today I rcd. an email asking me to take a survey relating to licensing of farriery/hoofcare in the USA.I will post the link as soon as I figure out how to do it, The email came from Jeff Cota, a reporter with/for the American Farriers Journal, before posting here I asked and rcd. his permission. Ray
If you wish to take the American Farriers Journal survey, you can click on the link below. Thank you, Mr. Steele for requesting to post the link. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WB5N9QY
Jeff, may I ask that you post the questions asked on the survey here, I ask because for myself, having taken the survey I could not go back and reread the questions because as i was informed, "you have already taken this survey" I feel that if the questions wer posted they could be better discussed. Thanks in advance, ray
My apologies for the delay in responding. I've been traveling and unable to reply until now. Here are the questions: In recent months, many farriers have been calling for their fellow hoof-care practitioners to take ownership of the trade to improve the art and science of farriery in the United States. Please answer the following 10 questions to lend your voice to the discussion. 1. Which of the following best describes your feelings about licensing of farriers? • I am strongly opposed to any form of licensing and believe it will never become a requirement. • I am strongly opposed to any form of licensing, but believe that it will be forced upon us. • I believe licensing could potentially have benefits, but I am concerned about how it would be implemented. • I am in favor of licensing. 2. Should hoof-care organizations be concerned about farrier education, licensing and registration issues? • Yes • No • Other (please specify) 3. Who determines how the majority of your clients' horses are trimmed and/or shod? • I decide • Owner • Trainer • Rider • Veterinarian • Other (please specify) 4. Do you believe that farriers are in danger of losing control of the equine footcare trade to an outside group? • Yes • No • Not sure 5. If this were to happen, which group or entity are you most worried about taking away control of the trade from farriers? • U.S. government • State government • Equine veterinarians • Other (please specify)
6. Do you feel further development of the Veterinary Equine Podiatry Group would lead to potential licensing and more veterinary control over farriers? • Yes • No • Not sure • Other (please specify) 7. Do you believe farriers need to establish specific hoof-care quality and control standards before someone else does? • Yes • No • Not sure 8. Which organization or entity should lead the efforts to establish hoof-care quality and control standards? • American Farrier's Association • American Association of Professional Farriers • Individual state farrier associations • World Championship Blacksmiths • Brotherhood of Working Farriers Association • Equine veterinarians • American Association of Equine Practitioners • American Veterinary Medical Association • U.S. government • State government • Other (please specify) 9. How do you identify yourself professionally? • Farrier • Barefoot trimmer • Other (please specify)
Jeff, thanks for posting this. You stated that ,many farriers have been calling for fellow hoof care practitioners to take ownership of the trade, could you expound as to where this call ,that you have stated, is coming from? Individual farriers/hoof care practitioners/vets etc. or an organized/semi organized group ? Thanks in advance. Ray
Good question, Ray. These conversations have been coming from all corners. Since that's the case, it's been difficult for me to include all of those sources in the text of the survey or the article I wrote in American Farriers Journal (If the link is not permissible, please advise and I'll remove it. I added it for context.). I'll be more than happy to detail those here since space isn't necessarily a concern. AFJ editors are in daily contact with a number of farriers from around the country. While hoof-care, tips, techniques, etc., are regularly discussed, the politics of farriery is always popular (not necessarily ownership of the trade or licensing). In addition, we travel to farrier events at least once a month. During our telephone, email and in person conversations over the past year and half to two years, the topic of ownership and licensing have been increasingly brought up by farriers. The frequency of these discussions took a dramatic spike after it was announced at the 2014 AAEP conference that the Veterinary Equine Podiatry Group was trying to create a podiatry college of specialty (much like radiology or cardiology). Dr. Mark Silverman, who is a farrier and equine vet and is spearheading the effort, knew this was going to be controversial among farriers. In an effort to avoid miscommunication and misconceptions, Silverman spoke with farriers at a clinic in Florida. Farriers are suspicious that equine vets are organizing VEPG in an attempt to take over farriery and essentially assume a supervisory role over farriers. Silverman is adamant that this is not the case. Despite Silverman's efforts, those suspicions persist. Several farriers in the Facebook group Farrier to Farrier: Q&A have expressed their doubts. That has prompted several discussions within that group about the need to take ownership and/or establish licensing. In the subsequent time after VEPG was announced, other farriers have approached AFJ editors at various events and during telephone and email exchanges about the issue. At the Summit, Mitch Taylor began his dissection by lamenting the poor farriery performed on a cadaver limb, as well as relaying conversations he's had with other farriers in which many are deferring to trainers when shoeing horses. Mitch did not take a stand for or against licensing during his remarks; however, he did very bluntly say the trade must "step up" its game and "take hold" of the trade because it's "slowly but surely being taken away from us." You can read more of his comments in the first link provided. That obviously created a buzz and the discussions took off. Later at the Summit, Jaime Cooper, who is an attorney and wife of farrier Matt Cooper, discussed various legal hazards that farriers face. She covered the potential for licensing, as well as her beliefs that vets stand to benefit the most and are in a prime position to force the issue if they so choose. The buzz continued after the Summit. The topic was broached several times by farriers in private conversations at the AFA convention as well. In an effort to get a better feel from other farriers, I initiated other conversations as well. After the AFA convention, Professional Farrier, the official publication of the AFA, devoted an entire issue to the subject of licensing. The issue contained articles written by Walt Taylor, Dr. Ric Redden, Bob Smith, Steve Kraus and Craig Trnka. I hope that answers your question and is helpful to you and others who are curious about the genesis of this latest round. We have extended the deadline for the survey until 11:45 p.m. Eastern Standard Time tonight. If you would like to take it, please do so. The link is in the second post of this thread. Thanks again to Ray for reaching out to me and allowing me to post the survey and discuss it. If anyone has any comments or questions, feel free to post something here, send me a message on this board or email me at jcota@lesspub.com.
Jeff, I ll start out with the 1st reference that you provided , kinda quoting Mitch Taylor, " I don t know................. but we need to get/take control, while discussing the trim of the cadaver leg in hand at the Summit! That, the above as one of the reasons to discuss licensing! you gotta be shyteing me I can t tell you the # of times that use of vague/veiled backstabbing/putting down with out saying what was wrong has been employed in this profession in the 40 plus years that I ve been at it. Of course without knowing or sharing when /if the hoof was trimmed post mortem, or as a last ditch effort pre post mortem ie the background of the equine whose leg it was. I d like to know what Mitch s content was ,not the sound bite! Jeff, come on man, you gotta do better than that! Ray
There are three very distinct points to be made in response to your post, Ray. The first relates to the accusation that Mitch is trashing another farrier's work. The second relates to Mitch's observations as to the reason to discuss licensing. And, the third relates to the focus of the article. As you read in the article, Mitch was very clear that he didn't "know the situation with this horse." Yet, he found some very specific problems that were evident to him and explained exactly what those problems were. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that runs rather contrary to the scenario you are painting. That leads me to a question: Did Mitch cross the line? He readily admits that he didn't know who shod the foot, and for that matter, no one does — including the farrier who performed the work. This isn't a situation in which a farrier posts a photo on Facebook and other farriers trash the trim and shoeing job for all the world to see. It's also not a situation in which a horse owner asks his opinion of the work and he trashes it to the owner, thereby damaging the farrier's reputation. The farrier is anonymous to everyone, and the description was made during a farrier education conference. To be honest, I get frustrated when I see farriers drilling other farriers for their work on Facebook rather than taking advantage of the educational opportunity. Because of the anonymous nature of the cadaver leg, I didn't consider what Mitch talked about as backstabbing. It would be interesting to hear what others think. As it relates to the second and third points, I want to make something clear. Mitch didn't advocate for licensing, nor did he take a stand against licensing. His point was that he was troubled by practices that he observed and discussions he had with other farriers about the direction of the trade. In the same vein, I will not take a stand one way or the other on the issue. It's simply not my place. That's a decision for farriers to make. At the same time, the editors at AFJ are confronted regularly with the issue. The decision to discuss licensing was not made in the vacuum of Mitch's observations. Rather, it's a piece of a very large pie. Standards and ownership of the trade is the concern of a great number of farriers whom I have spoken with. There are a great many more whom I haven't spoken with and they are discussing it, as well (e.g. the AFA's Professional Farrier, farrier groups on Facebook and other bulletin boards, not to mention Walt Taylor making a presentation advocating for farrier licensing before the recent American Horse Council convention). There is a segment of those farriers who believe the best way to establish quality and control standards is to entertain the licensing question. Obviously, there are a great number of farriers who disagree with that notion, yet they also have the same concerns about quality and control standards. As you might imagine, we've received a number of messages since the article and survey came out. Some are engaging in the discussion (regardless of where they stand on the issue). Others are condemning us for even broaching the topic with claims that it's destructive to the trade. In order to have an equitable and constructive discussion within the trade, the views and opinions of all sides must be heard. We can't stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's not taking place. To answer your question regarding the full content of Mitch's opinion: I didn't manipulate his words. I recorded the audio from his dissection. Everything is accurate.
Jeff, Please point out where I said or accused Mitch of trashing another farriers work!.........I pointed out that I ve seen this game before, but I never said that Mitch was doing it, you decided or alluded to that I accused Mitch of something.............. , the old game that I was referring to, see how effective/subversive it can be. For all I or anyone else knows that cadavers leg might have been last trimmed by a highly qualified hoof care provider, a completely unqualified hoof care provider, a vet, a horse owner, my next yet to be born grandchild or had never been trimmed.........with all those possibilities, given the facts, as stated by Mitch , my question would be, what does this lack of Knowledge have to do with licensing and what use of such admitted lack of knowledge have to do in an article dealing with the same? ray
I'm confused then, Ray. You wrote: "I can t tell you the # of times that use of vague/veiled backstabbing/putting down with out saying what was wrong has been employed in this profession in the 40 plus years that I ve been at it," directly after paraphrasing Mitch, it appeared that's what you were referencing. My apologies for misunderstanding. I can't say that I still fully understand what old game you are referring to. Because of this confusion, I'm not sure I follow what you mean by lack of knowledge. Are you referring to the lack of knowledge of the farrier who trimmed and shod the cadaver leg, or Mitch's lack of knowledge regarding why the farrier trimmed and shod the horse?
I'm curious about the presumption in question 6 ". . . more veterinary control over farriers?" seems to assume that veterinarians currently have some level of control over farriers. The fact is that they have no control at all unless the farrier is their W2 employee. Veterinary malpractice insurance EXCLUDES non employees from coverage. As such, the veterinarian has NO AUTHORITY over a farrier.
"In recent months, many farriers have been calling for their fellow hoof-care practitioners to take ownership of the trade . . ." ROTFLMAO! How many of the many have offered to put up their money to form a real accreditation program approved by the US Department of Education or by individual state accreditation bodies? You mention the AAPF - which has a FAKE accreditation program. If we follow their model, anyone who calls themselves a farrier can BUY a license. How quickly we forget the last time an article was written in a magazine - "All over the country farriers are talking about licensing." Only to find out it was nothing but a rouge bunch on the AFA executive committee that got stirred up by Walt Taylor and started fear mongering in the press. Guess what, it's the same bunch this time using the same tactics. Heck, they have had almost a decade to come up with a real plan, but instead they stick to the same old failed plan.
And that's it Tom, they've had time to start forming a plan, and you have to admit, a plan is needed. If what's written in the article (just received my copy Thursday), if the vets get their "specialists" college going and with the amount of money spent pushing their cause in Congress, who knows. I agree a standard needs to be agreed on and passed through a board of education, be it state or federal. The same talk has been going on here in Denmark for years as well. I know the Vet in charge of the farrier's education is for licensing, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit. I really don't care because I had the chance and took advantage of the situation and got through the Danish board of Education's approved farrier education program. If it comes here, I got my papers, if it don't, I got the education.
I'm aware that veterinary malpractice insurance excludes nonemployees, Mr. Bloomer. Yet, I talk with a number of farriers who are under the false impression that if they follow a vet's shoeing prescription, they are covered. This issue doesn't necessarily apply only to farriers who work as an employee of an equine vet, though. It entirely depends on which state you practice farriery in. There are only nine states that completely exempt farriery or horseshoeing from veterinary practice acts — Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Vermont. (I make the distinction of farriery and horseshoeing because some VPAs expressly call it one or the other.) The remaining 41 have some form of limitation on what a farrier can and can't do without it being considered practicing veterinary medicine. Some are very miniscule and don't really apply to this discussion. Others are incredibly limiting. Let's take your state as an example. Florida has one of the most restrictive VPAs in the country as it pertains to farriers: However, Florida's VPA also has this provision: The interpretation of Florida's VPA is completely subjective. Some believe that 474.203 (5)(b) completely exempts farriers. However, other farriers who have spoken with vets regarding Florida's VPA have told me that farriers still could be prosecuted if they violate 474.202 (9). Obviously, this isn't being enforced. There aren't enough veterinarians in Florida to apply shoes, pads, etc., nor are there enough to supervise the application. Besides, they have a practice to run, as well. Yet, the law is on the books. I'll paraphrase attorney Jamie Copper: What's going to happen when Joe Farrier is accused of laming Fluffy, which is owned by the granddaughter of a Florida state senator, after he applies shoes? I'll be interested to know whether you have spoken with vets in your area and discussed their interpretations of the Florida VPA. EDIT: Typo
Jeff, to me, your reply to Tom Bloomer,by stating the Florida law, is the best information so far presented in that it is fact not what ifs. From it I suggest that work be done to fix the offending law/laws, one by one, ie state by state. Kinda following the "keep it simple " idea that is so often bantered but...... Considering that folk looking at licencing as the fix, might consider that for it,licensing to have any teeth ,it would need to be installed by law, and to be cute, the laws that have been written don t seem to be very considerate to hoof care providers of any ilk. Further, no matter how a licensing law was written , the present law on the book, such as in Florida and the other states where there are laws addressing this, would still say that the D.V.M. has the say. Why encumber the situation with another law, fix the one/s that potentially emasculates, Keep it Simple! ray
Why would any Farrier be for licensing? It will only cost you and your clients more money. I thought most vets were content doing coggins tests. Then again, I'm in one of the nine good states that Jeff mentioned.
BULLSHIT! No veterinary practice act gives veterinarians authority over farriers. An owner can't sue a farrier for failure to follow a veterinarians instructions . . . well they could file a suit but it wouldn't ever get on the docket. Successful challenges to vet practice acts have come from animal owner organizations. IL and FL both had strong animal owners organizations that mobilized and fought through the legislature to get the exclusions put into the definitions. But no farrier organization was involved. No farrier organization officially commented on the last revision of the AVMA model veterinary practice act either.
