginable .

The Harry Homing Mission will start small - it's a big pet rescue world out there - but IIIVE aims to gradually build up a substantial international directory of rescue and re-homing organisations across the globe.

Because every pet deserves the love and care of their own pet parent.

Someone who will love them as Harry was (and still is) loved and cared for.

This is to be Harry's legacy . . . for all the good things that can be given out of what was taken.

If you know of an organisation that should be listed, you can suggest it directly through the directory page. If you are a rescue organisation that would like to be included, we welcome your submission .

You'll find a dedicated form at the bottom of the Directory section.

Your 'Baby’s' Missing. You're Staring Down the Barrel of Your Worst Nightmare. What Do You Do?

editor@consumeraffairswriter.com (Jordan Kelly) — Sun, 26 Jan 2025 04:43:42 GMT

Your 'Baby’s' Missing. You're Staring Down the Barrel of Your Worst Nightmare. What Do You Do?

(This is an advisory article on what to do, in what order to do it, and what not to do, in the event your worst nightmare becomes a reality, and your beloved dog goes missing. But first, bear with me, while I relate my own horrifying experience . . . which includes all the things that should have been done, but weren’t.

Further into the article, you’ll receive frontline advice from a seasoned animal control officer that will maximise your chances of getting your “baby” back – and as quickly and safely as possible.)

Suddenly realising your precious fur baby is missing, is one of the most terrifying moments in a dedicated, and otherwise highly responsible, pet parent’s life.

I never thought it would happen to me. Until the day it did.

I had left my precious little Harry in the “care” of a seemingly “lovely” retired English couple here in Masterton, New Zealand, for an afternoon while I had a dental appointment in Wellington (our capital city, a four-hour round trip).

I had found this couple after advertising for occasional care for instances just like said dentist appointment, where it wasn’t appropriate to take him and where he couldn’t be left in a vehicle – not for that amount of time, and, of course, not ever, in the warmer months.

I had visited the home and yard environments of a shortlist of potential carers, and this couple seemed to be the ideal candidates. Their own little dog had died just prior, and they said they wanted part-time canine company but without the full-time commitment.

Returning back late that afternoon – armed with British brand-name biscuits and cakes from a UK specialty products store, as a gift of gratitude for "looking after" my precious Harry – I found not only that no “looking after” had been done . . . but far, far worse than that, here’s what I actually found:

As I approached the couple's open patio door, I saw both of them sitting watching television. They barely looked up. As my eyes scoured around their lounge for Harry, they finally looked up at me, each with a scowl on their face.

I thought they were playing some silly trick, and so I said, “OK, where is he?”

Harry Was GONE

It was at the moment of their unconcerned response that I realised the awful truth: Harry was GONE.

They had no idea where. They had no idea when. And they had done NOTHING about it! (Except to claim that “we’ve been driving around looking for him” . . . which they certainly weren’t doing when my arrival had interrupted their TV-watching.)

Fear, terror and complete confusion took over in equal proportions – and at a scale I had never experienced before in my life. To the point where, in retrospect, I don’t even know what happened to the armful of British goodies I came laden with to their door. I assume I must have just dropped them on the patio.

What I DO remember is – at the moment of realisation that this wasn’t just some silly, or cruel, joke, and that I was in a completely unfamiliar geographic territory (having moved to Masterton only weeks earlier) - letting out a blood-curdling scream, which met with chastisement from the couple, but still nil concern for Harry's whereabouts.

When Neighbours Care, It Makes A World of Difference

A young couple in the neighboring house rushed out to investigate with great concern, and immediately set about searching their own property (something the “lovely English couple” had who knows how many hours to ask to do).

While they were searching their yard, I then did the only thing my completely unprepared and not clearly thinking brain could do: Run up and down the street screaming “Harry, Harry” at the top of my lungs.

A trio of several wonderful, and much clearer-thinking, retired ladies came running out of a house and coaxed me inside, whereby one of them got on her mobile phone to the local Council, one of them got on the local town Facebook page, and the other was trying to get hold of an IT guy who had taken my own mobile phone to attend to an issue with it, had not yet returned it, and who appeared in no particular hurry to answer it.

One of the women decided to brave going across to the unconcerned English couple’s house to ask for some indication of what time (during the full afternoon and thus far evening) they at least thought might have been his time of disappearance. They had no idea, of course . . . despite the fact that their stated intention for him was to have had him in their lounge with them all day.

Just as I was on the verge of completely losing my mind and getting back into my vehicle to drive around the streets in search of him, a woman who was now talking with the young neighbours of the “lovely English couple”, called out to me, “Have you lost a little white dog called Harry?” (Thankfully, the “lovely English couple” hadn’t taken off Harry’s harness, to which was attached his name tag, my address, and his Council ID tag.)

Thank God (Literally) for A Happy Ending

To bring the story to a gratefully happy and successful ending:

The woman’s daughter had seen Harry sitting in the middle of the road outside her (the daughter’s) son’s daycare centre earlier in the afternoon.

As she approached him, Harry had scarpered. But the quick-witted and quick-moving young woman managed to get herself and her young child into her car while not losing sight of him. She drove after him, before alighting and running after him into someone’s property. Said property owner had cornered him, handed him to her, whereafter she’d embarked on a search for me . . . all while I was searching for Harry.

How did her mother know to go knocking on the young couple’s door? Because the young woman had taken a photo of Harry, uploaded it to the local Facebook community page, and some sharp-eyed resident had linked their own sighting of Harry earlier in the day to the “lovely English couple” . . . whereupon the young woman had sent her Mum door-knocking in the surrounding area.

I have no words to express the depth of gratitude I feel to that young woman, and to her mother. The emotional rollercoaster of that hour or so, and the trauma of the memory of the initial terrifying moment, are something only another similarly devoted pet parent could comprehend.

I wanted to tell this story – and to tell it in detail – in order to impress upon readers just how important it is to be diligent to either avoid such a circumstance, or to be appraised of what steps to take, and in what order, to minimise the odds of the worst outcome and maximise the chances of the best.

Intuitive Reactions vs Counterintuitive (but More Strategic) Practicalities

Who better to tell a doggie mamma or a doggie pappa exactly what steps to take and in what order, than an animal control inspector of 27 years’ experience “on the beat”?

Gordon Crawley is the “Team Leader of Animal & Bylaw Services” for Masterton District Council. He presides over a small team of three in the animal control section of his overall department. He, however, is the main “feet on the street” . . . or, rather, the guy driving around on patrol and taking care of most of the “hands on” duties.

Says Crawley:

“When a dog owner first realises their pet is missing, it’s an incredibly stressful moment, and people go into high levels of distress,” he says.

“Their mind is spinning: Is it lost, is it stolen, whose fault is it . . . ?

“As hard as it is, the key is DON’T PANIC . This is a moment when you need to both think and communicate clearly, if you are to enhance your chances of getting your dog back.

“Your natural reaction will almost always be to go out and start looking for your dog. But, in fact, (speaking from the perspective of the New Zealand situation, at least) , the very first thing you should do is let your local Council know.

“Because what might have (and often, has) happened, is that your dog got out four hours before you realised his or her disappearance, and we might well have it safely in the Council animal shelter. And all the while you are in high stress mode running around the streets looking for him or her.

“There’s an after-hours or emergency option on the outgoing voicemail options of most local councils’ main phone number. Don’t delay in using it. It doesn’t matter what time of the night it is. After hours call centre staff will take down the details of your situation, and the animal control team will be notified as soon as they come online first thing in the morning.

“We’ll either have the dog (assuming you give us a sufficiently detailed and workable description), or we’ll convey the details to the appropriate team member/s at that time.”

Crawley says that while the Council’s animal control personnel don’t go driving around looking for a lost dog, if they are aware of a missing dog, the details they’ve been given will help them keep a firm eye on the area while on general patrol – which they often are, for example, in certain areas known to be problem territory.

Council is the First, but Only the First , Port of Call

After calling your local Council, the inspector says, your next move should be to get photos of your dog and a detailed description of him or her, on your local community’s social media pages (or that of the local area in which he or she was lost). Every local community has a Facebook page or something of that ilk, he says. (Indeed, that was the catalyst that led to Harry’s return.)

“Many, if not most, dogs get returned through this route, before we even get involved,” says Crawley. “Community social media pages are incredibly powerful. Don’t under-estimate them. People are always on those pages doing something.”

If your dog goes missing locally, go and knock on neighbours’ doors, he advises.

“I’d be inclined to visit neighboring properties up to seven or eight doors away in all directions, including off of side roads.”

Detail, Detail, Detail

The key here, he says, is to give a highly detailed description :

Not just breed, but other identifiers, primarily, colour and secondary markings e.g. brown ears, brown dots above the eyes, colour of collar, and, of course, the name the dog answers to.

Crawley says the degree of detail regarding the dog’s physical appearance is especially important in the case of mixed breeds and the new “hybrid” breeds.

“Labradoodles, by way of an example, and most of these new, emerging hybrid dog breeds don’t put any specific picture even in my mind, even as a seasoned dog control officer, so you have to consider how little the name of some new type of breed would mean to the average householder.

“I know all the basic breeds – fox terrier, alsatian, labrador, heading dogs, all the standards, of course, and most people do. But when it comes to mixtures of different breeds or these new hybrids – I have no idea what I’m looking out for, let alone the average resident trying to work out what mixed breeds or the increasing number of new mixed breeds look like.

“ Having a very detailed description of what your dog looks like is critical. Including when you ring your Council pound – for the same reason.”

Put It In Print

My own suggestion in this regard, would be that – if your pet hasn’t been found after doing all the above and your first round of door-knocking, then - print out a clear photo of your pet, with the above level of detail in easy-to-read wording and print size.

Do a second door-knock exercise, delivering this notice in the form of (either A4 or A5) flyers around your neighbourhood, or the neighbourhood where he or she went missing (and also your own, if it’s a reasonable assumption that they could have tried to make their own way home).

Do that drop at least within the inspector's full recommended radius.

An actual piece of tangible paper with your dog’s description greatly increases the sets of eyes and ears you’ll potentially have on the case. When you do a verbal version of the door-knock, you’re talking to one person at the door, but later on, that householder's whole family comes home – and hopefully, sees your flyer.

A No-Brainer but It Doesn’t Go Without Saying

Back to the animal control inspector:

“I can’t stress enough how critically important it is to make sure your dog’s registration is up to date, and to ensure that it is microchipped . That massively increases your chances of getting your dog back.”

Also on the note of the obvious, but worthy of a big and regular reminder:

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” says Crawley. “ Make sure your property is properly secure; fully dog-safe.

“Good fencing has no gaps . And always make sure people shut gates. It’s very advisable to have a clearly visible ‘PLEASE SHUT THE GATE’ sign.

“And put this in the delivery instructions when you order anything by courier .”

On the Note of Couriers

In closing, I’ll add to the inspector’s final point:

Unbelievability, my local New Zealand Post courier has left my large (but easily-closed) driveway gate swinging open, despite knowing full well that I have a little dog.

I promptly got onto the national call centre, who equally promptly didn’t give a stuff. It took for me to actually post a photo and an article and send it to the Government minister in charge of New Zealand Post, for them to actually bother to advise the courier against repeating his tardy actions.

However, just as unbelievably, I've seen him still leaving the gate open when he comes through it, until he goes back out of it . . . and it was only by sheer good fortune that I was outside and saw, and prevented, Harry from taking off through it. Had I not been outside and seen this, the outcome would NOT have been good for a little dog who has no road sense and is blind in one eye.

Think about it, New Zealand Post. And CARE a bit, eh? And instruct your local courier accordingly.

And while you’re at it, New Zealand Post, instruct ALL your couriers against such sloppy laziness that stands to very easily have heartbreaking and irreversible consequences.

Indoor Air Quality Expert: Mold Can Harm Your Pets, Too

editor@consumeraffairswriter.com (Jordan Kelly) — Wed, 20 Nov 2024 20:23:07 GMT

Mold Remediation Pro Explains the Dangers of Mycotoxins to Your Pets

Mold is an organism that’s prevalent in the environment, and always looking for the opportunity to take root in your home and reproduce through its spores.

These spores can attach themselves to dust particles that are already in your air, says Indoor Air Quality Expert, Michael Rubino (popular blogger and podcaster, ‘Never Been Sicker’ ).

They then become part of your home’s natural dust.

“Now, let's think about this: A cat or a little puppy is very, very close to the floor where the dust obviously collects . . . so they’re more likely to inhale dust particles than actually you and I are.

“If your furry loved one is scratching and licking excessively, has nasal discharge, or labored breathing or any breathing difficulties at all, fur loss, lethargy, vomiting and diarrhoea, or on the increasingly serious end of the scale, tremors, seizures, or nose or mouth bleeding, these can be attributed to potential environmental exposure – and the first thing to suspect and investigate, is the likelihood of mold . . . after first immediately r ushing your dog to your vet . ”

Rubino provides extensive and detailed advice in this YouTube video on how to minimise your pet's risk related to mold exposure.

A Mini Railway, A Driver, A Conductor, A Ticketer . . . & A Very Excited Little Doggy

editor@consumeraffairswriter.com (Jordan Kelly) — Tue, 29 Oct 2024 22:12:24 GMT

My Little Boy, Harry, Having His First 'Train Ride'

Harry and I were accorded VIP status last weekend by the three friendly operators of the Masterton Miniature Train Society's 'rolling stock' . . . the little red and black choo choo that circles the lake in the town's picturesque Queen Elizabeth II Park & Gardens.

Jo, the uber-friendly ticket booth manager, insisted on making sure that I and my little guy had safely seated ourselves in a carriage. Nice.

David the Driver (the Engineer?) did the honours on his own mobile phone, making sure the moment was captured (his photographic handiwork is featured here on this page).

And Brendan the Overseer organised a second round of photos when the journey was complete. That's the photo you see on the front page.

These three volunteers are gold. The throughput of excited kids that sunny Sunday afternoon was massive. They worked their tails off. Thanks, special people, for taking the time to make my little boy's afternoon exciting, too. And for ensuring I had a photographic reminder of it.

Warning for Pet Parents: Be Alert to Toy-Related Dangers

editor@consumeraffairswriter.com (Jordan Kelly) — Thu, 01 Aug 2024 02:21:51 GMT

Dogs Are Like Kids in Many Ways . . . Swallowing Things They Shouldn't Is One of Them

When you buy toys for your dogs, check them over to make sure they're dog-proof, in the same way you would if you were checking for their kid-safe factor.

Pictured is one of my dog's soft toys, the eyes of which suddenly disappeared from its face . . . and I thankfully found them before he did.

Don't be shy to have a pull, a poke and a prod, and to remove things like treat toys from their boxes for a thorough inspection. I once lost my precious little Maltese, Timmy, to a choking accident. (Admittedly, it was my own fault. I gave him a chunk of hard cheese, unthinkingly, and he tried to down it without chewing it.)

My dear little Timmy died on the front seat of my vehicle before I arrived at the vet clinic. I don't wish that on anyone. But it could so easily happen, and above are examples of how that could be.

So take extra care when buying toys or treats for your fur-children.

From All 'Mr Furry Bums' & Pet Parents, Thanks, Housing Minister Bishop

editor@consumeraffairswriter.com (Jordan Kelly) — Thu, 23 May 2024 09:25:24 GMT

At Last, Maybe People Who Rent Will No Longer Have to Make A Choice Between Keeping Their Beloved Pet and Having A Roof Over Their Family's Head

For too many years, in recent decades, New Zealanders-who-rent have - increasingly - had to make the choice to either stay hunting for a home for a prolonged period, or live without a pet being part of their family.

While I readily accept that a small percentage of irresponsible pet owners "ruin it for others", the fact is this: A larger percentage of Kiwi households own a pet than those that don't have a pet.

According to research undertaken in 2022 by Companion Animals New Zealand (CANZ), 64 percent of our homes have a furred member of the family (I mean, a real one, the actual, literal, original, four-legged type).

So it's especially gratifying to finally see a politician with the power to do so, make a difference for all those households who both own a pet and rent - whether they be people on their own, large families, or anything in between.

According to an article in 'Inside Government New Zealand' , a new pet-friendly tenancy Bill has just passed its first reading.

The article's author quotes Housing Minister Chris Bishop:

“We’ve heard from many renters that it’s far too hard to find a rental home when you have a pet or want to get one. Pets are important members of so many Kiwi families, and we think it’s only right to make it easier to rent a home with your furry friend.

“The Bill makes it far easier to have a pet in a rental property in two ways: it requires landlords to only withhold consent for their tenants to have a pet on reasonable grounds, which might include things like whether the property has suitable fencing for a dog, for example.

“It also allows landlords to charge an additional two-week bond in case the pet causes damage to the property, giving the landlord greater reassurance that they won’t be left out of pocket through allowing Mr Fluffy Bum to move in with his person,” he said.

Your Choice of Vet Could Be A Life or Death Decision

editor@consumeraffairswriter.com (Jordan Kelly) — Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:04:44 GMT

Vet Practice Dispenses Potentially Fatal Double-Dose Heart Medication

Here’s how it went down.

I had just moved to Masterton (in the weeks leading up to Christmas). My regular vet practice is actually Totally Vets in Feilding – and I’m a huge fan of my dog’s actual veterinarian there, one Julia Giles. Unlike other experiences leading up to bringing my precious pooch into her care, she is diligent, thorough, caring – and while she’s a fully conventionally trained vet, she is not mentally closed off to holistic / natural treatment possibilities and efficacies. So, in short, regardless of the distance I must travel for consultations, my dog is staying in her care.

Notwithstanding, I sought to establish a secondary relationship with a local vet practice in Masterton for the purpose of (a) having a local point of dispense for my dog’s heart medication, and (b) having immediate access to a vet for emergencies.

While I experienced certain instances of incompetence in my attempts to do so with the local practice I chose to contact, these pale into insignificance in light of the most egregious of them all: the errant dispense of a double dose of my small, 6kg dog’s all-important heart medication.

Having gone through some rigamarole revolving largely around my insistence that I would NOT be changing my primary vet, I finally got this local practice to agree to the simple request of fulfilling a repeat prescription for my dog’s heart medication – a prescription duly forwarded to the practice by my primary vets i.e. TVG in Feilding.

I then visited the practice to collect my dog’s heart medication prescription.

Although I normally would not have done so, “something within” (and maybe the other lesser displays of incompetence) prompted me to open the bag and check the label on the box.

What Part of '2.5mg is NOT 1.25mg' Don’t They Understand?

To my concern, I could clearly see that the box itself read “ Vetmedin 2.5mg ”, despite this Masterton vet's print-out label showing the prescribed Vetmedin 1.25mg . In other words, despite the box containing double the strength of the heart medication that my own vet had prescribed (and which he has been on for several years), it had been labelled errantly as though the box contained the correct/prescribed strength of the medication. Which it did not. It contained TWICE the prescribed strength of capsule.

To be additionally noted, in an earlier phone call prior to my own vet emailing this repeat prescription to this local vet practice, I had actually been asked by the local vet practice’s receptionist which strength my dog was on, and I’d told her to wait for the prescription to arrive and to read it carefully and please ensure that I was being dispensed the correct dosage of capsule.

Standing at the counter now, I drew this double dosage being dispensed (as clearly showing on the box for anyone caring to actually read it) to the receptionists’ attention and asked for an explanation, stressing the potential implications of this act of gross incompetence i.e. dispensing a double-dose of a small and fragile dog’s prescribed strength of heart medication.

The response was that “it wasn’t me who dispensed it”. I responded that it didn’t matter to me what staff member dispensed it, the mistake was made by the same practice and stood to have the same ramifications for my dog, had I not noticed this error.

The explanation finally offered, without due concern, was that they “only had chewables in the prescribed strength”. Thus, some incompetent had taken it upon themselves to decide – since capsules had been prescribed – to simply dispense the strength of capsules that they had in stock (and label them incorrectly, as though they were as prescribe d, despite the fact that they were double the prescription strength).

I pressed the issue of the (potentially fatal) consequences of this uneducated and unwarranted “judgement call”.

‘Just’ Human Error (like, No Biggie)

The response was a defensive and dismissive, “It was human error.” The inference was “just” i.e. “just” human error. No biggie.

There was a refusal to give me the box (reason: it had to be “returned to the supplier”; why?), but I reached over and took the now-empty box (as evidence) off the counter anyway and promptly left.

You’ll see from the photograph illustrating this article, that the printing on the box shows abundantly clearly that its contents are “2.5mg” capsules. That’s right there in large, bold type on the box. However, immediately below it, is the vet practice’s applied print-out label, showing 1.25mg. You will also see that the frequency of dosage is as per the prescription i.e. twice daily. Thus, had I not noticed this dispensing error, I would have been giving my dog a double-dose of the medication twice daily.

It was a dangerous act of incompetence that – if not detected by a diligent owner – could have cost my beloved dog his life.

Several Prompts to the Vet Clinic Later . . .

Returning home, I thought about not only the potentially fatal dispensing error (and the several pre-prompts to this vet clinic regarding the importance of accuracy), but also the casual, seemingly unconcerned nature of the way in which this, again, potentially-fatal act of incompetence had been treated.

In the interests of other unsuspecting pet owners and their treasured and defenceless pets, I therefore decided to make a formal complaint to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

I wrote a full account of the matter, attached to my email a photograph of the plainly mis-labeled heart medication (i.e. showing the printing on the box as 2.5mg, and immediately below it, the vet's own labeling of "1.25mg" i.e. in accordance with my own vet's prescribed strength but NOT in accordance with what was actually IN THE BOX, as per the box's own clear print. See the photo accompanying this article).

I emailed this to the Registrar of the Veterinary Council and his deputy, along with my own vet, my dog's cardiologist, and (of course), the local vet clinic itself.

Several days later, no response from the local vet clinic. Nada. Not a skerrick of even an acknowledgement of my email. I did, however, receive a reply from the Veterinary Council, asking me to request of the local clinic the name of the vet involved with the dispensing of the errant prescription.

So I rang several phone numbers for the Group without result, and finally - upon trying one final branch/clinic's phone number - I found myself speaking to someone who actually understood the gravity of the matter. She provided me with several (assumedly, senior management) email addresses, asked me to send a further email, and advised me that she'd be calling those recipients immediately to tell them to read my forthcoming email - and with the appropriate urgency.

So I wrote again, as per the above instruction:

"It is concerning that no communication has been received following my sending the below email on Tuesday of this week (nor even any acknowledgement thereof).

"This matter is not a small one. You have staff who are either sloppily dispensing the wrong medication OR who are taking it upon themselves to change the prescription of a prescribing vet, and doing this without any communication to the owner of the pet in question.

"The Veterinary Council has responded with the following instruction to me:

“We’ll need you to name the specific veterinarian that you’re concerned about from (this practice).”

"I look forward to some communication that demonstrates that your practice’s ownership and managerial team are actually giving serious attention to a matter of this gravity.

"In the meantime, as evidence, please see the attached photograph of the box, its actual contents, and the labeling applied by you. NB: This is the box that your reception staff did not want me to take away with me, as you will read below."

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

A Response . . . But Some Serious Concerns, Notwithstanding

Finally. the next day, I received a response from management - acknowledging "this incident" and assuring me that "we are currently putting in place a double-checking system on all our medications dispensed by our practice.

"This will involve every prescription to be checked by two veterinary staff members (one of whom is a veterinarian or senior staff member). The medication will be checked for the type, the strength and the dose of the medication and that the medication is for the correct patient.

"We are also sorry that the communication of the staff regarding the prescription error was not satisfactory. We have spoken to all the staff including those involved and outlined the importance of our customer care."

Well, I'm still not all that impressed, and here's why:

1) If there was indeed an appropriate level of concern, this would have - or should have - resulted in some immediate (even if interim) acknowledgement of my correspondence, without prompting that involved copying the practice in on emails to the Veterinary Council, my own vet, my dog's cardiologist, and even Consumer New Zealand.

2) How was such a serious and potentially fatal set of circumstances allowed to eventuate in the first place? Certainly, both the fact that it did, and the clinic's management advising me that they had now put appropriate and supposedly fail-safe dispensing practices in place, would indicate that they have long been operating without any such safety measures. To say nothing of the casual responses of the clinic's frontline staff.

3) I note that the eventual reply from management avoided mentioning the name of any vet - the specific item of information requested by the Veterinary Council.

CUSTOMERS OF VETERINARY CLINICS SHOULD NOTE:

Don't assume that there is any point or path of recourse against a veterinary clinic per se. Unless you can get the name of a specific vet, you - the client, and your pet - are on your own.

From a communication by the Veterinary Council of New Zealand:

"Under the Veterinarians Act 2005, VCNZ is responsible for regulating individual, practicing veterinarians. We don’t regulate veterinary clinics or veterinary support staff; therefore, we are unable to consider a complaint about a veterinarian clinic generally."

So, my advice, is to not be reticent in asking questions, or in questioning the advice or practices or conduct, of any veterinarian or veterinary clinic . . . Don't be lulled into some false sense of security that you'll have any overseeing industry or professional body to look into anything on your behalf (or that they will); no matter how serious. Even if your pet dies. It'll be too bad for you, basically. To put it baldly, you have no guarantee that anybody will give a flying F-K, much less execute any disciplinary action. (It's the same 'ol, same 'ol. In both my opinion and in my experience, the "industry watchdogs" are more concerned to protect their own, wherever they can. It's the same in almost every industry across the board. The only difference is that in the veterinary and medical industries, the result could be fatal.)

4) So much for management's claim that: "We have spoken to all the staff including those involved and outlined the importance of our customer care."

Their accounts department certainly didn't get the memo. On the morning of the 25th of January, I received a very terse phone call telling me that I had an outstanding invoice for my dog's heart medication.

In no uncertain terms, I advised the staffer (I have her name, if management gives a stuff and wants it) that not only had the practice acted in a manner that could have had fatal consequences for my dog, but they had not exactly been "best practice" in their communications, and now - to add insult to injury - she was ringing me in a most unfriendly manner to demand payment for a product that (mercifully) I never took possession of (aside from the empty box, as evidence of the mis-labeling incompetence).

Said staffer responded that "I haven't heard anything about it". I suggested her employing organisation "get your shit together" and that "I'll leave it with you", and hung up. A very short while later, I found an "Overdue Invoice" in my email inbox.

Highlighting their continuing incompetence, check out the fact that the invoice claims to have dispensed the correct dosage i.e. 1.25mg of the heart meds - when, in fact, as this article and the photographic evidence illustrating it, demonstrates, they actually dispensed the outlined potentially fatal double dosage (2.5mg) you see on the box, and that my copious correspondence to them has detailed.

I mean . . . could it get any worse? I'd call it a prime clown show, but this degree of incompetence and the potentially fatal consequences such could have, is FAR FROM FUNNY .

doggie-site

Rescue, Compassion and Courage vs Recklessness, Cruelty and Cowardice

Compassion vs Cruelty . . . Spot the Difference ﻿

Rescuers' Determination to Save the Almost Unsaveable vs Massey's Determination to Destroy the Perfectly Viable

Hey, Masterton 'Mayor Bex': So You Handed the Issue Back to the Same Council Officers Whose Discrimination I'm Complaining About?

The Real Answer Is the Mayor Has No Answer. How Do You Pass Off Active & Overt Ratepayer Discrimination, When that Ratepayer Takes It Up to You So Directly . . . And Publishes All the Evidence, Worse Still?

Discriminatory Enforcement of A Bylaw IS A Governance Matter

News for Masterton Mayor Bex Johnson: Discriminatory Enforcement of the Law IS A Governance Matter

You're Gutless, Ms Mayor. It's This Brand of 'Leadership' That Is Precisely Why So Much of the Local Government Constituency Holds their Local 'Leaders' in Deserved Derision & Objects to the Phenomenal Wastage of Our Rates.

Ratepayers Actually Fund these Freewheeling Childish Clowns’ Salaries

Imagine If the Average Private Sector Employee Acted This Childishly, WIth this Degree of Extraordinary Irresponsibility & With Such Total Impunity . . . and With the C-Suite's Blessing.

The Accountability Black Hole at the Heart of Veterinary Teaching Hospitals . . . and Why Your Pet Has NO Protection

"New Zealand has no legal regulation of veterinary nurses or other allied veterinary professions.

Where Cruelty Starts . . . and Doesn't Stop

Proof Positive: As Always, I Come with Full Receipts

How the 'Accountability' (or Rather, the 'Non-Accountability') Game Works

How Massey Gets Away with (What, In A Human Hospital Would Actually Be) Outright Murder

A Protection Racket With A Letterhead & Funding It Shouldn't Have

And . . . Back to the Second, Back-Up Accountability Trap Door

MASTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL: When Just Doing Your Job Would Be A Whole Lot Easier

Following the Fiasco ? Here's the Latest Progress Had When No Progress Has Been Had

Nuisance Barking & This Council's Selective Hearing for Selected Complainants

Two Years of Recordings, Independent Witnesses & the Council's Own Frontline & On-the-Ground Staff Acknowledging Nuisance Barking. Management, However, Requires Complainants to Possess A Penis.

Lazy, Dishonest & Mysogynistic Council Culture As Problem Force Multiplier As Opposed to Solution Provider

‘Nothing to Hear Here,’ Says Gordon Crawley, Whose Animal Control Personnel Have Already Admitted the Problem on Multiple Occasions . . . While Doing Nothing to Solve It

When Dealing with the Masterton District Council, Balls Aren’t Enough; A Complainant Also Needs A Penis

Why Has A Problem That Was Known & Admitted to Be A Problem Suddenly Become Not A Problem And Apparently Never Has Been?

‘That Street Is A Known Nuisance Barking Trouble Spot’

Three Anti-Barking Deterrent Boxes Later

Gordon Crawley

The Councillors . . . Our Elected 'Representatives'

Council's Questionable Managerial Culture Permeates Down the Ranks

The OIA

A Note on the Breed

Before You Fall In Love with That Face: Choosing the Right Dog for Your Life, Your Home & Your Neighbours

High-Value Advice from Someone Who Really, Really Knows Dogs . . . Ignore It At Your Peril

The Most Common Mismatches — And Why They Happen

What to Look for If You're In A Suburban Environment

The Case for Rescue — And Why It's NOT A Compromise

Testing the Fit Before You Commit

If You've Already Made A Mismatch

Don't Let Yours Be 'THAT Dog': What Works, What Doesn't, and What Every Dog Owner Needs to Know About Barking

Don't Let Your Source of Joy Be Your Neighbours' Source of Agitation & Despair

'From Great Evil, Must Be Made to Come Great Good' . . . Announcing the Harry Homing Mission

Harry's Story Can't Be Left At What Was Done to Him. Out of the Senseless and the Cruel, Has to Come the Sensitive and the Compassionate: A Home for Every Pet. A Legacy Worth Living.

Pets Before (Obscene) Profits . . . NOT (Obscene) Profits Before Pets

No Hypocrisy Here

' . . . Out of Great Evil, Great Good Must Be Made to Come . . . '

Because every pet deserves the love and care of their own pet parent.

Your 'Baby’s' Missing. You're Staring Down the Barrel of Your Worst Nightmare. What Do You Do?

Your 'Baby’s' Missing. You're Staring Down the Barrel of Your Worst Nightmare. What Do You Do?

Suddenly realising your precious fur baby is missing, is one of the most terrifying moments in a dedicated, and otherwise highly responsible, pet parent’s life.

Harry Was GONE

When Neighbours Care, It Makes A World of Difference

Thank God (Literally) for A Happy Ending

Intuitive Reactions vs Counterintuitive (but More Strategic) Practicalities

Council is the First, but Only the First , Port of Call

Detail, Detail, Detail

Put It In Print

A No-Brainer but It Doesn’t Go Without Saying

On the Note of Couriers

Indoor Air Quality Expert: Mold Can Harm Your Pets, Too

Mold Remediation Pro Explains the Dangers of Mycotoxins to Your Pets

A Mini Railway, A Driver, A Conductor, A Ticketer . . . & A Very Excited Little Doggy

My Little Boy, Harry, Having His First 'Train Ride'

Warning for Pet Parents: Be Alert to Toy-Related Dangers

Dogs Are Like Kids in Many Ways . . . Swallowing Things They Shouldn't Is One of Them

From All 'Mr Furry Bums' & Pet Parents, Thanks, Housing Minister Bishop

At Last, Maybe People Who Rent Will No Longer Have to Make A Choice Between Keeping Their Beloved Pet and Having A Roof Over Their Family's Head

Your Choice of Vet Could Be A Life or Death Decision

Vet Practice Dispenses Potentially Fatal Double-Dose Heart Medication

What Part of '2.5mg is NOT 1.25mg' Don’t They Understand?

‘Just’ Human Error (like, No Biggie)

Several Prompts to the Vet Clinic Later . . .

A Response . . . But Some Serious Concerns, Notwithstanding

Well, I'm still not all that impressed, and here's why:

Compassion vs Cruelty . . . Spot the Difference