Equine Vets and Controlled Substances

MHC Executive Committee Member (soon to be MHC VP) and equine vet Dr. Peter Radue recently received this letter from The American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP).  Under current federal law, it is illegal for any veterinarian to use controlled substances away from his/her licensed premises. This means that technically, vets are prohibited from carrying and using medications for pain management and euthanasia, if necessary, at your farm or stable. Although the law has not previously enforced, DEA has recently warned vets in California and Washington state that they are in violation. If you believe that equine and other mobile vets should be able to carry controlled substances in their trucks please contact your congressman using the link below.  If vets are unable to carry controlled substances they will be unable to address emergency situations requiring pain relief or euthanasia.

Dear Dr. Radue:
The AAEP Welfare and Public Policy Advisory Council is working with the AVMA and Congress to ensure that veterinarians can provide complete care to their animal patients.  With the recent introduction of the Veterinary Medicine Mobility Act of 2013 (H.R. 1528) we have the opportunity to make an impact.
As large animal veterinarians, most of us have frequent need to use controlled substances to treat our patients at the stables, ranches, farms and other sites where they live.  However, the provisions of the existing Controlled Substances Act
  (CSA) make it illegal for any veterinarian to transport and/or use controlled substances outside of the DEA license location that is registered for that individual. This means that it is currently illegal for veterinarians to carry and use these vital medications for pain management, anesthesia or euthanasia on farms, at house calls, in veterinary mobile clinics, or in ambulatory response situations.
Veterinarians must be able to legally carry and use controlled substances for the health and welfare of the nation’s animals, to safeguard public safety and to protect the nation’s food supply.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which enforces the law, has informed organized veterinary medicine that without a statutory change, many veterinarians are in violation of the CSA and cannot legally administer controlled substances away from their registry site. The DEA has already notified some veterinarians in California and Washington State that they are in violation of this law.
We encourage you to contact your members of Congress and urge them to support the Veterinary Medicine Mobility Act of 2013 (H.R. 1528). This act would amend the CSA that currently prohibits veterinarians from transporting controlled substances to treat their animal patients outside of their registered locations.
Please join us in telling Congress that veterinarians need to be able to transport controlled substances to the locations of their animal patients, not only for the health and welfare of the nation’s animals, but for public safety.
The link below takes you to the AVMA Legislative Action Center where you can easily express your support of H.R. 1528.  Contact information for your representative(s) is generated  automatically by your zip code and a message which you may edit is provided.
Take Action!
 Thank you for your advocacy.
Sincerely,
Ann E, Dwyer, DVM
2013 AAEP President

INFORMATION ON RECENT BOWIE RACE COURSE TRAINING CENTER LEGISLATION

INFORMATION ON RECENT BOWIE RACE COURSE TRAINING CENTER LEGISLATION

Executive Summary

Current Maryland State law requires the Bowie Race Course Training Facility to operate as a thoroughbred training facility.  Numerous attempts have been made in the past few years to repeal that law, but none have passed.  Current State statute also states that when the facility is no longer required for thoroughbred training, the State will have first right of refusal for the property, followed by the City of Bowie.  The current law will have to be repealed in order to stop thoroughbred training at Bowie, which can not happen until the next legislative session.

Background

1.      Current State statute 11-519 requires Bowie to operate as a thoroughbred training facility.  That statute has not been repealed, although Senator Peters' bill in 2013, and Senator Peters' and Delegates Hubbard’s and Valentino-Smith’s bills in 2011 attempted to do so.  None of those bills repealing the statute have passed.  Under current statute, Bowie will have to continue as a thoroughbred training facility at least through the next legislative session when another attempt to repeal the statute could be introduced.

Statute Text:

“Article - Business Regulation §11–519.

(a) The owner of the Bowie Race Course Training Center shall operate the Center as a thoroughbred training facility to provide more stall space for a race meeting that a licensee holds.

(b) The owner of the Bowie Race Course Training Center is responsible for the cost to improve, maintain, and operate the Center.

(c) As long as the Bowie Race Course Training Center is used for the purpose specified in subsection (a) of this section, the Commission shall have general regulatory jurisdiction over the Center to:

(1) provide enough stalls;

(2) maintain safe operating conditions;

(3) require the owner of the Center to submit an annual operating financial statement; and

(4) order reasonable improvements.”

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=gbr&section=11-519&ext=html&session=2013RS&tab=subject5

Stature 11-519 requiring Bowie to operate as a thoroughbred training facility has not been repealed in legislation as of this date.

2.      Below is a summary of the recent proposed legislation to convey the Bowie Race Course Training Center to state, county, and City of Bowie and to repeal the statute to operate Bowie as a Thoroughbred training facility.

2013

Bowie Race Course legislation included in Sen Peters’ original Senate bill SB961 -

 Horse Racing – Special Takeout and Bowie Race Course Training Center

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb0961f.pdf (original bill)

Pertinent language:

“… repealing certain requirements that a certain racing licensee maintain the operation of the Center….

 …BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments, 

Article – Business Regulation

Section 11–514 and 11–519

Annotated Code of Maryland

(2010 Replacement Volume and 2012 Supplement)…

…(4) ON CONVEYANCE, THE CITY OF BOWIE MAY NOT BE REQUIRED TO OPERATE THE BOWIE RACE COURSE TRAINING CENTER AS A THOROUGHBRED TRAINING FACILITY FOR ANY PURPOSE….

(Bowie portion, including 11-519 repeal, removed from SB961in amendment and passed in Senate and House and signed into law April 9, 2013.)

http://legiscan.com/gaits/search?state=MD&bill=SB961

2012

Bowie property conveyance and language referring to required operation included in an amendment to proposed legislation for SB152 -  Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2012 (Amendment attached, not linked- see pages 5 and 6).

Note:  Full SB152 and amendment did not include 11-519 repeal as other legislation had; alternate language in section (4)(ii)1 below.

“(4) (i) A racing licensee of a racetrack location at Laurel Park shall:

1. maintain the operation of the Bowie Training Center;

 2. convey the property associated with the Bowie Training Center as preserved land.

(ii) 1. When the Bowie Training Center is no longer required by the State to be operated as a thoroughbred training facility, the State shall have the right of first refusal as grantee for any conveyance under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph.

2. The City of Bowie shall have the second right of refusal as grantee for any conveyance under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph.

3. A grantee under subsubparagraph 1 or 2 of this subparagraph may not be required to operate the Bowie Training Center as a training facility.”

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2012rs/bills/sb/sb0152f.pdf (Full SB152)

 (Did not pass)

2011

Sen Peters’ 2011 Senate bill SB491 -  “Authorizing the owner of the Bowie Race Course Training Center to convey the property associated with the training center to the State, Prince George's County, or the City of Bowie; and providing for the construction of specified provisions of law.” Included repeal of 11-519.

http://legiscan.com/MD/bill/SB491/2011

Del Hubbard and Del Valentino-Smith’s 2011 House bill – HB557 -  “Authorizing the owner of the Bowie Race Course Training Center to convey the property associated with the training center to the State as preserved land under Program Open Space.”  Included repeal of 11-519.

http://legiscan.com/MD/bill/HB557/2011

(Neither passed)

3.      Current State statute (2011) states when Bowie Training Center is no longer required to be operated as a thoroughbred training facility, the State shall have first right of refusal for conveyance of the property, and the City of Bowie has second right of refusal.  This statute does not repeal 11-519.

Article 9-1A-09 – Article - State Government

“§9–1A–09. IN EFFECT

(a) As a condition of eligibility for funding under § 9–1A–29 of this subtitle, a racing licensee shall:

…(4) (i) A racing licensee of a racetrack location at Laurel Park shall:

1. maintain the operation of the Bowie Training Center; or

2. convey the property associated with the Bowie Training Center as preserved land.

(ii) 1. When the Bowie Training Center is no longer required by the State to be operated as a thoroughbred training facility, the State shall have the right of first refusal as grantee for any conveyance under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph.

2. The City of Bowie shall have the second right of refusal as grantee for any conveyance under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph.

3. A grantee under subsubparagraph 1 or 2 of this subparagraph may not be required to operate the Bowie Training Center as a training facility.

9–1A–09. // EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 2013 PER CHAPTER 412 OF 2011 //

…(4) If a video lottery operation license is issued to a racetrack location at Laurel Park, the video lottery operation licensee shall:

(i) maintain the operation of the Bowie Training Center; or

(ii) if State law no longer requires the Bowie Training Center to operate as a training facility, convey the property associated with the Bowie Training Center to the State as preserved land under Program Open Space.” 

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=gsg&section=9-1A-09&ext=html&session=2013RS&tab=subject5

4.  Additional information of interest:

-Language in 10-year Agreement

 “…The MTHA has also agreed to a closure of Bowie Training Center on January 1, 2014 in return for a binding commitment to build 300 net new stalls at Laurel Park funded in part by the MTHA to properly accommodate horsemen displaced by the closure.”

And:  “Highlights of the Agreement” - Bowie Training Center -

Legislation and Commission approval to authorize the closing of Bowie is contingent upon the construction of 300 new stalls at Laurel no later than December 31, 2014 and a requirement that Laurel Park and Pimlico remain open for year-round stabling and training at no cost to the horsemen.  Such legislation and Commission approval shall also provide that Bowie may not be closed until completion of the initial 150 stalls.”

http://www.mdhorsemen.com/NewsletterArchive/2012/newsletter2012_12.pdf

Note:  Even if the 150 stalls are completed in 2013, the current statute has not been repealed.   Bowie will be required to operate as a Thoroughbred training facility until a bill is introduced and passed in a legislative session repealing that statute.

-Additional details on the agreement are also included in The Equiery’s blog post:  “Finally, A Happy Christmas for Racing” (Dec. 18, 2012), but no Bowie discussion.

http://equiery.com/blog/?p=1509

"Rules of the road" for riding on roads

The Horse Council recently received an inquiry about what laws govern riding horses on public roads in Maryland. Thanks to MHC member, Kathleen Tabor, Esq. (www.ktaborlaw.com), here is the answer:


Basically the rider of a horse has the same rights and responsibilities as a driver of a car (minus having a license plate, turn signals, and other unapplicable provisions). See below:


MD Code Transp. 21-104 Persons riding animals or driving animal-drawn vehicles (Maryland Code (2013 Edition))


(a) In general. -- Every person riding an animal or driving an animal-drawn vehicle on a roadway has all the rights granted to and is subject to all the duties required of the driver of a vehicle by this title, except for those provisions of this title that by their very nature cannot apply.

(b) Special prohibitions. --

(1) Except in Charles, Worcester, and St. Mary's counties, or as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person may not ride an animal or drive an animal-drawn vehicle on:

(i) Any divided highway where the posted maximum speed limit is more than 35 miles an hour; or

(ii) Any controlled access highway.

(2) In Anne Arundel County, a person may ride an animal on any part of a highway described in paragraph (1) of this subsection, other than on its roadway or shoulder.

HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 66 1/2, § 11-104; 1977, ch. 14, § 2; ch. 738.

Farm Bureau offers info on registering farm vehicles

Via the Equiery -

Maryland Farm Bureau Trucking Forums:

If you have questions about how to register your farm truck, how inspections are conducted, what rules to follow when hauling products to market or moving machinery, this is the forum for you.  Please join us for refreshments, discussion & valuable Q&A.

North East Farm Trucking Forum - Tuesday, March 19th from 9am - 12:30pm
Level Fire Hall (Harford County)
3633 Level Village Road, Havre de Grace, MD  21078        
Contact:  Laura Ruhlman, laurar.mdfb@verizon.net



Central Maryland Trucking Forum - Wednesday, March 27th from 9am - 12:30pm
Howard County Fairgrounds
2210 Fairground Road, West Friendship, MD  21794        
Contact:  Laura Ruhlman, laurar.mdfb@verizon.net



Southern Maryland Trucking Forum - Thursday, March 28th from 9am - 12:30pm
Calvert County Fairgrounds
140 Calvert Drive, Barstow, MD  20610                                  
Contact:  Mike Amoss, mamoss21@yahoo.com

MHC urges legislature to preserve the Contributory Negligence liability standard in lawsuits

Here is what MHC told the House Judiciary Committee about HB 1182, which would establish a commission to study how fault should be allocated between plaintiffs and defendants in negligence cases. (MHC has also supported SB 819 and HB 1156, which would re-instate the Contributory Negligence standard, in the event the courts overturn it.)


Dear Chairman Vallario and members of the House Judiciary Committee:

I am the Vice President of the Maryland Horse Council (MHC).  MHC is comprised of over 30 equestrian organizations in the state of Maryland, representing every interest from racing to breeding to sport and pleasure horses, as well as equine related businesses, farms, charities and foundations, and individual enthusiasts - in other words, MHC is the voice of the over 65,000 members of Maryland’s equestrian community.

Equestrian activity contributes over 28,000 jobs and $1.6 billion in annual impact to the Maryland economy. In addition, Maryland’s equine operations are very important contributors to the preservation of our agricultural heritage and green space, occupying 587,000 acres in the state.

I write to support the passage of HB 1182, establishing a Commission to Study Maryland's Fault Allocation System, which is scheduled for a hearing before you this week.

A reasoned, workable system of fault allocation that takes into account the realities of small business operations is critical to the survival of these businesses. Generations of Maryland small business owners have relied on the Contributory Negligence standard to provide them with predictability and the assurance that they can conduct their operations without fear of being targeted by those who feel no responsibility for their own recklessness or disregard for safety rules, and see business and service providers as “deep pocket” insurers of their safety and well-being.  Among other things, the existence of this standard has enabled these small businesses to develop viable business plans, including essential commercial liability insurance coverage. Any change to the current system should not be undertaken without thorough consideration of all the possible impacts on all those affected.

Equine operators in Maryland already have some difficulty obtaining liability insurance at affordable rates, but it is generally acknowledged that it is largely the continued existence of the Contributory Negligence standard in Maryland that makes insurance accessible at all.  A change in the fault allocation standard could cause the incidence of lawsuits having little or no merit to skyrocket.  And according to our members, the mere filing of a lawsuit, regardless of merit, can result in the denial of insurance coverage, or renewal offers at prohibitively high rates.  Many equine operators would not be able to continue in business without adequate liability insurance coverage.

In addition, the continued applicability of the Contributory Negligence standard in Maryland has obviated the need for an Equine Limited Liability Law, which the legislatures of 44 states, most of whom apply other fault allocation systems, have found necessary to ensure the continued survival of equine operations in their jurisdictions in the face of the proliferation of meritless claims.

Given the important and widespread public policy impacts of the fault allocation system on the viability and day to day operations of members of our industry and others, MHC believes that the appropriate standard should be decided by the legislature, not the courts. HB1182 would establish a mechanism to allow a reasoned study of the issue.

We strongly urge you to support HB1182.  We stand ready to provide you with whatever additional information you may require.

Respectfully,
Jane Seigler
Vice President
Maryland Horse Council

MHC comments on dog/cat spay neuter fund

Here are the comments submitted by MHC on SB 820/HB 767, the bill that creates a spay neuter fund for dogs and cats, partially funded by an assessment on all commercial feed. Similar comments were submitted to the House Committee that considered the bill.

Dear Chairwoman Carter Conway and other members of the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee:

I am the Vice President of the Maryland Horse Council (MHC), which is the umbrella organization for all of Maryland's equine businesses, farms, associations and enthusiasts. Collectively, MHC represents the interests of over 30,000 Marylanders.

I write regarding SB820, which will be heard by your Committee on Tuesday, March 5. This legislation would authorize the creation of a fund to support a voucher program and other programs that facilitate and promote spay and neutering programs for cats and dogs in Maryland. Monies for the fund would be raised by a $100 registered commercial feed surcharge created by the bill as well as funds allocated from the state budget.

MHC applauds and supports the intent of this legislation, however, we object to assessing the $100 surcharge on equine feeds. Distributors of equine feeds already are assessed a fee of $6 per ton under Agriculture Section 6-107.2. Assessments collected under this section are used "for education, research, and promotional materials and activities intended to benefit the Maryland equine industry" under the auspices of the Maryland Horse Industry Board within the Department of Agriculture. MHC believes that assessing this additional surcharge on distributors of commercial equine feed, for uses that have nothing to do with equines, is unfair and unduly burdensome.

We support an amendment to clarify that the feed surcharge is only assessed on cat and dog food, and not on other commercial feed products.

Respectfully,
Jane Seigler

Mid-session Legislative report

We are at about the mid-way point in the Annapolis legislative session. After Monday, March 4, any new bills will require a Suspension of the Rules. So, for the most part, what we have seen so far is what we get. To date, 1045 bills have been introduced in the Senate, 1504 in the House. Most will not become law. 

Following is a summary of some bills that have caught our eye. You can get up-to-date information of the status of any of these bills as they move through the legislative process by clicking here and entering the bill number in the Find Legislation box in the top bar.

Of particular interest:

SB819/HB1156 These bills would codify Maryland’s current contributory negligence liability standard, ensuring that the contributing fault of an injured party can be asserted as a defense in a lawsuit. The law would only go into effect in the event that a pending court decision strikes down the current standard (which is generally favorable to horse owners and horse business operators). The House hearing is 3/6; Senate is 3/19.

HB1182 This bill freezes the current law, and creates a commission, largely composed of legislators, to study it. Hearing 3/6. 

MHC supports these bills.

SB37/HB865 These bills authorize a court to order a defendant convicted of a specified charge of animal cruelty, as a condition of sentencing, to pay, in addition to any other fines and costs, all reasonable costs incurred in removing, housing, treating, or euthanizing an animal confiscated from the defendant. Favorable report from Senate; House hearing 3/14. MHC supports these bills.

SB 820/HB767 These bills create a state fund to support programs to spay/neuter dogs and cats. The bills provide that the fund will be partially supported by a surcharge on “commercial feeds.” MHC has requested an amendment that the surcharge be applied only on dog and cat feeds, as horse feeds are already subjected to a fee that supports the MD Horse Industry Board. House hearing was 2/21; Senate 3/5.

HB 1440 This bill makes clear that “compost” is not part of the solid waste stream, and authorizes the Department of the Environment to draft regulations governing compost facilities. MHC is exploring possible future programs that would facilitate composting of horse manure, and is working to ensure input into the MDE drafting process.

SB 1029 This bill creates a volunteer program within the Department of Agriculture, administered in cooperation with the Department of Environment, to recognize the environmental stewardship and contribution of Maryland farmers who implement and maintain best management practices consistent with the state’s goals of reducing the amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment entering the Chesapeake Bay and other waters of the state. This bill essentially codifies, formalizes and makes somewhat more stringent the current Farm Stewardship Certification and Assessment Program (FSCAP), currently operated by the MD Association of Soil Conservation Districts. MHC’s Farm Stewardship Committee has been working to include more horse farms in the FSCAP program. It has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

Hunting bills. MHC has consistently opposed allowing weapons hunting on Sundays on public or private lands, as this creates an unacceptable risk for other users.

SB 2/HB66 Dorchester County, turkey hunting, Sundays on public land. Hearing in house was 2/13.

SB24/HB214 Queen Anne’s, deer hunting, Sundays on private lands. Hearing in Senate was 1/23; House 2/13.

HB 543 Carroll, deer hunting, Sundays on private lands. Hearing was 2/27.

HB365, HB366, HB671 Bills to reduce bow hunting buffer zones. Hearings 2/20.

MHC has consistently opposed extending hunting to Sundays on public or private land.

Racing bills

SB858 Ejections from race tracks - appeals. Hearing 3/14

SB 961 This bill will help determine the future of the Bowie Race Course Training Center. Hearing 3/14

HB1503 This bill increases to $150,000 the amount of the annual grant from the Purse Dedicated Fund to Fair Hill.

Other bills of interest

HB 1282 This bill establishes an Agricultural Land Condemnation Board to hold public meetings to consider proposed State and local condemnations of prime and productive farmland for “environmental mitigation purposes” and to issue written decisions on whether to approve proposed condemnations. Hearing was 3/1.

SB427/HB796 These bills allow a credit against the State income tax for the diminution in value of specified agricultural land resulting from enactment of the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012 and adoption of specified regulations related to nutrient management. Hearing 2/20 in Senate; 3/8 in House.

HB378 This bill authorizes the Comptroller, subject to approval from the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF), to use agricultural land preservation funds to reimburse a landowner for the release of a specified easement restriction when a lot is not used to construct a dwelling house. Passed in House.

SB 970 This bill creates a cause of action under specified circumstances for an owner of property to use against the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Natural Resources, or the Department of Planning if the application of specified regulations adopted by any of these agencies infringes on a private property right of the property owner. Hearing 3/19.

SB 364 This bill requires the University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service to provide a dedicated extension agent to assist individuals with the adoption of management-intensive farming and grazing practices, and requires the Governor to provide at least $500,000 each year to support the Department of Agriculture's activities related to management-intensive farming and grazing, beginning in fiscal year 2015. Hearing was 2/12. The cross-filed bill (HB400) received an unfavorable committee report and was withdrawn.

SB 404/HB408 These bills provide a subtraction modification under the Maryland individual and corporate income tax for specified expenses incurred to buy and install enhanced agricultural management equipment (including manure spreaders) under specified circumstances. House hearing was 2/26.

HB623 This bill provides a statutory definition for the “agricultural land management practices” that are exempt from certain sediment and erosion control requirements, including “those methods and procedures used in the preparation and cultivation of land in order to further crop and livestock production . . ..” The hearing was 2/27.

SB796/HB1091 These bills require, on written request of a landowner in an application to purchase an easement, an easement to authorize the landowner to use the land subject to the easement for renewable energy generation under specified circumstances. House hearing was 3/1; Senate hearing 3/5.