This is not just about opposing a merger; it is about ensuring a fair and competitive veterinary sector. It is about accentuating the voices of small, independent veterinary businesses and the people they serve.

I have dedicated the last 18 years of my life to Veterinary Medicine, serving as a Licensed Veterinary Technician, a Certified Veterinary Practice Manager, and aspiring owner of an independently-run veterinary hospital. I've seen firsthand the consequences and effects of both private and corporate entities within this sector - the good and the bad. Currently, I am enhancing my understanding of public service and public administration and understand that we can, in fact, use our voices to advocate for our profession and for the people and animals we serve.

Now, our veterinary sector faces many challenges. One we may be able to prevent is the merger of Mission Veterinary Partners and Southern Veterinary Partners. These two companies, along with Mars and NVA- serve as primary players in the consolidation and corporatization of the veterinary industry. A merger would impact the industry significantly, and could potentially limit professionals' autonomy and pave the way for monopolistic practices. 

The veterinary industry plays a crucial role in maintaining the health and well-being of our pets, and it must remain competitive and accessible. The proposed merger between MVP and SVP threatens to exacerbate existing issues in the industry in several ways:

1. Reduced Competition and Increased Prices: Consolidating two major veterinary service providers will significantly reduce competition in the market. This decreased competition is already leading to higher veterinary service prices, making it more difficult for pet owners to afford essential care for their pets. Reports have highlighted the effects of corporate consolidation driving up the cost of veterinary care to pet owners, and this merger will only worsen this trend, potentially putting pets' health at risk.

2. Negative Impact on Quality of Care: Large conglomerates often prioritize profitability over quality of care. We are already witnessing cost-cutting measures that compromise the standard of veterinary care provided to patients. These include reduced staffing, limited access to specialized services, and lower investment in continuing education for veterinary professionals. The merger will likely intensify these issues, further diminishing the quality of care.

3. Threat to Independent Veterinary Practices: The merger could make it increasingly difficult for independent veterinary practices to compete. This has already led to a loss of diversity in the veterinary field, reducing the options available to pet owners and leading to the closure of small, independently owned practices. Continued consolidation will only exacerbate this trend.

4. Employee Concerns: Veterinary professionals working under large corporate structures face reduced job satisfaction and increased pressure to meet corporate targets. This leads to burnout and high turnover rates, which in turn impact the quality of care provided to patients. The proposed merger will likely amplify these challenges, making the profession less appealing to current practitioners and new graduates.

5. Increased Pressure on the Veterinary Shortage: The veterinary industry is already experiencing a significant shortage of professionals. This merger will further strain the existing workforce by increasing workloads and stress levels, making the profession less attractive to potential new entrants and aggravating the current shortage.

6. Importance of the Human-Animal Bond: The human-animal bond is not just a concept. It's a reality that is essential to the well-being of pets and their owners. Access to affordable, high-quality veterinary care is critical to maintaining this bond. Corporate consolidation threatens to disrupt this access, negatively impacting the lives of countless families and their pets.

7. Ethical Concerns: Consolidating power within a few large corporations raises ethical concerns regarding the influence these entities may exert over veterinary practices and policies. Maintaining a diverse and independent veterinary community is essential to ensure that ethical standards are upheld and that the best interests of both pets and their owners are prioritized.

8. Concerns Over Private Equity Influence: SVP and MVP are part of the same private equity portfolio, Shore Capital Partners. This raises significant concerns about the undue influence and control exerted by a single private equity firm over a substantial portion of the veterinary services market. Such consolidation under a single financial entity could further drive profit-centric policies at the expense of quality care and professional autonomy.

For these reasons, I urge the Federal Trade Commission to thoroughly review and ultimately deny the proposed merger between Mission Veterinary Partners and Southern Veterinary Partners. Preserving competition, quality of care, and the diversity of the veterinary profession is crucial for the well-being of our pets and the integrity of the veterinary industry.

This is not just about opposing a merger; it is about ensuring a fair and competitive veterinary sector. It is about accentuating the voices of small, independent veterinary businesses and the people they serve.

We must appeal to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to scrutinize this merger and consider its significant implications on our industry's future. We need to raise our concerns and voice them out. Sign this petition to urge the FTC to deny the merger of Mission Veterinary Partners and Southern Veterinary Partners and to keep our veterinary sector competitive and diverse.

You might also write directly to the FTC:

Office of Policy and Coordination
Bureau of Competition
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580 

or email: antitrust@ftc.gov