Jake Whitman wrote:I can read can't I. Its not rocket science. One only needs to study the Certification Guide, attend a few certifications, and follow a tester around to see what it takes to complete the process.

It takes practice, practice and practice and becoming proficient in each area of the test. Then thats still not enough because once your proficient then you need to practice your time management. I picked all this up as a new student at the first certification I attended. If one did not have he skills perfected and his time management down. There was no way you could pass the test.

The only way you are going to perfect you skills and your time management is through practice. Not through education, the education part needed for the test (except the written portion) why before one starts to practice.

Brian Purrington wrote:Brian,
The thing that is missing from your list is "problem solving ability."

I look at most "continuing education" offerings in the farrier industry as additional tools for a farrier's toolbox. One can spend a lifetime accumulating tools and perfecting the use of those tools. We can be great craftsmen, artisans, perfectionists, etc. All of these things are noble pursuits.

But, if this is what makes us farriers, then horses are furniture.

.

Martin Kenny in gray, my old stuff in brown, stuff deleted

In reality, the AFA has never promoted model-based Farriery.

You may be right in theory, but the fact that they put out pamphlets that showed how to “Judge Farrier Competitions” without saying that it was ONLY a guide for competition shoeing

Perhaps the title should've been a dead giveaway.

gives the impression that this was the “model” by which farriers were to shoot for.

For the less impressionable, a pamphlet that clearly states it's a guide to judging contest farriery is probably exactly what the title suggests, not a model for pragmatic farriery. (Occam's razor: If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, etc., it's probably a duck.)

There were also other brochures over the ages that the AFA put out for the horse owning public, that directed the “model” to be the same.

Over the years, I've seen several AFA publications with standards for testing and some with extremely broad suggestions for evaluating general farriery (no blood, no clinches touching the shoe, level foot, etc.), but the AFA has never published anything that suggested or insinuated, "Use this model for every horse, every day." In fact, since the AFA's shoe board requires a testee to demonstrate proficiency in the fabrication of a variety of shoes clearly intended for different uses, logic would dictate the AFA's position on pragmatic farriery has always been use-based, not model-based.

Then the Vet community started to see this printed matter and used it as guides to hold our feet to the fire as to how the job should be done.

God forbid, we fit with less “expansion” than was printed in those guides, or we had nails behind where the guides suggested. Then if the heel length did not match the drawings, then we were “shoeing too short”. Forget the foot was distorted, it still had to be shod as though it wasn’t. Now maybe in Texas, you don’t have those problems, but back then (and I admit it is somewhat better now) you either made it look like the drawings, or they found someone who would.

Such silliness is beyond my experience and it's sure as hell not because my bedside manner is more cordial or because I'm a better hand than anyone else. I've worked with track vets from Louisiana to Colorado, spent eight years as the primary farrier on call for one of the largest equine practices on the Gulf Coast, and still do a little consulting for the veterinary community; I've had lots of vets tell me WHAT they wanted done, but I've NEVER had a vet tell me HOW to go about getting the job done. In my experience, vets diagnose pathologies and prescribe mechanical treatment, they don't presume to tell farriers how to get the job done.

Sure it took me a long time to move beyond that, but it wasn’t because I had “chronic personal in ability” to recognize and figure out how to meet the needs, No it was a chronic need to feed and house my family. To stand on one’s principles is one thing, but to starve doing so, when the horse was still being shod in exactly the manner you refused to do, is entirely another.

You appear to be saying that you felt pressured by the veterinary community into failing to address horses' mechanical needs, although you knew better. We are quite different, you and I.

In fact even just last week I was told that a Vet told a client, “Well, he has his theories on how to shoe and I have mine. We just disagree, and never will agree.” Now the horse they were looking at had no performance issues, the vet was there for an allergy problem. But the owner simply asked if he was familiar with my work. So you see, a young farrier will have a lot of trouble moving forward when that stuff happens. Lets face it, that kind of response can be intimidating to a young farrier. It used to bother me a lot, but at my old age, I just laugh it off. Tom, you have to remember that when you were young, that stuff had to bother you too.

Perhaps quite arrogantly, I've never been intimidated by a veterinarian because I've always been confident that I know a helluva lot more about farriery than does the average veterinarian.

So if the AFA is to become relevant to the farrier of 2009, they have to find a way to promote individual thinking and squelch that type of response from the vet community.

I don't know where you are, but here in Texas, the TPFA, which is associated with the AFA, has a 30-odd year tradition of working hand-in-hand with the faculty and student chapter of the AAEP at Texas A&M. You'd be surprised how much mutual respect a few wet labs can engender.

Gary_Miller wrote:
That would be a good way to get started.

Gary_Miller wrote:
So you agree that the process will build proficiency and speed. Why are these two things important to doing the job? I have my thoughts, but would like to hear yours.

Gary_Miller wrote:
Yes practice is needed, however practice alone does not make you perfect, perfect practice makes you perfect. This is where the education comes in. The knowledge and skill required is gained over time, by trying and then getting hands on help from someone that knows how. Some examples, body position, where to work on the horn, how to properly hold the tongs and hammer. How much heat for each task, how to use your punch, pritchelle and creaser. These tasks can be accomplished with little effort and quickly by someone who knows how. They can be a great tool in the field when a keg shoe needs to be modified and new nail holes or creasing needs to be added to meet the horses needs. The following modifications require forging skills and the knowledge not only on how to accomplish it but when and why. Square toe, rolled toe, rockered toe, lateral support, penciled heel, sole relief, clips, straight bar, egg bar, heart bar, z bar and that is just to mention a few. Many of these can be purchased or welded in, however the reasons as to when and why they would be used can be learned through certification. All of this is an education simply by going through the certification process. You also meet other farriers who are more than willing to answer questions, discuss and share different ideas. It is endless and well worth doing.

Brian Purrington wrote:
Brian, You have missed the point here. I am not blaming the AFA for shortcomings, I am simply saying that relevance of the AFA (in my opinion) is questionable when the organization promotes a clinician that produces work of this caliber. If the AFA is to be relevant to the industry, it needs to have a jury of peers that evaluate the day to day workmanship of clinicians that it promotes.

That is my point with the post of those feet. I too have a computer full of photos (over 17,000 to be exact) that could point out the good, bad, and ugly in all of our work. Mine included! In fact looking at my own past problematic cases has probably been my greatest learning tool. I KNOW what I started with and what I did. So if I am honest with myself, I can learn by evaluating the cases honestly as I move forward. I am sure you have learned the same way, as I hear you have been very successful in your short term in this industry.

Oh yes, and if a sandpaper finish is of utmost importance to you, than by all means deal with that. To me it is carpentry (to quote a term that Tom Bloomer coined on here), not that it is a bad thing, but to me and my clients (who pay my bills) it is not terribly relevant in the big picture of shoeing horses.

Martin Kenny wrote:
That horse is 10 years old, and usually spends about 8 months of the year shod. Aug-Sept-Oct he's in Scotch Bottoms for the show ring.

Steve

TS…Over the years, I've seen several AFA publications with standards for testing and some with extremely broad suggestions for evaluating general farriery (no , no clinches touching the shoe, level foot, etc.), but the AFA has never published anything that suggested or insinuated, "Use this for every horse, every day." In fact, since the AFA's shoe board requires a testee to demonstrate proficiency in the fabrication of a variety of shoes clearly intended for different uses, logic would dictate the AFA's position on pragmatic farriery has always been use-based, not -based.

MK… You are correct, but the inference is still there.

MK….Then the Vet community started to see this printed matter and used it as guides to hold our feet to the fire as to how the job should be done.

God forbid, we fit with less “expansion” than was printed in those guides, or we had nails behind where the guides suggested. Then if the heel length did not match the drawings, then we were “shoeing too short”. Forget the foot was distorted, it still had to be shod as though it wasn’t. ….

TS…Such silliness is beyond my experience and it's sure as hell not because my bedside manner is more cordial or because I'm a better hand than anyone else. ………..In my experience, vets diagnose pathologies and prescribe mechanical treatment, they don't presume to tell farriers how to get the job done.

MK… You and I are in agreement as to how it should work, but then a lot of Vets feel differently. Don’t forget that there has been attempts to have the vet community take hold of the farrier community by means of legislation on state levels. If that does not tell you that there is a mind set of vet over farrier in some locations, than you have your head in the sand.

MK…Sure it took me a long time to move beyond that, but it wasn’t because I had “chronic personal inability” to recognize and figure out how to meet the needs, No it was a chronic need to feed and house my family. To stand on one’s principles is one thing, but to starve doing so, when the horse was still being shod in exactly the manner you refused to do, is entirely another.

TS….You appear to be saying that you felt pressured by the veterinary community into failing to address horses' mechanical needs, although you knew better. We are quite different, you and I.

MK…. No I am saying that by sticking to my guns, I lost many clients over this issue and the horse was still shod following the vets prescription. So standing on one’s principals is only productive if the result is beneficial to the horse. When it is not, then you have to try to find a way to fulfill the prescription and tweak it in a manner that the vet will not recognize, in hopes of doing the best you can given the circumstances. Otherwise, the horse still suffers and your reputation goes down the tubes with the vet community and it makes it very hard to claw your way back up.

MK….In fact even just last week I was told that a Vet told a client, “Well, he has his theories on how to shoe and I have mine. We just disagree, and never will agree.”…

TS….Perhaps quite arrogantly, I've never been intimidated by a veterinarian because I've always been confident that I know a helluva lot more about farriery than does the average veterinarian.

MK… I understand that way of thinking. I used to be of the same exact mindset, when I was back in PA. In fact I never had the problems there that I have here. But since moving to NC, I have found an entirely different world, than in PA. I used to stand up in the same manner you probably did/do. I was immediately labeled as ARROGANT and actually had vets bury my business. I saved one vet’s butt on a case, that had he done what he was planning on doing, would have possibly cost the horse’s life. I took him aside and told him privately. “Look Doc, I really feel that if you do that, you will be in huge trouble, have you considered this to be the problem?” He took my advice and decided to look at the case the direction I was offering. He then immediately changed gears and went that direction and the horse survived. Then next thing I know, he is telling clients that he feels a new guy in town would be a good farrier for them, and I start loosing accounts. In other words he was ********d by me and did not want me around. In fact I have had clients tell me that their vets don’t like me because I intimidate them!
Let me give you another example, A horse is presented with a very bad situation. A well known (nationally) farrier/vet works on the horse. Horse does well for awhile, then takes a nose dive. Local vet and I get on the case and change direction of treatment. Horse is doing better. Owner wants to return to original protocol. I refuse. Owner says call and talk to original vet/farrier. I do that and original vet/farrier is great and says. “Of course there are many ways top deal with this, so if what you are doing is working, then stay that course.” Then owner gets on a forum on the internet, Posters tell her that original protocol is best avenue.
Owner talks to me and I still disagree. I talk to local vet and he agrees with me but says. “But you know she really wants to go back to original protocol, so I won’t back you up, because she will still do what she wants.” So I agree with owner that horse needs to have someone that will work as a team with her on this project. Horse goes to a vet clinic and their farrier; horse is returned to the return original protocol. After 2 years, owner brings horse back to me, and even though horse has survived, feet still are a train wreck. A year later, I have feet that are looking good and horse is in work.
The point to this is that the AFA has not been relevant in making the membership get to at point where the members are perceived as anything other than carpenters. Sure there are areas where that is not true. (loved the old PA scene) But then again we have to recognize that there are areas where it is true! I was warned before moving here, but like you, I did not believe it to be different than what I had experienced in PA!

Martin Kenny wrote:
I don't know about you, but good carpentry also looks good and speaks volumes about the carpenter.

This would be a good discussion on a new post in my opinion. I believe besides the fact it looks better finish is relevant to the over all health of the horn. I agree that robbing the foot and compromising the integrity of the hoof capsule is not a good thing, however I also think a smooth finish helps the integrity of the hoof capsule. Rasp marks may seem insignificant, however I find a smooth finish and depending on the environment the addition of conditioner or sealant is healthier for the hoof capsule. Not only do my clients see the benefit, so do I. Just my 2 cents worth.

Vets, like horses, can be prey animals. But, you can't stick 'em in a round pen and get their attention and respect, can't attach a lead rope to their head and control their movements, can't tie them to a tree.

With good reason, vets are more afraid of us than we are of them. They know that we can do more harm to a horse than they can without breaking any laws.

Think about that the next time you feel a vet does not trust you. From their perspective, we can be dangerous.

Yes, my faithful clients remind me of that all the time. They say, "You have to look at this from their viewpoint... they see way too many many horseshoers that DO NOT THINK, to be comfortable around those that DO!"
I try to keep that in perspective, but hard sometimes. LOL

Phil Armitage wrote:Yep it all ways help to know whats necessary to pass a test. That way you can study to the test and forget the rest.:eek:

Phil Armitage wrote:Yes.

Phil Armitage wrote:They are important because if you don't have proficiency and speed. You will never complete the certification in the alloted time.

Being proficient shows you have the knowledge and competence, derived from training and practice, necessary to do the work. The question one must ask is what level of proficiency is necessary to accomplish the standard everyday shoe job. Must you be proficient at shoe making to apply a keg shoe properly? Or is just being able to shape a keg shoe to the hoof all the proficiency needed?

As far as speed goes. When it comes to doing the standard everyday shoe job being able to do it fast is not necessary at all.

Phil Armitage wrote:So whats your thoughts?

Phil Armitage wrote:Once again Phil you have not been paying attention. I covered all this on the post (post 56) I made with the steps to becoming proficient. I guess you missed step one, Education. Its part of the process that one will return to each time they need to learn a new skill. However, the process to certification is one of perfecting the skill you already have.

tbloomer wrote:
Good point Tom... Add "Problem solving" to my list.

As Far as the "furniture" comment goes, I think you know me better than that.

Regards

I didn't miss your "point" I just thought it was a bad way of making a point. I don't disagree that the AFA lacks relevance but showing disparity in work is not constructive to your point specifically. Here is why... look at building codes for example... just because we have standards and codes does not ensure that they are being carried out and or upheld. Does that make the codes or the governing body any less or more relevant to the building industry?

Again, not disagreeing with the "point" just think you could have used a different medium.
Yes, I have learned in similar fashion as you... Paying attention to details, evaluating my own work, chosen protocol etc etc. I was an AFA member the first year I started and that membership which gave me a magazine and contact lists for tons of farriers that started my thought process' and anaylisis on which I have built my own practice. I feel like that is pretty relevant, but honestly beyond that the relevance has diminished each year.

From a protocol standpoint I dont think you will ever get farriers as a whole to agree on any one single modality, protocol or methodology. I do however believe that a "start point" is a NEEDED DEFINITION and should be based in current sceintific data combined with appropriate anatomy and Biomechanics. I wonder if we can ever get farriers to agree on that point?

Unfortunately this is not the topic of the thread.

Relevance of the AFA is different for everyone based on our expectations and desire for returns. A prime example would be certification. Right or wrong/agree or disagree it is the only US certification that is recognized around the world. It is essentially the only (efficient) way that any of us could stand for the Dip. of WCF. Why would anyone want to do that? Wait a few years and ask me again.

If there is ever a licencing requirement I think the AFA certs and maybe the NBS certs will play a major role in the standards determinations. Honestly who else would the governing bodies look to? (I am not supporting, just stating obvious fact)

I think the AFA has relevance on many levels, and little relevance in many others. Maybe at this point you have no need for the AFA so your perception is that it aint relevant... Personaly, I have a chosen goal with an intent so, right now the AFA has increased relevance for me in the area of certification because that is how I can start working toward my goal.

As far as me bein' "successful".... Who told you that LIE? I'm a HACK!
I have many AFA and NON AFA farriers to thank for my impromptu education. I stumbled into area of the country where there are tons of horses. I love to work on and with horses. I got lucky. Maybe someday when I grow up I'll be successful. Thanks for the vote of confidence though.

I don't know if I would say "sandpaper finish" is of the "utmost importance" but I will say that I was taught very early in life that if somethin' looks like c-r-a-p, it probably is.

I don't want any misconceptions about my work standards. It's a personal thing. As far as "utmost importance"... I would say SOUNDNESS. Happy, sound horses = Happy sound clients.

No arguement here, Just trying to fill in some spaces that were being missed.

Regards,

I have read all 73 posts and am left wondering, what is the motivation behind the original question? Are you Mr. Kenny, disgruntled because the AFA refused to fund your personal study? Why do you target the AFA, why did you not ask if ANY farrier organization has relevance? You have left me wondering if there is not some underlying reason you have posed this question. Like for instance, the possibility that you may have something to sell. I think that is likely so.

One more thing. The photo you presented of a CJF after four days post shoeing, I frankly do not believe. It may have been a CJF or it may have been any farrier, but it was not 4 days post shoeing.
Maybe two more things. The photo of your improved foot is unimpressive to say the least. You removed flares with the course side of your rasp and tacked on a cold keg shoe, which is a little fuller on the medial side and left unsafed.
But if that is your style so be it. Its not mine.

http://www.horseshoes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7827

shilohqh
This should give you some insight into Mr. Kenny's intentions.

My question to Mr. Kenny is.
Are you still running for AFA office.
If so, why?