A Wyoming legislative committee rejected a proposal that would have allowed non-veterinarians to perform pregnancy determinations on cattle and sheep, ending the measure after a hearing that highlighted competing concerns over producer access, veterinary oversight and the economics of rural veterinary practice.
The Joint Agriculture, State and Public Lands & Water Resources Interim Committee voted 5-8, with one member excused, against draft legislation 27LSO-0153 on Sept. 22. The draft would have amended Wyoming’s Veterinary Medical Practice Act to create an exception allowing “any person” to perform pregnancy determinations on cattle and sheep.
The proposal contained no education, examination, certification or licensure requirements for people performing the service. Legislative staff specifically flagged that omission in the draft, noting the committee could consider an approval process or rulemaking authority for non-veterinarians.
The debate centered on a fundamental question: Should cattle producers be able to hire trained non-veterinarians for pregnancy checking, or does the procedure require the broader clinical expertise and oversight of a veterinarian?
Producers: Earlier Information, More Flexibility
For northeast Wyoming producer Katalina Pfeil, the issue is largely about timing.
Pfeil testified that her family has operated on the same land since 1880 and that her cow-calf operation runs about 200 cows. Traditionally, she says, the veterinarians her operation works with have performed pregnancy checks by hand at about 120 days.
After taking artificial insemination and ultrasound classes, Pfeil began using ultrasound herself to identify pregnancies at about 30 days.
That earlier information can change management decisions. Pfeil says it gives her more time to make decisions about rebreeding or culling and allows her to evaluate fetal viability and sex.
Pfeil also described what she sees as a capacity problem in her area. She says northeast Wyoming has two primary veterinarians and one traveling veterinarian, all of whom are heavily booked.
“There’s two times you need a vet, you can’t call them, and that would be calving time and pregnancy testing time,” she says.
She argues that allowing trained laypeople to provide ultrasound pregnancy testing could particularly help smaller producers who may not have the equipment to transport cattle or the ability to wait months for an appointment.
For Pfeil, earlier pregnancy information also has implications for management. She describes identifying poor-performing cows before the traditional pregnancy-check window and moving them to market sooner, reducing the amount of forage used by animals she had already decided to cull.
She also says the service could provide an option for producers who otherwise might skip pregnancy testing altogether because of cost, transportation or scheduling constraints.
Veterinarians: Pregnancy Checking Is More Than Identifying Pregnancy
Veterinarians who testified against the proposal described pregnancy determination as part of a broader clinical examination.
Dr. Doug Honin, a Wyoming mixed-animal veterinarian with approximately 37 years of experience, told the committee that pregnancy diagnosis involves more than determining whether a cow is pregnant. He described evaluating the fetus, uterus and ovaries and identifying abnormalities that may otherwise go unnoticed.
Honin also draws a distinction between producers performing the procedure on their own cattle and providing the service for other producers.
“I don’t have a problem with the rancher doing it himself for his own cattle,” Honin says. “That’s perfectly fine. But when they go to somebody else’s, I do because he is going over there and practicing medicine.”
Dr. Fred Gingrich, executive director of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, also testified against the proposal. Gingrich says the bill’s broad language was one of his concerns, particularly because it did not define what activities would fall under “pregnancy determination.”
“The language in the bill is very non-specific using the term pregnancy determination,” Gingrich says. “I would recommend that if you were to move forward with a bill like this, it should be much more specific on what is allowed and not allowed versus just using a general language of pregnancy determination.”
The concern is significant because the draft did not establish educational, examination, certification or licensure requirements for non-veterinarians performing pregnancy determinations. Legislative staff specifically note that gap and suggest the committee could consider an approval process or rulemaking authority.
Gingrich also brought up the economic implications for rural veterinary practices.
“Many cow-calf veterinarians generate 50% to 75% of their revenue doing preg testing and bull testing and removing that from them will effectively harm their businesses substantially to where they are unable to be available to provide the other services,” Gingrich says.
That concern was echoed by other veterinarians during the hearing. Dr. Joe Dona, a former mixed-animal practitioner and president of the Wyoming Veterinary Medical Association, says that pregnancy checking can be a significant source of income for rural food-animal and mixed-animal practices. He describes one strictly large-animal practice performing roughly 50,000 pregnancy checks annually and argues that losing that work could affect a practice’s ability to hire veterinarians and maintain other services.
Other veterinarians similarly argued that pregnancy-check visits create opportunities for veterinarians to evaluate cattle and the herd beyond simply determining pregnancy status. Those visits can provide opportunities to identify reproductive abnormalities, assess herd health and discuss management issues with producers.
The Economic Question for Rural Veterinary Practices
The debate therefore extended beyond who is qualified to operate an ultrasound.
Veterinary witnesses argued that reproductive work can serve as an important entry point for the veterinarian-client-patient relationship. During pregnancy-check visits, veterinarians may identify health problems, evaluate reproductive performance and discuss herd management with producers.
Gingrich also pointed to the broader consequences of removing reproductive work from cattle practices. He says that in states where unlicensed individuals perform pregnancy testing, the change has affected veterinary practices and their ability to remain available for other services.
Supporters of the bill disputed the idea that allowing other providers to perform pregnancy checks would replace veterinarians. They argued producers would continue to use veterinarians for services requiring veterinary expertise while gaining another option for a specific reproductive service.
The Wyoming Farm Bureau says its policy supports allowing livestock owners to choose whom they hire for pregnancy checking. The organization pointed to New Mexico as an example of a state that has established a more structured approach to pregnancy-diagnosis technicians.
Other States Are Taking Different Approaches
Wyoming is not the only state reconsidering who can perform cattle pregnancy verification.
In 2026, Oregon enacted SB 1539, allowing individuals without veterinary licenses to perform cattle pregnancy verification under specified circumstances. The law authorizes the Oregon Veterinary Medical Examining Board to establish rules governing the practice.
Utah took a more specific approach in 2023. Its Veterinary Practice Act exempts an individual testing a bovine for pregnancy from veterinary licensure requirements if that person has a master’s degree or higher in animal reproductive physiology and completes at least eight hours of continuing education in animal reproductive physiology every two years.
Ohio also distinguishes between an animal owner’s agent and an independent contractor performing pregnancy detection. Under Ohio’s rules, an owner’s agent can perform pregnancy detection other than by rectal technique with veterinary advice, consent, training and oversight, while the provision does not extend the same exemption to independent or specialty contractors.
These approaches differ significantly from the Wyoming draft, which contained no comparable educational or continuing-education requirements.
A Possible Middle Ground
The Wyoming hearing ultimately suggested that the debate may not be over.
During committee discussion, members raised the possibility of developing a technician model that would establish qualifications or other limits around who could perform pregnancy determinations. The concept would resemble other livestock services in which trained technicians perform defined procedures without taking on the full scope of veterinary practice.
That idea also surfaced in testimony. A representative of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union says the organization did not have a specific policy on lay pregnancy testing but supported veterinary technician licensing as a potential middle ground to meet the needs discussed during the hearing.
Gingrich’s testimony similarly leaves room for a more precisely defined approach. His primary concern was that the Wyoming proposal did not distinguish what a non-veterinarian would be permitted to do under the broad term “pregnancy determination.”
The current draft, however, did not establish those boundaries. It simply would have added an exception allowing any person to perform pregnancy determinations on cattle and sheep.
For now, the proposed exception will not move forward. The vote leaves Wyoming’s existing veterinary practice framework in place while the discussion continues over how the state should balance access to reproductive services with veterinary oversight and the economic realities of rural veterinary practice.
