I stand corrected but that is still a very low percentage considering how long the AFA has been around.We will be. We aren't that naive and believe it or not most of us believe that CE should be a big part of the farrier industry but not run by some state beauracrat that knows nothing about horseshoeing.It isn't about insecurity, it is about the way we are treated. I understand what you are saying and yes I have met many who are kind and willing to help anyone they can but I have to admit that there are some who are a little upset with the AFA right now.That would definitely be a plus.Quite frankly it is hard to decifer what is the truth and what is the fiction. I don't think manipulation into beleiving anything or gullibility either one were involved. Most of the farriers around here believe it was a manipulation of the AFA to increase its membership. Right wrong or indifferent that is how they feel and by all appearances it did look like a dictatorship to them and to some of their members as well.The presentation by the AFA was defitinately lacking. What the AFA does for its membership I have admitted is none of the outsiders business, however if they only have an active membership of only 10% of the farriers in the US, I think it is arguable as to whether they are a good example of a leadership role.
Wayne

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:
Where is this "knowledge base" of which you speak? I remember having a conversation with a bunch of folks at the IHCS about lack of content for a "knowledge base." Have you found something somewhere?

Methinks that the AFA knowledgebase is contained within its individual members. In respect to long footed shoeing, I would guess the AFA's knowledge base would be stored in the brains of guys like Jeff Ridley and Andrew Elsbree.

Ron, maybe you can get these guys to do a core dump and convert it to HTML. I'll help you design the conversion algorithm . . . We can call it Brainpicker v1.0.a Beta . . .
Sorry, I'm going off topic.

Tom Bloomer, CF

wwhite1973 wrote: What specificly makes you say this? What happened?
My point is that most guys who use this arguement can't ever back it up with a logical arguement.
So other than licencing what has the AFA done to Wayne White?

wwhite1973 wrote: I don’t know about that. Considering the fact that farriers as a species are rugged individualists with a strong helping of leave me the frack alone thrown in I think that it is doing OK. Could it be doing a lot better, you bet it could. But it still has a lot of stuff to figure out and when you have as many competing voices on the BOD it takes a while to filter out the garbage.
wwhite1973 wrote: I do not believe that any proposal that has been put forth has suggested that the government be involved in CE. No other profession has the government involved in the administration of CE why on earth would anyone thing that this model should change for Farriery?
wwhite1973 wrote: Look, the fact of the matter is that there are jerks in every group and that those jerks can give the group a bad name. There is nothing that can be done to prevent this from happening. People that let a couple of jerks color their perspective of a whole group when there are also examples of positive and supportive individuals are simple looking for a reason to be angry at the group. The AFA as an organization has a very positive mandate from its membership and that is something that most of those complaining about the organization choose to ignore.
wwhite1973 wrote: If you read that do***entation of what was actually discussed and proposed there is a very different picture to be seen. What the American Farriers Journal, the BWFA, the Guild and the Farrier School owners did was to take snippets out of context and whip up a furor using the most inflammatory language that they could to frame the issue. What is interesting is that when you seek the truth you find out that all of these organizations have a hard-on for the AFA and have a substantial interest in weakening the AFA by any means necessary. They would all like to paint the AFA in the worst possible light as an organization and that has driven their editorial content. If you have read the “Caldwell Report” you can see the road map of assumption, misrepresentation and deception that those three groups followed in laid out in black and white.

I contacted Charlie Caldwell and discussed his report with him in depth. It turns out that his report had been submitted as his final exam for his horse shoeing school. At the time he wrote it he had never earned a dime from shoeing a horse. Because he saw what was being done with what he submitted as a tongue in cheek and very subjective review of the whole issue and he agreed that how his report was being used was wrong he joined with me to write a review of his original report. That review was posted on this forum some time ago right before the AFA BOD mid-year meeting. If you need copies of both his report and the review contact me privately.

The lack of journalistic integrity and the lack of simple honesty on behalf of the BWFA, the Guild and the horse shoeing school owners about this issue have been astounding to me. What has been more astounding has been how many people that I believe to be inherently intelligent have swallowed this manure as if they were babies being spoon fed pabulum.
wwhite1973 wrote: On this I agree completely. The dog used them in a big way and didn’t even say thank you.
wwhite1973 wrote: Had the AFA’s task force done its job the AFA would have been engaged in strong and appropriate leadership on this issue. As it is you couldn’t even use what was done to clean your rear end. When examining an issue of such significance you need to have rock solid do***entation and research. Who knows, maybe the AFA will learn something from this debacle.

tbloomer wrote: You are correct in your thinking. To date, to my knowledge no one within the AFA has seen fit to develop a useful reference resource on horseshoeing. Institutional knowledge is another thing all together. And I suspect that Jeff and Andrew are likely among the few that work on long footed horses. Although the guy I work with on occasion has told me that he is going to join the AFA and he is a fairly big deal Walking Horse shoer in my area and has done a lot of horses that have ended up as World Champion horse during Celebration.

As for developing a download tool, no way in hell. I wouldn't want to see what is running around in most of these guy's minds.

Originally posted by Ronald E KramedjanMr. Kramedjian'
I'm not sure about that. Where did you ever come up with those numbers? Are you stating the best case or engaging in fuzzy math?wwhite1973 wrote: Wayne,
I agree, but the bigger question is why. Just what is it that us AFA guys do that ticks every other farrier off to the point that when AFA is mentioned they run the other way. How can we improve our image?
Wayne,
What specifically is it that has farriers upset with the AFA? Just the Farnam Deal or is it that slight of hand manipulation of facts concerning the "need" to begin to "look into" licensing and registration. Or was it the the appearance the the AFA annointed themselves by divine right as benevolent rulers of all farrierdom.Wayne,
Had this all been presented to the membership in a proper manner I believe we would have avoided this whole trust issue.
Question is where do we go from here? The big shots would like us to drop the issue and go away but we will never heal that breach without lots of communication.

Mr. Kramedjian,

When you go on your tirades about condemning the people who work so hard for the AFA you are right. For most members (myself included) these trusted leaders are the people we admire and respect and what is being said is not and should never be seen as personal. We realize "it is not the person", but sometimes it is what the person did or didn't do that calls into question.

We have seen manipulation of facts, half truths, embellishments all to back up the proposals justifying Walt Taylor's forced licensing scheme.

That scheme had been reviewed and approved by Executive Committee even before the Task force was formed to prove it's validity. All this to justify Walt's continued failed desperate attempts at an industry coup. It is my opinion that this is not the way to gain respect of an industry but rather "hood-winking" those hard working people who put trust in their leaders.

Phantom Farrier wrote:

Dave Purves wrote:
Dave,
I agree with you that too much emphasis is placed on contesting and forging - American Forging Association, I've heard it referred to.

I'm not sure about the fact that the CJF was formed to make Journeymen elitist or not. Most members have voiced a similar opinion when asked about the AFA. One recent CJF expressed his disappointment with his achievement because at last years convention the upper eschelon still payed no attention to what he had achieved or what he thought. He then realized that it was more than just becoming a CJF - one had to be a CJF with the right last name or be a Team member to be heard. Just being a Journeyman just wasn't enough.

Originally there was only the "basic certified". The Journeyman came about to provide a certification for a higher level of skill and knowledge with the expectation that a third - highest - level would soon follow. It did not so we are stuck with the journeyman as the AFA's highest level. The****utic is an endorsement on the Journeyman certificate. I looked up Journeyman in Websters. "adequate, but just barely. journeywork - hackwork". Hardly terms befitting all the prep and hard work. You may be better off not certified to CJF level but just "CertifiedFarrier".

Phantom

John,
A more accurate definition would be perhaps. A freeman who has successfully completed his term of indenture or apprenticeship and is now eligible to be hired for wages.

A master trained apprentices and hired journeymen who usually worked in an itinerant fashion until they opened their own shops at which time they became masters.

The guild system determined how many masters would be assigned to a given area. To become a master often took years working through this system.

Journeymen were far from hacks, they were trained and competent. Being as that term is still used in other trades technically anyone working on their own and not in training is a journeyman. I know that will upset some people but maybe these associations shouldn't be using such words unless they want to truly become a craft guild.
George

Phantom Farrier wrote: Most of the estimates that I have heard or seen put the number of farriers in the US at something around 30,000 to 35,000. If that estimate is at all close with an active membership of 3,500 we have 10%. If the member numbers are issued in sequence and there are no gaps we are at close to 9,000 issued numbers that yields a range or 25% to 30%. Best case, maybe. Fuzzy, you bet and a lot. But I think they are good enough for general discussion.
Phantom Farrier wrote: Calling someone for something they did or did not do is fair in my opinion. But vilifying them and trying to paint pictures of evil intent and character is in my mind out of line. The language use to describe the members of the current EC has been nothing less that inflammatory and defamatory. Many of the statements that have been made in relation to what was done by the parties on the task force, the EC and the AFA in general are just out right lies and have no support in facts.
Phantom Farrier wrote: Yep, and I have called Walt on his lack of due diligence in research and do***entation. However, I have also repeatedly seen the manipulation of facts, half truths and embellishments being used by just about everyone that has an ax to grind with Walt, Craig, Jeff, and the AFA. One wrong does not make another right.
Phantom Farrier wrote: I would like you to prove this with real factual do***entation. To my knowledge the EC back Craig on the formation of the task force. The Task Force submitted its report and its recommendation to the BOD and the BOD acted on that report and the recommendations as it saw fit. Every step of the way everything was done according to Hoyle and the AFA bylaws.
Phantom Farrier wrote: And it is my opinion that this is more of the unsubstantiated inflammatory and defamatory rhetoric that has derail any rational consideration of the issue and the AFA’s proper stance in relationship to this issue.

Before you start on me you need to know that I believe whole heartedly that the AFA has no business trying to lobby for anything, including licensing. But I also believe that the AFA had better get its act together and do the research and do***entation necessary to be able to speak clearly and knowledgably should the issue come before a state legislature. Remember when you stick your head in the sand it leaves your rear end in a vulnerable position.

Dave Purves wrote: I would tend to agree with you that it feels a lot like the good old boys are at work. But I think the real kicker was not the creation of the CJF. I believe that the real blow was dealt by requireing a CJF to be be able to run for president of the orginization. Nothing in the CJF requirements make endows them with any more common sense that a CF and neither of those requirements has one wit to do with deplomacy and all the other skills require to fill the role of AFA president.

George Geist wrote:
George,
I agree with you but Mr. Webster does not. We know what we would all like to believe the term means. As one of AFA's officers said "The AFA definition of journeyman is a higher lever of knowledge and skill" That's all well and good as long as someone informs the rest of the english speaking world.

Phantom

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote: Ron,

I couldn't agree with you more and I believe it was another ploy to keep Walt from ever running for president again. I know plent of good, knowledgeable and reputable farriers who are quite capable of leading the AFA - some have spent time at the helm of much larger entities.

Maybe we need to re-visit that part of the constitution.

Phantom

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:
Ron,

You have delivered a full court press, however I have the docs - you know it and I know it.
It is my hope that you and others on this forum will be in Omaha next week to continue this discussion on licensing. It is important to ourselves and the future of farriery as we know it to be concerned and actively involved.

Phantom

John,
It could also be said that if you dont like the AFAs constitution and/or bylaws, just wait a few weeks and they'll change!
George