Skip to main content
President's Message – A position on position statements
January 29, 2026
Position statements (PSs); whether you love them or hate them, we have a lot of them, (1) and we dedicate much time, effort, and resources into creating them. So, why do we do this? Who reads them? Who cares? I must admit when I was first elected to my provincial council many years ago and was first exposed to PSs produced by the CVMA, I really didn't understand the rationale or utility. However, my thinking has evolved and now I realize that they are a vital part of a national organization that advocates for the veterinary profession, animal welfare, and One Health issues.
The impetus to create a PS on a specific issue may come from Council or committee members in a response to an issue that is the topic of much public discussion, new research, or national or international events or trends. Although PSs clarify the CVMA's position regarding an issue, they are not regulatory documents. They are used by the public, media, courts, and regulatory bodies as a reference, by governments when they consider decisions that affect animals and the veterinary industry, and by veterinarians seeking details on various related issues. Despite my initial thoughts that hardly anyone reads them, they are the most referenced documents that the CVMA produces. We currently have 61 PSs, plus 3 in development, on a wide variety of issues ranging from access to care, castration in piglets, the role of veterinarians in addressing climate change, artificial intelligence in veterinary medicine, antimicrobial stewardship, and service animals, just to name a few.
Since many PSs are not simply a reflection of current standard practice but provide a vision of what a best-case scenario for the future could be, based on the best science available, they often provoke controversy. We often get comments that a PS should be confined to "what is" and not "what could be." Although I understand the criticism that comes from a concern that an ideal cannot realistically be met, if you don't push for change, you are unlikely to achieve it. In response to some of the concerns raised, the process for creating a PS and the approval of final statements, are being re-evaluated.
I acknowledge the tremendous dedication, passion, and effort by volunteers and staff in creating and revising these statements. Although PSs are most often developed by the Animal Welfare or National Issues Committees, our joint position papers with international organizations are developed with our volunteer representatives to those organizations. Every PS has a committee "Lead" who assembles a group of other committee members and subject matter experts (SMEs), who may or may not be CVMA members. As well, the working group seeks to include members from diverse practice areas to ensure a breadth of perspectives. Yes, you may see a small animal practitioner like me listed as a member of the committee that reviewed our PS on Electroejaculation in Ruminants, but the role of the "outsider" is to ensure the statement is clear to a lay person, not to direct content. The CVMA feels strongly that the voices of SME's, such as specialists and species-specific veterinarians, are central to the development of PS. Every PS is extensively researched and has references that are checked for relevance and accuracy. Once the committee obtains consensus, the first draft of the statement is posted for review by all members, and species specialist groups to review and comment. Responses are tabulated, evaluated by committee, and changes are made, if needed, then a revised version is presented back to Council for final approval. Drafting a new PS, waiting for comments and revisions, and final approval often takes months and sometimes years. Existing PSs are reviewed on a 5-year cycle to ensure they remain relevant.
As mentioned, all CVMA PSs are distributed for member comment prior to approval and publication. I encourage you all to open these notifications and read the documents. Member participation ensures that these documents remain relevant. If something doesn't look right, if you have something to contribute, or feel the need to express an opinion (either positive or negative), please send a response. Thoughtful, well-articulated feedback is very welcome and indeed vital to ensuring these documents function as intended.
I hope I have given you some insight into the process and encourage you to consider your own position on PSs.
–Dr. Tracy Fisher
