Vote in Support. As a previous LVT, I would love to oppose this ruling and I can understand why many LVT's are concerned with the change. As a veterinarian, the current requirement is an obstacle to productivity for practices who are not "fortunate" enough to employ LVTs. As I read through the posted comments, I see many familiar names. Those opposed to this change appear to be mostly LVTs or veterinarians who work within large and/or specialty practices where LVTs abound. The REAL issue is not one of training or position but rather what is the best temporary or permanent solution which will allow all practices to function when LVTs are scarce. Why are some practices allowed to have 30 or more LVTs and yet practices without are expected to abide by the same level of regulation? I would love to employ an LVT but have been unsuccessful in hiring one in my area. Whatever the board's decision, I will continue to provide my patients with outstanding care. But to those opposed to the amendment need to understand while they can delegate those tasks to an LVT, I must perform all those duties myself plus see a standard case load of patients which means when a patient needs an IV, another patients care goes on hold.