Lawmakers Aim to Loosen Reins on Horse Dentistry Regulations

PIERRE — The South Dakota House of Representatives wants horse dental work to be a gallop, not a grind.

The chamber voted 39-28 on Friday to advance freshman lawmaker Jana Hunt’s House Bill 1176, which would add several basic dental procedures to the list of those that do not qualify as “veterinary medicine.” In theory, this would allow more people to perform the work themselves in an industry facing a shortage of veterinary staff.

Hunt, a Ziebach County resident, has drawn significant attention—and some lighthearted banter—due to the bill’s unique subject matter, one that many Pierre policymakers say they had never encountered before its first committee hearing on Thursday.

Lawmakers noted that the bill’s introduction sparked an impassioned response from constituents across the state.

Get our free mobile app

Freshman lawmaker Jana Hunt passes bill through House

“I am sure that this body has learned more about horse dentistry in the past few days than they ever thought they would,” Hunt half-joked during her opening remarks.

But horse dentistry is hardly a laughing matter, said Hunt, a self-described horse enthusiast. Despite South Dakota’s deep equine history, she noted that only about 21 of the state’s 430 veterinarians—according to her calculations—practice equine medicine.

“That’s far too few to cover the tens of thousands of horses in South Dakota,” Hunt said. “We have a massive large-animal vet shortage. We are vastly underserving our horse health needs.”

The bill specifically defines the removal of horses’ teeth, as well as the smoothing, contouring, and leveling of incisors—whether with handheld or mechanical tools—as procedures that do not constitute veterinary medicine. This process, commonly known as “floating” a horse’s teeth, helps them chew more efficiently. The bill does not change existing regulations on procedures requiring sedatives, which must still be administered by a veterinarian.

Before Friday’s vote, Hunt amended the bill to address concerns about a potential constitutional violation. The original version allowed anyone certified by the International Association of Equine Dentistry to perform the work, but that provision was removed due to concerns that it could be seen as granting unlawful immunity under state law.

However, without that certification requirement, critics argued that the bill provided even less oversight, potentially putting horses at risk by allowing anyone to perform the procedures.

“I am uncomfortable with the lack of regulatory oversight,” said Democratic Rep. Kadyn Wittman, who urged lawmakers to vote “neigh.” “We are completely removing any certification requirement for equine dental work… Any layperson can now work on a horse’s teeth.”

Two veteran lawmakers with agricultural backgrounds defended the bill, helping push it across the finish line. They argued that it would allow them to rely on unlicensed—but still experienced—individuals to perform basic dental work on their horses.

“Our home place is about 40 miles from the nearest gallon of milk,” said Rep. Will Mortenson, emphasizing the limited access to veterinarians in rural areas. “These horses are working tools. We use them every day, and we need to keep these regulations as reasonable as possible.”

Rep. Spencer Gosch agreed.

“This isn’t about the difference between a horse dentist and a vet—it’s about the difference between a horse dentist and me,” Gosch said. “This bill gives us the option to bring in someone with way more experience than I have… Otherwise, I’ll have to do it myself, and I can assure you, a file and a YouTube video is worse.”