Wouldn't it be easier to just keep your mouth shut and do as you're told? There is a huge demand for that kind of labor as long as it comes cheap.
Its much easier to ask the owner, trainer, vet "how do you want the feet done today" than to act as an advocate for the horses' best interests. there are great cost savings. you dont have to study the subject matter which takes time and money to attend continuing education, read and participate in discussions on this forum, spend time with your mentors and all the other methods of becoming a better farrier. you simply trim how they tell you to trim and nail on whatever they specify. I find those dedicated to the horses interests seem to cover a greater geography than the how do you want it done today whack and tackers so there is a fuel savings as well. I also find that if you are willing to just pick up the foot flatten it and nail on the shoe you can get many more horses done in a day as you eliminate the time spent to carefully balance the foot, reduce flares, and perform the many other steps in a proper job. This cost savings is passed on to the owner only to be recaptured years later in vet bills. Like most businesses the decision is are you going to dedicate yourself to quality or volume. I find it is much more rewarding to end each day knowing you have done your best for the horses in your care.
"Consent is used by a defendant in order to negate responsibility for a tort. If a plaintiff consented to the defendant's actions, as long as that person is mentally capable and did not consent due to misrepresentation of the facts, no tort is committed." The devil is in the details. Who among us is going to argue that generally speaking, horse owners are mentally capable.........
Mentally capable means they were of sound mind and body when consent was made. They were not suffering from a mental illness, under the influence of drugs etc. I have a feeling I know where your going with the comment, it seems that you feel your superior to horse owners and that can't possibly know what's best for the situation at hand. Funny thing is if the horse Shane was working on wouldn't have had any problems none of us would be having this conversation. I also agree with Travis if your worried about one being sore after a trim without shoes then maybe you need to take a look at how your trimming.
.... Just because one may not agree with a set up or barefoot does not mean it will harm the horse ...but your right at the end of the day I got kids to feed ..just because I think alum shoes on a walk trot kids pony may be a waste of money..it ain't gonna hurt the pony ..I also love my kids and I'm sure the dentest we use love kids ..but he come to me and say hey your son needs a root canal for 600.. and that what I sudgest we do ....I said how much to pull the tooth 95... I said pull it ... But I guess he could have done the root canal on his dime... I will work with a client as long as i feel it will not cause the horse undo pain ... And you can still like a horse ..no hypocritical thinking in that... At the end of the day money plays a part in every aspect of the job..the thing about a owner telling you how to shoe keeps Comming up ...do others have a issue with this ??.. I will work with the client close and hear out they ideas ..im not so egotistical that I'm all knowing of what every horse can go best in what set up..things seem to go so much better when its a team effort ans all party's agree...
Tom, A statement like this is totally unfair and casts a bad light on the 0.1% of lawyers who are decent people. The only case I know of that went to court was a small claims action over a client refusing to pay for what she thought was the wrong way to shoe the horse. The Farrier was correct in what he did, but the Judge said that he didn't know anything about horses, so he he awarded each party 50% settlement. Hey Tom, What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 73?
I know that was directed at Tom but, I'd say Congressman or Senator. lol I need to point out a few misinterpretations. First, I'm not a lawyer I have a law minor (probably about the same thing Tom has). I do work with lawyers and contracts almost everyday because (as those of you who've met me know) I can't shoe full time because I need better insurance than I can afford that way(due to medical issues) so I work in Higher Education Construction and Maintenance during the day. Second, Tom, you know the whole no food or water for a week thing is completely different because it's a guarantee that the horse will suffer if that's done. Going shoeless is something that may or may not be best for the horse, not something you know for a fact will damage the animal. Third, Bill Adams, If there are enough lawyers who are decent people to make up a 10th of a percent of the total number of lawyers, there must be a lot of them in California cause there sure aren't many in Georgia.LOL JMO David
David, I've been told that the way to properly address a low IQ lawyer is; "Your Honor". Your line certainly applies too. I've always been a bit nervous about working for lawyers. All they have to do to mess up your life is to print out a form and sign it. What I do now is to do such good work that they want to make my life better by having me servicing their horses. I asked a top criminal defense lawyer I worked for if he had heard about a huge drug bust on the local news the night before. He said he had, grinned and said; "That's why your check will be good today".
I rest my case. The mere fact that they own horses is, ipso facto, proof of their mental illness..... In many instances, absolutely. You can't possibly know that to a certainty. As noted earlier, this conversation, or one like it, has been had before. That fact alone stands as refutation of your claim. And maybe when you have more tenure, you won't make such a silly statement.
I have always maintained that the only person goofier than a horse owner is someone who will crawl under the horse with hot metal and sharp objects.
ROFLMAO!!! I don't believe I would play that card. Granted there are horses that are sore without shoes, but if they are worse when you get done trimming you better be reevaluating what you did. I watched a horse with 10mm of sole depth get trim yesterday at a respectable vet clinic. The horse stood comfortably without shoes for probably 20 min. and was comfortable on the blocks to get x-rays done, but when they got done with a few strokes of the rasp he couldn't bare weight on the leg until they reapplied the shoes. The comment was made well I guess he won't be able to go barefoot. I bit my tongue out of respect and professional courtesy.
Of course you wouldn't.......... Apples and oranges. Go figure...... Would have been interesting to see him move over some uneven ground and/or rock/gravel sans shoes but before the trim application. Its a wise man who knows his limitations. And the the old adage "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" is apt.
Most educated guys with years of experience I have been around realize how little they know, and don't have a crystal ball to tell what's best for a horse, don't belittle owners and such. I thought tenure was issued by several peers assessing ones work, not just one person behind closed doors. I'd be more than willing to put my work against yours any day of the week. In fact it could be done next month at IN/IL contest. There will be plenty of non biased opinions around for judging and the shoe list is just basic shoes plain stamp, 3/4 fullered and concave, keg shoe on a foot in one class for div 1. Not to far of a drive for you as well less than an hr. from Champagne Why would it be interesting to see a horse move that can't stand on one leg because he's trimmed to short. Must be something I haven't come across in my tenure!
Perhaps you need to be around a different group of people. lol Besides, what ever little I know is a damn sight more than most all of those non-horseman horse owners And if you think that farriers don't talk about horse owners in an [often] less than complimentary way, then you need to get out more. Granted, we don't say it to their face because that would be stoopid(sic), but alone, in our own company................. Well, that's what you get for thinking..... "ten·ure noun 1. the holding or possessing of anything: the tenure of an office. 2. the holding of property, especially real property, of a superior in return for services to be rendered. 3. the period or term of holding something. 4. status granted to an employee, usually after a probationary period, indicating that the position or employment is permanent." Whatever floats yer boat....... The only contest in which I engage is the one I have [gainfully] engaged in for more than 35 years. Sure there will...... I don't engage in meaningless contests that demonstrate much of nothing. Of course, if you want to pay me to be there and compete, then we might have something to discuss. Or perhaps I could have a proxy? Dan Helton, if he were willing, comes to mind......... If you compete in contests as well as you spell, you'll go far, lad. lol..... Yeah, reading for content in context with comprehension. Perhaps if you were to re-read what I actually wrote, and applied some critical thought and analysis, you might yet grasp it. To be clear, I wrote: "Would have been interesting to see him move over some uneven ground and/or rock/gravel sans shoes but before the trim application.(bolding and underlining added to aid in reading comprehension and [hopefully] understanding). One last thing. If I understand you correctly, after viewing the rads, the farrier, in the presence of the attending veterinarian, with but a few strokes of the rasp, crippled the horse. Do I have that right? Since you were there, what other diagnostics were performed prior to any trimming?
You seem very to be very much in favor of messing up a horse on purpose just to make an ignorant customer happy. Personally I find your attitude unprofessional, disgusting and deplorable. I'm sure a lot of people who call themselves farriers get away with this sort of thing every day. You have continued to argue in favor of "how to get away with it" as though getting away with it makes it "right" and "ethical." You make me sick.
So it is different because suffering is a 100% certainty. And in the case under review suffering was only a 75% certainty or maybe 55% certainty? What odds would you have given the horse? Regardless, of the odds, the operative word is INTENT. As far as I'm concerned if you think the odds are that going along with a bad idea will be harmful or cause discomfort, but you go along with it anyway, then your INTENT is to do harm against your own better judgement. It speaks to the frame of mind of the perpetrator having a callous disregard for the comfort of the animal in order to satisfy an ignorant and unreasonable customer.
That's what I figured, quick to belittle someone but not willing to back it up when called out. I would think with your tenure your work wouldn't be so rough. That would be great we've got some things to work out, but I can't get him to meet me. Maybe you shouldn't make comments without knowing the whole story. Wouldn't have made any difference since he was wearing hospital plates, his gait was assessed before coming into the clinic. Hoof testers and rads, new rads compared to old rads. Vet trimmed one foot, not sure if the guy that trimmed the other was a vet or farrier he did take more foot than the vet. Yes the horse was crippled with just a few strokes of the rasp.
