Skip to content
man bot
Compare

Service and sales workers · code 5164

Pet groomers and animal care workers

AI can book the grooming appointment. It can't clip a wriggling spaniel.

AI barely touches eight of the nine tasks, including grooming and training animals and cleaning out pens and cages. Labelling medicines and restocking is mostly out of its reach too.

What they actually do (and what else they get called)

Pet groomers and animal care workers feed, handle, train and groom animals and assist veterinarians, animal health technologists and technicians in veterinary facilities, animal shelters, breeding and boarding kennels, zoos, laboratories, retail pet shops, riding schools, dog training schools, pet grooming and similar establishments. Tasks include - (a) bathing and feeding animals; (b) leading or carrying animals to treatment rooms and holding them during treatment; (c) cleaning and sterilizing veterinary surgical instruments; (d) labelling drugs, chemicals and other pharmaceutical preparations and replenishing stock; (e) sterilizing bottles, beakers and other equipment; (f) cleaning, organizing and disinfecting animal quarters such as pens, stables, cages and yards, and animal equipment such as saddles and bridles; (g) collecting and recording animal information such as weight, size, physical condition, treatments received, medications given and food intake; (h) training animals to develop and maintain desired behaviours for competition, entertainment, obedience, security, riding and other activities; (i) grooming animals by performing tasks such as washing, brushing, clipping and trimming coats, cutting nails and cleaning ears. Examples of the occupations classified here: - Animal attendant - Dog trainer - Horse breaker - Veterinary aide - Zoo keeper

  • zoo section leader
  • animal shelter worker
  • game keeper
  • animal care attendant
  • dog breeder
  • animal handler
  • cattle pedicure
  • pet sitter
  • kennel supervisor
  • animal welfare inspector

Job titles from the EU's ESCO list. Search for any of them on the jobs page and you'll end up here.

86 / 100

Strongly holds up against AI

Most of this job still needs an actual human. AI would mostly be making the tea.

Not the odds you keep your job. It's how much of the everyday work still needs a person, out of 100.

← Robot's turf Human's turf →

The ILO's official verdict: Not Exposed

61 of 427 for holding up against AI

Why this score?

The ILO rated each of this job's 9 tasks for how much of it AI could do. They average 14.1 out of 100, so it holds up at 100 − 14.1 = 85.9.

That's the whole sum. No black box, no secret sauce: you can check it against the ILO's study. ILO group “Not Exposed”: None of this job's tasks scored high enough to count.

from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use

Pinch of salt: this number is probably too rosy

It only asks what AI software could do, and this job is 54 out of 100 hands-on. A chatbot can't do that part. A robot might, one day, and nobody measures how close that is.

Man v Bot · compare

Who holds up better?

Pet groomers and animal care workers 86

v

Go on, try your partner's job. Or your sibling's. We won't tell.

Man v Bot

Where the bot helps, and where the human wins

Bot

What AI takes

The routine stuff. You may not miss it.

  • Bookings and reminders.
  • Animal records and medication logs.
  • Stock ordering.

Man

What people still do better

Judgement, trust and skilled hands. Hard to download.

  • Grooming and handling animals safely.
  • Training animals patiently.
  • Noticing health problems early.

Both

What's arriving

New work that only exists because the AI does.

  • Pet health monitoring devices.
  • Higher welfare standards and inspections.
  • Pet services booked through apps.

Written by a human, from the ILO's task ratings below. Yes, we see the irony. Read it as one person's take.

Meet your two rivals

They're not the same machine. AI software can only reach the parts of a job done on a screen or in words. A chatbot can't climb a ladder. A robot might, one day, if it doesn't fall off.

The AI

Lives in a screen. Never had to fix a boiler.

Threat level: Low

26 could do without you

It could take over very little of the work on its own. It could help with 55 of 100.

The robot

The wildcard. Has hands, still working out stairs.

How much it matters here: Some

54 how hands-on

A fair part of this job is hands-on, so robots would be needed for that part, not just software.

So could a robot do the physical part?

Less fine handwork and fewer cramped spaces than a typical hands-on job. That clears one hurdle for machines. It doesn't mean machines are doing this work yet.

Robots hate fiddly work in awkward spaces. On that measure, this job scores 36 out of 100. The higher it is, the longer the robot waits.

54 How
hands-on
36 How fiddly
and cramped

Kind of hands-on work Hands-on, less fiddly work

The small print

They aren't a robot score, and nothing on this page is. Nobody measures how far robots have got well enough to put a number on it. These are the closest thing we have: how hands-on the job is, and how much fiddly, cramped work it takes, which is what Frey and Osborne found hardest for machines.

From O*NET, averaged across 6 US jobs .

finger skill 35.9 · hand skill 35.3 · cramped spaces 35.8 · averaged · rule: hands-on 50+ · fiddly under 39.4

estimated O*NET 31.0 BLS occupational crosswalk chain ISCO-08 to 2010 SOC (Aug 2012, rev. Jun 2015); 2010 to 2018 SOC (Nov 2017); O*NET-SOC 2019 taxonomy data 0.8-observed-use measures chosen by Frey & Osborne (2017) · the grouping is a sorting, not a measurement

The job, task by task

Every job is really a bundle of tasks. Here's this one unpacked, with how much of each AI could do, out of 100. The score is the average, and averages can hide a lot.

AI's favourite task here scores 25, against an average of 14. The bigger the gap, the more lopsided the job: some of it wide open to AI, some of it barely touched.

  1. 25

    Labelling drugs, chemicals and other pharmaceutical preparations and replenishing stock

    Low
  2. 17

    Training animals to develop and maintain desired behaviours for competition, entertainment, obedience, security, riding and other activities

    Very Low
  3. 17

    Sterilising bottles, beakers and other equipment

    Very Low
  4. 17

    Collecting and recording animal information such as weight, size, physical condition, treatments received, medications given and food intake

    Very Low
  5. 14

    Leading or carrying animals to treatment room and holding them during treatment

    Very Low
  6. 11

    Bathing and feeding animals

    Very Low
  7. 10

    Cleaning and sterilising veterinary surgical instruments

    Very Low
  8. 8

    Cleaning, organizing, and disinfecting animal quarters such as pens, stables, cages and yards, and animal equipment such as saddles and bridles

    Very Low
  9. 8

    Grooming animals by performing tasks such as washing, brushing, clipping, and trimming coats, cutting nails and cleaning ears.

    Very Low

9 tasks · the High to Very Low labels are the ILO's

from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use

Sidekick or replacement?

A tool that makes you faster is a very different thing from one that does the task while you watch. Jobs and Skills Australia measured the two separately, which is handy.

AI helps you
55
AI does it for you
26

Sidekick wins, by 30 points.

How good a match is this?

2 Australian jobs match this one, and we've simply averaged them. Treat the numbers as a rough guide.

estimated Our Gen AI Transition (Gen AI Capacity Study) September 2025 detailed data release data 0.8-observed-use matched to Australian jobs 3611, 3613

Meanwhile, in real life…

Everything else here is about what AI could do. This is what people actually did. When they asked Claude for help with this kind of work, did they hand the whole task over, or roll their sleeves up and work through it together?

Tiny sample alert This job makes up 0.06% of all the conversations: a tiny slice, mostly the paperwork rather than the work. People using AI for a job isn't the same as AI being able to do it.

Out of every 100 conversations

40
60

worked through it together handed it over

The small print

Anthropic publishes this about its own product, and it doesn't feed into any score here. These are people who use Claude, not workers in general, so little use here doesn't mean AI can't reach the job.

The data is sorted by US job, and this one matches 5 of them. We've combined them, counting each by how often it comes up in the conversations, so the busiest one counts most.

These two add up to 100. The bars elsewhere on the page don't, because each is scored on its own, so we don't put them side by side.

observed use Anthropic Economic Index release 2026-06-26, period beginning 2026-05-01 data 0.8-observed-use 2026-05-01 · Anthropic, about its own product

So, should animal care workers be worried?

Short answer: not really. Put the kettle on.

No. The most exposed task is labelling drugs and restocking, rated Low; everything else rates Very Low. Apps take the bookings and records; training, grooming and caring for animals stay hands-on.

Worth remembering: we score tasks, not jobs. When AI takes on a task, the job usually reshuffles around it rather than vanishing.

Where this job could lead

None of the new jobs we've written up start from here yet. Could be you're the first. See the jobs AI is creating →

How are the neighbours doing?

There are 39 jobs in the “Service and sales workers” family, averaging 74. This one is above the family average.

Pit this against any other job →