Cyber Farrier wrote:
I do have a 8 year old daughter to consider; and to be partly private.
being a single mom with such a young daughter; you can't be to careful in to days' world. Jaycee Dugard case is one, and I have had a stalker in the past who like my daughter too much!!!! They are still very much in the area.

You know me and have personally met me at the wellshod clinic last fall. also, many here know and have met me personally.
This has never been a problem until Karen S (a woman!)brought it up.

I apologized for all my short comings; but the safety of my daughter comes first and foremost. That is what a responsible parents do.


To everyone else it was a pleasure to learn from all of you, thank-you for being my farrier buddies. So long for now, I will miss you guys, Linda Marie.
Since you Baron might ban me after this:

The shoeing answer to this particular thread is:
That the COA never changes; but it is relative to the conformation of the horse. That is the answer from a very highly respected farrier.

Cyber Farrier wrote:
I do not appreciate you using my name like that especially since my daughter has been a target of stalking!!!!!! it is why I wanted some privacy.........do you understand!
erase, please..or
if anything happens to my daughter in anyway........ I will use this post in court of law for the endangerment of the child

Look, Linda, I met you, I know you're a nice person, and all that other good stuff. That doesn't exempt you from following the same rules everyone else has to follow. If you don't want to follow them, fine, that's your choice. No one is forcing you.

As to your full, real name, please, who do you think you're kidding? Your full real name is already easily found in lots of places on the net, and regardless of what you may think, it's stored for future access forever, in thousands of search engines. Using an alias in one place and not in others doesn't work.

Your participation is always encouraged. But please adhere to the posting rules.

Thanks,
Baron

Had a go at it again today, horse with old flexor tendon injury is always slightly lame but owner only hacks at a walk out the road twice a week seemed bit better after shoein but always does. was on my own and he constantly lifts his foot so found using rons method very difficult tried holding off f up and leaning over but that was a disaster so used widest part of foot can anyone draw lines on it see was it close to where would be with rons method. do you think i have mechanics correct? would appreiate all constutive criticism given.

this is not Ronald's method, but the way I see it

If he wishes to address your request, that is his choice

sorry if the lines don't do your photo justice," it is left to right"

I think it is a job well done without seeing the old injury

c jay;)

For goodness sakes Linda, your full name, residence and phone number etc are all over the internet because you made it available when you openly ADVERTISED your services. :rolleyes:So get ovet it . If someone wanted to find where you are physically, they could do it in about 30 seconds (actually it took me 10 seconds...without even using the last name...) off of any number of websites.

I suggest if you are that paraniod that you change your name, move, and start over but stay totally off the internet.

That said Linda, the COA does not change in regards to deformity or whatever.The COA is ALWAYS the COA. It is the hoof CAPSULE that can be deformed around it, but I have not yet failed to get very close to locating it even with deformed feet, using the mapping methods I have found to work. Certain outer capsule structures just do not easily lose their relationship to the joint ,while other capsule structures do.

Now ....what the horse does for a living,or his conformation, may indeed dictate what you Do WITH your information about where the COA is once you have found it, but that center of articulation will always be the center of articulation.

A horse can lose the whole hoof capsule and he will still have a COA of the coffin joint unless the coffin bone and short pastern bone fell off too.

AS to discussing in utero ..... I want to see you trim or shoe an in utero fetus.

ladyblacksmith wrote:

I can not believe this. If you actually feel your daughter is in danger, and your not using this as a shameless excuse to make your point, ánd you feel your posting on a public board that as you know in advance has rules for EVERYONE to live by will endanger your child, you should have thought twice. Trying to get both ways, post on this board ánd not follow the clear and obvious rules has backfired already.

If posting here endagers your child (I never realized how dangerous posting here is ) you are the only one to blame for putting your child in harms way. Now my advise would be to get off this board and stay off and attend to your child.


Ronald Aalders

daveyireland wrote:
Looks pretty ok Davey, the pic is not taken straight on though. I remember Patty posting a while back sketches of how to take correct pics for situations like this. Maybe you could post them again and maybe Baron can take care they are easily found on this site. I noticed that a lot of pictures are not taken correctly (while all you need to do is take pics at a straight angle)

I would suggest you take care the roll of the banana is not a really acute one but evenly spread over the entire ground surface of the shoe.


Ronald Aalders

Thanks Ron for taking the time to answer me I greatly appreciate it, i'l remember that next time and try have better photos next time must bring a camera in future, using phone is very hard to keep straight or to see what ive taken til blown up on the computer.

ladyblacksmith wrote:

That is just silly, very few of us knew anything about you or your daughter's situation until you went off...by the way Patty was right, took a search engine .02 seconds to get your details...sorry

KarenStandefer wrote:
.............because if the full range of articulation is compromised, how can you measure the center? The ball is now in your court.

calshoer wrote:
Patty, Linda already said the same thing. She never said the COA changed. Probably did a poor job getting her point across, but I got it. She is talking about horses with a poor range of motion in the lower joints, loading and impact. Conformation and what the horse does on what footing are important variables for consideration.

Have you never trimmed and shod a horse with no range of motion in the fetlock? What would you do? Please explain to me where the COA is?

It seems to me that regardless of the range of motion, anatomically, the COA remains the same.

For example, using a simple teeter-totter, the 'center of articulation' remains the same regardless of whether or not the teeter-totter goes fully through its movement potential.
Yes I have. But the COA we are discussing is that of the DIPJ, right?Trim and/or shoe the hoof to make breakover(in any direction) as easy as possible. I'd do this by locating the anatomical COA and setting my trimming/shoeing accordingly.Right where it always is, pathology not withstanding.

Rick

Rick Burten wrote:
If you are measuring a static point then yes your assumption would be correct, however when the term Center of articulation is used then I assume we are talking about the range of an articulating surface. Articulation implies movement, what are the two stops front and back. So no it is not the same on all horses, looks good on paper but what is the real range of movement and tolerance? Keep in mind using the COA as a reference that is thrown out to be used for breakover, shoe placement and where to trim the heels and it is is merely a tool and a good tool I might add. Other variables come into play such sole depth, sinking, rotation, impact and load, medial lateral balance, underrun heels, long toe, thickness of the hoof capsule, condition of the frog, digital cushion, bars, joints, quarter cracks, poor hoof pastern alignment, negative palmer angle ................

Pathology not withstanding, what do you mean? Are you saying most of the horses you get under are 100% sound. I don't think so. Nice talking to you Rick.