By Dr. Allison Black
Now that Colorado voters have received their ballots, they may pause at Proposition 129 and wonder what it entails and how to cast their votes effectively. As Colorado shelter veterinarians dedicated to animal welfare, we are united in our strong opposition to Proposition 129 and we urge all Coloradans to vote ‘no’ for the safety of our pets and shelter animals.
If passed, Prop. 129 will unfairly jeopardize the quality of veterinary care that your beloved pets and shelter animals so desperately need. While voters desire safe and dependable veterinary care for their pets, this proposition ultimately falls short of that critical standard, thus exposing animals to unnecessary risks.
Proposition 129 aims to introduce a new role within veterinary care titled Veterinary Professional Associate (VPA). While proponents argue that this initiative will enhance accessibility to care, it contains significant flaws and inherent risks that voters must fully understand before making their choice.
Despite the Denver Dumb Friends League pouring over $1 million into trying to pass this measure, the notion that all Colorado animal shelter veterinarians support it is far from accurate.
We are committed shelter veterinarians who have devoted our careers to aiding Colorado’s most vulnerable animals—those that have been lost, abandoned, or surrendered—and we stand firmly against Proposition 129. Here’s why this measure poses a major threat.
Misleading comparisons
Proponents have mistakenly compared the VPA to a nurse practitioner or physician assistant, which is not only misleading but also irresponsible. NPs and PAs undergo extensive education and rigorous clinical training that spans years; however, they themselves cannot perform surgical procedures.
On the contrary, Proposition 129 would allow VPAs to undertake surgical procedures on animals after merely completing 65 credit hours of education—approximately half of the required credits for veterinarians. This abridged training is alarmingly condensed and largely administered in an online format with very limited hands-on experience.
As shelter veterinarians, we frequently encounter some of the most at-risk animals in Colorado, fully aware of how quickly a straightforward surgical procedure can escalate into a complex emergency, especially in animals that may already be stressed or in precarious health. In critical moments during a surgical procedure, an animal’s well-being rests in the hands of the practitioner. The difference between life and death could hinge on having a sufficiently trained professional performing the surgery.
In plain terms, Proposition 129 would allow inadequately trained individuals to carry out surgical operations, exposing shelter animals—and your pets—to unacceptable and potentially life-threatening risks.
Slowing down — not improving
Advocates for this measure have misleadingly lured voters into believing that the creation of VPAs will enhance access to veterinary care and lower costs. However, the reality behind access to veterinary care is far more complicated, and the proposed VPA will not possess the requisite qualifications to tackle these complexities. Furthermore, the marginal difference in salaries between veterinarians and VPAs is unlikely to result in reduced costs for pet owners—it would simply drive greater profits for investors. We must prioritize the quality of patient care over profit margins.
Shelter veterinarians have a steadfast commitment to delivering high-quality care to all animals, regardless of their individual histories. Many animals in our care have suffered significant trauma, and for these vulnerable creatures, access to dependable and quality care can be lifesaving. Introducing inadequately trained individuals into the mix, expecting them to assume responsibilities meant for fully licensed veterinarians, is an incredibly risky proposition.
This measure does not provide a real solution for expanding access to care; rather, it presents a perilous trajectory that could yield disastrous outcomes for the pets and animals we are dedicated to serving.
Better, safer solutions
There are far better and safer alternatives to tackle the issues currently facing veterinary care in Colorado. Instead of diminishing standards, our efforts should be concentrated on elevating and fully leveraging the expertise of Registered Veterinary Technicians (RVTs). These highly trained professionals already play a pivotal role within veterinary clinics and shelters throughout the state. Empowering them to expand their responsibilities presents a more logical and safer approach than introducing an entirely new role potentially filled by under-qualified personnel.
We also celebrate the recent bipartisan passing of a new legislative measure, HB24-1047, which aims to broaden the functions of RVTs in our state. This bill was achieved through a collaborative legislative process, exemplifying how meaningful changes should be enacted, as opposed to the deceptive strategy behind ballot measures such as Proposition 129.
Motivation and risks
As you contemplate how to cast your vote on Proposition 129, it is imperative to consider the profound implications this ballot measure may impose on animal safety. Take a moment to reflect on the extensive and diverse coalition in opposition—including shelter veterinarians, industry specialists, other animal health and welfare organizations, concerned pet owners, and likely your own veterinarian—who are all raising significant concerns about this proposal.
Conversely, the support for this proposition emerges from a narrow circle of advocates.
For the safety and welfare of pets and shelter animals across Colorado, we earnestly advocate for a ‘no’ vote on Proposition 129. Together, we can uphold the quality of care that every pet and animal deserves and collaboratively seek real solutions that enhance, instead of jeopardize, veterinary care.
Shelter veterinarians opposing Proposition 129
The following shelter veterinarians stand in alignment against Prop 129, fighting for the safety of pets and shelter animals throughout Colorado:
- Allison Black, DVM, Shelter Vet for 6 years
- Jennifer Bolser, DVM, Shelter Vet for 19 years
- Emily Bono, DVM, Shelter Vet for 1/2 a year
- Cara Brannigan, DVM, Shelter Vet for over 10 years
- Patti Canchola, DVM, Shelter Vet for 12 years
- Rhiannon Chapman, DVM, Shelter Vet for 6 years
- Tiffany Colglazier, DVM, Shelter Vet for over 1 year
- Cathlin Craver, DVM, Shelter Vet for 17 years
- Patricia Crystal, VMD, Shelter Vet for over 2 years
- Nellie Damrauer, DVM, Shelter Vet for 21 years
- Brooke Davis, DVM, Shelter Vet for 4 years
- Shari DePauw, DVM, Shelter Vet for 15 years
- Sarah Flanders, DVM, Shelter Vet for 5 years
- Becky Flemer, DVM, Shelter Vet for 11 years
- Elise Gingrich, DVM, MPH, DACVPM, DABVP (Shelter Medicine), Shelter Vet for 14 years
- Lesli Groshong, DVM, DABVP (Shelter Medicine), Shelter Vet for 30 years
- Cristina Gutierrez, DVM, Shelter Vet for 19 years
- Emily Hayes, DVM, Shelter Vet for 15 years
- Cindy Hill, DVM, Shelter Vet for 10 years
- Kristen Janusz, DVM, Shelter Vet for 19 years
- Shannon Lu, DVM, Shelter Vet for 1 year
- Sue Lynch, DVM, Shelter Vet for 15 years
- John F. Marsella, DVM, Shelter Vet for 5 years
- Rebecca Monahan, DVM, Shelter Vet for 22 years
- Camila Monroe, DVM, Shelter Vet for 9 years
- Cynthia Nigrini, VMD, Shelter Vet for 3 years
- Meagan O’Brien, MS, DVM, Shelter Vet for over 1 year
- Destiny Ortiz, DVM, Shelter Vet for 3 years
- Andrea Palchak, DVM, Shelter Vet for 6 years
- Abby Patterson, DVM, Shelter Vet for 8 years
- Gail Rapport, DVM, Shelter Vet over 40 years
- Heather Reeder, DVM, Shelter Vet for 23 years
- Barbara Rose, DVM, Shelter Vet for 7 years
- Taylor Smith, DVM, Shelter Vet for 5 years
- Miranda Spindel, DVM, MS, Shelter Vet for 25 years
- Vivian Tran, DVM, Shelter Vet for over 3 years
- Samantha Wetz, DVM, Shelter Vet for 6 years
- Dylan Whitaker, DVM, Shelter Vet for 3 years
- Dana Windsor, DVM, Shelter Vet for 8 years
- Amber Zagrodzki, DVM, CVA, Shelter Vet for 7 years
This opinion does not necessarily reflect the views of Boulder Weekly.
**Interview with Dr. Allison Black on Proposition 129**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Black. As the election approaches, many voters are grappling with the implications of Proposition 129. Can you share your main concerns about this measure?
**Dr. Black:** Absolutely, and thank you for having me. Our main concern revolves around the introduction of a new role called Veterinary Professional Associate, or VPA. While the intention is to increase access to veterinary care, the proposal compromises the quality and safety of care for our pets and shelter animals. The VPA’s training requirements are insufficient—they would need only 65 credit hours, which is drastically less than what a fully trained veterinarian undergoes.
**Interviewer:** That sounds alarming. You’re suggesting that this could lead to dangerous situations for animals?
**Dr. Black:** Exactly. Veterinary procedures can escalate quickly, and having someone with minimal training performing surgery is a significant risk. Our experience with at-risk animals shows us just how critical proper training is in emergencies. The difference between a routine procedure and a crisis is often determined by the skill of the person performing it.
**Interviewer:** Some advocates argue that this measure would make veterinary care more accessible and affordable. What’s your response to that?
**Dr. Black:** That’s a common narrative, but it’s misleading. Access to care is complex, and simply creating a new position doesn’t address the deeper systemic issues. Additionally, the small salary difference isn’t likely to reduce costs for pet owners; it could just lead to increased profits for certain stakeholders. We need to focus on enhancing the roles of already-qualified Registered Veterinary Technicians, who play crucial roles in clinics and shelters.
**Interviewer:** So, if not Proposition 129, what do you propose as a solution?
**Dr. Black:** We believe in elevating the expertise of Registered Veterinary Technicians. Recently, a bipartisan measure has passed to expand their functions in Colorado, which is a step in the right direction. This approach promotes quality care instead of creating new roles that lack adequate training and could endanger animal welfare.
**Interviewer:** It seems like a complicated issue with many voices in opposition. Who else stands with you against Proposition 129?
**Dr. Black:** A broad coalition opposes this measure, including shelter veterinarians, animal welfare organizations, and concerned pet owners. We share the goal of ensuring safe, quality veterinary care for all animals in Colorado, and we urge voters to consider the potential hazards this proposition presents.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Dr. Black, for providing such clear insights on this important issue. What would you like to say to Colorado voters as they prepare to cast their ballots?
**Dr. Black:** I encourage voters to carefully consider the implications of Proposition 129 and to vote ‘no’. Our pets and shelter animals deserve the best care possible, and we must prioritize their safety over untested initiatives that could put them at risk. Thank you for having me and for bringing attention to this critical matter.
