The recent post regarding the use of ear powder got me thinking.
This post is not intended to start another debate on the pros and cons of removing ear hair. I think most of the regulars here have made themselves quite clear where they stand on the subject.
The issue I have is that I feel you are damned if you do and damned if you don't in regards to removing ear hair. I think most groomers feel this way.
I think that a good share of customers expect the ear hair removed during a groom. And 99% of the time it is not a problem.
But that 1% of the time where it is a problem who gets the blame?? The groomer.
If you don't remove the hair and a infection occurs, the Vet will tell them that the groomer should have removed the hair. If you do remove the hair and pull up a infection, you may get blamed for "getting water into the ears" or whatever causing the infection.
I have almost reached a point of adding to my grooming release a section just about ears. Something like, at the owners request, I will remove the hair from the ear but the owner will assume all liability for any issue that may arise from the removal of the hair. I haven't really thought this out yet.
Do any of your releases talk about the removal of ear hair??? If you are a groomer who chooses not to remove ear hair for whatever reason, how do you handle customers who insist that it be removed?? Are you willing to lose a customer over it?? Have you ever had a customer come back at you and tell you that the Vet said you should have removed the hair during grooming??
I will say that I had never paid a vet bill for a ear infection. I have, however, had several conversations, after the fact with people who were advised after grooming that their dog may have a ear infection and should be taken to a Vet to be looked at. Of course most of these people would rather wait and see before paying for a vet bill.
Scott
This post is not intended to start another debate on the pros and cons of removing ear hair. I think most of the regulars here have made themselves quite clear where they stand on the subject.
The issue I have is that I feel you are damned if you do and damned if you don't in regards to removing ear hair. I think most groomers feel this way.
I think that a good share of customers expect the ear hair removed during a groom. And 99% of the time it is not a problem.
But that 1% of the time where it is a problem who gets the blame?? The groomer.
If you don't remove the hair and a infection occurs, the Vet will tell them that the groomer should have removed the hair. If you do remove the hair and pull up a infection, you may get blamed for "getting water into the ears" or whatever causing the infection.
I have almost reached a point of adding to my grooming release a section just about ears. Something like, at the owners request, I will remove the hair from the ear but the owner will assume all liability for any issue that may arise from the removal of the hair. I haven't really thought this out yet.
Do any of your releases talk about the removal of ear hair??? If you are a groomer who chooses not to remove ear hair for whatever reason, how do you handle customers who insist that it be removed?? Are you willing to lose a customer over it?? Have you ever had a customer come back at you and tell you that the Vet said you should have removed the hair during grooming??
I will say that I had never paid a vet bill for a ear infection. I have, however, had several conversations, after the fact with people who were advised after grooming that their dog may have a ear infection and should be taken to a Vet to be looked at. Of course most of these people would rather wait and see before paying for a vet bill.
Scott
Comment