A Letter To/From AFA Members

[Rick Burten]

Yesterday I received a letter titled "Beware of Hand Wringers" It was sent to, I believe, all AFA members. After I read it, I looked to see who it was from. Of the five signators, four are known to me, and I have much respect for each of them. It is because of that, that I am so concerned about the content of the letter.

In the second paragraph , the letter states: "...allowing registration to happen is the first step to absolute control of every farrier in America."

To me, this statement smacks of fearmongering of the worst kind. It is absurd to believe that this would occur. The paragraph continues and concludes: "....In plain terms, when you sign your name and register, individual freedom as a farrier is gone forever. Not only for our generation, but for our children and grandchildren as well."

Again, fearmongering of the worst kind. How will individual freedoms be gone? This is still America, not some Communist country. Registration does not equate to loss of individual freedom. And, individual freedom to do what? Practice farriery? Balderdash! Doctors, lawyers, CPAs, plumbers, electricians, barbers, beauticians, etc. ad naseum all have registeries. None of their freedom to practice their profession, craft, or trade is gone, let alone gone forever.

The letter continues with concern regarding resolutions 8 and 9. These resolutions do not, as purported, allow the Executive Committee to continue in a veil of secrecy. Only the membership can allow that to happen.

"AFA members, ask your chapter president to derail this license train and put a freedom train back on track with a new engineer and crew".

Truely a call to arms. But for what? The current president and treasurer are ending their terms this year and new ones will be elected. At least one of the signees of this letter has placed his name in play for one of the offices that will come open. Asking the current BOD to do what is suggested, stands little chance of success at this time. The best opportunity comes at either the mid-year BOD meeting, or at the annual meeting of both the board and the membership, at convention next year. And it is my belief that the membership meeting, if done correctly, may be the best option for getting anything done.

The letter also contains a major error in that the letter states that Mike Miller is a member of the EC. In point of fact, he is not. He WAS a member of the Task Force that looked into and made suggestions about the issue of registration and licensing. And, remember this. The task force was a duely constituted committee, brought into existance by the President of the AFA, legally, under the powers granted him by our by-laws. He needed no authorization to do so, nor was he required to inform the membership of his actions(it might have been nice to do so, but not required).

That we may not like the way it was done, is irrelevant. It was done legally and properly. What was , IMNTBCHO, grossly mishandled, was the report by the committee with recommendations, to the EC first, and the BOD second. Even at that, the BOD acted to restrict what would occur next. For once, the BOD did not act like a rubber stamp, but actually showed some cojones.

The letter also asks us to check out the AFA website under HORSE OWNERS and quotes from the source: "America has neither a national standard nor laws that prevent unqualified persons from practicing farriery. All it takes to be a horseshoer in America is possession of horse shoeing tools. Although someone may have been shoeing horses for 30 years, it is quite possible this person had only a six month learning experience, sometimes less".

What is the point of including this statement in the letter? Practically every farrier I have ever spoken with or corresponded with has stated that exact same thing! It sounds like our President is spreading the truth and sounding a wake up call for one and all.

And remember, the AFA has clearly stated that it DOES NOT want to necessarily be the organization that provides or enforces said requirements and that regardless of what those requirements may be, it will still continue to offer its own separate and voluntary "testing for credentials from the AFA "
program. Said program to have NO bearing on the "official" program, whether at the state or national level, or both. Sure doesn't sound like an organization bound and determined to control the farriery profession.

And, as with most things, someone or someones has to step up to the plate and take a swing. The whole issue may be a strike out, or it may be a home run. But, at least the AFA has realized that something needs to be done FOR not against the profession, if we are truely going to regain our IMNTBCHO somewhat tarnished status within the equine world. Note here that I speak of "OUR" in the collective sense, not the individual sense. For as is quite demonstrable, there are many farriers who are recognized as being quite "professional" in every sense of the word.

The letter continues: "...American farriers are the best in the world. Astronomical progress has been made by farriers in the past 30 years shoeing skills has risen(sic)....."

All true, but each one of us has seen too many instances of bad and poor farriery. Each of us has commented on the 're-birth' of the alternative hoof care movement and its causes. Many of those commenting have said that it is because of poor farriery which seems to be rampant no matter where you live in America.

The letter continues: "The real crisis is with the AFA executive committee. They're overstepping their bounds and need absolute power taken away."

Now we finally get to the heart of the matter. And, as everyone knows, I have made the same observation and couldn't agree more. But, lets not use the licensing/registration issue as the stalking dog. We don't have to. If I recall correctly, the duties, responsibilities and obligations of the EC were spelled out when the EC was first formed.

We, the membership, need to first get a clear reading of what that consisted of, and then either require the EC to abide by those stated duties and obligations, or force a change in the duties by first ammending the by-laws and second enforcing them.

Perhaps if Bryan Quincy is reading this posting, he will be good enough to respond with the actual verbage of the resolution which created the EC so that we can be correctly informed. Absent that, every AFA member should call the office and request a copy of the resolution that created the EC and delineated its responsibilities. And, any further resolutions that may have been made and passed which further defined the role and responsibilities of the EC.

The letter next addresses some conference calls held by the EC. The letter further states that there were six hours of secret conversations held. It was also stated in the letter that "The content was REDACTED dealing with personal(sic) matters not for public review".

Now, as extensive as I would like to think my vocabulary is, I did not know the meaning of REDACTED, so I went to my Webster's and looked it up.

"REDACT": 1. to put in writing: frame; 2. To select or adapt for publication: EDIT.

I wonder why the letter writers chose to use that language, rather than simply saying, "EDITED", which I am sure is understood by most, if not all the members of the AFA.

Now, I am going to make a slight leap of faith and say that I think that when the word "personal" was used in the letter(see above), it was meant to be "PERSONNEL". The difference is significant. In the first instance, personal, we refer to the individual. Personnel, on the other hand, refers to a group of persons who are employed (as in a factory, office, or ORGANIZATION).

Discussions regarding personnel are held by officers of an organization in private and with the strictest of confidences and are not published for public review. This is THE LAW. It is the one subject where meetings are allowed to be held in a "closed door" fashion. If indeed this was the content of those alleged secret/closed door conversations, then the conversations were in compliance with the law.

If, on the other hand, the conversations were not about personnel, but about persons not in the employ of the AFA, then, the conversations may well fall outside the dictates of the law and may be subject to public review.

Again, The Executive Director of the AFA or the legal counsel of the AFA should be in a position to answer that question, either here, or by phone or letter.

Regardless of your position on the issue at hand, you, I, we all should be concerned about the content and tenor of this letter to the AFA membership. It is, to me, a thinly disguised attempt to play on the "worst fears" , misconceptions and misunderstandings that currently abound within our organization and profession.

Remember, the president of the AFA, as is his right and or obligation, first formed and then disbanded the committee. And the BOD acted in what most would consider, a quite responsible manner.

Continued vigilence and input by and from the AFA membership is necessary,
but letters of this type, from persons considered 'august' within the profession, only serve to disparage and disrespect all of us.

Remember, there is a electoral change in the leadership and thus the EC coming in the near future. Historically, the voter turnout is low. If we, the AFA membership want change, then it is our RESPONSIBILITY and OBLIGATION to vote. And this includes voting within our local chapters for the BOD representatives(And we all had better think long and hard about the current unwieldly/c*mbersome make-up of the BOD). And, attending the meetings and making our voices heard. (Cripes, now I sound like a union organizer, which I'm not!)

Rick

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

[T.N. Trosin]

I have always admired this about the LoL guys, the ability to get the point across without making the issue personal.

I suport this post by Rick, because he is right about a lot of things. And I further hope that Bryan is watching this board, and is willing to post for public view the Executive committee directives that were set by the AFA Board.

[ray steele]

I'll send Bryan an email, just in case he is not monitoring.

Regards

Ray Steele

[Bryan Quinsey]

Rick - Very impressive (as always). You've identified all the points that need to be covered. Here's the answer to some of your questions:

A. Creation of Executive Committee - Obviously, I wasn't here when the EC was formed. But if you read the current bylaws of the AFA, there roles are clearly defined. Here's a link to thosbe bylaws: http://www.americanfarriers.org/about_afa/bylaws.php

Specific to the EC, here are words describing its responsibilities (see Article VII, Section 5):

ARTICLE IV. OFFICERS

Section 1. The Officers of this Association shall be a President, Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer.

Section 2. Duties:

a. President. It shall be the duty of the President to implement and enforce these Bylaws and the policies, program of work and decisions adopted by the Board. The President shall preside over all meetings of the Board of Directors and Executive Committee. The President shall nominate all standing committee chairmen with the approval of the Board of Directors and shall serve as an ex-officio member of all such committees, except the nominating committee. The President may create task forces or Ad Hoc committees for the purpose of investigating a specific issue. The President is author¬ized to aid and assist all other Executive Officers in car¬rying out the duties of their offices and shall confer with them and be involved with the resolution of any major issue affecting their activities.

b. The Vice President shall coordinate the activities of the various committees, except the nominating committee, and report to the President and the Board of Directors their activities. The Vice President shall conduct the duties of the President in the President’s absence. In a particular cir***stance where the President is unable to perform the duties of the office due to disability, the Vice President shall assume the office of President with all rights and responsibilities conferred upon the office of President. The Vice President shall perform such other duties as may be assigned by the President or the Board of Directors.

c. The Secretary shall (1) keep the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee in one or more books provided for that purpose; (2) see that all notices are duly given in accordance with the provisions of these Bylaws or as required by law; (3) be custodian of the corporate records and of the seal, if any, of the Association; (4) be responsible for authenticating records of the Association; (5) keep a register of the mailing address of each Member of the Association, which shall be furnished to the Secretary by each Member; (6) in general, perform all the duties incident to the office of Secretary and such other duties as may be assigned by the President or the Board of Directors; and (7) maintain a Corporate Actions Book which will be categorized by subject and include each action approved or disapproved by the Board of Directors, and each item shall have a cross-reference as to where it may be found in the minutes. The minutes will be included in a separate section in the Corporate Actions Book.

d. The Treasurer shall (1) collect and disburse all Association funds and maintain records as provided for subject to the supervision and control of the Board of Directors; (2) receive and give receipts for monies due and payable to the Association from any source and deposit all monies in the name of the Association in such banks, trust companies and other depositories as shall be selected by the Board of Directors; (3) in general, perform all the duties incident to the office of Treasurer and such other duties assigned by the President or the Board of Directors; (4) shall keep a statement of the financial condition of the Association on a monthly basis; and (5) present a full report of the financial conditions of the Association at each meeting of the Board of Directors. The Treasurer may be responsible to see that all accounts are reviewed or audited annually as specified by the Board of Directors.

Section 3. Nominations.

a. The Board of Directors shall appoint a Nominations and Elections Committee Chairman at its mid-year meeting in odd number years to serve a two-year term. The Nominations and Elections Committee Chairman will select at least two (2) members to serve a two (2) year term.

b. Nominations will be made to the Nominations and Elections Committee at the annual meeting and until June 1st of each year prior to the election for that office. Voting by the general membership, which includes only the regular and lifetime members, will be done by written ballot, turned in to the Nominations and Elections Committee at or by the annual meeting. All officers shall be elected by a plurality of the votes cast if there are more than two (2) candidates and by a majority vote if there are two (2) or less candidates from a slate of candidates which shall be accepted by a Nominations and Elections Committee.

c. Candidates for President must be certified at the highest level available.

d. In***bent officers cannot run for another office. They must resign or serve out their term.

Section 4. Elections. The President and Treasurer shall be elected for a term of two (2) years in each even-numbered year. The Secretary and Vice President shall be elected for a term of two (2) years in each odd-numbered year. The elections are to be conducted by June 30. Officers will assume duties immediately following the annual meeting at which they are elected. Officers will hold office until their successors are elected.

Section 5. Office-Holding Limitations. Terms of office shall be limited to two (2) consecutive terms.

Section 6. An Officer may resign at any time by delivering notice to the Association office. A resignation shall be effective when the notice is delivered.

Section 7. The Board of Directors may remove any Officer at any time, with or without cause, by a vote of three-fourths of all Board of Directors members in good standing.

Section 8. Vacancies. If the office of President becomes vacant, the Vice President will succeed to the office of President. At the next Board of Directors’ Meeting, a Vice President will be elected. If any office other than the President becomes vacant, at its next meeting the Board of Directors will elect a member to fill that office for the remainder of the term.

ARTICLE VII. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Section 1. The Association shall be operated under the authority delegated by the Board of Directors to its Executive Committee. Except for the Executive Director, each Executive Committee member shall be a voting member of the Board of Directors.

Section 2. The Executive Committee shall be composed of the following: the Association’s Officers, one Representative from the active chapters who are on the Board of Directors, the immediate past President, and the Executive Director. The immediate past President and Executive Director shall serve as ex-officio, non-voting members.

Section 3. Executive Director: The Executive Director shall be an employee of and the chief operating officer of the Association. The Executive Director shall manage and control the operation of the office and its staff and have the responsibility for carrying out the daily activities of the association in an efficient and economical fashion through the coordination of facilities, staff, and resources of the office. The Executive Director shall be selected by the Executive Committee of the Association and shall assist the President in conducting the legal and fiscal matters of the Association and shall perform such additional duties as assigned by the President or the Board of Directors. The Executive Director may attend meetings of the Board of Directors, the Executive Committee, and all other committees, except the nominating committee, and make presentations, proposals or requests directly to the Board of Directors or committee as a non-voting, ex-officio member.

Section 4. The Representative from the Board of Directors on the Executive Committee will be elected annually by the Board of Directors at its mid-year meeting.

Section 5. The Executive Committee shall be responsible for management of the day-to-day activities of the Association and implementation of the policies established by the Board of Directors. The Executive Committee may, between meetings, act in place of and for the Board of Directors and the Association. Actions taken by the Executive Committee must be reported to the Board of Directors and be ratified by the Board of Directors at its next meeting.

Section 6. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall be at the call of the President, or on the call of two voting members of the Executive Committee, provided all members are given at least five (5) days notice. A meeting may be held at any time when all voting members can be assembled and agree to waive the five (5) day notice. Meetings may take place by telephone or other electronic communication. At least three (3) voting members must be present to conduct business.

Section 7. The Quorum for a meeting of the Executive Committee shall be three (3) voting members.

[Bryan Quinsey]

Now, relating to the word "REDACTED", I too did not know its meaning so also went to the dictionary. Each time the word is used in the EC minutes, the phrase "Dealing with personnel matters not for public review." is also used. As I've explained to Donald Jones (the creator of the letter that the AFA membership received), the Executive Committee met in executive session on November 1, 2, 9, and 16 (twice), 2004 to discuss personnel issues here at the AFA office. The results of those numerous meetings is noted in the minutes of December 18 - 19, 2004, where the office staff was restructured to create new job descriptions for the office staff.

The minutes of all of these minutes have been mailed to every member of the AFA Board of Directors (Chapter Presidents and the Board Representatives), Committee Chairs, and others. We will be pleased to provide these minutes to anyone else who requests them.

I hope this answers your questions.

Bryan

[Bryan Quinsey]

NEWS FLASH

There have been a lot of rumors circulating about the AFA Farrier Education / Registration Task Force, its recommendations, and the motion that was approved by the AFA Board of Directors. To get the facts straight and to discuss the issue, a special Open Forum Membership Meeting has been scheduled for Friday, September 9, 2005 at 1 p.m. in Omaha, Nebraska.

All AFA members are welcome to attend. This meeting is very timely in that on the next day, the AFA Board of Directors will be meeting for their 2005 Mid-Year meeting. Any recommendations from the Open Forum meeting on Friday can be brought to the Board meeting for their consideration.

AFA Vice President Bob Earle, CJF, has agreed to serve as the moderator for the meeting. We’ll operate the meeting using a “loose set” of Robert’s Rules of Order. This will give everyone a chance to speak. Attendees will be able to discuss other items pertaining to the AFA as well.

This year’s Mid-Year Board of Director's meeting will be held on Saturday, September 10, 2005 in Omaha, Nebraska. The host hotel will be the Omaha Hilton. It will also be the host hotel for the 2006 Annual Convention (February 22 – 25). The Hilton is adjacent to the Omaha Qwest Center – the site of the lectures, MarketPlace and competition.

Hotel reservations may be made by calling the Omaha Hilton at 1-800-HILTONS or (402) 998-3400. Be sure to tell that that you are with the American Farrier’s Association to receive the discounted rate of $75 per night (single or double occupancy). The meeting agenda will be mailed to the Board of Directors in early August.

Schedule of events:

Friday, September 9 – 1 p.m. – Open Forum Membership Meeting

Saturday, September 10 – 8 a.m. – Continental Breakfast; 9 a.m. – Mid-Year Board of Directors Meeting

[Rick Burten]

Bryan

Thank you for your timely and complete reply.

I would like to suggest that my response to "The Letter" and your subsequent replies should be copied and sent from the AFA office to every member of the AFA. It is my belief that a communique of this type would shoe that every effort at complete transparacy is being made. Further, the original letter demands a timely and official reply from the AFA to its membership.

While I realize that it has now become the custom to hold the Mid-year BOD meeting at the next year's convention site, I am disappointed that, in view of the addition of the Open Forum Membership meeting to the schedule, the mid-year BOD meeting is not being held in Kentucky.

Many farriers who live east of the Mississippi will not be able to travel to Nebraska for that meeting, and since surveys show that there are a greater number of farriers/AFA members east of the Mississippi, it would seem both prudent and logical to hold the meeting where it would be most accessible(travel time, cost and distance) to most of them.

I think that this is a topic that the EC should discuss and do so in a timely manner.

Again, thanks for the prompt reply and information.

Rick

[reillyshoe]

If anyone has the ability to post the letter, or a link to where I might view it, please let me know.
Thanks

[Bryan Quinsey]

Rick:

From what I've learned being the E.D., the selection of sites is a constant issue. We selected Omaha because it is the site of this year's Mid-Year Board meeting.

The 2004 Mid-Year meeting in Chattanooga was a great success. When we asked the Board about repeating this concept in 2005, they all agreed that they wanted to go to Omaha.

We plan to record and transcribe the meeting and post the comments on our web site.

If you are unable to attend, you should contact your AFA Board of Directors prior to the meeting.

Bryan

[ray steele]

Hi folks,

For those of you who may be wondering about the word "redacted" ,i may have a simple description. In plain language it is the term used to describe the removing of information that may be of a personal nature. As an example,
let's say that a report was filed about John Smith beating a horse, the authorities would write down what they were told by say Sue Smith and that Sue Smith filed the report, but if someone requested a copy of the report, the name Sue Smith would be deleted and a space left or blacked out. i.e. redacted.
Some redactions can be as simple as the above example or may delete or black out to preclude the reader from putting together any information of who the reporter was. An example of this would be , if Sue Smith stated that she was in the barn when the reported beating took place, stated the time and day, all of that information may be "redacted " so as to not make public the reporter.

regards

Ray Steele

[Phantom Farrier]

Hey Guys, while you're at it you might want to consider printing Mike Miller's scathing letter to Dr. Doug Butler. I'm not sure what position Mike MIller holds but it appears he has appointed himself "Official AFA Mouthpiece" His letter is an embarassment to all AFA members.

Also I suggest Doug Butler's response to Mike Miller be included.

I get this sick feeling from that freedom of speech, thought, and expression will no longer be toleratedin the AFA. Only right thinking people need apply.

I have these letters if anyone would like to see them.

[Bill Adams]

Please if you would, print them here, or send them to my personal message thingy here.
Thanks,
Bill

[Phil Armitage]

I recieved the letter yesterday and scanned it into my computer. Tried to upload here this morning, however it is not working right now. Rick mentioned how he felt about it and added some bits of what is in the letter here is some other parts of the letter. Part from the letter are blue text.

Dear AFA Member:

Present Leadership or our association are wringing thier hands and have decided we have lost or credibility. They say the only way it can be fixed is to register all farriers. During the summer of 2004, the Executive Committee recieved a request from an AFA member to again review the licensing issue. How could one member cause so much concern by the Executive Committee?

That is a good question and observation. Sounds like they needed at least one member so they can get this Train of there rolling.

"Licensing is the "Roe verses Wade" for farriers. We have the momentum-this train is starting to roll, if you are not on board, this train will roll you over" so said AFA President Craig Trnka at the AFA Banquet, AFA members, ask your chapter president to derail this licensing train and put a freedom train back on track with new engineer and crew.

Pretty strong words from Mr. Trnka and pretty much shows where he stands on licensing. I thougt the AFA was gathering information on schools for review?

Check out our AFA website under Horse Owners. "America has niether a national standard nor laws that prevent unqaulified persons from practicieng farriery. All it takes to be a horseshoer in America is possesion of horse shoeing tools. Although someone may have been shoeing horses for 30 years, it is quite possible this person had only a six month learning experience, sometimes less." Remember the Farnam deal, there was no input from the membership or the board? Does this sound like our President is trying to spread goodwill between horse owners and American Farrier?

Nope this does not sound like Mr. Trinka nor the AFA is trying to spread goodwill between horse owners and American Farriers. This is a prime example of fearmongering. Trying to build a case and justification for licenseing. Why does this have to be on there Web site for all to see? What a slap in the face to all farriers.

I will try and get the letter posted here tonight.

I am not sure if I agree with Mr. Burtin on this one or not. There are so many farriers out there that do not have a computer. I see this letter no different than the reactions I have read on this forum and it represents the rest of the industry. I spoke with a good friend of mine basicly retired from Farriery trade after 25 years plus of shoeing and he sees licenseing and registration as a very sad thing he talks about it in different circles and is not aware of forums like this one. One of the things he valued and loved about this trade is the freedom we have and that will all be lost if the AFA gets there way. What is really ironic, is every AFA official and member started the very way that they are now claiming is not good. So it was good for them but not good for the new generation of shoers and Trimmers. I think the root reason for so much advancement and improvement in this trade is the freedom we have to continously improve without haveing our hands tied.

[Rick Burten]

[QUOTE=Phil Armitage].

<some deletia on my part>

>Present Leadership or our association are wringing thier hands and have decided we have lost or credibility. They say the only way it can be fixed is to register all farriers. During the summer of 2004, the Executive Committee recieved a request from an AFA member to again review the licensing issue. How could one member cause so much concern by the Executive Committee?

>That is a good question and observation. Sounds like they needed at least one member so they can get this Train of there rolling.

Phil, the issue has been around a long time. Why as recently as the latest Internet Hoofcare Conference hosted here on this site, John Blombach and I debated and discussed this very issue. And that topic was chosen long before it became an issue for the AFA. I would like to think that the AFA is aware and has been aware of this issue and that the leadership concluded, with a bit of prodding, that now was as good a time as any to re-visit the issue and that the AFA was in the best position to do just that. We must, again, remember that the BOD did not accept the proposal of the Task Force in its entirety and really did greatly restrict the scope of what is yet to be done.

>"Licensing is the "Roe verses Wade" for farriers. We have the momentum-this train is starting to roll, if you are not on board, this train will roll you over" so said AFA President Craig Trnka at the AFA Banquet, AFA members, ask your chapter president to derail this licensing train and put a freedom train back on track with new engineer and crew.

>Pretty strong words from Mr. Trnka and pretty much shows where he stands on licensing. I thougt the AFA was gathering information on schools for review?

I agree. But then Craig is Craig. And, at present, the AFA is only authorized by its BOD to gather information. Nothing more. What we have here, is a "pause". An opportunity to do just what we are doing. Vent, discuss, provide input.

>Check out our AFA website under Horse Owners. "America has niether a national standard nor laws that prevent unqaulified persons from practicieng farriery. All it takes to be a horseshoer in America is possesion of horse shoeing tools. Although someone may have been shoeing horses for 30 years, it is quite possible this person had only a six month learning experience, sometimes less." Remember the Farnam deal, there was no input from the membership or the board? Does this sound like our President is trying to spread goodwill between horse owners and American Farrier?

>Nope this does not sound like Mr. Trinka nor the AFA is trying to spread goodwill between horse owners and American Farriers. This is a prime example of fearmongering. Trying to build a case and justification for licenseing. Why does this have to be on there Web site for all to see? What a slap in the face to all farriers.

I disagree. What Craig said(about farriers) is something that is oft repeated everywhere we go. It is not a secret, but a honest look at the state of farriery here in the USA. I don't necessarily agree that this is some kind of express or runaway train(the licensing issue), but it is at least, a slow freight that has been rumbling along for a long time. Whether it reaches its destination or not remains to be seen. But to ignore it is also foolish. And I don't think Craig is trying to build a case and justification for licensing. The case is and has been , out there.

And I don't see how the Farnam deal has anything to do with spreading goodwill between farriers and horseowners. I do agree that it has caused a lot of ill will within the AFA, but that has nothing to do with horseowners or farriers who are not members of the AFA.

It is good that the issue and the comments are on the web site for all to see. Providing 'transparacy' is the way to go about this. Now, no one will accuse the AFA of back room politics. And, personally, I don't see this as a slap in any farrier's face. Again, other than the train comment which is a bit over the top, the rest of the comment regarding farriers here in the US, is what most of us have observed and said. If that offends someone, perhaps they need to look at why. And then do something about it.

To me, including this particular issue in the letter, seemed to have been done only to obfusicate and add fuel to the fire of controversy. As it was presented, it is not germane to the subject at hand. Had the authors confined themselves to the issue of an out of control EC, it would have been. But to bring horseowners into the subject in that way, renders that part of the argument invalid.(JMNTBCHO).

>I am not sure if I agree with Mr. Burtin on this one or not.

Hey, when did I become MR. Burtin(sic) and not "Rick"? :eek: :confused: And why? I always thought that Mr. Burten was my father. :D

>One of the things he valued and loved about this trade is the freedom we have and that will all be lost if the AFA gets there way.

What FREEDOM(S) do we have that will be lost?
I keep hearing vague references to to this/these freedom(s) but no one is
spelling out for us what they are, or how and why they will be irretrievably lost. Or, how this loss will affect 'our'(the farrier's) children and grandchildren. Especially if said progeny chooses not to become a farrier.

Rick

[Rick Burten]

[QUOTE=Phantom Farrier]>Hey Guys, while you're at it you might want to consider printing Mike Miller's scathing letter to Dr. Doug Butler.

Was that letter sent as a private correspondence or published in a "letters to the editor" type format of some magazine?

>I'm not sure what position Mike MIller holds but it appears he has appointed himself "Official AFA Mouthpiece" His letter is an embarassment to all AFA members.

Strange, not too long ago, someone accused me of holding the same position.

How did this letter , if it was private correspondence, become public? And if indeed this letter was private, then how is it an embarassment to all AFA members?(hopefully this question will be answered when the letter is made public).

Also I suggest Doug Butler's response to Mike Miller be included.

Again, was this a private correspondence or a public, published reply?

>I get this sick feeling from that freedom of speech, thought, and expression will no longer be toleratedin the AFA. Only right thinking people need apply.

You are just now getting that feeling? To me, those issues lie at the heart of the ugly disassociation between the AFA and the American Farriers Journal.

IIRC, one of the basis' for the formation of the Guild of Professional Farriers was this very thing. IOW, a dissatisfaction with the status quo of the time caused members of the AFA to align themselves together and form a new association. And, at the same time, remain members of the AFA.

Now, while some might see a philosophical conundrum with this, I neither find nor see any conundrum or conflict with those who chose and choose to be a part of both organizations.

>I have these letters if anyone would like to see them.

I too would like to see them. One question though, if they were private correspondence, how did they come into your possession? And, why? And, do you have permission to make them public(if they were indeed, private)?

It now appears that we may be able to view the clash of titanic egos. Can a book deal and movie be far behind?

Rick

[ray steele]

Hi Rick,

As to the letters, my dad , who worked for the USPS, back then I think it was the Dept of the Post Office, always told me that when you put a letter , addressed to someone , into a mailbox, it is no longer your letter, it belongs to the person it was to whom it was addressed , and it is theirs to do with as they wish.

Ray

[Phantom Farrier]

[QUOTE=Phil Armitage].

>One of the things he valued and loved about this trade is the freedom we have and that will all be lost if the AFA gets there way.

What FREEDOM(S) do we have that will be lost?
I keep hearing vague references to to this/these freedom(s) but no one is
spelling out for us what they are, or how and why they will be irretrievably lost. Or, how this loss will affect 'our'(the farrier's) children and grandchildren. Especially if said progeny chooses not to become a farrier.

Rick

Rick, the freedoms that we talk about losing are quite simply the following:

1. To make shoeing horses illegal is loss of freedom.

2. To be fined jailed tomorrow for what I freely do today would be loss of freedom.

3. If I were fined $2000.00 for the mere act of setting a set of shoes on a horse is loss of freedom.

4. To be forced to defend myself against a bogus claim by a disgruntled customer at as cost to me of easily $20,000.00 would be loss of freedom.

I could go on and on but I think everyone gets the point. If further research is desired please check the website that these scenarios came from: http//www.farrier-reg.gov.uk

Rick, I'm not sure for me that to license or not to license is really the true issue because it could be debated either way till you are blue in the face. Personally I am against it unless it could be meaningful, as you and I have discussed many times and I believe are somewhat in agreement on.

What disturbes me most is the devious, deceitful way AFA Bigshots are attempting to bully their unpopular agenda through. After failing to get support for their scheme by lying about this so called secret AAEP agenda and some practice act they have resorted to blaming some animal rights people. Sorry Rick, but the only animal rights activist happens to be one of our own, and that is who's doing all the conniving.

If I'm wrong about me assesment, please someone give it to me straight. I'm a member of the AFA and should not be worrying that my trusted officials have resorted to moving among the shadows.

Bryan, what happened to glasnost.

[SlowShoe]

Rick, the freedoms that we talk about losing are quite simply the following:

1. To make shoeing horses illegal is loss of freedom.

2. To be fined jailed tomorrow for what I freely do today would be loss of freedom.

3. If I were fined $2000.00 for the mere act of setting a set of shoes on a horse is loss of freedom.

4. To be forced to defend myself against a bogus claim by a disgruntled customer at as cost to me of easily $20,000.00 would be loss of freedom.



I agree 100%. A license is "Permission to do something which would otherwise be illegal"

When you sign a license you give up your right to do the thing the license is for.

You have the right to work, it should never be licensed. The governing body thinks your too **** and irisponsable to do things so they issue licenses to control your actions. They can regulate what you can or can not do. There is is NO need or good reason to have a license for anything.

-Josh

[Rick Burten]

>Rick, the freedoms that we talk about losing are quite simply the following:

>1. To make shoeing horses illegal is loss of freedom.

I am not aware that this is even under consideration. In fact, it is my understanding that the pro-active stance the AFA is now affecting is to make sure that this never occurs.

>2. To be fined jailed tomorrow for what I freely do today would be loss of freedom.

See my reply at #1.

>3. If I were fined $2000.00 for the mere act of setting a set of shoes on a horse is loss of freedom.

Again, see my reply at #1.

>4. To be forced to defend myself against a bogus claim by a disgruntled customer at as cost to me of easily $20,000.00 would be loss of freedom.

You stand that risk right now today and there is no registration or licensing of farriers in effect. It is why we carry Liability, Care, Custody and Control and other types of insurance. Or, we choose not to carry insurance from an outside source and in effect, become self-insured. Either way, we can still be sued. So , at least to me, this particular issue is a non-starter in the question at hand.

>I could go on and on but I think everyone gets the point. If further research is desired please check the website that these scenarios came from: http//www.farrier-reg.gov.uk

We should not be so hasty as to compare the British activities with our own. If nothing else, we should profit from their experiences and be able to better craft our own policies.

>Rick, I'm not sure for me that to license or not to license is really the true issue because it could be debated either way till you are blue in the face. Personally I am against it unless it could be meaningful, as you and I have discussed many times and I believe are somewhat in agreement on.

Agreed.

>What disturbes me most is the devious, deceitful way AFA Bigshots are attempting to bully their unpopular agenda through. After failing to get support for their scheme by lying about this so called secret AAEP agenda and some practice act they have resorted to blaming some animal rights people. Sorry Rick, but the only animal rights activist happens to be one of our own, and that is who's doing all the conniving.

Again, we now come to the heart and truth of the matter. And that being the case, lets now only discuss that issue without confusing it within the cover of the registration issue. For if we do that(conceal it) then are we any better than the "AFA Bigshots" about whom so many are upset?

>If I'm wrong about me assesment, please someone give it to me straight. I'm a member of the AFA and should not be worrying that my trusted officials have resorted to moving among the shadows.

As I have said many times, I don't like the way the EC has been acting. But neither do I like the way the BOD has responded. And personally, if we are going to take anyone to task, we should start with the BOD because it is within their power to rein in the actions of the EC.

The makeup of the EC is going to undergo a change. Potentially, first at the mid-year when a BOD representative is elected to the EC and then next year when two new officers are elected. In the mean time, resolutions should be drafted and given to your BOD representative for consideration at the mid-year meeting. Remember, it is the BOD and only the BOD that can direct how much power the EC has. And, if you have read the description provided by Brian Quincey here during this discussion, you can see how relatively ambiguous and open to interpretation, the delegation of that power is.

Bryan, what happened to glasnost.

When in doubt, nuke 'em!

Rick
"We have met the enemy and he is us"
POGO

[Phil Armitage]

Hey Rick sorry for calling you Mr. Burton. This is starting to get so serious and official like, it just came out natural. :D

I have the letter scanned into my computer. Does anyone think it will be a problem if I post it here? Should I include the signatures or white them out?

[Rick Burten]

Phil

Post in in its entirity. And, I hope that Phantom Farrier will do the same with Mike Miller's letter and Doug Butler's reply.

Rick

First it was BurtIn, now its BurtOn, so perhaps the next time you'll spell it BurtEn. :eek: :D To save you the trouble, just call me Rick. Or, Two Dogs(Warrior Prince of the FIN). rb

[Roy Amaral CJF]

Hey Rick sorry for calling you Mr. Burton. This is starting to get so serious and official like, it just came out natural. :D

I have the letter scanned into my computer. Does anyone think it will be a problem if I post it here? Should I include the signatures or white them out?

I don't think they're tyring to keep it a secret. I'd post the whole thing.

What has me curious is what happened to all the other signatures? The first letter that went out to the BOD members had maby 20-25 signatures on it. Now this one only has five? :rolleyes:

[Jason Maki]

I have a serious dislike for political machinations, so have avoided this conversation ( all this stuff reads like a law book....I paid, and am still paying back, a LOT of money to learn that politics/ legal speak gives me a serious headache and indigestion) but I wanted to make a small aside point.
"Phantom Farrier" has provided more than enough information as to who he is; I have a pretty good guess that I will keep to myself. His privacy should only be breached by his own volition. I read a saying somewhere that says " Shoot the guy in the big hat on the white horse... he's important". Sometimes a big name can detract from credibility, or cause what is said to be misheard.
Apply some reasoning: a publisher, IHHF, AFT, Mass. as home state...
This can only be one guy.

I will now retire to my sanctum sanctorium, the proximity to all of this Machiavelian, political stuff has given me an eight beer headache! :D
Jason

[Red Amor]

:confused:

[Phantom Farrier]

Phil

Post in in its entirity. And, I hope that Phantom Farrier will do the same with Mike Miller's letter and Doug Butler's reply.

Rick



Rick
It is my hope that the Bigwigs will print those letters in their entirity. Mr Miller's letter contains some very sensitive material.

Concealment and secrecy have been second nature to some. It is difficult to cover up the truth, we need to bring everything into the open and feel the power of honesty and deal with the consequenses of uncovering it.

If you wish to view their content with discretion, contact me directly and we will discuss it.

More will be revealed.

Phantom

[Rick Burten]

Phantom

Since you brought the two letters to our attention, I feel it is en***bent on you to reproduce them here, in their entirety, "warts" and all. As it now stands, the content of those missives is subject to only speculation and innuendo and as you have rightly pointed out, "we need to bring everything into the open and feel the power of honesty and deal with the consequences of uncovering it..."

Rick

[reillyshoe]

Alright, nobody wants to be the one to post the letters. Would anyone mind e-mailing them?
Pat@theFarrierCenter.com

Thanks in advance.

[Jaye Perry]

Rick
..Concealment and secrecy have been second nature to some. It is difficult to cover up the truth, we need to bring everything into the open and feel the power of honesty and deal with the consequenses of uncovering it.

....Phantom


Hope it will be revealed.

Jaye Perry
Exec. Vice President of R & D of the
LEAR JET WILSON GROUP ;)

[Phantom Farrier]

Hey Guys

The letter and rebuttal will be coming soon, so stay tuned. (I just have to figure out how to get them on.) So don't go anywhere. More will be revealed soon.

Phantom

[Phil Armitage]

I tried to get the letter on here and it comes out to small to read.

[Rick Burten]

Hey Guys

The letter and rebuttal will be coming soon, so stay tuned. (I just have to figure out how to get them on.) So don't go anywhere. More will be revealed soon.

Phantom

Phantom Farrier contacted me and asked me for help in posting the letters. Since I am mostly computer illiterate, I was not able to post them to this site.

However, I have been able to post them to the following web site:
http://www.msnusers.com/TinkersDamnForge

This is my own corner of unused cyberspace. On the left hand side of the page click on Pictures, then when that screen comes up click on 'show photos, when that screen comes up click to go to page 2. The letters are there amongst the hoof pictures. If you click on each one individually, they will come up in a small but readable format.

I hope this works for everyone. by the way, if any of the computer mavens out there can transfer the letters to this list, please feel free to do so.

I remain,

Yours in grime

Rick

[Gary_Miller]

Very interesting letters. For some reason when I first read the task force recommendation something told me to be aware of this Mike Miller guy. I also wondered why the task force had mentioined "Red Tomlinson" by name. Now I know why I felt that way.

I was wondering if Mike Miller is a practing MD, does that mean he is a part time farrier or part time MD.

Nokt sure who the others in Mike's letter are, but if Mike is against them and Doug for them at this point they must be OK.

Rick, I did not recieve the letter you referenced in the original post so could you please send me a copy. My e-mail is millers@icehouse.net a PDF file is best if you can scan it that way, if not anyway you can is ok. Matbe post it like you did the others so all can see.

Phantom Farrier, it took awhile but I have figured out who you are, so you are no longer Craig, and will be the Phantom to me until you come forward with your real ID on your own. I tried to find out more information about you but only found out information on your father. You must really be proud to of had a father like him. Anyway I like what you are saying and you have my full support. I really would like to have more information on the history of the AFA and this subject if you have time to share.

Gary

[Bill Adams]

Well, like Gary, I figured out the Phantom's identity and now I appreciate the lighty vailed deception. Thank you, Phantom, for your service to the craft and your willingness to help through education and now this "cage rattling". Pheel phree to phling pheces at the phoes of phredom, O Phantom!
Can Rick or Phil (actual spelling) post the origanal letter from the SNEFA group? I haven't seen that one yet.
I think it was Rick or Phil that said there should be a movie made (or soap opra) about these goings on. Shouldn't we start sugesting casting for the various parts?
Also, remind me to never send a snide letter to Doug Butler.
Bill

[Phil Armitage]

I couldnt read them, there too small for my old eyes I quess.

[Gary_Miller]

I couldnt read them, there too small for my old eyes I quess.

Phil, Old Man, copy to you computer and then you can open them with your photo editor and enlarge them, or copy and past into a word Doc then you can enlarge them enough to read them.

Gary

[Phil Armitage]

Okay, well I did that and I read the letters. Very interesting, seems like there is alot more to this certification and licensing that meets the eye. Also seems very political. I am impressed with Doug Butlers response to Mike Miller. It is no suprise the AFA is mad at SNEFA, they do not hold back in there News letters. I don't think the AFA really has there finger on the pulse? JMHO :)

[Dave Purves]

Phil, when you say the AFA doesn't have it's hand on the pulse, you're really speaking of a handful of individuals, not the entire membership of the AFA. Some of it's leaders, and more notables may feel one way, but the entire AFA does not. You'd be wise to keep that in mind. Don't let the opinion of few, speak for all.
Dave

[Phil Armitage]

Not only will I keep in mind Dave, I will also clarify myself. When I say the AFA I do not mean the entire membership, I never assumed that anyone would take it that way since we have been talking the whole time about a select few. I mean the leadership, managment and officers and whatever else there may be. If I meant the entire membership then I would also mean that about myself wouldnt I. What do you mean by "you would be wise" comment, do I detect wisdom Dave. ;)

[Mike Miller]

The "letter to Doug Butler" was sent by me via US Mail as private communication. The decision to publicize this correspondence was apparently made by Dr. Butler.

[Gary_Miller]

Mike

Let me be the first to say welcome you to the boards.

Your the first of the taskforce to come online so maybe you will also be willing to answer some questions.

The one question I have for you is.

Please explain to me why the taskforce saw a need to single out "Red Tomlinson" and his schools in the taskforce letter and no other?

Gary

[Phil Armitage]

Hello Mike welcome to the forum. Hope you stay and chat. Used your name also, impressive. You know, I have a problem with the letter being out there also, especially a private letter. Correct me if I am wrong, but didnt Doug mentions in his letter he did that because you made his public.

[EileenHughes]

Doug Butler makes what I believe to be the most important point in this whole issue when he mentions that the AFA has not worked hard enough to educate owners on appropriate hoof care.

The issue of regulating the farrier industry is being approached from, what I believe, the wrong end. Educating the horse owners is what will drive out the hoof butchers, not the threat of losing one's license to practice. In fact it could be the very thing that drives owners to find a cheaper and possibly inferior service. Black market shoeing!! :rolleyes:

If the powers that be at the AFA are really interested in "legitimatizing" the farrier industry, they will start to look at it from the point of the consumer, that is who, after all, keeps the industry alive. For instance, before I became more educated on proper dental care for my horses, I was content to pay all of seven dollars to have a vet come out and bang around in my horse's mouth with a float. Now, I spend anywhere from 65-100 to have a more thorough job done on a happily sedated horse from a more competent vet (both licensed by the way). Education.

There will always be people who will be content with a hoof butcher, because they are simply not willing to spend the money for a more competent one. Fine. As was said, it's a free society we live in (and some of us prefer to keep it that way). You can't outlaw ******ity or laziness.

What can the AFA do for farriers?

Organize a more specialized certification/endorsement program.

Registration (voluntary of course) of farriers that requires a certain amount of continuing education annually to keep.

Expand the information in the "Find a Farrier" to include the very information that the farrier would be asked when a farrier shopper calls. Even references, specialties, price ranges (gasp), ...basically any information that you might include on your own website or other advertisement.

PROMOTE the education that Registered AFA members are required to receive to achieve their certifications or endorsements. Particularly through the most popular horse magazines that most horse owners read.

These last two are a major benefit to the horse owner as well.

The marketing department in the AFA, in my opinion, has alot to answer for when EVERY horse owner has heard of John Lyons or Pat Parelli, but MANY have only a vague notion, if any idea at all, who the AFA is. :(

All of the certifications or endorsements in the world will not mean anything if the consumers are not aware of how this will affect them.

I'm sure that portions of this post would've been more appropriately posted on the related threads, but I imagine all the threads are being followed by the same readers.

[Phil Armitage]

Your right on Eileen, the AFA can also include newer research so that horse owners know that an AFA Certified Farrier is the more qualified. This is what I meant when I commented on not haveing there finger on the pulse. If these guys were on Donald Trumps The Apprentice and did not gather information on what the customers wants and needs are, they would loose.

[Phantom Farrier]

The "letter to Doug Butler" was sent by me via US Mail as private communication. The decision to publicize this correspondence was apparently made by Dr. Butler.

Hello Mike,

Glad you could make it. We've been saving a seat for you. You seem surprised that your letter has been made public. We were surprised by your letter. I dont think Doug Butler had anything to do with the decision to make your letter public.

If you are having a problem with something we are doing here in New England then perhaps you should have addressed your correspondence to the appropriate person.

If I can answer any questions please feel free to ask. I will do my best to be honest as humanly possible with you Mike and would be willing to discuss why our association used the democratic process to attempt change where we felt necessary at that time.

Your not one of those AFA bigshots that think only certain members are qualified to direct policy making are you?


John Blombach, CJF

[beslagsmed]

Bryan

While I realize that it has now become the custom to hold the Mid-year BOD meeting at the next year's convention site, I am disappointed that, in view of the addition of the Open Forum Membership meeting to the schedule, the mid-year BOD meeting is not being held in Kentucky.

Many farriers who live east of the Mississippi will not be able to travel to Nebraska for that meeting, and since surveys show that there are a greater number of farriers/AFA members east of the Mississippi, it would seem both prudent and logical to hold the meeting where it would be most accessible(travel time, cost and distance) to most of them.

I think that this is a topic that the EC should discuss and do so in a timely manner.

Rick

Why not put the meeting on live feed so online members can attend that way?

Mikel

[Gary_Miller]

Well I sure wish I could be here to see where this goes now that Mike is on line. But I get to take the boys to Scout camp for the week so will be gone.
Now you all be nice to Mike and make him feel welcome while I'm gone, and Mike remember we are all in this togeather we just don't happen to agree all the time.

I will see you all in a week.

Gary

[Phantom Farrier]

Gary,

Have a fun and safe vacation with the scouts. We'll still be here when you return. Thanks for all your input.

Phantom

[Mike Miller]

Hello Mike,

Glad you could make it. We've been saving a seat for you. You seem surprised that your letter has been made public. We were surprised by your letter. I dont think Doug Butler had anything to do with the decision to make your letter public.

If you are having a problem with something we are doing here in New England then perhaps you should have addressed your correspondence to the appropriate person.

If I can answer any questions please feel free to ask. I will do my best to be honest as humanly possible with you Mike and would be willing to discuss why our association used the democratic process to attempt change where we felt necessary at that time.

Your not one of those AFA bigshots that think only certain members are qualified to direct policy making are you?


John Blombach, CJF
John,

I am not an officer of the AFA, I have no current duties (except as a part of the Memebership Benefits Committee), and I have rotated off the Board. I thus have no claim to being a "bigshot."

Mike Miller