| Action | Regulation of haul-in facilities |
| Stage | NOIRA |
| Comment Period | Ended on 4/8/2026 |
 |
46 comments
Virginia faces an acknowledged shortage of food animal veterinarians. The operation of a haul in facility allows veterinarians to see more patients in a day. Increasing the regulation of haul in facilities will decrease the availability of food animal veterinarians as they will cease to operate or restrict the operations of these facilities. Increasing the regulation of these facilities will also increase the cost to producers as veterinarians will need to make whatever investments are necessary to comply with the regulations.
Regulatory changes will cost food Animal veterinarians money and time. Both of these costs will be directly passed on to agricultural producers. Unless there has been a pattern of complaints or some substantial problem that needs to be specifically addressed these regulations are unnecessary.
Large animal veterinarians are increasingly difficult to find, yet they play a critical role in supporting local producers. I work closely with many veterinarians to help facilitate producer access. These professionals already operate within a highly regulated environment and work tirelessly to remain available to producers. They have the responsibility for issuing animal health certificates and the ability to conduct visual assessments of animal health.
Imposing additional regulations on this profession would not improve access to veterinary services. Instead, it would increase costs for both producers and veterinarians while creating further administrative and logistical barriers for practitioners who are already stretched thin. Such measures would hinder, rather than enhance, veterinary access and ultimately undermine livestock health efforts in Virginia. Faced with additional paperwork, time demands, and expenses, many veterinarians may choose to discontinue haul?in services altogether—defeating the very purpose of making these services more accessible.
It is an unnecessary regulatory burden and the costs will be paid by the farmers.
As a large animal ambulatory veterinarian, we have been told for decades to make clients come to us so that we can see more clients in a day without all the travel time. The small ruminent clients have been especially receptive to this because it saves them a trip charge and the patients are small enough to travel in a car. Having the ability to do this increases the amount of patients we can see in a day dramatically. In our area, there is an extreme shortage of veterinarians willing to do anything large animal related. If we have to drive to every call the number of clients we see in a day will be cut in half or worse. In the past 5 years more large animal veterinarians have left the area, creating a huge practice radius that we are now responsible for. Most clients with emergencies that can be hauled safely will transport to us because it saves them wait time and the animal gets seen quicker. There is no difference in pulling blood for EIA testing or floating teeth or suturing a laceration on the farm or at the clinic. It is still considered an ambulatory procedure no matter where its done. Laying a horse down for routine castration on the farm or in the yard again does not matter where its completed. Trying to maintain a catheter on the farm for a calf with diarrhea is very difficult for the owners to do, maintaining a catheter in a haul in facility allows trained staff and veterinarians to treat the animal appropriately with the correct amount of fluids. Working cattle in a chute with an alley way and tub makes a huge difference than trying to do it on a farm with 2 gates and a wooden head gate. The clients appreciate the time and money it saves them to be able to bring it to a maintained facility for veterinarians to complete castrations, dehorning, pregnancy checks, prolapses and routine vaccinations as well as the massive amount of cattle foot work that is required to keep our clients herds healthy.
There is certainly a shortage for Large Animal veterinarians at this point. Having the ability to do procedures at a haul in facility have many benefits for animals, clients, and veterinarians and veterinary staff. Generally, many of the veterinary haul in facilities are much better equipped to provide surgical procedures in a much more controlled environment. The better handling equipment also makes it much safer for veterinarians and staff to properly and safely handle the animals. Many times on the farm the clients are allowed to restrain large animals. This also puts the general public at an increased risk for injury. Generally, at haul in facilities, adequate staffing is available for restraint. The general public also benefits from decreased cost and decreased waiting time due to haul in facilities. In conclusion, I feel that it is safer for the animals, clients, and veterinary staff at haul in facilities versus performing procedures on the farm due to the ability to control the environmental factors involved in properly and safely providing veterinary services to the public. Veterinarians can provide the highest level of care possible at haul in facilities.
Veterinarians are in such short supply. Why would add more hoops and regulations to haul in facilities when they provide such a needed resource! Many farmers don’t have livestock handling facilities. Haul in clinics provide a safe working environment with humane handling conditions that improve overall welfare. If more regulations make it harder for haul in facilities to stay in business, or for new businesses to open, you are hurting the farmer. In areas where vets are in such short supply, immediate assistance would be even harder to obtain when they have to drive up to a hundred plus miles while the animals are suffering and dying instead of farmers being able to meet at the clinic and saving time and their livelihoods life. Please consider with some rationality that farmers need access to haul in facilities. We don’t need higher costs, less vets and more stress.
As we all know , there is a great shortage of large animal veterinarians. It is very important and imperative to save time as they work extremely long hours. They have to have the time saving element of haul in facilities. In our rural area the vets would spend all day traveling around. The haul in option is the only way for vets to survive.
The increased regulations of haul in facilities utilized by large animal veterinarians may sound helpful so those who are not actually providing the services, but as a practicing veterinarian who is asked to risk my life on a semi regular basis by trying to perform services in on farm facilities that have not been maintained I personally see these increased regulations as one more way to restrict access to large animal veterinary care. Having access to a haul in facility that is professionally maintained provides a massive benefit to clients accessing veterinary care. On average during the busy season It is not uncommon to for us to work 12-15 hour days and some of that time is spent behind the wheel. By having a easily accessible location clients that have patients that need to be seen can have the option to haul to us instead of waiting hours for someone to be available within the needed area. It's also very difficult to maintain IV catheters for patients that require IV fluids on the farm and much better care can be provided by having those patients located at the clinic for duration of treatment. Alot of clients that do have their own facilities may have build these facilities by hand and not all procedures can safely be done in a homemade wooden headgate- think BSE'S, Hoof trimming, C sections. There are so few practicing large animal vets in VA and we all want to provide the best quality care possible, it's silly to increase regulations on haul in facilities when we are just trying to provide safe working facilities and support producers
Dear Regulatory Board
I was made aware that they are working towards stricter regulations on facilities for animal welfare. I am a momma cow farmer in VA and have 300+ momma cows. I have cattle in 5 counties. I do not always have the ability to have working facilities or the proper knowledge to handle or best take care of my animals. I depend frequently on my local veterinarian. There's not many of them and they are in short supply as is. I do not see how more regulations can allow them to better help the animals or the farmers. If there's more regulations then there's more for them to watch and worry about and not help the animals in need. They're already in short supply so futher straining their ability to help the farmer is not going to help any one. It will cause animal suffering because it will slow the ability to help and service my animals when I need it. So if anything more regulation on an already over worked veterinarian will worsen animal care. Please do not futher regulate a field that is already over worked.
Jeffery Vass
I don’t have a headgate. So you want to make it harder for me to seek vet care for my sick animals? Adding more stupid hoops to jump through is only hurting the farmers and the veterinarians who are all out here trying to make a living! So instead of keeping it reasonable you want me and my 75 year old wife to just tackle the dang cow and treat her in the field? Come on! Enough beurocracy all ready!
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to strongly oppose additional regulations on large animal veterinary practices in Virginia.
There is already an extreme shortage of large animal veterinarians across the Commonwealth, and my community is a clear example. In Grayson County, the City of Galax, and parts of Carroll County, we have only FOUR large animal veterinarians serving this entire region. The geographic area they are responsible for is vast and, at times, unmanageable. These veterinarians are working beyond capacity to meet the needs of farmers, livestock producers, and animal owners.
Large animal veterinarians are already under immense strain. They routinely work 12–15 hour days and are often on call 24 hours a day. A significant portion of their time is spent traveling between farms and clients’ homes—time that could otherwise be spent treating more animals. Despite injuries and personal hardships, they continue to show up because they have no choice. I personally know of a veterinarian who continued working through major surgeries, including shoulder and ankle replacements. Another was severely injured by a horse—suffering a broken jaw and losing teeth—and was back to work the very next day because animals and clients depended on her.
Haul-in facilities are not a luxury—they are a necessity. These facilities allow veterinarians to treat more patients in a single day in a safe, controlled, and properly equipped environment. They are specifically designed for large animal care and provide access to surgical tools, medications, and trained veterinary assistants. Without them, veterinarians are often forced to perform major procedures, including cesarean sections, in fields, on farms, or in outdated barns—conditions that are far less safe for both the animal and the veterinarian.
Additional regulations will not improve care—they will increase costs. Large animal veterinarians already pay substantial fees, taxes, and overhead expenses. Any new regulatory burden will inevitably be passed on to clients. Farmers and small animal owners like myself are already struggling to afford veterinary care. I currently have to make payments to cover my veterinary expenses, and I know I am not alone.
If costs continue to rise, farmers will be forced to make difficult decisions: cutting corners in animal care, reducing herd sizes, or leaving agriculture altogether. Small and family farms are not highly profitable businesses—they are barely sustaining themselves while providing food, dairy, and agricultural products to our communities.
We cannot afford to lose more veterinarians, and we cannot afford to make it harder for them to do their jobs.
I respectfully urge you to reconsider any additional regulations that would place further strain on large animal veterinarians. Please listen to the individuals and communities who will be directly affected—those of us who rely on these professionals every single day.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Mrs. Tyra Sharpe
4765 Delhart Rd
Galax, VA 24333
ph 276-237-5211
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express opposition to additional regulations on large animal veterinary practices in Virginia.
There is already a serious shortage of large animal veterinarians, especially in rural areas. In Grayson County, the City of Galax, and parts of Carroll County, only four veterinarians serve a very large region. These professionals are working long hours, often 12–15 hours a day while also being on call, and spending significant time traveling between farms.
Haul-in facilities are critical to efficient and safe care. They allow veterinarians to treat more animals in a properly equipped environment with the tools, medications, and staff support needed for procedures that would otherwise take place in less suitable field conditions. Limiting or adding burdens to these facilities would reduce efficiency and access to care.
Additional regulations will also increase costs. Veterinarians already carry significant expenses, and any added burden will be passed on to clients. Farmers and small animal owners are already financially strained, and higher costs could lead to reduced care, smaller herds, or farmers leaving agriculture altogether.
At a time when access to large animal veterinary care is already limited, it is important not to create additional barriers that could worsen the situation.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express opposition to additional regulations on large animal veterinary practices in Virginia.
There is already a serious shortage of large animal veterinarians, especially in rural areas. In Grayson County, the City of Galax, and parts of Carroll County, only four veterinarians serve a very large region. These professionals are working long hours, often 12–15 hours a day while also being on call, and spending significant time traveling between farms.
Haul-in facilities are critical to efficient and safe care. They allow veterinarians to treat more animals in a properly equipped environment with the tools, medications, and staff support needed for procedures that would otherwise take place in less suitable field conditions. Limiting or adding burdens to these facilities would reduce efficiency and access to care.
Additional regulations will also increase costs. Veterinarians already carry significant expenses, and any added burden will be passed on to clients. Farmers and small animal owners are already financially strained, and higher costs could lead to reduced care, smaller herds, or farmers leaving agriculture altogether.
At a time when access to large animal veterinary care is already limited, it is important not to create additional barriers that could worsen the situation.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
With all the regulations already in place we have enough, no more regulations are needed or wanted. Veterinarians carry enough burden already with Emergency Farm Visits, leave well enough alone.
How will these regulations help veterinarians treat more animals?
From how the proposed regulations were written it sounds like there will be more red tape for veterinarians and clients to follow therefore reducing care times and availability. I’m all for helping more animals and lessening the work load on our veterinarians but is it really the best option for everyone involved?
We have had such a critical shortage of large animal veterinarians in this area that there have been times that they don’t even have enough Veterinarians to make farm calls. The shortage of rural large animal veterinarians is not isolated just to this area. It also is occurring in North Carolina as many states are likely facing. This is gonna create a large problem for all of us that have livestock. And for the veterinarians themselves trying to care for all these animals one farm at a time. not to mention that will cost more for the farmer/owner of livestock because of fees for farm calls. One of the benefits of being able to haul into their office is that they can see those animals efficiently. When there’s a true emergency that occurs on someone’s farm And the animal is unable to load then the veterinarian will be better able to attend to their needs.I hope that you will take this issue And all of its consequences Seriously into consideration.I for one I’m so grateful to the veterinarians that care to my horses. I don’t know what I would do without them. I feel they know best how to care for our animals and livestock.
Given the severe shortage of large animal veterinarian clinics why restrict instead of facilitating access.Allow treatment in clinic and mobile care if your intent is to facilitate care.
Regulatory changes are unnecessary as there are too many already. Keep the nonsense up and soon there will be no farmers, vets or FOOD. Try taking care of the people who feed the country.
Given the severe shortage of large animal veterinarian clinics why restrict instead of facilitating access.Allow treatment in clinic and mobile care if your intent is to facilitate care.
Given the large shortage of large animal clinics, why restrict instead of facilitating access. Allow treatment in clinics and mobile care to facilitate.
This is an unnecessary regulation and would put more stress on an already over burden veterinary field, costing all parties more in the long run.
Putting restrictions on a large animal haul in facility can be seen as impractical or even counter productive when you consider the purpose these facilities serve. They are designed to handle livestock efficiently, often in high volumes and are essential for agricultural operations, veterinary services and breeding programs.
Additionally, large animal facilities already operate within established industry standards for animal welfare, biosecurity and safety. Adding excessing or redundant restrictions will not meaningfully improve outcomes but could instead burden producers with unnecessary costs and hurdles. This can ultimately impact farmers, transporters and the broader agricultural economy that depends on timely and flexible animal handling.
In many cases, flexibility is critical, weather conditions, emergencies, and seasonal demands all require facilities to adapt quickly. Making stricter regulations could cost the animal its life, not to mention this is the livelihood of the farmer and veterinarian.
With all the problems in the world, is this really a topic we need to be concerned about? Really? People making decisions for hard working people who work 18+ hours a day to put food on your table, and this is the thanks we get. Bravo Government!
I think that shared facilities for large animal care by veterinarians is an excellent idea! I support it 100%.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to oppose Action 6824: Regulation of haul-in facilities for veterinary services in Virginia. This action will serve to further burden an already over-worked industry, and we simply cannot afford that misstep in our food system, our communities, and this industry.
Haul-in facilities are critical to efficient, workable veterinary care for large animals, and need to be able to operate without increased regulatory requirements that will place greater cost on the providers and clients. There are simply not enough hours in the day for the current workforce of veterinarians in our area to reach every need already, and the ability to haul in to a facility increases the chances that our animals can be seen and cared for in a timely manner while saving resources and time. It is better for the people and better for the animals.
Addressing the shortage of large animal veterinarians is noble, but introducing and increasing regulations regarding haul-in facilities is not the answer. Please reconsider this unnecessary regulatory burden.
It is my understanding that there are currently no existing regulations on large animal veterinary haul-in facilities and actually no way to certify a facility as a "haul-in." Currently there is the option of being licensed as a large animal AMBULATORY ONLY establishment or a large animal HOSPITAL. A practice that has no desire or capability to hospitalize for days or weeks, but would like to offer a location for veterinary "out-patient" services is limited to an ambulatory license. Those practices should be allowed to legally provide a location for services when needed by the clients and when logistics of providing those services for clients from several different locations would be simplified and much more efficiently done in a haul-in facility. Please take into consideration PRACTICAL limitations of a haul-in facility. These facilties could be very basic... appropriate restraining equipment (ie chute, stocks, etc) ability to clean out and sanitize after procedures, temporary holding stalls or pens, and storage for equipment and medications. But a haul-in facility is not a full-time staffed clinic, especially if the ambulatory veterinarian(s) are out doing farm calls. This facility should not be regulated as a large animal hospital or a fully-staffed clinic where animals are hospitalized for treatment for an extended period of time or permitted to show up at any time. As an example, a haul-in facility is as simple as Farmer A has a great working facility and his neighbor Farmer B has no facility. So Farmer B asks to borrow Farmer A's facility for his veterinarian to come pregnancy check his cattle. No regulations. No red tape. An agreement between farmers. It should be just as simple for a veterinarian to offer a facility for farmers to utilize for these services. Please keep these regulations simple so that there are no additional financial burdens on the veterinarians or their clients. We all want to see good biosecurity measures to prevent disease, but please don't complicate the large animal veterinary profession with unattainable goals for small, barely surviving farm veterinarians that already work 16-18 hours a day. Thank you.
The reason we came was the robust farming and depth of excellent services for our livestock. It is critical that the services stay in place to support the critical needs of a strong farming community. Our large animal vets are excellent and need to be strongly supported. Please feel free to contact me anytime if you need additional information.
There is a great shortage of large animal veterinarians. Haul-In options are imperative to save time. The time saving element of haul in facilities can mean the difference in life or death for our animals. In our rural area the vets would spend all day traveling around, this option allows them to.service many more clients. The haul in option is the only way to retain large animal vets and is critical to assist in timely treatment for our animals.
Its not useful to add more regulations for haul in facilities when they provide such an important option for farmers. Many farmers don’t have livestock handling facilities and haul in clinics provide a safe working environment that is effective to perform procedures that would have been done on the ground in a barn. More regulations can make it harder for haul in facilities to stay in business which causes a negative impact especially in areas where vets are in such short supply such as here in south-west Virginia. We don’t need higher costs for farmers for facility requirements changes that don't significantly improve a procedure outcome.
Virginia Farm Bureau is supportive of the new proposed shared haul-in facility model that will greatly expand producer access to veterinary services and provide veterinarians with expanded flexibility to see animals in more spaces than currently allowed. Having been a part of the Regulatory Advisory Panel discussing this, it is clear that this regulatory framework will not impact any existing haul-in facility and will be optional for any veterinarian, producer, or community to invest in and utilize.
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express opposition to additional regulations on large animal veterinary practices in Virginia.
There is already a serious shortage of large animal veterinarians, especially in rural areas. These professionals are working long hours, often 12–15 hours a day while also being on call, and spending significant time traveling between farms.
Additional regulations will also increase costs. Veterinarians already carry significant expenses, and any added burden will be passed on to clients. Farmers and small animal owners are already financially strained, and higher costs could lead to reduced care, smaller herds, or farmers leaving agriculture altogether.
At a time when access to large animal veterinary care is already limited, it is important not to create additional barriers that could worsen the situation.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express opposition to additional regulations on large animal veterinary practices in Virginia.
There is already a serious shortage of large animal veterinarians, especially in rural areas. These professionals are working long hours, often 12–15 hours a day while also being on call, and spending significant time traveling between farms.
Additional regulations will also increase costs. Veterinarians already carry significant expenses, and any added burden will be passed on to clients. Farmers and small animal owners are already financially strained, and higher costs could lead to reduced care, smaller herds, or farmers leaving agriculture altogether.
At a time when access to large animal veterinary care is already limited, it is important not to create additional barriers that could worsen the situation.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
I think laying minimum requirements on a haul in facility so to give the board an opportunity to fine a practitioner for non compliance is a good way to stymie a practitioner from investment in such a facility. A haul in facility is a necessity in order to maximize a practitioner’s time management. I think you see this where you work. It takes money and time to develop a haul in. I think the board, by imposing edicts to govern practitioners attempting to improvise a haul in, will simply make rural practice less profitable. In the end, rural practice would be less sustainable and rural clientele offered less services. I feel that the board of veterinary medicine would best serve rural practitioners and their clientele best by allowing each rural practitioner to best define and decide on how to invest their money in facilities with out requirements handed down and inspected by inspectors that have little idea of the needs and responsibilities of a food animal practitioner.
As a large animal veterinarian in one of the most densely populated agricultural areas in the state, new regulation on haul-in facilities is concerning. I utilize a large, well built, well established haul-in facility in my practice on a daily basis. Having a haul-in facility allows my colleagues and I to see more patients in a timely manner that we ever could running from one end to the other of a 120-mile practice area. Our facility is already inspected in the same manner that our small animal clinic is inspected. There seems to be no need for additional regulation/inspection. Additional regulations and inspections on these facilities is only going to bar their use and further add to the problem of inconsistent availability of large animal veterinarians.
This regulation is being created to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. If there have been no complaints to the board about haul-in facilities previously. Why regulate them at this point? It will simply give food animal veterinarians a reason to not invest in a facility and further limit farmers ability to find veterinary care.
Increasing regulatory oversight of veterinary medicine only serves to further ensconce corporate veterinary conglomerates as the only source of veterinary care. Corporations can afford to comply with regulations and can hire attorneys and lobbyists to erode and influence them when needed. Private veterinarians can’t afford to stay on top of regulations or hire professionals to keep them informed. Gradually they get squeezed out of the market and only the corporations remain. Cost to consumers goes up and access to care goes down.
Unnecessary changes and new regulations will limit Veterinarian care in an already crisis point shortage. Our animals/livestock deserve to have access to the care they need in a timely manner and these changes will impact this.
The last thing we need is more regulations and hoops to jump through in order to get veterinarians to work on our large animals. Allow this to be optional. Most large animal are required farm calls.
I am writing in response to the: Notice of Intended Regulatory Action Notice is hereby given in accordance with § 2.2-4007.01 of the Code of Virginia that the Board of Veterinary Medicine intends to consider amending 18VAC150-20, Regulations Governing the Practice of Veterinary Medicine.
The purpose of the proposed action is to establish rules for haul-in veterinary facilities. The rulemaking action is result of the 2025 Report of the Large Animal Veterinarian Shortage Study Workgroup. A haul-in veterinary facility allows owners to bring animals to veterinarians at an inspected facility for treatment. Proposed provisions may include developing a model for regulating haul-in facilities, including facility registration, inspection, and treatment standards.
2025 Report of the Large Animal Veterinarian Shortage Study Workgroup
Executive Summary:
Pursuant to the Joint Resolutions, the Board of Veterinary Medicine (“Board") and the State Veterinarian convened a workgroup which met multiple times over the course of 2024. The workgroup considered the required topics of the Joint Resolutions, which were as follows:
The financial resources subgroup recommended exploring development of: (1) a loan repayment program that ties awards to practice in underserved communities; (2) matching awardees of grants with mentors to assist with grant-writing and other facets of mentorship; (3) developing a pathway for haul-in(*1) or shared use large animal veterinary facilities to address shortages in a variety of ways:
..........
Financial Resources
Haul-in facilities would allow owners to bring animals to veterinarians to be treated at an inspected facility. Currently, there is no provision that allows practice to occur away from the location of the animal. Under current regulations, veterinary medicine may only be practiced out of a registered establishment categorized as stationary (“bricks and mortar") or ambulatory (generally house calls or farm visits). Large animal veterinarians often travel extensively to provide healthcare at animals’ locations, impacting patient safety and contributing to burnout and attrition. Haul-in facilities would enable veterinarians to treat more patients, would address environmental factors (inclement weather, poor barn lighting), and travel times without requiring the veterinarian to incur the financial burden of opening and maintaining a stationary establishment.
I would like to make the following points:
COMMENT 1: Having owned and operated a large animal ambulatory practice in Virginia for over seventeen years, I treated animals under the jurisdiction and rules of the Commonwealth in a multitude of locations other than on the producer’s farm, including on the producer’s neighbor’s farm, at livestock markets, at fairgrounds, at the Virginia Horse Center, the Salem Civic Center, and other similar venues, at the Beef Expo, the State Fair, “Sissy’s scales on route 42 writing health certificates, the wayside pull-off in Staffordsville, VA where we did Coggins, vaccines, and dental clinics, and on a trailer in my office parking lot, none of which were “a registered establishment” and all of which were “ambulatory” where animals were congregated at a single premises other than the farm of origin.
COMMENT 2: The Purpose of the proposed action: “A haul-in veterinary facility allows owners to bring animals to veterinarians at an inspected facility for treatment. is taken out of the context underlined in the committee’s Executive Summary (above).
Note the underlined phrases: “recommended exploring” / “developing a pathway” / “shared use large animal veterinary facilities” / “Haul-in facilities would allow owners to bring animals to veterinarians to be treated at an inspected facility” / “without requiring the veterinarian to incur the financial burden of opening and maintaining a stationary establishment”
It is vague, at best, what exactly the definition of a haul-in facility is, and having only mentioned "inspected" once, it IS only suggestive that they might require inspection.
The KEY POINT here that a the definition of a “Haul-in Facility” has not been established.
I find it premature to establish rules for haul-in facilities before they have been properly defined.
COMMENT 3: If the Board of Veterinary Medicine still sees a need to amend 18VAC150-20, Regulations Governing the Practice of Veterinary Medicine. I suggest it simply adds language such as the following:
Definition of Haul-in Facility: An uninspected premises, other than the farm of origin or a veterinary hospital, that animals are aggregated, transported, or collected at to facilitate the provision of veterinary care by a licensed ambulatory veterinarian.
Overview
The expanded feedback from Virginia’s agricultural community reflects a deep sense of frustration and urgency regarding proposed regulations for "haul-in" veterinary facilities (Action 6824). Stakeholders, including large-scale producers and residents in rural counties like Grayson and Carroll, argue that the large animal veterinary field is already at a breaking point due to critical shortages and extreme workloads. The prevailing sentiment is that further "red tape" will not improve animal welfare but will instead lead to increased costs, reduced access to care, and potential animal suffering.
Summary of Key Points
The Virginia Agribusiness Council supports the development of new, available, and convenient treatment locations for Virginia’s livestock producers. A proposed shared haul?in facility model represents a meaningful opportunity to expand veterinary service options, particularly for animal agriculture operations in rural Virginia that often face limited access to timely animal care.
If these regulations help establish new opportunities for veterinary care and strengthen service availability across the Commonwealth, the Virginia Agribusiness Council will be supportive. We view this as a practical, forward?looking approach that enhances animal health infrastructure while respecting the diversity of Virginia’s agricultural operations.
Trey Davis
President and CEO, Virginia Agribusiness Council
The haul in regulations are not well defined to me. If changes are made that cause a negative impact to veterinarians, animal care and farmers, then this could create cost increases for all. This is especially concerning due to the current economic strain.
Virginia Cattlemen’s Association's (VCA) adopted policies state:
VCA supports opportunities to provide accessible and convenient treatment locations for cattle producers. To the extent that a new regulation is needed to help create new opportunities for veterinary care that are compliant with the law, VCA would be supportive.
While VCA appreciates the opportunity to comment on this notification, we are unable to provide more thorough feedback until a draft regulation is made public. We request that if a regulation is proposed, an additional public comment opportunity be provided so that we can provide more detailed input on how it would potentially impact Virginia's cattle industry, producers and providers.
My name is Jeff Powers and I serve as Chair of the Bedford County Agriculture Economic Development Advisory Board. I'm also a lifelong cattle producer here in Bedford County, and like most farmers, I depend on reliable large animal veterinary services to keep my operation running.
I appreciate the opportunity to share some thoughts on the proposed regulations regarding large animal veterinary haul-in facilities.
Any time new regulations are considered, I believe it's worth stepping back and asking a few basic questions. What problem are we trying to fix? Is it happening enough to justify regulation? And will the regulation solve it without creating new problems along the way?
From where I sit, both as a producer and through my work with agriculture in this county, I am not aware of producers raising concerns about the adequacy of haul-in facilities. I've worked with veterinarians for decades, and like most farmers, I rely on their professionalism and judgment. In my experience, veterinarians already have strong incentive to keep their facilities safe and functional. If they don't, word travels fast in farm country, and producers will go somewhere else.
That makes me wonder whether this regulation is addressing a real, documented issue, or more a concern that exists on paper rather than in practice.
What does concern me is the cost that could come with compliance. We already face a shortage of large animal veterinarians across rural Virginia. Anything that increases the cost of operating a haul-in facility - whether it's construction requirements, inspections, or ongoing paperwork - has the potential to discourage veterinarians from offering these services. For many of us, that could mean longer travel distances, delayed care and fewer options when livestock need attention.
There's also the cost to taxpayers to consider. Regulations require oversight, inspections, and administration. That all carries a price tag. Before adding the burden, it seems reasonable to be certain the benefit justifies the expense.
If there truly is a need for consistent standards, I would encourage the Board to consider whether voluntary industry standards or certification programs might accomplish the same goal without adding regulatory weight. Agriculture has long relied on professional standards and accountability within the industry, and that approach has served producers well.
I would also encourage careful review of how these regulations would affect existing facilities. If current facilities are exempt, then it's fair to ask whether the regulation will actually address the issue it is meant to solve. If they are not exempt, the cost of bringing older facilities into compliance could be significant and could further strain veterinary availability.
At the end of the day, farmers depend on veterinarians just as much as veterinarians depend on farmers. We need policies that support that relationship, not make it hard to maintain.
Thank you for taking time to consider input from those of us who rely on these services every day. I would encourage the Board to carefully weigh the real-world need for these regulations against the potential cost and impact on rural veterinary access.
Respectfully,
Jeff Powers, Chairman
Bedford County Agriculture Economic Development Advisory Board
The Virginia State Dairymen’s Association (VSDA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Board’s intent to establish rules for haul-in veterinary facilities. As Virginia’s dairy industry faces ongoing challenges regarding large animal veterinarian availability, we are generally supportive of efforts to create flexible, shared infrastructure that brings care closer to the farm. The potential for haul-in facilities at regional agricultural complexes, fairgrounds, or private handling sites is a thoughtful proposal that offers a practical solution to reduce travel burdens for both producers and practitioners. Providing a centralized, well-equipped environment for procedures and treatments will enhance animal welfare and improve the operational efficiency of our dairy farms.
However, the VSDA remains mindful that the success of this initiative depends on the specific regulatory framework. We support a model that increases opportunity without imposing burdensome or cost-prohibitive requirements on those who choose to host or utilize these optional facilities. Like our partners in the agribusiness community, we look forward to reviewing the draft regulations once available to ensure they provide the necessary flexibility to encourage ingenuity and investment in rural animal health infrastructure.