Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee
January 21, 2025
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:00:01] I call this meeting of the Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee to order. Scott, would you close that door, please? Thank you very much. Welcome, everyone. On the agenda, first up, Senator Boyd. We're looking at Senate Bill 15. If you would identify yourself for the record and you are recognized.
Senator Justin Boyd [00:00:37] 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 Game & Fish subcommittee held a Second Amendment task force and we reviewed all of the firearm legislation in our state code. And this is one of the issues that came up in front of the Game & Fish subcommittee. And so what this does is it fully repeals a bill that seemed to me to discriminate against deer hunters.
So my first question was, well, why doesn't this apply to elk hunting? Why doesn't this apply to bear hunting? Maybe why doesn't this apply to coyote hunting? And so the answer seemed to be that this statute is from a point in time when bear hunting and elk hunting were not legal in the state of Arkansas. So the question is, do we amend 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 my recollection was, Austin Booth was there with the Game & Fish at the time, and we asked if this had ever been used. And he indicated the Game & Fish has never used this statute. So a repeal of this does not affect civil liability. 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.
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:02:29] Okay, committee, anyone have a question? Senator Leding.
Senator Greg Leding [00:02:33] So just to be clear, there is still, you said a civil penalty, is there also a criminal penalty still on the books somewhere? And that's why you're saying this code is extraneous.
Senator Justin Boyd [00:02:41] It's just those 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.
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:03:00] Anyone else? Senator Hickey.
Senator Jimmy Hickey [00:03:02] Just a question. So you said reckless. What's the difference? Do you know what the difference is between reckless and negligent?
Senator Justin Boyd [00:03:14] I'm not an attorney. We all know that. I'm a pharmacist and insurance guy. 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.
Senator Jimmy Hickey [00:03:45] Okay. And I understand the way we operate down here with our staff, signing these bills is almost to me, I understand it's like hunting. Mr. Chair, I don't know why this was not in Judiciary. 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, we just do wild hunting.
Of course, as you know, I'm an avid hunter myself. I'm just going to make something up from the way I seen it. So if somebody comes 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 all over that person's head. I wonder if that's negligent or if that's reckless. And my problem is, as you, I just don't know.
And again, I think you're right. I think it would need to be all hunting whether it was duck hunting with a shotgun or whatever. So I guess my only issue is I just don't understand the words enough with negligently and reckless.
Senator Justin Boyd [00:05:00] So what I would say is I am 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.
Senator Jimmy Hickey [00:05:16] One more question. You said that you all looked at this under a Second Amendment type thing. So was there any issue with that part? You said that was in the off season in the subcommittee?
Senator Justin Boyd [00:05:27] Yes. So the Game & Fish subcommittee of the Legislative Council heard all statutes regarding firearms as part of 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 who started asking questions. And then the consensus of the committee was 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.
Senator Jimmy Hickey [00:06:01] Thank you, Senator Boyd.
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:06:01] Anyone else? Senator Dismang.
Senator Jonathan Dismang [00:06:06] Do you know when the original legislation was passed?
Senator Justin Boyd [00:06:10] So I don't have the date. The discussion afterwards, off the record with Game & Fish, that it was passed when deer hunting was legal but other large game animals were not viable. There wasn't a bear hunting season.
Senator Jonathan Dismang [00:06:26] Yeah. I just had wondered if it predated the requirement for orange or whatever. I mean, 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 kind of remember that from my, I think, it's when you get your ID card. If I remember right, that's a conversation that they have. And so maybe that's part of it. And that's why it's different than duck, when you're not indiscriminately just shooting at a black sky because you think there's a duck in it. And I think that may be in what's happening with deer. But I don't know how that applies to negligence.
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:07:04] 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. Yeah. Senator Scott, you're recognized.
Senator Jamie Scott [00:07:12] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So are we removing, repealing all fines and there will no longer be any kind of threshold for negligence and recklessness?
Senator Justin Boyd [00:07:25] So none of this regards civil penalties, 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 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, regardless of what I'm doing. 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 Game & Fish doesn't use it. And this is 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.
Senator Jamie Scott [00:08:32] How would we address accidents that might not be reckless, but negligent? So they would no longer be fined, right?
Senator Justin Boyd [00:08:40] If there is bodily injury, there are other criminal statutes that would likely apply. But that would happen, again. 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. 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 recourse.
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:09:17] Senator Crowell.
Senator Steve Crowell [00:09:19] And I don't know if you mentioned this earlier, but if memory serves me correct, 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 I have because I remember him talking about that.
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:09:37] Senator Scott, would you turn your mic off, please? If we get too many mics on, it won't work. Anyone else? No one has signed up to speak for or against it. But I will ask, is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak? If not, what's the pleasure of the committee? Motion. Motion do pass. Second, All in favor, say aye. All opposed. Your bill passed. Congratulations. Senator Hill, Senate Bill number 61. If you would state your name for the record, sir, you're recognized. Turn your mic on. Turn your mic on.
Senator Ricky Hill [00:10:37] Ricky Hill, District 11.
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:10:38] You're recognized.
Senator Ricky Hill [00:10:40] Thank you, Mr. Chair. The bill you're looking at, SB 61, is a bill for veterinary telemedicine in the state of Arkansas. We've been working on this with the Veterinary Medical Association now for a year and a half or so, and I've met, myself, Representative Vaught and Representative Painter, all met with them, I think it was five times throughout the course of just trying to get this bill where is is appealing to everyone and we have come to an agreement that this is actually needed.
Veterinarian telemedicine means the practice of veterinary medicine in which animal patient care treatment and services are provided by electronic communication, including telephone and audio visual technology consistent with the veterinarians' professional judgment. The main thing this is going to do is in an emergency or an urgent situation a licensed veterinarian may provide veterinary telemedicine without previously establishing a veterinary client patient relationship. When the licensed veterinarian establishes a veterinarian client patient relationship within, on a small animal, the veterinarian has seven days to establish that relationship with them if it's a rare case that they do not have a relationship with them to help the animal.
On a large animal, we've gone with 21 days on that because there are so few large animal veterinarians throughout the state that it may take them a little longer to get to the animal. Now I do want to say that you must be a licensed veterinarian here 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 them and us. And there is no opposition to this, as far as I know, as far as the Veterinary Medical Association and the AG Department as well. That being said, I'll take any questions y'all have.
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:12:36] Senator Dismang
Senator Jonathan Dismang [00:12:38] What does it mean when they-- what is that relationship? They have 7 or 21 days. What does that mean?
Senator Ricky Hill [00:12:44] 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, there's already an established veterinary patient relationship. But in some cases, emergency cases, it can be where it's not. This also allows someone who's over in the Delta or somewhere else where they might not have a veterinarian or it takes a while to get to them, 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.
Senator Jimmy Hickey [00:13:22] I guess just one for me. On page two, line one and two, and maybe this is y'all's negotiations. 'Health information, opinion, guidance or recommendation that is not specific to a particular animal.'
Senator Ricky Hill [00:13:38] So that that can mean one of two things. One is it could be a herd that someone has, livestock herd, or it could be something in a shelter.
Senator Jimmy Hickey [00:13:49] So if somebody has got a prize $50,000 bull used for insemination. So is what I'm hearing then you couldn't use telemedicine for them to call in to a vet to diagnose something they might need. Is that correct?
Senator Ricky Hill [00:14:14] No, you can.
Senator Jimmy Hickey [00:14:15] You can?
Senator Ricky Hill [00:14:18] It does not have to be specific to the one animal. It can be as a herd overall.
Senator Jimmy Hickey [00:14:25] 'Health information, opinions, guidance and 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 animal.
Senator Ricky Hill [00:14:36] I'm reading it right opposite from that, that 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.
Senator Jimmy Hickey [00:14:51] For sure. It just seems a little, just seems a little different for me. 'Health information, opinions, guidance or recommendation.' You will make a recommendation that is not specific to a particular animal.
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:15:10] Senator, when you read lines 3 and 4, it says, "or anytime an assessment to an animal patient.' I think that goes back to your specific animal. But I think what Senator Hill is saying, if you had a flock of chickens that had mites, for instance, that they could do the flock. Or if you had, for instance, a herd of cows out there that had pinkeye.
Senator Jimmy Hickey [00:15:37] But it has to be the combination of the animals. Is that correct?
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:15:42] That's what line 1 and 2 would be. On line 3 and 4, it would go back to a specific animal.
Senator Ricky Hill [00:15:55] [unclear] That's where it defines each one of them.
Senator Jimmy Hickey [00:16:00] Fair enough.
Senator Ricky Hill [00:16:01] Except we need to be more specific. We have the attorney from the Ag Department here.
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:16:06] Maybe if you had parvo or distemper or something going through an animal shelter or something that. [off-mic conversation] Or animal shelter. That's the way I read it, but anyway. Any other questions? Before you do that, let me ask. So if anybody wants to speak for or against? No one signed up for anything today. But again, I'll ask in the audience, does anyone want to speak for or against this bill? Seeing none, Senator Crowell. Motion do pass. Motion and second. All in favor say aye. All opposed. Congratulations, your bill passes.
Senator Ricky Hill [00:16:57] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:17:00] Are you going to run the next one? Senator Hill, are you going to run the next bill? Okay. Senate Bill 68. Senator Hill, you're recognized.
Senator Ricky Hill [00:17:06] Senate Bill 68 pertains to veterinarian technicians, visionary technologists and veterinarian technician specialists. The main change this bill does, it allows the technician and the specialist and the technologist to be able to go out to a farm in an emergency situation under indirect supervision of a veterinarian.
That means a veterinarian is tied up in surgery and an emergency happens out on the farm and he can't get out there, he can send 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 they can do this as far as indirect service goes. And the AMVA is, same scenario. They did bless this and are good with it.
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:18:02] Any questions from the committee? If not, anyone in the audience wish to speak for or against this bill? Senator Hill, are you closed for your bill? I'm sorry. Senator Irvin. If you would, please identify yourself for the record. You're recognized.
Senator Missy Irvin [00:18:31] Thank you. Senator Missy Irvin. And my apologies to Senator Hill. I wanted to have a discussion with him about this. I have some concerns about the bill, and I just wanted to express the concern as far as establishing the patient relationship after the fact and not before telemedicine is performed. I have a daughter--
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:18:53] Senator Irvin, you're on the wrong bill.
Senator Missy Irvin [00:18:54] Okay. I apologize.
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:18:55] We've already voted on that bill.
Senator Missy Irvin [00:18:57] I see. Okay. My apologies. But for the record, if you don't mind, I'd just like to share my concerns for this veterinary medicine. My daughter is graduating from the University of Florida Veterinary Medicine in May, and she wants to be a large animal and small animal veterinarian. 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, she needs to have good policies that are going to allow her to have a fulfilling practice that she's going to be able to cover her overhead 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 enacted that are more leaning towards corporate veterinary medicine versus 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 good way and an appropriate way that they are going to be able to make a living and build a practice for themselves. And so I just wanted to be able to state that for the record. Thank you.
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:20:47] Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wanting to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, Senator Hill would you like to close for your bill? Is your mic on? You're recognized to close for your bill.
Senator Ricky Hill [00:21:09] Thank you, sir. In reference to what Senator Irvin said, it was taken in with deep consideration with the veterinarians. As far as her concerns and what she's looking at, the Colorado bill was brought up between everyone. And that's the reason we went the way that we did. We didn't go anywhere near that. That bill was a lot more extreme or liberal.
This bill in particular was brought into effect by the large animal vets because there are so few of those in the central Arkansas area and basically none over in the east Arkansas area. And there's a few up in other parts of the state. This is mainly done for the large animal vets because they're not able to get all their customers to the point where-- just a couple examples that were brought up by other veterinarians.
One of them, a horse got into a cattle guard. That veterinarian was in surgery, could not send anyone out to work. It was an emergency call. He didn't get out there until 2 or 3 in the morning and 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 was where they had a calf that was being born. 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 us to get some help out there until a veterinarian is available. So, many veterinarians close down at 5:00. And as everyone knows, kind of like if you have a health issue, most times it's between 5:00 and 7:00 in the morning before someone opens. So this allows that. With that, I'd appreciate a good vote. Okay.
Senator Jimmy Hickey [00:22:43] I have another question.
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:22:50] I'll allow it.
Senator Ricky Hill [00:22:51] I'll be glad to take it.
Senator Jimmy Hickey [00:22:53] Yeah. Sorry.
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:22:54] I would ask if you wanted to hear it since you've closed.
Senator Ricky Hill [00:22:56] I'll be glad to. Yes.
Senator Jimmy Hickey [00:22:58] Just one thing I want to make sure I fully understand, on the bill we're discussing, very last paragraph, so you're able to send out a tech. I understand that specifically. So is the veterinarian going to tell them the services they're going to be providing? Are they going to be able to make their own call once they get there?
Senator Ricky Hill [00:23:23] They will still be in direct call. If you look in here-- I'm going to have to find it in here, where they are under indirect supervision. But a veterinarian is responsible for it.
Senator Jimmy Hickey [00:23:32] Okay. So they kill a herd or whatever, it's going to be back on the vet, I mean, which I believe it would be. It would be back on their liability insurance.
Senator Ricky Hill [00:23:44] That is correct.
Senator Jimmy Hickey [00:23:45] Thank you, sir.
Senator Ronald Caldwell [00:23:46] Okay. Senator Hill's closed. What is the pleasure of the committee? Do pass. Second. All in favor say aye. All opposed. Congratulations, your bill has passed.
Senator Ricky Hill [00:23:56] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Jimmy Hickey [00:23:58] 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 are adjourned.
