Opinion: There are Colorado veterinarians worried about Proposition 129. Here is why I’m one of them.
This isn't just bad policy — it's a dangerous gamble with the health of our pets and is unlikely to benefit pet owners in the ways supporters claim. As someone who is dedicating their life to animal welfare, I must speak out.
I worked as a veterinarian at DDFL for almost three years with around 15 to 20 other fully licensed veterinarians who DDFL keeps on staff. For two years, I sat in multiple meetings at DDFL concerning the proposal that became Proposition 129. My colleagues and I raised serious concerns about the proposal, including how individuals with so little hands-on training could be trusted with such high-stakes procedures and responsibilities. But our concerns were brushed aside in favor of expediency. Now, with Proposition 129 on the ballot, it is clear that our concerns were never taken seriously.
Here's why every Colorado voter needs to understand what's at stake and reject Proposition 129.
Proposition 129 creates a new role, a veterinary professional associate, or VPA, granting individuals with a fraction of the education and training that a veterinarian receives the authority to perform the full spectrum of veterinary medicine, including critical medical procedures like surgeries and administering anesthesia. These are not minor tasks. They are complex procedures that require the highest level of skill and precision. In Colorado, veterinarians must have a doctor of veterinary medicine degree, which is usually a four-year degree program, and pass the North American Veterinary Licensing Examination.
Yet, under this measure , someone with as little as three semesters of fully online lecture with no laboratory, a fourth semester of truncated basic clinical skills training, and a short internship could be entrusted with these critical responsibilities. No rigorous, supervised training akin to what veterinarians must undergo.
As someone who served at DDFL where I treated some of the most at-risk animals in the state, I cannot stress enough how dangerous Proposition 129 is. The vague language in the proposition does not outline the specific responsibilities of a VPA, leaving them open to interpretation. This could lead to serious consequences, such as VPA graduates performing life-altering procedures they are not fully prepared to perform. The consequences of entrusting someone with minimal training to perform surgery or handle urgent situations could be devastating for pets.
Supporters of Proposition 129 argue that it will help improve access to veterinary care, particularly in rural areas, but this is grossly misleading. VPAs, as proposed, will only be trained to treat cats and dogs, meaning they won't be able to provide care for livestock or other animals that are critical to rural veterinary practices. So, the idea that this measure will bring relief to underserved rural areas is disingenuous.
The proposition also claims that VPAs will help reduce the costs of veterinary visits. However, much of the costs are from diagnostic tests, medical supplies and products and will be unchanged whether a veterinarian or a VPA manages the case.
Having worked for years at a large animal shelter, I can tell you that most animals relinquished due to the cost of a veterinary bill were not seeking an exam or a routine surgery — they were relinquished because their owner was unable to afford a major surgery or a lengthy hospital stay. These types of complicated cases are likely to be managed by a veterinarian rather than a VPA, which leaves it unclear how a VPA would truly decrease costs for pet parents when it matters most.
Since before going to vet school, my greatest passion has been in helping animals that would not otherwise be able to receive veterinary care. Access to care is a major issue facing the veterinary field, and I am hopeful that we will find a sustainable solution such as elevating the roles of already-existing veterinary technicians who are often underutilized and underpaid. Proposition 129 is not the solution we need — it is misleading at best, and harmful to pets at worst.
This November, Colorado voters have the chance to protect the animals we love by voting against on Proposition 129. By doing so, you're not just rejecting a dangerous shortcut — you're standing up for the quality of care that our pets deserve and paving the way for a better solution. Our pets cannot speak for themselves, but you can. Your vote can ensure they continue to receive care from fully trained, fully qualified veterinary professionals.
Vote "no" on Proposition 129 to protect the health and safety of our pets.
Dr. Katie Redd, DVM, lives in Edmonds, Washington, and is a former veterinarian at Denver Dumb Friends League.
The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun's opinion policy . Learn how to submit a column . Reach the opinion editor at .
