John Kavanagh

John Kavanagh is an Arizona state senator and former state representative who has pioneered a variety of veterinary-related legislation. Considered by some to be Arizona's most humane legislator, his campaign website notes that he won "Legislator of the Year" from the Humane Society of the United States three times. He was also endorsed as a "Champion for Animals" by Humane Voters of Arizona for nine years. A prolific legislator, many of his animal-focused proposals tend to further empower pet interests relative to the general public, including recent legislation that would make it easier to send a man with a badge to grab your pets. If your dog changed his voter registration from Republican to Libertarian during the last general election, he may have gotten a whiff of Kavanagh's prior legislative record down at the park.

During the 2024 legislature Kavanagh introduced a series of pet-related bills, none of which were signed into law. One was pulled from committee while the others passed the Senate and were held in the House:

A particularly scary bill, SB 1204 would have made it even easier for the government to take away pets for a variety of reasons, including well-being and quality-of-life issues allegedly abused by the veterinary community to manipulate pet parents. Along with its other changes, it would have codified that "formal rules of evidence do not apply and reliable hearsay is admissible in the postseizure hearing." It would have allowed the government to contract with third parties to care for the pets and would require you to post a $500 bond to challenge it; challenging a court order would require the equivalent of 60 days of impoundment costs. Euthanasia of seized animals would also be permitted with approval of a veterinarian or judge. A more minimal bill with some strikingly-similar language, SB 1603, was introduced by fellow Republican senator Shawna Bolick. Kavanagh's bill vanished from the committee calendar the day of its hearing, but given his tastes, there's a reasonable chance it'll be back. Given the similarities between the bills, one also wonders what sectors of the Arizona animal-advocate community were involved in this potential disaster.

SB 1199, would have allowed a potential payout in court for the death—and only the death—of a dog or cat caused by malpractice. Possible winnings included the fair market value of the animal, the cost of medical expenses, and up to $10,000 for the loss of future companionship. Despite the most notable malpractice suit in Arizona concerning a bird rather than a dog or cat, the bill as introduced was species-specific and only later modified by an amendment. Whether or not "future" companionship awards would be adjusted downward by the age or expected lifespan of the sick pet is unclear. Such cases are notoriously difficult for plaintiffs to win, and given the prejudicial effect of a dismissed board ruling, it's possible many Arizonans would avoid the regulatory process entirely in favor of winning the lotto in court. It's also debatable whether malpractice lawsuits significantly improve the standard of care in human medicine, and if not, how our companions would be served by repeating our mistake.

SB 1200 updated the state's veterinary law to explicitly prohibit veterinarians from falsifying records or withholding information. Why this would not already be covered under existing prohibitions on unethical conduct is unclear. It also increased the veterinary board's maximum civil financial penalty and indexed it for inflation. It should be noted that historically the board rarely hands down the current maximum even in complaints involving fatalities.

SB 1201 combined several unrelated changes to the board. It would have added an additional public member to the board and granted the board's already-troubled investigative committees further investigative powers. It also created lists of board-approved experts to review specialist and veterinary technician cases, effectively setting up a three-track system for complaints before the board. The legislation failed to update the state veterinary law's public records requirements to include these reports; currently the investigative reports are in the public record, but Kavanagh's proposed improvements would permit no public visibility into these new processes by design.

Another malpractice bill, SB 1202, would have made veterinarians financially liable if they withheld information or allowed uncertified staff to perform procedures that resulted in serious injury or death. Possible court awards could run as high as the current market value of your (likely old, sick, and dying) pet and any additional medical expenses incurred as the result of malpractice. It also added an explicit prohibition on veterinarians allowing staff to perform tasks that they aren't qualified to perform; why that would not fall under the existing prohibition on gross negligence is not known. (This legislation was inspired by an incident at VetMed where a dog died from a misplaced nasogastric tube and a non-certified employee; the board failed to discipline the veterinarians involved and concluded that it was a known complication.)

In 2023 Kavanagh introduced a bill to modify the composition of the Arizona state veterinary board. SB 1934 would have expanded the state veterinary board from 9 to 11 members. One slot was reserved for a board-certified veterinarian while the other was reserved for "a member of a humane society." The board-certified veterinarian specified no specialty and no guarantee that their specialist expertise would be relevant to a particular case; boarded specialists on the Investigative Committees dismissed complaints at the same rate as others. The humane society position also appears to be a curious addition. The state's largest, the Arizona Humane Society, currently has a plurality on the board with former AHS veterinarian Robyn Jaynes and current AHS vet Melissa Thompson serving on the board alongside former AHS community engagement manager Jessica Creager and AHS volunteer Jane Soloman. Former board member and deputized animal rape investigator Nancy Bradley-Siemens also hailed from the AHS while public member Julie Young was an AAWL volunteer. The board's voting history speaks for itself; if anything, it makes you wonder about the people in the humane societies.

Not content with creating even more carveouts on the state veterinary board, he also planned to offload more of the entire state's regulatory apparatus onto the taxpayers. SB 1386 would have waived licensing fees for licensed professionals throughout the state. Rather, this staunch conservative proposed allocating $32 million (yes, you read that right!) from the state's general fund to counter the loss in user fees.

Kavanagh was quoted in an Arizona Mirror article, Anybody with a set of clippers: Pet groomers are totally unregulated in Arizona by Jerod Macdonald-Evoy. The story focused on a cat who had suffered serious burns, underwent surgery, and later died as a result of a grooming disaster, mentioning similar incidents reported elsewhere. Noting that "salons, barber shops, restaurants, tattoo parlors" and similar establishments currently have at least some regulation, several commentators in the story pointed out the curious hole in our broad regulatory state. Kavanagh responded that there's a trend toward less government regulation, stating that incidents such as the one described are rare and best handled "within the industry" and suggesting self-regulation and "industry policing" to solve it.

Along with "industry policing" Kavanagh appears to support involving ambulance-chasing lawyers in defense of Arizona pets. SB 1383, introduced in 2023, would have permitted Arizonans to sue veterinarians in private court. However, the bill would have only permitted lawsuits for two narrowly-defined provisions relating to nondisclosure of health information or injuries from unlicensed staff; if a veterinarian killed your pet in any other way, you'd have no right to sue. Despite a narrowly-targeted bill focused on a couple of special cases, the legislation failed to advance from committee after a targeted ambush by Arizona veterinarians and attorney David Stoll.

Kavanagh's SB 1067 chartered a commission during the 2023 session to develop new animal control standards for the entire state of Arizona. His proposed joint study committee would consist of four politicians, six members from state animal control groups, four members from humane societies, and a veterinarian from a veterinary college appointed by the state veterinary board. Aside from the veterinarian appointed by the board, all other members of the study committee would be appointed by the top politicians of the state house and senate. That same year he introduced SB 1059, which expanded the legal definition of "animal shelter" to include "an animal rescue organization or a for-profit organization that adopts or sells animals." His next bill, SB 1060, codified that fostering a pet for such "animal shelters" are not "owners" (and would therefore have no standing with respect to their foster pets).

Prior to his Senate career, Kavanagh introduced HB 2355 in 2022. This legislation proposed a statewide animal abuser registry similar to a sex offender registry. Sadly, the legislation contained no moral conscience protections for those convicted of animal abuse regarding end-of-life care and euthanasia, much less a sanity check on the humane sector. Our Tails of Woe contain several accounts of legitimate differences in values that could have put people on Kavanagh's list: 18-05, 20-51, 20-116, 21-111, 21-42, 21-43, 22-50, 22-56, 22-121, and 22-129 are notable cases.

Kavanagh was endorsed by Nancy Barto, the legislator who passed a law disappearing disciplinary actions for licensed professionals from all government websites after a mere five years.

Kavanagh remains in the Arizona Senate.