The Ultimate Behind-the-Scenes, Invisible Industry: Pet Cremation
Jordan Kelly • 25 January 2026

‘Internationally Accredited’ Pet Cremation Operator Can’t Authenticate Remains & Accreditor Has No Complaints Process

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? 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) table", 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), Edwards notes the matter can be lodged with the Commerce Commission on the grounds of misleading conduct. (I still intend to do so.)


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 - 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 recognised 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." Concerning, much?


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, 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.


READERS:  The below email was sent on Saturday, February 7, with no acknowledgement or response received as of Thursday, February 12. Below this initial email, therefore, you will see the brief follow-up email I sent on February 12.

_____________


To: Donna Shugart-Bethune, Executive Director, IAOPCC

Subject: FORMAL NOTICE of Ethical Breach & Inquiry Sought: Member - Pet Farewells (NZ Pet Cremate Limited)


Dear Ms Shugart-Bethune


I am an investigative and consumer affairs journalist in New Zealand currently publishing a 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.


I write to you not only in the capacity of Editor-in-Chief of The Customer & The Constituent NZ, but also as the Executive Director of the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE), which is launching globally this coming week.


Please read the full account of the matter to date, along with the email exchanges with Pet Farewells directors and shareholders Gavin and Lyn Shepherd here.


Following consultation with Consumer New Zealand  (a national consumer advisory organisation), I specifically draw your attention to a documented failure by your member to adhere to (at least) Point 8 of your International Association of Pet Cemeteries & Crematories' (IAOPCC) Code of Ethics, regarding the supposed requirement of your "accredited" members to maintain tracking and records.


Despite formal requests, Pet Farewells has been unable and/or unwilling 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 owner 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. 


Meantime, my team at The Customer & The Constituent and IIIVE are currently finalising an approximately 60-page forensic filing for the New Zealand Privacy Commissioner and a further set of filings for the Veterinary Council of New Zealand regarding the conduct of Massey University in the matter of the patient, Harry Kelly – who happens to be my own dog, Harry Kelly.


The treatment of Harry (both pre-death and in the posthumous context) will form the foundational global case study for IIIVE.

 

A critical pillar both of the filings documentation and of the continuing investigation, along with the case study, is the Chain of Custody regarding the remains of Harry.

 

As you will read here, I have ground to a screeching halt with my communications and endeavours to authenticate the remains your member (Pet Farewells of Hamilton, New Zealand) holds and claims to be Harry’s:  https://www.thecustomer.co.nz/are-these-harrys-ashes-or-arent-they

 

As you might imagine this has been, and continues to be, a matter of great distress for me, personally.


Meantime, obtaining an understanding and reporting on the international pet cremation industry is of considerable interest to my colleagues and I, given my own (if I may speak plainly) utterly horrendous experience regarding Harry’s remains, the unknown manner of his state and usage prior to and upon collection by Pet Farewells, who issued the instructions to “dispose” of his remains, and the stubborn refusal of the Pet Farewells staff and management to offer the very information that your own code of conduct mandates that members must provide to those entrusting their beloved pets’ bodies to them.


While my preliminary commentary to date has been published on The Customer & The Constituent only,   with the Media, Investigations,  and Education, sections of IIIVE (iiive.org) being added this coming week as we prepare for a much earlier launch than originally intended, the “after care” industry is firmly in our sights for detailed reportage.

 

Harry’s treatment, and mine as his loving “pet parent”, will be central to that reportage (both on The Customer & The Constituent and on IIIVE), and to the broader case study and investigative and educational materials that will be an important component thereof.

 

To that end, I would ask – in accordance with the International Association Of Pet Cemeteries & Crematories’ (IAOPCC) Code of Ethics and Professional Standards, as can be found at the IAOPCC’s website: https://www.iaopc.com/page/code-of-ethics - for your intervention in this matter to ensure the following:

 

  • Verification of Remains:  That Pet Farewells produces the verifiable furnace logs, digital timestamps, and individual cremation certification associated with patient Harry Kelly.

 

  • Property Hold:  That you issue an immediate directive to the facility to preserve all physical remains and related digital/physical records. Given the very justifiable "credible doubt" I have documented regarding the chain of custody, these must be treated as evidence in an active malfeasance investigation.

 

  • Transparency:  That the facility finally answers the specific questions regarding who issued the "disposal" instructions and why the mandatory standards of your organisation’s membership requirements have been, to date, disregarded in this case.

 

I would prefer to report on a "gold standard" response from the IAOPCC in resolving this failure of its member, rather than documenting a systemic lack of oversight within the international pet cremation sector. To that end, I sincerely hope you will investigate your accredited member, to determine if they indeed meet your standards for continued accreditation.


And, of course, I now look to you to answer truthfully and transparently, in addition to the above questions, the central matter of whether or not the ashes in the “bag” really are those of my beloved Harry. If they are not, I would rather have a frank and truthful answer.

 

Further, was Harry, in fact, used as a post-mortem specimen by Massey viz a viz the slip of the tongue by the Pet Farewells staff member that Harry had been “collected with the other post-mortems” and viz a viz her email that states he was received “in a bag” (which was not how Massey staff told me they had despatched him at all) . . . and who issued the directive to “dispose” of his ashes because apparently, I “didn’t want Harry back”?

 

These are burning questions that not only I want the answers to, but which the readers of my 34 articles-to-date Special Harry Kelly Expose Series (a majority of whom are also loving pet parents) are keen to read your answers to.


If I may continue speaking frankly, it is my firm contention that you would be better served by retracting your organisation's accreditation of this member, rather than letting it soil the global reputation of the pet cremation industry. In the meantime, however, if there is any chance of getting Harry''s actual and true ashes back (along with honest and factual answers to the above questions), I urge you to facilitate this for me.

 

Most urgently of all, I look forward to your confirmation that a Preservation Notice has been communicated by you to your Pet Farewells member as a non-negotiable requirement.

 

Sincerely

 

Jordan Kelly 
Executive Director, The International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Standards (IIIVE)

Editor-in-Chief, The Customer & The Constituent NZ



From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com> 
Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2026 2:07 am
To: 'info@iaopc.com' <info@iaopc.com>
Subject: FOLLOW UP: Request for Facilitation – Email of Saturday, Feb 7

 

Dear Ms Shugart-Bethune

 

I am writing to reiterate my request for your assistance in facilitating answers to the specific questions I raised in my email to you last Saturday.

 

As previously stated, I require the IAOPCC to step in and ensure that the transparency standards your organisation purports to uphold are actually met by your member here in New Zealand.

 

I am still waiting for the definitive answers regarding the handling of my dog, Harry, and I am again requesting your urgent facilitation in this matter.

 

I look forward to your immediate confirmation that you have contacted the member and that the requested information is forthcoming.

 

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly 



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's "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 business model insulated from actual accountability.

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

by Jordan Kelly 27 February 2026
Readers following the coverage of my attempts to get to the bottom of what happened to my beloved little papillon, Harry, with whom I was extraordinarily closely bonded, will know that: (A) The rot in Massey University’s Companion Animal “Hospital” (CAH) runs deep. (B) Honesty and transparency is not their policy. Denial, dismissal, stonewalling, legal threats and intimidation are. (C) Animals aren’t safe there, with cruelty embedded in “care”, and your property (as your pet legally is) not considered your property at all, as far as Massey, its CAH staff and management are concerned. Your pet is theirs ; to do with as they please, according to their mindset and their modus operandi. And if that involves catastrophic levels of unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience sedation to facilitate their use of your pet in monetised student video collections (including on private cell phones, and to which you will be given no access), this too, according to Massey, is its own God-given right and “best practice” Standard Operating Procedure. (D) “Informed Consent” has a very different meaning in the Massey playbook to that which is generally deemed its accepted definition. (E) “Accountability” is a foreign concept and not one with which they have any intention of becoming acquainted. (F) Laws – including those governing animal welfare, property conversion and more – are not only optional, in Massey’s case, they simply don’t apply. In fact, they appear blissfully ignorant of them according to my (and Harry's) experience. You know all that. You’ve read about it here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here and in most of my other now 30+ articles covering the numerous different sub-atrocities within the overall atrocity that was the demise and disposal of my precious little Harry. Actually, "atrocious" doesn't come anywhere near to being an adequate adjective. Despite having been a professional writer since I was 16 and having upwards of 25 published books under my belt, I don't actually have an adjective that's adequate for the pure evil that was perpetrated upon Harry . . . and, by extension, me . There is not one word or one phrase that can sufficiently convey the depth and breadth of the sheer, unadulterated wickedness that festers without restraint within the walls of Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital". What you, my readers (or those of you not on Massey's massive legal team payroll) didn’t yet know – because I didn’t yet know – is that record and evidence tampering (which, for any other New Zealand citizen would attract jail time of up to 10 years under the Crimes Act 1961 Section 258 (Altering document with intent to deceive) or Section 260 (Falsifying registers) , and/or a $10,000 fine under the Privacy Act Section 212(2)(b) - appears also to be included in the “we’re exempt” culture of Massey and its veterinary “hospital” staff. Note to Readers: The above laws aren't some hypothetical, bottom-drawer, dusty old legal tracts in archaic library textbooks. They're real, "living" laws that apply to every individual in our country. And today, they are being made to apply to Dr Stephanie Rigg and her "colleagues" who falsified Harry's records to create a cover-up of what they did to him . . . and to me. I will, duly, see Dr Rigg and her associates in Court. Dissecting the Cover-Up: Massey’s Metadata of Deception But back to what readers do know for a moment: You’ll know that I’ve been in the battle of battles for the past two months to extract Harry’s full records (or anything approaching them) from Massey’s Legal and Governance department. HOWEVER . . . there was one thing I hadn’t known how to decipher that they actually had finally drip-fed to me. It was File Name: Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) . I’ve been learning a lot about veterinary science, record-keeping, and law in general lately. Not because I wanted to. But because if you want to figure out how deep the rot really runs at Massey, you kind of have to. So I’ve learned a bit about how to decipher clinical metadata. Just e nough to realise that this Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) is exactly where the digital fingerprints of a cover-up are hiding. Despite the fact that this document has as much redacted as it shows (probably more), with ALL staff names and positions blacked out, for example -I still found four distinct “smoking gun” entries in these otherwise heavily-redacted metadata logs. BIG. FAT. SMOKING. GUNS. that amounted to one undeniable overall conclusion: This document isn’t a clinical record so much as it’s a literal crime scene . There were already so many dodgy inconsistencies in the few items I'd managed to pull out of Massey to that point (as I've documented in various of my preceding articles). But this document is where, undeniably, the bodies are buried. You just need to know which clod of dirt to look under. Hidden in Plain Sight . . . In A Little Thing Called the Metadata (That the Average Pet Owner Wouldn't Even Know Existed ) There are four hidden but key findings demonstrating that the entire timeline of Harry’s “experience” in that hellhole were was orchestrated, and the sudden "neurological event/decline" exit strategy planned for him were a total fabrication. And that fabrication had a start time. (For this start time we will initially revert our focus back to Massey's previously-supplied "Clinical Summary" (in all its dodginess) . . . We will then lead from the immediately below into the afore-mentioned "Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit)". Bear with me. I promise not to let this get boring). Well, one of two start times. Either: (1) The 8.38am disconnection of his (with, by-then, the TWO 750% overdoses of the renally contraindicated convenience sedative with which the "crying dog"-sensitive ICU staff had plied him overnight) now life-essential IV fluids (8.5 hours into the prescribed 24-hour protocol that they charged me for). And/or: (2) When the day shift ICU "vet" arrived at 9am and decided a THIRD 750% overdose would be a strategic way do deal with a clearly already massively overdosed little 3.8kg, 15-year-old, dehydrated dog. Now WHY would any vet take such a decision? Well, for legal purposes, of course (remembering that the Venerable Dean Jon Huxley and the obviously not- so-new-broom Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter, have all the money in the public purse to pay their top-tier external legal counsel . . . and by gum, there are enough of the buggers, if this site's analytics are anything to be guided by), I will precede the following by stating that these are my conclusions, made on the basis of the collation and evaluation of the information before me. That said, what I know of my readers is this: You are no intellectual slouches. Feel free to let me know if you can come up with any other conclusion from the information (complete with now numerous "receipts") that I have thus far presented, most especially here and here , and most tellingly of all, in today's expose. R emember, though, I held the ultimate evidence in my arms at 6pm on December 1 . . . and, some 45 minutes later, I let them take it (safely, for them) away from me, just like Harry's (the literal body of evidence) life had just been taken from him. Little Numerals that Tell A BIG Story The plan for Harry's manufactured exit is not so much written into the records, as it is revealed by the tampering with the logs. They lay bare the lead vet’s apparent plan that his life would come to an abrupt end by the pre-scheduled time of (well, they couldn't quite get consistency in the logs regarding the exact minute, but by the absolute latest time of) 17:00 hours i.e. 5pm . . . assumedly, the end of the day shift on December 1. Just in time to mark him "Deceased" and seal off the records of this catastrophically overdosed patient, before the next shift came on, saw his records, and someone started asking the immediately necessary, and certainly appropriate, questions. And those questions would (0R SHOULD ) have included , but would certainly not have been limited to: How long has this dog been in this state? Why hasn't any rescue and remediation protocol been undertaken? Why was he given yet ANOTHER administration of 50mg of Gabapentin at 09:00 hours after the preceding two during night shift? Why is he disconnected from his IV fluids? Who approved that and why? (And if they knew he'd starred in a multi-video student film festival that morning): Was he taken out of his cage and handled in this state? When did he last drink? Was he given any food before he entered this near-comatose state? Does the owner know of the overdoses and the state he's in? Have you filled in an incident report? Have any emergency specialists been called in for advice? and, no doubt, many more questions. OR . . . maybe not. It depends if the rot in that ICU is fully immersive, or if it's concentrated on Dr Stephanie Rigg's day shift and the ICU shift staff of the preceding (November 30) night. But none of those questions could be asked and none of that could happen. The day shift - led by "Dr" Rigg ("Steffi") - wasn't about to let it happen. Thus, the pre-timestamped, just before end-of-shift, Time of Death entered into the "Euthanasia Authorisation" form that they had all queued up for me long before I ever arrived at that Godforsaken facility that fated December 1 afternoon.
by Jordan Kelly 17 February 2026
Harry WAS A Marked Dog. I Had Hoped Massey Vet Staff Couldn't Have Been Any More Wicked Than They'd Already Been Caught Out Being. But YES , Actually, They COULD . 
by Jordan Kelly 15 February 2026
This Is What Happens When Massey Thinks THEY Own Your Dog & Can Do With Him As They Please (You Just Pay the Invoice) At This Appalling, Unaccountable Veterinary House of Horrors (LATEST PROOF OF 'LAB RAT' TREATMENT HERE )
by Jordan Kelly 12 February 2026
FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS: GO HERE . My Precious Little Boy Died Needlessly, In Intense Physical, Mental & Emotional Agony . . . After Massive Overdosing, Intense Cruelty & Intentionally False Diagnosis by Massey 'Vet' (So Called) to Enable His 'Disposal' After Lab Rat-Style Experimentation
by Jordan Kelly 11 February 2026
While my focus is on the 750% overdosing of my precious little dog, Harry, with an unauthorised, contraindicated convenience sedative, his conversion from patient to live specimen, and the subsequent destruction of evidence (HIM), Massey’s focus is on deploying a taxpayer-funded legal hit squad to 'profile' me.
by Jordan Kelly 8 February 2026
An Expert Contributed Commentary (FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE .)
by Jordan Kelly 31 January 2026
From Lethal Incompetence and Malpractice . . . to Withholding of Life-Saving Corrective Action in Favour of Utilisation As A Teaching Aid . . . to A Fraudulent Diagnosis . . . to A Coerced 'Euthanasia' to Destroy the Evidence . . . to Management Malfeasance At the Highest Levels
by Jordan Kelly 31 January 2026
FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE : (Note to Readers: Nil response to the below. Looks like the New VC's modus operandi is not about to differ from the institutional stonewalling of the entrenched Massey suits . . . with the culture he has inherited obviously causing him no concern.) Plea to New Vice-Chancellor, Pierre Venter, for Cultural Change & Institutional Integrity in the Interests of Pets, Owners & the Ethics Instilled In Future Veterinarians
30 January 2026
Bring It On, Huxley, Dean of 'Veterinary School'. Exposing the Realities of Your 'School' Is the Hill I've Chosen to Die on. So It's the Courage of My Convictions vs the Size of Your Legal Budget.
by Jordan Kelly 30 January 2026
A VITAL & URGENT WARNING TO PET PARENTS EVERYWHERE
Show More