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