Monday, January 23, 2012

CA SB 969 - licensing for groomers

As written, this bill raises serious concerns for professional show groomers/handlers, or for anyone who may provide grooming services for others. Criminal penalties are proposed, including fines and jail time. Whatever you do, don't hire the neighborhood kids to wash your dog. Leave it to our state legislators to fret over dog grooming, while ignoring our budget deficit, crime, declining infrastructure, and businesses fleeing the state in droves. This sort of legislation explains WHY we find so many businesses leaving California. From the legislative analysis:
"This bill would require any person engaged in pet grooming to be licensed and regulated by the Veterinary Medical Board. The bill would establish the requirements necessary to obtain a license as a pet groomer and set forth the duties and obligations of a licensee as a pet groomer, as specified. The bill would set forth the duties of the board with regard to the regulation of pet groomers and require the board to adopt a fee schedule that would apply to licensees and pet grooming schools. The bill would set forth standards for discipline and authorize the board to impose administrative penalties for a violation of these provisions. The bill would provide that a violation of these provisions is a crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program."
From the LA Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/01/senator-wants-pet-groomers-licensed-by-state-california.html
Pet groomers would have to get a license from the state, pay fees and meet new standards under legislation introduced after a Terrier-mix allegedly was injured at a Riverside County grooming business. Sen. Juan Vargas (D-San Diego) has introduced "Lucy’s Law," named after a dog that he said suffered eye and leg injuries after her owner left her at a groomer in Palm Springs. During the grooming process, five of the dog's nipples accidentally were shaved off, according to David Martin, the animal's owner. "Something has to be done about this," Martin said. "Dog groomers don’t have to have any training to be groomers." SB 969 would make it a crime for a groomer to operate in California without getting a license from the state Veterinary Medical Board. Vargas is still developing the requirements that would have to be met to get a license, standards for disciplinary action by the board, and his bill would leave it to the board to set the fee.

7 comments:

  1. This is going to put my business out of business. I own a small grooming shop. We've been in business for 26 years. I've NEVER employed a groomer that didn't first prove that they were qualified for the position with a portfolio of photos or solid references from a reputable local shop. Creating a whole new "board" that would charge small grooming shops even more fees is ridiculous. We already all have to carry liability insurance policies that cover the loss of or injury to a pet while in our care. This SB969 will only create more high-paying govmnt jobs that we taxpayers have to foot the bill for. It will destroy small shops, leaving only the larger corporate shops open i.e. Petsmart/Petco. Please spread the word about how awful this is for small businesses. Take your dogs to only reputable shops that you trust. By the way, they don't even require background checks or extra fees or boards to regulate daycare or childcare service people, and they work with children!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's just too bad. The fewer bad groomers we have the better. I have been taken by illegally pricing groomers, and I am tired of it. If the groomer I see does not return the overcharges, I will see that its license it revoked by the city or state

      Delete
  2. Mr. Martin is wrong, dog groomers do have to be trained. College stdents often work their way thru school helping dog groomers. This bill is too restrictive and needs more balance.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just more money to suck out of the publics pockets. Unlicensed groomers are better with animals,courtious,sanitary and reasonally priced. Whats next...have to have a license to mow your own lawn. Dog licenses YES.computer chip YES.Spay/Neuter YES. Buracracy...nothing ever comes out of their pockets.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The license would cost about 40 dollars, definitley not a money making scheme. We already are held to the same tax laws as others in the state so that would not change. A standard and state enforcemnt is absolutely a must. The animals deserve to be handled by educated people. Yes, doctors and vets both make mistakes and are down right stupid at times. But, at least they can be held accountable in a court of law because their field is regulated and standardized treatments make recourse possible with success.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can sue anyone, they need not have a license to do so.

      Delete
  5. The vet lobbyist are making sure they control this service ...Wipe out the small business and the vets get the new business...That's what this is about...Vets need more business and this is their ticket. Never let a crises go to waste....That one dog in Palm Springs is their ticket...If it did happen...They do not care of the thousands of dogs getting groomed every day without a problem...It's this one dog that make's it a Vet take over...Time to kick out these Politicians...We are slowly losing our businesses to the clowns in office....Follow the money...

    ReplyDelete