Bills are often written in vague language, because the executive and judicial branches of government are tasked with the responsibility of interpreting laws–the legislators just write them! So this is not spelled out in the bill.

But what I can tell you from hearing this very question asked of the author of the bill is that “under the supervision of a vet” simply means that at some point the animal will see a vet. Many rescue groups and breeders vaccinate, deworm, etc. their animals and purchase those medications at much lower cost than they would be able to do if they obtained those services from a vet.

Sometimes, a rescue animal might not even see a vet, other than to get a rabies vaccination and be altered, if it’s healthy. Reputable breeders have puppies checked out by a vet and most probably do vaccinations on their own.

Irresponsible breeders, puppy mills–the targets of this bill–animals in their care may never see a vet. This is another way that they’d be in violation of this bill (law if it were passed), and the State dept. of agriculture could take action. As it is now, there is nothing illegal about not providing health care to animals (unless it gets to the point of cruelty–and why wait for it to get that bad?).

In short, if you’re a breeder or a rescue worker, you can absolutely still do those routine vaccinations, deworming, even general antibiotics, etc. that you are able to do now because of the experience and knowledge you have. Other medicines that require a diagnosis by a veterinarian, or vaccines (Rabies) and controlled substances that can only be given by a vet, would still have to be obtained through a licensed vet, just as they are now.