Those reasons also explain why the pet-owning population should expect to see (IMHO) a shift from private-type practices w/one or two doctors to more corporate-like setups like Banfield and VCA. Future vets can go to Banfield's website and see how their offer stacks up against the competition - and if you've got a ton of loans to pay off, it's almost a no-brainer. You might not like practicing via "protocols" with an "approved formulary list", but when they can offer you $10-30k more a year, plus benefits, paid time off, membership fees to professional organizations, paid CE, medical/dental, a 40-hr. work week (or less, if you'd like), etc., etc., it's easy to see why.

I will applaud the move toward corporatized veterinary medicine IF, and ONLY IF, it means standards of care are adopted and enforced.

I believe that corporatized vet medicine has the POTENTIAL to bring improved care to our pets through more thorough training and supervision of practitioners and development and implementation of standards, as well as providing the opportunity for more peer review of patient cases. BUT ONLY IF the corporate entity actually gives a damn about those things rather than just making money.

In the case of Banfield, it clearly has been just the opposite -- their "pet nurses" have almost no requirements -- these people, who function basically as vet techs, are NOT required to have any experience or training. Also, by many accounts the care is far below what you would get at a private vet practice. (Just search Banfield on the Ripoff Report and get ready for your head to spin). Moreover, even insiders admit the emphasis is all money. (Evident from vet tech posts on MySpace groups, etc -- they are pushed to "push" the plans irrespective of client/patient needs or wellbeing).

I have a higher impression of VCA, but just because they have directors responsible for developing and promulgating standards doesn't mean that these are followed consistenty at all VCAs.

Again, there is great promise for corporatized vet medicine to improve care for our pets (I know that's not what anyone wants to hear, but I believe it's true.) From where I sit, the situation in the field now is dire: Consumers can't tell what the quality of care will be at a practice, it's all a big gamble. There are no standards, and no enforcement, no real management attention to quality except that which is left up to the conscience of the individual practice owner and practitioner -- which means, LOTS of variation in quality -- to a dangerous extent.

However, to date, Banfied has definitely NOT lived up to that promise or EVEN demostrated that the corporate interests include ANYTHING about providing quality and competent care. And although I have personally spoken with a NorthEastern Director for VCA and believe that have made some effort to establish and promulgate standards, I'm holding my breath on them. Could be a good thing, but it depends on the corporate philosophy and management implementation.

BTW, I didn't know there was legislation being passed to help vets pay back student loans if they would provide large animal services - maybe I will end up doing some large animal, after all! Sad that it has to be that way, though.

Well, we subsidize most other forms of agriculture. . .so I guess this isn't any different/worse.

It would be nice if we could find a way to subsidize in the short term and phase it out in the long term. (at least for feed animals, like cows)

Having the cost of beef more accurately reflect the cost to produce it would be a good thing. We could all do with less beef / meant. I think veggies are more enviro-friendly too. (although I'm not sure about anything green-wise anymore)

Re:

"So, please don't put down those of us who aren't certified - it doesn't mean we don't do a good job. After all, why would we be there (I make barely above minimum wage, work 12-hour days, and spend a lot of time covered in bodily fluids) if we didn't genuinely want to learn or take care of animals?"

Anna, I take you at your word that you are genuinely sincere and desire to do a good job. Also -- I am well aware that there are some VERY good UNLICENSED vet techs. HOWEVER --

I learned the hard way (see my website) that when I walk into a veterinary practice, I have ABSOLUTELY no practical, pragmatic way of assessing the skill of the "vet techs". Once upon a time, I took the vets word for it. Both personal experience and research have educated me on how dangerously naiive that is.

True -- it is possible for a licensed technician to make a serious, fatal error also. HOWEVER, I believe that it is much less likely -- at least the type of error that nearly killed my cat and left him brain damaged would probably never happened in the hands of a licensed technician, whose training should have taught them the difference between a tuberculin syring and an insulin syringe.

When I walk into a veterinary hospital, the ONLY objective, 3rd-party reassurance I have about the veterinary technicians' skill and preparation is that license hanging on the wall. It is not a guarantee - but it is the least I can do, and the most I can do, to try to certify that the tech has SOME training. It is simply not practical for me to personally interview every technician who would ever touch my pet -- no practice would allow that either.

So, yes, I even know many good unlicensed techs. But I KNOW them. I typically don't know every tech that works at a vet practice I go to. And that is why I at LEAST want them to be licensed. I go to a facility now that uses only licensed techs for tech duties. It is my choice, I can't just take your work for it or someone's word for it on the skill of the techs. I did that once, and it nearly cost my very best friend his life, and in fact DID cost him his quality of life, quite heartbreakingly.

Never again if I can help it.

It is simply true -- the use of unlicensed techs poses a threat to our pets, precisely because this means that their level of training and skill is left up to the practice/vets. And I don't trust the practice or the vets to put my pets wellbeing above their pocketbook (being able to pay minimum wage for people with NO skills). I make a hobby of reading veterinary disciplinary records, and the use of unlicensed technicians is VERY OFTEN involved in the injury of pets -- harmful or fatal incorrect doses of meds being one of the more frequent occurances.

See this press release from a vet for a strong argument with horrible stories on this issue:

http://drjohnrobb.com/press/pr1.pdf.

I will pay nearly anything for good care, I want techs to make more money. I also want them all to be licensed.

Anna & Stefani, A few years ago, I would have been 100% with Stefani---feeling that formal education is a priority in any medical field including veterinary. However, since it was ultimately clear that by DECEPTION my own beloved dog "Pocket" (http://walnut-hill.bravehost.com) was utilized for "teaching benefit" for veterinary technician program and the $$$$, I would take an ethical, caring, field-trained vet tech, any day of the week. This is making the BIG assumption that the tech newbies, would only be left to perform skills that they have become proficient in. And the clinics that they work for (Vets or senior techs) are patient enough to provide the on the job training in a skillful,understandable way.

Despite the cruel memories I live with every day, and even the terrible thoughts of "what I DON'T know---of Pocket's last 7 days" ....knowing she was nothing more than a " lab rat" to practice & demo on--I have made a concerted effort to relax with the techs at the new clinic and allow them to handle my healthy, younger dogs to gain needed experience. This is a new concept and experience for" me" and one that I was not immediately comfortable with.