As a veterinarian serving equine patients and their owners across Colorado, I have a unique perspective on the dangers posed by Proposition 129, and I feel compelled to speak out about the serious risks it presents to the health and safety of animals across our state.
This measure seeks to create a new role called a Veterinary Professional Associate, which might sound like a step forward, but as someone who works with Colorado’s animal patients every day, I can tell you it’s a step in the wrong direction. Proposition 129 not only risks dangerously lowering the quality of care our pets receive, but it could also lead to higher, unintended costs for pet owners.
My opposition is about ensuring Colorado pets are cared for by veterinary professionals who have the education and hands-on training required to handle the unexpected. Even simple surgeries can turn into life-threatening emergencies, and when your pet’s life is on the line, there’s no room for shortcuts. Unfortunately, Proposition 129 is exactly that – a shortcut that puts pets in danger.
The measure’s proponents compare VPAs to physician assistants, but that is misleading. VPAs would not be midlevel providers – they would be pseudo-veterinarians with far less training. Under Proposition 129, VPAs would undergo only three semesters of mostly online learning, a semester of basic clinical skills and a one-semester internship. After that, they would be allowed to perform surgeries, diagnose illnesses and create treatment plans for your pets. This minimal training is in stark contrast to the education of licensed veterinarians, who complete years of rigorous training, pass state and national exams, and earn a medical degree. The disparity is shocking. Proposition 129 would allow VPAs to take on critical duties reserved for licensed veterinarians.
Proposition 129 is a deceptive measure designed to create a role that doesn’t truly exist, allowing colleges to profit from unsuspecting students, who will likely be saddled with thousands of dollars in debt and limited job prospects. It’s also telling that three out of four Colorado veterinarians oppose Proposition 129 and would not hire a VPA. Why? Because they understand the high level of training and skill required to provide safe care for animals and the extreme dangers Proposition 129 poses.
Supporters claim Proposition 129 will lower costs and expand access to care, but there’s no evidence to support that. Businesses are not generally known to pass a reduction in operational costs onto the consumer versus using it to boost profits. In terms of access, VPAs wouldn’t even have the authority to prescribe medications, as federal law restricts that to licensed veterinarians. Rather than easing the burden on veterinary practices, this new role would increase it, requiring more oversight and creating more risks when errors inevitably occur. Proposition 129 wouldn’t streamline the system; it will make it more complex, more costly, and more dangerous for our pets.
It’s important to note that special interest groups and corporations are behind this measure, pushing it because they stand to make millions by dangerously changing pet health care through the ballot box. We can't afford to let profits come before the safety of our pets. Colorado’s animals deserve to be seen by a licensed veterinarian – not an undertrained VPA with a mostly online degree.
Ultimately, Proposition 129 threatens the very foundation of veterinary care in Colorado. It lowers the standards that protect our pets and offers no real benefits to pet owners. As a fifth-generation Colorado native and someone who has dedicated my life to veterinary medicine, I urge you to protect the quality of care your pets deserve. Vote “no” on Proposition 129 this November – for the health and safety of the animals we love.
Dr. Will French is former president of the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association and chairman of Advocacy Commission Colorado Veterinary Medical Association.
