Veterinary board backs narrower owner-exemption language, sends legislative proposal to Legislature

The California Veterinary Medical Board voted on May 20 to send a legislative proposal to the California Legislature that narrows the owner-exemption provisions in the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act and adds a new definition for “rescue group,” board members said.

The proposal would amend Business and Professions Code section 4827 to limit the broad application of the owner exemption, reserve specific exemptions for owners and caretakers administering medications to their own animals when done pursuant to a written treatment plan and a valid veterinary-client-patient relationship (VCPR), and add a statutory definition of “rescue group.” The board’s Medical Doctor Committee (MDC) and subcommittees drafted the text following months of stakeholder meetings.

Board leaders said the change aims to reduce instances of unlicensed practice that the board and stakeholders described as occurring in rescues, some equine settings and reproductive-service businesses, while preserving limited owner and caretaker activities for animals under a VCPR.

MDC Chair Marie Asuri summarized the subcommittee’s outreach and edits, saying the draft was shaped by meetings with food-animal stakeholders, representatives of rescue groups, UC Davis faculty and equine interests. The proposal’s text was revised to allow protocols to be written by a California-licensed veterinarian, an AVMA-accredited university veterinary medicine program, or state or national shelter medicine organizations, language added in response to public comment.

The board discussed written public comments and in-person testimony at length. Dr. Kate Hurley of the UC Davis Center for Companion Animal Health told the MDC that rescue groups and responsible breeders manage large populations and should be treated like shelters for some exemptions, but expressed concern that changes could push activity underground without adequate oversight. MDC members incorporated those concerns by including a new rescue-group definition modeled on existing food-animal code sections and by requiring written protocols and training where appropriate.

Stakeholders from the food-animal and equine communities told the board they generally supported narrowing the owner exemption to livestock or food animals, urged keeping equines distinct in some contexts, and suggested creating a mid-level practitioner pathway for reproductive services to address veterinarian shortages in remote areas.

Public speakers included Bonnie Lutz, who urged caution about scanning microchips and confidentiality (public comment recorded May 20), and Dan Baxter of the California Veterinary Medical Association, who urged careful distinction between first-aid and veterinary practice in drafting exemptions. Coalition leader Karen Atlas urged the board to consider alternative approaches that would permit veterinarians to delegate or refer to other qualified animal-health practitioners under supervision; the board did not adopt that change.

After discussion, a motion to submit the proposal as amended was put forward and seconded. The roll-call vote recorded on the transcript was: Miss Pawlowski — yes; Doctor Bradbury — yes; Mister Espinosa — yes; Doctor Grant — yes; Renminiak — no; Doctor Solicito — yes. The chair announced the motion carried.

The legislative text sent to the Legislature includes: (1) limiting the owner exemption to livestock/food-animal contexts; (2) adding a new statutory definition for “rescue group;” (3) allowing protocols to be adopted from a licensed California veterinarian, an AVMA-accredited veterinary medicine program, or recognized shelter-medicine authorities; and (4) clarifying that certain medication administration by owners and designated caretakers must follow a written treatment plan prepared by a veterinarian with whom a VCPR exists. The MDC also clarified that rescue groups were intentionally excluded from a specific subdivision (A5C) because rescue groups are not registered veterinary premises and do not maintain tracked medication supplies in the same way shelters do.

What the board did not approve: the board did not add a statutory exemption to permit veterinarians to refer care to non-veterinarian professionals outside of a veterinarian’s supervision; that idea was proposed by some commenters and coalitions but was not included in the package the board approved to send to the Legislature.

Next steps and context: the board directed staff and the MDC to forward the approved legislative language to the Legislature as part of the board’s 2025 legislative proposals. The transcript shows the MDC and board intend further outreach—particularly with CDFA and shelter-medicine stakeholders—before and during the legislative process to refine operational details such as protocol development, training, and liability.

The vote concludes a months-long MDC effort that the chair said included stakeholder meetings on Oct. 2024 (equine community), Jan. 2025 (small-animal stakeholders), and direct subcommittee meetings with food-animal stakeholders on March 10, 2025. The board’s action now moves the proposal into the formal legislative review process.

(Reporting note: direct quotes and speaker attributions in this story appear where the transcript explicitly identifies the speaker.)