Sen. Boots has introduced SB 19 which would apparently distinguish between “veterinary dentistry” and “equine dentistry.” The former could be performed only by a vet, but equine dentistry would not be so limited.
“Equine dentistry” is not comprehensively defined, but it includes the “diagnosis, treatment, correction, or prevention of any dental disease, defect, injury, deformity, pain, or condition of a horse.” (Also of note – under existing law, “equine massage therapy” is a thing and it can be performed by non-veterinarians.)
These things don’t tend to come from nowhere. Presumably there is someone working on horse’s teeth without a veterinarian’s license and has persuaded Sen. Boots that horses are somehow different than other domestic animals (because under current law, “veterinary dentistry” is specifically mentioned as requiring a vet’s license.)
Will this finally let us look gift horses in the mouth?
Why would one allow a non-veterinarian to do this?
A friend on Facebook with a lot of insight into horses provided some background. Horse teeth are evidently fairly different from those of a lot of other animals — they grow constantly throughout the horse’s life and the bit has to sit just right in the horse’s mouth, among other things. So, just by virtue of being a vet, the person might not have good insight into equine dentistry and someone with a lot of background with horses might have very good insight.
That said, simply removing regulation on equine dentistry altogether doesn’t seem like the solution.
This is a very interesting post. An Amishman down the road from my father posted his services as an Equine Dentist this October. This explains it.