It's a scary situation, in the state of NY there is no exemption to my knowledge, so we're all operating in a legal gray area.

Unfortunately Mike, while I don't disagree with your contention that property ought to be dealt with as a private consideration, there is currently ample legal precedent for the maintenance of veterinary laws so I don't see that going away. NY Ag and Markets laws have placed very specific treatment and ownership requirements for animals for example, to prevent cruelty and abandonment.

I can see why the AFA and other organizations have pondered placing themselves in a position to be involved in mandatory farrier licensing. . . and while I'm not convinced by the argument that mandatory certification levels will improve overall performance, there IS something to be said for working to create a place within the law to defend this art. Oddly enough, I think the AVMA might be an excellent resource in this, because there are very few vets I've met who really want to shoe horses!

reillyshoe wrote:In Delaware, they have a hearing to decide if you've broken the rules - which they can make up at any time they choose. Then they can fine you min. $500 to max. $1000.

What it you refuse to pay the fine? What can they do, revoke your license? It isn't criminal law, but "administrative." 'nuther words, legalized civil harassment. Their funding comes from licensing fees. What happens if the veterinary board has to defend itself in court for civil rights violations - like a class action law suit? Do they take up a collection from all the licensed vets to hire a defense lawyer?

tbloomer wrote:

It is my understanding they refer the case (complaint) to the attorney general's office, who handles the enforcement. In the event of the state board requiring an interpretation of the law, they utilize their own state lawyers to interpret the law before deciding on enforcement.

That's fascinating. . . I've been looking through title 29 of Delaware's code, and there doesn't seem to be any specific criminal violation. . . tho if you failed to stop, you'd be in non compliance with an order from the atty general, and that would have criminal implications. . . pshew.

In NY, practicing a regulated profession without a license is a felony. This really makes one think. . .

How does this sound??
Just today I met a horse for the first time.
Big flares and thrush infested frogs.
Trimmed the hoof. (Treated the horse to prevent lamness)
I showed the client the thrush and identified it as such.(diagnosed)
I trimmed the frog and bars with my knife.(surgery)
I applied medication to the frog (treated a disease)
I asked the client to continue wit xyz product a few times a week (perscription)

In NJ I am a felon.

Pat,
You have made some great points and have opened a lot of eyes. I will vote for you as my representative to the AVMA ( whoops, sorry I guess that you have no standing). How about with the AFA, the Guild, the BWFA, the AAEP, etc,etc. Do you know if any of these groups intend to weigh in on the issue. I have commented on the website but feel that there is something more to be done.

reillyshoe wrote:
Patrick, what do you think could be done to reverse this trend? If we keep doing what we have always done, we will just get the same results. I think we need some major changes. An aggregate of lay farriers versus the state veterinary boards don't stand a chance to get anything changed or passed in our favor with state representatives who know nothing of the subject and therefore will always be reluctant to disagree with the state veterinary recommendations. I understand that the mention of the word licensing flusters feathers, but why would licensing have to be mandatory rather than optional? If a farrier doesn't see the need then let them go on as they wish. But there are strength in numbers and if enough farriers were to unite in a common cause then we stand a better chance of advancing the profession. I guess what I am thinking is something like the old unions. We obviously need some sort of representation. If efforts for civil compromise don't yield results, I bet a strike would. :cool:

While painting my bathroom today, I listened to the entire argument presented by farrier Jim House toe the Arkansas legislature. It occurred to me that while the proposed bill (allowing various occupations such as dentists, massage therapists, horse trainers, farriers and cattle castration/ de-horning professionals) was defeated, there was opposition from the veterinary groups to farriers. While I am sympathetic to other professions, I think farriers are unique in that
1. horses suffer without us
2. veterinarians are not trained to do what we do.


Perhaps we should separate ourselves from the other acts to better explain why farriery is not the practice of veterinary medicine. Changing one state practice act at a time would help our collective cause.

We do not need to get into the topic of licensing. We need to explain why we are the only option to fulfill the role of hoofcare expert to the people making the laws.

Rick Talbert wrote:LMYAO!!!!!:D:D:D:

George Geist wrote:

George, do you have a UNION alert on your computer?

reillyshoe wrote:By saying ONLY option, does that infer that we exclusively are to retain authority over cases pertaining to the hoof?
(I watched the entire thing as well, and was disappointed because I thought House and those with him made an excellent case.) Do we practice veterinary medicine and call it farriery, or do veterinarians practice farriery and call it veterinary medicine? Searching for a clear definition only muddies the water, and if we cannot define it, then how can the public? Wikipedia's definition of veterinary medicine- "Veterinary medicine is the branch of science that deals with the application of medical, surgical, public health, dental, diagnostic, and therapeutic principles to non-human animals." I would say that what we do as farriers daily could fall under this definition. Do we not apply therapeutic principles? And whether we officially want to call an opinion a diagnosis, or not, we are often put in a position, to accurately identify problems and treat them appropriately. The definition of diagnosis-"Diagnosis (from ancient Greek διάγνωσις = discernment) is the identification of the nature and cause of anything." Few of us need someone to confirm that a horse has a quarter crack, toe crack, has foundered, or has an abscess, or many other things. What is obvious is obvious. To say that we do not diagnose, is to say that we would daily have to pretend that we have no idea what we are looking at and also have no idea what caused it and no idea what to do about it. Even wikipedia cannot define farrier without using the term "veterinary medicine", "A farrier is a specialist in equine hoof care, including the trimming and balancing of a horse's hoof and the placing of shoes to the horse's foot. A farrier couples a subset of the blacksmith's skills with a subset of VETERINARY MEDICINE to address the care of the horse's feet." it goes on to describe the work of a farrier, saying;

"If the animal has a heavy work load, works on abrasive footing, needs additional traction, or has PATHOLOGICAL changes in the foot, then shoes may be required.

Additional tasks for the farrier include dealing with injured and/or diseased hooves and application of special shoes for racing, training or "cosmetic" purposes. Horses with certain diseases or injuries may need remedial procedures for their hooves, or need special shoes."
Remedial procedures? Special shoes? Injured? Diseased? Pathological? Veterinary Medicine? further, read about our history http://www.horseshoes.com/advice/ryan1/thsofttr.htm . We have rolled over and given up the reins. To "explain why we are the only option to fulfill the role of hoofcare expert to the people making the laws", we need to define "expert", because not every farrier fits this description. This argument would be made much stronger if there was a standard which those to be included as "experts" have attained. Call it what you like, but as long as the vet has it and the farrier does not, the vet will have the upper hand, and the farrier will have his eroding freedoms.

George Geist wrote:
I don't know what the Y stands for. And I guess you don't agree with me George? (or maybe you do, heck I don't know).

Rick Talbert wrote:The Y is for yankee and yeah I'd tend to agree with you.
www.ijhu.org
George

reillyshoe wrote:
Exactly. Whether what we do is veterinary medicine or not, farriers are the ones who have done it throughout history and there's no reason to believe that anybody else is ever going to do it.

If anything is screwy here, it's the definition of veterinary medicine.

reillyshoe wrote:I don't think the AG is going to worry about prosecuting some "administrative" violation when there are real crimes to be prosecuted and the court docket is already over booked. It would cost more than $1000 of taxpayer money to collect a $1000 fine - in a situation where no animal was harmed and the only "offense" was some vet's "territory."

The Delaware code starts out-

The primary objective of the Board of Veterinary Medicine, to which all other objectives and purposes are secondary, is to protect the general public (specifically those persons who are direct recipients of services regulated by this chapter) from unsafe practices, and from occupational practices which tend to reduce competition or fix the price of services rendered.

If there is no public safety issue, the "turf protection" is pretty much nixed by the primary objective.

The secondary objectives of the Board are to maintain minimum standards of practitioner competency, and to maintain certain standards in the delivery of services to the public. In meeting its objectives, the Board shall develop standards assuring professional competence; shall monitor complaints brought against practitioners regulated by the Board; shall adjudicate at formal complaints hearings; shall promulgate rules and regulations; and shall impose sanctions where necessary against practitioners, both licensed and formerly licensed.

Secondary objective applies to supervision of veterinarians - the integrity of the license.