DENVER, COLO. — Veterinary organizations lost the first round in a fight to quash a controversial bill that would allow unlicensed professionals to perform certain health services without veterinary referral or supervision.

At press time, strong opposition from the American Veterinary Medical Association and Colorado Veterinary Medical Association could not quell the lobbying success of a newly formed alliance that pushed HB 1296 through the state House and into the Senate Agriculture Committee, where it was being discussed in a hearing late last month.

The bill would allow pet owners, without veterinary referral or supervision, to employ an unlicensed practitioner to treat, care for, train or assist their animals — services that bill supporters say are not included in the practice of veterinary medicine. Opponents argue the measure would increase risks of improper animal care, spread of disease and undermine the DVM licensing system.

Introduced by State Rep. Wes McKinley, (D-64), the bill is titled "Animal Owner's Right to Choose Maintenance Care without Veterinary Supervision." The brainchild of the Colorado Alliance for Animal Owners' Rights (CAAOR), the bill is seeding other grassroots efforts for similar legislation in other states. With CAAOR backing, the bill proposes not only a change in veterinary medical standards, but also in how this type of legislation is introduced and supported.

"More of these alliances are being formed, and I suspect our colleagues in other states will be seeing alliances formed in their areas, too. I think this reflects the desire of a growing number of lay practitioners who believe they can deliver benefits to animals and have the right to do so," says CVMA Executive Director Ralph Johnson.

While CAAOR members say bills mirroring HB 1296 are already enacted in Illinois and Florida, Johnson counters that the legislation pending in Colorado raises far more concerns than existing laws. "They like to claim they have been successful in other states with this proposal, but the changes (there) have been much more limited to the free range, not anybody-can-do-anything-to-any-animal," he says.

Bill breakdown

The present Colorado Veterinary Practice Act requires that anyone practicing veterinary medicine must be licensed by the state, or operating under direct referral and supervision by a veterinarian. All services deemed "veterinary medicine" fall under the jurisdiction of the Colorado State Board of Veterinary Medicine, says Diane Balkin, board member and senior deputy district attorney in Denver.

"The bill goes too far because AVMA practice language refers to these therapy modalities as being part of veterinary medicine," Hochstadt says.

The inherent problem, according to the CAAOR, is the definition of veterinary medicine.

"I thought the language seemed so broadly worded that conceivably anyone touching an animal could be getting themselves into trouble," says Lisa Speaker, CAAOR president and founder and owner of the Rocky Mountain School of Animal Acupressure Massage.

"So I wrote a bill that I thought supported the owners' rights. We need to allow these people the freedom to make those smart decisions for their animals, the same way they do for their families and themselves," she says.

Bill language, while intended for those practitioners in massage and acupressure and muscle work, generally allows pet owners to employ any unlicensed practitioner without veterinary approval. Hoping to amend the bill before the Senate vote, Speaker says she wants to enumerate what practices the bill encompasses.

Despite vague therapy modality limits, the legislation carries specific stipulations for practitioners: They must follow Colorado animal laws; must not identify themselves as veterinarians; must not perform surgery, offer diagnosis or prescribe drugs; and must obtain the owner's approval before services in the form of a signed consent agreement that acknowledges all aforementioned guidelines.

Care concerns

The authority to provide training and assisting without first obtaining the diagnosis of a licensed veterinarian is a primary concern by bill opponents who fear increased risk to an animal's health.