The professionals who care for animals are either registered veterinary technicians, registered veterinary technical specialists or licensed veterinarians depending on educational levels and responsibilities.
Proposition 129 on the November ballot, which The Journal’s editorial board opposes, would create an additional category, veterinary professional associate.
A master’s degree in veterinary clinical care, or an equivalent degree determined by the state Board of Veterinary Medicine, would be the academic level needed. The position would fall above the two technicians’ levels and below that of veterinarian, which requires a doctoral degree and passing state and national exams.
Those in the new position would join those in the other positions in registering with and be overseen by the state board.
Proponents say there is a need for more trained veterinary professionals, especially in rural and agricultural areas, and that VMA positions would provide needed relief to overworked veterinarians. With the new position, proponents suggest that pet owners would have increased access to veterinary services, at a lower cost, and that pets would get greater care.
At face value, the initiative sounds good. Digging a little deeper, it contains significant flaws.
The training and education requirements are for an academic program that currently does not exist, and is planned only to require three semesters of online curriculum, one semester of clinical skills training, a one-semester internship and no laboratory requirement.
The new position would overlap with existing vet tech and veterinarian duties, and would be able to provide diagnosis, prognosis, treatment plans and perform surgery, under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian.
This education requirement is in stark contrast to that required of a veterinarian, increasing a veterinarian’s supervisory responsibilities, and reducing access to veterinary services. Just the opposite of the proponents' claims. Nor when a business makes money do they pass those savings on to consumers.
Proposition 129 lowers the standard of care for our beloved pets and does not offer any true benefits. It’s no wonder 3 out of 4 Colorado veterinarians oppose the initiative. For the sake of our pets, so should you.
