tbloomer wrote:I know a lot of people find it offensive, but I'm sort of fond of the constitution and bill of rights.
I share your fondness for that particular document but also respect states rights and their more localized laws. It's not clear Dr. Meyers was suggesting we start by challenging existing law. Might be better to first consider a few more modest goals.
How about limiting scope of "privileged" lawful authority of veterinarians to protecting the human food supply - zoonosis?
See above. There is value in "baby steps".
Take away their artificial "rank and privilege" and make them "ordinary citizens" who must earn their respect in the free market.
I don't agree that veterinarian "rank and privilege" is artificial. Eight years of formal education serves as evidence of having earned at least some of that "rank and privilege". I know of no comparable, formal, state or client acknowledged educational requirements for farriers. That places the burden of garnering respectful "rank and privilege" directly on the shoulders of our own trade.
Perhaps it is better to begin with the premise that we can not elevate the role and position of the farrier by diminishing the rank and privilege of the vet.
I'd rather that objectives demand more of myself than less of the veterinarian.
Dr. Meyers offered an organization or system that would address, "how we can collectively formulate some type of organization or system by which veterinarians and farriers can work smoothly together to assist the horse to be the best he can be."
It strikes me that the first step would require a formal process, definition and acknowledgment of the farriers specific roles and responsibilities as differentiated by that of the practicing veterinarian. To date, that role appears more a "catch-all" for whatever work a particular vet does not want or choose to do.
I'll readily and respectfully concede the veterinarians broader, multi-species education, State acknowledged and conferred licensure and greater level of client and equine responsibility. That concession is made easy by virtue of every vet being required to demonstrate a minimum level of knowledge at some point in their career.
No such requirement exists for farriers in the United States. Until such requirement does exist, if ever, no veterinarian can simply presume a reasonable minimum of qualification by farriers in any such organization or system.
I do not know if the practice of state licensure came about by virtue of a states intent to protect the food source or by a collective pursuit of such conferral by veterinarians. Either way, it exists and veterinarians benefit from its existence.
While I'm not advocating for one side or the other at this point, it does beg the question.... if state veterinary boards offered or acknowledged an examination process that resulted in the declared and recognized competency of a practicing farrier, would farriers view this as an opportunity or an infringement?
I would offer that any argument about the constitutional restrictiveness of such a practice is largely mute. That horse left the barn when states required licensure of the first practiced trade. The discussion is therefore, not about law, but rather, about a system or organization which provides open discussion between two cooperative, acknowledged and identifiable trade entities.
Identifying any veterinary member of such a system is relatively easy. They will have the accolade of DVM associated with their name. Exactly how does one identify the farrier? Perhaps there should be a bit more than a business card.
It's no small observation that the state confers greater formal credibility to a licensed hairdresser than to a practicing farrier.
As farriers and veterinarians, we can all appreciate and respect the hard earned credentials of the AFA CF or CJF. Wouldn't it be an amazing phenomena if the state and horse owning public had reason for the same level of appreciation and respect?
Wouldn't it be a good thing if state veterinary boards formally acknowledged the merit of those credentials?
Read that last comment carefully. I did not say "require" the credentials. I said, "acknowledge". The difference is subtle but a hugely important first step towards a partnership that could result in significant change.
Farriers probably cannot accomplish this change. More than three decades serve as evidence of that assertion but..., one prominent veterinarian in a single state probably could.
Question to everyone reading this thread. How would you view the following boilerplate language incorporated into your states veterinary board governing policies.
"While the State of <insert state name> Veterinary Medical Board does not require a specialist certificate or license for a person to engage in the practice of equine farriery, the board does acknowledge and recommend those practitioners who have earned the American Farrier's Association certification as having met the training requirements considered generally necessary to engage in the safe and responsible practice of equine farriery."
No constitutional restrictions, no "infringement" of your right to work and earn a living but, a damn sure clear message that there is acknowledged merit in pursuing the continuing education necessary to achieve a specific, nationally available, standardized goal.
To veterinarians reading this thread. We'll readily concede your inarguable education, credentials and value to the horse owner and the horse. Now... it's your turn to throw us a bone we can use to improve the trade. If you can generally acknowledge the training and merit of a 2 year vet tech, it's a small step to grant the certified farrier at least a nodding recognition of that same respect.
Cheers,
Mark