Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hopes to Revive "Lucy's Law" in California to License Pet Groomers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hopes to Revive "Lucy's Law" in California to License Pet Groomers

    http://www.marinatimes.com/2017/01/n...nagement-plan/
    Excerpt from larger article on
    We now have an animal lover in Sacramento CA (District 8 Supervisor Scott Weiner) as well. I’m hoping he will join us in reviving Lucy’s Law (Senate Bill 969), which would have required vocational licenses for California pet groomers but was struck down in 2012. Since then, thousands of dogs have been injured or killed during routine grooming sessions, mostly at behemoth pet chains like Petco and Petsmart. In June 2016, I wrote about the case of Juan Zarate, a groomer at a PetSmart in San Mateo who is accused of killing Henry, a 1-year-old Dachshund. A necropsy showed Henry was strangled and suffered two broken ribs and a punctured lung. San Mateo County prosecutors say Zarate became frustrated with Henry when he was uncooperative during the service. Henry’s owners, Stafan Zire and Terrie Peacock, are suing PetSmart and want to hold the company accountable for previously ignoring hundreds of pet injuries and deaths.

    I hope lawmakers will add protection for future clients by resurrecting and enacting Lucy’s Law.
    Coordinators post updates to the message for grooming events, members contests, PG.com Classified Ads, GroomerTALK Radio shows and PG.com Magazine online.

  • #2
    Thousands injured and killed since 2012?
    No sources of data cited.
    I suppose readers are supposed to take her word for it.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think the FB group for the S. CA groomers are on top of this, or soon will be.

      Comment


      • #4
        Oh this is the VERY RICH SPCA of San Francisco I think, and I mean rich compared to most others.

        Comment


        • #5
          Well...I responded to this somewhere else, but don't see it, so will respond again.

          Who hopes this is law is revived? I can tell you most groomers did not like this ^^ law. It would not have been run by groomers, but by a board with veterinarians on it. I am ALL for licensing.. but it must be run by groomers. And the law must be similar to how a cosmetology license is. I was a licensed cosmetologist, tested, licensed, schooled.. the whole works. Not an easy test, let me tell you. And not an equal test. My friend got a totally different test than I did. Hers was mostly on electrical things and mine was more practical.

          Having said that... no amount of licensing, no amount of testing, no amount of ANYTHING will stop abuse of any kind. The last school I went to, actually let finish, a most abusive gal. She was so mean, she was rude, she affected the atmosphere of the entire school on the days she was there. She was mean to the dogs, not only with her words, but with her actions. The teachers just kind of ignored her which I thought was appalling.

          Being in my 50's, there is a benefit to not taking [email protected] from anyone. So, if she was there when I was there.. I was her shadow. She had this dog in the tub and yelled at it to stand. I went over there.. and first.. the water was beyond hot.. so I told her.. "turn the temp down." She argued with me.. which I looked at her with daggers and said.. "turn the temperature down NOW." Then held the dog while she finished the bath. I was furious at the owner of the school for even letting her be there. She was abusive in front of other people!!!!

          So.. this abusive gal WILL eventually find a job in a salon with like minded other abusive groomers. And you know that state can legislate all they want.. but it won't stop her nor others like her. In these cases.. we must police ourselves. Like I said.. I'm all for licensing, but it won't stop abuse.
          Debbie
          There's always room for another rose in the garden.

          Comment


          • #6
            So they're trying to outlaw behavior that's already illegal? Isn't animal abuse already against the law?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by daesue View Post
              Being in my 50's, there is a benefit to not taking [email protected] from anyone. So, if she was there when I was there.. I was her shadow. She had this dog in the tub and yelled at it to stand. I went over there.. and first.. the water was beyond hot.. so I told her.. "turn the temp down." She argued with me.. which I looked at her with daggers and said.. "turn the temperature down NOW." Then held the dog while she finished the bath. I was furious at the owner of the school for even letting her be there. She was abusive in front of other people!!!!
              I like your style DAESUE! You sound like me - I did similar things in school, I reported every incident I saw as it was happening or corrected it myself. Yes, of course that made me popular! LMAO

              I am also gung ho for licensing, but don't understand why a board with vets on it would be less effective than a board with groomers. If anything, it would seem like a board with vets might hold groomers to a higher educational standard - and I am all for that.

              I know a groomer who got a severe eye infection from feces flying in his eye while drying a dog. Why did it it hit him in the eye? Because he was using an HV dryer with a cone on it and was aiming it at the dog's anus. He admitted to having done that HUNDREDS of times and it had never happened before, this just happened to be an older dog. We were taught on day 1 of grooming school not to do that or you could rupture the anus from the pressure produced by a cone.

              So how much damage has he done to dogs, or potentially could have caused, by being uneducated and not knowing the damage he was potentially inflicting with an innocent seeming dryer?? He didn't go to grooming school, he was trained on the job at a foo-foo salon, and now he's in business for himself - unsupervised. People just don't know what they don't know - THAT'S what makes them dangerous.

              I am all for higher standards, educational, practical, whatever they come up with. That should help weed out those that don't belong in this field, and I think that's the purpose of the law, isn't it?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by daesue View Post
                Well...I responded to this somewhere else, but don't see it, so will respond again.

                Who hopes this is law is revived? I can tell you most groomers did not like this ^^ law. It would not have been run by groomers, but by a board with veterinarians on it. I am ALL for licensing.. but it must be run by groomers. And the law must be similar to how a cosmetology license is. I was a licensed cosmetologist, tested, licensed, schooled.. the whole works. Not an easy test, let me tell you. And not an equal test. My friend got a totally different test than I did. Hers was mostly on electrical things and mine was more practical.

                Having said that... no amount of licensing, no amount of testing, no amount of ANYTHING will stop abuse of any kind.
                Very well said Debbie!!!
                Ain't always easy to stand up for what is right.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by daesue View Post
                  Well...I responded to this somewhere else, but don't see it, so will respond again.

                  Who hopes this is law is revived? I can tell you most groomers did not like this ^^ law. It would not have been run by groomers, but by a board with veterinarians on it. I am ALL for licensing.. but it must be run by groomers. And the law must be similar to how a cosmetology license is. I was a licensed cosmetologist, tested, licensed, schooled.. the whole works. Not an easy test, let me tell you. And not an equal test. My friend got a totally different test than I did. Hers was mostly on electrical things and mine was more practical.

                  Having said that... no amount of licensing, no amount of testing, no amount of ANYTHING will stop abuse of any kind. The last school I went to, actually let finish, a most abusive gal. She was so mean, she was rude, she affected the atmosphere of the entire school on the days she was there. She was mean to the dogs, not only with her words, but with her actions. The teachers just kind of ignored her which I thought was appalling.

                  Being in my 50's, there is a benefit to not taking [email protected] from anyone. So, if she was there when I was there.. I was her shadow. She had this dog in the tub and yelled at it to stand. I went over there.. and first.. the water was beyond hot.. so I told her.. "turn the temp down." She argued with me.. which I looked at her with daggers and said.. "turn the temperature down NOW." Then held the dog while she finished the bath. I was furious at the owner of the school for even letting her be there. She was abusive in front of other people!!!!

                  So.. this abusive gal WILL eventually find a job in a salon with like minded other abusive groomers. And you know that state can legislate all they want.. but it won't stop her nor others like her. In these cases.. we must police ourselves. Like I said.. I'm all for licensing, but it won't stop abuse.
                  Precisely! Grooming skills and abilities have nothing to do with character and integrity. Couldn't agree more.
                  It's not what you look at that matters; it's what you see.
                  Henry David Thoreau

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Ain't gonna happen. But if anything, a safety certification may be a better option just like tattooers have to get a health dept cert for client safety and sanitation procedures. I too have a cosmo license, did 1800 hrs of school, state board exam before you can even shampoo a person's head in a salon. Grooming does not need to go that far. It's more about animal safety than seeing what your groom skill level is. Cosmo license testing is really about knowledge, not skill. They know you just finished school and have lots to learn in the field. They just want to make sure you don't injure someone, not give them a bad haircut.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Some local info. The Marina Times is the Marina neighborhood newpaper here in San Francisco (the Marina is a very well to do area). The writer of that article is or was associated with Rocket Dog Rescue. The writer is accurate about the awful GGNRA rules situation, that SF desperately needs a proper shelter for our excellent ACC, that Ms. Katz was and is an excellent shelter director (love hearing a local radio station's semi-regular interviews with her), and that Muttville is a fantastic rescue.

                      Such a shame that "thousands" had to get stuck in there because it is absolutely unsupportable (AR outlook on things I guess). As previously stated I'm not a professional pet groomer (I groom my Toy Poodle decently successfully), yet know that is false as well as you all do. Hopefully, local groomers will reach out to the writer. There is a professional groom shop closely associated with SF ACC and they are known to do excellent work, so I'm sure Senator Weiner will be contacted by local actual professional groomers who have something to say about "thousands". Shame no comments are allowed on the article.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by IrishSetterTom View Post
                        Ain't gonna happen...
                        That's what half of America thought when Trump announced his candidacy for President. ..

                        Sorry, I couldn't resist.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by SandyinAnaheim View Post
                          I like your style DAESUE! You sound like me - I did similar things in school, I reported every incident I saw as it was happening or corrected it myself. Yes, of course that made me popular! LMAO

                          I am also gung ho for licensing, but don't understand why a board with vets on it would be less effective than a board with groomers. If anything, it would seem like a board with vets might hold groomers to a higher educational standard - and I am all for that.

                          I know a groomer who got a severe eye infection from feces flying in his eye while drying a dog. Why did it it hit him in the eye? Because he was using an HV dryer with a cone on it and was aiming it at the dog's anus. He admitted to having done that HUNDREDS of times and it had never happened before, this just happened to be an older dog. We were taught on day 1 of grooming school not to do that or you could rupture the anus from the pressure produced by a cone.


                          I am all for higher standards, educational, practical, whatever they come up with. That should help weed out those that don't belong in this field, and I think that's the purpose of the law, isn't it?
                          Ewww... just ewww... who does that?? Isn't that some sort of common sense??? Sensitive area and all, not to mention the damage you can do. And I'm sure that it can also release the anal glands.. even a bit and now you have a dog with a stinky bum that you took time to scrub. Please don't tell me he didn't scrub dog bums. I don't want to know lol.
                          Debbie
                          There's always room for another rose in the garden.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by SandyinAnaheim View Post
                            I like your style DAESUE! You sound like me - I did similar things in school, I reported every incident I saw as it was happening or corrected it myself. Yes, of course that made me popular! LMAO

                            I am also gung ho for licensing, but don't understand why a board with vets on it would be less effective than a board with groomers. If anything, it would seem like a board with vets might hold groomers to a higher educational standard - and I am all for that.


                            I am all for higher standards, educational, practical, whatever they come up with. That should help weed out those that don't belong in this field, and I think that's the purpose of the law, isn't it?
                            I'm not trying to be contrarian.. but I don't think it would week out those that don't belong in the field. When I was in high school and college, I worked my way through high school and college in nursing homes. I did stuff that I should never have done... and that was before you took a course and became a certified CNA.. I don't know what they are called in other states lol.. California Nursing Assistant.. so ?? And abusive [email protected] are still working in the field. It's like they find the place/the people who won't report them or they find like minded individuals.
                            My issue with vets running a grooming board is they just place blame on too many groomers who may not have done anything. And they really don't, unless they've worked in the industry, have a clue as to what we do. I've just read stories on FB where the owner tells the vet they just went to the groomers and their dog now has or is, ____, insert whatever, and the owner comes back to the groomer and says the vet says it's your fault. And the groomer is like.. "what??"

                            It's like those weird people I had that their dog ended up with a mysterious cut... bath, blow dry, line brush, comb out on a Malamute. How did the dog end up with a 1" cut on on her back, after she sat in my salon for 30 min, not one time.. but two times??? Had they taken the dog to the vet, the vet would have blamed me. I always fess up to my accidents and offer to comp the groom!

                            So... I just think this law needs to be carefully crafted. I wonder who runs the cosmetology board?? Okay.. off to research.

                            Oh one more thing.. one of the sort of instructors at the last school I went to was sooo awesome. I really liked him. He had gone to a California state sponsored grooming school... 2 years!!!! And at the end he was good enough to be certified by one of the certifiying groups. Plus he had all sorts of handling tricks up his sleeve.. and was just a good, kind groomer. I kind of think that would be great. I know it's a mighty big chunk of time.. but so is cosmetology school, so is college. Now, that might weed out the bad ones.
                            Debbie
                            There's always room for another rose in the garden.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              This was just beyond fascinating to me lol. I found the Board meeting notes from a board meeting last July of the people who are on the board of cosmetology. The president.. I haven't searched the net yet.. but he owns a, probably rather large, cosmetology school. One of the issues that came up during the meeting was a PSP permit.. which would have a MAJOR impact on our industry. It is a Personal Service Permit, allowing cosmetologists to work outside a brick and mortar business, in people's homes. Talk of fingerprinting, how to enforce, how to protect consumers... etc. The owner of Sports Clips was against it and an esthetician spoke for it. Think of weddings...Anyway.. this was pretty eye opening. I didn't read the whole thing.. but skimmed it.

                              http://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/about_...s/20160717.pdf
                              Debbie
                              There's always room for another rose in the garden.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X