Testifying during a meeting of the state Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners is, at right, Bonnie Cady, owner of The Horse Hub on Montgomery Road, as the board's administrative secretary, Rita Buckner Shelton, left, looks on. (T-G Photo by Clint Confehr) [Click to enlarge]

The Tennessee Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners voted 3-2 last week to uphold its rules on artificial insemination practices that must be performed by a state licensed vet, thereby denying petitions from a Shelbyville businesswoman and several horse trainers and breeders.

Such enforcement has a significant adverse effect on the Tennessee Walking Horse business, according to Dan Elrod's statement to the board for the Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation, and Jeremy Lane Carlton, breeding manager at Saddle Crest Farms at Shelbyville, who told the board, "It could possibly put us out of business."

Requiring a veterinarian to provide certain artificial insemination services would greatly increase horse breeding farm costs, according to Carlton and several other walking horse breeders.

Under questioning from board vice president Mary Welch, testimony from Bonnie Cady, owner of The Horse Hub on Montgomery Road, was not as direct. Cady is accused of violating the Tennessee Veterinary Practice Act and was asking the board to abandon its enforcement against her. It may be a last step before she takes her case to chancery court.

If a veterinarian had to attend to the artificial insemination procedures, Welch asked, what's the effect on her business?

"It would impose a big cost," Cady replied.

Welch asked, "Are there vets available?"

"I'm not sure that there are," Cady replied. "You have to stand around an wait" for vets.

Testimony to the Tennessee House Agriculture Committee early last week indicated most students graduating from veterinary colleges are going into small animal practices, instead of practices treating large animals. Without proof, one state representative suggested that the University of Tennessee conduct a study to know if that's true.

Regardless, Cady did not overcome the board's order for her to stop providing services it sees as veterinary medical practices under a rule it developed from state law. As a result, the board upheld arguments from Nicole Armstrong, an attorney for the Division of Health Related Boards in the Bureau of Health Licensure.

However, after the veterinarian medical examiners voted, Welch, board president Leland Davis and board member Charles Thompson said all five members of the board don't like the rule they just enforced and explained the process to change the rule is time consuming, so that Thursday afternoon they began the process to change the rule. A public hearing on new rules could be held in April.

A chief aspect of the rules on artificial insemination is that it can be done by the owner of livestock on their own animal, but not by someone else without a veterinarian attending to the procedure. That's part of how Cady is affected since she'd been providing services at her business where a state investigator found them to be veterinary practices.

Cady agrees she isn't a licensed veterinarian and that she'd performed six services including artificial insemination and related treatments, but she and the horse breeders at the board meeting last week claim the veterinary medical examiners board is enforcing rules it established beyond the scope of the law as written by the Tennessee Legislature.

Also petitioning the board were Robert B. Littleton and Lynda M. Hill, both represented by Miller & Martin attorneys who include horse owners.

Voting to uphold the rule as written by the board were Welch, Marie Gordon and Charles Thompson. Davis and Thomas Edmonds voted against arguments presented by a state lawyer.

Meanwhile, state lawmakers are considering a bill that says veterinary services shall not include artificial insemination of horses when it's done under the indirect supervision of a vet. The bill by state Rep. Eric Swafford (R-Pikeville) and state Sen. Jim Tracy (R-Shelbyville) also says veterinary services shall not include artificial insemination for swine or cattle and it's deemed a management practice, not a professional service. Indirect supervision by a vet over artificial insemination of swine and cattle is not mentioned in the bill.

It would now appear that there's something of a race between state lawmakers and a state regulatory board to resolve the issue that's attracted considerable attention from farmers, livestock advocacy groups, veterinarians and businessmen and women, according to comments Friday by Walt Chism of Triune who was president of the Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders' and Exhibitors 'Association in the early 1990s. Chism attended the veterinary board meeting on Thursday as did Charles L. Hulsey, executive director of the TWHBEA who spoke at a state house Agriculture Committee hearing on Tuesday last week.

House Agriculture Committee members met to gather information and took no action, although their comments reflected interest in refining the law so that regulators unfamiliar with farm practices would not be able to interpret the law for rules that lawmakers do not want enforced.

Yet the three veterinary board members speaking immediately after their vote indicated their steps to change the rules probably wouldn't help Cady who, under current rules, was found to be practicing veterinary medicine without a license.

She was found to be artificially inseminating mares, flushing mares' reproductive organs, conducting ultrasound examinations on mares to check for pregnancy, infusing horses with antibiotics, injecting drugs to get horses to come into season and injecting a drug to get mares to ovulate, according to a state Health Department order.

Cady doesn't deny those findings, but her lawyer, Frank Scanlon, told the board judges will carefully compare state law to the board's interpretation when it enacted the rule it enforced last week.

The board's rule includes manual or mechanical systems to test for pregnancy, but that's not mentioned in the law, Scanlon said.

"Artificial insemination is not a surgical procedure, nor is it collection of blood for diagnosis," Scanlon said, referring to state law.

A document released by the state Health Department's public affairs office quotes state law as defining the practice of veterinary medicine as to "diagnose, prescribe or administer any drug, medicine, biologic, appliance, application or treatment of whatever nature for the cure, prevention or relief of any wound, fracture, bodily injury or disease of animals."

During a recess in Thursday's meeting, Cady smiled in conversation when it was noted that pregnancy is not ordinarily seen as a disease or injury.

Cady is not the only individual who's faced state Health Department enforcement or come under investigation by the department. Department spokeswoman Sophie Moery said 72 individuals have been sent letters telling them they were being investigated because of information received by the department alleging that they were engaged in unlicensed veterinary practices.

State law prohibited Moery from releasing the names of those who received such letters, she said. One who had responded and his name could be released, Sammy Sanders of Atoka, was directed to pay two civil penalties of $750 each for violation of the Tennessee Veterinary Practices Act.

Chism said he believes such actions by the department and votes by the board will have far-reaching effects on farming in Tennessee.

John Woolfork, a Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation official, told the board the same thing.

"If A-I [artificial insemination] is eliminated ... it would be a major set back for Tennessee," Woolfork said. "If A-I was limited to vets, it would be difficult."

No testimony was heard Thursday morning on how swine production would be affected if veterinarians were required for artificial insemination of swine.