EDeSocio wrote:What people don't recognize is, the AFA isn't telling you how to shoe a horse..
For the purpose of the exam they d-amn sure are.
the AFA is proving you can shoe a horse.
Actually, what is being shown is that a candidate can shoe a horse to a particular, arbitrary, standard.
If you can cut a bar of steel and fit the foot to a prescription then you know what you are doing..
What it proves is that you have a certain level of mechanical ability and manual dexterity.
as opposed to other associations where I get the feeling you have all the time in the world to shoe the horse, then you explain what you did and why you did it... So if you are trying to fit the horse full and you come up short.. you just change your story...
Well there you go Eric. You once again have proven that you don't do your homework or due dilligence.
Let me first address your misconceptions with regard to the Guild of Professional Farriers practical exam, which is a true field exam, unlike the AFA practicals which are a set of pre-determined "goals" that do not take anything into account other than meeting those goals. IOW, for the sake of the AFA exams, only the goals, not the horse, matter.
When a candidate stands for this exam, s/he first evaluates the horse both standing still and, in motion. Then, the candidate formulates a trimming and shoeing plan/protocol and presents it, it writing, to the examiner. At that time, the candidate has to verbally "defend:" his/her plan/protocol. This 'defense'/explanation brings into play the candidate's knowledge of anatomy, biomechanics, hoof and limb pathology, etc, ad naseum. Only if the Examiner is satisfied that the plan/protocol is proper/beneficial for the horse, does the candidate begin the actual work. Should the Examiner not fully agree with the plan/protocol, then the candidate and Examiner together come to an appropriate compromise.
Once agreement has been reached, the candidate goes to work. Upon completion of the work, s/he is evaluated based on the quality of the work and whether or not s/he fulfilled the plan/protocol. And, this is strictly a "Pass/Fail" evaluation. IOW, either the candidate did the job or they didn't.
So, unlike your misinformed contention that the candidate can change his/her story, the opposite is the absolute truth.
The suggested time frame for trimming and shoeing the horse is three hours.
That time frame can be exceeded when and only when there are exigent circumstances beyond the control of the candidate. For example, a horse needs bar shoes or pads or the like.. Other examples would include anything out of the ordinary that any farrier might run into during the course of his/her normal working day. Remember Eric, this is a true field exam, not a test of meeting a pre-determined standard.
And, the candidate is still required to build the shoes from bar stock.
The required written exam and the shoe display are the equal of anything required by the AFA.
Now, Eric, let me address the ELPO certification exams.
1. There is a time limit, though again, it can be modified for cause.
2. The candidate must trim and shoe the horse to a standard and to that end, is scored in several areas.
3. The candidate discusses with the examiner(s) abnormalities/problems present and how s/he is going to deal with them. And, why.
4. The written exam is as challenging, if not more so than those of the AFA, and involves more than multiple choice questions.
5. There is no "shoe display" per se, but each candidate has to show proficiency in the forge by altering shoes to fit provided templates. ie:, the candidate has to forge clips, modify front pattern shoes to fit hind patterns and vice versa, etc.
6. The ELPO organization is the only organization that requires its members to renew their certification(s) by examination, on a regular basis. In the AFA and the GPF, "once certified, always certified". You might want to think about that difference and what importance it holds.
I cannot speak to the BWFA exams as I have never stood for them or even attended one of their certifications.
I hope that Mr. Geist will chime in here and describe the JHU examination/certification process.
Now, in closing, I pose this question to you, Eric. If the AFA CJF certification is the "gold standard", then why is it that there are a number of CJF's that have unsuccessfully stood for the GPF exams?
that works with uneducated vets and owners but it is ruins our rep as farriers as a whole.
What ruins our reputation as farriers is when an individual who has, because s/he has passed some organization's certification, does shoddy work, or relies on his/her certification(s) to fool the horseowning public into believing that s/he knows more than s/he does or is capable of doing things s/he is incapable, for whatever reason(s) of doing.
I totally believe in the AFA and the CJF exam.
Good. So do I. But I also believe in the AFA CF and CTF exams, as well as those of the other organizations.
And, if the CJF appellation is the penultimate, then why did the AFA create the CTF category/classification? You might want to do some research before you answer that question.
As an AFA member and a CJF, I found Mr. Elsbree's statement to be condescending, disingenuous, disrespectful and unworthy of someone who leads an organization that is comprised of both certified and non-certified farriers(and others) and purports to represent the American farrier.
It is MNTBCHO that Mr. Elsbree owes everyone an apology for his statement.
Further, if this is indicative of the mind set of the leaders of the AFA, then the AFA is in perilous waters and is in danger of becoming a foot note in the dust bin of history.