[/COLOR]Originally Posted by Brian Purrington
Nick,

When I was running for Reg 5 rep, part of my platform was that the AFA was/is about FARRIERS and not so much the organization.

I stand by that today as well.

George Geist

Sorry Brian, gotta disagree with that. There are entirely too many other people at the table. It is impossible for them or any other such group to adequately represent working horseshoers when they have the interests of manufacturers, suppliers, schools, vets, and who knows who else to be beholden to. The interests of those folks is not necessarily what is in the working shoers best interest and when push comes to shove shoers will be lowest on the totem pole every time.

George, I suggest that you hold off on such a remark until you attempt certification. Because of sponsors one of the best farrier associations in the country can put on clinics and certification at very reasonable cost. This in my opinion shows me the AFA puts the farrier at the top of the totem pole.

From what I have seen on this forum, you have a lot of respect for Tom Stoval. May I suggest you take his advice that he has given others when it comes to speculating about the AFA and join the organization then also go for your certification. Then your perceptions might be different.

Have a good 4th

Phil Armitage wrote:Phil,
I held a membership for 10 years. '95 to '05 or '06 or something like that. I got a 10 year pin anyway. I was also certified in '98 or '99. Is that satisfactory that I can make any remark I want now?

I'm not bad mouthing sponsors. It might appear so but is not my intent. To their credit most of the clinics we all attend which are usually held at our suppliers warehouses (generously donated by them on their days off) are usually bankrolled by people like St Croix aren't they? Neatest thing about it is that none of these clinics have ever been or ever will be an onrunning infomercial about their products. nBS was the only one I ever went to that was like that.

The certifications are put on with almost all of the heavy lifting done by state and local associations. Most often one individual not only does all the work but also loses a great deal of income by donating a bunch of horses from one of his customers. How many guys that do that even get thanked?
AFA collects fees and processes paperwork (usually very slowly) Take a closer look at the machinations of how these things really work before handing out too much undeserved praise and credit Phil.

You have a good 4th as well
George

George Geist wrote:
I do not get the impression that your badmouthing, just very negative. Every AFA clinic and certification I have attended others including myself have taken the time to thank the people doing the work. I have also noticed that most farriers realise the sacrifices these folks make. I am surprised as a former member of the AFA and certified that you do not see this. Why do you have so much negativity towards the AFA?

As for your comment on NB. The clinics that I have attended focused on anatomy, trimming, lameness, balance, gait evaluation and very little on products. Yes they have products and there choice of shoes and pads are their products, however they also point out the same can be achieved with other products. No matter who makes the product we as farriers do what we want with it.

George Geist wrote:
Again, from your website....
The JHU is happy to welcome equine professionals from a variety of trades within the horse industry. For those who make their living as Veterinarians, Equine Dentists, Massage Thereapists, Grooms, Jockes, Trainers, Stable Workers and Non-shoeing Blacksmiths, just about anyone involved in the equine industry has a place in the JHU.

Phil Armitage wrote:That's good Phil I'd hope soI see the sacrifices these guys make which is why I brought it up. I'm not sure if others do though.I'm not as bad as you think I am. I think they have the potential to be a great organization. When I see that potential squandered and wasted I find it disappointing. Most of the issues I have with them are political. If Walt Taylor and Mike Miller were still around I'd be a bit more optimistic:p
George

danverschild wrote:Yes,
Salient point being that organization attempts to speak for those making their living in the horse industry. There is no place in that group for Budweiser Beer, Copenhagen/Skoal, Mustad nails or Kerkart shoes.

The Union certainly has no quarrel with any of those folks but their not who we represent or speak for.
George

George Geist wrote:
I don't think your a bad guy George. You strike me as the type that sees the glass half empty instead of half full. For example, see above.

I kind of feel sorry for ya.

George Geist wrote:
Also from your site....

CLASSIFIEDS

Tony Messina's Outfitting Services

John Calcinore Nipper Sharpening and Toolmaking

Brian Siwiec DC Chiropractor for Horseshoers

Meader Supply Company Horseshoeing supplies

Paul Brooker Apron and Toolmaking

Kirkwood Farrier Supply Horseshoeing supplies

Across the Anvil East Horseshoeing supplies

Ink and Anvil Inc, dba Today's Pro Farrier magazine

danverschild wrote:All good people and recommended highly:D Check back often may have a few more to add to that soon.
George

Phil Armitage wrote:Just a realist Phil,

I did say they had potential didn't I? Have you a specific example of something I've said that you think I'm incorrect about?
George

George Geist wrote:
George,

Given your initial beef (quoted above), I have made reference to your published materials, pointing out three times that you are, in effect, the proverbial "pot calling the kettle black."

You choose to denigrate the AFA for associating with vets and suppliers and such, yet your organization is soliciting membership and advertising from these same individuals and groups.

What is it that makes it okay for you and your organization to establish networks and associate yourself with others, but makes it wrong for another organization to do so?

George Geist wrote:
...just checked the membership list to make sure that you do in fact have no reason for a lack of optimism. Both Walt and Mike are "still around." Mike is, in fact, still serving as an active member of the AFA's Finance Committee.

danverschild wrote:It's all about conflicts. When Mustad destroyed Simonds rasp company and threw hundreds of Americans out of work I and a few others found that reprehensible. Steve Kraus came on this website defending it and literally falling on his sword over anything Mustad did. I know he was looking to hold some kind of office did he get elected? If so who's interests do you think a man like that will look to?

Back in the 1980's when Mustad acquired Capewell there was plenty of time and warning, why didn't AFA encourage every horseshoer in the country through the AFJ to buy as many shares of Capewell as they could afford? I know it's distant history but if that had happened it would have raised the price enough to sandbag their takeover attempt and maybe even we the horseshoers could have had our own nail company. Wouldn't thatta been cool?:cool: Instead they chose to sit on their hands and be quiet for fear of annoying Mustad. These are 2 examples of placing corporate interests above those of working horseshoers not to mention Americans.

Can you think of maybe a few elected people over the years that have used their offices to benefit themselves in some way or another? No need to answer is a rhetorical question. The thing I'm pointing out is that when an organization takes money from different entities there is always strings attached. If me or Phil or Gary Miller quit that group would anybody really care? If they lose somebody with strong corporate ties enough to annoy Farnam maybe? Thats a bigger problem isn't it?

People the Union does business with if we find them to be not friendly to us or working against our best interests they'll quickly join the ranks of those we no longer do business with. I see no hypocrisy here although you do. The people you posted didn't pay anything to have their info on our website. It was free for them as our friends. People in the Union who draw pay work for the Union. Nobody else. People on AFA's BOD can and often do have other interests as Mr Kraus is a glaring example of.

danverschild wrote:Well that's good to know. Any chance of drafting Walt to run for president?????????

Hey,
being as that Baron doesn't mind you giving free plugs to all our friends over here don't forget to mention Local 947 travel for next time you want to go someplace or the discounts we get from Enterprise rent-a car or the discounts we get from verizon and T-Mobile aw heck just check out www.U-Benefit.org.
George

George Geist wrote:
Steve is an AFA Board of Representative's Regional Director for Region 5. He was elected by the AFA members from that region. I'm sure that most, if not all, who voted were aware of his relationship with Mustad. I'm also sure that those who voted for him did so because, like me, they knew enough about him to know that he is a man who speaks and acts with integrity. Personally, I think "a man like that" will look after fellow farriers and his profession. You'll have to look long and hard to find anyone more committed to the AFA, to his fellow farriers, and to the farrier profession than Steve Kraus. And, as far as "conflicts" go, I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that if any issue came to the Board concerning Mustad, Steve would recuse himself faster than a Jack Russell can nip your heels.

George Geist]
Back in the 1980's when Mustad acquired Capewell there was plenty of time and warning, why didn't AFA encourage every horseshoer in the country through the AFJ to buy as many shares of Capewell as they could afford? I know it's distant history but if that had happened it would have raised the price enough to sandbag their takeover attempt and maybe even we the horseshoers could have had our own nail company. Wouldn't thatta been cool?:cool: Instead they chose to sit on their hands and be quiet for fear of annoying Mustad. These are 2 examples of placing corporate interests above those of working horseshoers not to mention Americans.[/quote]

I'm not real attuned to the laws concerning insider trading, but from your question, I doubt seriously that you are either. In any case, the AFA was then and is now a 501c3 corporation wrote:
Hoffa maybe? I think the benefit of office may have put some people in the public eye more than they might have been otherwise... gotten them a few more clinics and a bit more of a reputation. Other than that, I think it's typically more of a detriment than a benefit, as it's a volunteer position that eats up their time, taking them away from family, business, and other interests. I commend them for their volunteerism on behalf of the profession.
George Geist wrote: I see tremendous hypocrisy when you climb up on a stump and say it's okay for your organization to do business with someone of your choosing yet it's not okay for another organization to do business with someone of their choosing.
George Geist wrote: Nominations for various elected positions were open until midnight last night. It's certainly possible that Walt could have been nominated for something.
George Geist wrote: You really don't get it, do you?

danverschild wrote:Fine for him. If the members chose him well and good. As a non-member is really none of my concern who gets elected to what. Only point I'm trying to make here is that there are many entities representing different divergent interests all at the same table. This is the part that a lot of guys don't understand. This is also I would wager one of the biggest reasons for much of the internal discord that seems to never all the way go away.

To best of my recollection the 501(c)(3) deal didn't happen until the very late '90s or maybe early 2000. That prohibits them from political activity yes but surely not from encouraging stock purchase. Even if it did it was long before that deal so it would have been no problem.
The way that 501(c)(3) deal happened was I thought pretty trashy too but let's not even go there.
You like to think of Hoffa? LOL:) One thing he used to say was "Sooner or later everybody does business with everybody". Nobody has any problem with doing business. Having others that might not necessarily be in the best interests of a group's membership sitting on that group's BOD is a bit more than just doing business. That's also none of my concern though. If the membership gets unhappy with the arrangement they'll change it. Point I'm making as I said before is not whether this is good or bad, just that this is what is.
That would be cool. :cool:
George