The Denver Dumb Friends League & Dr. Jeff, Rocky Mountain vet, are on the same side this time
DENVER, Colorado––Veterinary protectionism vs. animal health is on a state ballot for perhaps the first time in direct, naked, unmasked, undisguised greedy form in Colorado on November 5, 2024.
Colorado Proposition 129 “creates a career pathway for a veterinary professional associate, or VPA,” succinctly explained Denver Dumb Friends League president Apryl Steele, DVM, in an October 17, 2024 Colorado Sun face-off against former Denver Dumb Friends League veterinarian Katie Redd, DVM.
No dog in the fight but an ax to grind
Redd now lives in Edmonds, Washington, and therefore does not actually have a dog in the fight, as the saying goes, but like much of the rest of the veterinary profession has an ax to grind against any legislation that might be perceived as increasing economic competition––even if it does not.
Nearly seventy years of fierce veterinary opposition to free and low-cost spay/neuter clinics, however, rarely if ever has been put before voters.
Instead, veterinary associations have preferred to do their dirty work against free and low-cost spay/neuter programs through highly paid lobbyists behind closed doors in state legislatures, resisting even efforts by the humane community and consumer advocates to flush their arguments out at trial in open court.
(See Veterinary protectionism rises again in Alabama (update)
Not just a stalking horse
Colorado Proposition 129, however, placed on the state ballot by Initiative Petition #145, is not just about spay/neuter. Nor is it about any of the many stalking horses that veterinary organizations have historically used to keep free and low-cost spay/neuter clinics from competing with either traditional private practice veterinarians or corporate-owned clinics headed by veterinarians turned entrepreneur.
Familiar examples include laws prohibiting nonprofit ownership of veterinary clinics, and/or laws limiting the services nonprofit clinics can provide to spay/neuter surgery and anti-rabies vaccination.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Two core arguments
Colorado Proposition 129, if passed, would overturn the two core arguments behind veterinary protectionism:
#1, that only graduates of four-year veterinary schools are adequately qualified to perform common veterinary procedures on dogs, cats, and horses, which are routinely performed on pigs, poultry, and cattle by low wage workers who have little or no advanced education of any sort; and
#2, that the often astronomical veterinary charges for such routine procedures are rationalized by the high cost of veterinary education, currently running around $20,000 to $40,000 per year.
Examples & realities
Examples of procedures to pigs, poultry, and cattle routinely performed by personnel without formal veterinary education include castrating pigs, capons, and steers, administering vaccinations and antibiotics, and dehorning, all without anesthesia.
Confronting with these examples and realities, the traditional veterinary protectionist response has been to ask, “Do you want your pets to be treated like pigs, poultry, and cattle?”
Which changes the subject from whether such procedures can be performed safely, in high volume, without a veterinary education, to whether anesthesia and at least a veterinary presence should be required for doing the procedures.
Critical labor shortage
Colorado Proposition 129 does not engage that debate.
Stated the Initiative Petition #145 preamble, “A critical labor shortage in the veterinary field is impacting the ability of pet owners and agricultural producers to access veterinary care for their animals. By creating a mid-level veterinary provider, also known as a veterinary professional associate or Vet PA [short for physician’s assistant], we can increase workforce capacity and drive down costs to ensure more animals receive the care they need and deserve.
“Top veterinary schools like Colorado State University are already developing master’s degree programs” for veterinary physician’s assistants,” the Initiative Petition #145 preamble continued.
Career pathways
“However, the state needs to create career-pathway for these professionals to be able to practice and provide veterinary care.
“Colorado has 25 counties that are USDA-designated veterinary shortage areas,” the Initiative Petition #145 preamble added, “and an estimated 1/3 of pet owners face significant barriers to obtaining veterinary care.
“Creating a mid-level provider,” the Initiative Petition #145 petition preamble argued, “will add to the veterinary workforce, decreasing costs and making it easier for pet owners across the state to access veterinary care.”
The preamble concluded by noting that, “According to a 2023 survey of Colorado pet owners, 80% said they would be comfortable with a Vet PA seeing their pet.”
What is a “veterinary professional associate”?
“Like a physician assistant in human medicine,” the Initiative Petition #145 petition explained, “a Vet PA is a master’s degree-level professional who works under the supervision of a Colorado licensed veterinarian to provide care such as examining pets, diagnosing minor conditions, performing routine surgeries [such as spay/neuter], and leading healthcare teams,” including veterinary technicians and orderlies.
Initiative #145, now on the ballot as Proposition 129, “is supported by the Veterinary Care Coalition,” described by literature in support of Proposition as “an expanding alliance of animal welfare organizations, veterinarians and technicians, pet owners, ranchers, and other experts,” seeking innovative solutions to the state’s veterinary workforce shortage.”
A Dumb Friend who is not so dumb
Most prominent among the Veterinary Care Coalition leadership is Apryl Steele, DVM, introduced by her predecessor Robert “Bob” Rohde at his retirement on February 9, 2018 after nearly 45 years with the organization and 41 years in the top post.
“During her 18 years as a practicing veterinarian in Denver,” Rohde wrote, “Apryl moved impressively through roles as president of the Denver Area Veterinary Medical Society, the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association and the Animal Assistance Foundation,” also previously serving on the boards of Dumb Friends League and PetAid Colorado.
Immediately before succeeding Rohde, Steele in 2015 became president of the Colorado Humane Society & SPCA, a Dumb Friends League subsidiary.
“Forced to turn away suffering pets”
Detailed Steele for the Colorado Sun, “We cared for more than 26,500 animals last year at [the Denver Dumb Friends League] subsidized veterinary hospital. Because we just didn’t have the capacity, we were forced to turn away thousands of suffering pets and their worried owners.
“In rural communities, veterinary clinics can be hours away. Twenty percent of the state has little to no access to veterinary care.
“Vet PAs are veterinary professionals modeled after physician assistants in human medicine,” Steele emphasized.
Tried to go directly to the legislature
“Just like their human counterparts, these practitioners will complete a two-year master’s program, be registered with and overseen by the state board, and must practice under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian. They will be experts who have the same standards of care that are required of veterinarians.”
Before launching Initiative Petition #145, putting Proposition 129 on the Colorado state ballot, Steele and others sought a simple legislative amendment to establish a Vet PA program.
“When it became clear the Colorado veterinary trade association and its lobbyists were unwilling to discuss this issue at the legislative level,” Steele wrote, “we were forced to pursue other avenues to help Colorado pets, especially after the majority of the trade association’s members agreed that a VPA would expand access to veterinary care for pets and livestock.”
Opposition caught Redd handed
Responded Katie Redd, DVM, the former Denver Dumb Friends League vet who now lives in Edmonds, Washington, 1,332 miles west, “I worked as a veterinarian at the Denver Dumb Friends League for almost three years with around 15 to 20 other fully licensed veterinarians.
“For two years,” Redd said, “I sat in multiple meetings 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,” Redd charged. “Now, with Proposition 129 on the ballot, it is clear that our concerns were never taken seriously.”
Was there ever actually any concern to take seriously?
But in view that physicians’ assistants treating human beings have no more hands-on experience before beginning their careers, was there ever actually any concern to take seriously beyond plain old-fashioned veterinary protectionism?
Wrote Journal of the American Medical Association senior news editor Malinda Larkin, “The AVMA opposes the initiative as do multiple other veterinary organizations, including the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, American Association of Swine Veterinarians, American Association of Equine Practitioners, American Veterinary Dental College, American College of Veterinary Surgeons, Independent Veterinary Practitioners Association, and Veterinary Management Groups, as well as the Colorado VMA, and others across the state. Three out of four veterinarians in Colorado oppose the measure, according to a Colorado Veterinary Medical Association survey.”
Note the utter absence from this list of any entity actually advocating for animals, as opposed to a dues-paying veterinary membership––or for consumers, low-income people, rural people, or anyone else not making a buck representing veterinarians.
“No good argument against Proposition 129”
“There is no good argument against Proposition 129,” responds Planned Pethood Plus and Planned Pethood International founder Jeff Young, a 1983 Colorado State University veterinary school graduate and star of the Animal Planet show Dr. Jeff: Rocky Mountain Vet, which ran for 77 episodes over eight seasons, 2015-2022.
Young over the years has had many professional disagreements with the Denver Dumb Friends League, but not over Proposition 129.
––Jeff Young, DVM
“Just want to keep prices higher”
“The powers that be just want to keep prices higher,” Young alleges. “In the end, as a vet, I am responsible for anyone working in my facility, and for the record, any student in vet school can do any surgery if I supervise even indirectly, no matter what experience they have.
“This new position will have to be spelled out in terms of what a vet PA needs to have in education and experience,” Young acknowledges, “but this will be worked out and they will come under the vet board who generally are very, very anal.”
“Economic euthanasia”
Explained Young on June 5, 2024 to Colorado Courier reporter Jane Reuter, “The number one cause of companion animal death is euthanasia. I call it economic euthanasia. A lot of animals are put to sleep simply because the owners cannot afford care.
“The mantra has been, ‘If they can’t afford it, they shouldn’t have it,’” Young said. “Hell, I could say that about kids. There are tremendous benefits to having a pet. It’s a privilege that should be affordable.
“We as a society must not lose sight of our humanity in the face of greed,” he said. “In the end, we have choices. As a society, I think we can make the right choice. It’s about having respect for the animals in our lives and the lives of others.”
Please donate to support our work:
www.animals24-7.org/donate/
Discover more from Animals 24-7
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When the Blue Cross of India was registered in 1964, one of its main aims was low cost spay-neuter programmes. We opened our first free Animal Birth Control clinic in 1967. Though we had the full support of Dr. Bertie D’Souza, the then Principal of the Madras Veterinary College (one of the oldest vet schools in the world) and its Head of Surgery, Dr. F. D. Wilson, we were amazed at how much opposition we faced from the vet community who used pretty much the same arguments that the Colorado vets use – that our free clinic would seriously threaten their livelihood! And this in spite of the fact that all veterinary colleges in India were state owned and run, primarily to encourage animal husbandry and not animal welfare and the fees charged were negligible (around Rs.300 per year (US$60 at that time and $4 today!!) for the five year BVSc programme.
It took us many years of struggle to show vets that by encouraging pet cat and dog ownership, we were creating new “customers” for them.
Sixty years later, we are still struggling to retain good veterinarians and many corporates have started veterinary clinics.
The love of money is an amazingly high motivator.
What veterinarians can charge needs to be regulated. There are astronomical fees being charged by veterinarians, and it is a national issue.
It is not helping the animals, pet parents and faith in the Veterinary industry.
Please contact your attorney general and local legislatures.
Animal lives always matter. 👍
Animal Advocate 🐾 💜
It is even worse in our state, as the Missouri Veterinary Medical Association has continually lobbied to weaken our animal welfare laws to keep more substandard dog breeders in business as clients. This is an annual battle with the MVMA. This past session, they were not as aggressive, realizing it was not a good public relations ploy for them.
As an online cat advocate, I see “economic euthanasia” and “economic surrender” daily. It is tragic and absolutely unjustifiable that cats’ lives are put at risk simply because their families cannot afford the spay/neuter, innoculations, and/or other operations their loved ones need. I have relied on low cost spay/neuter for many of my loved ones’ care in the past, and when I was in the position to do so, paid full costs so that others could obtain these services at affordable cost.
Dr. Young is absolutely correct and much respected. We need millions more like him globally.
Sharing with gratitude.
We’ve seen veterinary greed in action when we’ve attempted to pass a cat declawing ban in Nevada and were told that the main opponents were veterinarians. Their objection to free/low-cost spay and neuter clinics is a new one that prompts looking into. It’s critical that families with pets have access to more affordable, professional services if our society hopes to avoid needless euthanasia or prolonged suffering.
I’m not convinced that competition from low cost vet care might cause full service vets business isn’t greatly exaggerated where it exists at all.
Too many animals are relegated to suffering at home until they pass or are surrendered to a shelter/rescue when the owner either can’t or won’t pay the cost for their care. The option for too many is not pay $1200 for dental extractions or go to the low cost clinic. It’s pay nothing. It’s not $300 for a spay/neuter versus $50, it’s oopsie want a kitten?
Unwanted pit bulls and cats aren’t filling veterinarian waiting rooms, they are filling shelters. Give or take 750K pits and 750K cats are euthanized each year. Can only guess how many cats die on the streets. Hard to believe free spay/neuter, if it existed in scale that could have eliminated some of this needless suffering, would ever cost vets as much as death does those animals.
Could in some cases low cost vet care increase business?
Since 2019 my girlfriend and I have taken in 6 senior dogs. The first looked like a backyard breeder found as a stray at about 10 years of age. She needed a dental, spay, mammary and hip tumors removed. The vet did everything for $350. For five years until it was her time she went to that practice for everything from vaccines to extractions.
Everyone in sheltering/rescue knows a version of that story 100 times over that went the other way. Would many of those animals not be seeing full service vets if only?
Something has to give regarding vet care. I think humane advocates would agree that keeping a pet is a privilege, not a right…but today it has become a luxury. What is happening is that we see people who would like to adopt a pet, but want to do so the responsible way, and know they simply cannot afford proper care, so they opt out.
In addition, there are many, many people who keep pets who have never seen a vet–these animals remain unfixed, unvaccinated. They contribute to pet overpopulation in our communities and generally experience poorer welfare. If something happens and the person has to rehome their pet, it’s another intact animal, possibly with health or behavioral problems, vying for a shrinking pool of potential homes.
The vet profession needs to realize that skyrocketing costs don’t ensure more healthy animals in the community or even more funds for them. Instead, they are just ensuring that fewer people get pets in the first place, and those that are kept in homes rarely or never receive vet care.