California Groomer Bill Stirs Controversy
A California bill that seeks to license animal groomers and
that would make violations of mandated health, safety and handling
standards misdemeanors punishable by jail time or fines is creating
controversy throughout the grooming industry.
Introduced by Assemblyman Paul Koretz in February, Assembly
Bill 762 would authorize a peace officer, humane society officer,
or an animal control officer to enforce those provisions.
The bill also would clarify that animal groomers are prohibited
from engaging in the practice of veterinary medicine, including
“diagnosing or treating illness, prescribing or administering
tranquilizers, sedatives or other medications, or performing
any procedure that cuts, severs or disturbs tissue, skin or
gums.”
Furthermore, AB 762 calls for educational, training, licensing
or certification standards for groomers, but does not spell
out those standards.
The bill has become a volatile subject in industry newsletters
and online message boards, where opinions differ sharply on
the need for licensing as well as on the appropriateness,
enforceability and interpretation of the specified standards
themselves.
Many in the trade welcome licensing as a way to enhance the
industry’s status. However, the provisions for fines
of up to $5,000 and/or three months’ imprisonment worry
many groomers.
”Licensing needs to come to California,” said
Mark Haberman, owner of Dog Groomers on the Go (San Fernando
Valley, Calif.). “My major objection to the bill is
the criminal penalties.”
Haberman, a mobile groomer for 19 years, said the bill was
“badly written” and called it a “vendetta”
against dog groomers due to a few highly publicized dog deaths
in California grooming shops.
However, the bill does not go far enough in some respects,
he said. “The bill should establish a groomer oversight
board to review death and injuries, like a medical review
board. It should also mandate continuing education.”
The bill’s author is consulting with the Pet Industry
Joint Advisory Council (Washington) as well as veterinarians,
grooming associations, grooming schools, humane associations
and others.
Despite the furor it has created, the bill isn’t likely
to progress further any time soon.
”AB 762 is a two-year bill, and at this point we are
unclear about whether or not we will continue to pursue it,”
according to Teresa Stark, chief of staff for Assemblyman
Koretz.
At press time, the bill resided in the Committee on Business
& Professions. [June 2005 PET AGE]
|
