I strongly support the amendment. I am a practitioner that has 6 LVTs. I value them and wish that I could find more valueable ways to utilize them ... let's say in almost a nurse practioner sort of way ... WOW - isnt that more valueable!? I understand that most LVTs would be opposed to this regulation and most likely all of mine. However, just as sure as I have to pay taxes, there are just not enough LVTs coming out of school to be able to implement the strict policy of not allowing non-LVT to place IV (not Jugular) catheters. I believe that I have probably missed the opportunity of hiring some very skilled individuals with a policy that I have in place in my practice - only LVTs are to put in catheter and that somebody licensed is on the premise (DVM or LVT) during any open hours of operation. BUT... that is MY choice for MY practice and not imposed on other practices. I have practiced rurally in another state where the luxury of an LVT is just not available (I know the same can be said in rural Virginia). By the way, 1/3 of my LVTs graduated from an on-line program ... How did they learn? Under my practice's supervision. I let assistants obtain blood samples ... which is placing a foreign object in a vein to obtain blood ... one is just a longer temporary placement for administration of medicines and with proper sterile preparation (that's an easy class), there will no more issues than what currently occurs ... which is minimal ... blown catheter, can't hit the vein, etc. Honestly, to not allow the placement of IV catheter by a non-licensed individual (must be under the supervision of a licensed person - DVM or LVT) as law, would negatively impact what the profession provides ... care for the animals.