Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Groomer Licensing Update from CPAC !!

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

  • Groomer Licensing Update from CPAC !!

    Since this is going to be fairly long, I thought I would
    just send it as a regular email message rather than our
    normal newsletter.

    On May 1st I went to Albany, NY to meet with NY Senator
    Kruger's staff about SB2569, the New York Groomer licensing
    bill. I had just checked the status of the bill the day
    before I left and it was still not scheduled for committee
    hearing. In a move not unfamiliar in the New York State
    legislature, Sen. Kruger obtained a favor from the committee
    chairman and the bill was scheduled for committee hearing
    the morning of May 1. The NY legislature is known for doing
    things like this in order to minimize the public attendance
    at committee hearings. It worked. I was unaware of the
    committee hearing until after it was completed. The bill
    was passed out of committee and is now on the Senate floor.

    The meeting with Sen. Kruger's staff actually went very
    well. I presented a number of suggested revisions for the
    bill including:
    Minimum crate construction requirements to ensure
    that crates housing dogs in grooming facilities can be
    easily cleaned and that surfaces cannot be constructed of
    bare wood or other absorbent material.

    A wording change to eliminate the banning of drying
    cages. As the bill is currently worded, it would no longer
    be allowed to dry a dog in any kind of cage. The intention
    was to ban heated drying cages. Of course the Senator was
    unaware that his bill would have this effect and that heated
    dryers also include equipment that hangs on the outside of a
    cage. We suggested change the wording to say that the
    temperature surrounding the animal shall be compatible with
    the health and well-being of the animal and that temperature
    must be regulated to include temperatures inside cages used
    for drying animals. This would then eliminate the need to
    regulate heated dryers at all by making the groomer
    personally responsible for any heat related injuries to the
    dog while in the groomer's care whether in a heated dryer or
    not.

    The implementation of a board of registration of pet
    groomers consisting primarily of pet groomers. This one we
    took directly from the Mass. Bill. It would require the
    industry to regulate itself under the supervision of
    government rather than regulation by a group of bureaucrats
    who know absolutely nothing about the industry.

    The acceptance of proof of certification from a
    national groomer association approved by the board as
    qualification for licensing without regard to formal groomer
    education, apprenticeship, or number of years in business
    prior to the new law taking effect. The Senator and his
    staff were unaware that such a thing even existed.

    Overall, our suggestions were very well received. They
    especially liked the idea of accepting already existing
    accreditation from organizations like NDGAA and ISCC. They
    were the least excited about the idea of the groomer board.
    This one would require major changes to the bill and I don't
    believe they are willing to consider that approach at this
    time. Eliminating the ban on drying cages was not an
    exciting concept to them either, however, they do see the
    need to change the language and the difficulty of defining
    the use of heated dryers so, having something that would
    work already in their hand may help them to decide to change
    in our favor simply because it would be easier for them. I
    was told that the Senator's legal counsel would follow-up
    with me to further discuss our suggestions. Since I don't
    actually expect him to make that contact I will follow-up
    with him soon.

    Since the bill is currently on the Senate floor, their
    incentive to make significant changes to the bill is pretty
    limited at this time. However, the current situation in New
    York state politics may well work in our favor. The New
    York Senate is Republican controlled. Senator Kruger is a
    Democrat. The Senate President in notorious for not
    allowing Democrat bills to reach a vote. In fact, the
    Senator's staff stated that they don't expect the bill to
    reach a vote before the Senate recesses next month. If it
    doesn't get to a vote it will likely have to be reintroduced
    again next year at which time our suggestions should be
    better received. The Senate is only in session 23 more days
    before they recess. Hopefully, time and current state
    politics will work for us.

    In addition, two identical bills were filed in the New York
    Assembly and Senate to license grooming facilities.
    Amazingly enough, these are extremely good bills. I met
    with legal counsel for Senator Padavan, the senate sponsor
    of the bill. They are actually very interested in combining
    their bill with something similar to Sen. Kruger's bill to
    make one comprehensive groomer and grooming facility
    licensing bill. We discussed the problems with the existing
    groomer licensing bill and they were very interested in
    CPAC's assistance in formulating something that would work
    to both protect the consumer and the grooming industry.

    Sen. Kruger's staff is sufficiently convinced that his bill
    won't receive a vote that they are actually interested in a
    combined bill as long as Kruger can be put on as a
    co-sponsor. This was very good news.


    On May 2nd I met with I met with Mass. Sen. Tisei's staff in
    Boston. We had an extremely long meeting about S235. This
    meeting was very promising. Our suggestions included:

    Adding licensing of grooming facilities. Many of
    the provisions of the bill require compliance with things
    that only facility ownership can do. Without licensing the
    facility it would be impossible to enforce compliance if the
    owner is not present. In the case of absentee owners, the
    current bill language would make an employee groomer
    responsible and their license at risk for things they have
    no control over.

    Minimum crate construction requirements to ensure
    that crates housing dogs in grooming facilities can be
    easily cleaned and that surfaces cannot be constructed of
    bare wood or other absorbent material.

    A wording change to eliminate the banning of drying
    cages. As the bill is currently worded, it would no longer
    be allowed to dry a dog in any kind of cage. The intention
    was to ban heated drying cages. Of course the Senator was
    unaware that his bill would have this effect and that heated
    dryers also include equipment that hangs on the outside of a
    cage. We suggested change the wording to say that the
    temperature surrounding the animal shall be compatible with
    the health and well-being of the animal and that temperature
    must be regulated to include temperatures inside cages used
    for drying animals. This would then eliminate the need to
    regulate heated dryers at all by making the groomer
    personally responsible for any heat related injuries to the
    dog while in the groomer's care whether in a heated dryer or
    not. Sen. Tisei's staff were very receptive to this idea.

    Changing the requirements for licensing
    bather/brushers. As it currently reads, the bill would
    require bather/brushers to obtain 80 hours formal education
    from a registered and accredited school or apprentice for 80
    hours under a licensed master groomer. Since bathers are
    normally an entry level position, very few groomers will
    qualify under the current requirements for master groomer,
    and a facility can only have a total of two apprentices at
    any one time we suggested that this requirement should be
    changed to allow any groomer to apprentice a bather/brusher.
    The staff recognized the problem we identified and agreed
    that this would be a better option.

    The acceptance of proof of certification from a
    national groomer association approved by the board as
    qualification for licensing without regard to formal groomer
    education, apprenticeship, or number of years in business
    prior to the new law taking effect. The Senator and his
    staff were unaware that such a thing even existed. They
    were also very interested in this proposal for qualification
    for both basic groomers and master groomers as well as for
    grandfathering in existing groomers without regard to length
    of time in business.

    This meeting was extremely productive. They are very
    interested in our assistance in improving the bill. They
    also informed me that the bill is scheduled for committee
    hearing on June 12, although the date had not yet been
    released for publication. They encouraged me to attend that
    hearing and we are discussing the possibility of amending
    the bill with most if not all our suggestions prior to that
    date. If that cannot be done, then to work with us on an
    amendment to present at the hearing.

    If we can get these proposals amended into the bill, I think
    we will have the first extremely good state licensing
    proposal for groomers and grooming facilities. I will be
    attending the committee hearing next month.


    All in all, it was a very long but very productive trip. We
    met legislators and staff from both New York and
    Massachusetts and made some significant inroads to hopefully
    make these bills much better.

    Jay

    Jay Stull
    Executive Director
    Canine Political Action Corps
    866-465-CPAC
    1443 Farmside Dr
    Foristell, Mo 63348
    mailto:[email protected]
    www.CaninePAC.org
    Most questions regarding GroomerTALK are answered in the Board Help Talk Forum. Thanks for coming to our community a part of PetGroomer.com https://www.petgroomer.com.

  • #2
    so breaking this down: heated cage dryers still will be legal? I personally don't see a need for them and thing they are not a good thing..imo
    all groomers have to be certified? is that what I read? why don't they just make training available through state vocational schools and forget the rest of the money making slave shops(as I've heard this term used from a school graduate?)
    And this still keeps the "organizations" open for business per sei? ndgaa and such?

    too much info for my lil blonde brain! lol

    and grandfathering in? how will that work?

    nothing like more government! geez whats next? I dare ask!

    Comment


    • #3
      ????

      Jay,

      Thank you for the time and effort. Personally I prefer to see less goverment in all aspects of society. But, by your efforts a bad thing may be made somewhat tolerable. Who actually is behing the initial push of this legislation?
      I would find it hard to believe that it was any one groomer doing business there. Then again I could be wrong. Now the questions:

      Just how this thing going to be funded?

      Where is the money coming from to pay for the printing, union goverment employees to file said paperwork, mail it, record it <or for the industry to regulate itself under the supervision of government(??)> and for those that will utlimately inspect for complaince.

      Will there be a whole new goverment agency created or may will fall under the state or local HS to run and given to the local HS to run?

      What are the fees? Who sets the fees? Is there an insurance requirement?

      Is this to be state regulation or law? Big difference.

      Can local goverment supersed this and add on more local requirements, more resrictions and fees?

      My local municipality can not take away from a state law but usually can add to it for their own jurisdiction.

      Many more questions but no time to write.

      Comment


      • #4
        one step further -

        Those in Ohio Do you realize that by applying any chemical to a dog or cat not owned by yourself is against the law? The ODA regulates pesticide application for the state and does see shampoos as a chemical. They have and probably will turn a blind eye to it. But, flea and tick products, this may be a place that one can run afoul. The pesticides used in these products DO fall under the ODA authority and by law one must pass a ODA test, renewable every other year, pay a permit fee and carry $300,000 liability policy that needs to be filed with the State.

        Wait until a goverment bureacrat finally figures this one out. Especially with such big state budget deficts more permit fees and potential fines may be welcomed.

        Comment


        • #5
          Majority of groomers favor licensing

          Once again this year's surveys show that a small majority, but still a majority, of groomers favor licensing.

          The New York licensing was brought about by inexcusable pet deaths at a groomer which made CNN, Reuters and AP national news.

          Legislators have a responsibility to do something, and must do something, to help protect the public, even if it is a band aid. The grooming industry was doing near nothing to find a solution, so legislators get the ball rolling.

          At least 50 pets a year die at groomers that we know of. Mandatory education is not a total solution, but it is the standard for all industries. What is important is the grooming industry needs to do the management of it, not the government. But look back at the last decades and only a handful of groomers got involved, and many naysay and pooh pooh but offer no solutions to the public. Oh, it won't solve things. No, but something was done and if a few pets are saved, well do it, some will say.

          We had 7 pets die at a groomer asphyixiating them with a wood stove putting out carbon monoxide. How about the groomer with a litter of puppies dried with a space heater that melted the plastic cage and burned up the puppies. Yes, I think mandatory education in safety would have addressed and prevented these accidents. No it won't prevent all, and all licensed professions make some mistakes, but to say don't do anything unless it is 100%, and this has been said on this board, is unrealistic.

          Grooming is part of a greater world and consumers deserve band aids and better. Since as an industry we are offering no solutions, taking a proactive approach, this is what happens. If we as a body can set the standards etc, this is good news.

          Actually a whole new breed of groomer is likely to be active in our industry within 10 years. Licensed professionals with the smarts will also find it opens the door to justify better fees. If the industry is smart it will finally gain more widespread respect as a profession...it is a potential.

          So keep in mind that the largest surveys of groomers to date still show a majority of groomers now favor some form of mandatory licensing, and a larger majority of career seekers actually. The public and legislators are near the end of the line of the industry doing nothing on its own to deliver a solution to them, we can't even get 5% of groomers to join one association. In many professions 75% or more belong to an association. Pet retail and vets get fantastic info from their associations and representation...grooming is behind here. Most groomers are still nitpicking their "competitors" in town and a lot vent about customers here...that's not professional...that's not going to resolve issues making national news, getting calls from pet owners to legislators being pressured...it's a different world in the bigger picture.

          CPAC is doing something, and we are better off for it. Groomers except a few are doing nothing. Nothing, except for those that criticize, and it's OK to criticize, but what is your solution. Have you called the legislators, have you formed an association, have you drafted letters with ideas, have you formalized any solutions? We're in a different ballpark now than just 5 years ago where we were still sliding by. I said just 2 years ago, yep, we are not going to slide by much longer and it appears so, so that's how it is, and we need proactive groomers making this work for our benefit.

          Statistically at least 25 more pets are going to die this year at the groomers. Mandatory safety education could make a dent in saving some of them, even if 1, it worked.
          Most questions regarding GroomerTALK are answered in the Board Help Talk Forum. Thanks for coming to our community a part of PetGroomer.com https://www.petgroomer.com.

          Comment


          • #6
            I did not see the survey but I am curious as to what were the survey questions and how the questions were asked. Could a copy be re posted?

            I agree with everything you have said, but that "Legislators have a responsibility to do something" No they don't. In most of the cases cited those folks already fall under the HS cruelty to animals statutes.

            In my opinion the concept has much merit but has not been thought through enough. If it is to be then it needs to be done right and with great transparency.

            Why not have the NDGA fund a "Use a NDGA member groomer" campaign much like the National Chimney Sweep Association does?

            I agree that 1 dog dying at the groomers is 1 to many. But the cases that are cited - from the descriptions would a mandatory safety class kept that from happening? Maybe and maybe not. The shops mentioned are probably out of business and hopefully a few people saw the inside of a county jail.

            I don't know the particulars of the wood stove incident but again, that was not a specific groomer error that was a malfunction of a wood stove that could also have killed the groomer. If wood stoves were illegal in that area then the legal authority may be liable for some of the fault.

            The questions I asked are still not answered.

            Comment


            • #7
              Dexy

              Have you written to CPAC? Jay is not a member here. Good questions and I am sure they will be addressed after the foundation is set. Most likely much of what you are asking will be set and answered by the organization formed to manage the licensing and set the standards, and not the legislative law.
              Most questions regarding GroomerTALK are answered in the Board Help Talk Forum. Thanks for coming to our community a part of PetGroomer.com https://www.petgroomer.com.

              Comment


              • #8
                Sorry, I'm bad, No I did not email Jay as I assumed that he was a member here and yes, I know assuming can be a bad thing.

                Stephen, if Jay/CPAC is out taking the lead for groomers then why is he/ they not represented on this board? I think it would be easier for him/them to get input from the groomers represented here. I have a feeling that more groomers visit this site on daily basis than NDGA has members.

                Your points are well taken and that is why I feel the questions and answers need to be available to those that it will affect before the law is legislated. Once legislated it will be very hard to revise or rescend.

                Another question, if the authoritative body is to be chosen from the public/industry are these to be Govenor appointed positions or by industry vote?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Where to start?

                  I have been grooming for a little over 5 months and live in Las Vegas, NV and I have no idea if there are any associations, groups, or what our city, county or state laws are. Where or how do I find this information? I am very intersted in broadening my education and want to do it the right way This website has been a godsend with all the knowledge that is shared.

                  Barb

                  Stephen: Unfortuantely there are few associations, but they are some and you can search associations at www.petgroomeryellowpages.com.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Groomer licensing update from CPAC

                    I'm not sure exactly how our member update ended up here but I'm happy that this has generated some discussion of the licensing issue. Chris sent me a private email to ask if I would respond to part of this thread so I have joined the list for that purpose. Please understand that I won't be regularly checking the list so if there is something that needs a response from me it would be best to contact me directly in order for the response to be more timely.

                    CPAC was formed last year as a direct response to the lack of any organization willing to help protect groomers or trainers from legislation that directly affects the business of grooming and training. We have professional organizations that do a lot of other things but legislation is not part of that. CPAC is a membership organization. The work we do trying to make these licensing bills better is funded completely by membership dollars.

                    Licensing has become a recurring issue primarily because of the accusation of dogs dying under heated dryers in grooming facilities in addition to other deaths occuring such as hanging from a restraint on a grooming table. While the actual number of these is small, these stories make national news and are reprinted in papers across the country. Legislators believe that a problem exists because their constituents, whose dogs died allegedly because of their visit to a groomer, have no recourse. Animal cruelty laws do not normally apply because there was no intent to do harm. It was negligence or incompetence. Legislators believe that by passing licensing legislation to regulate the industry they can give their constituents recourse should a groomer kill their dog. The New York bill was originally introduced last year 3 days after a constituent's dog allegedly died of heat stroke from a visit to a groomer. The Mass. bill was introduced this year following a constituents greyhound being rushed to the vet by the dog's owner after picking it up from the groomer -- the dog allegedly had a temperature of 108 upon arriving at the vet. The Pennsylvania bill from last year was because the state representative who filed the bill owned a golden retriever that allegedly died of heat stroke after visiting the groomer. While this one has not been refiled this year, I'm told that it will be back. Oklahoma has a bill this year to form a task force to determine if they need to look at licensing groomers. This one is a direct result of all the publicity from all the other states looking into licensing groomers.

                    There are basically three options available to groomers in regard to the licensing issue.

                    The industry could directly oppose the concept in its entirety. This works well for well organized, very large and well funded interest groups. I'm sorry to say that the grooming industry is neither well organized nor well funded.

                    The industry could accept the fact that licensing is likely going to happen and work within the legislative system to make it as painless a process as possible. While I have a personal aversion to more government intervention into life as a whole, I am also realistic enough to know that this is the best option at this time.

                    The other option is to do nothing and hope for the best. This, unfortunately seems to be the approach most groomers are taking.

                    CPAC believes that the best option at this time is to try to work within the legislative system to make bills the best we can should they actually become law. CPAC is NOT presenting bills to legislators asking them to license groomers. What we are doing is looking at the bills they introduce and trying to modify them into something better for groomers and the industry. To the best of our knowledge, we are the ONLY organization out there attempting to do anything to make these bills more liveable.

                    We look at each bill individually, issue by issue, and make recomendations to legislators. Initially, in order for our recomendations to carry any weight at all, this must be done in person. We have to establish some credability with the legislators. As a whole, legislators ignore email. You might get an automated response or form letter response before the email is deleted but that's the best you can hope for. Letters, faxes, and phone calls from non constituents are just as meaningless. Personal visits from constituents carry the most weight. We get by with it because they believe we have members who are their constituents and because we don't go in telling them their ideas are ridiculous. We go in making suggestions to make their bill better -- to better protect their constituents as well as the grooming industry.

                    The heated dryer issue has been raised here. It's a divisive topic among groomers and it's the catalyst for most of these bills. It is CPAC's position that heated dryers are NOT the underlying cause of the problem. We believe that the equipment is not to blame in virtually all these cases. Negligence and incompetence are to blame. We believe that a groomer should be free to properly utilize the tools of their choice. They should also be held responsible for the improper use of those tools. If a dog does, indeed, die as a result of overheating in a heated dryer, we believe that groomer should lose their license. But we don't believe that government should dictate what equipment you should use in your facility. We do believe that government should hold you personally responsible for the negligent use of that equipment.

                    How government actually institutes licensing when it becomes law will depend entirely on the bill that passes. Mass wants to create a board, consisting primarily of groomers, to oversee the new law and to create further regulations to regulate the industry. Personally, I think that's an extremely good idea. This board, as the bill is currently written, would report to the secretary of state but at least somebody who should have some knowledge of the industry is making the regulations.

                    New York wants to put it under the dept of education and create a new bureaucracy to oversee implementation of the law. We suggested the groomer board that Mass has suggested.

                    Part of the cost of these measures will be offset by licensing fees. Most of the bills don't have the cost of licensing as part of the bill but generally they are looking at between $20 and $100 either every year or two years. The rest will be paid for with tax dollars.

                    Somebody asked about grandfather clauses. The purpose of these is to allow at least some of the existing groomers to not have to comply with the educational requirements of the bills based on the number of years they have been in business. I have had some groomers suggest that there are groomers working out of their house and don't claim the income from grooming and therefore would not be able to prove that they were in business for the required amount of time. CPAC's position on this is that we are not going to go into a legislator's office and try to get an exception made for someone who is already violating a number of other laws.

                    For some reason there is also some misunderstanding about our suggestion to allow certification from national organizations suffice for the education requirement in the bills. In the Mass bill, for example, it currently proposes that for someone to qualify to become a groomer, they would need at least 300 hours education from an ACCREDITED school or 300 hours as an apprentice under a licensed master groomer (a master groomer would be someone with at least 600 hours from an accredited school). We simply suggested that having a certification from a national organization would require more knowledge than the school requirement and should be allowed as qualification to become licensed. We are NOT suggesting that certification should be a requirement for licensing. We ARE suggesting that it should suffice as proof of the educational requirement if a groomer is certified.

                    There will likely always be things about these bills, and laws when they are passed, that some folks won't like. There will likely be things in them that I don't like. But we are attempting to make them better overall.

                    Let me emphasize again that all this is done entirely through membership dollars. Working with these issues is very expensive. CPAC spent over $1000 last week to visit with legislators on these bills and make our suggestions for their improvement. We will be going back again next month for a committee hearing on the Mass bill. We sent out letters to over 2000 groomers in NY, MA, and OK letting them know that these bills are in their legislatures at a cost of nearly $2000.

                    The most amazing thing to me, personally, is that after all the hue and cry over the past couple of years about how nobody was out there doing anything about all these iitiatives to license groomers and all the fretting about the potential laws putting them out of business, very few individual groomers have joined CPAC to date. We do have a number of groomer members and we appreciate them very much. However, by and large, groomers are not flocking to join. I don't know if that's because, even after all we've done to publicize CPAC, they still aren't aware of us or if they really somehow aren't aware of the threat facing them or if they just really don't care to actually do something to help protect their chosen profession and figure they'll just do something else if they're legislated out of business. Or maybe they just think someone else will pay the way for protecting them. I don't know. I do know that dog trainers far outnumber dog groomers in our membership. Even though there is no current legislation threatening them, they seem to understand that it's coming eventually and want to do something to protect themselves. But even with the hammer hanging directly over the head of dog groomers, as a whole, they seem content to just hope it doesn't actually fall on their head.

                    Please understand that even if there is no legislation pending in your state, when licensing starts passing in other states, and it will, sooner or later it will come to you as well. The bills coming to your state will likely end up looking a lot like what passes in other states. You have a direct personal and professional investment in helping ensure that licensing takes the best possible form in states other than your own.

                    I encourage everyone to take a look at CPAC. Go to www.caninepac.org. Email me directly at [email protected]. Call me at 866-465-CPAC. If you have questions or concerns about the organization or what we do, get them answered. And then JOIN. You can join with your credit card on the website. You can print out the membership form and mail a check. But join. We are much stronger in numbers. If you value your profession it's time you do something to help protect it.

                    Jay Stull
                    Executive Director
                    Canine Political Action Corps, Inc.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Jay, Thanks for your quick response. If jay is not here I will forward this. I don't want to appear to be thorn in the side or appear completly negative about this issue. I do hope to start a dialogue as each groomer sees it. I think that is one of the intents of this forum. I agree with Jay that groomers just hope this will all come to pass. How many people have taken the time to view this thread and not given their opinion or questions? I agree that this will happen. But I believe that it should be addressed proactively not reactively.

                      I'll say again, it is my understanding that much of what is being done is reactive not pro active. Why not gain input and attempt a model bill that can be presented to legislative bodies? We know our industry best. Like I said before, once a law is inacted it is going to be very hard to recend items but much more can easily be amended with attachments.

                      A concern that I have is organizaions such as PETA or HSUS attempting to minipulate legislation. They have done it out west and in both NY and Mass., concerning nuisance wildlife professionals. They have attempted it in Ohio.They wrote model law and sumbmited it to sympathic beuracrats and in my opinion to hamper the industry. I believe it was Mass., that ended up banning mouse, rat and mole traps for the homeowner. Once they get legislation passed the next state becomes an easier target.

                      Jay stated that:<<Legislators believe that a problem exists because their constituents, whose dogs died allegedly because of their visit to a groomer, have no recourse. Animal cruelty laws do not normally apply because there was no intent to do harm. If it was negligence or incompetence Legislators believe that by passing licensing legislation to regulate the industry they can give their constituents recourse should a groomer kill their dog.>>

                      I believe that animal cruelty laws in many cases would apply and the current civil courts are full of negligence and incompetence litigation and it is up to the owner can prove their case. If a court of law can not find the groomer guilty then would a state appointed board be able to find the shop guilty or non-compliant? I sure would hate to be the groomer that has the old dog drop dead at the shop, get sued, then the groomer wins the case and yet possibly they still lose their shop over it.

                      With this licensing, would these other laws not still apply? Of course they will.
                      I only ask how would legislation stop these thing from happening? I know PhD's that are still incompetent doing their jobs.

                      Jay wrote: <<The New York bill was originally introduced last year 3 days after a constituent's dog allegedly died of heat stroke from a visit to a groomer.>>

                      I'll go out on a limb and say that it takes longer than three days to write any legislation at the city level let alone state and the word ALLEGEDLY should have carried atleast alittle weight or hopefully concern with the introducing legislator. Nothing like rushing to judgment! I don't believe a necropsy report can get done and back to a vet in that amount of time.

                      Unless I missed something I don't think my questions have been addressed.

                      I'm done, I'm tired I hope some dialogue will start with those that have taken the time to read all of this.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        well, I can see both sides of the coin. Yes something needs to be done..the answers though are few and far between. This is a dawning of a new era I believe. Much needed. I've been grooming since 1979, and I've heard this talk since the beginning of my career. Long time in coming. I'm not against licensing. I do feel education is the key to a more reliable, more educated groomer. We all know of the chop shops that are open in every town. Many dogs here have been severely injured in a few of them. Yes, accidents to happen, but more often to the ignorant. Just yesterday, a kennel in my town has groomers out there that are not even trained. What happened yesterday is a sad reminder of this issue that needs to be addressed. They had an English Bulldog in for a bath and nail trim. Apparently it was resisting. They wrestled this dog down, trying to put a muzzle on her. Some of us know that these dogs can barely breathe through their noses as it is! They (3) kennel people, with the groomer, held the dog down, such a wrestle that the dog went into seizures. Died. This dog had no previous history of ever having a seizure, she was 4 years old. So yes, something needs to be done, and I hope its in a positive light for all of us. I hope this action does help save a few lives, if not, then something more will have to be done. I don't have the answers, but Im glad that someone is at least trying to do the right thing!

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X