Based on the original article, the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime. 28 days suspension seems a bit harsh for allowing one to simply pull shoes,especially if this is a first offence and/or there is no history of prior offences. Based on what you've posted there would appear to be more to the story,as usualy there is. If I read that right, it seems the boy was allowed to pull shoes,clean the feet,trim and fit up the shoes all around. This would change things up a bit compared to the original article. As for licencing IDK. I guess I'd like to see the government (both fed and state) do a better job of managing what it has on it's plate now before adding any more. There's no way fees for licencing could bring in enough $ to pay for the management.
None. But when a candidate stood in front of the board and was asked "where do you intend to set up and work?" there was often a conference among the examiners that went something like "Hey, he wants to work in my area or my friend's area and that means less work for us....." Guess what, George, that candidate didn't pass. And the exam was only given once a year. And there were other discrepancies in how the exam was adjudicated. You ever/never ran into something like that with the JHU exam? Anything is possible. Probable is an entirely different matter. Perhaps because they are merely owners and not horsemen/women. And probably, because most of them really don't give a damn. Perhaps, but I won't hold my breath. Unless it becomes mandatory for all states to require licensing, it just won't happen. One of the other reasons it failed in Illinois was because farriers simply plied their trade elsewhere where testing/licensing/registration wasn't required. The fact is that even in Illinois at that time, owners didn't care if the service provider was licensed or not. The only ones who cared were farriers, mostly in the northern end of the state. If they pulled into a barn and saw another farrier there who wasn't displaying the state license on his vehicle, they'd call the police, report them and have them arrested. Rats to the end. ymmv They didn't care whether that person was any good or not. They were just protecting their turf. Interesting thing was that when the licensing law was allowed to expire, many of those rats had nowhere to turn, no friends, and a lot of them saw their business dwindle away to nothing. Lest you/anyone think I was against the licensing process, I wasn't. I carried an Illinois license when it was required and felt then and still feel now, that the intent was a good one that got bastardized and corrupted by those entrusted with applying it. IOW, the testing group itself was the weak and fallible link in the process. I have no reason to think/believe it would be otherwise today.
I'm sure there are just as many farriers, if not more that do not want licensing. There are a massive amount of farriers that have no school -type education and ARE top notch. There is probably a massive amount of educated farriers who can't even tie their shoes. It might be worthwhile for farriers themselves to create a system where a farrier needs 10 signatures from other farriers from each category , to have to show customers . For example, if a "farrier" can get 10 signatures from 10 other farriers, that would mean that he was approved by each of them of whatever job he was doing. Like if a "farrier", whether schooled or not, can trim and shoe, he gets a signature from a farrier that's watched and approved him up to a specified number. Then that signing farrier also has to give their name address and phone number, and name of their business. Customers may ask for a copy of these approvals if asked. Sure, it's not perfect, but it may be an idea for a start that would not disclude those farriers who have years of good work without learning from a school program. It's only fair that a farrier that's been a good one for years is not discluded. So it would mean that a minimum of X number of farriers would approve of that farrier's work on a certain subject, let's say working with a foundered horse, plain trim and shoe, chronic problem, whatever. Word can be spread by word of mouth, cards in feed or tack stores, etc. It would take years, but it's a start, and performed by self-regulation. Maybe , too, an association that keeps things together.
that would be cronyism of the worst sort in my opinion. it just means he's got 10 signatures and nothing else... it's worthless
If anyone here would like my signature, send a self addressed stamped envelope and $20.00. Please allow 2 weeks for handling and processing. Since I don't really know most of you, we can't be accused of cronyism. Regards
It would take a board, much like a vet board, that would oversee it. The schooling would have to be standardized nation wide. Only farriers that have proved their skill should be allowed to teach and have apprentices. Farriers that have been practicing for yrs. could be grandfathered in so that they would still be allowed to earn a living, but they would not be allowed to have apprentices. After a few yrs the standard would start to improve.
I need to add that the board should be made up of Farriers, not vets. We need to own our trade ourselves.
Yes indeed. It's considered important enough to try to ensure there's provision for all. Though not in entirity when it comes to adult education: so vocational qualification or higher education.
The UK farrier education system existed long before the profession was regulated. As such the program already had the makings of a fully accredited system. In the US, there is no existing academic accreditation body that could adapt to serve farriers. Therefore the entire infrastructure would have to be created from scratch and put in place. Without it, there can be no government recognition or funding under the US Department of Education. The existing US farrier schools are opposed to such an idea as it would require them to agree to a common set of minimum standards and some independent 3rd party organization would have to oversee the standards. Though we have some very good schools here, for the most part the directors of the top schools do not get along with each other and previous efforts to get them all on the same page have been met with fierce resistance as each wants to protect their turf.
Educational establishments compete for students and funding here too. At the end of the day though, where there's a will there's a way. It's too easy for those who want to protect status quo to say why not rather than to knuckle down and manage change and make a difference.
I'm not saying the UK system is necessarily the best but it's well established, so tried and tested and it works and in the main satisfies the needs of all interested parties. I'm one that doesn't see the point in reinventing wheels. I say 'be proud to steal' and piggy back on lessons others have already learnt.
[quote="George Geist, post: 2212, member: 42" Sucks to be them unfortunately. I for one am not too overly concerned with what they approve or disapprove of. The issue is really none of their business. George[/quote] That being the case, why are you not spearheading the effort to establish standards and a uniform system, including infrastructure and compliance? Personally, I'd like to be there when you present your idea(s) to Ralph Casey and he realizes you are screwing with his little empire.......
That being the case, why are you not spearheading the effort to establish standards and a uniform system, including infrastructure and compliance? Personally, I'd like to be there when you present your idea(s) to Ralph Casey and he realizes you are screwing with his little empire....... [/quote] who is Ralph Casey ? chris
Chris, every working farrier's worst nightmare; a charlatan extraordinaire, a bufoon, a pretender.....
Wow. I wish that happened here,, although I wonder if it would hold up in small claims court. It probably would since beating a dog can end up in court. I don't know what the punishment would be. Some people may look at this as small punishment, but how much income would this involve losing. 3 months worth. Aside: I do know that I have the right to protect my livestock. Except for hawks and eagles, LOL. I don't know if it includes people. Thanks, George, this is an interesting topic.
