- This bill would further strain the state's budget for a program regulating the bathing and brushing of pets.
- Grooming programs would be required to be approved for certification by this new council. The proposed council would include animal rights proponents and animal rights activist lawyers. Animal rights extremists are philosophically opposed to animal ownership and certainly should not have a seat on any council pertaining to animal husbandry.
- AKC administers a voluntary nationwide Registered Professional Handlers program. Professional handlers certainly should not need to also apply for state certification in order to claim they are professionally qualified to groom dogs. Professional handlers who travel into California from other states may find themselves in a legal quandary under the terms of SB 969.
- Grooming establishments already must comply with requirements for business licenses and are subject to consumer regulation by word of mouth. If groomers do a poor job, they go out of business.
- Our state can ill-afford a new program that provides no benefits to the citizens of the state beyond the functions of local Better Business Bureaus.
- The exact type of pet covered by this bill is not specified; it could be any sort of pet, from a hamster to a horse.
- A person applying for an Emergency Medical Technologist license in California needs a combined total of 120 hours of classroom and clinical experience. Certification for bathing and brushing pets would require many more educational hours than those required for certification to provide lifesaving medical services for humans.
- Implementation of this certification program would be a costly burden to both taxpayers and consumers. Please reject SB 969 so that the state's resources can instead be utilized for programs of genuine importance to our taxpayers and citizens.
- The sponsors of this bill allege that the use of hounds is inhumane, unsporting and unfair. Unfortunately, the information they use to support this bill comes from anti-hunting organizations that have no motivation to be truthful about the practice.
- Hunting with hounds is not only humane but a sensible and valuable tool for wildlife management. Hound hunting is virtually the only form of non-consumptive hunting, and is very similar to catch-and-release fishing. It allows an animal's age and sex to be determined before any attempt to harvest is made. It also allows a houndsman to determine if a female is pregnant, nursing, or has offspring so that they can be left alive and well in the tree.
- The use of hounds allows for the timely and accurate resolution of incidents involving threats to public safety or livestock by identifying, locating, and taking only the offending animal.
- Large predatory mammals such as bears and bobcats can readily defend themselves and are not in any danger of bodily injury from dogs.
- Not only is this bill unreasonable as a hunting and wildlife management measure, but it places the lives of our dogs in danger. Any dog determined to be a supposed threat to a "big game mammal" can be captured and/or "dispatched" (i.e. KILLED) by game wardens, and the owner of the dog would have no recourse.
- This bill is a product of sensationalism and emotion rather than logic and science.