Welcome to Pet Owners Rights
Dear Fellow Pet Lovers,
We need your help!
As you may know the Veterinary Medical Board wants to monopolize pet teeth cleaning, forcing you to subject your pet to anesthesia just for teeth cleaning when it can be done without anesthesia. Veterinarians use anesthesia just for the extra profits and to make the procedure EASY for them by chemically restraining your pet.. The actual cost to veterinarians to clean teeth is about $40. Yet they charge you hundreds of dollars for their service ($300 to over $1000). Teeth cleaning is one of the most profitable services veterinarians provide.
Non-veterinarians have provided cosmetic teeth cleaning for decades at a reasonable cost and they don’t risk your pets’ life with dangerous anesthesia. Instead they take the time with your pet with love and patience. The work is so good that almost 200 veterinarians in California offer the service thru outside companies that specialize in this service. These few vets are not a solution, only the beginning of a progressive concept.
We finally have an opportunity to put this issue to rest.
Help us support AB 2304.
This legislation makes current law clear that non-veterinarians can provide their valuable and safe service of anesthesia-free teeth cleaning. Thus ending the turf-battle between the California Veterinary Medical Association and non-veterinarian teeth cleaners.
Pet owners have the right to choose what services are best for them and their pets. The risks of anesthesia are high. Some studies show that 1 in every 233 pets die from anesthesia - Link to AAHA Anesthesia Study
I hope we can count on your support in the form of a letter to Assemblyman Martin Garrick supporting AB 2304
Assembly Member Garrick
State Capitol Room 2158
Sacramento, CA 95814
If you use a sample letter please make additional hand written comments.
PLEASE send us a copy!
Pet Owners Rights
P.O. Box 420
Shingletown, CA 96088
This fight has a long history and is about money. It is not about the concern for the wellbeing of pets. We performed a Public Records Request of the Veterinary Medical Board (VMB). Despite numerous requests by the VMB and the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) soliciting veterinarians for cases of injury from non-veterinary teeth cleaning, none were found - Link to VMB Requests for Injury. We did however find several cases of pets dying from veterinary anesthesia while having their teeth cleaned - Link to Documented Anesthesia Death. The penalty to the veterinarian for killing someone’s best friend averaged $500. This insignificant penalty is not a deterrent for veterinarians. One veterinarian that offers anesthesia-free teeth cleaning through Canine Care stated that “putting an animal under anesthesia for teeth cleaning when it can be done without is malpractice”.
Dangers of Anesthesia
Pet owners should be allowed to determine what level of risk is acceptable for them and their pets. Veterinary Board Consultant Christine Hotz, DVM writes “ Many of the complaints against veterinarians received by the VMB cross my desk at some point in the complaint review process. An all too-common theme I see is that of an angry or grieving pet owner who believes his or her pet died as a result of negligence during the anesthetic period.” http://www.vmb.ca.gov/about_us/cc_anest.shtml
There are over 100 veterinarians that offer this safe affordable service in California. They don’t make the profit that they would if anesthesia was used but they are not having unnecessary anesthesia deaths either. Every veterinarian that has personally witnessed anesthesia-free teeth cleaning is a believer in the service. Those who have NOT witnessed this service make ridiculous and untrue statements.
In the early 1990’s identical legislation to AB 2304 was introduced and the support was amazing. After hearing testimony for both sides, the Senate and Assembly Committees voted unanimously for anesthesia free teeth cleaning. There were only 7 no votes from the entire legislature. Unfortunately the Governor at the time vetoed the Bill as a personal favor to a veterinary friend.
Legislative Support - Link to Support Letters
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) Support - Link to HSUS Support
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights Support - Link to AFAR
Plus many more and Thousands of pet owners.
Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs opposes Veterinary Boards actions
During the Regulatory process, Michael Kelley Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs wrote 2 letters to the VMB. The first was his initial decision to disapprove the regulation stating, “I believe that the adoption of this regulation is not in the best interests of the public of California”…. “I believe that the adoption of this regulation will operate to preclude the public from obtaining a legitimate service at an affordable cost.” The second letter was a 5 page letter of formal opposition stating that there is no need for the regulation because… “there is a notable absence of any evidence from disinterested members of the public evidencing actual harm as a result of these practices.” Click here to see veto document and click here to see other document.
Veterinary Associations attempt to BRIBE the legislature!
In 1990 Assemblyman Bruce Bronzan introduced AB 3482. To illustrate the veterinary industry’s desperation to monopolize animal teeth cleaning, they attempted to BRIBE the legislature just 4 days prior to the first Assembly Committee Hearing. (click here to see letter from Bruce Bronzon to CVMA-PAC, CA Veterinary Medical Association Political Action Committee). AB 3482 passed unanimously, both the Assembly and Senate Committee Hearings. On the floor there were only 7 votes opposed to the bill. Unfortunately the Governor vetoed the bill.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Ruling
Recently the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION concluded: “The proposed rule would modify existing Texas regulations to effectively prohibit non-veterinarians from providing specific and commonly-available forms of horse floating, absent veterinarian supervision”. If enacted, the rule appears likely to significantly restrict competition without providing any countervailing benefit, thereby harming consumers. Accordingly, the Staff of the Federal Trade Commission encourages the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners to reject the proposed rule unless credible evidence supports it. Horse floating is the filing to smooth the sharp points on horses’ teeth.Click here to see this document.
UC Davis doesn't even teach teeth cleaning!
Another issue for veterinarians is how can a profession regulate a field that they don’t even teach its students? It appears to still be the same problem. This link is for all of the classes offered at UC Davis. None deal with veterinary dentistry. http://registrar.ucdavis.edu/CSRD/Spring2011/indexs2011.html
UC Davis did build a Dentistry Building in 1994 for Licensed Veterinarians to study under a residency program.
More that you can do to help: Please call the below Assembly Members and ask them to support AB 2304
Assembly Member Mary Hayashi (916) 319-2018
Assembly Member Bill Berryhill (916) 319-2026
Assembly Member Michael Allen (916) 319-2007
Assembly Member Betsy Butler (916) 319-2053
Assembly Member Mike Eng (916) 319-2049
Assembly Member Curt Hagman (916) 319-2060
Assembly Member Jerry Hill (916) 319-2019
Assembly Member Fiona Ma (916) 319-2012
Assembly Member Cameron Smyth (916) 319-2038