cattle trim, barefoot wrap and the "good ol boys" of the FRC

especially for horse owners to ask advice, from farriers or from other owners, all welcome, also please post details of lost or stolen horses here
Big Iron
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 3:48 pm

cattle trim, barefoot wrap and the "good ol boys" of the FRC

Postby Big Iron » Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:18 pm

Here is a cracker of a youtube on barefoot cattle trimming,,, and what constitutes a horse shoe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGDDQAk6KGE

Its a longish youtube, but if you skip straight to the 6 minute mark the hoof care dude is applying a dressing for some bacterial / dermatitis type condition. Then he applies a wrap.

It is this type of wrap the "good ol boys" from the FRC are trying to call a shoe, and prevent equine podiatry/barefoot practitioners working in the horse industry. This is a sign the Farriers registration act is not about the welfare of the horse, but about cornering of a market by the good ol boys. F#%K 'em.
Its fairly difficult to start saying a banana is now a pineapple. Similarly it is impossible to call a plastic horse sock a shoe. But the imbeciles are trying.

As an owner of horses, we have the right to care for our horses diligently without being forced to use a particular labour product.

Sincerely,
Big Iron

Cedric
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:25 pm
Location: Lancashire.

Re: cattle trim, barefoot wrap and the "good ol boys" of the

Postby Cedric » Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:37 pm

I fear Big Iron is attempting to mislead you!

The dressing being applied in the video is a bandage (vet wrap) and in no way resembles a 'hoof cast', the subject of the FRC's concerns.

A hoof cast solidifies and encases the hoof capsule, imobilising it. These should only be applied under veterinary supervision and be carefully monitored as they can cause severe damage if used incorrectly.

I am unclear as to his motives but he appears to be advocating that 'barefoot trimmers' be allowed to do what they wish to equines feet without the need for any checks to be made as to their qualifications and any regulation.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Re: cattle trim, barefoot wrap and the "good ol boys" of the

Postby PNB » Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:41 pm

Cedric,

Please where is your evidence??:-

"A hoof cast solidifies and encases the hoof capsule, immobilising it."

Specifically!! your quote:- "immobilising it."

I don't feel it works like this!! Hoof casts provide a flexible prosthesis or flexing secondary hoof capsule, one overlaying a DEGRADED hoof, that is a hoof having an unsatisfactory structure to sustain the horse comfortably. A covering onto which a normal metal shoe can be nailed by a FARRIER. The Cast is a simple first aid measure, a get you out of trouble mechanism invaluable when a horse is in trouble due to acute trauma and or foot pain. When applied as directed by the manufacturer, a great relief from any associated pain is immediately seen, but a shoe?? [??Two shoes on the same foot ??] The outer covering would surely be described as "THE ANIMALS SHOE" but not the secondary base plate . Anyway, a cast has very little benefit to be used as a stand alone on bare feet, it has very limited appeal as a stand alone as it lacks the durability or wear-ability to sustain even any light work and definatly not hard work.

Cedric, what is going down here. Please tell us what this FRC protest is really about. I hope the movements criticism of who can apply a cast is not simply all about, the preventing of bare foot trimmers applying a prosthetic over hoof cover when a horse becomes lame or sore due to the inability of its Hoof Capsules to sustain following work!! This is what it looks like.

Is not Farrier Registration all about Animal Welfare??

PNB.

Big Iron
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 3:48 pm

Re: cattle trim, barefoot wrap and the "good ol boys" of the

Postby Big Iron » Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:58 pm

Dear Horse Owners,


The frc via the writer " cedric" , have been accused me of attempting to mislead you as to the correct identity of poly flex wraps ,,,, or their "sister " type product "hoof casts". For a picture of polyflex wraps please go to :-

http://fightingforthebarefoothorse.com/ ( the campaign by horse owners for horse owners directed at FRC's draconian monopolizing of industry)

on the front page of the website there are 2 pictures of horses modeling the product. This product sets to a semi hard yet flexible consistency that allows hoof distortion during the landing phase, amongst other things.

The hoof cast is more a fibre glass type product that sets harder, as I believe it,, but not completely hard. I'm unfamiliar with the cast product, as I'm quite happy using the polyflex wraps for my needs.

A youtube of one of Uk's more experienced and well known farriers is here applying a cast product,, with a shoe applied also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wS16MV1a-0

The youtube above is but one of a series of 6 videos, in which the farrier describes that he has been waiting for many years for something like this to come along.

The writer cedric has mentioned some claims about the polyflex wrap that are completely un-true from my first hand experience, and attempts to broardcast some political spin about barefooters education standards, and my advocation for such. I'll have "cedric" know I'm a working farrier, will happily apply a shoe if needed. I am barefoot friendly, and have found the poly wraps in-despensible to quickly repair the damage done to horses who have experienced atrophy type issues caused by back to back shoeing over prolonged periods.

Whislt cedric presents his claims, which I consider most dis-ingenuous, I welcome them. If the FRC continues to tell fibs about the barefoot movement, I'm sure the barefoot movement will tell the truth about them.

Sincerely,
Big Iron

Big Iron
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 3:48 pm

Re: cattle trim, barefoot wrap and the "good ol boys" of the

Postby Big Iron » Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:46 pm

Dear Horse Owners,

I welcome Mr PNB's comments previously in this thread of posts. I'm only disappointed in the fact PNB got to comment before I did.

The FRC via cedric took the bait , and commented. Commented spreading dis-information.

The FRC is no-ones friend. I've commented before on these pages they sell their existence on the welfare of the horse. Horse welfare is adequately covered in rspca type legislation. They seek only to serve themselves and monopolise an industry. Never have I seen an attempt by them to embrace revelation in the industry, embrace and welcome advancements to benefit the horse. They, the frc have only worked to cast a net of monopoly, regulation, control and manipulation into horse care. The horse deserves better, horse owners deserve better, farriers deserve fair treatment and far better structured education.

Embracing poly flex wrap is something the frc can do now for horse welfare , to support the untold suffering of thousands of horses that reach older age with feet only as strong as young foals' feet. Instead they have sort to attack the purpose of poly wraps, announced bias word from paid veterinarians as the only truth, and spread dis-information on recent court findings. Again I say, while the frc continue to announce dis-ingenuous comments about poly flex wraps and the barefoot horse industry, the barefoot horse industry will tell the truth about the FRC. Its not a pretty picture for the FRC.

The owners of horses are knocking on the FRC door now to say enough is enough, the FRC care not for the owners of horses, nor do they care for the mighty horse. The frc have the chance to open that door and discuss the future of hoof care, or it looks like they will be ignored and naturally disintegrate into history's dust.

Sincerely,
Big Iron

Cedric
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:25 pm
Location: Lancashire.

Re: cattle trim, barefoot wrap and the "good ol boys" of the

Postby Cedric » Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:29 am

To all who may read these posts - despite Big Irons ramblings and insinuations I would like to state that, apart from being a Registered farrier, I have no connection with the FRC and certainly do not speak on their behalf.

However, I do know that, contary to his statement that the FRC is closed to discussion with the ' Barefoot trimming ' section of our industry, organisations such as LANTRA are attempting to draw up a set of National Vocational Standards to try and include these practitioners. I believe the ultimate aim is to produce a recognised qualification and provide training if required.

Rants about the dissolution of the FRC hark back to historical postings on this board and are fairly pointless unless a viable alternative can be suggested that would protect horse welfare at least as well as that carried out by the FRC. The FRC are charged, under law, to protect horse welfare and compile a Register of Farriers. In these days of advancing technology it is their duty to investigate any techniques and products that might fall within the definitions of the Act.

Big Iron
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 3:48 pm

Re: cattle trim, barefoot wrap and the "good ol boys" of the

Postby Big Iron » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:12 pm

Dear Cedric,

Its nice to see you write something without abusing me but you still insinuate I was born yesterday and I know nothing. Try to be nice. Try to be dignified.

Whilst I may or may not accept your not a formal part of frc. Your still going into bat for them quite a way ( a shill), and I recognize this time you played a back foot defensive block and tried to be half decent. I'm not someone you can scare son.

Still your not getting the point on 2 points
1) The frc have an act of parliament and a regulation on their team,,,, acts of parliament and regulations are civil law. Civil law relate to the law of the sea, and if any land lubber chooses to give them the middle finger they can, and if in court can insist (before proceedings begin) to be heard under common law and correct remedy to be made for any fault. This in fact renders the FRC completely useless. Solicitors do not like common law because it puts them out of a job. All acts and regulations are completely useless unless you agree to it. Interesting hey, to have a trick up the sleeve.!!! But they cannot prove a polyflex wrap is a shoe, so no-ones really worried now.

2) The frc approved the Lantra document, and no one from the barefoot industry gives a stuff if FRC approved it or not, because the frc treat the barefoot industry like aliens, and seek only to disturb the movement. The lantra document might carry some weight if the leaders of the barefoot industry were consulted on it. So lets put the frc barefoot qualification into perspective,,,,, lets put a new roof on your house paint it pink, change the plumbing, re-concrete the driveway uneven and bumpy,,,,, lets get the nasty neighbours to approve it,,, but you can bear the cost.

Further to your comments, The frc have not investigated any new technologies lately, they just try to make sure the monopoly remains in status quo, and a sock looking device that supports an injured / atrophied hoof is :-
1) first aid and
2)also not a horse shoe.

Sincerely,
Big Iron

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Re: cattle trim, barefoot wrap and the "good ol boys" of the

Postby PNB » Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:11 am

Cedric,

Like or not we as farriers must lump it!! So does it matter at law if a cuff is a shoe or not even though no one yet maintains a cuff is a stand alone product or that it enables a horse to do anything other than to not suffer in pain. We must face it the product is not sufficiently durable to enable work, it is a simple get you out of trouble tool, to be used by anybody on any equine [with the consent of the animals owner or owners agent], when something is going or has gone wrong during the processes of the animals lawful foot care or when an injury has otherwise occurred!!

Below is an abstract of the Farriers Registration Act 1975 as amended 1977 which seemingly allows the application of "A Cuff or any Metal Shoe" under circumstances by anyone!!

See Section 1 (i, v) below :-

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section it shall be unlawful

(a) for a person who is not registered in the register to carry out any farriery; or

(b) for a person who is registered in Part III of the register to carry out farriery by way of trade or for reward.

(c) [Repealed by the 1977 Act]

Part 2 of SI 2007/2781 provides exemptions from the above Rules for freedom to provide services on a temporary basis for EEA Nationals.

Provided that this subsection shall not apply to the carrying out of farriery by

(i) a person serving under articles of apprenticeship which satisfy the prescribed terms and conditions, if carried out in the course of his apprenticeship;

(ii) a person attending a course of training approved by the Council under section 11 of this Act conducted at an institution so approved if carried out in the course of his training;

(iii) a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner;

(iv) a person undergoing training as a veterinary surgeon in respect of any farriery carried out by him under the supervision of a veterinary surgeon, veterinary practitioner or a person registered under this Act; or

(v) ""a person rendering first-aid in case of emergency to a horse."" [Comment, this seemingly includes the application of a traditional "HORSE SHOE"!!]

Cedric, Your quote:- "The FRC are charged, under law, to protect horse welfare and compile a Register of Farriers".
I agree with your comment about the obligation of the Council to compile a register.

It is a fact that every UK Citizen is charged to assist Animal Welfare!! when needs be, as section (v) [above] demonstrates, yes the duty of immediate Animal Welfare even extends to being quoted as an exception of a "Written Law" within the Farriers Registration Act !! Yet as the Registration Law is penned, the obligation regarding the duty of Council to " Protect Horse Welfare" is far less clearly stated within our Registration Act.

Cedric, perhaps you would Google "The Farriers Registration Act" and copy the relevant act's section regarding "To Protect Horse Welfare" for us all to see just how you are making your above welfare point!!

PNB.

Cedric
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:25 pm
Location: Lancashire.

Re: cattle trim, barefoot wrap and the "good ol boys" of the

Postby Cedric » Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:10 pm

PNB.

You allude to Section 1 (1,v). This part of the Act is well knew to most relevant persons and I find it perfectly reasonable. I belive it would be up to the horse owner and the person carrying out any farriery under these circumstances to justify the "emergency".

As I understand it, the sticking point is a legal definition as that what constitutes a "horse shoe" and "an act of farriery".

At the moment cuffs, hoof wraps, hoof casts etc. remain undefined and one trusts the relevant authorities are beavering away to resolve the matter.

Whilst anyone, qualified, trained or otherewise is allowed to carry out hoof trimming, it could be argued that the subsequent application of a solid or semi solid covering to the trimmed hoof is in fact a shoe. This would not necesarily have to be capable of wear or work to justify the definition.

One would have thought that proponents of the "barefoot trimming" practitioners would have been anxious to join in the debate instead of calling for the dissolution of the FRC in order to avoid their responsibilities.

Cedric
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:25 pm
Location: Lancashire.

Re: cattle trim, barefoot wrap and the "good ol boys" of the

Postby Cedric » Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:17 pm

To all horse owners.

I would suggest that any owners or barefoot trimmers minded to take Big Iron's advice in para 1/ of his above post use caution.
The term" barrack room lawyer" springs to mind !!!

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Re: cattle trim, barefoot wrap and the "good ol boys" of the

Postby PNB » Sun Nov 18, 2012 5:38 pm

Cedric,

Your quote "At the moment cuffs, hoof wraps, hoof casts etc. remain undefined and one trusts the relevant authorities are beavering away to resolve the matter".

Seems not as they are phrasing their definition presently and bringing forwards summary prosecutions prior then to finalising any definition. One prosecution was recently successful inflicting penalty of £1800 on one poor foot trimmer in North Wales. In the process dragging this man's name down and impinging upon his lawful business!! The other case ["Clare" a contributor to these threads] got kicked out in court as the Clare a professional and practicing overseas Farrier, and UK Hoof trimmer was able to satisfy the magistrates court the act of farriery [fitting and nailing a shoe to a Shire Horse] was in real terms undertaken on animal welfare grounds!!

Is this what you define as, "the relevant authorities are beavering away to resolve the matter".

If what you are saying is creditable, this seems to be a bull headed way of doing it, with the strong use of Gung Ho "Bully Boy Approachs".

Is this how we on the farrier's register like to be treated [I even suggest the word abused].

To my way of thinking and as you raised winding up FRC above, your quote:- "Rants about the dissolution of the FRC hark back to historical postings on this board". As I see it FRC currently serves little worth while purpose, disbanding it would take the brake off some future horse welfare developments within Farriery. The way the governing body are treating us as an industry by not listening, well its actually two lawful industries!! farriery/foot trimmers!! seems to have considerable deficiencies.

PNB.


Return to “horseowners discussion board”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest