SB 969 has been revised as of yesterday, April 9th. It was reported somewhere else that the original bill has been
"95% scraped". That is a LIE. The majority of the bill is exactly the same. The changes I've found so far are:
Changes: calls licensee a 'certificate holder'
license is now called a 'certificate'
Call it what they may, this is still 'licensing'.
Seperate license/certificate for bather/brusher and process of certification
Creates a misnamed Council...only one groomer is on the council and it does not need to be a California groomer.
The council is within the Veterinary Medical Board. The part about the Council is:
"This bill would create the California Pet Grooming Council and would require any person engaged in pet grooming to be certified and regulated by the council."
4918.1. (a) The California Pet Grooming Council shall be created and shall have the responsibilities and duties set forth in this article. The council may take any reasonable actions to carry out the responsibilities and duties set forth in this article, including, but not limited to, hiring staff and entering into contracts.
(b) (1) The council shall be composed of the following members:
(A) Two members from Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) associations, one from northern California, and one from southern California, unless that entity chooses not to exercise this right of selection.
(B) One member selected by each state or nationwide pet specialty retailer that provides pet grooming services, with gross annual sales exceeding one hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000), unless the entity chooses not to exercise this right of selection.
(C) One member selected by the State Humane Association of California, unless that entity chooses not to exercise this right of selection.
(D) One member selected by the Director of Consumer Affairs, unless he or she chooses not to exercise this right of selection.
(E) One member selected by the Veterinary Medical Board, unless that entity chooses not to exercise this right of selection.
(F) One member selected by the California Animal Control Directors Association, unless that entity chooses not to exercise this right of selection.
(G) One member selected by the National Dog Groomers Association of America, Inc., unless that entity chooses not to exercise this right of selection.
(H) Two members selected by the State Bar of California, who have animal law experience and who have been nominated by a fellow animal law attorney, unless that entity chooses not to exercise the right of selection.
(2) The council’s bylaws shall establish a process for appointing other professional members as determined by the council."
Changes "a drying cage shall never be used" to:
(7) A drying cage shall meet all of the following conditions:
(A) Contain no-heat air dryers.
(B) Be kept clean and sanitary.
(C) Be large enough to comfortably contain the pet.
(actually makes a loop hole if you look closely and use your imagination)
Adds exception to 'caged separately' to allow pets from same household with consent. Still bans cage free.
Still no grandfathering in as experienced groomers must pass a certification test.
Adds a bunch of hoopla language to the certification/licensing process and has moved all the provisions about licensing from the bottom of the bill to the top.
Still has the criminal misdemeanor clause, all the recording keeping provisions, etc.
If I find any other significant differences I will post them. Do not be deceived by any statement this revision is better than the original bill, it is not. And saying it is is a lie. If fact, if Vargas should lose his Congress race, he could get on the council as a lawyer with "animal law experience". Maybe even Lucy's owner if he helped write the bill. Such fun!!!! (sarcasm) Barbara