When she went to help fetch Cody home, she was horrified to find him dirty, his fur matted, and he smelled really bad. She noticed the wounds on his neck which were infected, foul-smelling and filled with pus.
Alarmed, she rushed Cody to an emergency hospital.
Cody is an “active and boisterous” dog
The story of how Cody (not his real name), a 1-year-old Golden Retriever, had to be rushed to the hospital following his stay with a trainer who used aversive training methods and tools has incensed many animal activists. This graphic and horrifying account has also renewed calls for greater regulation in the dog training industry, and for aversive training tools to be banned for good.
Chained Dog Awareness Singapore (CDAS), an indefatigable animal rights group, shared what Cody went through at the hands of a trainer in a Facebook post which has been shared more than 100 times. Cody’s owner shared his story to help other dog owners “make better decisions.”
Cody, who was an “active and boisterous” dog, was adopted when he was 3-months old. As a first time dog owner, Cody’s owner was not familiar with a dog’s training needs, boundaries and structure.
We routinely hear of dog owners, often inexperienced, who bought or adopted a puppy that grew up without learning boundaries and had no structure. This is exacerbated by the usual puppy energy, teething and simply the personality of some hyperactive and playful dogs.
CDAS shared that Cody’s owner struggled to control Cody as he weighed close to 35kg and had a tendency to lunge towards things.
Cody’s owner first consulted a trainer which adopted positive reinforcement methods, but nothing appeared to be working. Cody was also rejected by a boarding facility for being “too active and boisterous”.
The Trainer kicked Cody in the rear
Cody’s owner was then referred to a trainer which CDAS referred to as ‘C’. Wake Up Singapore has since identified the trainer and reached out to them for comment.
According to CDAS, C kicked Cody in his rear to “calm him down” during their first meeting. C also recommended that Cody undergo a board & train program with C, and also introduced the options of using aversive tools.
Cody’s owner then sent Cody for a 3-week-long boarding program. After the program, Cody’s behaviour, on its surface, appeared to have improved. However, beneath this seemingly “instant” improvement, there may lie some uneasy and unhealthy truths.
Aversive methods teach “nothing but fear”
CDAS explained that aversive training methods appear to be “immediatively effective” as the response of the dogs stem from “fear and pain”.
If the punishment is sufficiently severe, a dog would be willing to do anything to stop the pain. But this is not the humane way to teach a dog. It actually teaches the dog nothing but fear and negative association to the event that triggers the pain and the person inflicting it.
Aversive training methods can also change the psyche of the trainer, resulting in the trainer (dog owner) adopting a domineering stance towards the dog.
Such training methods are unlikely to result in a healthy and happy long-term relationship between dogs and their owners. CDAS called on dog owners to unequivocally reject methods that cause harm, and use science-based methods instead.
CDAS’ call for a move towards science-based methods was also echoed by the Minister of National Development in November 2020.
In response to a question from MP and animal rights activist Louis Ng on banning the use of electric shock and prong collars, the Minister of National Development stated that there is a need to use “better science-based training methods in the rehabilitation of the animal and avoid unnecessary pain or suffering to it.”
The Minister also referenced reward-based training where “treats, toys, play or attention are used to reinforce desirable behaviour”.
Cody was rushed to the hospital
After this seemingly beneficial stint with C, Cody’s owner sent Cody to C for a period of 10 days when she was travelling.
When it came time for Cody to return home, the lady who came to pick Cody up was “horrified” to see the state that Cody was in.
Do not fall prey to such trainers
CDAS pleaded with all dog owners, especially those who may be dealing with seemingly “difficult” dogs, not to fall prey to trainers who promise results in a short period of time.
Please do not get swayed by videos that seemingly showed obedience. Please do not jump to conclusions when you see a trainer who propagate her own ideals with no qualifications or worse, with no compassion and kindness for the animals
Training methods may not work due to the trainer, environment and many other factors. Regardless of results, please DO NOT use methods that cause harm. We believe that humans, as the most intelligent species, should be capable of being kind to our beloved pets that provide us with so much joy and companionship.If you need some referrals to modern science reward based trainers, you may drop us a pm and we will be happy to provide you with their contacts.
CDAS asked dog owners to only engage trainers who focus on the welfare of dogs and treat pets with kindness.
The Royal Tail previously boasted about “Hell Week” for Dogs
Wake Up Singapore understands that the Cody’s trainer was from The Royal Tail, and we have reached out to them for a response on Instagram.
While we echo CDAS’s call for people to raise complaints to the relevant authorities and not speculate on ongoing investigations, we are also of the view that it is important for dog owners to make an informed decision. Again, we stress that all complaints and evidence should be directed to AVS and NParks and the sole reason for the identification of the training company is so that all current and future dog owners who may be looking for trainers know what they are in for, and can decide for themselves.
This is not the first time that The Royal Tail has faced accusations of abuse and mistreatment. However, before we turn to allegations from those who have engaged The Royal Tail, we enclose below screenshots showing how The Royal Tail itself speaks of its “methods”.
In this screenshot below, The Royal Tail welcomes a 2-year-old dog, who is caged, to her “Hell Week” that makes dogs “crumble”. The Royal Tail also states that Kira has been “howling, whining, and barking” for hours.
In another post, The Royal Tail admitted to ignoring an “insecure” dog for 5 days and nights. This treatment was, according to them, “just a start”.
In the Royal Tail’s view, it was not possible to “just love a dog that is a strong breed”.
In the screenshot below, the text boxes in black are by The Royal Tail while the text boxes in blue are from a concerned critic of the training company. In this incident, the Royal Tail speaks about a dog, which has an electric shock collar on, who is in a cage and has been whining for an hour. A screen recording of the original Instagram story may be found at this link.
@sgviralvids this is from an uncertified dog “trainer”… hope they are investigates by AVS.. Read more at wakeup.sg #Singapore #dogs #theroyaltail
The Royal Tail compared the caged dog to a “drug addict in detox”.
Here, The Royal Tail once again states that this dog needs to be “detoxed” from all the love that she has received.
A follower of Wake Up Singapore also shared screenshots of The Royal Tail making insensitive comments on the death of a dog. Amongst other thing, it stated that it was “very happy” with the outcome and that this was the “price a dog pays”.
Reviews of The Royal Tail
On its Facebook Page, The Royal Tail has a number of negative reviews.
In a review dated 13 February 2022, one Valli alleged that The Royal Tail left dogs in a crate for hours at a time without food or water, and “in their own excrement”. Again, reference was made to “hell week”,
According to Valli, The Royal Tail has been reported before for their treatment of animals.
Another reviewer stated that The Royal Tail’s Instagram posts are a far cry from the wholesome and warm Facebook Page. She referred to how Kira, the dog referred to in the previous section, was treated:
They deprive a dog named Kira of water & keeps her confined to a tiny crate except for short potty walks. The dog is triggered then shocked repeatedly until they can no longer react. All of this is readily available on her Instagram. Every action is being taken to report her to the government for animal cruelty.
Another dog owner shared how The Royal Tail kept a rescue dog in a small and dark toilet to train her.
The Royal Tail has since restricted comments on its Instagram Page. Wake Up Singapore has also reached out to AVS for comment on the incidents involving The Royal Tail. In our email to AVS and NParks, we also asked the authorities if they would consider publishing a list of dog trainers who have been sanctioned before so that dog owners can make an informed decision.
We will update this article when we receive a response.
Criminal Sanctions for Animal Abuse
At present, persons who are charged with cruelty towards animals under Section 42 of the Animals and Birds Act 1965 may face, upon conviction for their first offence, a fine of up to SGD 40,000 or imprisonment of up to 2 years.
In addition, pursuant to section 43B of the same act, the convicted offender may be disqualifed from owning animals for a period of 12 months.
In November 2021, MP Louis Ng asked that the Ministry consider increasing the disqualifcation period from the current maximum period of 12 months.
The Minister for National Development, Desmond Lee, confirmed that the Government is reviewing the penalties under the law to “to ensure that they remain effective in deterring acts of animal cruelty and abuse”.
The Cat Welfare Society (CWS) has also advocated for the penalties for cruelty against animals to be enhanced:-
CWS proposes a two-pronged approach:
(a) the disqualification order be increased to a minimum of 60 months (5 years) and a maximum of a lifetime-disqualification; and
(b) more powers should be granted to the investigation officer or other appropriate authority together with a mental health practitioner (where necessary and at the Court’s discretion) to regularly check-in with the freed individuals to assess their mental state.
It should be open to the said authority and mental health practitioner to recommend the term of the disqualification order either be increased or even decreased if appropriate.
In CWS’ view, a 5-year disqualification period would give the relevant authorities sufficient time to establish a “pattern of behaviour” and make “meaningful observations”.
Do your research before engaging Dog Trainers
Many commentators on the CDAS post emphasised the importance of people doing their research on whether dog trainers employ aversive methods prior to engaging them.
Minister Shanmugam has been a consistent advocate for animal rights. In 2021, he lent his support to a campaign against the use of electric shock collars, prong collars and choke chains.
Wearing a T-shirt that supported the campaign’s message, the Minister said that he was happy and proud to support the “great initiative”.
“Dogs are for us to love and they show a lot of love. Let’s treat them with kindness, let’s all make a difference.”
If you would like to know why electric shock collars should never be used on a dog, or any animal for that matter, Dr Gan Theng Wei’s post from 2020 offers an excellent primer.
In an experiment, Dr Gan and Jennifer tried wearing shock collars and choke collars.
What’s the big deal anyway right? We just wanted to get to the truth. Unfortunately, I didn’t manage to have it captured on a video because the shock was applied without warning. I expected it to be uncomfortable but I had no idea how painful it would really be. I had to remove the shock collar immediately for fear of being shocked again. It’s not just the physical pain that’s scary. The anticipation and not knowing when you will be shocked again is actually worse than the physical pain.
The prong felt slightly less painful. I ‘checked’ myself a few times and could feel the discomfort. Imagine someone doing this on you every now and then without any warning? I removed the collar and was shocked to see red marks around my neck. And these marks were created by just very low controlled forces.
Dr Gan argued that any trainer who justifies the use of such aversive tools should be sacked, as “there is no correct way to hurt a dog”.
Dr Gan penned a further post to address the common arguments for the use of aversive training tools. Arguing that the “ends do not justify the means”, he stated that if a shock collar is used on fearful dogs, the fear may be exacerbated, which may result in fear aggression.
Dr Gan shared a quote by Ian Dunbar which explains why we should reject the use of electric shock collars:-
‘To use shock as an effective dog training method you will need:A thorough understanding of canine behavior.A thorough understanding of learning theory.IMPECCABLE TIMING.And if you have those three things, you don’t need a shock collar.’
The AVS Accredited Certified Dog Trainer Scheme
Following reccomendations from the Rehoming and Adoption Work Group (RAWG), the AVS-Accredited Certified Dog Trainer (ACDT) came into force in December 2022.
This scheme requires dog trainers to obtain certification specifically from one of the four independent animal behaviour and training organisations. The scheme aims to “raise the standards and professionalism of the dog training industry”.
According to CDAS, “this ensures that accredited trainers possess a basic understanding of science-based training methods, dog welfare and behaviour, are committed to ethical training approaches, and meet international standards of competencies”.
Mr Tan Kiat How, the Senior Minister of State for National Development, stated that the scheme:
Signals a clear shift towards safe and effective training methods that are grounded in science, ensuring that the welfare of dogs is safeguarded during the training. Accredited trainers will also be required to comply with codes of conduct set by their certifying bodies.
Although 90% of respondents in the month-long public consultation by AVS agreed that “training devices and techniques that cause pain, fear, anxiety and distress should be avoided”, the authorities have yet to act decisively to ban or severely restrict the use of aversive tools like the electric shock and prong collars.
While the implementation of the ACDT, coupled with greater oversight and regulation of the dog training industry, is a step in the right direction, we hope that the authorities can make bold but necessary moves in relation to effective sanctions against errant dog trainers and the banning or restricting of aversive tools.
Earlier this year, another dog training company, K9 connections, was under fire after a video of one of its trainers abusing a dog went viral. A petition calling for the alleged preparator to face a lifetime ban from handling dogs has garnered more than 4,000 signatures.
In such situations, we humbly submit that the authorities should have greater powers to impose restrictions on the association of such persons under investigations with animal-related businesses.
Update as of 6 January at 12.15pm – The Royal Tail has published its account of events relating to Cody at this link. We will reach out to The Royal Tail for the evidence referred to in its statement, and to Cody’s owner for comment.
More from Wake Up Singapore:-
“I object to purchasing dogs. All my dogs are rescue dogs.” – Minister K Shanmugam
Since you have made it to the end of the article, follow Wake Up Singapore on Telegram!
