I’m on a sit where the pet owner ‘forgot’ to tell us that there was a tracker on the dogs collar. 2 days into the sit, one of the dogs didn’t want to go for a walk, so we took the others out for their normal walk. That evening I get a message asking if everything is okay from the pet owner and revealing that they knew that a dog hadn’t had a walk- as there was a tracker on its collar!! I explained the situation that 1 dog was unwilling out and I didn’t want to pressure the dog. They were not transparent from the beginning about the tracker- I didn’t know. It feels untrustworthy and disrepectful. I know, logically, it is to protect the dog - in case it slips off the lead or gets lost. Has anyone else experienced this? What is the best way to ‘complain’ about this issue - after the sit is over?
Do a search on this topic - it was discussed (at length) very recently
Don’t complain. Just write a factual review that includes that the HOs have these devices on the dogs and did not disclose them. Leave it at that. Then go on to cite positive attributes of the sit.
By leaving a factual review, you’ll be doing future sitters a great service.
Ask them to give you the ability to track the dogs ie download the app and get the password yourself if the HO is truly concerned about safety.
@custardmonkee This has not long been discussed in this thread.
IMO, there are 2 things you have in your power to do:
- Mention this happened in a review. Regardless of whether or not it changes anything for you, just mention what happened, and maybe add something neutral like this: Had we understood that there was a tracker, and that the pet parents would be monitoring every walk while on vacation, we would have given them a heads up that _____ didn’t want to go for a walk at that time.
- Mention on a forum thread and send an email to member services that this happened and made you uncomfortable, and that since there is a rule that all outdoor cameras must be disclosed on the listing, trackers should also be disclosed on the listing.
Haha! Wasn’t it…
Put it in your review. Don’t mention it to them or they will pre-emptively ding you in their review.
Also, now that you know, if any dog doesn’t want to walk in future just take their collar with you when you walk the others.
I don’t understand why it is an issue. And why the sitter needs the data. I would not have a problem if the HO has the data. I am walking the dogs I am sitting now 6-7 miles per day. 4 walks. Early morning and late evening are short, relief walks, but I do 2 long walks. It works for me and them. Why do I care if the HO has trackers?
You can read my thread about why I don’t always tell sitters about my dog’s tracker and health monitor. Some have been upset, but if you’re walking only one of their two dogs, the owner should know.
I told my current sitter about the health monitor but not the location tracking part. Yesterday, they took my dog to the vet without notifying me—he had tweaked his back and was having trouble moving and eating. This is exactly why I have a tracker. I could see he hadn’t eaten in over a day and now know to check immediately if something seems off.
If the tracker were on you, I’d understand being upset. Many sitters don’t follow instructions. Short stays? I don’t tell them. Longer than a week? We talk first, and if they aren’t okay, they aren’t allowed in our home.
This is the only thing I’m firm about. I can’t see or hear the sitter, but I can track my dog’s live location, activity, sleep, barking, and even exactly how many MPH a vehicle is traveling if he’s in it. That part is amazing! I love my AI based device, and it is never to be taken off him. This is where I stand (even more so now than ever) and why. I do hope you’re able to get things worked out with the homeowner. Hopefully they haven’t had as many bad experiences with sitters as I have and are a little more adaptable to your concerns and needs.
I don’t think it’s as simple as that. The fancy ones know when they are attached to a live dog. And if you put it on a different dog, it will alert that it’s readings are off.
Most are not simple step counters. But that’s a creative solution, for sure 
I had a previous sitter (not THS) remove my dog’s collar once. I was notified within 10 minutes that the device had been removed. Five hours later, I messaged her to ask if she had taken it off and, if so, to please put it back on and leave it on my dog. She confirmed that she had, explaining that once she learned it was a tracker and not just a health monitor, she strongly preferred it remain off for the rest of her stay.
At that point, my sitter had two options: put the collar back on, or please leave so one of my backup contacts could come stay with him. She ultimately chose to put the collar back on and finish the stay. 
At the end of her three-week sit in our home, she left a note on our counter stating that she enjoyed her stay for the most part, but would prefer not to sit for us again because she felt too closely monitored by our outdoor camera and the tracking/health device. She was informed about the outdoor camera upon her arrival on the first day and had no objections, noting that she also has one at her home. So I don’t 100% understand her perspective. We did not message her unless she initiated communication first, with the exception of the one time she removed my dog’s collar. What would you do if a stranger was invited into your very nice home for weeks to live there and watch your pets? Would you just look the other way and hope nothing goes wrong? Hopefully, you’re not that irresponsible. These measures are in place for our protection: to ensure my dog’s safety, to keep our home secure, and to have peace of mind while on vacation.
So aside from violating THS terms by not disclosing the outdoor cameras ahead of offering the sit, you seem to also think that springing this information on the sitter at their most vulnerable is ok because they “didn’t object” (where they have spent time and money travelling to you and potentially could be out thousands of dollars if they refuse to accept this surprise when they end up with nowhere to stay in a strange city).
You seem to have had multiple sitters that are unhappy when they learn that you have trackers on your dog’s collar that you monitor “closely”. Yet you continued to not inform sitters until they discover this themselves and seem surprised each time at the negative reaction.
At this point I have to assume that your chosen forum name was aspirational or ironic rather than descriptive.
She stated that it was not a THS sit.
(I had that thought about her forum name too @Ray2 )
I have exterior cameras (disclosed). But I don’t feel the need to throw a tracker on the dog.
I leave detailed instructions but I am also fine with sitters ad-libbing here and there. Pets can behave a bit differently for different people. Our girl sleeps soundly in a crate in our master bedroom. It’s hit our miss if sitters get her to sleep in there without complaining. So I tell them to leave her free roaming overnight if needed so everyone can get some sleep.
Of course sitters take her about and about with them. I’ve never had the experience of them leaving the state with her, but we have cats and fish to care for as well so it wouldn’t really be practical for our sitters to take off on an overnight road trip somewhere. And I wouldn’t mind sitters bringing the pets into the vet if they thought it was needed.
So I just don’t see the point in tracking the dog. As for our cats good luck to any human that tries to get a collar of any kind on those two. They conspire and quickly get them off each other. But they are indoor only and not needed anyway.
Having a sitter stay in the home does require you relinquish super tight control and let them adjust things to suit their own needs and their own relationship with the pet as long as the pet is still getting appropriate care. And I don’t think that makes me irresponsible, my pets always seem happy and well cared for when we return.
The owner can simply inform the sitters, and then you can go ahead, shrug and apply. Others who it does bother can skip the sit. Everyone is happy in the end: everyone gets a well matching sit over THS.
As to why the sitter should have the data. One reason is that because the sitter is directly in contact with the animal, they are the one who most benefits of the data. If the dog seems totally calm, but the information says that it is in great stress, the sitter knows to investigate. The host telling them 4 hours later will not be any use. Or if the dog runs away, it is faster for the sitter to check the tracker directly, instead of first contacting the host (who might be in different time zone or sleeping or in the movies), and the host then remotely trying to direct the sitter, “it shows that the dog is in the bushes.. no not those bushes, the other ones…”.
The other reason is that it is a proof of good will. If the host covets information that clearly could be useful to the sitter, it comes of as a spying device much more than just something they use to help them understand or find their animal.
As an example, a tracker. If the host is ok that the sitter uses their own tracker, then no problem the tracker is there for the pet. If owner is against that, and demands that their tracker is used and doest share it with the sitter, then it is there to tract the sitter, the walks they take the pet for, and only secondarily a safety measure.
I have other option for undisclosed trackers but probably best not to mention them here.
You’re right. Corrected that, thanks.