Ethical Considerations

I'm more concerned with knowing the facts about the law than just taking someones opinion as the gospel.

Seems your greatest concern is getting away with intentionally messing up horses. That is significantly different from someone unintentionally crippling a horse due to a mistake in judgement or lack of skill.

The opinion you got from the attorney was based on how you relayed the facts in the case and not on the attorney reading this thread and having first hand information of the deal. Also your approach to the topic is how to get away with it, NOT from a moral or ethical perspective and for sure not from the perspective of somebody that gives a damn about horses. May be the legal construct of intent is just too complicated for you to grasp.

I would be happy to debate your attorney friend on this topic on this forum.

Your pretty good at making ass-umptions.

So you have no comment on the consent section of the tort law

Nothing to back up. I don't do contests other than the contest of life. Anvils at twenty paces to show who had the bigger penis is not my cup of tea. If it makes you feel better, I'll freely admit that when it comes to beating metal into submission on an anvil, you've got the bigger penis. From that, I suppose someone might draw an inference about who's a bigger dyck(sic).....lol!

'nuff said.....

There's that pesky 'reading for content in context with comprehension' rearing its ugly head again. The comment referred to by me was not about you and Mr. Helton as you would misdirect some to believe, rather it was about the horse and what I thought would have been a good/interesting idea/protocol prior to his being trimmed.

But it wasn't assessed when the shoes were removed and he was barefoot, before the trim, right? Why was he in hospital plates?

Why is getting the full story/case history from you seemingly more difficult than routine brain surgery. Perhaps if you had presented all the facts instead of cherry picking the few that would substantiate your position, you would not be in the quandary and quagmire in which you now find yourself.

So if the 'other guy' crippled the horse with but a few[few=<4] rasp strokes, how many rasp strokes did the vet take? What were the results of the application of the hoof testers? You were there but you don't know if 'the other guy' was a vet or a farrier? With all that in mind, I applaud your decision to not speak.

Well then you shouldn't make comments about others experiences if your not willing to back it up.

Your right it's hard reading for content, my comment was made about you not knowing the horses history nothing else.

He was walked inside the clinic and hoof testers were used to determine if an improvement had been made during the cycle.

I didn't know I was asked for a complete history, and since this thread is about other issues I didn't see the need to sidetrack it anymore than it already has.

The vets pile of shavings on the floor was about half the size of the other guys. The wall and sole were rasped on one plane, so when they were rasping wall they were taking sole with it.

Horse was sore around the apex, rads confirmed 10mm under the apex, 15 mm in the toe due to remodeling/lipping of p-3, coffin bone looked like a banana.

There were 2 vets in the room and 4 other guys standing around doing various things, a very busy place and I wasn't there to make friends and didn't really care who was who or what.

Horse was presented to them 8 weeks ago with both coffin bones fractured across the toe, 7mm sole depth under the apex, and pedal osteitis. Soundhorse series III cuff attached to aluminum plate with soundhorse pad, cut out in the toe and hospital plate place over the toe, with a rubber pad attached to the bottom to provide traction. I was asked to go along to see how the horse was shod and to take over further care of the horse.

See, was that so hard?

Sure you do. You just call it something else...........

Since you haven't denied your intent to get away with intentional harm my assumptions remain unchallenged.

I've already commented on tort law in regards to "consent." Perhaps you missed that since I only posted on it 3 or 4 times in the thread. Tort law is civil law. Civil law treats the horse as personal property. Having signed consent to property damage relieves the actor from liability for a tort, but also provides convincing evidence of a crime.

Having the owner's consent to intentionally commit a crime of animal cruelty or negligence does not change the criminality of the act. Criminal law treats the horse as a living creature and animal cruelty as a crime against society. I will agree that it is very unlikely that an owner would ask the state to prosecute a farrier for animal cruelty when they consented to the act - especially considering that the state may charge the owner as a conspirator in the crime. And it is highly unlikely that a farrier would be prosecuted criminally for willful animal cruelty unless there was a prosecutor trying to make headlines and score points with the animal welfare activists. The lack of enforcement effort of the laws covering soreing may be an indication of how serious the government is about animal cruelty.

In order for the state to successfully prosecute a farrier for animal cruelty they would need to prove three elements:
1. Motive
2. Opportunity
3. Intent

All 3 of those elements exist when -
1. A farrier puts financial gain and greed above the welfare of the horse.
2. A reasonable farrier believes the act he or she does or fails to do will harm the animal and cause unnecessary suffering.
3. A farrier performs the act on purpose with the expectation that it will cause harm.

IMO, if you want to get away with crippling horses in order to keep your customers happy you are very likely not ever going to be prosecuted by the state for a crime or successfully sued by an owner for property damage as long as you keep your mouth shut, have no confidence in your own skills and knowledge, and do as you're told. 'nuther words, don't conduct yourself like a professional and nobody will expect you to live up to professional standards of conduct and ethics. And for crissakes, quit whining about not being taken seriously and being told how to do your job by other laypeople when you haven't set their expectations of you to be anything more than contract labor.

Tom I don't care what your opinion of me is, you and your opinion have no effect on how I handle my life or run my business. You should take some of your own advice and act like a professional and quit trying to force your opinion down peoples throats when they don't agree with you.

Since Ray has ask everyone to be nice I'll not comment any further.

No sir, the difference is knowing beyond a doubt that it will cause harm and being of the opinion that it will likely cause harm. Once again the reasonable person criteria becomes involved. In your example, no reasonable person would think that leaving a horse locked up without access to food or water would not harm the animal. In the case of Shane Wood's customer wanting the horse left barefoot, I'm sure many reasonable people would have allowed the customer to have their way and many would have adamantly opposed the customer.

If you can not see that difference then, I don't see any point in continuing the conversation.

Have a good weekend.
David

David,
Is it not better to err on the side of caution? In the end, we will each do what seems to be 'right' in any given situation. I prefer to not take chances with my livelihood so for me, in the situation presented, I would still chose to ignore the customer's 'demand' and I would put shoes back on the horse. I would only charge the customer for the trim and then that customer would come out of my book/off my client list. I'd rather have them badmouth me for firing them than for [allegedly] crippling their horse. Many of us have had the unpleasant experience of doing what the customer wantedeven when/if we felt and voiced that it was not in the best interest of the horse, and then being thrown under the bus when the results were not what the customer expected. I've worked long and hard for what I have and I'm not willing to jeopardize it just because some fluff bunny with TSS has read some BS on a BUA website or has listened to some BUAtista and then decided , after a shoeing trim was done, that s/he doesn't want shoes re-applied. Along those same lines, when I know a horse will be turned out, even if irregularly, during the winter, I will not shoe it unless I can put a 'winterized' shoeing package on it.

Tom I think this part of your post differentiates what Justin or myself(and many many others) do from what you are calling intentional cruelty. We have both stated we do not own crystal balls and while we may suspect barefoot wont work in some cases neither of us can say for sure.

If it proves not to work out both of us would be back to put the shoes on. Really it's no different than if a horse pulled it's own shoe. The owner has the responsibility to watch how the horse is doing and call us back if the trial doesn't work. Just like a pulled shoe situation the owner and or barn manager can manage the horses footing till we get there.

I personally do not work for people who would neglect their horses or allow them to suffer. My clients want to ride, they are not going to do much with a lame horse so if they decide to pull shoes and it doesn't work they either buy boots or get me to put the shoes back on. It need not be a big drama fest. Just before Christmas many of my clients opted to pull shoes, a month later all the same week lots of them called and needed shoes put back on. The snow had melted and no one wanted poopsie to limp. Funny enough I had done the exact thing with my own horse and the shoes went back on the same week everyone else was calling me for to get their shoes back.

It may be the areas we work in. I really cannot think of even one of my clients that would let a horse suffer on purpose. One horse I couldn't get to fast enough when everyone needed their shoes back spent a few days in a stall with only arena turnout. Hardly abuse.

Wouldn't that depend on the size of the eggs, size of the nest, and number of eggs? (note: I added the underline to the referenced quote. )

That is why I spelled it out.

Yes sometimes we take risks and agree to try things that don't turn out well. And when that happens a responsible professional will own the mistake and eat the cost of making things right because ultimately you are accountable for your own actions.

An irresponsible person would seek to put all the blame on the owner and wine like a child about being forced or coerced into doing something they didn't agree with doing.

Here's a dilemma on the same vein.

Hunters coming into work for the winter here. Ground is flint hard because of dry condition. Folks want caulk and wedge ('cause that's how ya shoe hunters). I council against it until ground conditions change, or at least drill and tap instead so they can use traction devices (or not) to suit the conditions.

Folks insist on C/W.

we have the same problems here; just different shoeing styles.
Q: do the C/W jam up the hocks and stiffles?

Not really a dilemma in the same vein because you haven't done anything to the foot at that point vs already having trimmed the hoof for shoes and then being told not to put a shoe on it. In the first instance you can say 'no' and not have impacted the horse. In the second instance, there is the chance that by agreeing to not put a shoe on the hoof, your actions can cause serious damage/harm/pain/whatever, to/for the horse.