BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |Hearing Date:April 23, 2012 |Bill No:SB | | |969 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Senator Curren D. Price, Jr., Chair Bill No: SB 969 Author: Vargas As Amended: April 18, 2012Fiscal: Yes SUBJECT: Pet groomers. SUMMARY: Establishes under the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act a certification program for pet groomers, as defined, and creates the "California Pet Grooming Council" as a tax-exempt nonprofit organization with membership as specified, for the purpose of certifying pet groomers and pet bathers and brushers who meet specified education, examination, training and experience requirements. Specifies that it is an unfair business practice for anyone to call themselves a "certified pet groomer" or a "certified pet bather and brusher" unless they have been certified by the Council. Existing law, the Business and Professions Code (BPC): 1.Establishes the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act which provides for the licensing and regulation of approximately 9,800 veterinarians and 4,300 registered veterinary technicians by the Veterinary Medical Board within the Department of Consumer Affairs. 2.Provides for certification of massage practitioners and massage therapists, as defined, by a Massage Therapy Organization (MTO) and specifies that the MTO is a nonprofit organization meeting specified requirements, and imposes certain duties on the MTO. (BPC §§ 4600 (e), 4600.5 (a) and (b)(2)) 3.Provides that the MTO is to be governed by a board of directors selected from various related groups, organizations and entities, including law enforcement, involved with both the business and practice of massage therapy. (BPC § 4600.5 (b)(1)) SB 969 Page 2 4.Requires the MTO to issue either a " massage practitioner " certificate or a " massage therapist " certificate to an applicant, who submits a written application and provides satisfactory evidence that he or she meets all of the specified education, experience or examination requirements, or has a current valid license from a local jurisdiction and meets other education and/or experience requirements. (BPC § 4601 (b)) 5.Provides for various grounds for discipline against a certificate holder or for denial of a certificate to an applicant, including: unprofessional conduct; procurement of certificate by fraud; misrepresentation or mistake; conviction of a felony or misdemeanor substantially related to their qualifications, functions or duties, or committing any fraudulent, dishonest, or corrupt act that is substantially related; and, committing any act punishable as a sexually related crime. (BPC § 4603) 6.Provides that it is an unfair business practice for any person to state or advertise or put out any sign or card or other device, or to represent to the public through any print or electronic media, that he or she is certified, registered, or licensed by a governmental agency as a massage therapist or practitioner. (BPC § 4605) 7.Provides that it is an unfair business practice for any person to hold oneself out or use the title of "certified massage therapist" or certified massage practitioner" or any other term, such as "licensed," "registered," or "CMT," that implies or suggests that the person is certified as a massage therapist or practitioner without meeting the requirements as specified. (BPC § 4606) Existing law, the Health and Safety Code (HSC): 1)Establishes the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act and requires every pet dealer, as defined, to comply with its provisions. Defines "pet dealer" as a person engaging in the business of selling dogs and cats, or both, at retail, with specified exemptions, including any entity that breeds or rears dogs on the premises, and is required to possess a permit pursuant to Section 6066 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (HSC § 122125) 2)Requires pet dealers to provide to the purchaser of each dog and SB 969 Page 3 cat at the time of sale a written statement in a standardized form prescribed by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), containing certain information regarding the breeder, the animal, medical history, for dogs a record of veterinarian treatment, a statement that the dog is free from disease or a record of any known disease. (HSC § 122140) 3)Requires pet dealers to maintain a written record on the health, status, disposition of each dog and each cat, and all other information required to be disclosed to the consumer or prospective consumer, for at least one year after disposition of the dog or cat. The records must be made available to humane officers, animal control officers, and law enforcement officers for inspection during normal business hours. (HSC § 122145) 4)Requires pet dealers to do all of the following: (HSC § 122155) a) Maintain sanitary facilities for dogs. b) Provide dogs with adequate nutrition and potable water. c) Provide adequate space appropriate to that dog. d) Provide dogs housed on wire flooring with a rest board, floormat, or similar device that can be maintained in a sanitary condition. e) Provide dogs with adequate socialization and exercise; defined as physical contact with other dogs or with human beings. f) Maintain either a fire alarm system that is connected to a central reporting station that alerts the local fire department in case of fire, or a fire suppression sprinkler system. g) Provide veterinary care, without delay, when necessary. h) Not be in possession of a dog that is less than eight weeks old. 5)Provides that any pet dealer that knowingly sells a dog that is diseased, ill, or has a condition which requires hospitalization or surgical procedures shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000, or prohibited from selling dogs at retail for up to SB 969 Page 4 30 days; for a second offense, a civil penalty of up to $2,500, or prohibition from selling dogs for 90 days; for a third offense, a civil penalty of up to $5,000, or prohibition from selling dogs for six months; and, for a fourth or subsequent offense, a civil penalty of up to $10,000, or prohibition from selling dogs for one year. (HSC § 122205) 6)Establishes the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act and requires every "dog breeder" or "breeder," as defined to comply with its provisions and makes many of the provisions which apply to the Polanco-Lockyer-Farr Pet Protection Act, regarding the sale, transfer and care of animals, applicable to dog breeders. (HSC § 122045 et seq.) 7)Establishes the Pet Store Animal Care Act , which regulates the care and maintenance of animals in the custody of a pet store and provides limits on the sale or transfer of those animals. (HSC § 122350 et seq.) 8)Defines a "pet store" as a retail establishment open to the public that sells or offers for sale animals as pets, or animals intended as food for other animals, but that a "pet store" does not include a retail establishment selling or offering for sale animals to be used in agricultural operations for purposes that are directly related to the raising of livestock or poultry on a farm or ranch. Provides that a person who sells, exchanges, or otherwise transfers only animals that were bred or raised, or both, by the person, or sells or otherwise transfers only animals kept primarily for reproduction, shall be considered a breeder and not a pet store. (HSC § 122350 (i)) 9)Requires that a pet store operator comply with the following animal care requirements: (HSC § 122354 (b)) a) House only compatible animals in the same enclosure. b) Observe each animal at regular intervals, at least once a day, in order to recognize and evaluate general symptoms of sickness, injury, or abnormal behavior. c) Take reasonable measures to house intact mammals that have reached sexual maturity in a manner to prevent unplanned reproduction. d) Maintain and abide by written animal husbandry procedures that SB 969 Page 5 address animal care, management and safe handling, disease prevention and control, routine care, preventative care, emergency care, veterinary treatment, euthanasia, and disaster planning, evacuation, and recovery that is applicable to the location of the pet store. These procedures shall be reviewed with employees and made available to all store employees at all times. 10)Requires that in performing euthanasia, as allowed for particular animals in a pet store that a pet store operator or an employee of a pet store who will perform the euthanasia be properly trained and proficient in performing the method of euthanasia on that particular species, that they also be certified , in writing, by a California-licensed veterinarian that they have received such training and are proficient in providing euthanasia to the animal, and that the certification shall be made available, upon request, to the appropriate law enforcement officers, as specified. (HSC § 122354(b)) Existing law, the Penal Code: 1)Requires pet shops, as defined, to also do all of the following: (Penal Code § 597l(a)) a) Maintain sanitary pet housing facilities. b) Provide proper heating and ventilation for housing facilities. c) Provide adequate nutrition and humane care and treatment of pet animals. d) Take reasonable care to release for sale, trade, or adoption only those pet animals that are free of disease or injuries. e) Provide adequate space appropriate to the size, weight, and species of pet animals. f) Provides that any person who violates a) through e) is guilty of a misdemeanor and a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment in county jail not exceeding 90 days, or by both a fine and imprisonment. g) Provide buyers of pet animals with general written recommendations for the generally accepted care of the class SB 969 Page 6 of pet animal sold in a form determined by the pet shop, and provides that a violation of this provision will be dismissed if adequate proof of compliance is provided but that a subsequent violation is an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed $250. This bill: 1)Defines a "pet groomer" as a person, licensed as a pet groomer, who bathes, brushes, clips, or styles a pet for compensation. 2)Defines a "pet grooming facility" as a commercial establishment where a pet may be bathed, brushed, clipped, or styled. 3)Creates the "Pet Grooming Act" and establishes the "California Pet Grooming Council" (Council) as a tax-exempt nonprofit organization for the purpose of certifying pet groomers who meet specified education, examination, training and experience requirements. 4)Provides that the Council shall be composed of two members from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA, one from northern California and one from Southern California); one member selected by each state or nationwide pet specialty retailer that provides pet grooming services, as specified; one member from the State Humane Association of California; one member selected by the Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs; one member selected from the Veterinary Medical Board; one member from California Animal Control Directors Association; one member selected from the National Dog Groomers Association of America, Inc; and two members selected from the State Bar of California who have animal law experience. Provides that any of the aforementioned entities may choose not to exercise their right of selection of a member to serve on the Council 5)Provides that the Council may take any reasonable actions to carry out the responsibilities of the Pet Grooming Act, including, but not limited to, hiring staff and entering into contracts, and that the initial members of the Council, in their discretion, may immediately undertake to issue the certificates authorized by the Act, after adopting the necessary bylaws or other rules as specified. 6)Provides that the Council shall establish fees reasonably related to the cost of providing services and carrying out its ongoing responsibilities and duties, and may establish both initial fees and renewal fees (for every two years). SB 969 Page 7 7)Provides that the meetings of the Council shall be subject to the rules of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. 8)Provides that the Council shall issue a certificate of certification to a pet groomer who meets the following requirements: a) Is at least 18 years of age. b) Has successfully completed a curriculum, approved by the council, in pet grooming and related subjects totaling a minimum of 300 hours and that provides a minimum of 1,000 hours of hands-on experience in pet grooming; or has a minimum of 1,000 hours of hand-on experience and successfully passes a pet grooming certification test established by the Council. 9)Provides that the Council shall issue a certificate of certification to a pet bather and brusher who is at least 18 years of age and meets any of the following requirements: a) Has successfully completed a curriculum, approved by the council, in pet grooming and related subjects totaling a minimum of 300 hours. b) Has a minimum of 300 hours of training under the supervision of a certified pet groomer. c) Successfully completed a pet grooming certification test established by the Council. 10)Provides that the Council shall issue a certificate of certification to a pet groomer or pet bather and brusher who applies before January 1, 2013, if they meet one of the following requirements: a) Has a valid pet grooming permit or license from a California city, county, or city and county and documentation evidencing that the person has provided at least 500 hours of pet grooming services to members of the public for compensation. b) Documentation evidencing, as specified, that the person has completed at least a 100-hour pet grooming curriculum and has provided at least 500 hours of pet grooming services to members of the public for compensation. 11)Provides that a person applying for a pet groomer certificate on or before January 1, 2013, who meets the educational requirements of SB 969 Page 8 100-hours, but has not competed the number of practice hours (500 hours), may apply for a conditional certificate , but must complete at least 30 hours of additional education per year until he or she has completed at least 300 hours of education. 12)Specifies the requirements for developing and providing for a pet grooming certification examination to be provided by the Council. 13)Requires the applicant to provide proof that he or she is insured against negligent acts associated with his or her activity as a pet groomer. 14)Specifies that the Council shall issue a certificate to an applicant who meets the qualifications of the Pet Grooming Act who holds a current and valid registration, certification, or license from any other state whose licensure requirements meet or exceed those defined within the Act and shall have discretion to give credit for comparable academic work completed. 15)Specifies that the Council may discipline a certificate holder and take actions as specified including placing the certificate holder on probation, suspending the certificate, revoking the certificate or taking other action deemed appropriate by the Council, and provides that the Council may take similar actions, as specified, if a certificate holder has been arrested or if charges have been filed and to notify their place of business within 10 days. 16)Upon conviction of a certificate holder, a suspended certificate shall immediately become subject to permanent revocation and upon acquittal or dismissal of charges the certificate shall be immediately reinstated. 17)Specifies reasons for which the Council may deny or discipline a certificate holder including unprofessional conduct, conviction of a crime, or committing any fraudulent, dishonest or corrupt act that is substantially related to the qualifications or duties of a certificate holder. 18)Provides for due process procedures to be followed by the Council in taking any disciplinary action against a certificate holder. 19)Provides that the Council shall provide information which it has available regarding a certificate holder upon request of any law enforcement agency 20)Provides that it is unfair business practice for any person to hold SB 969 Page 9 himself or herself out as being certified, registered or licensed by a governmental agency as a pet groomer or pet bather and brusher. FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This measure has been keyed by "fiscal by Legislative Counsel. COMMENTS: 1)Purpose. The Author is the Sponsor of this measure and its source is from a constituent, Jacqueline Mercier . According to the Author, existing law does not provide for adequate safety of pets in California. Pet groomers are currently not required to possess anything but a business license, and no formal training is required to open a pet grooming facility. The constituent of the Author points out that this measure originated from the story of Lucy, a small Yorkshire terrier mix that sustained multiple injuries during a routine trip to the groomer. Among these injuries were: a detached retina, a severed ligament in her leg, and lacerations to five of her eight nipples. Outside of Lucy's case, the Author states that there have been thousands of life-threatening injuries to pets over the years due to negligent and under-trained pet groomers who use improper techniques when grooming animals. Injuries from these negligent acts range from severe lacerations due to improper usage of grooming tools, toe injuries, broken bones caused by the animal being dropped, eye injuries, and in the most severe case - even death. The Author further indicates that there are no standards in place for grooming schools and there is no legislation allowing for licensure or certification of pet groomers. Although licensure may be preferable, as the Author contends, certification will at least help to professionalize the practice of pet grooming and act as a means for consumers to sift out the bad actors from the good actors, therefore, solidifying the industry of pet grooming for those groomers who meet the certification standards. This will let consumers know that for those who are not certified, they run the risk of possibly allowing untrained persons to groom their animals and cause potential injury to their beloved pet. The Author believes that this measure will protect consumers who take their pets to be groomed and to enhance the professional status of pet groomers by requiring education, training and other certification requirements for pet groomers in order to ensure that animals under their care are treated in a humane, safe, and SB 969 Page 10 professional manner. 2)Licensure vs. Certification. This measure creates a voluntary certification program for pet groomers, but as introduced would have required licensure for pet groomers; therefore, it is important to note the distinction between the two. Licensure is mandatory for anybody practicing in the field and requires individuals to pass an examination and complete specified educational and possible experience/training requirements. It is the highest and most restrictive form of professional regulation, and is intended to avert severe harm to public health, safety or welfare that could be caused by unlicensed practitioners. Certification also requires individuals to possibly pass an examination and to complete education courses and specified training; however, certification is optional . In some instances, a government agency may provide for certification requirements, or in other instances a nonprofit organization or some other professional group or association may provide for a certification program. A person voluntarily seeks certification from any of these entities and then may use the term "certified" or having received "certification" within that profession. 3)Massage Therapists Act (MT Act) and the Pet Groomers Act (PG Act). This measure is now similar to and modeled after the Massage Therapists Act (MT Act) (see under, "Existing law, the Business and Professions Code" which provides a description of the MT Act). Similar to the MT Act, this would be a voluntary certification program; pet groomer certification would not be required and pet groomers could continue their practice or business without certification. This measure provides for a "California Pet Grooming Council" which would be a nonprofit entity with a membership as specified. There would be specific training, experience and education requirements for pet groomers, as defined, who wish to become certified. The bill grants authority to the Council to create an examination and to approve the education received for those pet groomers who wish to be certified. The bill provides for specified instances and reasons for which a certificate holder may be disciplined by the Council in accordance with due process, and the disciplinary actions which may be taken by the Council if there was a finding that a certificate holder violated any provisions of the PG Act. The Council would also share information regarding the certified pet groomer, as specified, with law enforcement agencies if requested. Provides that it would be an unfair business practice for anyone other than a pet groomer who has met the certification requirements of the PG Act to call themselves a "certified pet groomer." Provides for an initial application fee and a renewal SB 969 Page 11 fees to cover the costs of administration by the Council. 4)Prior Legislation to Regulate Pet Groomers. AB 762 (Koretz, 2005) would have prohibited an "animal groomer," as defined, from engaging in the practice of veterinary medicine or in performing certain procedures, as specified. Set specific standards for a person that operates an animal grooming facility, as defined, and required the animal groomer to have a working relationship with a veterinarian in case of illness or injury to the animal while grooming the animal. Made a person who violates the standards guilty of a misdemeanor. This measure was never set for a hearing. The Author at the time made the following findings and declarations: a) Many Californians take their pets to permanent or mobile grooming establishments, but there is currently no state regulation, monitoring, or oversight of this growing industry, or of the individuals who provide this service. b) Pet owners put the health and safety of their beloved animals in the hands of these individuals often without realizing there are no standards for the facility or for the groomers themselves. c) Unfortunately, many cherished family pets in California and around the country have been hurt, traumatized, treated inhumanely, or killed while at the groomer. d) While many groomers are caring and trained professionals, the grooming profession would benefit from a more stable and skilled labor supply. e) Consumers deserve to have confidence in individuals who are caring for their animals and in the grooming facilities in which their pets are kept, animals deserve to be cared for in a clean, safe, and humane environment, and groomers deserve the legal status and professional recognition afforded to other service professionals in the state, such as barbers and cosmetologists. 5)Other Laws Regulating the Care and Treatment of Pets in a Business Setting. The following are examples of laws which have been enacted over the years to provide for the care and well-being of animals in both pet stores and business establishments and by pet dealers and breeders involved in retail sale of animals: SB 969 Page 12 a) The Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act and the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act. The Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act creates rules for the sale of dogs and cats by pet dealers, defined as persons engaged in selling dogs or cats at retail who are not breeders. The Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act applies to dog breeders that have sold or given away puppies from 3 or more litters in the past 12 months. The acts contain the same basic content regarding pet purchases, other than the affected sellers. Some of the requirements of these Acts include the following: Disclosure Requirements. The seller must provide a written disclosure to the buyer at the time of sale that includes the name and address of the breeder and the broker, if applicable; identifying information about the pet; and a record of immunizations and wormings given. Sellers must also provide a statement that the pet does not have any known contagious, congenital or hereditary illnesses. If the pet has such a condition, a veterinarian must sign a statement that the pet is eligible for sale and should not require hospitalization or surgery to correct the problem, along with recommended treatments, if any. The written disclosures must be signed by both the seller and the buyer, and the information must also be presented orally by the seller. Dogs That Become Ill. The two Acts provide recourse for dog buyers if their pets become ill within 15 days of sale from a condition that existed at the time of sale and if their pets, within one year of sale, develop a congenital or hereditary disease that will affect their health or likely require hospitalization or surgery. A veterinarian must provide a written statement confirming any of these conditions. The buyer has three options if their dog becomes ill within the limits of the acts: Return the dog for a refund of the purchase price, plus reimbursement for veterinary fees up to the purchase price; exchange the dog for another of similar value and receive reimbursement for veterinary fees up to the purchase price; or keep the dog and receive reimbursement for veterinary fees up to 150 percent of the purchase price. Dogs That Die . Recourse also exists for buyers if a pet dies from an illness that existed within 15 days of sale, or from a congenital or hereditary condition that was diagnosed within one year of sale. A buyer may choose a refund of the purchase price of the dog, or a replacement dog of equivalent value plus reimbursement for veterinary fees up to the purchase price. SB 969 Page 13 Again, a veterinarian must provide a written statement confirming the death was due to one of these conditions. Exceptions . The buyer's right to refund, replacement or reimbursement does not apply if the illness or death was the result of neglect or mistreatment; if the buyer does not obtain recommended veterinary treatment, provided the diagnosis and treatment does not exceed the purchase price of the dog; or if the condition was disclosed at the time of sale, unless within one year of purchase a veterinarian states in writing that the condition may require hospitalization or surgery or that it resulted in the death of the dog. Buyers must also return to the seller all registration paperwork, or sign a statement that the papers were lost or stolen, in order to receive a refund, replacement or reimbursement. b) Requirements for Pet Dealers. The Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act includes requirements specific for pet dealers that are not found in the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act. The Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act requires pet dealers to provide written information to all pet buyers regarding spaying or neutering of their pets. Pet dealers must also provide special care for the animals on their premises; have dogs examined by a licensed veterinarian before they are offered for sale; exams must occur within 5 days of the dealer receiving the dog, and every 15 days thereafter until the dog is sold. c) The Pet Store Animal Care Act (AB 1347, Chapter 703, Statutes of 2007) (PAC Act). The PAC Act established criteria and procedures for the care and maintenance of animals in California pet stores. It detailed the responsibilities of the pet shop, standards for enclosures, animal care requirements, record keeping, standards for keeping the animals healthy including veterinary care, euthanasia standards and disclosures that must be made to a person who purchases a pet. It enacted a new infraction process which would require enforcement officers to clearly indicate the nature of the alleged infractions, identify the corrective action to be taken, and include the timeframe in which corrections be completed. It made the violation of these requirements punishable as an infraction or as a misdemeanor if corrective action was not taken. It also required training and certification of pet store operators and their employees if they were to be involved in proving euthanasia to specified animals within the pet store. The PAC Act came about as a joint effort on the part of animal protection groups and the pet industry to SB 969 Page 14 provide clearer guidelines on the care and handling of animals sold within pet stores. 6)Related Legislation. SB 1488 (Yee, 2012) Establishes a "Traditional Chinese Medicine Traumatology Council" as a nonprofit organization for the purpose of developing standards for, and certifying the practice of, traditional Chinese Medicine traumatology and includes requirements for the membership of the Council, for certification of Traditional Chinese Medicine traumatologists, and protection of the title of "Certified traditional Chinese Medicine traumatologist," and prohibits the practice of medicine or chiropractic practice. This measure is set to be heard in this Committee on April 23, 2012. AB 2304 (Garrick, 2012) provides that "dental operation" for the purposes of veterinary practice does not include a service whereby a person utilizes nonmotorized instruments to remove calculus, soft deposits, plaque, or stains from an exposed area of a household's pet's tooth above the gum line, provided that the service is performed exclusively for cosmetic purposes and the person performing the service first obtains written permission from the person requesting the service. This measure failed passage in the Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection Committee on April 17, 2012. SB 702 (Lieu, 2011) required an owner of an animal that is adopted or impounded and claimed by the owner from a local animal shelter to implant an identifying microchip in the animal upon release, if a microchip is available. If a microchip is not available for implantation, the owner would have to do so within 30 days of release of their animal from the shelter. This measure was vetoed by the Governor. AB 1121 (Pan, 2011) required pet dealers, as defined, and others as specified, to submit a report once a month to the local governmental entity and other information regarding dog sales and adoptions. Would have also allowed licensing agencies to issue puppy licenses, as defined, and allowed the responsible entity to specify the means by which the dog owner is required to provide proof that his or her dog has been spayed or neutered. The bill was vetoed by the Governor. AB 1279 (Fletcher, 2011) changed and deleted obsolete terminology in provisions of the Business and Professions Code, the Civil Code, the Food and Agriculture Code, the Health and Safety Code and the Penal Code dealing with the seizure, impounding, rescue, adoption, and euthanasia of abandoned and surrendered animals by animal shelters SB 969 Page 15 and rescue organizations. This bill passed the Senate and Assembly and was Enrolled to the Governor but was then returned by the Governor at the request of the Assembly and ordered to the Senate. The measure was held at the Senate Desk. AB 1122 (Lieu, 2009) would have prohibited the sale of live animals on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk, unless exempted, and specified both fines and criminal penalties for violating this prohibition. This measure was vetoed by the Governor. AB 241 (Nava, 2009) would have prohibited any person or business entity, as defined, from owning more than 50 adult unsterilized dogs or cats for the purposes of breeding them for pets and that anyone who violates this provision or who voluntarily aids and abets in a violation of this requirement is guilty of a misdemeanor. This measure was vetoed by the Governor. AB 1634 (Levine, 2008) would have enacted the "California Responsible Pet Ownership Act" which specified that a person who owns a dog or cat that is not licensed (or is improperly licensed) and that has not been spayed or neutered may be cited and, if cited, must pay civil penalties. It also increased exisiting fines for nonspayed or unneutered dogs and cats. Required microchipping of the animal for a second occurrence for which the owner would have to pay the cost of the microchip procedure, as specified. This bill died on the Senate inactive file. 7)Arguments in Support. (Received prior to the current amended version which changes licensure to certification.) The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Los Angeles (SPCA, LA), is in support of the Author's efforts to achieve consistent regulation and licensing of groomers. According to the SPCA, LA, there have been 36 documented cases of abuse from pet groomers over the last 36 months. Although these cases may be accidental, they are completely unnecessary and preventable. "Far too many pets are injured due to improper usage of grooming tools, and this legislation will ensure that all persons active in grooming animals have the proper training to do so safely. SB 969 is necessary to protect the well-being of animals and pet owners alike." Animal Samaritans, SPCA, Inc. , (from Thousand Palms, California) is in support of this measure. The Executive Director of this organization indicates that as the Executive Director of an Animal Welfare and Veterinary Medical Center he has seen dogs with various injuries suffered at the hands of untrained groomers. In one case, SB 969 Page 16 a dog came in with nipples cut off in a grooming incident, leaving it with serious injuries. In other cases, dogs and cats had grooming injuries that included burns resulting from dryers and lacerations from clipping and shaving. Others had broken legs suffered by jumping from tables because groomers did not know how to handle animals. "The list goes on and on." The Executive Director points out that many pet groomers have years of experience and are diligent in their work and care for animals in their charge. They do wonderful work. However there are groomers that are untrained and do not understand the basics of pet handling. Animal grooming is an occupation whereby most anyone can pick up a pair of sheers and go to work, often with disastrous results. "SB 969 would require training for groomers and licensing that would confirm the groomer's professional qualifications." La Presna Hispana is in support of this measure and indicates that in providing an Animal Care Clinic they are familiar with circumstances of maimed animals being brought in with their nipples shaven off and broken limbs due to a lack of preparation amongst animal groomers. "SB 969 addresses these needless painful occurrences through the correct methods of training, accountability and certification." Several cities are in support of this measure and indicate that they have worked closely alongside local SPCA's and other animal groups and believe this measure will help to improve the quality and care of pets that have been injured unintentionally by pet groomers needing oversight and regulation. 8)Arguments in Opposition. (Received prior to the current amended version which changes licensure to certification.) Several pet grooming businesses were opposed to the licensing requirements in the former version of this measure including a group called CalSmallBiz (CSB). CSB reflected some of these concerns and argued against the Veterinary Medicine Board having oversight of the licensing program and saw it as a conflict of interest. CSB also saw the licensing requirement as penalizing approximately 20,000 small business pet groomers and grooming schools by subjecting them to extensive licensing totaling as much as $2,450 in additional fees, in addition to making them pay for annual onsite inspections. These costs, as argued by CSB, would undoubtedly trickle down to consumers and increase prices for services. CSB argued that most pet grooming facilities run their shops without incident; and the types of injuries as those indicated are the exception to the rule. CSB indicated that they have identified over 350 abuse cases at the hands of licensed veterinarians. CSB stated, "SB 969 is fraught with problems and is tantamount to killing a fly with a baseball SB 969 Page 17 bat, especially since existing law is sufficient to remedy the problems identified as the impetus for this legislation if anyone wished to focus upon how well local government entities are functioning." The Capitol City Bird Society (CCBS) was opposed to the prior version of this measure and did not believe certification should be "required" for pet groomers. ŬIt should be noted that this measure no longer "requires" certification; it is voluntary only.] CCBS believes that this measure would deprive consumers of the many experienced non-certified local bird store owners, groomers and even veterinarians who offer avian grooming services for reasonable fees and are far more experienced at doing so than any "certified" cat and dog groomer. Other pet grooming businesses and individual pet owners involved with pet grooming, who were opposed to this measure, were also concerned about requirements placed on pet grooming facilities in the former version of this bill. This included the housing of animals, the use of cage dryers, etc. These requirements have been deleted from the bill. 9)Suggested Author's Amendments. a) This measure still establishes under the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act a voluntary certification program for pet groomers. Originally this bill, as introduced, was intended to be a licensure program and it would have been the responsibility of the Veterinary Medical Board to implement the Pet Grooming Act and license and regulate pet groomers. The Board would have also been responsible for inspecting and oversight of pet grooming facilities. Since the requirements for certification of pet groomers and the creation of a nonprofit "California Pet Grooming Council," to determine qualifications for certification, would no longer be related to the practice of Veterinary Medicine or place any responsibilities on the Veterinary Board, Committee staff suggest that the Pet Grooming Act be removed from the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act and instead be codified under the Health and Safety Code, possibly as Chapter 10, beginning with Section 122370 of the Health and Safety Code . This section of law relates more to the care and well-being of animals by those involved in a particular business which provides both services and animals for sale to the public. b) In terms of membership on the Council, the Author should SB 969 Page 18 consider including at least a couple of small business pet groomers who have independent facilities and are not part of a large retailer involved in providing pet grooming services. The Author should also consider including one member who is a veterinarian and one member who is a registered veterinary technician. c) Provide that it is unfair business practice for any person to hold himself or herself out as a "certified pet groomer" or "pet bather and brusher" unless meeting the requirements of the Pet Grooming Act. This will provide title protection for the use of the term "certified" for only those that have met the requirements of the Pet Groomer Act. d) Include a sunset date of 2017 for the Pet Groomer Act, so that the Legislature can review this program in four years and prior to an extension of their sunset date. e) On Page 11, strike lines 27 to 40, and on Page 12, strike lines 1 to 3 . This Section deals with approval of "curriculum providers" by the Council. The Council should not be involved in approving schools, programs or curriculum providers that are providing training of pet groomers. They should only approve the curriculum taken by the pet groomer to receive certification. The other provision exempt students supervised by a certified pet groomer from certification. There would be no need to exempt students involved in pet grooming services from certification since certification would no longer be a requirement to provide pet grooming services, it is an option for the pet groomer to seek certification if they meet the requirements of this Act. f) Technical Corrections: On Page 2, line 12 to 13, strike "licensed as a pet groomer" On Page 4, line 22, strike the term "licensure" NOTE : Double-referral to Rules Committee, second. SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION: Support: (To Prior Version of the Bill) Animal Samaritans, SPCA, Inc. City of Desert Hot Springs City of Indian Wells SB 969 Page 19 City of Palm Desert City of Rancho Mirage La Prensa Hispana PAW PAC Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Los Angeles Opposition: (To Prior Version of the Bill) Animal Council CalSmallBiz Capitol City Bird Society Several Pet Grooming Businesses Several Individual Pet Owners Consultant:Bill Gage