When Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital recommended a specific cremation provider for Harry, they were initiating a clinical and ethical chain of custody. They vouched for a provider that markets itself under the shield of international accreditation.
However, as documented in my core investigation, [Are These Harry’s Ashes? Or Aren’t They?]
LINK TO STORY,
that chain of custody didn't just break; it vanished.
The response from Gavin and Lyn Shepherd of Pet Farewells has been a study in shifting narratives, beginning with an initial phone demand for a "disposal fee" because they were "told I didn't want Harry back," followed by a sudden reversal claiming the ashes were "tucked up safely on (the) desk", and culminating in a refusal to provide any records or tracking (as required by their "accrediting" body, or even any authentication by way of the remnants of the solid gold cross Harry wore - claiming, against all laws of physics, that the metal simply "melt(ed) and seep(ed) into the hearth, bedding and the bones".
According to
Maggie Edwards, Senior Adviser at Consumer New Zealand, this is a straightforward Fair Trading Act and Consumer Guarantees Act issue where services must be provided with reasonable care and skill. If a consumer feels they are being misled about the remains being returned
(Readers: Please do see the email exchange with Lyn and Gavin Shepherd, reproduced here LINK TO STORY - Are These Harry’s Ashes? Or Aren’t They?), Edwards notes the matter can be lodged with the
Commerce Commission on the grounds of misleading conduct.
Edwards further identified that while Pet Farewells promotes its membership in the
International Association of Pet Cemeteries & Crematories (IAOPCC), there appears to be a clear breach of
Point 8 of their Code of Ethics, which mandates that members maintain accurate and up-to-date burial and cremation records available for client inspection.
What the International Membership Promises
To understand the weight of this apparent breach, one must look at what the IAOPCC tells the public they should expect from a member.
According to their own website, choosing a member means that pet owner has specifically selected a provider committed to:
- "Strict Adherence to Ethics and Standards: Members follow a comprehensive Code of Ethics and Standards of Business Practices established by the IAOPCC.
- "Full Disclosure and Tracking: Members provide clear, documented information about their pet identification and tracking procedures throughout the aftercare process."
- "Honesty and Accountability: Members are prohibited from misrepresenting services or engaging in fraudulent or deceptive practices.
- "Compassionate, High-Quality Care: Services are delivered with dignity, respect, and the utmost care for both the pet and the family."
Yet
my experience
LINK TO STORY - Are These Harry’s Ashes? Or Aren’t They?
- as their customer and the owner of my beloved Harry - was very, very different.
According to the United States-based IAOPCC's website, its accreditation program is a "globally recognized and industry-approved initiative," outlining established procedures for each step of the pet cremation process.
This includes guidelines for transportation, varying types of pet cremation,
record-keeping, and facility standards. It also openly recognises that
"in an industry with minimal regulatory oversight beyond environmental and business licensing, pet aftercare has largely been self-regulated."
It further claims that their program "provides pet owners and the industry with a reliable assurance of integrity in pet aftercare practices, offering protection through its comprehensive standards and inspection process."
Yet as the Consumer New Zealand advisor noted: "Unfortunately, it does not seem that the IAOPCC has a complaints process regarding its members and any breaches of the Code of Ethics.
"However, Pet Farewells should be able to show you Harry's burial and cremation records."
Except that they
won't . . . and maybe that's because they
can't.
In my email below, you will see that I am inquiring of the Executive Director,
Donna Shugart-Bethune, and the President,
Doyle L. Shugart, as to when the IAOPCC last inspected Gavin and Lyn Shepherds' Pet Farewells Hamilton or Wellington facilities, or any other pet crematoria their associated
NZ Pet Cremate Limited entity owns and operates under the claim of IAOPCC accreditation.
_____________
To:
Donna Shugart-Bethune, Executive Director, IAOPCC
Doyle L. Shugart, President, IAOPCC
Subject: FORMAL NOTICE of Ethical Breach & Inquiry Sought: Member — Pet Farewells (NZ Pet Cremate Limited)
Dear Director Shugart-Bethune and President Shugart,
I am an investigative journalist in New Zealand currently publishing a forensic dossier regarding a catastrophic failure of chain-of-custody protocols involving and/or between
Pet Farewells (NZ Pet Cremate Limited), a registered member of your association. and Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital.
Please read the full account of the matter to date, along with the email exchanges with directors Gavin and Lyn Shepherd
here.
LINK TO ARTICLE - ARE THESE HARRY'S ASHES OR NOT?
Following consultation with
Consumer New Zealand, I am formally drawing your attention to a documented failure by your member to adhere to (at least)
Point 8 of the IAOPCC Code of Ethics, regarding your supposed requirement of your "accredited" members to maintain tracking and records.
Despite formal requests, Pet Farewells has been unable to provide the "accurate and up-to-date records" required to verify the chain of custody for my dog, Harry. Furthermore, they have provided scientific claims regarding the disappearance of gold during cremation that contradict established metallurgical facts.
As the leadership of the IAOPCC, and as owners of your own multi-generational pet funeral business, you understand that your accreditation is used by members to project a level of trust that justifies premium fees. If a member cannot produce a "Point 8" audit trail, and also communicates with an owner in a manner that breaches your requirement of them that they treat pet owners with "dignity, respect, and the utmost care", then that trust is illusory.
Accordingly, I am seeking your official position on whether such a failure warrants an investigation into their status.
Additionally, I am specifically requesting confirmation of the date on which your association last inspected the facilities operated by the Shepherds and NZ Pet Cremate Limited - as your website would indicate is part of your accreditation process.
I look forward to your comprehensive reply addressing each of these issues in the manner that your website would indicate might be expected of your organisation, despite the fact that you do not appear to have a formal complaints process - also as noted by the Consumer New Zealand advisor.
Please note that this email and your reply will be published in ongoing coverage of this matter by The Customer & The Constituent.co.nz, and also by Doggie Mamma.com.
Sincerely
Jordan Kelly
New Zealand
The Question of Accountability
This inquiry reveals a striking symmetry in the pet cremation industry.
Locally, we have a husband-and-wife team in the Shepherds; while internationally, the oversight is governed by the Shugart family. We are observing a global commercial network where the regulators and the operators would appear to be the same collective.
The IAOPCC Code of Ethics represents a promise to the public, yet as Edwards noted, there appears to be no transparent complaints process for consumers when those ethics are breached. This creates a "regulatory hall of mirrors" where accreditation may function as a marketing shield for providers, but offers no functional protection for the grieving families who pay for it.
If the IAOPCC is to be seen as a legitimate regulatory body rather than a commercial guild, they must now decide if their standards are enforceable. A failure to hold their members to (at the very minimum) the "Point 8" requirement for record-keeping is not just a lapse in professionalism; it is a systemic failure of the very consumer guarantees they claim to uphold.
I, and
The Customer & the Constituent team and its readers, await their response to see if these international standards have any substance, or if they are simply a premium-fee model insulated from actual accountability.
