Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/23/2012 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB251 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 300 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 251 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 251-PRACTICE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE
3:24:28 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the only order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 251, "An Act relating to
the Board of Veterinary Examiners and the practice of veterinary
medicine."
3:24:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 251, labeled 27-LS1062\R,
Martin, 3/20/12.
CHAIR OLSON objected for purpose of discussion. [Version R was
before the committee.]
3:25:21 PM
ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, Alaska State
Legislature, explained the changes in the proposed CS for HB
251, Version R, as it relates to Version D. She noted that some
concern had been expressed about the language "or country" on
page 1, line 11 of Version D. This language has been deleted in
Version R. She stated that Version R also deletes language that
removed the veterinary board oversight of Alaska licensed
veterinarians practicing uncompensated care. In other words, it
would put veterinarians who are practicing uncompensated care
back under the purview of the board. She stated that Version R
deletes language limiting the Board to determine the license
status of a person and deletes the immunity clause.
MS. KREITZER stated that Section 2 was confusing since there
were two terms pertaining to nonmonetary compensation so the
term "nonmonetary donations" was removed. Uncompensated
practice does not include reimbursement for actual expenses or
other nonmonetary consideration.
MS. KREITZER related that Version R deletes the language in
Section 2 of Version D - with respect to the surrender and
reinstatement of a license - as a result of testimony given at
the last meeting. Additionally, the sponsor deleted the words
"or experimental" from page 2, lines 22-26 of Version R.
Version D had the language negligent conduct solely on the
experimental or unconventional nature of the licensee's
practice. She explained that this language is in the medical
statutes but it made some people uncomfortable.
MS. KREITZER stated that on page 3, lines 13-14 of Version R
corrects a drafter's error which corrects that the notice of a
complaint describing the allegation shall be sent to the
licensee and not the complainant. Section 4 would create a new
section that requires the Board of Veterinary Examiners (BVE),
in conjunction with the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED), to prepare a report on the
availability of veterinary services in rural Alaska. She
indicated the report is due to the legislature by December 31,
2012. The BVE must consult with the Alaska Federation of
Natives (AFN) in preparing the report. She related that some
testimony by veterinarians indicated that if the state would pay
their way they would go to rural Alaska. The language in
Version R says the solution should not be the expenditure of
additional state funds.
3:28:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER commended the changes improved HB 251
considerably. He referred to page 1, Section 1, which states
that veterinarians must work within the scope of their license.
He referred to page 2, line 25, which speaks in terms of "...
negligent conduct solely on the unconventional nature...." He
related his understanding that if a veterinarian is practicing
within the scope of their license, the language of
unconventional would not really apply.
MS. KREITZER answered that there is a section that identifies
the standard of care, which indicates basically what another
veterinarian might do. She suggested that a veterinarian may be
practicing within the scope of their practice, but the
conventional nature aspect may differ between practitioners.
She offered to identify the specific language for members.
3:31:10 PM
DIANE PREZIOSI, Veterinarian, Alaska Veterinary Specialists of
Alaska; President, Alaska Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
stated that she graduated from the University of Missouri in
1992, and has practiced in Texas, Missouri, and Alaska. She has
practiced as a small animal practitioner and has gone on to
specialty practice in dermatology. She has also lectured to
students, veterinarians, and lay people in Alaska. She said she
has clients in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Matanuska-Susitna valley,
Delta Junction, Tok, Barrow, Nome, Bethel, Kodiak, Dutch Harbor,
Haines, Petersburg, Juneau, Cordova, Valdez, and Kotzebue. She
has flown to the Bush on one occasion with Dr. Jim Leach to see
patients. She offered that she does pro bono work with the
Alaska Zoo and Bird TLC in Anchorage. Speaking on behalf of the
Alaska Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), she stated that
veterinarians take an oath, which reads, "to use our scientific
knowledge and our skills for the benefit of society through the
protection of animal health and welfare, the prevention and
relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal
resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement
of medical knowledge." She indicated the AVMA supports any
effort that brings better service to the citizens of Alaska who
own animals no matter where they are. She related that the AVMA
realizes some areas in Alaska are without fulltime veterinary
care and small communities cannot support a fulltime
veterinarian and may be reliant on fly-in services or other
methods of care. Several veterinarians serve the larger rural
communities off the road system, but that still leaves many
smaller villages without adequate care. Although the AVMA would
like to see all animals receive routine care, the AVMA cannot
support a bill that erodes adequate standards of care. Under
the current statutes and regulations, Article 2, AS 08.98.120,
licensing is required in the state when a veterinarian practices
in Alaska.
3:34:42 PM
DR. PREZIOSI stated that Section 4 establishes standards for the
practice of veterinary medicine under the powers and duties of
the BVE. Ms. Kreitzer discussed the standards of care such that
veterinarians approach a medical or surgical case in various
ways.
The committee took a brief at-ease due to technical
difficulties.
3:35:39 PM
DR. PREZIOSI continued. She said she thought some
misconceptions exist with respect to veterinarians providing
care. Further, she stated that some people thought a
veterinarian would be prosecuted for handling a case in a
specific manner; however, she related there are many ways to
provide veterinarian care. She also thought there has been some
misconception about veterinarians providing oversight over other
veterinarians, but that simply is not the case.
DR. PREZIOSI referred to proposed Section 1 [of Version R],
which would allow a veterinarian not licensed in Alaska to
practice in the state so long as they were not compensated by
wages. She said this would not ensure the veterinarian is
licensed or is in good standing in another state. She explained
that a mechanism currently exists to verify a veterinarian's
licensure and standing in another state; however, this control
would be lost under the bill. She reiterated that this bill
does not provide any assurance the person volunteering to
provide veterinary care in Alaska is in good standing in another
jurisdiction.
3:37:30 PM
DR. PREZIOSI questioned how an owner could make a complaint if
the veterinarian is not registered in the state. She also asked
how an owner could get copies of a record or a prescription.
She further asked and who would pay for any investigation of
volunteer veterinarians. She then indicated the BVE and
licensees' fees pay for the BVE and any investigations.
Further, the AVMA believes it is unjust to use Alaska
veterinarians' license fees to support those who are allowed to
practice without paying any fees, particularly since the
veterinarians' license fees are already high. She related that
monetary compensation is still undefined for such compensation
as a hunt, a cabin, or a plane ride. She questioned the reason
these volunteer veterinarians are absolved from licensure. She
further questioned how voluntary veterinarians' activities would
be monitored to ensure they are confined to the rural areas and
do not practice in Anchorage, Juneau, Fairbanks, or the Kenai
Peninsula.
3:39:00 PM
DR. PREZIOSI referred to proposed Section 2 [Version R] of the
bill with respect to the grounds for imposition of disciplinary
sanctions. She reported the AVMA has numerous concerns. She
said that just because repeated professional incompetence has
not yet harmed an animal does not mean it will never be a
problem. She related a scenario in which a person could spay
animals using unsterilized equipment, which she said will
eventually cause a problem. She predicted that it may not kill
the first animal, but eventually an animal will die due to poor
surgical procedures. She questioned whether it is necessary to
wait for an animal's death from poor practice before taking
action. She stated that adding gross negligence and negligent
misconduct seems to raises the bar significantly to prove
incompetence making it very difficult to prosecute. She
indicated that the term "unconventional" is not defined and
should be or other language should be inserted to indicate the
term will be defined by the BVE.
3:40:28 PM
DR. PREZIOSI remarked that veterinarians do not police another
veterinarian's cases. She pointed out the varied practices,
including that some veterinarians employ homeopathy,
acupuncture, and Chinese herbal remedies, in addition to Western
medicine. Many would consider these practices as
unconventional; however, the veterinarians using Western
medicine do not try to police those who choose less conventional
forms of medical therapies although veterinarians do expect
standards to be followed. She suggested that having the term
"unconventional" defined by the BVE would be consistent with AS
08.98.050, which gives the board the authority to establish
standards for the practice of veterinary medicine.
3:41:28 PM
DR. PREZIOSI referred to proposed Section 3 of HB 251, which
relates to complaints, investigations, and hearings for
veterinarians. She offered that this provision establishes
guidelines for complaints and subsequent handling of the
complaints, which could be beneficial. She outlined the AVMA's
concerns. She questioned, specifically, which entity is
responsible for expenses for interviews under oath for all the
outlying parties. Additionally, she suggested the limitation on
who can lodge a complaint can be problematic. She indicated if
a trend of misconduct is suspected by someone not directly
involved in the care or ownership of the animals in question.
She related a scenario in which an animal is spayed in the Bush,
but the ureter is tied off during the surgery. She said the
animal will die within the next week. She questioned whether
the owner will understand the reason the animal died and who
will report the veterinarian's poor performance. She reiterated
that under HB 251 only the owner can report the complaint, but
if someone associated with the animal or in the village sees a
pattern these people will have no right or recourse to report
the problem.
3:43:05 PM
DR. PREZIOSI turned to proposed Section 4 of HB 251. She stated
that the AVMA would support any ongoing dialogue to address
veterinary needs in Bush Alaska. She said AS 08.98.050 (7),
reads, "As requested by the department, monitor the standards
and availability of veterinary services provided in the state
and report its findings to the department." She reiterated that
this is current statute. She suggested that the proposed
language that requests the report on availability of veterinary
services in rural Alaska seems redundant except it requires the
information by [December 31, 2012] and asks the BVE to consult
with AFN when preparing the report. She asked if the board
should also be consulting with the Alaska Veterinary Medical
Association and the Interior Veterinary Medical Association.
She reported that there is also a newly formed group, the Alaska
Rural Veterinary Outreach, who seeks to bring care to rural
communities. She questioned who will pay for the proposed
study. She wondered in the event HB 251 passes whose funds will
be spent and how the veterinarian services will be delivered to
the Bush.
3:44:35 PM
DR. PREZIOSI pointed out that veterinarians under the bill are
not licensed in the state and cannot legally give rabies
vaccinations. She stated that these "not for compensation"
veterinarians will not be covered under other states' statutes
related to licensed veterinarians. She concluded that the
issues present significant health concerns that impact not only
animal public health but also human health and welfare. She
stated that the AVMA believes this bill could ultimately be a
disservice to Alaskans by opening the door to substandard
veterinary care. She related that the AVMA is eager to work
with any interested group to provide qualify veterinary care in
rural Alaska.
3:45:45 PM
ROCKY L. JAMES, Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in Tribal Government,
testified in support of veterinarians providing services in
rural villages in Alaska. He said he consulted with community
members via the radio and heard back from them. He reported the
current animal count in Fort Yukon is 178 dogs and 3 cats. He
added that Fort Yukon will also have some chickens this summer.
Most of the concerns expressed by villagers are related to a
desire to have licensed veterinarians come to the village to
administer rabies shots, document the dogs, and spay dogs. The
villagers also expressed concern that lots of dogs not
registered since the dogs must be sent to Fairbanks to do so and
to receive medicines if they are sick or injured. He thanked
the committee for considering HB 251. He related his
understanding that some veterinarians would like to perform
services in rural Alaska and this bill would make it easier to
work with the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) to find
solutions for veterinary care. He reported that about three
years ago a veterinarian visited and performed services.
Further about 30 years ago, Johnny Thomas, who worked for the
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), was trained to administer rabies
shots and kept records. Mr. Thomas traveled to Circle, Arctic
Village, Venetia, Beaver, and Stevens Village to reduce rabies
and parvovirus incidence. He concluded by stating that the
Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in Tribal Government and community would
like to see the bill pass.
3:49:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked him to describe the general result
of having visiting veterinarians come to the village and perform
routine services.
MR. JAMES answered that he personally has three dogs, but one
died last summer. He stated that the village had the facilities
to accommodate the veterinarians. He reported that the
community was very supportive and paid the airline fares for the
veterinarian. Additionally, the experience was educational for
Fort Yukon students since they were invited to participate in
documenting the dogs and cats in the village. He said at least
one or two students wanted to continue with veterinarian
services. However, the veterinary service has stopped and the
village is concerned about diseases the dogs may contract, which
could easily spread.
3:52:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER related his understanding that the
voluntary veterinarian did an adequate job and satisfied the
villagers and documented the animals.
MR. JAMES answered that the villager was very satisfied with the
work. He noted that there may even be more than 178 dogs in the
village as he may have missed some.
CHAIR OLSON inquired as to why there are only three cats in the
village.
MR. JAMES concluded by thanking the committee and hoped for
progress. He offered to inform the community about today's
hearing.
3:53:39 PM
JAMES DELKER, Veterinarian, Past President; Alaska Veterinary
Medical Association (AVMA), stated he is providing follow-up
testimony to Dr. Preziosi, who outlined the AVMA's concerns very
well. He reiterated some concerns, noting Section 2 and 3 of
the bill are protective of veterinarians and make it more
restrictive to pursue disciplinary actions against veterinarian
malpractice across the state. He emphasized that ethically the
veterinarians are concerned with adequately protecting rights of
Alaskans to lodge complaints for medical malpractice within
veterinary medicine. While some parts of Section 2 and 3 of HB
are appealing at first glance, he said he was uncertain whether
the provisions are in the best interests of Alaskans. He
specifically referred to Section 4 and said he was unsure if a
study is really necessary.
3:56:04 PM
DR. DELKER offered his belief everyone is aware that rural
Alaska needs services and the debate currently is focused on how
to best provide the necessary services and the financial
support. He acknowledged that the standards of care can happen
in field medicine. He said it seems apparent from Section 4
that state funds would not be used so the hurdle is how to
obtain the funds. He questioned whether nonprofits would
provide the funding. He suggested that the Alaska Rural
Veterinary Outreach, Inc. (ARVO) is probably the best
organization to address the rural veterinary care issue. He
recalled other organizations have tried to provide similar
services in rural Alaska, but the formula ARVO uses includes
using Alaska veterinarians licensed in the state. He offered
his belief this will avoid many issues and problems surrounding
providing rural veterinary care using volunteer veterinarians
not licensed in Alaska. He indicated issues have arisen by
using Lower 48 veterinarians since they provide periodic care
and may come in once or twice a year to communities with little
follow-up care. He pointed out that the ARVO is working to set
up a process for periodic service, follow-up care, and phone
support outside the veterinarians' visits. He applauded the
sponsor's intentions by introducing HB 251 and commended the
sponsor and staff for their intentions.
3:58:31 PM
KEN HILL, Veterinarian, Waterways Veterinary Clinic, stated that
he has a rural veterinary practice that serves communities of
Cordova, Petersburg, Wrangell, Thorne Bay, Elfin Cove, Haines,
Skagway, and Hoonah. He related in his experience that offering
free veterinary services in areas in which other veterinarians
have established a practice can be very disruptive to veterinary
practices. He explained that the voluntary veterinarians often
perform spays, neuters, and vaccinations, which can be
disruptive to the established veterinarian since they are
uncertain which services communities will need until they
arrive, yet the veterinarian incurs the same travel costs to the
communities. He suggested that members should be cautious about
allowing volunteer veterinarians to provide services in areas
with an established rural practice since it does not serve the
communities at all when someone else comes in. He offered his
belief that the work tends to be spotty and does not provide the
full range of veterinary services. He described his practice,
such that he performs spays, neuters, vaccinations, performs
surgeries, dentistry, prevention, problem solves, including
anticipating problems the animals may develop. He said the
continuity of care is lacking with volunteer veterinarians since
the same veterinarian may not visit the communities.
4:02:40 PM
DR. HILL elaborated that he usually brings in substantial
equipment, including anesthesia, dentistry, and surgical unit
important for more complicated surgeries to rural communities.
He related that if a veterinarian visited Fort Yukon or another
community that he/she would be able to do some of the more
complicated surgeries if the veterinarian had the same kind of
equipment. He offered his belief that a volunteer would not
likely include this type of service. He emphasized the
importance of having more specialized services offered by a
veterinarian who knows the communities' needs.
4:04:04 PM
DR. HILL recalled Mr. James mentioning in earlier testimony the
importance of documentation. He offered that he brings
computers and enters all the records of animals and documents
any rabies and distemper shots administered. Additionally, he
can provide copies of these records upon request by the owner or
referral. He doubted whether a visiting veterinarian from
another state could do so, as well as whether they could also
provide telephone follow-up consultations. He concluded by
stating that type of care would be reduced by volunteer
veterinarians.
4:06:02 PM
JIM LEACH, Veterinarian, Trail Doc, said he has been in practice
for a number of years and is licensed in numerous other states,
including Missouri and California, which gives him varied
experience. He stated that he initially came to Alaska in the
early 70s and his practice extended from Nome to Eagle and from
Seward to Bethel via airplane travel. He reported that he has
held clinics in communities on the Aleutian Chain and in
Yakutat. He offered his belief that two separate issues have
arisen - nonlicensed care and providing service to outlying
communities. He offered during his 35 years of offering
veterinary services to rural Alaska that he has had very good
relationships with villagers, including that many help organize
his clinics and assist on clinic day. He acknowledged one of
the difficulties is the cost of travel since aviation gas is so
costly. He recalled earlier testimony from a villager in Fort
Yukon indicating the village paid for a round-trip ticket for
the veterinarian to travel. He suggested that Section 4 of HB
251 could be amended if villages could provide some compensation
for travel.
4:09:25 PM
DR. LEACH stated that much of Alaska's veterinary care is
unique. He said normal care is given at a veterinary hospital,
but that type of facility is not available in the Bush so care
is handled differently. He suggested a non-Alaskan veterinarian
may not understand how to handle vaccines to ensure they are
still viable vaccines. He expressed concern about non-licensed
veterinarians practicing in the state, which is a serious matter
since without BVE's licensure and oversight non-Alaskan
veterinarians may not understand the difficulties in providing
veterinarian services in rural Alaska. He further suggested
veterinarians in the state should work directly with villagers
rather than through AFN to address their needs. He also
expressed concern about the lack oversight by the BVE. He
acknowledged the veterinary service is needed but pointed out it
is costly to fund the village clinics and that issue needs to be
addressed.
4:12:13 PM
HAYDEN NEVILL, Veterinarian, agreed the veterinary care needs is
significant in rural Alaska. He stated that HB 251 has
significant problems. He offered his belief that the bill's
sponsor does not have a good grasp of what standard of care
means. He stated that removing the word "experimental" does not
resolve the issue of people not being informed in instances in
which the animal is receiving unusual treatment. He suggested
that as a veterinarian it is his responsibility to inform
clients if they are receiving unconventional treatment.
Alaskans have the right to know if their pets are getting
unconventional treatment, he said. He highlighted that the bill
would limit reporting requirements which guts some protections
Alaskans have. He related his understanding that HB 251 does
not protect people against dangerous drugs used in food animals,
inactive rabies vaccines being used, or controlled drugs not
being handled properly resulting in the drugs ending up on the
street. The bill would require that the BVE make a report to
the AFN, which he agreed is a great idea. He suggested that if
the BVE is required to do this that the funding should also be
available to cover the expenses of that report.
4:13:57 PM
DR. NEVILL remarked that the no bill will fix the problem of
poor veterinary care in the villages. He offered his belief
that the issue of rural veterinary care is not a legislative
issue but one of people needing to work together. He suggested
that the AFN and other interested groups work with the Alaska
Veterinary Association (AVA) to organize and hold clinics in
villages. He highlighted that plenty of interested parties
could hold clinics, including the ARVO and other people who take
a professional approach to veterinary care. He emphasized that
this problem is not a legislative issue and continuing to pursue
this bill is a waste of resources. He concluded that there are
better ways to address the problem of veterinary care in the
villages.
4:14:57 PM
SARAH LOVE, Veterinarian, Veterinary Internal Medicine of
Alaska, stated that she is a small animal veterinary internist
who practices in Fairbanks and Anchorage. She did not wish to
repeat testimony, but offered to highlight some important
points. She said everyone is aware rural health care is an
important issue, but it is a huge undertaking, even in areas as
close to larger communities, such as Fort Yukon. She referred
to Section 1 of HB 251 and suggested the committee further
evaluate other Alaska boards and professions, such as law,
medicine and dentistry, with respect to unlicensed practice.
She offered her belief that these professions would not allow
professionals from other states to practice in Alaska without
consent and oversight. She characterized that infringement as
demeaning to the veterinary profession as a whole. She stated
that no veterinarian she knows would expect to practice in
another state without licensure.
4:16:32 PM
DR. LOVE referred to Section 2 of HB 251 would allow any
individual licensed by the BVE has the right to maintain his/her
license or not. She related that individuals could surrender or
allow their licenses to lapse without consequence, regardless of
their standing with the board, which she supported. However,
she questioned whether this bill was written with a single
individual in mind. She said she did not believe that laws
should be changed to address the needs of one person. She
referred to Section 3 of the bill, which further defines
professional incompetence, which would allow for a broad
interpretation of the term and could lead to unacceptable and
possibly unethical care. She related the committee discussed
the term "unconventional" as it pertains to a clinical setting
in urban Alaska. This bill does not give permission for
substandard care to occur in rural Alaska. She acknowledged
that veterinarians must make do and are very creative in
developing their field practices, but to allow substandard
practices to, take place simply due to location is unacceptable.
4:18:01 PM
DR. LOVE referred to Section 4 of HB 251 and stated that no
Alaskan should be prevented from making a complaint. She
emphasized that any citizen - and not just the owner - should be
able to make complaints to the board. She pointed out that
significant public health concerns could arise. Further,
additional reporting may not be necessary since some services
are availability, but the important thing is to figure out how
to get services to rural Alaska and fund them. She has worked
in rural Alaska as a veterinarian and as an educator. She
characterized the veterinary needs as huge and the issue as
complex, but holding veterinarians to a sensible standard of
care and allowing protection for Alaska's animals and citizens
is of utmost importance. She offered her belief that this bill
does not address this.
4:19:09 PM
GERALD RILEY stated that he is an Alaskan Native musher,
fisherman, and has worked as a captain on push boats. He said
he is an elder from Nenana and would like to speak in support of
HB 251 since he is concerned about the dangerous lack of
veterinary care in remote Native communities. He suggested that
most of the rural communities go several years between
veterinary visits. He highlighted that it has been three or
four years since Nenana has had a visiting veterinarian. Many
of the same communities without veterinary care have had their
rabies vaccination program cut by the state since 2007, which
leaves thee communities completely unprotected and vulnerable to
disease. He related that TCC cannot help either. He predicted
that if HB 251 does not pass the situation will not get any
better so the community cannot drop the issue. When there is a
lack of veterinarian care disease and parasites can spread to
people. He concluded by saying that Nenana should not have to
beg for these life-saving services.
4:20:42 PM
HAROLD DAVID stated that his community is in a similar
circumstance as Fort Yukon and other rural areas that lack
veterinary services. The village has had to pay to have
veterinarian services. He said he is a local dog musher, and
along with other members of the Dog Mushers Association have
close to 200 dogs in the village. He expressed concern about an
increase in diseases, such as parvo that have been killing off
the pups. He also expressed concern that the village needs
veterinary care to sustain healthy dogs that can produce good
pups. He concluded that the village needs veterinarians to come
to the village just as Fort Yukon and Nenana residents
testified. He urged members to support HB 251.
4:22:57 PM
VICKI MOYLE, Executive Director, Nenana Council on Aging,
related that the council cares for the elderly and disabled,
many of whom have pets. She stated that they previously had a
rural veterinarian visit and set up a clinic near the senior
center. She recalled the last visit was in 2009. She said she
wrote letter to BVE to point out their needs, but she did not
receive an answer. She recalled that the prior veterinarian had
some grant money that would help cover costs to neuter and spay.
He gave immunizations, cleaned animal's teeth, provided spay and
neuter services - sometimes without charging a fee. He also
performed surgery in sterile environments. She offered her
belief that comparing the quality of care between rural and
urban Alaska is like comparing apples and oranges. Since Nenana
does not have veterinarian services, the community has
experienced an increase in unwanted pups and stray dogs. She
pointed out that many people live on fixed income and the cost
of gasoline is high. She offered her belief that instead of
taking their animals to health care, often times they go without
care. She recalled earlier testimony about visiting
veterinarians. She pointed out that when the veterinarian
visited her community experienced fewer strays, records were
kept, the veterinarian provided diagnostics and surgeries, and
an assistant kept records. She characterized the previous
program as a good one. She emphasized that no one has been able
to fill the gap once their veterinarian stopped coming. She
acknowledged funding as an issue. She recalled that some people
would pay more to cover the costs of those that could not pay
for services. She concluded her testimony by offering that the
when her community had veterinarian services the number of
strays were reduced drastically, the animals received much
better care, and the veterinarian was respected. She remarked
that some people will always complain. She offered her support
and the support of her clients for HB 251. She asked members to
look at the positive things in the bill since it all boils down
to a need for care in rural communities.
4:28:11 PM
LORRAINE LANDERS stated that she is a musher, but also works in
the Indian Health Services system. She testified in support of
HB 251. She did not want to repeat testimony, but echoed a
longstanding argument of why things are done differently in
Alaska. She stated that some arguments used against this bill
are ones that have been used against establishing programs for
community and dental health aides. She said that community and
dental health aide programs have had a great deal of success and
has translated to people receiving consistent standards of care
in villages. She suggested that animals need to have similar
care. She argued against imposing stricter standards for
veterinary care in villages. She said she also considers
veterinary care as a public health care issue since the
incidence of rabies continues to climb in Alaska. Additionally,
more children have been bitten by an excessive number of animals
in the villages. She finds that some people feel
disenfranchised and neglected since they suffer with their
animals. She related a scenario in which a child is very
attached to dog and the dog gets parvovirus or rabies, but there
is not a veterinarian in the village to euthanize an animal the
only option is to kill the animal. Thus children are impacted
in big ways and the memories linger. She emphasized that this
situation creates a level of desperation and unless a person has
lived through the experience cannot know what it feels like.
She emphasized that things become desperate at times especially
since this is a state and country with resources. She viewed HB
251 as a prescriptive formula for future care. She recalled she
once had a dog with an eye infection and went to the hospital
for advice. The hospital staff suggested that she clean her
dog's eyes with baby shampoo and that solution worked and how
wonderful it was to have her dog's eyes fixed. She related that
she had called veterinarians long distance for advice, but they
were not able to help her since the veterinarians could not see
the dog. She then said, "That is not helpful." She asked the
committee to please consider HB 251, which would allow people to
be empowered since so many animals are part of our families.
4:34:04 PM
LINDA JOHNSON stated she is a small kennel owner and
recreational musher. She asked to testify in support of HB 251.
She said the bill is long overdue and is a step in the right
direction. She said it has been interesting to listen to the
veterinarians. She asked to thank the villagers for their
testimony. She agreed with Ms. Landers and Ms. Moyle's
comments. She witnessed a veterinarian who held a clinic,
performed surgeries, vaccinations, and did a professional job,
which the community appreciated. She predicted that if it were
left up to the veterinarians in Alaska, Manley Hot Springs would
not have any help whatsoever. She pointed out that she respects
veterinarians and has used them in Fairbanks and Anchorage, but
none of them are able to help her community. She stated that HB
251 is a step in the right direction. She related her
understanding that money is an issue, but it should not prevent
the issue from moving forward. She said she hopes the committee
will consider the needs of the people in rural Alaska. She
predicted that if the veterinary care issues are not addressed
that people will get ill and it will ultimately affect human
health.
4:36:59 PM
TOM KNUDSON stated that he owns sled dog with health problems,
including that the dog has blood in its feces. He said he
called four veterinarians in Fairbanks for advice in treating
his dog. He said he let them know he would be glad to sign a
hold harmless letter, but he still did not get help. He said
his dog is lying on the rug right now. He related his
understanding that it is just a matter of time before his dog
dies. He pointed out that what goes on in Fairbanks is
different from what happens in his village.
CHAIR OLSON responded that he is also a dog owner so he
understands how he feels.
4:38:31 PM
GREGORY TAYLOR stated that he is an Alaska fisherman and dog
musher. He asked to testify in support of HB 251. He thinks
this bill will help communities.
4:39:46 PM
PAM REDDINGTON stated that she has been a dog musher for many
years. She asked to testify in support of HB 251. She
explained that veterinary care in rural areas very important
especially in areas not on road system. She acknowledged the
cost and time involved to try to get animals to veterinary care.
She emphasized the importance to have veterinarians come to the
villages. She said it has been over six years since her
community has had veterinary care. She commented that the
veterinary care was excellent and people depended on the
veterinarian. She said the legislature needs to work with AFN
on this bill in order to have a better standard of care in rural
Alaska. She stressed that this is not just about care standards
for animals but also for humans.
4:41:42 PM
MR. TAYLOR said he does not understand why private veterinarians
are so threatened by HB 251. He said that the villages
sometimes go years without veterinary care. He said, "Everyone
in the world supports this bill except a small group of business
owners." He listed AFN, Doyon, Limited, TCC, Fairbanks Native
Association and the Humane Society as supportive of the bill.
He thanked the legislature for protecting the rural communities
from the obviously greedy people who oppose HB 251. He offered
his belief that the BVE and its supporters do not care about
standards, but only care about protecting their pocketbooks. He
reiterated his concern that the BVE is self-serving and self-
interested. He said if HB 251 does not pass it lends support to
establish a rural veterinary board to represent rural Alaskans.
He hopes his legislative representatives support the people. He
further thought that the veterinarians put more effort towards
opposing the bill than to help protect rural Alaskans.
4:44:13 PM
CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 251.
[HB 251 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SSHB251 Draft Proposed CS ver R.pdf |
HL&C 3/23/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| SSHB251 Sponsor Statement for Draft Proposed CS ver R.pdf |
HL&C 3/23/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| SSHB251 Changes from Draft Proposed CS ver D to ver R.pdf |
HL&C 3/23/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| SSHB251 Sectional Analysis for Draft Proposed CS ver R.pdf |
HL&C 3/23/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| SSHB251 Supporting Documents-Letters of Support.pdf |
HL&C 3/23/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| SSHB251 Opposing Documents-North Pole Veterinary Hospital 3-22-12.pdf |
HL&C 3/23/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| SSHB251 Supporting Documents-List of Supporters.pdf |
HL&C 3/23/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| SSHB251 Opposing Documents-Email J Delker 3-23-12.pdf |
HL&C 3/23/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| SSHB251 Other Documents-Email response from DCCED.pdf |
HL&C 3/23/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 251 |