I have okay ed the trip with the wife and I'm planning on you being the guide, but probably not in the next few weeks. I probably couldn't afford your fare but I'm good for a few rounds of Guinness. Dont warn Smitty were coming, Hope to catch him working.

Phil,

I agree it depends, and one and or an org, may not please everyone ,it is the communication that is most important! When members/former members are dismissed as "unimportant" for any reason then the org. doing the dismissing looses , to me anyway credibility. Simply put, "your taking my money, but I'm not important enough to be listened to" ?

Phil,
Please respond to this.

regards

Ray Steele

I saw somewhere on here that someone wasn't happy with dick fanguys tranparency or something, and that the members only section of the website being taken down shows that he wasn't living up to his word. (something towards that effect anyway)

Nobody went to the members only section anyway did they? What's it matter if it's there or not if nobody uses it? It'd be nice to have a way to communicate with our representatives, but that forum certainly wasn't working.

I'm asking you to score them according to the AFA scale. Specifically do they harm the horse?
Please try reading for comprehension next time. I said that things that would surely FAIL you on an AFA test would also surely fail you on a Guild exam. On the AFA score sheets, a 3 or below is given to any item that will harm or has obvious potential to harm the horse. So you tell me how deep the rasp gouges need to be to harm the horse?
I don't think you are familiar with how AFA tests are scored and how much cosmetic variation can appear in the finished product and still get a total score of 70.
I didn't claim foul. I asked you to start a discussion where you would have the opportunity to explain your understanding of evaluating rasp marks and photography.
Indeed I pointed out the similarities in regards to things that harm the horse which would cause automatic failure on both exams. I certainly don't feel defensive. Neither do I feel like you are familiar with the AFA scoreing system. You seem to think it's all about cosmetics and you have not yet picked anything out of the picture and assigned a score to it, which indicates that you aren't familiar with how AFA tests are scored.
I stand behind the Guild standard in regards to automatic failure being equal to AFA automatic failure. I have also personally passed the AFA Certified Farrier exam with work that I would be ashamed to show on this forum because it wasn't very pretty at all. However I got a passing score because in spite of the job being ugly, my total score was 71, and nothing I did harmed the horse. I have also attended at least 7 AFA certifications and assisted in some way at every one of them where I was not taking the tsst myself. Have you taken any AFA tests? Have you ever looked at an AFA certification score sheet? Appearently you think farriery is judged in the AFA based on cosmetics. While cosmetics is a factor in scoreing AFA tests, the weighting of the scores is based on functional and safe work. By pointing out cosmetic flaws in pictures, you have demonstrated a substantial lack of familiarity with how AFA exams are judged. It might help if you read the AFA Certification study guide, attended a few certifications, and watch closely how the testers and examiners fill out the score sheets.

From what I have seen the AFA is listening and I do not get the impression that the AFA considers complaints or ideas as unimportant. For example a year or two ago Mikel brought up an idea that the "No Foot No Horse News letter" is available electronically. I don't know if the idea was taken from here, however someone came up with the idea and it has been acted on. I'm not sure if promising total transparency is a wise move. How is that working out for Pres. Obama? He promised transparency and just signed a bill a couple of days ago behind closed doors. This guy is a great communicator and believes in transparency, however he justified his action to reporters by saying some decisions need to be acted on with urgency.

There is only so much time in a day and so much money in the bank. Sometimes people have to get er done.

The few on here that have consistently complained about the AFA should move on. This does not mean the AFA considers them unimportant, it may mean they consider the AFA unimportant. Like others have pointed out the AFA is not the only source of education, however it is a good source and does not deserve to be hammered on by a few day in and day out.

I am getting a lot more out of it now that I have put more energy and time into it. Things that I never imagined and yes it has made me a better farrier.

Phil,

Thanks for the example about "No Hoof No Horse", that may be the other part of the communication equation, listening. I 'm glad that your are getting more out of the relationship than before, but others are saying that they are not. I presume that a farrier org. would want to represent it's membership in total.

My post to Bill Lansing had mostly to do with his statement to the effect, that a handful of complainers don't amt to much in the scheme of things or words to that effect.

Regards

Ray Steele

ps,

Did those l/p pads work in the wet snow?

I'm asking you to score them according to the AFA scale. Specifically do they harm the horse?

Just about every time something good is said about the AFA the same guys come out and attack it. Frankly it is tiring and one reason I have not participated as much as I use to.

Mike, Gary and Tom B. have gone on and on with negative remarks about the AFA. I assume Bill Lansing has also grown tired of their constant complaints.

If I was in Dick's position I would want to get rid of the members only forum BECAUSE the representatives were not using the forum. With 15 representatives available and only one or two of them responding occasionally, if Dick did not respond, then it might appear as though he was not keeping his promise of transpearancy.

In reality, Dick was the only AFA official that felt obligated to respond on a regular basis. Like I said, he took all the heat, doing his job and everybody elses job. Why should one man be obligated to speak for 15 representatives? Why should 15 representatives ignore those whom they represent and let somebody else do their jobs?

So, yea if I was Dick, I would have killed the members only section just so I had time to do other stuff that wasn't getting done by somebody else who should have been doing it.

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but a couple recommendations I would make to the AFA would be. 1) Quit the No Hoof No Horse bulletin, it is useless and its pointless to spend that much money on a publication that has basically nothing in it. That money would be better spent towards some sort of television program. 2) They should give Danvers more control over the magazine, so we could all get a magazine in a timely manner. Danvers knows what he is doing and does a very good job if they would untie his hands and let him do it. 3) I found some of the speakers' presentations at the convention to be a little (yawn) basic and not suited well to the farrier. I will say I did enjoy Andy Parks and thought he was very good. 4) Rather than a discount on Sherwin Williams paint, and Jos. A. Bank clothiers, how bout a discount on tools or something we are actually gonna be purchasing? (I am a pro- AFA guy, and don't have too many complaints, but these are just a few things I'd do differently.)

tbloomer
If I was in Dick's position I would want to get rid of the members only forum BECAUSE the representatives were not using the forum.

Jake Whitman
A little pretintious??? Don't you think???

. . . I hope that the E/C make the right choice as to what is best for the AFA. . .

Yes attacking is a strong word and I do not use it lightly. Just about every time something good is said about the AFA the same guys come out and attack it.

Mike, Gary and Tom B. have gone on and on with negative remarks about the AFA.