Eric Russell wrote:A lot of people on these boards seem very worried about resections. Why would a farrier want to take off the hoof capsule without a veterinarian involved?
Who said anyone was "
worried"? It was one example of a treatment that a farrier may perform that could be viewed as infringing on the territory of the veterinarian.
Eric Russell wrote:Personally, I think farriers need to get this idea out of there head that anytime they see something wrong in the hoof capsule it needs to be removed. That includes quarter cracks.
I can't find where someone stated that "
anytime" something is wrong it needs to be removed. On the other hand, there certainly are times when removing wall is appropriate and beneficial. Distortion, flares, over-growth, significant white line disease, broken bars, etc.
Western Hill Forge wrote:Interesting that they left out equine dentistry.
Good point. Given it is not in the list of exemptions, one can only presume that lay dentists cannot operate legally under these rules. Perhaps someone who works in the UK can enlighten us further.
In section 13, did you overlook the "and" the fitting ...? My interpretation of this is that the word "fitting" is synonymous with applying, and is included, by virtue of the use of the phrase "prior to and".
Nope, didn't miss it and I agree that it could be interpreted that way. The use of the word "prior" is unnecessary in the context of shoeing a horse and therefore may have been intended to suggest something else. Lawyers are incredibly fussy about the use of language and context. They will quickly jump on the difference between "shall" and "must" if it serves their need.
Cheers,
Mark