What is DEC’s motive for setting animal care standards?

To the editor:

I’m concerned with the motives behind the proposed state Department of Environmental Conservation animal care standards. The clause “appropriate medical treatment” could mean being required by law to pay exorbitant prices for veterinary care.

What is going to keep the prices from being overinflated when veterinary service becomes mandatory by law?

Creating laws intended to funnel the public into private veterinary practice is about increasing revenue, not animal care standards.

For background, the Alaska veterinary board has a history of discouraging low-cost and nonprofit services that benefit the public as well as increase the standards of animal care. These programs are not funded by the state and they include animal education, vaccinations, village and spay/neuter clinics. The vet board has even gone so far as to block the Humane Society and Christian veterinary groups from providing free public health care to remote, under-served areas at no cost to the state.

It’s not about the animals or they wouldn’t keep nonprofit veterinarians from providing thousands of rural residents and their animals with life-saving service. In 2007, the state shut down the only rabies prevention program to many villages, and residents as well as their pets are now in danger of exposure to disease.

Iditarod vets are given permits by the state to provide care to dogs competing in the 1,100-mile race across Alaska, but it’s against the law for them to provide service to resident animals in the villages.

Why would a state that is concerned with animal standards forbid veterinarians from providing veterinary public health services to communities without it?

Slapping a set of animal care standards onto a state with a dysfunctional state veterinary board system is not going to resolve anything.

The governor needs to take a close look at the standards of the public officials who put profit before public health.

Greg Taylor

Fairbanks