Phil Armitage wrote:
If this horse is introduced during a test, then it should be denied by the person it was assigned to and another horse selected without those problems. The first horse should not have been brought to the test in the first place. That's just common sense on the part of the guy taking the test. If that horse is presented in your everyday work, then give him all that if it is what he needs.

The AFA tests are not about shoeing cripples, they are about shoeing sound horses with as straight a forward feet as possible to the standard. Pass these first, then you can take the TE (theraputic endorsement) and prove you can give cripples what they need. The TE is the test you get to give your all on as in writing up what to do in an evaluation/shoeing protocol to help that horse. Everyones talking about the CF and CJF as if they are to prove a person can shoe lame horses. There about shoeing sound horses and keeping them that way while doing so within the standard. To prove you can do that that day. Then comes the TE or the Guild tests, whatever you choose. Go through the steps and you will get where you want to be if your lookingto shoe cripples. That's the TE test, not the CF or CJF, there steps or levels to get there.

BS-Horseshoeing wrote:
I do not know how easy it is to find horses for certification up your way. Up here it is a challenge to find horses for certification, so picking another horse may or may not be an option. If you get a low heel/long toe, broken back HPA and distortion in the hoof capsule, that is what you get. CF and CJF is scored on HPA.

This tread is about professions and licensing not the AFA certification test. If yo want to discuss/argue/disagree with the AFA certification test please go to one of the many treads that discuss it.

Thanks

Gary_Miller wrote:

Yes Boss!

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
That might depend on the political winds of the moment. As I mentioned before, contractor licenses in my state are on the county level.

I don't know about the rest of you but I routinely shoe horses in several states.

BS-Horseshoeing wrote:
Boy, Gary is being such a hard arss.

Mike Ferrara wrote:
Not all counties are the same either, here in greene county the only thing requireing a license is for a septic system and anyone who pays thirty dollars and takes an open book test is licensed.

Phil Armitage wrote:I said please.

Mike Ferrara in gray, my old stuff in brown

When it [licensing] happens, it'll happen at the state level.

That might depend on the political winds of the moment. As I mentioned before, contractor licenses in my state are on the county level.

Here in Texas, we don't have a state income tax, but we do have a sales tax on most goods and some services. If/when it happens, farrier licensing will be the result of the legislature's thinking that taxing the services of those professions/trades not taxed now would be less painful than a state income tax. Farrier licensing will just be an afterthought, an asterisk buried in the legislation.

I don't know about the rest of you but I routinely shoe horses in several states.

I live in Central Texas. In order to get out of Texas, I'd have to travel 350 miles south, 300 miles north, 550 miles west or 250 miles east. In the past, I've let some folks talk me into getting on airplanes and flying hither, tither and yon to shoe their horses - but deep down inside, I always figured I was a kinda upidstay for doing it because I passed horses that needed shoeing on the way to the airport.

Tom,
What you are saying about licensing is happening here. We have a 25% tax on goods & services. There are those who do work under the table. They have tried for years to get us licensed and in 2006 came real close to getting it done. Once we are licensed, we will be thumbprinted and better tracked to get our money!!

Thomas_Ride&Drive wrote:Actually while going through channels the other evening I heard the same rant coming from Sean Hannity. Seems the right wing's paranoia has these guys thinking they'll be packed off to a gulag in cattle cars if they allow the first step of occupational licensing to occur. Not sure how protecting the horses from blood letting butchers can be construed that way but whatever:rolleyes:

Since it seems to be always Mike F and Gary M fighting this non-existent enemy I'll give them a little help today out of the goodness of my heart so they'll talk a little less ridiculous.:cool:

Here are some reasons NOT to have licensing as told to me by guys who didn't want to say it publically.This is the biggie. This is the biggest anti-licensing argument. Problem is I see no increased level of scrutiny in other occupationsNot a problem. Any such laws in other occupations have always had and will continue to have grandfathering for those already involved in the trade.Thats true. In most cases they do. For those who wouldn't pass muster in that area it's unfortunate. I for one am not interested in keeping the trade a safe haven for people like that.Yeah and this is a problem because? You guys make kids pay for them. Surely none of the ultra conservatives among us would want the taxpayers to be burdened with that would they? Pretty much goes along with #3

Those are the things I've heard the most. Especially 1 and 2. Now if you guys want to continue flogging this dead horse lets hear more of the truth and less anti-government BS:(
George

George, I don't know who you got those "reasons" from but it wasn't from me. I just don't want increased government involvement in our lives or bigger and more expensive government. It's not the governments job to protect privately owned horses...just that simple.

I tell the truth on my tax filings so they can look as close as they want, I raised my kids (alone for most of the time) and I'm not a criminal.

But again, maybe we can just regulate those of you who feel you need to be regulated and leave everybody else alone.

On the other hand, you fail to demosntrate any need for government regulation of the trade. Just another power grab or what? It seem the enemy does exist.

Mike Ferrara wrote:I think plenty would disagree. Some say government must protect those who can't protect themselves. This is why humane organizations have their own police departments.

By the way, did you know that fire departments were once private? Colonial Philadelphia homeowners needed to buy fire insurance. A special plaque was put on plain display on the house. If the place caught fire the fire dept would stand and watch it burn if they didn't see a fire insurance plaque.

Benjamin Franklin saw this as unnacceptable and established the first public fire dept in the US. This story is salient because the way you guys talk it sounds as if you'd be crying he was a communist as well for acting in the public interest.
George

George Geist wrote:
Of course some disagree...they seem to have trouble telling the difference between a horse and a person but they disagree.

People (especially defenseless people) should be protected from the acts of other which is why I'm so against the legal killing of unborn children.
You realize that I've never argued against having public fire or police services? Public roads aren't a bad idea either. However, it doesn't seem right to put the burden of paying for these services on a few while many get a free ride. Taxes should be based on the cost of what you use rather than the amount of money you earn.

BTW, for your reading pleasure, an example of the lengths your beloved left will go to bolster their efforts to get more regulation into our lives. In this case, to take away our 2nd amendment rights. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

Our government should focus on protecting our rights (they did swear an oath to that effect) and protecting our borders (check out the latest immigration news) but the left is too busy trying to take things away from us so they can give it to somebody else.

Mike Ferrara wrote:Licensing has been in place on racetracks for years and years. I've never heard any racetrack shoer complain about it. Most of the guys I've talked to who were licensed in Illinois (with possible exception of Rick) were not happy to see it end. You say you see no need, I'd direct your attention to the "hoof butchery in NC" thread that was locked up. I think that individual is a pretty good poster child.
George