I read the same article. I am also wondering how this will effect the rest of Europe. I believe over here countries having certified farrier education programs will have a better chance of getting this thing passed. I know Denmark has been trying for years to get some type of law like in England, but the problem has always been enough certified farriers to take care of all the horses.
Paddy wrote:

Mitch Taylor of Kentucky Horseshoeing School touched on this topic for a Farriers Journal video.




I was talking with a farrier who had his own thoughts on the subject. He offered a candid position on licensing we don't often hear spoken out loud in polite company.

To paraphrase, he said, "I hate to say it, but the trade needs some sort of licensing to protect income levels. This is my full time job and I know what it costs to run this business. I can't do that as effectively when I have to compete against the propaganda of the barefooters and the cut-throat pricing of some "backyard hack" just shoeing for beer money.".

He makes a good point. The full-time, professional farrier will have significant investment and costs in education, equipment, inventory, insurance and income tax liability. His fees must represent those investments, costs and some expectation of profit. The lay practitioner, having little of those same business costs, can seriously undermine the professionals credibility and net business income.

It's fair and reasonable to ask the professional farrier, what business have you lost to the guy that is willing to trim and shoe a horse all around for $60 bucks? How many customers have horses that desperately need shoes but are kept barefoot (e.g. cheaper) and serviced by a "natural barefoot trimmer" because of "barefoot propaganda"? How many times has your customer called the vet out only to learn that the animals need would be better met by the farrier?

I often hear it argued that "a free market will sort it out" or "you don't want those customers anyway". I disagree.

The market will seek out the best value (cheapest price/quality) but when the market consumer has no quality reference, price becomes king until the horse is lame. Sure, there are some of those customers whom you may not want anyway, but what impact on your own fee schedule do the "price cutters" have? Do they suppress the overall market by creating an artificial bottom by which your fee schedule may be measured?

In the video clip, Mitch makes an important point when he says, "I'd like to see horseshoers own our trade more." I agree.

I often hear horse owners refer to their barefoot trimmer as a "farrier". They don't use the term "trimmer". From their perspective, the trimmer is a "farrier". The rest of us are just "blacksmiths" or "horseshoers", stuck in an out-of-date dogma and illiterate in the latest technologies that best meet the needs of the horse. The owner's proof? Just about any barefoot website.

Google results for "Natural trimming for horses": 13,000,000.

Google results for "horseshoeing": 632,000.

Cheers,
Mark

Mark,
I got to agree with you some. One thing I don't agree with is regulation won't stop the cutting of prices. There will always be those who will work cheaper to start a business or get something to do. A while back I picked up a customer who used anothe farrier because he was "cheaper". Only when she had problems and I solved the problem did she change. And the guy is suppose to be an educated farrier. Education or not what it boils down to is does the farrier have the inner drive and desire to treat every horse as it should be? I have to agree we (farriers) have given the Barefooters a lot of ammo to shoot ourselves. Maybe the answer is slow down a bit, don't book your schedule so full you can't give the attention needed to every horse. I know it's a tough road, but if we don't tend to business - who will?

Mark,

I'd like definitions/interpretations of Mitch Taylors quote that you said that you like" I'd like to see horseshoers own our trade more",

Regards

Ray Steele

In the veterinary profession, the effect of licensing is not to directly improve quality of the service. In other words, acquiring the license does not automatically make the person aware he has to conform to a standard. The licensing process gives him the opportunity to be aware of the regulations which will govern his business and professional practices. Since it cannot be assumed that everyone made aware of the regulations will adhere to them, it has generated an inspection and regulation body that will handle consumer complaints and reprimand those veterinarians not conforming to the profession's stated standards. Veterinarians also undergo practice inspections every three years to check on their adherence to these regulations. Until the farrier profession can promulgate specific standards to which all must adhere there will be no purpose for licensure. Medical professions do "self regulate" to an extent, but they have formed a body that does enforce the regulations they have agreed upon. This would cost money for the profession to create and a great deal of time would need to be given to constructing the regulations that would be fair and enforceable.
The first step is waiting to be addressed, creating the standard of care a farrier is to perform. This is not only how good he is at the fire or how well the shoe stays on. This will include how well he keeps records, follows up cases, communicates with clients, adheres to ethical handling of client and professional relationships, just to name a few areas that are usually not covered in these discussions. This will be a long and difficult journey, but will likely have to be started at some time in the near future.

M. W. Myers, DVM

ray steele wrote:
I would appreciate hearing Mitch elaborate on the topic as well.
beslagsmed wrote:
I'm not sure what effect, if any, regulation would have on the trade. I'm confident regulation/licensing will not happen in my lifetime.

Agree. Farriers do not "own" their trade.

I've had that happen too. I've also lost customers to "farriers" who were cheaper. Skill/education/experience/quality was irrelevant.

What is an "educated farrier"?

There is no educational requirement to practice farriery in the United States. As a "trade", it would be hypocritical to chastise a practitioner for failing to achieve what the trade willfully chooses to neither define or require.

As a trade, we cannot agree on even the simplest methodology to "treat every horse as it should be". We don't "own our trade".

Yep. More to the point, the "trade" hasn't collectively, successfully done anything about it. From the horse owners perspective, "barefooters' are part of your trade. So are veterinarians. So is the guy who has no formal training and charges half your fee.

How the individual tends their business may assure individual success. A paradigm shift in the "trade" would require a more collective effort. I really don't see that happening anytime soon.

Cheers,
Mark

Mark_Gough wrote:

mwmyersdvm wrote:
Being able to get clients to actually learn anything or look at their horses' feet closely is damn near impossible now. Passing laws is just gonna cost us time and money, trying to track down customers who could care less. If I wanted to do paperwork, I'd do something else.

Personally I feel its very important for farriers to keep records on ur horses..its just good business..one should never need a law to do what is right..it takes about 20 to 45min each night to do billing ..make notes in the file..and add up ur daily expenses..most clients are teachable to a point and of course some are not..if u been Shoeing a horse for a couple of years and you have noted heat..swelling or other things like owner telling ya he was off here and there and one day the horse pulls up lame and vets get involved..two years of precise notes can go a long ways in my opinion..it not just good business you kinda owe it to ur clientele to be a professional.. if..(all)..farriers would run they business like a true business and not like a hobby or a thing for extra beer money I feel the ones that don't would see they client base change for the better..but hey what the hell do I know.

I've found out here that the population in general will go barefoot when the horse isn't being used/the wall isn't being worn down too quickly, and will shoe whenever this is not the case.

That being said we have cold winters and the risks of wearing shoes on ice, and the risk of the damage to other horses from borium inserts, isn't worth it.

That being said most out here are fairly practical, if the horse will benefit from shoes they shoe the horse.

Dr. Myers is right that the regulation of the industry will not stop price lowering. In my areas young farriers who are qualified are out there shoeing at half the price a man who has a house and family can afford. He can do this because there is no care and all speed.

The biggest thing a farrier can learn from barefootin is that the trim is more important than the shoe. A local farrier has been shoeing show jumpers and they are not lame but performance is not good. I put the same mans shoes back on one horse with a better trim and the horse is going fantastic.

The problem with the hoof care industry is there is no science behind the shoeing of a horse. This means you can only learn what someone before you thinks is right.

This means there can be no meaningful regulation until the industry can define the standard.

Dr. Myers mentioned a quality of a good farrier is too keep shoes on, this is wrong I see more damage done by try to force a shoe to stay on compared to trimming the horse correctly to reduce the chances of a shoe coming off.

I hate coming to horses where the client says oh my farrier can keep the shoes on 8 weeks. This is really bad for the horse both in body issues and bad for the hoof capsule.

Pete Ramey and Mr. Yark have come from the non scientific side of horseshoeing and have run with very limited research of just the hoof and not the rest of the horse.

The two main problem researchers are Michael Savaldi and Bob Bowker, both have taken the hoof care world down the wrong path.

Just got to watch Mitch Taylors little video you put in your post.

There are a few things he says that are useful, like the fact that the majority of the trade has not kept up their skills.

He talked about horseshoeing competitions being the best way to improve horse shoeing, this is wrong as the ideas of what is a good shoeing job is too much about looks not about the real hoof under that shoe.

Mitch runs a school down in Kentucky but the work done there appears to be the same old farrier work at most schools and competitions. There should be more inovation and learning.

I think Mitch needs to get out and try some of the new things out there and learn what works and what doesn't

Mitch has forgotten than you will ever learn

chris bunting wrote:


Is that a bad thing or a good thing.

I was just re-reading Doug Butlers PIII on page 43 I think it was it talks about dressing the flares off a hoof to make it look right. We now know that dressing the flares is one of the key causes of flares.

Page 196 talks about horse behaviour but it is very out of date.

Page 607 gives the growth rate of horse hooves as 0.405mm per day for foals and 0.24mm per day approx for an adult horse. Dr. Hampson work shows a growth rate of 1.5mm per day of new hoof. This is similar to Ivy Ramey's carriage horses.

That book has a lot of things that should be forgotten


I am not saying Mitch is bad at what he does, just that the world is moving fast into new science.

In response to your question-no.
They have nothing worthwhile to contribute to anything being barely able to do the work of a first week apprentice.
Sorry folks, I'm not impressed.

I will grant them one thing they have done that's been a positive is they've gotten owners to tighten up on the scheduling a little bit.
Ideally horses should get hoof care about once a month. We really stretch it to the breaking point at 6 weeks. If we tried to do them on a more timely schedule we'd be run out of town on a rail accused of robbing people.

Trimmers incorporated shorter intervals into their extensive line of bull****** and it worked. That's about the only noteworthy accomplishment of any of them though.
George