Legalization of Horseshoeing and Equine Dentistry - Research Paper Example

 Re: A Call to Support the Amendment to the Veterinary Medical Act Arkansas Code Annotated 17-101-101: Horseshoeing and Equine Dentistry Honorable Sir: Special greetings from the local residents of Arkansas and my personal salutations to you, as a concerned and active member of the House Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development (HCAFED). I am Angela ____________, a freshman student from NWACC who has been deeply concerned about the state veterinary medicine law which bars the practice of horseshoeing and equine dentistry by traditional farmers, ranchers, or non-medical practitioners with vast experience on the field of endeavor. I am aware of your support for the amendment of the Arkansas Code 17-101-101 seeking inclusion of these two practices given proper guidelines and well defined limitations. I fully support your contentions and majority of farmers and ranchers in diverse rural areas of Arkansas depend on these two means of livelihood as a source of income. A report by Rob Moritz on the Arkansas News Bureau dated September 27, 2010 highlighted similar incidents contested in Oklahoma but eventually resolved to amend “that state’s veterinary regulations to allow horseshoeing by non-veterinarians and to allow equine dentistry, under limited conditions” (Moritz, 2010, 1). The inclusion of these two practices are more beneficial to local ranchers and owners of horses given the practical nature of routine tasks of farriers and equine dentists, who are not considered licensed veterinarians. The frequency by which the tasks are required to be undertaken for the security and wellbeing of horses are numerous and costly, if only licensed veterinarians would be required by law to practice them. I hope through voicing my support, in behalf of local community residents of Arkansas, in your plea to amend the abovementioned code, the members of the HCAFED would be more aware of the viability and credibility of the suggested amendment clearly indicating that “specifically exempts horseshoeing, and to exempt the less invasive equine dentistry. Anytime medication is needed for a horse, a veterinarian should be required” (Moritz, 2010, 3). Respectfully yours, Proposal for the Amendment of Arkansas Code Annotated 17-101-101: Horseshoeing and Equine Dentistry Introduction The Arkansas Law through Code Annotated 17-101-101 “makes horseshoeing illegal unless it is done by the horse owner, an employee of the owner, a neighbor or a veterinarian. Also outlawed are equine dentists, also called “horse teeth floaters,” who aren’t veterinarians and anyone who performs other routine farm animal procedures such as castration and dehorning for pay” (Bowden, 2010, pars. 2 & 3). Adherance to the Veterinary Medical Practice Act would render farriers and equine dentists in rural areas of Arkansas without means of livelihood. Further Bowden averred that “under the Arkansas act, practicing veterinary medicine without a license is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine for each violation of $50 to $250, or imprisonment for six months to one year, or both” (Bowden, 2010, 2). The repercussions of the conditions stipulated in the code would be drastic in terms of loss of income and monopoly on the endeavor to licensed veterinarians who charge more and already earn more. Details from the article written by Bowden cited State Rep. Jim House, a part-time farrier, to have acknowledged that “Arkansas has 625 veterinarians, but only nine of them specialize in horses” (Bowden, 2010, 4). Lee McGrath, executive director of the Minnesota chapter of the Institute for Justice, indicated that the primary rationale for instituting the regulations would be to eliminate competition from non-licensed practicing veterinarians. The ranchers and owners of horses have expressed their arguments on the matter indicating that prohibition of horseshoeing by farriers and employing equine dentists would tantamount to increased costs in terms of higher professional fees charged by veterinarians and the hustles imposed by the need to bring their horses to the vets for the needed procedures. Background Information The Veterinary Medical Practice Act stipulates that part of a licensed veterinarian’s scope of responsibilities include “the diagnosis, treatment, correction, change, relief, or prevention of animal disease, deformity, defect, injury, or other physical or mental condition, including the prescribing or administration of any prescription drug, medicine, biologic, apparatus, application, anesthetic, or other therapeutic or diagnostic substance or technique on any animal, including, but not limited to, acupuncture, dentistry, animal psychology, animal chiropractic, theriogenology, surgery, including cosmetic surgery, any manual, mechanical, biological, or chemical procedure for testing for pregnancy or for correcting sterility or infertility or to tender service or recommendations with regard to any of the above” (Arkansas Veterinary Act, Code 17-101-102 9A). The current practice of Arkansas ranchers traditionally use registered farriers and equine dentists to undertake routinary procedures . In an article written by Bowden (2010), the author cited Dr. Lyndon H. Tate, a veterinarian in Mansfield and member of the Arkansas Veterinary Medical Examining Board, as supportive and “defended the wording in the law. The practices act was set up to protect the animals, and the rights of the animal owner, from sub-standard veterinary procedures" (Bowden, 2010, 1). Proposal With the wellbeing of local community residents in mind, one is in support for the amendment of the Arkansas Code 17-101-101 seeking inclusion of horseshoeing and equine dentistry practices given proper guidelines and well defined limitations. As contended by State Rep. Jim House, there is a need to clearly indicate clearly that the Veterinary Medical Practice Act “specifically exempts horseshoeing, and to exempt the less invasive equine dentistry. Anytime medication is needed for a horse, a veterinarian should be required” (Moritz, 2010, 3). Inclusion of these two practices would be beneficial for the economic and financial support of local community residents’ status, especially of horse owners, requiring frequent care and upkeep of their horses. In addition, by recognizing the experience gained by traditional farriers and equine dentists, these professions would actually be supportive of veterinarian’s scope of responsibilities. As proposed, when any medications need to be prescribed, the professional care of the veterinarians would be sought to prevent any harm for the horses. Conclusion State legislations and laws must support the needs and concerns of local community residents in terms of identifying areas which would support and sustain their means of livelihood, rather than, restricting them. While the Arkansas Veterinary Medical Practice Act defines specific guidelines to protect the welfare of the animals and their owners from sub-standard veterinary practices, state policy makers must evaluate and weigh the repercussions of the provisions in terms of their effect on traditional practices that have benefitted the community for a long time. Farriers and equine dentists have been practicing in Arkansas and have consistently assisted and helped horses and their owners for routine tasks that do not necessarily require licensed veterinarians to undertake. A cost benefit analysis of the proposed amendment should enlighten the members of the House Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development (HCAFED) on the ethical consequences in terms of utilitarian theory focusing on the amendments proposed ability to accord the greatest benefit to a greater number of people. Works Cited Arkansas Veterinary Act. Code 17-101-102 9A. 2010. Web. 17 November 2010. < http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusarst17_101_101_314.htm> Bowden, Bill. Law: No professional horseshoers State legislator, a farrier, wants law to reflect current practice. 27 September 2010. Web. 17 November 2010. < http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2010/sep/27/law-no-professional-horseshoers-20100927/#comments> Moritz, Rob. Vet Law Changes Sought. 27 September 2010. Web. 16 November 2010. < http://www.swtimes.com/news/article_e5a9704e-ca3d-11df-a547-001cc4c03286.html> Read More