Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Handling Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee hears bill, ‘Daisy’s Law,’ to require animal‑handling training for groomers and kennels
Summary
AB418 would direct cities and counties to adopt ordinances requiring owners or operators of kennels, animal rescue organizations and commercial animal handlers to complete a prescribed animal‑handling training course; sponsors said the bill follows a constituent’s dog death and is modeled on a recent Clark County ordinance.
Assemblymembers Brian Hibbetts and Melissa Hardy presented Assembly Bill 418 to the Government Affairs Committee on Friday, saying the measure would require the governing body of a county or incorporated city to adopt an ordinance requiring owners or operators of kennels, animal rescue organizations and commercial establishments that handle animals to complete an animal‑handling training course.
The bill grew from constituent testimony about a fatal grooming incident. Janine Jensen, the constituent who prompted the bill, described her dog Daisy’s collapse after a grooming visit and told the committee the dog’s temperature rose and “she was losing control of her bladder and her bowels” before veterinarians recommended euthanasia. Jensen said she believed heat exhaustion and a too‑tight collar may have caused a collapsed trachea and urged the Legislature to require training for people who handle animals.
Sponsors said AB418 does not prescribe a single statewide curriculum; instead, it directs local governments to require a training course and to determine how the course is completed. “We want people that engage in the custody of animals to have training in how to recognize medical distress and what to do about it,” Hibbetts said. Hardy and Hibbetts told the committee they modeled the bill on a recently adopted Clark County ordinance and that local governments can choose how to implement the requirement.
Committee members raised several implementation questions on the record. Assemblymember Golding asked why the requirement was placed on cities and counties rather than included directly in statute; sponsors said local adoption provides flexibility for different jurisdictions and avoids prescribing a particular vendor or course. Members asked whether veterinarians, exotic‑animal rescues or employees (versus owners/operators) were covered. Sponsors and counsel clarified that the bill as drafted exempts veterinarians and that the bill’s language refers to “owner or operator”; committee counsel read the draft as requiring training for the owner or operator, while Clark County staff said their ordinance requires staff at each facility to receive training.
Witnesses from Clark County explained how local enforcement could work: Clark County tied the training requirement to business‑license renewal and plans to offer a county‑provided training free of charge; the county’s ordinance also includes staff training at each facility. Noah’s Animal House Foundation, which shelters pets of domestic violence survivors, spoke in reluctant opposition and asked for consistent best‑practice standards and clarity on enforcement and fees. A service‑dog owner, Dora Martinez, testified in opposition and urged adding video requirements so owners (or their designees) could verify how animals were treated during grooming.
Sponsors and Clark County said they are working to refine language, and Hardy said she and Hibbetts expect to file technical amendments to address enforcement, definition and exemption concerns. The committee did not vote during the hearing.
