Changes to Alberta’s veterinary act could become law next year.
The Alberta Veterinary Medical Association wants a more specific definition of its duties, although some livestock owners say the changes could result in a monopoly over animal care.
An open letter from Danny Joffe, president of the Alberta veterinary association, said the proposed changes would not take anything away from therapists or alternative practitioners. The current act includes a list of additional practices that others besides vets may perform on animals.
“There is no move to change any of the exemptions to the legislation and there is no alteration to scope of practice that will in any way interfere with the activities of anyone working under other provincial legislation,” said Joffe’s letter.
Read Also
Why selenium is still an important factor in horse health
Selenium is an essential equine trace mineral that supports antioxidant defense, muscle integrity, immune function, metabolism and thyroid activity.
The request for change is based on a 2004 court case that ruled horse dentistry did not have to be performed exclusively by veterinarians. The court told the association it needed a more definitive list of veterinary duties.
Exemptions in the legislation will not be changed and some could be added, said Linda Park of the department of human resources that administers the act.
Changes will not be made this year because the proposal is not on the fall legislative schedule.
Those on the exempted list include technologists practising under the direction of veterinarians, farriers, animal owners and their employees, people who do therapeutic treatment of farm animals using non-surgical procedures, people who dehorn or castrate livestock, university researchers or people who give assistance in an emergency.
Groups including Alberta Beef Producers contend the vets could create a monopoly with a new definition.
“ABP believes an unintended consequence of the proposed redefinition could be the possible erosion of livestock owners’ ability to continue looking after their own animals and assisting their neighbours,” the producers’ group said in a letter to human resources minister Mike Cardinal.
“There is a risk that all activities related to animal health and preventing disease and injury would fall under the exclusive control of veterinarians. This is completely contrary to how human health is regulated in this province,” said the letter.
The beef producers also requested clarification on the kind of care producers may give their livestock without having to hire a veterinarian.
Cherise Mass, a veterinary technologist, remained worried about veterinarians forming a monopoly over care of animals.
She argued owners should be ultimately responsible for the care of their animals and should have the right to choose among therapies.
She said this legislation could push out alternative therapists who do massage, chiropractic therapy or acupuncture. While these practices tend to be unregulated, responsible animal owners should be allowed to pursue alternative treatments.
“There should be some sort of standards but I don’t believe it should be the veterinarians who look after that standard,” she said.
“Look at how the human medical profession has changed. We realize no one single person can know everything,” she said.
