Canyon Pet Lodge

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:Canyon Pet Lodge Stated:“In reviewing the veterinary invoices and the detailed veterinary notes, we have concluded that the primary surgery for the pet was for a mass and cyst removal surgery” To clarify, “mass and cyst”, are one in the same There was not one mass and one cyst.Facts supported by veterinary notes: [redacted] vet appointment on 6/29/was about her upper respiratory infection, broken tooth and sore feet and nose; issues related to her boarding With the exception of the tooth, we agree on that FACT: There was no mention in notes or at the 6/29/appointment of any mass or cyst FACT: In the twenty plus pages and almost a years’ worth of veterinary records that were faxed to Canyon Pet Lodge by my veterinary office, there was no mention, ever of a mass or cyst, prior to 7/14/or 6/29/15.The 7/14/re-check appointment was to see if [redacted] was healthy enough to follow through with the surgery, tooth extraction planFACT: JUNE 14, is the FIRST TIME the mass/cyst is mentioned in the veterinary notes, as it had recently been discovered The vet and I concluded the mass could be removed, since [redacted] was going to be under anesthesia for the tooth extraction Elderly animals are not put under anesthesia just to remove an unremarkable mass I am quite certain any person with animal experience understands this to be true This should include the owner of the Canyon Pet Lodge Canyon Pet Lodge has it backwards The primary reason for the surgery was tooth removal The veterinary notes substantiate this Canyon Pet Lodge statement: “In conclusion, based on the veterinary notes, the primary reason for the surgery was to remove a mass and a cyst” The veterinary notes contradict this position and support mine.I realized Canyon Pet Lodge will never send me a check This is about principle My veterinary office and I are amazed at the lengths Canyon Pet Lodge is going through to avoid the facts Perhaps Canyon Pet Lodge should call my veterinarian again, with my permission this time, since they don’t believe me or the veterinarian’s notes It would be more forthright to say, “Yes your dog probably broke her tooth trying to escape from the crate We don’t owe you any money to help pay for itbecause you signed the contract to not hold us responsible for injuries which pets cause to themselves.” I would prefer that over the owner of the business trying to portray me as a liar and a fraud, not to mention wasting my time and my vet’s time[redacted] Sincerely, [redacted]

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to meSincerely, [redacted]

We make every effort to be sure the pets in our care have a comfortablestay and we apologize that the client was unhappy with our care In reviewing the client’s submitted information, there is noindication in the paperwork submitted by the client, that client’s pet couldnot stay in a crate This was not thefirst time the pet had been at the facility and in reviewing all past lodgingfor the pet, the pet had always been in a crate during stays at this facility,including with previous business ownersThere were no notations nor warnings in our system stating that clientdid not want pet in crate nor that pet had ever broken out of crate during anystay While yes, a new employee didtake the pet to the lodge, in discussion with the employee, she indicated therewas no information from pet parent and no notation in the system, that petshould not be crated We are asperplexed as the client as to what led the pet to break out of a crate for thisvisit The pet is a senior and pets dochange over the years and since her last visit was months prior, she mayhave been more anxious due to age related changes (eyesight/hearing, etc.) However, these are just theories and there isno known reason for the pet breaking out of the crate Pet was immediately moved to a reinforcedarea in which pet would not be able to escape for the rest of the stay The pet did destroy the crate the first night of thislodging period We did not see a brokentooth nor did we find a tooth when cleaning up the area She did eat fine and did not indicate she waspainful Her feet may have been sore frombreaking out of crate, however, we do know that many dogs not used to gravelareas can get sore paws from gravel yardsIt is very common and we did tell client it could be from the gravel,especially when dogs are used to grass yards at their homes We use coconut oil and [redacted] wax here whenwe notice sore paws and also place the dog on concrete runs instead of gravelfor their outdoor time [redacted] wax wasrubbed on the pet’s feet, as was it on all of the senior dogs in her daycaregroup, and were on concrete runs Atthat time, no cuts or abrasions were seen on the pet’s feet The client contacted us after taking her pet to the vet twodays after departure from the lodge Sheindicated to our employee that she wanted reimbursed for her veterinary bill forattending to the pet’s nose and paws and the upcoming needed tooth extractionall presumed by client to be caused by pet breaking out of crate Client stated to employee that pet had justbeen to the vet for a dental cleaning prior to coming to lodge and did not havea broken tooth at that time Prior toreturning call to client, we did contact vet to request detailed information onthe veterinary visit since client was asking for reimbursement We found out at that time that the dentalcleaning was performed in Sept Attime of contacting client, we did discuss that it is difficult to determine ifthe tooth was broken during breaking out of crate or sometime in the almostyear between cleaning and lodging Theclient stated that her senior pet does not chew on anything which further indicatesthat the pet pushed on the crate with her nose, and did not chew on the crate,since her nose did show injury We have made notes onthe pet’s account to show that any future lodging would not be in a crate Had we known the client’s pet should not becrated, the pet would not have been cratedWe are truly concerned for the health of the client’s pet and consider medicalbills for a pet that harms herself, especially under the circumstances that theclient had not indicated any special lodging requirements, would be the client’sresponsibility The lodging contractstates that the client is solely responsible for the property damages caused bytheir pet and that they release us from medical or mental problems and injuriesthat develop with their pet while lodgingWhile we are not asking for reimbursement for the crate, we haverefunded the client’s lodging charges in good faith as the client was unhappywith the overall experience that her pet had while lodging

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Sincerely, [redacted]

We make every effort to be sure the pets in our care have a comfortablestay and we apologize that the client was unhappy with our care.  In reviewing the client’s submitted information, there is noindication in the paperwork submitted by the client, that client’s pet couldnot stay in a...

crate.  This was not thefirst time the pet had been at the facility and in reviewing all past lodgingfor the pet, the pet had always been in a crate during stays at this facility,including with previous business owners. There were no notations nor warnings in our system stating that clientdid not want pet in crate nor that pet had ever broken out of crate during anystay.   While yes, a new employee didtake the pet to the lodge, in discussion with the employee, she indicated therewas no information from pet parent and no notation in the system, that petshould not be crated.  We are asperplexed as the client as to what led the pet to break out of a crate for thisvisit.  The pet is a senior and pets dochange over the years and since her last visit was 18 months prior, she mayhave been more anxious due to age related changes (eyesight/hearing, etc.).  However, these are just theories and there isno known reason for the pet breaking out of the crate.  Pet was immediately moved to a reinforcedarea in which pet would not be able to escape for the rest of the stay.  The pet did destroy the crate the first night of thislodging period.  We did not see a brokentooth nor did we find a tooth when cleaning up the area.  She did eat fine and did not indicate she waspainful.  Her feet may have been sore frombreaking out of crate, however, we do know that many dogs not used to gravelareas can get sore paws from gravel yards. It is very common and we did tell client it could be from the gravel,especially when dogs are used to grass yards at their homes.  We use coconut oil and [redacted] wax here whenwe notice sore paws and also place the dog on concrete runs instead of gravelfor their outdoor time.  [redacted] wax wasrubbed on the pet’s feet, as was it on all of the senior dogs in her daycaregroup, and were on concrete runs.  Atthat time, no cuts or abrasions were seen on the pet’s feet.  The client contacted us after taking her pet to the vet twodays after departure from the lodge.  Sheindicated to our employee that she wanted reimbursed for her veterinary bill forattending to the pet’s nose and paws and the upcoming needed tooth extractionall presumed by client to be caused by pet breaking out of crate.  Client stated to employee that pet had justbeen to the vet for a dental cleaning prior to coming to lodge and did not havea broken tooth at that time.  Prior toreturning call to client, we did contact vet to request detailed information onthe veterinary visit since client was asking for reimbursement.  We found out at that time that the dentalcleaning was performed in Sept 2014.  Attime of contacting client, we did discuss that it is difficult to determine ifthe tooth was broken during breaking out of crate or sometime in the almostyear between cleaning and lodging.  Theclient stated that her senior pet does not chew on anything which further indicatesthat the pet pushed on the crate with her nose, and did not chew on the crate,since her nose did show injury.   We have made notes onthe pet’s account to show that any future lodging would not be in a crate.  Had we known the client’s pet should not becrated, the pet would not have been crated. We are truly concerned for the health of the client’s pet and consider medicalbills for a pet that harms herself, especially under the circumstances that theclient had not indicated any special lodging requirements, would be the client’sresponsibility.  The lodging contractstates that the client is solely responsible for the property damages caused bytheir pet and that they release us from medical or mental problems and injuriesthat develop with their pet while lodging. While we are not asking for reimbursement for the crate, we haverefunded the client’s lodging charges in good faith as the client was unhappywith the overall experience that her pet had while lodging.

Final Response:  
 
In reviewing the veterinary invoices and the detailed veterinary notes, we have concluded that the primary surgery for the pet was for a mass and cyst removal surgery.  The initial veterinary visit did show irritated foot pads, which is in our literature and we do tell our pet parents can happen from the pet not being accustomed to gravel yards.  Our staff did put salve on her feet when noticed that she had irritated paw pads.  This is normal and we watch for this on a daily basis with pets in our care. 
The initial visit also showed “may have broken tooth” and also states “worn incisors”.  However, by the pet parent’s own admission, her pet does not chew on anything, therefor the tooth may have been worn down by normal wear and age.  The tooth extraction was $13 on the invoice which means that the tooth was not difficult to remove, as veterinarian’s charge by time, and may have been very loose because of age and the inflamed gingiva as stated on the veterinary notes. 
The veterinary notes also state the pet had a wound on the right nostril.  This was likely caused by the pet pushing on the kennel with her nose to escape.  Again, had the pet parent noted, or told us, that the pet would escape a crate, we would have initially put her in a more secured area designated for pets that can escape normal kennels, which we did once she had escaped.   As previously stated, the pet had always been in a normal crate based on the history we have in our system.  The notes have been changed to reflect the new information.  Pets can change over time and what may have been acceptable for the pet in the past, can change with age.  As our contract states, we are not responsible for injuries which pets cause to themselves.  We are also not responsible for veterinary costs that are the normal costs associated with a pet such as vaccines, illnesses and surgeries. 
In conclusion, based on the veterinary notes, the primary reason for the surgery was to remove a mass and a cyst.  The tooth was extracted as she was going to be under anesthesia for the mass & cyst removals.  We have refunded the lodging charges as a good faith gesture as the pet parent felt her pet did not have a good experience.  We also recommend that the pet parent look in to pet sitters that come to their home as their geriatric pet may be experiencing more separation anxieties when away from the pet parents.  These kinds of stresses on an older pet can lead to additional health issues.  Our goal is to provide the best and most comfortable care for the pets at our Lodge and to also offer suggestions when a Lodge environment is not the right setting for these great pets.  We wish the best for the pet and are pleased to see her mass was of a benign nature.  
 
 
 
 
Roncy R[redacted] & John B[redacted]
& The Pack @ Canyon Pet Lodge
www.canyonpetlodge.com

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:Canyon Pet Lodge Stated:“In reviewing the veterinary invoices and the detailed veterinary notes, we have concluded that the primary surgery for the pet was for a mass and cyst removal surgery”  To clarify, “mass and cyst”, are one in the same.  There was not one mass and one cyst.Facts supported by veterinary notes:[redacted] vet appointment on 6/29/15 was about her upper respiratory infection, broken tooth and sore feet and nose; issues related to her boarding.  With the exception of the tooth, we agree on that.  FACT:  There was no mention in notes or at the 6/29/15 appointment of any mass or cyst.  FACT:  In the twenty plus pages and almost a years’ worth of veterinary records that were faxed to Canyon Pet Lodge by my veterinary office, there was no mention, ever of a mass or cyst, prior to 7/14/15 or 6/29/15.The 7/14/15 re-check appointment was to see if [redacted] was healthy enough to follow through with the surgery, tooth extraction plan. FACT:  JUNE 14, 2015 is the FIRST TIME the mass/cyst is mentioned in the veterinary notes, as it had recently been discovered.  The vet and I concluded the mass could be removed, since [redacted] was going to be under anesthesia for the tooth extraction.   Elderly animals are not put under anesthesia just to remove an unremarkable mass.  I am quite certain any person with animal experience understands this to be true.  This should include the owner of the Canyon Pet Lodge.  Canyon Pet Lodge has it backwards.  The primary reason for the surgery was tooth removal.  The veterinary notes substantiate this.  Canyon Pet Lodge statement:  “In conclusion, based on the veterinary notes, the primary reason for the surgery was to remove a mass and a cyst”   The veterinary notes contradict this position and support mine.I realized Canyon Pet Lodge will never send me a check.  This is about principle.  My veterinary office and I are amazed at the lengths Canyon Pet Lodge is going through to avoid the facts.  Perhaps Canyon Pet Lodge should call my veterinarian again, with my permission this time, since they don’t believe me or the veterinarian’s notes.  It would be more forthright to say, “Yes your dog probably broke her tooth trying to escape from the crate.  We don’t owe you any money to help pay for itbecause you signed the contract to not hold us responsible for injuries which pets cause to themselves.”  I would prefer that over the owner of the business trying to portray me as a liar and a fraud, not to mention wasting my time and my vet’s time.[redacted]Sincerely,[redacted]