Missouri and Arkansas veterinary licenses are on the internet at:
Legal cases and the verbage of the laws from Gregory's Column:
There is no doubt that in Missouri and Arkansas, the activities of non-licensed individuals comes within the legal definition of the “practice of veterinary medicine.” In other words, they are unlawfully practicing veterinary medicine. Missouri defines the “practice of veterinary medicine” as:
“‘Veterinary medicine’, the science of diagnosing, treating, changing, alleviating, rectifying, curing or preventing any animal disease, deformity, defect, injury or other physical or mental condition, including, but not limited to, the prescription or administration of any drug, medicine, biologic, apparatus, application, anesthesia or other therapeutic or diagnostic substance or technique on any animal, including, but not limited to, acupuncture, dentistry, animal psychology, animal chiropractic, theriogenology, surgery, both general and cosmetic surgery, any manual, mechanical, biological or chemical procedure for testing for pregnancy or for correcting sterility or infertility or to render service or recommendations with regard to any of the procedures in this paragraph.” R.S. Mo. § 340.200(28).
Arkansas’ legal definition of “the practice of veterinary medicine” is:
“The diagnosis, treatment, correction, change, relief, or prevention of animal disease, deformity, defect, injury, or other physical or mental condition, including the prescribing or administration of any prescription drug, medicine, biologic, apparatus, application, anesthetic, or other therapeutic or diagnostic substance or technique on any animal, including, but not limited to, acupuncture, dentistry, animal psychology, animal chiropractic, theriogenology, surgery, including cosmetic surgery, any manual, mechanical, biological, or chemical procedure for testing for pregnancy or for correcting sterility or infertility or to tender service or recommendations with regard to any of the above.” Ark. Code Ann. § 17-101-102(9)(A).
Examples include, but are not limited to, State ex rel. Dept. of Health v. Jeffrey, 247 Neb. 100, 525 N.W.2d 193 (1994), where the court firmly rejected an argument by a non-licensed individual that his conduct supposedly was not unlawful when he had removed a teeth from a horse resulting in profuse bleeding that continued for two-days until examined by a veterinarian who found the cause to be lacerations and a quarter-size hole in the horse’s tongue and the horse had to be transported to a university veterinary college.
See also, In Matter of the Unlicensed Practice of Veterinary Medicine by Tasker, 2007 Wash. App. LEXIS 1855, 2007 WL 1893689 (Wash. App. 2007) rev. denied 163 Wash.2d 1027, 185 P.3d 1196 (2008); Tennessee Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners v. Collins (Tn. Bd. Vet. Med. Exam. August 24, 2006); Elisea v. State, 777 N.E.2d 46 (Ind. App. 2002); State of Kansas ex rel. State Board of Veterinary Examiners v. Coddington (Miami County, Kansas, 94-C-89, January 20, 1995). American courts have been dealing with illegal practicitioners for more than ninety-years. E.g., Commonwealth v. Peace, 42 Pa. Co. 409, 23 Pa. Dist. 1048 appeal quashed 58 Pa. Super. 428 (1914).
“Any person who violates any provision of [the Missouri Veterinary Practice Act] shall, upon conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction, be adjudged guilty of a class A misdemeanor for each offense. The unlawful practice of veterinary medicine shall be deemed a separate offense for each animal treated by any person engaged in such unlawful practice.” R.S. Mo. § 340.294.
Arkansas, among other things, authorizes monetary fines up to $5,000.00 per violation against non-licensed individuals. Ark. Code Ann. § 17-101-314.