Horsefeathers!

[quote name='kendalyn']I understand the part about Cresteds being a rare breed, but I hate double standards. [/quote] So do I. Still, more than that, I hate a one-size-fits all approach to virtually anything. There are variances in nearly every aspect of life that have to be taken into account when making major decisions. That's just me, though.

Just a disclaimer of sorts... I don't mean to paint all show people and judges with the same brush. I'm sure most dogs who win do it fair and square and I know just how much work goes into it. My whole long drawn out point was that sometimes the best dog doesn't win and that a ch title is no guarantee that a dog is worthy of passing along its genes.

I reckon I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, part of me believes a dog should be a finished champion before being bred. However, I can kind of punch holes in that theory; at least in my own mind. For one thing, I've seen too many really good dogs beat by ok dogs in shows. Showing CAN sometimes be political, I believe, so it would be a shame if the dog who is considered "best" for breeding purposes because he showed well is actually not the BEST representation of that breed. Clear? Mud? To be honest, I'm sometimes really discouraged at what's going on with conformation these days. So many dogs of different breeds are winning bigtime in the showrings, but couldn't possibly serve the purposes for which some of them were bred. I don't think conformation is all inclusive, or should be the sole determining factor in whether a dog is worthy of passing along its genes. Also, while I like the ideal that breeding should be for betterment only, I also believe in breeding for breed preservation. Of course, there is no danger of the extinction of Cockers or Poodles, but some less popular breeds... well, like Cresteds- I dunno. With such a limited gene pool (I'm assuming), I tend to be a bit more relaxed in my views of breeding. If a dog were to meet all other criteria, pertinent testing, temperament, all that goes with being a good representative of that breed, I wouldn't actually have much problem with it. If that dog were assessed (after all the testing and clearances) by someone knowledgeable in that breed and determined to be a sound and good example of that breed, I can live without the Ch. in front of the name. Again, sometimes a great dog is beat out by a so-so dog just because of who is on the other end of the lead. Also, some people get so hung up on titles... there is a thread right now on one of the grooming lists about a bigtime Pom show winner who was bred many times over because he was supposed to be "alla dat." Turns out this dog has a really bad skin condition that was turning up in offspring (think bald Poms). The breeder knew about it, but since that dog was such a top winner and he had a ch title... It seems like I read something nearly every day where some top winning dog is passing along doG knows what to offspring, but hey, at least they're winners and PROVEN to be fit to breed. Maybe it's just my cynicism. I'm all for a very carefully planned breeding program and the breeding of healthy, sound dogs if it must be done at all. I'm just not sure I'm convinced that it MUST include a ch title. I would LOVE for showing and show people to always be honest and reliable, but since it's a flawed system, I really don't have any disrespect for anyone who is truly determined to research and try to create healthy, sound, correct dogs in a carefully laid out program. Of course, in a perfect world, I'd love to see all the dogs in shelters and rescues go into forever homes before ANY breeding, but I'm dreaming. I would feel entirely differently about someone breeding Cockers, Poodles, even Dobes (sorry), or any other popular breed this way. I know, double standard, but I don't see much need for preservation of these breeds at this time as the shelters and rescues are just slopping over the brim with these dogs. Again, mixed feelings.

[quote name='Nicole'] I am desperately hoping that they will heal although by the looks of it now, I am not overly hopeful. My breeder told me that the black pigment on a dog's nose rarely returns to its original state. [/quote] Not to be the voice of doom and gloom, but it looks like you've already considered the possibility... My black Lab was attacked by another dog about three years ago and got a very long, very ugly bite right down his snout. It healed cleanly, but despite very diligent applications of vitamin E, there is still a very prominent scar there, about 2-3 inches long. It does seem to stand out more in a black dog, I think. I sometimes get so discouraged at "professionals" of nearly any animal related field, from grooming to training to even vets sometimes. My Lab also went through h*ll with a trainer once (in a therapy dog course!) whose idea of training a very eager to please dog was to basically choke him down with a prong collar. Not to get into the whole "there's a right way to use one" thing, he was virtually dragged and choked with it. That was the ONLY time that trainer had a chance to do that to him. I think you're right to discontinue training with someone so obviously lacking, not only in common sense and professionalism, but compassion and responsibility. I agree with others that this person should be made to pay any vet bills. If she refuses to be morally responsible, at least she should be held financially responsible.

Update on Paddy, please. Is the swelling going down, or does it look like he's going to have to see the vet again tomorrow?

Thanks! So far, I'm very optimistic. Just the thought of possible improvement without the use of pred is better than I'd hoped for.

Poor Paddy :( ! I wish him luck and hope the antibiotics and steroids work and he won't have to go back to the vet.

Hey, Cassie, are you guys thinking about attending the trade show in Hershey, PA this year? I may be going. I usually go to the one in Atlanta, but I don't think I'm going to be able to get away to go (it's in two weeks). Since I always commit to at least one trade show a year, I may try to get to Hershey in the fall and it [b]may[/b] be my competition debut. It seems like I read somewhere that you guys had considered going.

[quote name='Cassie']Kiwi, The groomer I work for used to use Bio-groom products at one time...she no longer uses them. I am not sure if its due to them not being a Canadian shampoo and the cost of getting American shampoo over the border is outrageous...I'll have to ask her on Tuesday what she thought of the product...or HF will be able to tell you what she thinks. Currently we use groomers edge, top performance, A-1 all systems....we used to use e-z groom products as well...[/quote] I've not really used Bio Groom enough to have much of an opinion on it. I mean, I've never heard anything really bad about it. I just never used it much. I also use some Groomer's Edge (Oatmella and ReFurbish), #1 All Systems and Nature's Specialties. Their Aloe Remo ROCKS and I like the Plum Silky as a basic shampoo, but it foams a bit too thickly for my bathing system sometimes. Some other favorites I've used in the past, but am not currently using are Pet Silk products. I'm basically hooked on their scents. :oops: I've heard wonderful things about Eqyss products and am currently using them. I like that the company is forthcoming with their ingredients and that it's a clean rinsing, no residue product. This could probably become my staple provider of shampoos/conditioners as I like just about everything about them. It's quite pricey, though. I'll have to dig up her "Beyond Scents And Suds" article and post it. It explains why too much lather and sudsing is actually not a good thing. We've been conditioned to believe that the more sudsing and lather, the better the cleaning qualities. Not true. As a matter of fact, too much foaming action can hinder the cleaning process. There is actually a scientific explanation for all of this. Maybe I am too easily entertained, but I find it all fascinating. Knowledge is power! Some of the shampoos I'm using now aren't as "sudsy" as others I have used and they do seem to do a better job in a bathing system (I have a recirculating system) and my pump doesn't get choked down by suds. I know it's HARD to give up the suds... I still love that "rich, luxurious lather" on my own head or in my own bath. It just FEELS good. Still, we don't need it. It's not what cleans. [quote]One more thing I meant to mention about our home made shampoo...well, not really "ours" :lol: we found it kills fleas....we ran out of a citrus shampoo for fleas (the company had it on back order) so we were using the home made shampoo (we use this for a first shampoo) my boss left it on for a few minutes while she drank her coffee..the fleas were dropping off this dog :o (we had advantage to put on the dog after the groom...the owner always brings it in for us to apply :wink: ) we found it gets rid of bad odors on the dog without leaving a perfume smell behind...alot of customers are very scent sensitive...and, if you add baking soda to the home made shampoo you have instant skunk shampoo! :wink: of course, don't add the baking soda to the shampoo until just before putting it on the dog...the shampoo has a long shelf life...but, if baking soda is added the remaining shampoo must be thrown out.[/quote] Cassie, before the use of Capstar tablets (owner consent, of course), I was using plain Dawn dishwashing liquid as a deflea shampoo, followed by a good conditioning rinse. I have not bought a flea shampoo since I first got out of grooming school. I do not like constant exposure to permethrins and pyrethrins (I also don't use dips!). The popular alternative is citrus products, but I've read of too many problems small dogs have had with citrus. I'm just too paranoid, I guess. Dishwashing liquid is THE BEST deflea shampoo I've ever seen and is still a favorite among "old timers." Have you ever added a capful or two of plain mouthwash to your bath (I'm not sure what kind of bathing system you use)? I use it sometimes on dogs with smelly allergy skin (Devin gets it twice a week) and it's also great on those crusty, smelly Cocker feet. Not good, of course, for raw, open sores (at least, I'm too chicken to try it). This is debatable, but I've also used it to help flush out raw (but not oozing) ears, followed, of course, by traditional ear cleaning. The vet here has been pleased with the results and I've never had an ear complaint. The "to flush or not to flush ears" debate has been around the grooming boards forever. I'm a flusher. :oops:

[quote name='Cassie']Kiwi, we have alot of soft-coated wheatens in for grooming...they seem to be getting very popular. I am not a groomer myself, but, I am sure HF will give you some grooming tips...[/quote] In the five years I've owned my salon I can think of, hmmm, lemme think... oh yeah, exactly NO Wheatens that have come through. I am in a really rural area and we don't get very many "exotics" (which a Wheaten would be considered here). I have trained on them while learning to groom before and am fairly familiar with the breed standard and profile just by shows, seminars and reading (I try to learn as much as possible about as many breeds as possible even if I never see one in my salon), but have no personal experience with them. Probably the most "exotic" breed I've ever done was a Bedlington Terrier. :oops: Cassie, your boss sounds like she rocks. She seems to be the kind of groomer I aspire to be.

I'd be surprised if ANYONE could see through my windows. This is an old picture of Penny and the damage she did to the frame, but please pay attention to the snark prints on the glass. I thought they put that there as compensation for some lack of something or other in their vision and maybe it's just snarky to me, but it makes them see outside perfectly (they can spot a squirrel 100 feet away, I swear). No? :-? [img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0ZwDdAkwghJRArdPRRdEl6z5tqI9g1po8SEXvMD*RI!x1aLPN5bp7IrshUhR7A!FzlsLP5P!rEd3CqCSAKw1pJ8pqlO9!tm7RzIG5Psgn4ytJE1NGelLIAHBiLCxgd17js8MmjFqBig0c600w72d5yQ/1-12-03Pennydamage1.JPG?dc=4675405104804479769[/img] Anyway, I just took a poll and the gang says, yes, indeed they can see through the window just fine. :)

Does anyone have any insight on the use of cyclosporin to treat allergy symptoms in dogs? Devin scratches and gnaws continuously, day and night. He's only a year old and I hate with a passion the thought of putting him on pred longterm. This past week, I gave up and started him on some just because I'd rather see his life shortened by pred than see him miserably scratching and gnawing. He can't even sleep through the night. I did have another one of my Lhasas allergy tested a few years ago and we went through the hyposensitization injections where a serum was made up specifically for her allergies. The success was minimal to say the least. My understanding is that they can only put so many "allergens" in the serum and she apparently was allergic to way more than it covered. Or something like that. Either way, it was a ton of money down the drain because it really didn't help much. I've bitched and moaned to my vet so much about alternatives to longterm pred that he mentioned yesterday something about treating allergies with cyclosporin. I don't reckon he's done it before, but he sent some home for Devin to try. He's interested in the results (which is why he sold this stuff to me at cost, but holy balls, is it still expensive!). He said if it would work, it wouldn't have the longterm problems associated with prednisone. He is getting some kind of new(?) drug called Atopica. My assumption is that it must be similar to cyclosporin since that's what he's starting us on until he gets the Atopica. Does anyone have any insight to offer on this? I'm just beginning to try to find something about it on the web. What we've done so far... bathing him very infrequently so as to not dry out skin. Didn't help, so now I'm bathing him at least twice a week in an effort to control inhalant/contact allergies. Keeping him virtually shaved. It does seem worse when his hair begins growing out, so I keep it very short. That was the one thing that made the most difference in the other allergy Lhasa, but can't tell about Devin yet. He is on Canidae food and gets 3V Caps (fish oil) supplements as well as yogurt, acidophilus and Nzymes and a few fresh vegetables and (cooked) meats. We are very diligent in making sure he gets no processed food like hot dogs, sausage, or anything like that. I'm kind of going away from my original question. I really want to know if anyone has insight on the use of cyclosporin or Atopica in treating allergies.

Well, it's developed into a classic little love/hate relationship. She loves to hate him and he hates that she doesn't love him. Oh well, Devin is not deterred. Between virtually throwing his butt at her, "singing" to her and whining, she isn't quite convince he's "alla dat," but he's not going down without a fight. Get 'er, Devin. You know she's just playing hard to get. Word of advice, though... sharing your toys rather than snatching them right out of her mouth might make the difference. It's only until Monday... 8)

[quote name='gooeydog']HF, meet Goo.... Goo, meet HF :lol: [/quote] *walks in, gives Goo a skritch and quickly departs* 8)

[quote name='science_doc']I have some really basic questions about dog grooming. We have a Dog-o-mat here where I live, this is just a do it yourself dog wash. I like it mostly because it keeps the mess out of my tiny apartment. They have tubs and a drying room, lots of cool brushes, etc. pretty neat idea! [u]I hope you guys don't mind me asking, but I like cleaning up Hailey myself, just more time for us to bond[/u].[/quote] Science doc, I think grooming, even if that means just baths and upkeep, is a great way for owners and pets to bond. :) [quote]#1 - How often is too often to bathe a dog? I find that Hailey get's a bit smelly after 2 weeks, but this seems a bit frequent for washes. [/quote] This is a pretty general statement; there are always exceptions, but I always say to just wash them as often as needed. Some dogs like my Lab only get a bath maybe once or twice a year just because he doesn't need it more, but some like my Devin get a bath a couple of times a week. He has really bad allergies and we are trying to keep contact/inhalant allergies to a minimum. If Hailey stinks, wash her. I know this is a given, but you want to make sure the smell isn't indicative of something else going on. You say it seems to come from her head. Be sure there's nothing going on inside her ears or her mouth. If it's just doggy smell, I don't think washing every couple of weeks will hurt a thing if you feel like doing it. The biggest thing is rinse rinse rinse. Not rinsing thoroughly, IMO, is one if the quickest ways to create a problem with frequent baths. [quote] She also howls like the devil when I trim her nails, so much so that one person has to feed treats while the other rapidly tries like heck to trim her nails. I was wondering how common this is with dogs? I know that many cats HATE people touching their feet. I didn't own her as a puppy so I don't know her history, but I do know that the shape of her nails bugs me. Instead of comming to points, they are very flat and wide at the bottom and so this makes them tough to clip. To make matters worse they are black! So at nail clipping time I am way cautious about taking off too much and getting the quick. Anyway I was wondering if dog nails are a wide variety of shapes or if her nails were poorly trimmed or worse not trimmed at all leading to this funky shape.[/quote] It's not uncommon for dogs to hate to have their feet touched. As for her nails (if I'm visualizing this right), I see many dogs, mostly larger dogs, whose nails are shaped that way. Thick all the way to the ends. About the only thing I can suggest is to just constantly nick at them. Just take off a little at a time, but do it frequently. Hopefully, that will accomplish getting her nails worked back as well as maybe her eventually getting more comfortable with it. The thing about nail trimmers and where I sometimes see people upset their dogs... be sure the trimmer is a good, SHARP one. Then line up that nail as quickly as possible and just SNAP if off where you want it. I see many people just kind of whittling away on nails and sort of pinching down with the clipper before finally deciding to clip. I'm sure that has to be uncomfortable and is probably one reason some dogs hate it. This may not be an option, but I do know of several dogs who absolutely go berserk at just the sight of a nail trimmer, but tolerate a Dremel tool (grinder) well. It really doesn't make sense to me that a dog who hates its feet touched would tolerate something buzzing and grinding, but I can think of several right off the top of my head who DO tolerate it. Maybe worth a shot (maybe not...)? Good luck and skritches to Hailey. :)

Any time, Cassie. 8) I know the pH debate comes up here from time to time, so I thought it would be good food for thought. I know the recipe you're talking about. If there's such a thing, it would have to be the perfect shampoo. If Dawn dish soap is the "perfect" pH balance (or Palmolive), that's quite an eye opener. While I do keep a wide array of pet products in my professional arsenal, I rarely use pet products at home on my own dogs, some of which are allergy dogs. On my Poodles, one of which I'm growing into a show trim (you know how much hair that is?? ack!), I have been using Pantene shampoo AND conditioner (human shampoo here). I use Pink spray for brushouts (a product found in the African American hair section in most stores) or Infusium23 (human leave in conditioner) mixed 50/50 with water in a spray bottle. I've also used Dove (for people) shampoo and conditioner on some of my dogs only because I like the smell. It hasn't hurt any of them, including Devin who has horrible allergies. I do still primarily use pet products at work just because people are more comfortable with it, though I do use quite a bit of non traditional things. I'm just leaning more toward companies that are forthcoming with their ingredients (Eqyss, for example). I can speak of myth #4 from personal experience. I was using a shampoo labeled as tearless from a company. I carelessly got some in a little Schnauzer's eye and he did get a corneal ulcer. I contacted the company and they told me a dozen different ways that the shampoo IS tearless and that I had apparently used it wrong. Only after relaying information I gathered from other groomers who had similar problems with the same shampoo did the company begrudgingly reimburse me the money I spent in vet bills and that was only because the company's reputation was being ruined on some internet groomer's boards. They also pulled the "tearless" label off that shampoo. It also taught me a valuable lesson in being more careful around eyes no matter what the label says (have to admit I still take any new bottle of a tearless shampoo I open and dab some in my eyes just because... :oops: ). I was still pretty new then and really wasn't worried one bit about just slathering a tearless shampoo all over a dog's face. Now, I don't care what it is, I'm VERY, VERY careful around eyes. Anyway, I hope your boss can use the information. It's probably only basically validating what she's felt all along. :wink:

Had to fix the link. :oops: I guess it's what I get for not reading every thread, but I'd never seen it before. It just seems right like a joke to me. :-?

Is this a joke thing like those bonsai kittens? I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around this. Click here >> [url=http://new-mastiff.tripod.com/index.htm]new breed[/url]

That makes two viable offers of help just on this board. One from an old *ahem* grumpy regular and one from a relative newcomer. I'm still waiting to hear that the arrangements that were tentatively planned worked out. I've been checking in frequently to see any updates. No idea why, but this has bugged me for two days. TDG, I guess I'm more of a "where there's a will, there's a way" mindset. I also live in a very rural area in a southern state that is lacking in animal welfare. I've been homeless, rideless and such in the past, but I don't equate that with powerless. I guess I'll have to respectfully disagree. I still hold no grudge to SRC and I [b]don't[/b] blame her personally, but I have a huge problem with the aunt. Still, I can't help feeling like I must have missed some really bad stuff in past posts. I don't think I have the energy to go back and read it all now. Also, keep in mind that many of us have been around here quite a while and have heard countless hard luck stories. Most of them were merely pity parties where the participant cried helpless and powerless in situations brought on by themselves. I guess when you've heard it so long and told so many different ways and the victims are ultimately those that truly CAN'T represent themselves, it does tend to make folks cynical and bitter. I'm not saying that's the case here, but just offering insight. We're all human and passions can run mighty high. I'll be the first to come forward and apologize if I appeared to be part of a lynch mob. I'm the least clique-ish person imaginable and have p*ssed off many regs along the way by expressing disagreement with them as well (dang, I really want to go back and read what I missed.... maybe not). Still, my primary concern here is for this poor dog. That is bugging the crap out of me. I'm still waiting to hear and now there are TWO valid offers of help.

Taken from [url=http://www.transformationpetcenter.com/articles/pet_shampoo_myths.html]Transformation Pet Center[/url]. =========================== Myth - "a widely held but false notion" (Readers Digest Oxford Complete Wordfinder) "an ill-founded belief held uncritically, esp. by an interested group" (Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary) Myth #1 - The pH of pet shampoos is different from that of human shampoos. Absolutely not true. The pH range of pet skin is different from the pH range of human skin (pet=6.2-7.2pH; human=5.2-6.2pH), but the pH range of the shampoo products is pretty much the same, with most products being in the 6.0-7.5 range. In our G-TNT test, the pet products actually covered a wider spectrum of pH than did the human products tested. Dawn dish soap tests at 7.0 pH which is the absolute neutral point. "Balanced pH" on a label usually means the pH is neutral, 7.0, considered the balance point between the acidic side and the basic side of the pH scale. It does not mean that the pH has been adjusted to the pH of pet skin. Myth #2 - Pet shampoo products are tested and proven on dogs and cats. Simply not true. The cost of scientifically valid animal trials is astronomical, and there is no requirement that manufacturers do so. If you think about it, we probably would not want animal testing to be a part of shampoo development, although it might provide jobs for bathers. Myth #3 - The ingredients in pet shampoos are different than those in human shampoos. NOT. Pet and human shampoo manufacturers are shopping and mixing from the same pool of available ingredients. The same surfactants, emulsifiers, foaming agents, and preservatives show up in human and pet products in various combinations. The similarities are far greater than the differences. The biggest difference is that human products are required to show the ingredients on the label. If pet shampoos listed the ingredients, you would not be able to identify the differences. Myth #4 - Pet shampoo manufacturers will back up a groomer in a legal dispute if a product harms a pet. Not likely. More likely is that the company will blame the groomer for not following directions or improper application of the product. They will not accept the blame in an "isolated instance". They will not pay medical bills, or legal fees, nor will they stand by your side in front of Judge Wapner. Where do these myths come from? Part of what makes a myth is that the source cannot be identified, so the belief is accepted as truth. Onee source of these myths are the pet shampoo manufacturers, especially their sales reps, who are targeting our market. They want consumers to feel comfortable using their products and one technique of sales is to make the consumer uncomfortable about other choices. They throw out just enough technical information, such as "pH balanced" to make us bow to their knowledgeable authority. Their purpose is to narrow our choices and they prey upon our ignorance. They sell to our desire to appear professional. Being professional means making informed, responsible choices. Excercising blind faith based on myth and sales pitch is not my idea of being professional. Nor is accepting something just because it is written on the Internet, by the way - or even said at a seminar. As professionals we are responsible for making choices of the products we use on the pets in our care. Personally, I like to have a wide spectrum of choices, based upon my knowledge and experience, and the body of experience in our field that I draw from through my connection to a network of my colleagues. Barbara Bird

Would you confront a breeder that you knew was breeding genetic disasters? Here's the deal... Many of you know I got Devin several months ago. Before he was ever a year old, he had been through four homes. He was a handful, to say the least. With much socialization and very intense boundary training (not only physical boundaries, but "this behavior is ok, but that is not" kind of boundaries as well), he is a wonderful little dog, but his disposition has been difficult to overcome. We also recently found out that Devin has the worst possible hip dysplasia as well as bad knees and add to that really bad allergies. Devin is only a year old. Who knows what other problems he has that we haven't even discovered yet? I've recently begun seeing some of Devin's littermates show up at our clinic for various reasons (one is a two week groom client of mine and, holy balls, what a brat). Every single one of them have rotten dispositions and I've seen some of the same allergy symptoms and doG only knows about their hips. One other littermate is walleyed just like Devin. While I'm sure that some of the temperament problems stem from lack of proper training, is it feasible that ALL of them are monsters just from lack of training? I've seen many untrained, spoiled dogs in my time, but statistically, at least some of them are untrained yet friendly (bouncing all over the place, not listening, etc.). I found out who is breeding these Lhasas. It's just a regular, well intentioned backyard breeder. Someone who had a couple of cute Lhasas and figured they'd just make a few more cute Lhasas (and a few bucks, no doubt). Would it be wrong of me to contact this breeder now that I know who it is? I really don't intend to be confrontational, but I'm sure they don't realize what they are doing. These dogs are biting people and they are unhealthy. I've really been mulling it over and trying to come up with a way to help educate them without making them defensive. Around here, "cute" sells. I just wonder if it might be possible to raise the awareness that there is more to responsible breeding than cute. I wonder if they will even care that their puppies are having the problems they are. Right now, I can account for 4 of Devin's littermates and all have rotten temperaments and at least a few have allergies. I only wish I could xray the hips of all of them. I'm not afraid to talk to these breeders. I just don't know how to bring it up in a manner that doesn't seem threatening and accusatory. What would you do?

Courtnek, could she possibly have mites? Stranger things have happened. Right now, one of my cats who never ever ever ever goes outside has earmites and no one else in the house, dogs or cats has them, or has shown any evidence of having them. Maybe the "blood" is actually mites and their goo? The vet should be able to know for sure. Good luck.

...with a little [b][size=6]F A T[/size][/b] Poodle named Coco. Coco is our guest for the weekend. Her parents are out of town on a little mini-vacation and couldn't bear to board her in our kennel, so asked if I would bring her home with me. Devin is absolutely infatuated with her :iloveyou: . Who knew he preferred his women with a little meat on their bones? Unfortunately for Devin, Coco is not nearly as smitten with him. Oh well, he is persistent... Just a share. We're having a grand time watching them.

Actually, M4m, while I admittedly didn't thoroughly read every post, I think that, in general, people were dismayed and angered by the aunt's actions, or rather INactions. I think the frustration with SRC stems from the fact that she was so defensive of the aunt's lack of responsibility and was seemingly trying to justify it. I don't think anyone blames SRC personally (then again, I said I didn't read every post), but I have to admit that I have a problem with people who try to justify cruelty. Right or wrong, that's my perception. To answer your question and speaking only for myself, I'd be just as dismayed if it were you who had a relative involved in such cruelty and you adamantly insisted that the relative had good intentions and was a really good person except for that little dog neglect thing. While I truly know what it's like to be helpless and I can certainly sympathize, I just don't understand how someone could defend cruelty. At least that's the problem [u]I[/u] have with it. Then again, I don't think I was nasty and venomous in stating my opinion on how I perceive things. I can't speak for others. I guess I'm just saying I think I understand where the frustration is coming from and why some of it was directed at SRC, though it could have perhaps been a little more palatable. Actually, I have severed contact with siblings because of their irresponsibility and cruelty in other matters. I hold no one to a higher standard than I keep, myself. Still, my offer to help stands.

[quote name='Cassie']one groomer took a small Lhasa and submerged its head under water while she was bathing it....not only did she do this..but, she told the owner of the dog!!!! she explained the dog was unruly and needed to be calmed down...the dog now has mental problems including uncordinated movements, tongue lolling out the side of its mouth...very very fearful. [/quote] This was the first thing on my mind when I woke up this morning. It's so haunting. Someone needs to hold that person's head under water... just until they stop moving. It's just unreal to me what people can do to those entrusted with other lives. The fact that someone could do something so cruel and THEN be so nonchalant as to flippantly admit it as if saying, "oh, your dog got a little nick... oops, gosh, sorry 'bout that... what a wiggleworm she is..." I don't know. There's just something seriously wrong with someone who doesn't see a problem with this type of "discipline." I can't imagine the owner of this dog didn't coldcock that groomer. I don't know this one competitor of mine personally (she's the only one around here not interested in networking with other groomers), so never say anything about her to clients when they call and tell me they saw "xxx" hitting dogs. Apparently, she just doesn't care who sees her smack, choke and terrorize dogs. She also passes out sedatives to these dogs like candy. She grooms from her home and constantly pops acepromazine to these dogs and all but advertises it. Some dogs have seizure disorders and ace is NOT the thing for them to have! Some of the owners who end up coming to me just assume that ALL dogs have sedatives for grooming. Unreal. I know that sometimes her clients end up coming to me and almost all dogs that come from there are absolute bundles of nerves. What really p*sses me off is how many people call me to bitch and moan about how this gal handles their dog and how they've SEEN it, but when they find out my price is almost twice as much, they decide it's not worth it. I just can't wrap my brain around the idea of an owner who is willing to sacrifice their dog's health and safety to save a few bucks. I'll probably think about this all day at work. Extra hugs for the dogs coming through today. I never want them to have to fear me just for the sake of a haircut. Geez, that makes me want to cry.