T.N. Vs. Gary

[T.N. Trosin]

Im sorry but I didn't know what else to call this thread. BTW I would appreciate it if you guys left this to me and Gary. If you want to start your own thread _____ vs. T.N. then go ahead. I can't garuntee that I will respond.

Ego battle the only one in an ego battle was you.

If you look at my original post all I asked was some questions for clarification on what you posted, and you went after me with both barrels loaded.

Now that it seems you have calmed down maybe you could answer my questions in a more reasonable way.
Thank you
Gary

Without a lot of cut and past I'll try to explain it.

I am a farrier I have never been anything else, with the exception of a groom, dishwasher, hod, and a few other part time jobs to make the ends meet. I apprenticed for a guy for 4 years and worked for other farriers part time for another 4 while I was building my business. I joined the AFA in 1992 which I correct my earlier post is 14 years not 16. At that time you needed to be certified to get the vote in the AFA so I waited to join until I was certerfied. Over the last 14 years I have seen the AFA change and then change back to the changes they made. I have been mad enough not to pay my dues and eventually gone back.
In my opinion what Ron doesn't get but I'll admit he's obviously trying to is what a lot of second carreer farriers don't is this. Just becsue one thing works for you doesn't mean it's going to work for me becuse I've tried it or what ever. In a phone conversation I had with Ron he told me about a method of treating founder that he uses that he more or less said was fool proof. It was a method involving a double nail pad which I saw several years ago. I tried to explain that to Ron in a very nice way that nothing is fool proof when it comes to founder, but I got the impression that he didn't want to hear it so I dropped it. Arguring horsehoeing to me is like argueing your religion, there is no point to it. People need to learn from their own mistakes.
Through the rest of the conversation it seemed to me that the more we talked the dummer I got about shoeing a horse. Therefore I have to assume (and I hate to do that any place Rick is) that is the attitude that Ron and takes with a lot of people who have been shoeing for 20 years or less.

As to what he doen't get about AFA farriers without getting back to the Task Force thing, (if you want that I'll PM you). We live to teach, we live to serve. We have been blessed greatly by the people who have helped us and we want to help the people who come in behind us. Thats it. I will concede this point we need leadership that doesn't sabotage the mission every 2 to 4 years. It's not only Ron who doesn't understand the membership it's most everybody who has led us since Lim Couch. They have this attitude that they know what is best for us, Emil Carre did it, Craig Trnka did it and now Dave Fergison is doing it. Ron has persented until lately much the same attitude that 'he's gona clean up this one horse town' and the AFA doesn't need that. The AFA needs people in leadership that is going to re-stableize the certification tests, we need leadership that is going to be willing to work with an existing executive director, etc etc etc. Ron has not established that he can do that with me at least. My big concern is that he wants information out to the membership and the manor in which he wants to do it. I asked him a question about transparicy on his board after the Jim Ziggler post and all I got was a further appologie. What I wanted to know was where he draws the line .
I always find that knowing who nominated whom provides an interesting insight into the relationships involved in any political campaign.

This kind of hurt my feelings. Considering the fact that Rick, Ron and myself are the only ones named in the post who write here, I am under the impression he did that with a specific effect in mind and that was to say that I smiled in Rick Burton's face and stabbed him in the back which is simply not the case. If that wasn't Ron's intent then he needs to clareafy his position on it. My purpose on Andrew's second was to help the nomination processs and not to hamstring anybody. It is not much of a secret that I am good friends with Dick Funguy he has been a mentor to me in the aspect of when I would ask people what was going on, he never failed to tell me or ever sugar coated his opinion, so when he asked me to second Andrew's nomination I gladly did it. I have yet to get behind one candidate or another with the exception of R.T. who has had my support long before Ron put his name in Vice-President.

As to me Gary I'm sick of the EC. I see it and have publicly said that I think that it is an experament that has failed. It has taken advantage of it position and the good nature of the board of directors since it's inception. However, unfortunatly, in the intrest of day to day business it must exist as long as the AFA sits such a large board. I am not the only board member that feels this way. All I want to do is learn and teach and help.

If this makes me an eletist so be it.

[Gary_Miller]

Im sorry but I didn't know what else to call this thread. BTW I would appreciate it if you guys left this to me and Gary. If you want to start your own thread _____ vs. T.N. then go ahead. I can't garuntee that I will respond. Its to bad that you see this as a compition against me. What I see is an AFA member who is part of the "Good Old Boys Club" dismissing and pushing out a new member who is tring to see all sides of the issue.
If anyone else would llike to respond to this tread feel free to do so as I don't see it as me against anyone.



Without a lot of cut and past I'll try to explain it.

At that time you needed to be certified to get the vote in the AFA so I waited to join until I was certerfied. What was the reason for the change and who first suggested it?
Over the last 14 years I have seen the AFA change and then change back to the changes they made. Why all the changes back and forth?
I have been mad enough not to pay my dues and eventually gone back.Fellow members with attitudes like your towards the new mwmber will be what will make me quit.
In my opinion what Ron doesn't get but I'll admit he's obviously trying to is what a lot of second carreer farriers don't is this. Just becsue one thing works for you doesn't mean it's going to work for me becuse I've tried it or what ever. Good point however second carreer farriers come to the field and the AFA with a whole new prospective. And just because it did not work the first time does not mean it won't work the second time with a little tweeking. Is that not what you are currently doing with the BOD size committee you are currently working with?
In a phone conversation I had with Ron he told me about a method of treating founder that he uses that he more or less said was fool proof. It was a method involving a double nail pad which I saw several years ago. I tried to explain that to Ron in a very nice way that nothing is fool proof when it comes to founder, but I got the impression that he didn't want to hear it so I dropped it. You are correct there nothing is fool proof and every situation is differant. However is it wrong to listen to another person no matter how experiance and see thier point. Then discuss with way you do or don't think it will work.
Arguring horsehoeing to me is like argueing your religion, there is no point to it.Why argue it when you can discuss instead and both individuals come out learning something frome each other, with no hard feelings.
People need to learn from their own mistakes. So do associations, I.E. the AFA..
However, if people can also learn from the mistakes of others things can get done alot quicker.
Through the rest of the conversation it seemed to me that the more we talked the dummer I got about shoeing a horse.Is that because Ron had some diffrent points of view that you did not agree with and so refused to learn from?
Therefore I have to assume (and I hate to do that any place Rick is) that is the attitude that Ron and takes with a lot of people who have been shoeing for 20 years or less. Maybe! I don't know Ron personally. I only know that what he states on these boards make allot of sense. All though at time I don't agree with him. But thats ok I'm sure Ron doesn't expect me to because I can think for myself.
As to what he doen't get about AFA farriers without getting back to the Task Force thing, (if you want that I'll PM you). That's ok I've heard enough and it does not matter how the job got done. What does matter is that it got done. Hind sit is always better than what happening at the time.
We live to teach, we live to serve. We have been blessed greatly by the people who have helped us and we want to help the people who come in behind us. Thats it. Then why are you guys so nerrow minded when it comes to working with people who have diffrent ideas and thoughts?
I will concede this point we need leadership that doesn't sabotage the mission every 2 to 4 years. It's not only Ron who doesn't understand the membershipWhat is there that needs to be understood?
OTOH, Maybe it you and the good old boys who don't understand the current membership and thier prespective of what the AFA should be doing.
it's most everybody who has led us since Lim Couch. They have this attitude that they know what is best for us, Emil Carre did it, Craig Trnka did it and now Dave Fergison is doing it. I havent been around long only since last year so I don't know what Lim and Emil was like or what the association was like under thier leadership. Maybe you could take some time and give a short breifing about them and the AFA while they were in charge.
What did Lim Couch do that made his tenor as the AFA president so great? Maybe we need more of that.
Ron has persented until lately much the same attitude that 'he's gona clean up this one horse town' and the AFA doesn't need that. The AFA needs people in leadership that is going to re-stableize the certification tests, we need leadership that is going to be willing to work with an existing executive director, etc etc etc. Ron has not established that he can do that with me at least. We also need leadership with some vision and business sense. Someone who knows how to formulate a stratigic plan and how to work with the BOD in implimenting the plan. Ultimutly the BOD will have the responsability of ensuring the plan is followed and tweekec as time goes on. This is why it so important that your committee have a sound solid plan on down sizing the BOD. Because with the BOD like it is nothing is getting done.
My big concern is that he wants information out to the membership and the manor in which he wants to do it. What wrong with getting information out to the members. I think the members should have access to everything in the AFA office as well as every meeting, and it all can be done right here on the web using the AFA web site. As for using this site to debate issues important to farriers why not. If the AFA wants to be the elite farriers association then all farriers AFA members and non AFA members should be able to discuss the issues. In the end it going to be the AFA members who make the dicission.
I asked him a question about transparicy on his board after the Jim Ziggler post and all I got was a further appologie. What I wanted to know was where he draws the line. It was a ****** statement the needed to be resended. And your question was a ****** question for someone of your stature. You know perfictly well what Ron means by transparicy when it comes to the AFA.


Gary

[Gary_Miller]

Contiued:

This kind of hurt my feelings.For some reason I don't believe that you get your feeling hurt that easy.
Considering the fact that Rick, Ron and myself are the only ones named in the post who write here, I am under the impression he did that with a specific effect in mind and that was to say that I smiled in Rick Burton's face and stabbed him in the back which is simply not the case. If that wasn't Ron's intent then he needs to clareafy his position on it. My purpose on Andrew's second was to help the nomination processs and not to hamstring anybody. It is not much of a secret that I am good friends with Dick Funguy he has been a mentor to me in the aspect of when I would ask people what was going on, he never failed to tell me or ever sugar coated his opinion, so when he asked me to second Andrew's nomination I gladly did it. I have yet to get behind one candidate or another with the exception of R.T. who has had my support long before Ron put his name in Vice-President.I don't think the intent was to cause anyone any strife so let it go.
I for one am glade that he posted the candates as I was courious on who else was running. As for who nominated them it does not matter much.
OTOH you can tell alot about a canidate by the personalities of the nominators.
I only wish that the others would post perferably here on this site where it can be seen by alot of others who are interested in thier positions. But if they don't want to do it here the AFA site is Ok also. What not OK is not talking to the members at all. I don't know any of the guys running or thier position except Ron, Rick and R.T. and even R.T. has very little information on why he should be VP.

As to me Gary I'm sick of the EC. I see it and have publicly said that I think that it is an experament that has failed. It has taken advantage of it position and the good nature of the board of directors since it's inception. You and a whole lot of other folks. However its not the EC that the problem but the people who are on the EC. And the BOD needs to do thier job and tell the EC how things are really going to be. On other reason why a smaller BOD is so important. Keep your committee working.
However, unfortunatly, in the intrest of day to day business it must exist as long as the AFA sits such a large board. I am not the only board member that feels this way.Well make sure your committee listens to all ideas and put togeather a good pakage that the membership will approve of. Because it it looks as if the chapters are being pushed out with no input but being charged to be a chapter the it won't fly by the membership.
All I want to do is learn and teach and help.Then why don't you do that instead of beating up on the new guy like me?
If this makes me an eletist so be it. I like to think of it as more of a "Good Old Boy" who is very pasinate of the AFA. There is nothing wrong with that as long as you keep and open mind to the ideas of others. No matter how long they have been a farrier or what thier back ground is.

Remember it our AFA also.

Gary

[Rick Burten]

Im sorry but I didn't know what else to call this thread. BTW I would appreciate it if you guys left this to me and Gary.
I was going to do just that 'till you brought my name into the fray. :)
This kind of hurt my feelings. Considering the fact that Rick, Ron and myself are the only ones named in the post who write here, I am under the impression he did that with a specific effect in mind and that was to say that I smiled in Rick Burton's face and stabbed him in the back which is simply not the case.
Rest easy your head mon ami. I didnt get that impression or implication at all.

Rick

[T.N. Trosin]

First of all you took the tennor of this to be a compition, in stead of a debate and thats you business I can't do anything about that.
Second, I will answer any question you wish but can't follow the extensive cut and paste.

I am not one of the "good old boys" but they do exisit and you can't deny that, they are the ones that keep the AFA ticking and as far as I knew you had let your membership lapse. I'm not trying to push anybody out, rather have a discussion about AFA politics as you and I see it.

Now as far as who changed the voting rules, I have no idea, but I do know that it hurt certification when it was first implemented and I beleive that it continues to hurt the association. 1/3 of the AFA votes, which 1/3 I don't know or to say I cant tell you if it is more certified farriers than non. The reason there are so many changes to the by-laws i my opinion is because of the high turn over of the board of directors.

All farriers go through growing pains. I did everybody does, but they seem to differ with the age of the farrier when they get in the business as far as how veimently they hold something as an undenyable truth. A person that starts shoeing earier in life seems to be more willing to learn from differnt people. The older they are they seem to stick with the views of the people they learnd from and hold harder to those positions even if they leaned them from somebody who didn't know so much. The older a person is in this business the less willing to alter their thoughts on shoeing a horse, and what is new to them is actually something a peer might have tried several years ago. SO the idea isn't necassarly fresh, but you can't get that across to them so the best thing is to let it go. Argueing horseshoeing involves two people who fold fast to their individual beleifs despite what the other person says. Discussing horseshoeing involves questions and opinions exchanged between two people. I love to discuss horseshoeing with people I find that I do it with fewer people every year, but I won't argue points any more.

As Far as the AFA stuff I compleatly agree that leadership needs to develop and impliment a stratigic plan, further I will agree that they need a business sense. Let's look at the Ink and Anvil thing. On one side we have Dave Furgeson a good farrier and a decent guy for all intensive purposes on the other side we have Scott Davidson a good farrier and a decent guy for all intensive purposes. Something somewhere happened between the two of them, I have have no earthly idea what, but it was something that obviously couldn't be resolved for the good of the AFA. Scott pushed Dave or Dave pushed Scott who knows, probably one of the 'good old boys' or as Tom Bloomer dubed an insider, but I certainly don't. At any rate there was a breakdown somewhere and the membership suffers because two strong personalities don't get along. Did Scott give the AFA a good bid on the project? I'm sure he did, but unless you ask the AFA office for the litney of do***ents that suround the transaction we may never know. The next question is who else was given the opertunity to bid on the project, I may never know that either.
(At this point I realize that Rick could come back in here and crack my skull because I probably should know, but you know what, AFA politics are my hobby, I don't get a check from it so I have to concentrate on shoeing horses and I'm not going to track down every piece of paperwork unless it is pertinent to something that I'm working on.)

Point being that eventually emotions enterend into the equation, a member benifit got compromised. If the AFA is going to do business it has to do business and it has to be willing to get along with each other to get business done.
Another good example is the "Recorded phone call". Here we are 9 months down the road and there are still people who can't let that go. But we have to. What people don't understand is that as long as they tie the President up with something that he has handled you hurt the association. If the leader of the club isn't allowed to move forward then the association is stuck as well. The personalities need to get out of the way and let business take place.

Now as far as getting information out to the membership I reiterate my "******" statement in that fact that I'm all for it as long as it is not done in a malicious manor. I have received assurance from Rick that he didn't take Ron's post the way I did and that is fine. But you still have to be carful what you say and where you say it. Desiminate the information but do it in a maner were you leave no room for improprity.

As far as the EC goes. It's more the comcept to me than the people a point that I made to the association secratary tonight in an email. I don't think that it matters who is on the EC because I think that there is this unspoken tension that comes with being on the EC. Your under this emense amount of presure to get stuff done in the best intrest of the the Association and sometimes the boundries get crossed becuase the people in that position feel that they are doing the right thing.

I'll cut and paste this part

I like to think of it as more of a "Good Old Boy" who is very pasinate of the AFA. There is nothing wrong with that as long as you keep and open mind to the ideas of others. No matter how long they have been a farrier or what thier back ground is.

Remember it our AFA also.
Gary

I'll make a deal with you Gary. If you have patiance and keep your AFA membership regardless of the cost I will always have an open mind. When I go crazy its usually with someone who complains about the AFA and doesn't pay their dues.
Remember 3 things:
One man doesn't make an association
You give me a majority of the disenfanchised and things will change, and
There is room for all of us.

[Gary_Miller]

I had let it lasp at one time and almost did not renew. How ever after some coverstation with others I renewed in April. Figured I woud try and be part of the solution instead of the problem. With all the BS that has been going on with the AFA leadership I'm not sure it was a wise idea. May have been a good waste of my money.
How come when you found out my membership was not lasped you changed your attitude towards me? Should not all farriers and what they feel about the industry be important to the leadership of the AFA?

Do you think the new change to have to be a member of the AFA is going to hurt the certification program or help it?

Could all the changes to the by laws be more than a change in the EC than the size of the board?
From what I have seen it is the EC recommending the changes in order to get more power, not the BOD.
Would a stratigic plan would fix this?

A person that starts shoeing earier in life seems to be more willing to learn from differnt people. The older they are they seem to stick with the views of the people they learnd from and hold harder to those positions even if they leaned them from somebody who didn't know so much. The older a person is in this business the less willing to alter their thoughts on shoeing a horse, and what is new to them is actually something a peer might have tried several years ago. SO the idea isn't necassarly fresh, but you can't get that across to them so the best thing is to let it go.
I think it more that a younger person does not have enough life experiances to know when to call BS. Thier more willing to take ones word as gospel.

Where a older person has had enough experiances in life to know that even if someones says it has been tried and didn't work to know that it may work this time because the situation maybe diffent now. I learned this in the Air Force working on quality improvement teams. The old timer would say it was tried and did not work so it won't work now. However when it was tried it did work due to diffrent situations and diffrent players.

So it not that the older guys entering the field are not willing to listen and learn they just have a tendency to questioin when someone says it was tried and did not work.

Do you think that is bad way of thinking when it comes to farrier science and the AFA?

I think it been proven that the I&A thing was Scott Davidson letting his personal feeling take over and not following the contract he agreed to and signed with the AFA. So it dead to me.

As for Dave Furgeson situation with the phone call recording. I think it was improperly handled by the BOD. The BOD basiclly let the EC and ED handle the situation by using a moderator and letting Dave appologize with a letter to the membership. Once again the BOD did not step up to the plate and do thier job. What Dave done illegal or not was unethical and showed poor judgement. He can no longer be trusted and should be man enough to step down. If people don't trust the leader then they won't let him move his agenda forward. This is not a dead issue to me as nothing was done. It was just pushed under the table like the Licensing issue by the BOD. Bad on the BOD.

As a member of the BOD everything pertaining to the AFA needs to be more than a hobbie. I don't think you need to track down every peice of paper but you better know whats going on and make sure it offical and accurate. If you not willing to do this then you need to step down and let someone else take over. You represent you chapter and they deserve more than a hobbiest on the BOD.

Its just you way of thinking thats going to make selling the down sizing of the BOD a hard sell. If they don't get good representation with someone they know who is local will they get it with someone they don't know who is not local. Something to think about?

If you don't like the way the EC is organized and fuctioning then as a BOD member you have the resposibility to fix it. Or at least try. Take the new recent change. That the most rediculess thing I have ever saw. I can't figure out why the BOD saw it as a good change and approved it. I think the EC has to much flexability to do things without the BOD approval, I.E. the Ad Hoc and task force committees should be appointed and approved by the BOD before any action is started.

I'll make a deal with you Gary. If you have patiance and keep your AFA membership regardless of the cost I will always have an open mind. I make you a deal Tom. As long as the BOD step up to the plate and does thier job at running the AFA, gets programs started that will market the AFA membership and certification program, exstablish an true training program, and contiue to improve and provide benifits that are benifical to my business for the cost. Then I will alway keep my membership.

I think the BOD better get going. My renewal date is April.
When I go crazy its usually with someone who complains about the AFA and doesn't pay their dues.
What drives me crazy is all those leaders in the AFA who won't listen, to those nonmembers who are trying to tell the AFA what needs done so they will join and pay thier dues.

Remember 3 things:
One man doesn't make an association
You give me a majority of the disenfanchised and things will change, and
There is room for all of us.
Remember 3 things:
1. An association must provide value in order to gain and keep membership.
2. Fix the things that the disenfranchised do not like and they will return.
3. If one does not feel welcome, or they precive that the goods sold them are not of value, their space will soon be vacant.


Gary

[Ronald E. Kramedjian]

BTW I would appreciate it if you guys left this to me and Gary.Tom,

I would be glad to leave you to your discussion with Gary, but for me to do so you have to figure out how to leave me out of that discussion. Since you have made some sweeping charges here, I'm going to repsond here.

In my opinion what Ron doesn't get but I'll admit he's obviously trying to is what a lot of second carreer farriers don't is this. Just becsue one thing works for you doesn't mean it's going to work for me becuse I've tried it or what ever.What you do not want to hear is that I believe strongly in working to make the BoD stand up and take charge of our association, to establish the policies of our association and to behave like they are actually responsible for the way our association is running. There is no room for excuses in my mind. Now if that kind of accountability doesn't work for you why are you on the BoD?

People need to learn from their own mistakes.This kind of thinking just doesn't work. Most of us, farriers that is, while having big egos are very invested in not hurting the horses we work on. In fact to date I haven't met one that wasn't invested in helping them be better. This means I listen when experienced farriers talk, I integrate that which makes sense and I store that which I do not understand until it becomes understandable. When someone like you just stops talking you hurt those of us that are trying to learn.

Through the rest of the conversation it seemed to me that the more we talked the dummer I got about shoeing a horse. Therefore I have to assume (and I hate to do that any place Rick is) that is the attitude that Ron and takes with a lot of people who have been shoeing for 20 years or less.Tom every day I shoe horses I get ****er about shoeing horses. From what I have heard from guys like Rick who have been doing in 30 plus years is that this getting ****er syndrome continues.

I will concede this point we need leadership that doesn't sabotage the mission every 2 to 4 years.I'm glad you do. How are you going to help solve this problem?

They have this attitude that they know what is best for us, Emil Carre did it, Craig Trnka did it and now Dave Fergison is doing it. Ron has persented until lately much the same attitude that 'he's gona clean up this one horse town' and the AFA doesn't need that. The AFA needs people in leadership that is going to re-stableize the certification tests, we need leadership that is going to be willing to work with an existing executive director, etc etc etc. Ron has not established that he can do that with me at least.Tom I have never said this. I am going to work to get the BoD to do its job and do the house cleaning that is necessary. I know it must come as a novel concept, but it is the BoD's job to manage the affairs of the association and to set the policies of the association, it is the duty of the officers and executive director to administrate those policies. So how are you as a BoD rep doing your job and why is it that there are few if any policies governing the activities of the association?

My big concern is that he wants information out to the membership and the manor in which he wants to do it. I asked him a question about transparicy on his board after the Jim Ziggler post and all I got was a further appologie. What I wanted to know was where he draws the line.You asked me a loaded question that was worded to cast as bad a possible light on me as possible, and I answered it directly. You did not ask me where I draw the line. But to answer this question if it concerns the business of the AFA it should be public, with the previously noted exceptions, and if it doesn't it should be off limits. Private behavior that has no impact on the business of the AFA should remain private.

This kind of hurt my feelings. Considering the fact that Rick, Ron and myself are the only ones named in the post who write here, I am under the impression he did that with a specific effect in mind and that was to say that I smiled in Rick Burton's face and stabbed him in the back which is simply not the case. If that wasn't Ron's intent then he needs to clareafy his position on it. My purpose on Andrew's second was to help the nomination processs and not to hamstring anybody. It is not much of a secret that I am good friends with Dick Funguy he has been a mentor to me in the aspect of when I would ask people what was going on, he never failed to tell me or ever sugar coated his opinion, so when he asked me to second Andrew's nomination I gladly did it. I have yet to get behind one candidate or another with the exception of R.T. who has had my support long before Ron put his name in Vice-President.I posted the list of candidates and nominators for exactly the reason I stated. Period!

If you feel guilty I would suggest that this is your problem. The simple reality is that who and how people are nominated for office in the AFA tells a lot about the support they have. Mr. Fanguy and Mr. Elsbree have been closely aligned with Mr. Ferguson for a very long time. Given their prior open support for Mr. Ferguson and his policies in Mr. Ferguson’s campaign for the presidency I for one any looking forward to seeing how their candidacies play with the membership given the ongoing failure of Mr. Ferguson’s administration to actually accomplish anything on his agenda, much less anything at all. At this point they are both going to have to repudiate their relationships with Mr. Ferguson in a meaningful way to avoid being tarred with the brush that Mr. Ferguson is tarring himself.

As to me Gary I'm sick of the EC. I see it and have publicly said that I think that it is an experament that has failed. It has taken advantage of it position and the good nature of the board of directors since it's inception. However, unfortunatly, in the intrest of day to day business it must exist as long as the AFA sits such a large board. I am not the only board member that feels this way. All I want to do is learn and teach and help.I’m sorry, the BoD has failed to exercise its proper role in governing the activities of the EC and the association since the EC’s inception. Why are you trying to blame the EC for the BoD’s failure to act in the very manner that the Bylaws of the association require?

[Rick Burten]

AFA politics are my hobby, I don't get a check from it so I have to concentrate on shoeing horses and I'm not going to track down every piece of paperwork unless it is pertinent to something that I'm working on.)
Tom,

This is one of what I see as the major problems with the board. The reps either can't or don't spend enough time on AFA business. When one is a BoD member, it is inc-u-mbent on them to devote as much time as is necessary to insure the proper governance and running of the AFA. Those individuals have been entrusted with the "keys to the mint" and when somewone doesn't do their due dilligence, then the chaos we now see within the AFA, results.

It is my firm belief that anyone who cannot devote however much time is necessary to fulfill their fudiciary repsonsibity to the AFA as a board rep, should resign from the board of directors.
Point being that eventually emotions enterend into the equation, a member benifit got compromised. If the AFA is going to do business it has to do business and it has to be willing to get along with each other to get business done.
I agree. That said, the emotions eminated from one direction and one direction only. And that was from a vendor(I&A) towards the AFA.
Another good example is the "Recorded phone call". Here we are 9 months down the road and there are still people who can't let that go.
And rightfully so. Why should they? Afterall, the situation speaks to the honesty, integrity and eithics of the leadership. The trust has been broken, and repairing it is going to be a hurculean task.
But we have to. What people don't understand is that as long as they tie the President up with something that he has handled you hurt the association.
The President is in a quagmire of his own making. The BoD shares the blame and is complicit in allowing this situation to continue. They(the board) had a golden opportunity to resolve the situation but they chose not to. So why should anyone have any faith in their ability to govern? And if you think that sending a letter begging forgiveness is "handling" the matter, then you have completely misjudged the membership.
If the leader of the club isn't allowed to move forward then the association is stuck as well. The personalities need to get out of the way and let business take place.
Hard to get the personalities out of the way when one doesn't trust the other.
But you still have to be carful what you say and where you say it.
AMEN!
Desiminate the information but do it in a maner were you leave no room for improprity.
Seems to me that if one sticks to the truth and has better morals than your average alley cat, that shouldn't ever be a problem, right?
As far as the EC goes..... Your under this emense amount of presure to get stuff done in the best intrest of the the Association and sometimes the boundries get crossed becuase the people in that position feel that they are doing the right thing.
If one's ethical and moral compass point true north, and if one has even a modic-u-m of common sense, then I don't see why boundaries get crossed.
Right is still right and wrong is still wrong. Its when we start to shade those dimensions that we run into trouble.

[tbloomer]

Something somewhere happened between the two of them, I have have no earthly idea what, but it was something that obviously couldn't be resolved for the good of the AFA. Scott pushed Dave or Dave pushed Scott who knows, probably one of the 'good old boys' or as Tom Bloomer dubed an insider, but I certainly don't.
Gee TN,

Why don't you call Fergie and ask him about what happened starting back . . . oh sometime after January of 2005 when Dave made a trip to California to for a consultation on a foundered pony. Start there, tie that into the way I&A handled the Duckett letter. Frankly I'm surprised that there wasn't a blood bath.

[T.N. Trosin]

First of all Gary my attitude change had nothing to do with your memberhsip it had to do with me being and as***le. I'm all for debate and I let my temper get to me.

As to your questions concerning the membership requirement for certification, I believe that it helps. At least the people get in to the system and the association builds a base.
As to the reduction of the board, I beleive part of it being imparitive is so that if the EC if left in existance isn't tempeted to over step it's bounds. Being smaller the board will be easier to conveign and would meet 4 to 6 times a year, therefore it would be better placed to vote on contracts, table items, etc. and I think make better decisions. As far as your sentiments that I should be better read, your right the whole board should be, but you have to understand one thing, the local associations are hurting right now with a few exceptions. We're hurting in the aspect of getting sponsorship, and people willing to step up and lead. If you look at several of the associations mine included there has been either little turn over in their respective boards or major turn over, there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. The WSFA has been rought with turn over because people have lives.My first duty as president was to appoitnt a new treasurer, in the first year and a month of office I lost one board member becuse he wanted to concentrate on his family life and another to health issues, my association secratary retired after 4 years of service and my vice president after 6. So that left me and one board member that had any kind of board experiance. It is so easy for someone to throw up their hands and quit, but it's tough to find a replacement for those people. Rick made a comment further down the thread about the fudiciary responsibilty that we have as board members and he is right, but my primary responsiablity is to my local membership and I have to divide my time accordingly, plus keep my book in check as well.
As far as my views on the EC and my responsibility to change it, I'm doing my best. What we (the AFA leadership) forgot is that it wasn't my committees place to write the by-laws concerning this, ploicy maybe but not by-laws. In hindsight reading and remembering what the committee was charged to do was investigate the following:
1. If it was in the best intrest of the AFA to reduce the Board
2. If reducing the AFA board was feesiable.
What we should have done and will inevtibily do I think is submit our report to the board on our findings, but that is going to have to wait until the I can conveigh the committee in a couple of weeks.

I make you a deal Tom. As long as the BOD step up to the plate and does thier job at running the AFA, gets programs started that will market the AFA membership and certification program, exstablish an true training program, and contiue to improve and provide benifits that are benifical to my business for the cost. Then I will alway keep my membership.

I can't make that deal Gary because the board isn't just me, I can do as much as can which is lending my voice to the fray when I think it is necassary or when someone else hasn't brought a thought that concour with. What your asking is a long haul and the AFA needs people like you to fight for the disenfranchised as well. Becasue if you don't the message will be lost.


What drives me crazy is all those leaders in the AFA who won't listen, to those nonmembers who are trying to tell the AFA what needs done so they will join and pay thier dues.

Imagine if you will Gary that a perspective client tells you the same thing. That if you change this about yourself or what you do shoing wise you'll get my business. Me personally I'd tell them to pound sand. I need to pay attention to the people who are paying the bills and try to work in a way to get the new clients. At somepoint you will aleinate someone and the unfortunate part is frankly, the AFA hasn't found that point yet.




Remember 3 things:
1. An association must provide value in order to gain and keep membership.
2. Fix the things that the disenfranchised do not like and they will return.
3. If one does not feel welcome, or they precive that the goods sold them are not of value, their space will soon be vacant.
Gary

Noted


T

[Gary_Miller]

As to your questions concerning the membership requirement for certification, I believe that it helps. At least the people get in to the system and the association builds a base. Tom or anyone else.
Has there been an increase in AFA membership due to the requirement to do so for certification?
OTOH, Has the number of people takeing the certification test decreased, increased or stayed the same since the requirement has been implemented?

I know that since it just been a short time we may not know yet but it would be interesting to know.


As to the reduction of the board, I beleive part of it being imparitive is so that if the EC if left in existance isn't tempeted to over step it's bounds. Being smaller the board will be easier to conveign and would meet 4 to 6 times a year, therefore it would be better placed to vote on contracts, table items, etc. and I think make better decisions.
Besides the reduction in the BOD size is your committee looking at other options such as using on line confrencing, web boards for discusioins and electronic voting on items so the board can condust buisness without having to travel.

So that left me and one board member that had any kind of board experiance.It is so easy for someone to throw up their hands and quit, but it's tough to find a replacement for those people. I don't believe you need any experiance to be a board member. You just need to be willing. If you need to staff your board cornor and talk to individuals in you association and convince them that they can do the job. Lots of people won't volunteer however when asked the will step up to the plate.
Rick made a comment further down the thread about the fudiciary responsibilty that we have as board members and he is right, but my primary responsiablity is to my local membership and I have to divide my time accordingly, plus keep my book in check as well.
If you don't have the time to wear both hats then make the AFA BOD Represenative a seaprate postion in your association. That way the work load is split up.
As far as my views on the EC and my responsibility to change it, I'm doing my best. What we (the AFA leadership) forgot is that it wasn't my committees place to write the by-laws concerning this, ploicy maybe but not by-laws. In hindsight reading and remembering what the committee was charged to do was investigate the following:
1. If it was in the best intrest of the AFA to reduce the Board
2. If reducing the AFA board was feesiable.
What we should have done and will inevtibily do I think is submit our report to the board on our findings, but that is going to have to wait until the I can conveigh the committee in a couple of weeks.I think that if it needs a by-law change that your committee should also write the change and then send it to the by-law committee to insure it is written properly. Then when you go to the BOD you have your research, findings and the way it will be written for the by-law change all at the sametime. That way the BOD is informed of the who, what, why, and how of the change. And your committee is in a better postion to answer questions.
I can't make that deal Gary because the board isn't just me, I can do as much as can which is lending my voice to the fray when I think it is necassary or when someone else hasn't brought a thought that concour with. What your asking is a long haul and the AFA needs people like you to fight for the disenfranchised as well. Becasue if you don't the message will be lost.I agree that you can't do it all yourself. However you can make it as part of your agenda so when there is board meetings and new buisness is brought up what the membership wants is always on the plate. As a BOD member you can also make sure that these thing are always a priority of the association to be working on. Its the BODs job to do these things not just to attend meetings and say yea or nea when and issue is brought up.


Imagine if you will Gary that a perspective client tells you the same thing. That if you change this about yourself or what you do shoing wise you'll get my business. Me personally I'd tell them to pound sand. I need to pay attention to the people who are paying the bills and try to work in a way to get the new clients. As long as the change has nothing to due with lowering my price or in the case of shoeing wise hurting the horse. I can make the change. For example, I don't shoe NB on a regulare bases, but if a customer wanted me to put them on I can do that with no problem.
OTHO if a prospective client says if you drop this person from your cliental you can have all my buisness I would tell them to drop dead.
I did not pickup an 18 horse account this last summer because I would not give a multi horse discount and someone else would. Oh well I get my price everyday and I'm not changing them for anyone. Its a matter of principle.
In order to gain new clients or in the case of the AFA new members we have to be willing to provide those the service that is wanted or needed.

At somepoint you will aleinate someone and the unfortunate part is frankly, the AFA hasn't found that point yet.
I don't think this is what you ment to say. Because the AFA has become experts in aleinating members and potential members. The past two years are perfect examples.


Gary





Noted


T [/QUOTE]

[T.N. Trosin]

I would like to respond to quite bit in your post but I have time constraints.

First of all I agree that you don't need experiance to serve on a board but it helps. Good Lord knows I didn't know anything when I got my first board appointment, but I studdied what was available on 501 (c) (6) corperations (and beleive me there isn't much) so I would have half an idea what we could and couldn't do. I still find myself behind on the 501 (c) (3) stuff and Roberts rules of order. While we all agree that the board members should know whats going on they should also know the rules first.

Next, I think it would be helpful if there were ways for the board to meet electronicly, but that can be a sugjestion out of my committee. The problem here is that even in this day and age of electronic wonderment, not all of the AFA board has so much as an email account. In my personal aspect, even though I live in this mass metropilis, my internet sucks right now to the point where I don't think I could accuratly communicate on an IM much less in an elctronic meeting As technology gets better I think that anything is posible but the electronic meeting for the AFA is still a few year away.

As far as what the membership wants, I guess my membership wants for very little. If they do want something they sure haven't called. It's hard for me to place things on the agenda when I have no backing from my membership. This is why it is important for you to belong to your local chapter, becuse at the moment thats who the board represents.

Your right that's not what I ment to say. What I ment to say is that the AFA has yet to figure out what is offensive to the membership. Yes, recorded phone calls, suprise endorsement contracts, and dues increased are in there, but (and I know you will find this hard to beleive) those aren't the big kickers. The big one is people getting offended at certification tests and that irronicly is a two way street. The certification committee has made big strides in improving how testers and examiners communicate with candidates but by the same token they are still struguling with how to properly prepare people for the test. OTOH the test candidates don't know how good they have it. You can ask George and Tom Stovall how the IJHU worked or still does or whatever. They give you the pramiters of the test and thats it, if you failed then that was to bad so sad, they didn't go over points with you, they would tell you try again next time. The AFA gives people the all the keys to pass the test but preparation is enevitablity up to the people who take it. But for what ever reason that never seems to be enough. But by the same token there are points in the test where the certification committe won't cave and I believe that they need to, becuse if they did you would see way more certified farriers. But thats up to that committee to figure out.

[Gary_Miller]

I would like to respond to quite bit in your post but I have time constraints. I understand we all have time constraints, do what you can post what you can I'm enjoying the learning experiance.

What ever you do don't neglect that new wife or yours.
The problem here is that even in this day and age of electronic wonderment, not all of the AFA board has so much as an email account. I tired of hearing this excuse for not using technology. I todays world most everyone has computer access some where. Everyone can go to the public libary. As for e-mail accounts it would be a small task for the AFA to implement and account for all BOD members right off the AFA server.
As technology gets better I think that anything is posible but the electronic meeting for the AFA is still a few year away. The technology is already here all thats needed is the willingness to implement it and use it.

As far as what the membership wants, I guess my membership wants for very little. If they do want something they sure haven't called. It's hard for me to place things on the agenda when I have no backing from my membership. This is why it is important for you to belong to your local chapter, becuse at the moment thats who the board represents More communication with in your local association about what is happening in the AFA is all that needed. By letting your membership know what going on, what to be decided upon, and what needed will bring more imput and ideas. I belong to my local chaper however I learn more on this site about the AFA happening than I do from out president/BOD member.

What I ment to say is that the AFA has yet to figure out what is offensive to the membership.If they don't know they aren't listening to what people are saying. I think the bigggest problem is keeping the mambership in the dark, and the BOD not doing their job. This allows for the EC to do what ever they want and by the time the membership get wind of whats happening the damage is already done.
The big one is people getting offended at certification tests and that irronicly is a two way street. To bad people need to stop the winning about the test and just follow the standard. As long as the standard is followed there is no room for arguement.
The certification committee has made big strides in improving how testers and examiners communicate with candidates but by the same token they are still struguling with how to properly prepare people for the test.Its not the AFA job to prepare people for the test its the canidents job to prepare themselves. The standard is there all you do is have to read it, learn it, practice it, and do it.
OTOH the test candidates don't know how good they have it. You can ask George and Tom Stovall how the IJHU worked or still does or whatever. They give you the pramiters of the test and thats it, if you failed then that was to bad so sad, they didn't go over points with you, they would tell you try again next time. That is exactly how it should be. Here is the standard, there is the horse, now shoe it to the standard.
The AFA gives people the all the keys to pass the test but preparation is enevitablity up to the people who take it.Agreed But for what ever reason that never seems to be enough.To bad so sad.
But by the same token there are points in the test where the certification committe won't cave and I believe that they need to, becuse if they did you would see way more certified farriers. The standard is there the cert committee has done a lot in trying to eliminate the human factor the best they can. I don't think they should cave on anything. You don't lower a standard if its a good standard just because some people can't reach it. Instead you expect people to come upto the standard.
What in the test do you think needs changed in order for more people to pass it?


Gary

[George Geist]

Tom,
Just a little FYI about the Unions test. There are limits to what I'll say about it on the internet but I can tell you some tales about how things were in the past.

Speaking of the present I'll not say anybody's test is harder than anybody elses cause I really think hard is in the eye of the beholder. In my local and most of the others I've had contact with, we prep the candidate. We show exactly what is expected and get him or her ready. Sometimes the skill level is already there sometimes they need some improvement. Nonetheless we work very hard to get everyone up to standard. As a result passing rates are very high.

This was not always that way as you know back when politics was polluting the process. I see the AFA now going down that same road. The thing I find ironic is that the Union still carries that reputation so nobody wants to try their test, whereas the AFA which has a disgracefully low passing rate never has any shortage of people wanting to take their tests. Perception vs Reality I guess.

What Gary says sounds good on paper. reality is it is not shoeing to any preset standard. It is supposed to be but it is not. Politics has corrupted it. Best way to remedy the situation is through boycotting it until they make it right.

I really dont want in any testing arguments just wanted to interject that point about the Union. Now you guys can continue your argument

George

[danverschild]

What Gary says sounds good on paper. reality is it is not shoeing to any preset standard. It is supposed to be but it is not. Politics has corrupted it. Best way to remedy the situation is through boycotting it until they make it right.

Making sweeping and unsubstantiated accusations and recommendations such as the above doesn't seem to match well with what you say below.

I really dont want in any testing arguments just wanted to interject that point about the Union. Now you guys can continue your argument

[Rick Burten]

Maybe, as others have suggested, it should be mandatory for every candidate to attend and participate in at least one pre-certification clinic. Perhaps, each time a candidate wishes to stand for a certification, s/he should have to first attend a pre-certification clinic. I honestly don't know.

One thing that I do know is that we should re-open the program to members and non-members. Since there is this apparent bugaboo about joining the AFa in the first place, lets just give non-members the option of joining the AFA and then having to only pay AFA member rates for the exams, or remain a non-member but have to pay the non-member exams fee of , for instance$400.00, and a yearly fee of $155.00 thereafter in order to keep their appellation current and registered with the AFA. Or, just charge non-members a fee of $1500.00 to take the exam or any part there of(and the fee is charged each time a non-member candidate stands for any part of any of the exams, regardless).

Hell, maybe we should charge members more to take the exams. Maybe if they had more at risk, they'd be better prepared in the first place. Quien sabe?

And while we're at it, lets stop the foolish nonsense of not giving the correct answers to missed questions to candidates who did not pass the written.

That policy, as much as any other, and maybe more than any other involving certification, really chaps my butt. It sure is counter to one element of our stated mission.

And lets do get a computer program in place that can track each and every question and each and every answer to those questions. Then we can readily find the good questions and the bad questions and eliminate those bad ones.

And lets get the tests vetted by true educators, trained in writing test questions and answers.

Long as I'm on a roll here, lets get a 'certification committee' made up of someone other than CJF Examiners. Lets get some committee members who are non-examiners,some Testers, some CF's, and some who are not certified

Better yet, maybe those folks should be formed as an Advisory Council/committee. And mayber the members of the Certification Committee should listen to what their advisors tell them.

[jvzieger]

I have to agree with Gary on most of what he said.

The certification test may have had politics involved in the past, but I've been to many certifications in the past three years, and I see testers being very fair in holding people to the predefined standards.

I do not think the test should be ****ed down to the lowest common denominator. When I eventually pass my practical and shoe board (I've already gotten through the written), I will be proud.

When I left a high spot in the foot that got me stopped on my recent attempt, the examiner called over several other examiners to discuss and see if they agreed with his judgement.

The test is a fair and good standard and is administered fairly.

If you can't pass it, then you're not good enough to be certified. That's how we're going to be able to sell the benefits of a certified farrier to the horse owning public. JMHO :)

[George Geist]

All good ideas Rick,

Hope you get the chance to bring some of them to the table.

George

[T.N. Trosin]

See Gary we agree on way more than we thought we did.

As far as the certification goes, it still needs to be wrenched a little. Here is the problems as I see it.

1. Lack of parody. Thats to say everbody intreprets the standard differntly. I have seen the shoe boards that past from other parts of the country that wouldn't pass here. If there is a bugaboo it's the stinking shoe board. Right or wrong they want these cracker jack shoes that don't fit a lot of feet. Further the pattern that the AFA provides is pretty unrealistic here in California. The only breed I have seen here that is remotly close to this pattern is Hackney Ponies. Further the AFA doesn't require that the candidates to make their shoes to the patterns. The Certification committee needs to come correct on this. While I agree that they are making an excelent effort at updating examiners, there are sitll holes in the parody issue. If the certification committee has done further work on this since the Mid-year they have failed to notify the board.

2. The Pre-Certs are above where they need to be. Whoever has been in charge of these things need to realize that they need to be A. Free and B. a place to get people on track especially if the expect the level of workmanship on the shoe boards that they do. I know a lot of good farriers who I would have shoe my horses who wouldn't pass the test becuse of they way they fit a shoe to a foot. I think and the WSFA is currently implemnting a serries of Pre-Pre Certification clinics to address this problem. If you reach out to the community and say "o.k. where are you at?" and they tell you then you can help them make the adjustments to where they can prepare for the test.

My last word on this. The technology. Should there be a requirement for board members to have an email account. Yes there should in my opinion, however, as long as the AFA has little to no control of who is appointed to it's board of directors it is impliment this policy. The chapters need to be more responsiable in who and how they place a board rep.

[Ronald E. Kramedjian]

My last word on this. The technology. Should there be a requirement for board members to have an email account.Tom,

This is likely the easiest of all of the issues you mention to correct/find resolution to. It would be fairly easy to set up an email account for every member of the AFA using the AMERICANFARRIERS.ORG domain. The cost of doing this would be negligible. Then all the members would have to accomplish is setting up their email program to access their AFA email account. Doing this would insure that every email is actually issued to every member and transfer responsibility for reading what is sent to the member themselves. This would also reduce the effort involved in tracking and updating the never ending and ever changing inventory of email addresses that is out there. My belief is that using "MEMB" plus the id number, in my case 8231, would yield a viable email address of MEMB8231@AmericanFarriers.org.

Now for those of us that are technology savvy the member information management software could allow members to set up their own auto forwarder. Then email sent to their AFA email address would be automatically forwarded to the email account of their choosing. Mine for instance would be addressed to MEMB8231@AmericanFarriers.org then the system would automatically forward it to ron@kramedjian.com. I would know that it came via the AFA mail server because the “to address” would be the AFA email address.

The email account would be a member benefit and always available as long as the member is in good standing. Those without computers could use a friend’s computer or a public library computer to access the AFA website and its “New” web mail page to read their email. For those that do not have a lot of tech savvy, they can get a fried to help them. Password management would be completely automated and follow the lines that are used for hotmail, MSN, etc….

I know it sounds like a complex solution, but it really is easy to set up. The real issue is establish policies governing how long messages can stay on the server and how big attachments can be that are being sent to or from AFA email addresses. This all governs how much disk storage is required and thus governs the cost.

[Phil Armitage]

I have to agree with Gary on most of what he said.

The certification test may have had politics involved in the past, but I've been to many certifications in the past three years, and I see testers being very fair in holding people to the predefined standards.

I do not think the test should be ****ed down to the lowest common denominator. When I eventually pass my practical and shoe board (I've already gotten through the written), I will be proud.

When I left a high spot in the foot that got me stopped on my recent attempt, the examiner called over several other examiners to discuss and see if they agreed with his judgement.

The test is a fair and good standard and is administered fairly.

If you can't pass it, then you're not good enough to be certified. That's how we're going to be able to sell the benefits of a certified farrier to the horse owning public. JMHO :)

How do you know the foot was not flat when you dropped it then settled and was unlevel by the time the examiner looked at it? I know my foot was flat when it was done, however was not flat when the examiner looked at it and he pointed it out to me and I could see it. This is one of the things we talked about this weekend with Jaye. He suggested checking and rechecking the feet to make sure they are flat before you nail the shoe on. The horse we did Friday needed to be leveled a few times before we nailed the shoe on. The only other clinician I have heard mention this was Dave Farley over 4 years ago at a farrier clinic. I asked a lot of trimming questions at the AFA Pre Cert clinic two years ago and this was never brought up.

[Ronald E. Kramedjian]

How do you know the foot was not flat when you dropped it then settled and was unlevel by the time the examiner looked at it? I know my foot was flat when it was done, however was not flat when the examiner looked at it and he pointed it out to me and I could see it. This is one of the things we talked about this weekend with Jaye. He suggested checking and rechecking the feet to make sure they are flat before you nail the shoe on. The horse we did Friday needed to be leveled a few times before we nailed the shoe on.Phil,

Hmmmm. Seems to me I said something about a flat shoe on a flat foot when I came back from riding with Jaye. :eek: And isn't that is what lead to his coming up to your neck of the woods. Well I'm glad you got the same education. :D

[danverschild]

snip ...this weekend with Jaye. He suggested checking and rechecking the feet to make sure they are flat before you nail the shoe on. The horse we did Friday needed to be leveled a few times before we nailed the shoe on. The only other clinician I have heard mention this was Dave Farley over 4 years ago at a farrier clinic. I asked a lot of trimming questions at the AFA Pre Cert clinic two years ago and this was never brought up.

Strange that it wasn't covered... Mitch and I have stressed this point at every pre-cert clinic that we've done, and we worked it into the workshops we did for new clinicians.

I usually tell people to call the examiner/tester and then to make him/her wait just a moment while you recheck the foot before handing it off. It's more important in places like the great midwet than it is in Utah, but...

BTW, I've also heard several examiners incorporate this advice into their pre-flight talk when they're starting a practical exam.

[Phil Armitage]

Phil,

Hmmmm. Seems to me I said something about a flat shoe on a flat foot when I came back from riding with Jaye. :eek: And isn't that is what lead to his coming up to your neck of the woods. Well I'm glad you got the same education. :D

Ron it is BS comments like this that yank my chain. Seems to me your head was spinning after spending time with Uncle Jaye and really could not elaborate too much on what you learned. Hope this explains a little more for you.

Flat shoe on a flat foot is pretty common sense. An unbalanced foot with horn settleing down because it is jammed up and giveing it time to settle is another subject. NB teaches flat foot flat shoe, AFA teaches flat foot flat shoe. Redden on the other hand well I don't know what he teaches. Seems to me you got the flat foot and flat shoe, but did you get the part about jamming, shearing and out of balance.

I will add more of my thoughts on the Jaye Perry Clinic thread.

[Phil Armitage]

Strange that it wasn't covered... Mitch and I have stressed this point at every pre-cert clinic that we've done, and we worked it into the workshops we did for new clinicians.

I usually tell people to call the examiner/tester and then to make him/her wait just a moment while you recheck the foot before handing it off. It's more important in places like the great midwet than it is in Utah, but...

BTW, I've also heard several examiners incorporate this advice into their pre-flight talk when they're starting a practical exam.

Hi, Danvers glad to hear this. Mitch was present at the pre cert I attended and he was great. I do not recall him talkeing about rechecking the feet for level. What pre-flight talk, never saw that. Sounds like a logical thing to do.

[danverschild]

What pre-flight talk, never saw that. Sounds like a logical thing to do.

There's no scripted introduction, but each of the Examiners that I've worked with has given a brief talk to the candidates before the actual exam commences.

Some of them try to keep their topics limited to the specifics of the day--whether or not power tools will be allowed, the starting sequences, etc.

Others, and the majority--at least among those I've worked with, will try to remind candidates of certain things (i.e., the prescribed fit, the concerns that will get scored on more than one section of the exam) and will often comment on issues that apply to the horses that will be done that particular day.

[Ronald E. Kramedjian]

Ron it is BS comments like this that yank my chain.I'll keep this in mind in the future.

Hope this explains a little more for you.Thank you from the bottom of my heart for helping me understand what he was trying to explain to me. I bow to your superior understanding and knowledge. I hope one day to have your in depth understanding of the topic and your skill in applying it to real world solutions.

[Rick Burten]

Some of them try to keep their topics limited to the specifics of the day--whether or not power tools will be allowed,
And this is something that we really need to clean up if we are going to claim we provide a level playing field for all candidates. Either powere tools should be allowed or not. And it should not be a decision for the Examiner to make.

I've heard all the discussion/arguments, pro and con and blah, blah, blah, but the fact remains that the parity TomT spoke of with regard to another phase of the exams, doesn't exist in this phase if the examiner gets to make the decision arbitrairly.

As for the shoe display, like I've said before, every examiner should have an identical set of shoes, each of which have one of the modifications required. That way, candidates would be able to see exactly what is being called for, and would be able to compare their work against the 'standard'.

I've seen and attended free pre-certification clinics, and the one's by the AFA that the candidate has to pay for. Neither one was very well attended and I don't know that the success rates for those who attended was significantly higher. So, I again offer for discussion, the concept that attendence at a pre-certification clinic be made mandatory for anyone who wishes to stand for the exams. I think the cost should be either nominal or no cost, and that the fees for the actual certification should be raised sufficiently to cover costs incurred for pre-certification clinics.

[Phantom Farrier]

Either powere tools should be allowed or not. And it should not be a decision for the Examiner to make.

Rick, I could'nt agree with you more.

That way, candidates would be able to see exactly what is being called for, and would be able to compare their work against the 'standard'.


The issue I see here is a lack of "minimum completion standard". There has to be a range of acceptable instead of "the standard". However no "****ing down the level of acceptable work.

The written test has improved and the pass rate with it. Hope you will re-consider being a tester.

John

[Gary_Miller]

I guess I really don't know what is to be taught at a pre-cert clinic. I attended my first pre-cert and cert last year Feb 05 abouts, as an observer, and was only able to attend one day. At the pre-cert they went over what was required. talked allot about time management. Worked on fixing your tools. There was some shoe making, and everyone shod a horse. I think the next day they went over the test and may of even done a pratice test I'm not sure.

The point I hope to make is that the pre-cert was one month before the certification. One month is not enough time to fix those habits one may have in order to pass the test. Time management seemed to be the biggest problems I say at the Cert.

The pre-certs is a good thing however I think one needs to attend them more than once before he attempts the test and far enough out before the test that he can work on all the weak points and thier time management.

From what I understand there is also a pamplet that is handed out at the pre-cert and you can only get it if you attend a pre-cert. This is diffrent than the study guide. Why should you have to attend a pre-cert to get the pamplet?


Gary

[IRNWKR_2]

So, I again offer for discussion, the concept that attendence at a pre-certification clinic be made mandatory for anyone who wishes to stand for the exams. I think the cost should be either nominal or no cost, and that the fees for the actual certification should be raised sufficiently to cover costs incurred for pre-certification clinics.


Before they raise any cost they should standardize the rate just to cover the expenses of the examiner,testers and any office expense. It seems to be a money making deal for the AFA, but a loss for the hosting chapter.

Jason G.

[danverschild]

The point I hope to make is that the pre-cert was one month before the certification. One month is not enough time to fix those habits one may have in order to pass the test. Time management seemed to be the biggest problems I say at the Cert.

The pre-certs is a good thing however I think one needs to attend them more than once before he attempts the test and far enough out before the test that he can work on all the weak points and thier time management.

Hey Gary,

When we first set up the pre-cert clinics, we attempted to use a model similar to the one you describe. What we envisioned was that a chapter would set up a two-day pre-cert clinic three months prior to their certification. Then there would be a follow-up one-day clinic one month prior to the certification.

Nobody wanted to do it that way, and they wouldn't schedule them. It was asking them to give up three days of work, to have three days worth of travel and expenses, or whatever, and they wouldn't do it. So we went to a one clinic two-day format and recommended that it be scheduled six to eight weeks prior to the test. Even so, most groups still request their pre-cert for less than four weeks prior to the test :(

[danverschild]

And this is something that we really need to clean up if we are going to claim we provide a level playing field for all candidates. Either powere tools should be allowed or not. And it should not be a decision for the Examiner to make.

I find it ironic that this subject ends up being such a point of contention. The old rule was that no power tools were allowed. So many people complained about it that the committee tried to address a common concern and allow power tools. But, since testing sites are out of the committee's control, it had to get modified: some testing sites don't have sufficient power, some sites are configured such that there's no way to avoid spooking somebody's horse, or whatever. So it was modified so that the examiner makes the call depending upon the site conditions.

It does create some potential for disturbing the standardization, but it is a major point of the "norming" process that gets covered at Examiner and Tester Update clinics, and--in my experience--it gets covered thoroughly in the Examiner/Tester pre-test discussions.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that--good or bad--this rule change was enacted in an attempt to address a common complaint, but it's been one that came back to bite the test in the butt.

[Phil Armitage]

I'll keep this in mind in the future.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for helping me understand what he was trying to explain to me. I bow to your superior understanding and knowledge. I hope one day to have your in depth understanding of the topic and your skill in applying it to real world solutions.

Hey Ron, I am not trying to be sarcastic. For someone to say all that is needed is a flat foot and flat shoe that is pretty simplistic and can be taken as condensending. The questions I have is how and why. If your attempting to gain a flat foot and issues like conformation, lameness, poor hoof qaulity then how do you go about it? If the method used is to inspect and trim a few times before applying the shoe then great. But how far do you go? Do you invade the live sole plane? Is it neccassary for the horse to be standing on a flat hard surface? Maybe Natural Balance principles are a good tool? Is a hard flat surface needed when trimming to the live sole plane? In my mind a lot of this is trimming to the horses conformation, developeing an eye for conformation, the way the foot lands, haveing a flat surface and well lit area to work. In addition to obtaining a flat foot and flat shoe Jaye also stressed the importance of medial lateral balance. I have heard Dr. Ogrady say medial lateral balance is not that important. Gene Ovyneck stresses importance of medial lateral balance and uses the live sole plane as a tool to obtain it. So who is right, how do they do it and why do the so called experts believe what they believe? As far as me applying things in the real world I do it everyday, shoes stay on, horses are sound and people are happy. I am here to learn as much as I can and keep an open mind. Every horse is different and present unique challenges for all of us. To say all you need is a flat foot and flat shoe is over simplefying things. We also need to learn what is safe to remove and what to leave. Not always an easy thing to figure out.

[Gary Hill]

Phil, I have found that one of the hardest things for new farriers to master is the ability to level the foot and shoe? To get a horse to land flat does take care of alot of problems. Simple is ,as simple does. Basic's are basics and don't ever need to be neglected or overlooked. Best, Gary

[Gary_Miller]

Phil for the test it pretty simple. Flat foot flat shoe

I refere you to the study guide Pafe 36

Item 1

10 points - The entire hoof is on and even plane and is in contact with the flat shoe.

8,6,4, points - There are varying degrees of unevenness which couls be corrected without harming the horse.


Item 2

10 - The horse stands in the middle of the hoof, and th eground surface of the hool wall is trimmed perpendicular to the center line.

8,6,4 - There are varying degrees of error in balance which could be corrected with out harming the horse.

A little settleing should not be a show stopper if it was level and balanced before it was set down.

OTOH, my mentor tell me a story where he was in a compition. Trimed the horse up flat and level. When he picked up the foot the next time it looked like a roller coaster. Made the foot flat a level agian, set the foot down. when he picked it up it was again looking like a roller coaster. The next time he called for the judge, picked up the foot leveled it again the kept the foot up for the judge. By this time the foot was to short to safetly hot shoe so he was stopped.

So I guess the best thing is to level the foot up just before the examiner comes over to the horse. And don't put the foot down.


What really get me on the guide line is the use of the word "appropriate" in several places. what appropriate for one person may not be for another.

Heres and example;

Length

10 - The hoof is cut to an appropriate, sound length and matches its mate.

What is and appropriate, sound length?

At the cert I attended I saw some exminers using a tape to measure the length. However, I have found no guide lines on what a proper lenght is. Though I have heard some measurements.

I see this trough out the test. Whats appropriate to one may not be appropriate to another.

Gary

[danverschild]

So I guess the best thing is to level the foot up just before the examiner comes over to the horse. And don't put the foot down.
Yes. If you've got a foot that's wet or distorted and likely to shift/settle on you, this is the safest approach. And, even if you're not doing a "hand off," your Tester/Examiner won't mind at all if you say something to the effect of "Wait just a minute before you score that; I'd like to make sure that it hasn't settled on me."


What really get me on the guide line is the use of the word "appropriate" in several places. what appropriate for one person may not be for another.

Heres and example;

Length

10 - The hoof is cut to an appropriate, sound length and matches its mate.

What is and appropriate, sound length?

Yeah, it sounds like a hedge, but everyone's not shoeing the same horse here. If I draw a 1200# horse that wears a size two and you draw a 900# horse that wears a size 00, the hoof length is not going to be the same. Even if we draw horses that are the same size and type, the appropriate length of foot is going to be a mix of a lot of variables.


At the cert I attended I saw some exminers using a tape to measure the length. However, I have found no guide lines on what a proper lenght is. Though I have heard some measurements.

Using the tape (or calipers or whatever) is for comparing the pair, not for seeing if they're cut to a pre-specified length.

[Jason Maki]

In my inexpert opinion, the CF test is synopsised thusly: two flat feet, with the flares removed (straight from top to bottom) with two shoes nailed on that fit the foot. All the argueing in the world is not going to change this fact. If you trim two feet clean, trim to a normal, reaonable lenght, remove the flares as dictated by the proximal third of the foot and nail on two shoes that FIT, you WILL pass the test. Without attempting to be offensive, this is a simple test of fundamental skills ( which I failed the first time I took the practical... something about my shoe looking NOTHING like the foot! :o ) I was a year out of school and had been working on my own. This made me seek out a teacher and learn to trim and shape/forge shoes. Its tough when a basic objective standard hands you your @ss on a platter. All the different theories about breakover, balance, etc are useless if you can't get a foot flat enough or shape a shoe that reasonabley resembles the foot.
JMO,
Jason

[Gary_Miller]

Danvers, thanks for your insite. I understand that its all diffrent for every horse. However, what I consider appropriate to me may not be appropriate to you. This type of subjectivity is the only real flaw I see in the test and the most difficult/if not impossable to remove due to the human factor.

Jason, this is sound advice and is along the same line of what Criag Trinka talked about when he came and gave us a clinic last year. In fact he said to resist the temptation to use you nippers and only use your rasp to get the feet flat and leve and remove all the distortion on the outside of the hoof.

Gary

[Phil Armitage]

In my inexpert opinion, the CF test is synopsised thusly: two flat feet, with the flares removed (straight from top to bottom) with two shoes nailed on that fit the foot. All the argueing in the world is not going to change this fact. If you trim two feet clean, trim to a normal, reaonable lenght, remove the flares as dictated by the proximal third of the foot and nail on two shoes that FIT, you WILL pass the test. Without attempting to be offensive, this is a simple test of fundamental skills ( which I failed the first time I took the practical... something about my shoe looking NOTHING like the foot! :o ) I was a year out of school and had been working on my own. This made me seek out a teacher and learn to trim and shape/forge shoes. Its tough when a basic objective standard hands you your @ss on a platter. All the different theories about breakover, balance, etc are useless if you can't get a foot flat enough or shape a shoe that reasonabley resembles the foot.
JMO,
Jason

I agree Jason you do all that and you should pass the test. Nobody is argueing to change things, at least I didnt take it that way. I took it as a discussion on tricks to make sure the feet will pass with high marks when your examiner scores your work.

[danverschild]

Mr. Fanguy and Mr. Elsbree have been closely aligned with Mr. Ferguson for a very long time. Given their prior open support for Mr. Ferguson and his policies in Mr. Ferguson’s campaign for the presidency I for one any looking forward to seeing how their candidacies play with the membership given the ongoing failure of Mr. Ferguson’s administration to actually accomplish anything on his agenda, much less anything at all. At this point they are both going to have to repudiate their relationships with Mr. Ferguson in a meaningful way to avoid being tarred with the brush that Mr. Ferguson is tarring himself.

Interesting that you end this with a metaphor about tarring. It would appear that’s in fact what you’re attempting, a tar and feather campaign, where you would extend your implication of Ferguson as Hitler and include Dick and Andrew as Goering and Hess.

Many people openly supported Dave’s campaign and platform. That’s how he got elected. That doesn’t make them responsible for what you refer to as an “ongoing failure… to accomplish anything” from that platform.

Suggesting that any candidate should refuse to accept Ferguson doesn’t seem to be a productive way of moving forward. I would hope that none of the candidates would refuse to acknowledge “Mr. Ferguson” since their candidacy implies that they’re making a conscious and willful choice to work with him.

[Ronald E. Kramedjian]

Interesting that you end this with a metaphor about tarring. It would appear that’s in fact what you’re attempting, a tar and feather campaign, where you would extend your implication of Ferguson as Hitler and include Dick and Andrew as Goering and Hess.Considering I wrote what you quoted some time ago it is a very astute political move to attempt to impute prior intent where none existed. If you see Dick and Andrew as Goering and Hess I would have to say that it is an issue you need to have a conversation with yourself about. However, your trying to construct something that doesn't exist because it serves your candidates campaign needs is worse by far than what you accuse me of.

Mr. Ferguson constantly and consistently tars himself as an ineffectual, inconsistent, inconsiderate leader that believes has no need for the rules that govern his office or the people around him that also hold elected office. He has repeatedly placed them in a position that compromises their ethics and reputations because someone sold them the line that it was somehow in their job description to cover Mr. Ferguson’s rear end whenever he screws up because that is what is best for the AFA.

I would hope that none of the candidates would refuse to acknowledge “Mr. Ferguson” since their candidacy implies that they’re making a conscious and willful choice to work with him.I'm sorry, this is a bit to much. A candidate should make the choice to run for an elected office because they believe that they are able to bring something to the office that will benefit the association. A candidate’s choice to run is a conscious and willful choice to work for the membership of the association, not Mr. Ferguson and you are very wrong to suggest that it should be otherwise.

Mr. Ferguson is currently president of the AFA. If I am elected I will do my best to work with him for the good of the membership. If he is trying to do something that I simply believe is not going to be good for the membership I will advocate for my point of view and if the majority decides to move in that direction anyway I will suck it up and make it happen because that is the job. If he chooses to take a course of action that I believe is illegal or unethical I will oppose him on behalf of the membership and there is no majority that can override my legal and ethical obligations to the membership.