Senate committee hears bill to require pet-handling training for groomers; veterinary staff exempt

Assembly Bill 418 would require each governing body of a county or incorporated city to adopt an ordinance requiring, with listed exceptions, owners or operators of kennels, animal rescues and commercial pet-handling businesses to complete a pet-handling training course prescribed by the governing body.

The bill’s sponsors described the proposal as a response to a recent incident in which a small dog died after being left in a grooming area in hot conditions. "This is just a little dog, probably like 5 pounds or so," Assemblywoman Melissa Hardy said during her testimony. "Her temperature was 108 degrees, went up to 109 ... they made the decision to put little Daisy to sleep." Hardy, who represents Assembly District 22 in Henderson, asked the committee to consider training requirements so staff can recognize signs of distress and respond appropriately.

Nut graf: Sponsors and supporters said the measure is intended to reduce avoidable injuries and deaths when animals are in the care of commercial handlers. The bill would leave the specifics of course content, delivery and renewal requirements to local ordinances, and a conceptual amendment has been offered to make clear that veterinary staff operating under a veterinarian’s supervision are exempt.

Brian Hibbetts, who introduced AB 418 and identified himself as representing Assembly District 13 in Clark County, said the proposal is modeled on an ordinance Clark County adopted earlier and that local governments would not be required to provide training, only to adopt ordinances setting standards and enforcement approaches. "There are online training courses you can go to through the Red Cross, the American Kennel Club," Hibbetts said, adding local community colleges and other programs could also supply courses.

Senators on the committee asked for technical clarifications about the bill’s definitions. Senator Neal raised a reading question about whether defined terms would unintentionally exclude entities the sponsors intend to cover. Heidi Clarkson of the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Legal Division explained that the bill lists businesses to which the ordinance would apply and separately lists entities excluded by subsection 3, with subsection 4 providing definitions so the terms are clear in the statute.

Committee members pressed sponsors on enforcement, penalties and how local governments would implement training. Sponsors and Clark County modelers said jurisdictions would generally tie proof of training to business-license renewals or other local licensing processes. "That would actually be tied to the individual localities business licensing processes," Hibbetts said, noting local due-process procedures would govern license actions.

Supporters who testified included Nicole Flanges of the Nevada Veterinary Medical Association, who thanked the sponsors for working on the amendment that clarifies the veterinary-staff exemption. Sam Anastasatos of the law firm Kemper Kroll, representing the Nevada State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, said the board was neutral on the bill with the amendment in place.

No vote was taken during the committee hearing. Sponsors told the committee they were available for technical follow-up. The hearing record closed and the committee moved on to the next bill on the agenda.