20+ years experience Grooming Champion Showdogs & Family Pets. Dogs & Cats. Gentle , Holistic methods. Grooming instructor & mentor. MSU B.A. Ed. We Travel to you!
(3)
Gentle Holistic Dog & Cat Grooming
Serving mid-Michigan and surround States. Contact us to discuss your pet's grooming needs:
Email: [email protected]
Call/Text:
VERY Flexible appointment times-
Early mornings, daytimes, weekdays, weekends, Sunday afternoons & Sunday evenings, Friday evenings, Saturday afternoons & evenings- you name it! We'll coordinate with you to select a time t
hat is convenient for you & your busy schedule. We have been grooming for decades, including many top winning AKC Champion and performance titled dogs, service dogs, working dogs, law enforcement canines, pampered Persian cats, differently abled animals, animals with special needs, competition animals.
Titer has become a very important and often controversial term in today’s veterinary world. No laboratory test in my memory has been more misunderstood, misinterpreted, misused, and downright maligned by owners and veterinarians alike. The most extreme example is the rabies vaccination. While this...
https://healthydogworkshop.com/titers-part-two-immunity-without-vaccination/
In my previous blog, I shared the basics of titer testing (click here to read if you missed it). A titer test for distemper and parvovirus is an essential part of my preventative dog health program. Rabies titers are also useful in many cases, but are not yet legally accepted as proof of immunity in...
https://healthydogworkshop.com/2023-canine-vaccination-protocol/
The Healthy Dog Workshop is a participant in the Healthy Paws Affiliate Program,CJ Affiliate, Share a Sale, and Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We earn a....
https://healthydogworkshop.com//wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Best-Practices-for-Vaccination-of-Dogs.pdf
Finding the right low protein dog food to help with a help issue can be complicated because protein is vital for a dog's health and wellness.
Studies looking at this common cause of bacterial urinary tract infections found a botanical that may be just as effective as antimicrobials in preventing UTIs, but without their side effects. Why antibiotics aren't always the best course of action for this common condition.
Quietly announced, the FDA finally makes a statement regarding their DCM/grain free pet food investigation.
In case you've missed this...
Why Animal Guardianship is Harmful to Animals
Animal Extremists LOVE to use language that seems innocuous to trip up well-intentioned people and push their agenda and ideology. Unfortunately, they have been successful in duping people ranging from lawmakers to pet owners and even some people in the veterinary industry. One of their current tactics is to push for the reclassification of animal owners to animal guardians. The term animal guardian is dangerous and could have long lasting and far-reaching implications for animals, animal owners, and veterinary medicine.
Animals are Property
Under the law, animals are considered property. They are “owned” by individuals who are called to protect them, care for them humanely, give them veterinary treatments as needed, provide sufficient food and water, and when the time comes, end their lives in a humane manner. Those are the basics. If an individual wants to do more for them, that is their prerogative, but it is not required by law.
Animal extremists, however, are pushing to end the designation that animals are property. These ideologues are determined to reclassify animals so they can achieve “personhood.” To do so, they are changing the lexicon to include actual legal terms, like guardianship. This is troubling as we will further point out.
Pet Guardianship and Pet Parents
“Pet Guardian” or “Pet Parent” is the new way some groups and even pet food companies are referring to animal owners in their advertisements and marketing materials. Instead of being a pet owner, you are a “pet parent” or “guardian.” This tactic is used to elevate animals, invoke emotional responses, and supposedly has a less negative ring to it. However, there are those who strongly caution against using these terms and for good reason.
American Veterinary Medical Association
As early as 2005, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) addressed this very issue. The organization representing over 97,000 member veterinarians nationally still finds this subject applicable as recently as November of 2019. Their stance reads:
“Some animal owners may like to refer to themselves as "pet guardians," however "guardian" is a legal term that has significant legal implications and repercussions. Its use to describe the relationship between animals and their owners is inappropriate. Under well-developed principles of guardianship law, guardianship is a fiduciary relationship (the highest legal civil duty owed by one person to another). The ward's interests are always to prevail over those of the guardian. Some conflicts that arise from application of human guardianship law to animals are described in the text that follows. On the basis of these conflicts, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) recommends that "guardian" not be adopted, even to semantically describe the relationship between humans and their animals.
The AVMA recognizes that our American society has evolved from an agrarian one in which the animals most of us owned primarily had economic utility, to an urban one in which most of us derive some emotional value from our animals. Use of guardian, however, does not clarify the responsibilities of owners to their animals that are important for forming good human-animal bonds. Instead, use of guardians may create legal questions and consequences that have the potential to adversely affect both the animals and humans involved in these relationships. Such legal questions and consequences apply not only to animal owners and service providers, but also to our society and the animals. These include, but are not limited to:
Animal owners
• Reductions in the rights of owners and imposition of additional legal obligations—With respect to veterinary care, animal owners will have less authority and fewer treatment options. Required treatment may exceed the financial capacity of the owner to pay, yet guardianship will require that owners accept such financial burdens. Financial inability to provide treatment could easily result in increased animal abandonment.
• Entailment of wards—Use of guardian gives rise to its counterpart "ward." The ward is defined as the person for whose benefit the guardianship has been established. Wards have legal rights. Applying human guardianship law to animals would mean that animals have legal rights that can be recognized in court (i.e., animals would have legal standing). This may subject owners to civil lawsuits filed by third parties on behalf of the animal.
• Inability to select procedures such as euthanasia or spay/neuter—Owners wishing to relieve animal suffering by euthanasia may no longer have that option. Non-health justifications for euthanasia, including population control, may no longer be acceptable under guardianship. Spaying and neutering may also not be possible, if such procedures were not deemed to be in the best interest of the animal.
• Confidentiality of veterinary information and control of medical records—Where confidentiality of veterinary medical records is governed by state statutes or regulations, conditions are defined under which and to whom medical records may or must be released. Generally, owners have authority over release of their animals' medical records. Under guardianship, a veterinarian, contrary to the owner's wishes, may be able to release information to third parties because he/she believes it is in the best interest of the animal. Conversely, the veterinarian may choose not to release medical records to the owner or others because he/she believes it is not in the animal's best interest to do so.
• Ability to transfer an animal to another party—Background checks may be required to ensure that transfer of an animal from one guardian to another is in the best interest of the animal. Transfer of guardianship from one guardian to another, for profit, may not be legal. Third parties may have the opportunity to impede transfer proceedings if they deem such action to be in the best interest of the animal.
• Coverage of animal-related claims by homeowners' insurance—Homeowners' property loss insurance may no longer cover animal-related claims should animals be no longer defined as property under the law. Under guardianship, animals would no longer be considered property.
• Required registration as guardian—In states having guardian registries, animal guardians may be required to register and to comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to that registration. Requirements for registration could include background checks, bonding, and conflict-of-interest evaluations. Registration processes are time-consuming and potentially costly.
• Annual guardianship reports—Animal guardians may be required to file annual guardianship reports, including associated financial reports.
Service providers
• Loss of protection under animal abandonment laws—Animal abandonment laws are predicated on the basis that animals are property. Guardianship removes the status of animals as property.
• Veterinarians' responsibilities unclear—The veterinarian's responsibilities become unclear when a guardian's direction is contrary to the best interests of the animal. Veterinarians may be required to go to court to obtain a judicial determination as to whether or not theirs or the guardian's direction is the appropriate course of action. Inability to provide timely treatment to an ill or injured animal during the course of court proceedings creates the potential for unnecessary animal suffering. For example, debate as to whether to treat a compound fracture versus selecting euthanasia for the animal could create the potential for continued pain, infection and other complications while awaiting a judicial decision. Cases involving animal issues are likely to have lower priority than those involving human issues.
• Prohibitions on prescribing and dispensing controlled substances—Veterinarians may not be able to lawfully prescribe or dispense controlled substances or legend drugs to a guardian who no longer has legal status as the owner of an animal (i.e., current law assumes animals are owned and that owners receive drugs and administer them, as prescribed, to the animal).
• Payment for services—Guardianship may create questions as to whom (guardian) or what (guardianship) is responsible for payment of associated animal services. Personal payment guarantees may need to be obtained.
• Interstate transport—Service providers may have an obligation to prevent the physical transfer of an animal from a guardianship state to an ownership state.
Society
• Unconstitutional taking of private property—A complete shift to guardianship could result in claims of a state having unconstitutionally taken private property (animals) without just compensation.
• Impacts on existing statutes and regulations—Numerous statutes, regulations and policies would have to be reviewed and language altered to replace owner with guardian. These include, but not limited to, pharmacy laws, controlled substance laws, tax laws, veterinary practice laws, and other laws, regulations and policies related to animal use and services.
• Impacts on ability to responsibly use animals—Guardianship may preclude the responsible use of animals for agricultural production (food and fiber), research, exhibition and entertainment (e.g., racing, circuses, rodeo), and companionship. Use of animals and animal products for such purposes may no longer be legal.
• Ability to control, quarantine and vaccinate animals—Guardianship may affect the ability of governmental agencies to control and quarantine animals and require vaccination. Ensuring animal and public health requires the ability to effectively control and eradicate disease. Quarantine, vaccination, and sometimes depopulation, are necessary components of effective disease control and eradication.
• Conflicts between federal and state statutes, regulations and policies—Potential conflicts may arise between states' laws, regulations and policies that are predicated on the basis of guardianship and federal laws, regulations and policies that are predicated on the basis of animals as property.
• Homeless/unwanted animals—Financial burdens and inability to control burgeoning populations (e.g., problems associated with euthanasia and spay/neuter choices) may both contribute to the problem of unwanted animals.
• Use of assistance animals—The concept of assistance animals (e.g., guide dogs, hearing dogs) may be objectionable under guardianship; therefore, there may be fewer animals available to provide such services. The use of animals for search and rescue may also not be acceptable.
• Burdens of ownership—Owning or keeping animals may become burdensome with consequent negative impacts on animal-related industries, including loss of jobs.
Animals
• Bidirectional benefits of human-animal bonds lost—Under guardianship, people may be less willing to possess animals because of concerns about increased liability. Some responsible individuals and animals would thereby be deprived of the benefits of the human-animal bond.
• Reduction in animals' receipt of needed services—Guardianship may reduce a person's willingness to seek appropriate services for animals in a timely fashion.
• Animals left in limbo—Guardianship may leave the welfare of animals in limbo during associated legal proceedings. A delay in the veterinarian's ability to provide medical care is one example.
• Adverse effects on health and welfare—Guardianship may adversely affect the health and welfare of individual animals and animal populations.
AVMA has continued to oppose the language of guardianship as the veterinary community, breed associations and attorneys see the campaign as a Trojan horse. Attorney Gregory M. Dennis assisted with writing AVMA’s response to the guardian initiative and made the comment:
“To lawyers, ‘guardian’ has a considerable amount of legal significance. Ownership and guardianship are not matters of semantics; they’re not interchangeable terms.”
Individual Veterinarians Weigh In
In an article in dvm360 magazine, dated 12/31/2010, veterinarians across the country weighed in on the language change. Both veterinarians and the AVMA said that animal guardianship is not in the best interest of owners or animals.
Over the years, the role of some animals has shifted from an agricultural use to that of a companion. The AVMA has stated that changing from ownership to guardianship could result in more litigation, higher costs of animal care, and fewer people adopting animals.
Dr. John Scamahorn, who owns a mixed-animal (small animals and livestock) practice in Indiana, agrees with AVMA’s stance saying:
"I look at guardians as those looking after my mother. I don't know that it could be applied to animals," he says, adding he thinks veterinarians will get caught in the middle.
"Ownership is clear cut. The owner can authorize treatment. Guardianship puts another spin on things," Scamahorn says. "The animals they are trying to protect could actually end up suffering while trying to sort out who is authorized to elect care."
Dr. Ron Cott, veterinarian and retired associate dean at the University of Missouri College of Veterinary Medicine, also is against making the change saying:
"There are a lot of legal implications when you give them [pets] rights. You become the guardian and they are the ward," he says. "Say it costs $3,000 to do a procedure. You are going to be forced to do it, even if you don't have the money. The neighbor down the street could find out you aren't doing it and take you to court for cruelty to animals."
In a blog on Embrace Pet insurance’s website, Dr. Patty Khuly, VMD, gave her opinion on the subject:
“‘Guardianship’ means that you are put in charge of your pet’s health and well-being for the rest of her life. Consequently, in the eyes of the law, she’d look more like your child and less like your refrigerator. But while it seems a sound principle for those of us who already treat our pets like children, changing this designation legally can get tricky.
Currently, if your cat breaks her leg, you’re legally allowed to elect any approach to its treatment as long as it’s considered roughly humane. You may even elect for no intervention at all, allowing her to slowly limp her way back to a reasonable state of functionality. Few jurisdictions would challenge your right to do so unless someone complained that you were allowing your pet to suffer (and it might be hard to prove that she was).
Meanwhile, under guardianship laws, you would be unable to forgo full assessment of her condition (including X-rays or any other means to determine her condition) before a licensed vet could legally treat her or euthanize her. If you had no money to treat her adequately (to alleviate her pain, at least), you would be required to euthanize her. Although this sounds horrible, it would be the humane thing to do and most of us would be on board with this effect of our new guardianship status.
If, however, euthanasia is considered too harsh an outcome (for example, when life-saving measures are readily available), a guardian would be liable for any reasonable treatment required to make her well again –– whether you wanted to spend the money or not.”
What Attorneys Say
In 2002, the American Veterinary Medical Law Association wrote an article called “Ownership of Animals vs Guardianship of Animals: The Effect of a Change in the Law on Veterinarians in California” in response to an inquiry letter written by California Veterinary Medical Association in December of 2001.
The article goes into great detail citing property laws, guardianship laws and how those laws would apply to someone who is an animal guardian. One portion of guardianship law that most “animal guardians” may not be aware of is that “a guardian can be removed if they: a) fail to use ordinary care and diligence; b) continue not to perform their duties; c) show an incapacity to perform their duties suitably; d) are convicted of a felony or e) have an interest adverse to the performance of their duties such that there is and unreasonable risk they will not faithfully perform their duties.”
American Kennel Club Viewpoint
The American Kennel Club (AKC) published a brochure titled, “Be Your Dog’s Owner, Not its Guardian”. The article outlined four main challenges that bolster their viewpoint against classifying animal owners as guardians:
1. Owners have personal rights to protect their property (dogs) from undue restrictions and the term guardian represents a first step in eliminating an individual’s right to own, breed, sell and participate in events with dogs.
2. Regarding public safety, the declassification of dogs as property could result in numerous legal challenges. Veterinary and health care challenges include the fact that if people don’t “own”: their dogs, then who can make decisions involving veterinary care, sterilization, or euthanasia.
Most importantly, the AKC states changing the classification of dogs as property sets a very dangerous legal precedent. By declassifying animals as property, it raises their legal status. Many extremist groups seek to convince the courts that animals have rights and should have the same status as humans.
Animal Guardianship: Is it Animal Extremists’ Final Blow to Animal Ownership?
It is obvious that using the term “animal guardian” instead of animal owner has ramifications most owners do not consider.
“Guardians” would be required to pursue veterinary treatment regardless of cost or could be forced to euthanize an animal. They would no longer be allowed to decide to either spay or neuter the animal or abstain from spaying or neutering. Guardians could lose the ability to file malpractice against a veterinarian since the animal is no longer property.
Owning or keeping animals may become burdensome with consequent negative impacts on animal-related industries, including loss of jobs. Financially, it could cause people to no longer keep their animals or adopt or purchase replacement animals.
Legal guardianship is a dangerous legal precedent. By giving legal rights to animals, we play into the animal extremists’ hand. It becomes the first step in the larger campaign of ending the keeping of pets, raising livestock, and breeding altogether.
Don’t allow animal extremists to use animals as a pawn in their ultimate game of ending animal use as food, fiber, companionship, entertainment or service.
For links to sources and more information visit this article on our website.
WYNTK - Anthropomorphism - The Greatest Threat to Animal Welfare
What is Anthropomorphism?
Universally, anthropomorphism is known as giving human characteristics to a non-human entity. These seemingly innocent mannerisms often involve such things like reading a book about Peter Rabbit or talking to a pet when arriving home from work. As trivial as the concept may be, it can create real rifts in our society. Anthropomorphism becomes an issue when we start using it to force human emotions and principles on real-life animals, instead of just characters in a book or fable.
How Deep is Anthropomorphism?
Anthropomorphism has been a part of the human experience since the earliest cultures developed. When people began telling stories and passing along history, they cultivated animal metaphors and characters that had human traits. This goes as deep as the personification of well-known terms like ‘Mother Nature’ and ‘Father Time’.
Anthropomorphism can be traced back over 30,000 years ago to sculptures involving human-animal figures. Many ancient myths also involved deities that had human emotions, appearances, and behavioral traits. Take the Greek God Zeus as an example; he is depicted in many sculptures and statues as an attractive human man. Some of the myths involving Zeus describe him as having affairs with women and jealousy towards his wife Hera, both of which are imperfect human traits that were constructed to make him seem more human-like. This is just one of the many early depictions of anthropomorphism.
Anthropomorphism in Modern Times
As humans matured from mythology into modern learning, we then began applying anthropomorphism to our literary works. The 19th century was full of stories such as Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and The Jungle Book, which both portrayed animal characters with human emotions and traits. In the 20th century, this progressed into works that all but removed humans completely. We see this in books like Animal Farm and Winnie-the-Pooh, and many Disney movies, which have the main characters as animals.
We can see anthropomorphism today in almost every household in this country and the trend is growing. It might be a dog that you dress up for Halloween or a cat that you consider as your child. This is evidenced too in the billion-dollar pet industry where outfits for dogs and cats are sold, and it is now common in cities and urban areas to see dogs in baby strollers. Pets have been companions for most of our history, but only recently have we begun replacing human interactions for the imaginary dialog animals have to offer.
These things in and of themselves are not bad, but we need to step back and understand why we are projecting these traits on our pets and other animals and the impact.
How Anthropomorphism is Detrimental to Animal Welfare
ANTHROPOMORPHISM PLACES UNREALISTIC AND UNFAIR EXPECTATIONS ON ANIMALS
When anthropomorphism is directed towards animals, it gives humans an unrealistic model for those animals to live up to. Just as we should not expect a human child to act like a dog, we should not expect a dog to act like a human child, as they are not equivalent to the other.
Expecting a pet, or any other animal to live up to the standards of human traits can cause a wide array of problems, which can include:
Behavioral Problems –
Many behavioral problems directly stem from anthropomorphism and unrealistic expectations for pets and even livestock. Owners expect them to “know better,” “feel guilty,” and never to express their natural instincts. “He never bites, he won’t bite,” and “she won’t kick or spook,” are examples of this.
Behavioral problems and lack of training are the number one reason small animals are surrendered to shelters and large animals, like horses, are abandoned. This is a significant factor to why we believe anthropomorphism is a threat to animal welfare.
Health Problems –
Anthropomorphism has led many animal owners to overfeed their pets. It has also led them to provide animals food items and diets that are not healthy for them. Overweight pets are becoming a significant issue in veterinary medicine. This is such an issue that veterinarians regularly prescribe special diets that are designed to lower the pet’s weight. Specialty diets for overweight pets have also become big business for pet food companies.
Digestive problems from feeding animals human food can cause a multitude of issues including diabetes, pancreatitis, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, malnourishment, liver damage, and even death. Another very concerning issue is a relatively new movement that involves feeding pets vegan diets. Instead of recognizing animals as different species from humans, vegan diets are forced on pets. This is not due to the pet’s nutritional needs, but the pet owner’s ideological beliefs. These vegan pet food diets base their protein sources from plants, which is something that a pets’ digestive system was not evolved to handle. For example, feeding a vegan diet to a cat can be lethal.
Veterinary Visit Problems –
It is not uncommon for veterinarians to make recommendations regarding handling and training. These recommendations are usually made to help with behavioral problems that can be dangerous in a veterinary clinic setting. If an owner does not follow these recommendations, it can result in harm to the veterinarian, their staff, other clients in the office, and even the pet itself. Anthropomorphism can affect how a pet owner views these recommendations by thinking: “he knows better,” “I don’t want someone telling me what to do,” and “she wouldn’t hurt anyone.”
Pet Owner Problems –
If anthropomorphism is taken to the extreme and becomes the norm, society may agree that animals deserve habeas corpus (a civil right given to persons that are imprisoned). It is possible that owners could then be removed from making decisions about what they believe is best for their animal. We believe this is an animal welfare threat because outsiders who do not know anything about your animal or the care it requires could be making the decisions instead.
Along with habeas corpus, another matter that is being pushed is changing the term “owner” to “guardian” in regards to animals. The term “guardian” insinuates that the animal is not property and has some form of personhood. This could lead to an increase in malpractice insurance for veterinarians since professional liability insurance currently only covers pets as property. Covering a pet that has “personhood” may include covering the pain and suffering that is often issued in human cases of malpractice. The price for such insurance coverage would be greatly higher than current rates. This cost will be passed on to the clients and would make providing veterinary care to animals even more expensive. This increased expense, in turn, will either create financial barriers to pet ownership or discourage owners from seeking veterinary care for their animals. Either way, the animals lose.
Anthropomorphism Has Led to Crimes and Domestic Terrorism
What we don’t often realize is how anthropomorphism shifts into devious and sometimes illegal behavior. There are animal extremist groups, along with their group members who are now on the FBI’s list for domestic terrorism. In the name of animal rights, fueled by extreme anthropomorphism, crimes have been committed such as: breaking into research facilities to save ‘enslaved’ dogs, stealing animals, exposing animals to infectious diseases, and fire-bombing multiple types of animal-based businesses. Such behavior includes continued and ongoing harassment of businesses, consumers, farmers, ranchers, and animal owners. This type of negative behavior comes from extreme anthropomorphism, which leads to the irrational idea that animals have the same consciousness and emotional understanding that humans do.
Why Do Animal Extremist Activists Use Anthropomorphism?
Since the root of the animal extremist ideology is extreme anthropomorphism, instead of seeing animals as private property, animal extremist ideologues view animals as equal persons to human beings. Animal extremists continuously refer to the human ‘emotions’ of animals. Due to this, they view animal ownership as ‘enslavement.’ This enslavement applies to all animals including pet owners, animal exhibitors, scientists, farmers, and ranchers.
USING ANTHROPOMORPHISM TO GENERATE DONATIONS
Animal extremist organizations focus their propaganda on influencing people to assign human traits to an animal. These groups cause viewers obvious emotional distress, via their massive marketing campaigns with heavily edited videos and images. This distress can generate feelings of guilt in people who have little to no experience working with animals, especially livestock and zoo animals. In addition to making people feel guilty, getting someone to believe an animal has human attributes will make that person much more likely to express empathy. Guilt and empathy are powerful motivators. The viewer is told the cure is to donate money to the organization.
The massive financial success of the animal extremist industry has proven their formula of creating emotional reactions works much better than stating facts when it comes to raising funds.
ANIMAL EXTREMISM USES ANTHROPOMORPHISM TO CREATE LEGISLATION THAT SUITS THEIR AGENDA
In addition to spending millions on manipulating people emotionally to increase fundraising, animal extremist groups spend millions of dollars each year on lobbying and writing legislation so they can get one step closer to ‘animal liberation,’ or their version of the Emancipation Proclamation. To incite and influence voters and lawmakers, animal extremist groups tap into the same anthropomorphic fundraising formula. Using edited videos, sad looking photos, and crying protestors are the key to triggering a response in a voter unfamiliar with animal husbandry best practices.
When Will We Reach the Breaking Point?
Anthropomorphism is not the only movement in our society that is focused on emotional reactions and feelings. There seems to be a sort of cancer on the American public that suggests feelings are more essential and realistic than scientific fact and logic.
While we rarely think about how anthropomorphism affects our daily life, we are now forced to discuss where the line should be drawn. As our society continues to project human traits more and more onto animals, we will at some time reach a breaking point. That point will be when the majority of our society no longer sees an animal as an animal. They will see it as an individual that deserves civil rights. The end result is that we will no longer be able to own our animals and make decisions in their best interest.
Link to article about habeas corpus: https://protecttheharvest.com/what-you-need-to-know/anthropomorphism-is-the-greatest-threat-to-animal-welfare/
When will the general public realize that anthropomorphism taken to the extreme does not help animals? When will we decide enough is enough and that our private property is indeed ours? This right is planted firmly in our constitution and should not be based on someone else’s emotional response to manipulation, no matter how sad the puppy dog looks in the photo.
Where will you draw the line? Where will the line be drawn in the United States? What will happen to the animals we share our daily lives with?
| Monday | 07:00 - 21:00 |
| Tuesday | 07:00 - 21:00 |
| Wednesday | 07:00 - 21:00 |
| Thursday | 07:00 - 21:00 |
| Friday | 07:00 - 21:00 |
| Saturday | 07:00 - 19:00 |
| Sunday | 07:00 - 19:00 |
Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Applause4Paws Grooming Champions & Family Pets posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.
Send a message to Applause4Paws Grooming Champions & Family Pets:
Want your business to be the top-listed Pet Store/pet Service?
