At my local feed store, longtime personnel routinely advise pet and livestock owners about feeding practices to prevent nutrition-related conditions such as obesity, malnourishment and vitamin deficiencies.
If Assembly Bill 635 becomes law, which of the above scenarios will be a violation? All of them, unless the bill is changed.
Maybe that's not the intent of the state's veterinarians, who are heartily pushing this bill, but that could well be the result with a loose interpretation of the relevant wording.
This bill says anything done to diagnose or directly or indirectly treat or prevent disease or other physical or mental conditions in an animal would be considered the practice of veterinary medicine; therefore, it could not be done unless prescribed, referred or supervised by a licensed veterinarian.
Before the pet-store people could advise about a parrot that plucks, they would need a veterinarian's approval because plucking is a "physical condition" usually brought on by a "mental condition." Does it matter that this store specializes in the care of parrots? No.
The same is true of the groomer who diagnoses a flea infestation and then (oh, horrors!) treats it with a known cure for the condition, all with the pet owner's permission. Is this practicing veterinary medicine? Under the proposed statute, yes on two counts. There has been a diagnosis of a problem and a treatment to prevent disease.
To de-flea your dog, the groomer would have to be licensed by the state to practice veterinary medicine or make sure you were referred for such service by a veterinarian or, perhaps, operate the flea dip under the supervision of a veterinarian. Guess who pays for the veterinarian's input?
