Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development - Senate

Thank you very much. Uh, welcome everyone. On the agenda first up, uh, Senator Boyd, we're looking at Senate Bill 15. If you would, uh, identify yourself for the record and you recognize. Justin Boyd, state senator here to present Senate Bill 15. Thank you for the opportunity to be in front of you today, so the background on this is the Arkans or the Game and fish subcommittee held a 2nd Amendment task force and we reviewed all of the firearm legislation in the, in the state, in our state code and this is one of the issues that came up in front of the, uh, Game and fish subcommittee. Uh, and so. My recollection of the testimony was, or my first question was, so what this does is it fully repeals a bill that seemed to me to discriminate against deer hunters, right? So my first question was, well, why doesn't this apply to elk cunning? Why doesn't this apply to, you know, bear hunting. Maybe why doesn't this apply to coyote hunting, right? And so, um, the answer seemed to be that this statute is from a point in time when bear hunting and elk hunting, uh, were not legal in the state of Arkansas. So the question is, well, do we amend the, the law to include other large game animals, or do we amend the law to include all hunting, or do we even need the statute? So, um, my recollection was Austin Booth was there with the game and fish at the time, and we asked if this had ever been used and he indicated the game of fish has never been used, has never used this statute. So, um, none of the, a repeal of this does not affect civil. Liability, um, if you, there is code on the book that addresses reckless discharge of a firearm. And so this just to me seems to be extraneous and it was a recommendation of the task force to repeal this. That said, I'm happy to try to answer questions. OK, maybe you want to have a question? Senator Lady. So just to be clear, there is still um You said a civil penalties are also a criminal penalty still on the books somewhere, it's just, and that's why you're saying this code is extraneous. It's just do not specifically isolate deer hunting. There is criminal code for reckless discharge of a firearm. And of course, if someone were shot inappropriately, then there might be other criminal penalties that would apply as well. Thank you. Anyone else? Ser Hickey. Just, just a question, uh, so you said reckless is, what's the difference? Do you know, do you know what the difference is between reckless and negligent? Reckless is a little seems my inter I'm not an attorney, we all know that, right? Like I'm, I'm a pharmacist and insurance guy, uh, but my interpretation of the code is reckless, is a little bit higher of a standard than negligent, but again, nothing. Repeals the civil penalties, none of this says there aren't other areas of the code where if there were something. inappropriate that a good prosecutor couldn't still find a way to address the situation. OK. And I, and I understand the way we operate down here with our staff, you know, as signing these bills, it's almost to me. I understand it's. Like hunting Miss Chair, I'm just, I don't know why this was not in judiciary, you know, with the, They could look at it a little, a little deeper. So I'm like you, whenever I first read this over the weekend, I was actually thinking, well, you know, we just take out, you know, or just do wild hunting, of course, as you know, I'm an avid hunter myself, but, you know, my, I, I don't know, let's just, I'm gonna sort of make something up from the way I've seen it. So if somebody comes, uh, You know, out in the woods on public land. As these guys do, and they get all upset about somebody's deer stand being too close to them and they. Start discharging their weapon off over over that person's head. I wonder if that's negligent or if that's reckless. I just, and my problem is as you. I just don't know. I mean, I would hate, and again, I, I think you're right. I think it needs, would need to be all hunting, you know, whether it was duck hunting with a. A shotgun or whatever, so. I guess, I guess my, my only issue is, is I just don't understand the The words enough with negligently and the reckless to So what I would say is I'm confident if there's really malfeasance if there's really an issue, a good prosecutor can do this and we don't have to have legislation on the books that discriminates against deer hunters. That's my. personal view. One more question. You said this was in the, that y'all looked at this under a 2nd Amendment type thing. So was there an issue with that part? You said that was on in the offseason in the subcommittee, so the, the game and fish subcommittee of a Legislative council, heard all statutes regarding firearms as part of the the task force, and this is one of the ones that was discussed and again, my question is, what about elk? what about bear? and so I was the one. We started asking questions and then the consensus of the committee. This was something we didn't really need and it just cleans up the code and doesn't have something again that just inadvertently discriminates against deer hunters. Thank you, Senator. Anyone else? And just. Do you know when it was like the original legislation was passed. So I don't have the date, the discussion afterwards off the record with Game and Fish that it was passed when deer hunting was legal, but other large game animals. We're not viable. There wasn't a bear hunting season, right? Yeah, I just had wondered if it predated the requirement for orange or whatever. I mean, I, I think you had an issue in deer hunting in particular where people were shooting before they had full awareness of what they were shooting at. I think it was a problem. I, I kind of remember that from my, I think it's when you get your Hunter Ed card, if I remember right, that's a conversation that they have, um, and, and so maybe that's part of it, and that's why it's different than duck, you know, when you're not, you know, indiscriminately just shooting it. you know, a black sky because you think there's a duck in it. And I think that may be what's happening with deer. So, but I don't know how that applies to the word negligence. And, and for the record, I want to follow up on Senator Hickey. He said he's an avid hunter and he is. He's a terrible shot Senator Scott, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Are we removing, repealing all fines, and there were no longer be, um, any kind of threshold for negligent and recklessness. So none of this regards civil penalties, right? So I'm not changing anything in the civil code regarding this. So if I'm doing something where Individually, I have recourse, then I can go fight it in civil court. What I, what this does is it repeals something that is very specific to deer hunting. As opposed to other types of hunting or any other thing, but there are other areas in the code that address reckless discharge of a firearm. There are other areas in the code that address if I shoot somebody, right, regardless of what I'm doing this is just like it, I don't know. I don't know all the history what it looks like to me is somebody had a bad situation and they're trying to make a constituent happy, so they filed this bill and. You know, the gaming fish doesn't use it. And it's just, in my view, an attempt to clean up the code, I don't think it's going to take anything away from a good prosecutor if somebody really inappropriately behaves while deer hunting or bear hunting or anything else. Yes, ma'am how would we address accidents? That might not be reckless, but negligent. So there there would no longer be fines if there's bodily injury, there are other criminal statutes that would likely apply. It just, but that would happen again if, if I just, I mean, why do you want to discriminate against deer hunters because if I'm just out shooting a gun, I can negligently discharge a firearm the same way, right? Like, The point is, there are ample areas in both the civil code and the criminal code, which a good prosecutor or a good civil attorney, trial attorney could address the, the recourse. Senator Crow, And I don't know if you mentioned this earlier, but if, if memory serves me correct, uh, Austin Booth testified that they don't have on record that they've actually ever used this. That is my recollection of the public testimony. OK, and because I, I remember him. Talking about that, so, OK. Scott, would you turn your mic off, please? we get too many mics on, it won't work, so thank you. OK. Anyone else? No one has signed up to speak for or against it, but I will ask you, is anyone in the audience that, uh, wanna Speak. If not, what's the pleasure of the committee? Motion to pass 2nd, all in favor say aye. All opposed. Uh, your bill passed. Congratulations. Sitter Hill. Senate Bill number 61. You would state your name for the record, sir, and you're recognized. Turn your mic, Turn your mic up. R Ricky Hill, District 11. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Bill, you're looking at SB 61. is a bill for veterinary telemedicine in the state of Arkansas. We look, we've been working on this with the, uh, Veterinary Medical Association now for A year and a half or so, and I've met Myself, Representative Vault, and Representative Painter have all met with, uh, them, I think it was 5 times throughout the, uh, the course just try to get this. Beer is appealing to everyone, and we have come to uh to agreement that this, this is actually needed. It's a veterinarian telemedicine means the practice of veterinary medicine in which an animal patient care treatment and services are provided by electronic communication, including telephone and audio visual technology consistent with the veterinarian's professional judgment. Main thing this is this is going to do it in an emergency or an urgent situation. A licensed veterinarian may provide veterinary telemedicine without, without previously establishing a veterinary client patient relationship in the licensed veterinarian establishes a veterinarian client patient relationship within on a small animal, the veterinarian has 7 days. To establish that relationship with them if it's a rare case that they do not have a relationship with them to, to help the animal and on a large animal we've gone with 21 days on that because it so few large animal veterinarians throughout the state that it may take them a little longer to get to, to the animal. Now I do want to say that you must be a licensed veterinarian in the state of Arkansas, which to practice veterinary medicine, you must be. And so this is a compromise bill that we came up with between uh between them and us and, uh, there is no opposition to this as far as I know, as for the veteran veterinary Medical Association and, uh, the ag department as well. Being said, I'll take any, any questions y'all have. this way. What does it mean, uh, when they What is that relationship? they have 7 or 21 days. What does that mean? they must see the animal or the person in person. They either have to go out to the farm or they have to bring it to them. In most cases that there's already an established veterinary client patient relationship, but in some cases emergency cases, it can be. Where it's not, and this also allows someone who's over in the delta or somewhere else where they may not have a veterinarian, it takes a while to get to them and say, hey, I can't come right now, I can't take off work. This is what we're doing. They can work together and describe everything and at that point, the veterinarian can make a professional judgment. Dicky. I guess just one for me on page 2, this uh Line 1 and 2. And maybe this is y'all's negotiations, so health information, opinion, guidance, or recommendation that that is not specific to a particular animal. So that that that can mean one of two things. One is it could be a herd that someone has. He livestock herd or it could be something in a shelter. So. If somebody's got a Prize. $50,000 bull used for Insemination. Uh, so that, so is is what I'm hearing then you couldn't use telemedicine for, for them to call in to a. To vet, to diagnose something they may need, is that correct? No, you can, you can, said it's not specific they don't, it does not have to be specific to the one animal. It can be as a herd overall. Health information, opinions, guidance recommendation that is not specific. to a particular animal, I guess I'm reading it wrong. Looks like to me it would be that you couldn't for that particular I'm reading it right opposite from that, that if it's not. If you have a herd, it doesn't have to be one particular animal. But if you call in with your one particular animal, that can be specific to that one. If you are sure it just seems a little. It seems a little different for me, but. Health information, opinions, guidance and recommendation, you're gonna make a rigid recommendation. That is not specific. To a particular animal. Senator, when you read lines 3 and 4, it, it says or a timely assessment to a an animal patient. I think that goes back to your specific animal, but uh I think what Senator Hill is saying, if you had a flock of chickens that had, uh, for instance, that they could, they could do the uh Through the flock. Or if you if you had a herd of cows out there had pinkeye in it that they could. But it has, it has to be the, a combination of the animals, is that correct? I mean, are y'all that's what line 1 and 2 would be within line 3 and 4 would go back to a specific animal. Go on the front page, it talks about specific. are That's where it defines each one of them. Fair enough. Except we need to be more maybe, maybe we have the attorney from the ag department here. Maybe if you had distemper or something going through an animal shelter or something of the Yeah. Yeah, or, or, or, or, or animal shelter. It's the way I read it, but anyway. Any other questions? If Let me, before you do that, let me ask to see if anybody wants to speak for or against no one signed up on anything today, but again, I'll ask an audience, does anyone want to speak for or against this bill. Signon, uh, Senator Crow, motion to pass. Second, all in favor say aye, all opposed. Congratulations bill passes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Senator Hill. Are you gonna run the next bill? OK. All right. Senate Bill 68, uh, Senator Hill, you're recognized. Senate Bill 668 pertains to the veterinarian technicians, veterinarian technologists and veterinarian technician specialist. The main change this bill does, it allows the Technician, the specialist. In the technologies to be able to go out to a farm in an emergency situation under indirect supervision of a veterinarian. That means if a veterinarian is tied up in surgery and an emergency happens on the farm and he can't get out there. He can see in one of his staff indirectly out there to work on the animal. And so that just allows them they are still working for the veterinarian. But uh they can do this as far as indirect service goes. In the ABA is same scenario they. They did bless this and are good with it. Question from the committee. None. Anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against this bill. heal your clothes for you, Bill. I'm sorry, Senator Irv. If you would please identify yourself for the record and you Senator Irvin. And my apologies to Senator Hill, I wanted to have a discussion with him about this. I have some concerns about the bill. Um, and I just wanted to express a concern, um, as far as establishing the patient relationship after the fact and not before telemedicine is performed. I have a daughter, I apologize we've already voted on that bill. Oh, I see. OK, my apologies, but for the record, if you don't mind, I'd just like to share my concerns for this, uh, veterinary medicine. My daughter is graduating from the University of Florida Veterinary Medicine in May. And um she is a Uh, she wants to be a large animal and small animal veterinarian, um, and she wants to come back to the state of Arkansas, and she wants to practice here. And so, I would caution everybody at the table as we are considering policies that affect her and her practice, getting started as a young professional, uh, she needs to have good policies that are going to allow her to have a fulfilling and, uh, a practice that she's going to be able to cover her overhead and and make a living on. And so, if we continue to incorporate policies that lend themselves towards more corporate types of actions, then that's going to benefit veterinarians outside of the state of Arkansas, and veterinarians are not going to come and move to our state, particularly young veterinarians like this. Her best friend is no longer going to go to the state of Colorado because of the policies they have, um, enacted that are more leaning towards corporate veterinary medicine. verses against veterinarians that are here wanting to take care of their communities and the people in the state of Arkansas. So, as you're considering these policies, I think it's really very, very important that we have a good balance and what is being allowed, but that we always remember those Arkansas veterinarians and particularly those getting out of veterinary medical school, that they need the ability to practice medicine in a, in a good way and an appropriate way that they are going to be able to make a living and build a practice for them. themselves. And so I just wanted to be able to state that for the record. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else, uh, wanting to speak for or against the bill, saying no until you like close your bill. Your mic on. Yes You recognize the close your bill you make there. Thank you, sir. In reference to what uh Senator Irvin said it was, uh, taken in with deep consideration with the veterinarians as far as her concerns and what she's looking at. Well, the Colorado bill was brought up between everyone and that's the reason we went the way we did. We didn't want to go anywhere near that, that bill is a lot more extreme or liberal. Uh, this This bill in particular was brought in into effect by the large animal vets because they were so, there's so few of those in central Arkansas area and there's basically none over in East Arkansas area and there's, there's a few up in the, in other parts of state. This is mainly done for, for the large animal vets because they're not able to get to all their All their customers, uh, to the point where just a couple of examples that were brought up by the veterinarians is one of them a horse got into a cattle guard. The name was in surgery, could not send. Anyone out to work on the bed was emergency call. He didn't get out there till 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, and in that, at that point, they had to put the animal down, whereas if he would have been able to send someone straight there. He thinks they could have saved it. Another instance where they had a calf that was being born. Uh, veterinarian was out of town, couldn't get anyone to do an emergency call. He couldn't send anyone out. At that point, they lost the cow and the calf. So this just allows to get some help out there to the veterinarian is available. There are so many veterinarians close down at 5 o'clock. And as everyone knows, kind of like if you have a health issue, most time it's between 5 o'clock and 7 o'clock in the morning before someone opens. So this allows, allows that that I'd appreciate a good vote. It's on this pill, not the other one. I'll allow it. I, I'll be glad to say, I would ask if you wanted to hear you closed. OK, just, uh, just one thing, I want to make sure I fully understand on the bill we're discussing. OK. Very last paragraph. OK. So you're able to send out a tech. I understand that, that specifically. So is the veterinarian going to tell them the services they're going to be providing, or they're going to be able to make their own call once they get their own call once they get there. They will still be in direct call if you look in here to find in here where they are under indirect supervision, but, uh, veterinarian is responsible for it. OK. So They kill her, if they kill a herd or whatever, it's gonna be back, it's gonna be back on the veteran, I mean, which I believe it would be. It'd be back on their liability insurance or whatever. Thank you, sir. OK, Senator Hill's closer Bill. What's the pleasure of the committee? to pass their 2nd, all in favor say aye. All opposed. Congratulations Bill. Thank you everyone for coming today. Appreciate it. It's our first go round and we look forward to having a very successful session. We're adjourned.