Committee weighs narrowing owner exemption amid concerns about rescue and shelter practices; raises fines for unlicensed practice

The committee examined a package of proposals from the unlicensed-practice subcommittee intended to reduce unintended use of the owner exemption in the Veterinary Practice Act. Members said they drafted changes after stakeholder meetings with equine and small-animal practitioners and with shelter and rescue groups, which reported different concerns about how the exemption is used.

Why it matters: The owner exemption historically protected owners and certain agricultural operations (for example, producers of livestock) from being treated as practicing veterinary medicine. Subcommittee members said some rescue groups and nonlicensed providers have used the exemption to perform dental procedures, surgeries, or other clinical work without veterinary oversight; those activities have sometimes caused animal harm and are difficult to discipline under current law.

Proposed changes and discussion: The subcommittee proposed narrowing the exemption so it applies only to owners of ‘‘food animals’’ or livestock used for production, and to add clearer carve-outs for ordinary owner or caretaker activities. The proposed revisions include: - Defining livestock to exclude animals usually kept as pets (examples cited: dogs, cats, companion birds) while providing language to address equine cases used in production or competitive contexts. - An explicit allowance for administering medications under a written treatment plan prepared by a licensed veterinarian (intended to protect boarding facilities or caretakers administering prescribed medication, while not permitting diagnosis or unsupervised practice). - A new, narrow exemption allowing owners, employees, or designated caretakers to administer nonprescription drugs (over-the-counter products) to animals without being deemed to have practiced veterinary medicine.

Debate and stakeholder responses: Shelter and rescue representatives cautioned that narrowing the exemption could restrict access to essential and timely care, especially in rural or underserved areas and for nonprofit shelters that rely on volunteers to care for animals. Several representatives urged the committee to prioritize enforcement improvements, education, or better oversight rather than eliminating the exemption. Equine practitioners and some board members argued the exemption is too broad and is being misused, particularly where organized rescue groups or commercial breeders perform clinical procedures.

Penalty changes: Separately, the committee recommended statutory changes to increase and remove the current per-violation cap on unlicensed-practice citations. Under current law a cap limits individual citation amounts; the subcommittee collected comparative data from other states and recommended removing the cap so multi-pet or repeat violations could be fined in proportion to the harm or number of animals affected. The committee voted to recommend the proposed changes to the board and to the Legislature.

Next steps: The subcommittee will refine language and consult with appropriate stakeholders — including the California Department of Food and Agriculture where relevant — before returning with a proposal for the board and for possible legislative submission.

Ending: The committee moved the unlicensed-practice proposals to the board with recommendations to refine definitions, draft protective carve-outs for routine owner actions, and increase citation penalties; the committee also flagged the need for further stakeholder engagement.