Why a ballot measure creating a new veterinary career sparked controversy

This fall, Coloradans are tasked with choosing yes or no on a ballot measure that would create a new career for veterinary professionals. The proposal has sparked heated debate among politicians, veterinarians and animal rights activists.

Supporters argue the law would alleviate the scarcity of veterinary care in rural areas and reduce costs for pet owners. Opponents argue that professionals licensed under the law would be ill-prepared for their jobs, putting animals at risk. Some also expressed concerns that the law would further devalue veterinary care – a field already underpaid compared to medical professions.

If passed, Proposition 129 would create licensure guidelines for “veterinary professional associates,” or VPAs. The position would require a master’s degree in veterinary clinical care, including hands-on clinical experience. VPAs would be empowered to perform tasks beyond the scope of a veterinary technician, but still under the direct supervision of a veterinarian.

Supporters have compared the position to that of a medical assistant, but detractors argue that VPAs would have much less training and much more responsibility.

Security issues

Boulder Rep. Karen McCormick, who is a veterinarian herself, was initially involved in crafting the measure but later opposed it. She said that a VPA program in development at Colorado State Universitywould be completely insufficient to prepare VPAs for the clinic.

“60 to 70 percent of that training is online and that person would be sandwiched between two accredited, licensed professions and would have to take a national exam,” McCormick told KUNC. “Do you want this person to operate on your animal?” »

Advocates say CSU’s program is far more robust than critics claim — more than enough to allow someone to perform routine diagnostics and procedures like drilling an abscess or removing a skin tag.

“This is a strong master’s degree at the nation’s second-largest veterinary school and there are nearly 400 hours of in-person labs,” said Apryl Steele, CEO of Dumb Friends League.

Jon Geller, a retired veterinarian and founder of a Fort Collins nonprofit, has not officially taken a position on the measure. But he expressed confidence in the State Board of Veterinary Medicine’s ability to control the licensing process before the law takes effect in 2027.

He also emphasized that a VPA’s training and practice would focus exclusively on small pets, while about a quarter of a veterinarian’s training would focus on large animals and livestock.

By his calculations, that would leave new VPAs with only one year less experience working with small animals than a new veterinarian.

“It’s quite important training, but not equivalent,” he told In The NoCo this week.

Who will this help?

Lori Teller, president of the American Veterinary Medical Association strongly opposed the ballot measure at a conference in Denver last summer. She called the measure a “knee-jerk reaction” to COVID-induced veterinary care shortages, what the USDA reported in eight Colorado regions in 2021.

Teller argued that increasing class sizes at veterinary schools would soon begin to fill these gaps, making the creation of a new position unnecessary. She also said efforts should be aimed at improving working conditions for current veterinarians and their employees, not filling gaps.

“Retention is a serious problem for both veterinary employees and employers,” she wrote in a press release.

Steele, on the other hand, claimed that the cost of veterinary school, which amounts to approximately $156,000 for in-state students at CSUconstitutes a major obstacle to the profession.

“We’re trying to create a degree that’s more accessible to diverse populations,” Steele said. “And also a career path for veterinary technicians.”

Earlier this year, Protect our petsa defense group formed against the measure, criticized its opponent, All animals deserve veterinary careto receive donations from veterinary conglomerates like Pathway Veterinary Alliance.

“It is driven by special interests and companies that stand to make millions,” the organization wrote on its website.

However, all animals deserve care also received care from humanitarian shelters, small clinic owners and many people.

The arguments of the two groups tend to boil down to divergent opinions on who will benefit or be harmed by the measure. One side focuses on the potential benefits for rural pet owners, busy clinics and future veterinary students. The other only sees risks for the same groups.

Next month, Colorado voters will decide which side made the most compelling case.

Nikole Robinson Carroll, Brad Turner And Lucas Brady Woods contributed to this report.