North Dakota Senate Bill SB2129

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/7/25
• Refer: 1/7/25
• Report Pass: 2/19/25
• Engrossed: 2/21/25
• Refer: 2/25/25
• Report Pass: 3/17/25
• Enrolled: 4/25/25
• Passed: 5/1/25

Caption

AN ACT to create and enact ten new sections to chapter 43-29 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the practice of veterinary medicine, veterinary technology, and recognized animal services; to amend and reenact section 43-29-01.1, subsection 1 of section 43-29-02, sections 43-29-03, 43-29-04, 43-29-05, 43-29-05.1, 43-29-06, 43-29-07, 43-29-07.1, 43-29-07.2, 43-29-07.3, 43-29-08.1, 43-29-13, 43-29-14, and 43-29-15, subsection 2 of section 43-29-16, sections 43-29-16.1 and 43-29-17, and subsection 2 of section 43-29-19 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the practice of veterinary medicine and veterinary technology; to repeal sections 43-29-09, 43-29-10, 43-29-11, and 43-29-12.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the practice of veterinary medicine and veterinary technology; and to provide a penalty.

Summary

SB 2129 substantially revises North Dakota’s laws governing veterinary medicine and veterinary technology. It modernizes definitions throughout chapter 43-29, adds new terms for teleadvice, teletriage, telehealth, veterinary telemedicine, impaired practitioners, and recognized animal services, and updates the scope of the “practice of veterinary medicine” and “practice of veterinary technology.” The bill also restructures licensure provisions for veterinarians and veterinary technicians, clarifies board authority over licensing, renewal, continuing education, discipline, and fees, and repeals several older sections of the chapter. A major feature of the bill is its treatment of the veterinarian-client-patient relationship and telemedicine. It requires an in-person examination or premises visit before a veterinarian-client-patient relationship can be established and before veterinary telemedicine services may be provided, while allowing teleadvice and teletriage without that relationship. It also allows foreign practitioners to provide limited telehealth services tied to an existing relationship, and it defines when veterinary services are considered to be practiced in North Dakota regardless of the provider’s physical location. The bill further creates explicit exceptions for recognized animal services such as grooming, training, farrier work, massage therapy, microchip implantation, and accepted livestock management practices. The bill’s impact on state law is broad: it updates licensure standards, disciplinary grounds, complaint procedures, immunity provisions, and penalties for unlawful practice of both veterinary medicine and veterinary technology. It authorizes the board to adopt rules on professional conduct, inspections, continuing education, temporary licenses, and telemedicine, and it gives the board access to verified data from national veterinary organizations. It also strengthens enforcement by making unlawful practice a class B misdemeanor and preserving injunctive relief, while clarifying recordkeeping, abandonment of animals, and limited dispensing of prescription drugs without a direct relationship in certain circumstances. Overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly supportive and largely noncontroversial. The vote margins were wide in both chambers, indicating broad bipartisan agreement on updating and clarifying the regulatory framework for veterinary practice. The bill was requested by the State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, which suggests the changes were driven by professional and administrative needs rather than partisan dispute. The main points of potential contention are the telemedicine restrictions and the scope of board authority. Requiring an in-person exam before establishing a veterinarian-client-patient relationship may be viewed as limiting remote care, while the bill’s detailed disciplinary and licensing powers give the board significant regulatory control. There is also a possible tension between protecting public safety and expanding exceptions for non-veterinary animal services, but the legislative record provided does not show significant opposition beyond the small number of negative votes.

Impact

SB 2129 amends chapter 43-29 of the North Dakota Century Code to modernize and reorganize the state’s veterinary licensing and regulatory scheme. It changes definitions, licensure requirements, renewal rules, disciplinary standards, complaint procedures, and penalties, while repealing several outdated sections. The bill expands the Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners’ rulemaking and enforcement authority and creates new statutory provisions governing telemedicine, foreign practitioners, self-reporting for impairment, immunity, and recognized animal services, directly affecting veterinarians, veterinary technicians, clients, and animal-service providers.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support in both chambers, with large bipartisan majorities on second reading and only a handful of dissenting votes. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the voting history and the fact that the measure was requested by the State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners suggest it was generally viewed as a technical and professional update to existing law rather than a controversial policy shift.

Contention

The most notable substantive issues are the bill’s telemedicine framework and the line it draws between regulated veterinary practice and exempt animal services. Some may object to the requirement that a veterinarian-client-patient relationship be established in person before telemedicine can be used, while others may support that safeguard as necessary for animal welfare and accountability. The bill also gives the board broad authority over licensing, discipline, continuing education, and data reliance, which could raise concerns about regulatory discretion, though the recorded votes indicate little organized opposition. The small number of negative votes suggests any disagreement was limited and not centered on a single dominant issue.