Coloradans love their dogs, cats and other pets. Two of every three households in our state own at least one. Coloradans also appreciate the other domesticated animals that play roles in our lives, like horses and of course livestock.

Naturally, we want them all treated humanely and to be well cared for, including giving them first-rate veterinary care.

Which is the best reason to oppose Proposition 129 on this fall’s statewide ballot.

The proposal, backed by the nonprofit Dumb Friends League, aims to establish a new kind of quasi-veterinarian calling in Colorado to grow the ranks of the animal-care industry. The idea is to increase availability and perhaps lower fees.

Problem is, Proposition 129 is the wrong way to go about it — and the Gazette’s editorial board urges a NO vote.

The ballot proposal asks voters to create the position of “veterinary professional associate,” a new kind of midlevel veterinary practitioner. The position’s responsibilities apparently would lie somewhere between those of veterinarians and those of the familiar veterinary technicians who assist them at animal-care practices.

The training and qualifications that the proposal requires for the new associate’s position raise red flags even for lay people outside the veterinary profession. For example, it would require a job-specific master’s degree even though there is currently no accredited program in the country that could confer such a degree. There’s also no recognized test to certify such practitioners nor a national regulatory standard by which they could be tested.

Even more troubling, the proposal would allow the associates to perform veterinary procedures including surgery — after only a pale imitation of the training a doctor of veterinary medicine receives. A proposed master’s program still under development to train a similar kind of associate at Colorado State University would include a mostly online curriculum with very little laboratory work or hands-on training and just one in-person internship. It’s the presumed template for the degree envisioned under Proposition 129.

It’s no surprise professional veterinary associations, including the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association and its national parent organization, oppose the Proposition 129 and warn against its consequences.

American Veterinary Medical Association President Sandra Faeh calls the proposal “disastrous.”

“The proposed training for this position is completely inadequate and will lead to missed or delayed diagnoses, ineffective treatment and repeat visits, all of which lead to more suffering for the animal and increased cost for the client,” Faeh said in a press statement.

That’s not to say there isn’t room for reassessing the duty roster of the typical veterinary practice to improve service for the animals they treat and the owners who pay for them. Colorado’s Legislature in fact did just that earlier this year, when it passed a bill expanding the scope of practice for registered veterinary technicians and veterinary technician specialists. The new law also gave clarity to veterinarians on which tasks they can delegate to other staff.

But that bill is fundamentally different from the pending ballot issue because it went through the kind of extensive, rigorous review, with checks and balances and expert input, that such a highly technical proposal requires — and only can receive in the legislative process. Indeed, the bill’s author — licensed veterinarian and state Rep. Karen McCormick, D-Longmont — also opposes Proposition 129.

Any proposal that calls on the general public to apply the minutiae of professional credentialing to the complexities of science — is bound to backfire. It simply doesn’t belong on the ballot in the first place.

Just as voters shouldn’t be expected to second-guess the state government biologists who help manage Colorado’s wildlife — as does another terribly misguided proposal on the fall ballot — they shouldn’t be asked to conjure up a new job description for veterinary care.

Vote NO on Proposition 129.