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