Mobile Veterinary Clinics Voted Down by L.A. City Council

The arguments were raining like, well, cats and dogs at Los Angeles City Hall Wednesday as the City Council rejected an ordinance that would have allowed mobile veterinary clinics in public parking lots.

The council, on a 9-5 vote, turned down a proposal to permit mobile facilities in such parking areas as shopping center malls after strenuous opposition from neighborhood veterinarians and representatives of local chambers of commerce. They said such clinics would represent competition to established veterinary clinics.

The measure would have permitted mobile clinics to set up shop for up to 72 hours at a time and provide immunization and diagnostic testing of pets.

Mobile veterinary clinics are allowed in some areas, including various incorporated cities within Los Angeles County. But they cannot operate legally within the city of Los Angeles, although city officials say some have been spotted in shopping malls and public parks.

Health Care Concerns

“We are concerned that this ordinance will lower the quality of health care for the animals in this community,” said H. Don Mahan, executive director of the Southern California Veterinary Medical Assn., who sided with veterinarians arguing that mobile clinics are not adequately regulated.

Another critic, Mel Wilson, speaking for chambers of commerce in the northeast San Fernando Valley, said the ordinance would sanction “street vendors . . . who do not have a stake in the community.”

But Daniel Brosler, who said he has been involved in mobile vaccine clinics since 1981 and also owns a veterinary hospital, claimed that mobile clinics are “convenient, low-cost and fast” and thus would lead to the vaccination of more pets.

City officials were divided on the issue.

Robert Rush, general manager of the city’s Department of Animal Regulation, said his office has licensed 194,000 dogs in the last year, and that many of them were vaccinated at the city’s own 89 low-cost clinics at local parks. Allowing mobile clinics to operate in the city, he argued, would threaten that program, in which veterinarians now work for free.

Opposing View

The Board of Animal Regulation agreed with Rush. But Commissioner Arthur L. Margolis dissented. “I don’t believe that this city should be used to bolster the economic interest of a special-interest group at the expense of the public and its animals,” he said.

That argument was echoed by operators of mobile clinics, representatives of animal welfare organizations and some council members, including Marvin Braude. He admonished:

“The dog and cat lovers want lower cost for the services. They don’t want this City Council to come in here and protect high monopoly prices.”

But only council members Howard Finn, Pat Russell, Joel Wachs and Michael Woo joined Braude in backing the measure.

Finn, who sponsored the ordinance, contended that it was inconsistent for the city to ban mobile veterinary clinics but allow bloodmobiles and medical vans for humans.

A similar ordinance dealing with bloodmobiles was referred back to committee Wednesday after the council indicated that it would seek to limit such mobile medical clinics to nonprofit organizations.