Cancel

    Open app

    Search

    Scenthound Tucker

    3.0 (2 reviews)

    Scenthound Tucker Photos

    You might also consider

    Recommended Reviews - Scenthound Tucker

    Your trust is our priority, so businesses can't pay to alter or remove their reviews. Learn more about reviews.
    Yelp app icon
    Browse more easily on the app
    Review Feed Illustration

    1 year ago

    Business owner information

    Photo of Kevin S.

    Kevin S.

    Helpful 0
    Thanks 0
    Love this 0
    Oh no 0

    3 years ago

    Business owner information

    Photo of Karina S.

    Karina S.

    Helpful 0
    Thanks 0
    Love this 0
    Oh no 0

    Ask the Community - Scenthound Tucker

    You might also consider

    Camp Woof

    Camp Woof

    3.1
    (61 reviews)

    They treated my dogs well and they are very nice people. I used a boarding place in Decatur…read morepreviously until they got to expensive. This company is reasonable and well run.

    Nearly every major claim in the owner's reply is false, misleading, or irrelevant to the actual…read moreincident. For clarity and accuracy, I am outlining each issue below with factual corrections supported by written records, veterinary documentation, and first-hand observation. 1. "Reviewer never contacted us." False. We contacted Camp Woof four separate times using the email listed on your own website. If you "never received" those messages, that indicates a failure to maintain a working contact, not a lack of communication from us. Any responsible facility handling animals should have a functional and monitored email address for reporting urgent concerns - especially ones involving animal health and safety. 2. "Dog dropped off without a reservation; staff were unaware of his needs." Incorrect. We fully explained Yogi's seizure disorder, medication schedule, and handling needs both at drop-off and by phone afterward. Staff specifically stated they would reach out to DeKalb Animal Hospital to obtain his records and confirm his seizure history. That is the opposite of being "unaware." 3. "The dog bit a manager; lucky no skin was broken." Completely misrepresented. At pickup, the employee who checked us out described Yogi as "a character" and joked about him playfully nipping at her rear - saying it "happens all the time." She was smiling, uninjured, and unfazed. There was no mention of aggression, fear, or injury. If management later reframed this as a bite incident to deflect accountability, that's dishonest and retaliatory. 4. "Medication was administered as required; no seizures or disorientation observed." False. When we arrived, Yogi was in the middle of an active seizure, soaked in urine, trembling, and disoriented - clear evidence that medication was missed or mishandled and that he was left unattended for an extended period. His saturated toys and kennel further confirm prolonged neglect. 5. "Dog was let out every 3 hours and again first thing each morning." Not consistent with the evidence. Yogi's full-body urine saturation and soaked toys show he was not let out at the claimed intervals. Staff previously stated to us that dogs are taken out "at the end of the day," which contradicts this new claim. 6. "We offered a free bath, but it was refused." Misleading. The bath was declined because Yogi was having a seizure and required medical care, not a grooming session. Presenting that refusal as noncooperation is manipulative and minimizes the seriousness of the situation. 7. "He left wagging his tail and happy." Completely false. Yogi was trembling, pacing, and terrified - consistent with neurological distress. This is documented in contemporaneous emails and photos immediately after pickup. 8. "We are not a vet's office." Agreed - and that is precisely why a facility should immediately contact an owner or the dog's vet during a medical emergency. Staff had confirmed they would contact DeKalb Animal Hospital and later acknowledged having done so. With that knowledge, failure to act during a visible seizure constitutes negligence. 9. "If we'd known the extent of his needs, we wouldn't have taken him." False. His needs were fully explained, and staff accepted him for boarding after confirming they would obtain his records. You cannot retroactively claim ignorance after taking payment and responsibility. 10. "Staff were afraid to let him out." Direct quote from the owner: "We could not handle the dog because of the possibility of an employee being hurt." If that were true, it would still constitute gross negligence. If your staff genuinely believed a dog posed a safety threat, the proper protocol would be to contact the owner immediately - not to confine the animal in a kennel for extended hours without medication, bathroom breaks, or monitoring. Leaving a medically vulnerable dog unattended out of fear is not safety - it is neglect. 11. "The owner was out of state looking for housing." Entirely false and irrelevant. I was in Georgia picking Yogi up myself, as verified by timestamps and DeKalb's correspondence. This fabricated detail has no connection to the actual event and serves only to deflect and discredit. We have contemporaneous emails, photos, and veterinary documentation verifying every detail. The owner's public response contradicts his own staff's words and ignores basic standards of animal welfare. If a facility claims to have served over a thousand dogs, it should be capable of handling emergencies, maintaining accurate communication. Camp Woof continues to ignore written requests for records of Yogi's stay.

    Scenthound Tucker - groomer - Updated July 2026

    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...