The grooming department and the management of the White Flint, MD Petsmart engage in discriminatory practices against geriatric and ailing dogs, some of them their longest customers. Yesterday, we discovered that the manager of the White Flint, MD Petsmart and its groomers have decided they no longer will groom dogs 10 years or older. This same corporation, which embraces a compassionate business model by demonstrating beneficence to abandoned animals through supporting rescue organizations, permits its store managers and grooming departments to cast out the most vulnerable geriatric and sick dogs.

At the White Flint Petsmart, the groomers several months ago began issuing "behavioral report cards" to clients. At first, I thought this was a nice innovation. But, then, I learned the report cards are not being used to promote best practices. Rather, they are a means to blackball animals, including 2 of my dogs, one a 15-year veteran and the other a client for more than 6 years. The first was thrown out, because, according to his report card, "he is too old to be groomed." When we questioned a representative from the grooming department about this point yesterday, we learned the manager and groomers had instituted a new rule, which states that they do not groom dogs 10 years or older.

The "report card" system also is used to blackball animals who have ailments, which are readily treated, once identified. My other dog, as I pointed out to the groomer, had a sore on her cheek (turned out she had an abscessed tooth), which might have explained why she suddenly (after being a client for 8 years) became snippy when she was being groomed. "No problem, " she said. I took the dog to the vet the next day. I had the tooth treated. She is back to her old self. Nonetheless, as we also discovered yesterday, she also is permanently black balled from the White Flint Petsmart groomers. What purpose, then do the "report cards" serve? If the intention is to permanently blackball a client, why go through the trouble of issuing a "report card'? Why not have a manager address you in person, when a groomer does not want a dog to return. WE ARE ADULTS. WE DO NOT NEED REPORT CARDS.

More importantly, where is a long-term customer supposed to go, after having spent 15 years as a client at a facility, only to be told that the dog has aged out of the grooming department, now that there are new rules? The grooming department at the White Flint Petsmart recommended we speak with our vet. Our vet was absolutely outraged when we told her that the groomer said the dog, who at 15 is admittedly ancient, was too old to be groomed. When we showed her the "report card, " she was angry. She said it was not only unprofessional but also unethical for a groomer to suggest a dog was too old to be groomed. She also said she was a medical professional and therefore Petsmart should not be recommending that we discuss with her, or for that matter any veterinarian, what effectively were business decisions and not best practices related to animal care.

I highly suspect the latter is why the White Flint Petsmart has not sent out an official card to each of its clients with pets 10 years and older, explaining the change, the reasons behind it, and providing a recommendation of what to do next. The store's manager has made a business decision, which runs counter to all the best practices of animal care. Why is he refusing to acknowledge that veterinarian medicine has made it possible for dogs to live longer? What's next, banning the sales of glucosamine? It is outrageous... IF YOU TREAT YOUR PUPPY OR DOG WELL AND PROVIDE HIM OR HER ROUTINE VETERINARIAN CARE, THEN STAY AWAY FROM THE WHITE FLINT PETSMART GROOMING DEPARTMENT. OTHERWISE, WHEN YOUR DOG BECOMES OLD, HE OR SHE WILL BE CAST OUT, AND YOU WILL NO LONGER HAVE A GROOMER. It is much better to establish a long-term relationship with compassionate, responsible groomers, who are aware and acknowledge advances in veterinarian medicine, by working not only with young, cute puppies, but also are willing to see them through adulthood into old age.

Finally, I add that this is not about somehow trying to avoid paying for services rendered. I paid for all of the services, even though the two dogs were only half groomed. I generously tip. It is not like I was trying to get something for nothing. These facts in and of themselves expose the hollowness of the Petsmart corporate propaganda. If a corporation allows its grooming facilities to treat the ailing and elderly dogs of its paying customers in this way, how sincere can it really be about the cause of abandoned and inhumanely treated animals?