Document submitted to FRC. Regulation of bare foot trimmers.

For farriers to raise concerns with elected Farriers Registration Council representative Peter Baker. Anonymous postings will be deleted.
PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Document submitted to FRC. Regulation of bare foot trimmers.

Postby PNB » Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:02 am

Regulation of Bare Foot Trimming. FRC meeting October 2006.

Foreword by Peter Baker AWCF, elected farrier, FRC.

This report was requested by Farriers Registration Council on the 14th June 2006. I had proposed at the meeting that the farrier members of Council prepare a report but this did not seem to be taken up and it was left to me. I have compiled the report utilising the expertise of the UKHSU, the independent national farriers association and its associates.

In broad terms this report is constructed in accordance with the conclusions drawn at FRC on the 14th June 2006.

Introduction

Horses hooves are fitted with shoes to prevent them wearing down. Excessive wear results in discomfort and lameness. Shoes are usually only necessary for horses which work on roads. Hard roads have an abrasive effect upon the softer horn of which the hoof is composed. Young horses, horses kept for breeding and retired horses usually do not wear shoes unless they have particular problems. Horses which are worked only lightly or worked off roads also often are unshod. Farriers are very competent in trimming [something they undertake on every horse they work with, trimming when shoeing] and when maintaining unshod feet. Trimming is an integral part of a farriers work and is also fairly profitable compared with shoeing as it is relatively quick and easy to do. Hoof trimmers are a fairly new development. They are a small and very disparate collection of people with limited training and limited skills. It remains to be seen whether they will develop into a sustainable profession, this seems doubtful; as compared with farriers they have a very limited capability, being essentially farriers who can't shoe horses.

Hoof trimmers at present seem to prey upon the less knowledgeable horse owners by promoting the idea that horses do not need shoes and that farriers are taking them for a ride. Trimmers seem to charge more than farriers and they have a widespread reputation for making horses lame by their actions. There have been several prosecutions for cruelty involving hoof trimmers.

Categories of hoof trimming

Three divisions of the subject have been proposed.

Division 1. MINIMAL MAINTAINANCE regards the simple and superficial removal of rough and overgrown edges of the hoof, which was agreed at council as not needing regulation.

Division 2. COMPLEX SITUATIONS regards the trimming of animal's feet which due to disease or neglect have left the hoof capsule traumatised and the animal suffering distress. It is suggested following the recent judges decision that this type of condition now falls within the remit of the veterinary surgeons control and any remedial trimming by virtue of this recent CASE LAW should be viewed in the light of it being a permitted act of veterinary surgery. Abuses of the care of an animal suffering in this way are well covered by the new animal welfare acts both English and Scottish are regulated and prosecuted by animal welfare agencies other than the FRC.

Division 3. BARE FOOT MAINTAINANCE, We now need to consider the middle ground - this is a some what grey area.

3 (a). Animals that are worked bare foot. These it is felt self regulate their feet, no matter what any foot trimmer does; the natural wear of equine feet will to a large extent regulate its own hoof wear to meet its own environmental and physiological needs. This type of animal falls within the definition of division one, (minimal maintenance), thus it would be difficult to justify formal regulation.

3 (b). Stud Farms. Young Stock and Breeding Equines.

Animals whose bodies are still developing and not fully mature, [the way these feet are trimmed have a physiological effect], and mature breeding stock which due to the passage of time have become damaged. These types of equines fall with in the valuable / commercial area; as such it would be difficult to see how any commercial breeder would employ an itinerant foot trimmer, if it was to happen without doubt supervision would be effected by a veterinary practitioner [Division Two] as is now the case internationally with stud work, additional regulation would then seem unnecessary and as was suggested at council may even create a niche demand.

Conclusion.

Hoof trimmers may well be manifestations of a fad which is unlikely to persist.

The role of owners has not been considered so far. Most horse owners are sensible people who know whether their horses are comfortable or not and who will have shoes fitted when it is to the benefit of their horses but who are not likely to have horses shod unnecessarily.

The future may well involve horses no longer being shod with steel shoes and nails, and it seems inevitable that eventually glued on synthetic shoes will take over - this will present a new set of problems when it comes to regulation. However at present these methods are expensive and not robust enough for everyday use.

It has been suggested that hoof trimmers should be properly trained in order to prevent unnecessary suffering to horses. However as they all seem to have different philosophies and methods it would be difficult to set up a training programme that would accommodate all of them.

Would it be possible to separate farriery qualifications into two stages?
an initial qualification for trimming and a further qualification for shoeing?

In any group of horses there are likely to be some who need trimming and some who need shoeing at some stage of their lives. The knowledge and skills required are much the same. Any trimmer will encounter problems where horses are footsore and need shoes. It would not we suggest be a good idea to produce trimmers who cannot shoe.

It has been suggested that there is a need for research to demonstrate whether it is practical to work horses without shoes. It is unlikely that any scientific evidence would sway the barefoot enthusiasts. Furthermore there are welfare implications in these experiments if horses are going to be worked to the point of lameness. It is self evident that when horse’s hooves wear down excessively the horse will become footsore, this is the whole rationale behind shoeing which has been practised for 2000 years for this exact reason.

A practical approach might be to create the position of a Farrier Assistant, something which many farriers have suggested, whereby an assistant would be able to carry out hoof maintenance and shoeing preparation. Either the Act could be AMMENDED to allow assistants to perform certain acts of farriery, which is suggest to be not necessary, risky and probably not a good idea, or assistants could stop short of undertaking UK defined “Acts of Farriery” [Farriers Registration Bills 1975 / 77], their duties carried out under the supervision of a qualified Farrier.

The problem is that what is an act of farriery is unclear. The FRC at present take a very inflexible interpretation of the law. It might be better to take a more lenient interpretation so that removing of shoes, preliminary trimming, shoe manufacture, shoe preparation and initial fitting can be accepted as not being acts of farriery, in accord with what is suggested was within the word and spirit of the registration bills. [Any action similar to this should include caution as it may well have / will have an effect on the need for and even reduce the gross costs of apprentice training, good or bad??. [Explanation requires a separate paper]].

[A thought. Very careful consideration of this matter needs to be given, due to the EU non-uniformity of what is an act of farriery. The UK is ruled by EU law, and in several areas of the EU [arid areas, areas of preponderance of barefoot use], when foot trimming is the greater part of the act of hoof maintenance / farriery carried out on equine hooves. This could complicate the EU directives regarding the 2year / 6 year rules of entry onto our register].

It is hard to make any sensible case for and it may even be dangerous to institute any formal statutory control of foot trimmers within UK farrier / veterinary legislation.

UKHSU July 2006

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:42 pm

dr strasser acknowledges the process causes inflamation ,open wounds and natural abscecesses saying"for most horses the transition from shod to barefoot means some amount of stress and discomfort"(quote horse and hound 13 june)WHAT ALOAD OF F*****G B*****S this is depremental to equines when is someone high up going to point this out and stand there ground instead of even listening to this crap

Chris Linssner
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:25 pm

Postby Chris Linssner » Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:27 pm

Peter
As you say,I do not think any amount of research will satisfy the barefoot brigade. They are almost evangelical in their thinking.
Why do they think a horse has to suffer to improve its feet? Would a qualified farrier be able to get away with laming their clients horses time after time and even open the hooves out to expose the sensitive structures all in the act of improving them?
If they should have training, it should be the same as an apprentice farrier and be a sustantial course. Perhaps running alongside a qualified farrier working as a helper as you suggest for a couple of years but I do not think these foot trimmers would accept anything more than a two week course to learn their particular brand of cruelty. Maybe that would be the end of them if they had to do a serious amount of real training.
A lot to think about

cliff barnes
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:24 pm

Postby cliff barnes » Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:50 am

To All

Just to clarify the reasons and need for the scientific research that was proposed at the last FRC meeting.

The only way that Whitehall and this government (or any other eu regulatary body) will even contemplate a change to the ACT is through a documented scientific reaserch paper that they can understand... With that in hand and a sympathetic MP we may sometime in the next millenium get some parlimentary time to alter the act accordingly.

We already know that even DEFRA (that great and wonderous goverment funded body) are struggling to get parlimentary time for the new vets act.

Yes we need an update, Iam right behind anyone and everyone who wants this cruelty to end.....BUT and it is a big BUT we have to realise that this all may just be a fad that runs its course long before we get to government with it... this but does not mean we should faulter half way there, We need to go all the way with it, just remeber this is going to be very long job which we need to sell to non horsey types who do not undestand....!


Cliff

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:14 am

Cliff,

I hear what you are saying, but will a government act solve the problem?? Bare foot use is great and by its very nature does not require a professional barefoot trimmer other than for rough edges. To change the act could be extremely dangerous and would give carte blanch for every bare foot trimmer et-al in the world to to table amendment's, my fear would be we could loose the very good bits of the registration act in an attempt to patch over minor cracks that with flexibility and nous and an absence prior agendas are insignificant in the big picture of things.

In the short term its down to you, the craft it has been declared by the dreaded "DEFRA" will have its way. THE CURRENT PROBLEM!! for the CRAFT is getting its say.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:05 pm

All, it may be a very good idea for every farrier to display a LARGE notice in the back of their truck to all horse owners regarding the true pitfalls of using a barefoot trimmer.
A notice could look like this:
BEWARE OF BAREFOOT TRIMMERS

Any qualifications gained by barefoot trimmers are not recognised in this country by any governing body.

Any qualification gained by these people have all been verified by an internal examiner. Where as a registered farrier is examined by all external examiners, which includes a veterinary surgeon.

Barefoot trimmers have no governing body to answer to, and you the horse owner have no one to complain to, if things go wrong. All farriers are answerable to the Farriers Registration Council their governing body.

By using a barefoot trimmer, you have automatically sacked your farrier, who is registered with the Farriers Registration Council and qualified to trim or shoe your horse’s feet. If things don’t work out and your horse needs shoes back on, the chances are you will have to start looking for another farrier.

When these people mention that it is not natural to shoe horse’s, remember that it is not natural to Feed, Ride, Groom, Trim any horse on this planet.

Farriers prices are far cheaper than BAREFOOT TRIMMERS

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

barefoot trimmers.

Postby Giles » Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:12 am

John,
I will go with that with probably some minor amendments. About time owners were given the true facts, and this seems one way to do it.

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:34 am

so john where do they get their insurence from and to what extent is there liability

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:53 pm

Craig, I didn’t mention insurance because there are many farriers who are not insured. This may seem to you as crazy but it is a fact, and this is another area that the FRC don’t check up on.
Also I only have the facts that I know, printed on my notice in the back of my van.

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Amature foot trimmers

Postby Giles » Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:11 am

John,
I am sure what you say about insurance is true, BUT at least farriers can get it when I am sure that foot trimmers can't. That surely must be a plus.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

The secretary of FRC feels farriers may not support this.

Postby PNB » Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:40 pm

Fellow Farriers,

MWN Quote, "Thank you for your paper on barefoot trimming.---------. It is a pity you were not able to get other farrier members to agree a common line, as this would have given the views expressed far more credibility".

The question I ask is we were told by MWN that this initiative had to come from out side of Council [in this instance UKHSU and one of your elected representatives] to be credible, I am now perplexed.

The simple fact is apart from the farrier chair of FRC no other FRC member has seen an official copy of the paper, in fact one view was offered but declined!! so it was not a case of NOT BEING "ABLE TO GET !!".

If any of the craft wish to post a comment here I will down load the comment to MWN. better still email it to:- pnbaker@tiscali.co.uk

PNB.

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 8:32 pm

Postby admin » Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:49 pm

Does anyone care what an employee of the FRC thinks, did anyone ask his opinion? You were asked to produce a report and you did, a very thorough one, well done.

Chris Linssner
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:25 pm

Postby Chris Linssner » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:42 pm

Peter

I have been looking for Strasser type of info regarding barefoot trimmers being taken to court.
It seems to me that the trimmers seem to leave court with nothing more than a telling off for not calling a vet when the horse in their care obviously needed veterinary attention. Regardless of the fact that they had caused the poor animals suffering in the first place

I am looking at the Horse & Hound of 13 July and there is a case of a strasser trimmer who caused the death of a horse through using the srasser method. The verdict was referred until 26 July and unfortunately I have been unable to find how the woman was charged. The "trimmer" was called Kowalski and if anyone has any info regarding the outcome of this case then I would be interested to hear it.
In the same paper there is a case of neglect by tethering a horse to a chain which had cut into the neck and the injuries had been ignored by the owner. He was charged with cruely tethering and failing to call a vet.
He just escaped jail and received a four month suspended sentence and given a 300 hour community punishment order and has to pay £2500 in court costs.
Does anyone have the results of a strasser court case to compare how the punishment is not fitting the crime.

I was talking with a farrier colleague who had been to see strasser at work on her own farm and he counted thirty horses led on their sides in too much discomfort to stand.
The next time I am at a horse event and get collared by a Bare foot trim evangelist, telling me how farriers should have a more open eyed and scientific approach to trimming, I might just strike them

Chris Linssner

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Strasser

Postby Giles » Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:02 pm

Chris,
I think you will find the results of these butchers on my site.

Giles

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:13 pm

Chris, if you read all the report in the Horse & Hound of the case heard on the Strasser trimmer. You will note that the Judge has adjourned sentencing until the 30th August 2006. We will have to wait and see how harsh or mild the Judge treats this case, before we start shouting.

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Strasser

Postby Giles » Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:48 pm

John,
There was a previous case, and the results are on my site. By the way where is this farm of Strasser's, is it in the UK ?

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:18 am

Chris,

The UKHSU opening report [ of this thread ] was part of the background documentation of the case you refer to. [Kowolski].

We are informed that a correction needs to be made, the decision in a previous case involving an Ophthalmic Surgeon is in fact not CASE LAW as it was decided in a MAGISTRATES COURT. The second case [Kololski] which it is understood went into a second week was heard before a stipendiary magistrate so even now this outcome / decision will / may not it seems become "CASE LAW".

The RSPCA are hot on the heels of Strasser, in fact it is understand STRASSER was herself a witness in the first case, which was an emotional event.

UKHSU Press Office.

Chris Linssner
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:25 pm

Postby Chris Linssner » Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:56 pm

Thanks for the replies.
Strasser has her farm in Germany somewhere.

Have you heard that Ivon Bell has died this Monday. A notice was put on the NAFBAE forum tonight.
Very sad news.
Chris

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:57 pm

Chris,

That's awful.

PNB.

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Ivvon Bell

Postby Giles » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:07 am

What was his age ? he couldn't have been mutch over 50 I would have thought.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:12 pm

Chris,

There seems to be some sort of mix up, the case I refered to as K------, is being heard in Wantage, FRC tell ue the Kowolski case is being heard in Ipswich!! and it is before a Judge!!

PNB.

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Ivon Bell

Postby Giles » Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:55 pm

I had a phone call from an ex veterinary corps member who said that Ivan was only 47. Far too young, what a waste of tallent

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:23 pm

It is with deep regret to inform you all that Ivan Bell FWCF fondly known as Dinger Bell, was suffering from a life threatening cancer disease. He had been very ill for the past 18 months, and must have been at a very low ebb, when he took his own life. No news yet of a date for the funeral.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:39 am

Strasser Cases.

There seems there are a least two cases currently going through process. Kowolski [Ipswich] which has been proven and sentence is awaited.

It has been established that the other case [Wantage] Hobsley [Horse Owner] and Clarke[Strasser Trimmer] is about to go into its third week. It seems the thrust of the case is Clarke is charged with defective, neglectful practice and causing unnecessary suffering to a chronic laminitic [ subsequently destroyed] as well as two other animals. The owner Hobsley is accused of aiding and abetting Clarke.

Both cases are being or were heard before District Judges [Stipendiary Magistrates] and may well fall short of becoming case law. The opening paper of this thread formed a background document in this case not as previously reported the Kowolski trial.

The RSPCA are heavily involved in both hearings.

PNB.

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 8:32 pm

Postby admin » Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:15 pm

Today Jo Kowalski was sentenced at Ipswich Magistrates Court. This was following an earlier hearing when she was found guilty of 2 charges of cruelty.
She was ordered to pay £10,000 towards costs, subject to 100 hours community punishment order, and banned from keeping horses for 12 months.
It doesn't quite finish there though, she has 21 days in which to lodge an appeal to this.
If anybody is interested, then you can view the footage of the very lame pony "Brambles" on the ILPH website http://www.ilph.org/ukoperations_details.asp?id=660.
Last edited by admin on Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:16 am

Admin,

If an appeal takes place before a JUDGE does it then become CASE LAW??

PNB.

cliff barnes
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:24 pm

Postby cliff barnes » Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:02 am

12 months ban on owning horses is not long enough, she should have a lifetime ban for the cruelty she inflicted..

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:51 pm

Cliff,

Do you not feel this lady had become a victim of the cult Strasser and believed that what she had been told, / taught / paid a lot to learn!! was in fact normal good practice ??

Poor education is at the root of this, are there any courses being run like night schools regarding common sense approaches to animal care and welfare?? In the equine field, the old horsemen that were once found in every village, who were the ones that once would have helped are now all but gone. So today where do airy fairy horse owners turn for welfare guidance other than from hyper expensive veterinary practices or reading about new FADS in equine magazines?? The very same documents which seem to need to vent extreems giving undue licence to crackpot theories. Does the central administration of FARRIERY now need to play a role in public education and even rebut such nonsenses at the time??

Its pathetic really that these cultish fads can over rule common sense, it is simple really, IF A HORSE IS IN PAIN SOMETHING IS WRONG!! Further more if after basic care efforts the animal is still hurting something being DONE to try and rectify the situation IS WRONG.

The 12 month sentence doesn't seem a lot but I bet once this poor soul realises the causing of unnecessary suffering she was convicted for, then she has to find the £10k prosecution costs to say nothing of her own legal team expensises [probably 10 times the costs awarded], she will be feeling pretty bad about life, the reality of what has happened will no doubt strike home in due course, no doubt it will!! Our laws patently appear to considered / imply she had been duped into treating unacceptable suffering as natural.

PNB.

Sorry Giles, re read and extended my comment after your response!!
Last edited by PNB on Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Strasser

Postby Giles » Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:19 pm

Perhaps she should take Hiltrud Strasser to court and claim damages, I would have

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:42 am

Giles,

You are right the root theorist of this evil has not yet been called to account.

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:53 am

Giles,

Watched the ILPH video, saw Brambles trot up after treatment, seems to demonstrate a comfortable fairly viable pony.

PNB.

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Strasser

Postby Giles » Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:07 am

Peter,
On my forum I have a link straight to the video

cliff barnes
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:24 pm

Postby cliff barnes » Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:42 am

Peter

you have just questioned wether this last prosocution was some one other than the lady in questions fault... so is Strasser at fault for offering these people some ideal that is proving inefective, apart from the suffering which seems to becoming more common, or are the people who apply the system so inexperienced and TOTTALY blinkered that they are becoming dangerous to animal welfare.... some of the ideas that strasser pushes are interesting and may have a place in the equine world, the same as so many other ideas suggestions and practices. time will tell.

At what point does it go wrong..?

Selling this to those who are looking for the next FAD is where it needs to be stopped. The problem you will always have is the few who believe it and are suckered into these wonderfull sounding ideals will be DANGEROUS....! this is proved by this case...the lady in question thought, THOUGHT she was doing the right thing.... one pony has recoverd others i believe had to be destroyed...

We all know that these fads will come and go, Lets face it the way we shoe horses has changed so much in the last 100 yrs, we have to progress and look for different solutions to an age old problem, people want to ride or use the equine, the feet do not always stand up to that use and in the majority of cases need some assistance to cope with that ussage.

Cliff

PS just a teaser for you Peter to ponder....? why does Strasser go to public rather than the trade ? does she know that there are flaws in her system that we will see through or does she just want to become wealthy through the un-informed......

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:29 am

All,

An interview of Miles Williason-Noble seemingly quotes in the Horse and Hound that Jo Kowalski is to appeal against her conviction for trimming a pony using the Strasser method, which caused the pony to unnecessarly suffer and led to Brambles being destroyed.

So hopeful the Strasser method and its effects will be examined by a Judge and some case LAW will fall out.

In the article seemingly which quotes Williamson-Noble secretary of The Farriers Registration Council, he seems to make a case for statutory regulation a hoof trimmers a matter under discussion by FRC. Noble is reported to further state, "Anyone that takes a sound horse and trims its feet until it is in extreme pain is not concerned with that horse's welfare", something that no one could take issue with. I ask were not both the Kowalski and Dean ponies [quoted cases] Chronic Laminitis sufferers to start with!! and the actions taken by the Strasser trimmers simply a misguided uninformed act??

Strasser stated according to the article, there was nothing to show trimming was excessive, Brambles hooves had "a good trim". Video evidence on the ILPH web site demonstrates following traditional farriery Brambles returned to a state of soundness being able to trot up sound before being destroyed.

PNB.

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

STRASSER 2

Postby Giles » Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:44 am

This a posting that I have put up on my site, and I though I would post it here as well

Giles

I don’t know if it because of my age that I have noticed this, but I find some of the justification for bringing the case against both Strasser trimmers to be seemingly contrived somewhat. I do not hold with Hiltrude Strassers original thinking in any way, but that which has copied from old text books has a lot of merit and would have been common knowledge 50 years ago, when every other person had a good knowledge of horse management and there were experts available to all without cost. Cases of Laminitis were very uncommon when I was a boy, and right up until I was in my 30’s. Every one knew about it and what to do to prevent it and Farriers had the knowledge to treat it if it came to their notice, ( not a Vet you may also notice, It wasn’t under the their remit as drugs were not involved as there wasn’t any ).

The Strasser so called trim is something you take on at your and your NORMAL animals peril, but these last 2 cases have been against trims that have been applied to horses with Laminitis. The Strasser trim in these cases is exactly like the trim advocated for Laminitic cases apart from that which has been applied to the toe area in the days before Egg Bar shoes and more importantly Heart Bar shoes, and I might add it worked as much and as well as the more modern methods that is now applied, but was only advocated for Laminitic cases. If the amount of de-rotation of the pedal bone (P3) was not enough then a graduated seated out shoe was applied, thick at the toe and thin at the heel with a rolled toe or a reversed shoe, not seated on the wall or sole in the toe area. Look at your old books, I’m sure that some of you have them about. This method did and of course still does work.

The trouble with the Strasser doctrine is that it does not take into account the modern progress in pain killing drugs, and though the treatment is one of the correct ones to apply for the condition, it was only applied by accident, and the easing of the pain involved in a case of laminitis, either old fashioned or new was not carried out. In the video they state that there was nothing to take off the foot, WHY SHOULD THERE HAVE BEEN IN A CORRECTLY APPLIED TRIM ? The horse was asked to walk on a concrete floor with no protection such as pads, shoes etc, no wonder it was in pain. In the second clip of the video I would have expected this much improvement in a few days, even more so with modern drugs. With this amount of improvement WHY WAS THEN PONY PUT DOWN ? The statement that there was damage to the bones in the foot does not hold water, most of us have had pony’s and horses with this condition that have gone on to lead useful lives in spite of it.

So the only charge I can see that holds water is that not that pain was caused to the pony, BUT that the pain was not alleviated by drugs and pads etc due to that lack of expertise and knowledge This whole video and indeed the case seems to me to be a propaganda exercise by Vets, The RSPCA and the ILPH. The sentence was undoubtedly justified in my opinion, but not at the expense of being charged with the wrong crime. By the way the statement made to the Horse and Hound magazine by our secretary should not have been made by some one who was not a Farrier or in fact a Vet and holds very little expertise in the craft or profession. If we are going to challenge any of these fad type groupies out there then let us at least get our facts right

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:13 am

Giles,

Well put, I find the reversed , open toe bar shoe for laminitis an excellent tool, extremely cheap the cost of a remove and re set, it is both simple, efficient, requires very little pain killing drug therapy after the the first couple of days and then only some form maybe a vaso dilator, Eustace I understand utilises ACP for this purpose.

I will endorse this method as it is the one I personally have had near to 100% success with,[ obviously working in conjunction with the relevant Veterinary Practice], the chronic laminitic's that have died were complicated with pituitary cancer and it was the cancer that killed them not the laminitis, and for all intents and purposes they all were paddock sound and some were able to undertake light work.

I do have a problem why what appears to be a sound viable pony was [Brambles] was destroyed haveing been treated and visible successfully repaired for what was it after 4 months of traditional treatment, I suppose there was probably a lot more to it the meets the eye and just maybe the outcome of the treatment was a little less sucessfull than described on the ILPH web site.

PNB.

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 8:32 pm

Postby admin » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:19 pm

In the latest case at Wantage the defendants were found guilty and banned from keeping horses for 3 years, but the horses concerned have been returned to the owners by the judge! The owners are not allowed to keep them themselves but are going to stay with wacky vet Chris Day.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:59 am

Cliff,

You make the following statement in your above posting, I ask on what evidence do you base this analogy??

Your Quote, "Lets face it the way we shoe horses has changed so much in the last 100 yrs, we have to progress."

As an indicator of why I ask, I went through my old stock a few weeks back with two other old timers and turned up a some old "BAKER TRADITIONAL" front shoes, probably 40 years old. I noticed their form, the nail holes were uncompleted and the shoes were unclipped.

"The Shape??" in my early days I spent hours making "Baker's Traditional" rounder as they were considered too narrow and straight through the quarters then for their length, the heels were to upright. Amazing isn't it the shape they were and probably had been made that way for many years is the optimum shape save for a "Safe and Back Box" that we strive to obtain in order to keep horses sound today!!

PNB.

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

New methods

Postby Giles » Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:28 am

Cliff,
I am still trying to figure out what has changed in traditional shoeing in the last 100 years apart from some obscure fads that have been taken up, and didn’t work then but have been resurrected to bolster some ones ego. Even then they are not under 100 years old, I have probably missed something so tell us what are these new methods that you evidently practice Cliff ? I have been around 75 years this December and shoes and fitting are still the same as far as I have been able to observe.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:36 pm

Giles, what has change is the cross breeding of horse’s by amateurs. Years ago we had horseman breeding horses, but not today. This has put a whole different concept into the way we shoe the horse today. It is my belief that farriers have to be better at forging and fabrication than before, due to the many variations in conformation. Machine made shoes may be far better than years ago, but that brings it’s problems as farriers now forget that it is just a piece of bent steel, and tend to do as little as possible to it when fitting it to the foot. This in turn can result in many horse’s not being given the support that is required for some very bent joints and limbs above the hoof capsule. So I would agree with Cliff that things have changed, but not always for the better.

Chris Linssner
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:25 pm

Postby Chris Linssner » Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:07 pm

Peter

I personally think the reverse shoe is a pretty foul way to shoe a foot.
It offers no support for a laminitic anywhere, except as an open bar shoe of sorts, but why would it need that?
The heels, which are now the toes, can find no where to sit unless it is either in the extended laminar wedge (which should not be there) or they dig into the already stressed sole. The only time I have seen a pony shod in this style it was lame as a cat because of it.
You say using this style of shoeing you get ponies which are paddock sound and able to do light work. I think you might get better results if you tried some of the more recent techniques that are on the market.
Things have changed in the last 100 years especially for the laminitic. This type of shoe sets us back 100 years.
The farriers and horsemen of the early last century were real experts at keeping horses on the road. They had to. Most of this horse knowledge was lost after the last war when the said war actually pushed mechanisation as the modern way forward leaving horses to the few hunts that were around as their numbers dwindled across the country.
The written knowledge was anecdotal and self assessed and the author would have had to pay for his books to be printed.

I know Giles berates the "modern" usage of Natural Balance shoes, sometimes called the Fitzwigram shoe. It is only called a Fitzwigram shoe because of copyright. If you study the two you will see that while there are some similarities there are also some very subtle differences.
I am not the best defender of Natural Balance shoes but you cannot deny their place in todays horseshoeing.
Have you ever met Dr Robert Bowker or Gene Ovnicek? I have and you cannot just cast aside the thousands of work hours these two guys have put in to studying hooves. Their work has been massive and the information gained has been invaluable in the understanding of laminitis.
How about the use of Acrylics? An invaluable accesory to any farriers van.
Have you tried the new generation of Aluminium shoes on the market. The farriers of days gone past would have loved the strength of our modern varients.
Look in any farriers van for inovation and modern styles.
Things have changed mightily. Perhaps you can look at the soundness of horses as a gauge of how things can progress. Yes we have lots still to learn but I would sooner look forward than keep my head in the past.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:11 pm

Chris,

It is sad that you have had only a limited experience of the reversed shoe to relieve pain it has massive benifits in many cases. The NB system has its place no doubt, but it is very expensive and high maintenance and I found by itself didn't immediately relieve the pain associated with a laminitic crises.

One case that I had go wrong was down to me and was due to over zealous nail placement [stamping extra nail holes] which proved an erroneous matter as it allowed nailing to close to the toe area and close to traumatised horn, which the pony didn't like at all. This particular pony had suffered laminitis for over a decade and kept in work without NB shoes for that decade however.

As a result of this failure and that is what it was, I find it is absolutely critical to the success of the reverse shoe in laminitis that the shoe is attached with nails only at or behind the widest part of the foot. Yes the heels will dig in but only after several weeks and when they have grown off of the wall across the sole, the same as with any other shoe which ever way round they are fitted.

The NB shoe looks pretty sick after several weeks on the foot just the same, and the square toe across the the forward edge of the sole is not without its problems.

PNB.

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 8:32 pm

Postby admin » Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:37 pm

Chris, the ends of a reverse shoe should be fitted to the hoof wall. If they cover the sole at all they should be seated out. They can be fitted full to the outside of the wall so as not to cover the sole if desired. They can also be glued on. They support the back of the hoof while not interfering with a dropped sole. They are not anything magical, but they can help to make a horse more comfortable.

I have a report concerning the Wantage case, or it says here Oxford:

"Cruelty by wife of Government Advisor"

Horses seized in immense pain from multimillionaires wife who knows more about hoof care than vets and farriers! supported by homeopathic vet who was incapable of keeping proper records.

One had to be humanely destroyed on arrival and two others seized in terrible pain, due to Strasser method and total lack of pain relief. Destroyed horse was virtually walking on its pedal bones!

Co defendants were Clare Hobsley of Oxford and Kathy Clark, foot trimmer of Hitchin. Clare Hobsley's husband is Dr Jonathan Frost, Director of Johnson Mathey Fuel Cells, Reading.

In Judge Brian Loosleys damming report he stated that Hobsley was of the opinion that she knew better than the vets etc and chose to use her breathing technique as a treatment.

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

New Techniques

Postby Giles » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:47 am

John,
I disagree with your statement about forging, I always made my own shoes and never used ready made, having said that in my youth all other farriers made their own shoes, so forging was a matter of course to ALL farriers, and not a problem that you seem to find these days, but that’s just down to training and practiced.

As regards deformities etc, we had them then, not as many perhaps but what there was had to be shod and treated. So I still contend that there is nothing new, shoes are shoes and feet are feet. Each style of shoe had and has its own fitting and still does with slight variations depending on the individual farriers preferences.

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Improvements !!!!!

Postby Giles » Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:26 am

Chris,
Of course there are some differences in the fitzwygram and the unnatural Balance shoe. but that is to be expected as is the difference between my hunter shoe and yours, that statement is just nit picking.

I have not met Dr. Bowker but I have met Gene Ovnicek a couple of times and I must say the his statement that the shoe was like this because that is the way the foot was worn when in use does not hold water. Rather akin to recommending worn out tyres on your car because that is the way the are worn. I and I am sure others will take exception to your statement that seemingly they and only they have spent thousands of hours studying the horses hoof. Perhaps you don’t know that there are plenty of Farriers in the UK who have spent as much if not more time researching the horses hoof, and a lot of us have come to the conclusion that the theories espoused by these people does not hold water.

Apart from plastics aluminium has been in use for a hundred years or so and is used as per a steel shoe which replaced an iron shoe so apart from materials the methodology and fitting taking into account personal preferences is the same now in general to what it always has been for 100’s of years.

yes plastics and fillers are new, BUT they are not shoes and only an aid to farriery. You obviously have a different take on modern soundness to what I have. As a young Farrier in training I did not see a lame horse more than once a year, and I might add these horses worked damn hard for there living, not like these days. Though I knew about Laminitis as we all did, I personally did not see a case until the mid nineteen sixties. There was not that many lame horses about as until the new breeds of horses being used for what they patently were unsuited for by ignorant owners came along and caused the condition along with others like arthritis. So as a gauge I would say that the improvements as you see them has not improved matters, quite the contrary. A psuedo step forward is worth nothing unless it can be justified with proof is worth nothing.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:10 pm

Giles, I made shoes every day like you, and still make about five sets a week now. You missed my point that many farriers now don’t want to make shoes, and therefore loose the art to even adjust the machine shoes to the individual horse’s conformation. Also in your last posting to Chris you seem to have contradicted yourself, by saying there are more horses lame today than in your younger day. Surely if good foot dressing was done and shoes were fitted correctly, for the individual horse’s conformation this would not be the case?

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Wrong horse Wrong job.

Postby Giles » Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:35 pm

John,
Good shoes and dressing is not the be all and end all. Breeding and use of the animal for what it is suited for is the main problem. For instance Warm Bloods are in fact part and some cases half cart horses who's bone density does not stand up to fast work, and that is only one thing. These horses were bred without thought to the conformation of the foot, then we have joints of low desity bone with conformation not made for any athletic movements and we ave big, big trouble. Then we have people comming along with fad shoes and methods to cure something that is in the breed, with in fact over time no hopes of a cure. Though we have graduate farriers riding around in vans with surgical farrier painted on the side and what is though as a panicure for all ills in the back.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:45 pm

I will agree with that Giles, especially with your last paragraph. But our job as farriers is to get maximum mobility from the horse we are working under, regardless of the problems in conformation. If we retired or shot most of them we would have very little work to do these days. Therefore in some ways shoeing the horse has taken on a much different dimension than years ago.

Chris Linssner
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:25 pm

Postby Chris Linssner » Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:13 pm

Giles
You are missing my point.
I only used the two named gentlemen as an example to show that things have changed over the last 100 years and continue to evolve as new techniques are studied. of course there are hundreds of other people studying feet every day but I do not see anyone coming forward with fresh research or evidence to prove that Natural Balance is a bad style of shoeing. Especially for laminitics. Only anecdotal.
Giles, it was you who said in previous postings that the Natural Balance shoe was just a re-invented Fitzwigram shoe and yes, that was just nit picking.
Your analogy about used car tyres was wrong. Fresh or new tyres work at their best when new and fully in contact with the road. You yourself must accept the difference between a brand new pair of brogues and your old comfy pair of shoes that you replace only when fully worn out.

I fully agree with John that the horses we see today are badly bred with no forthought to conformation and this has been a farriers lament since I can remember. It is something we have to work with but it does'nt make the job any easier.

Peter
I still have trouble trying to understand why an open toed shoe would have more benefit than a full bar shoe. You are going to have to try harder on selling me that one. Other than a fitting guide I want to understand why the shoe will work. I do not understand why having the flexible part of the shoe is going to be beneficial at the toe rather than turned round and fitted to the flexible end of the hoof.

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Fads and Fancies

Postby Giles » Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:20 am

Chris,
The 2 people you have mentioned are in a minority in the general world and so things haven’t changed or even evolved, they as I said, are just a fad. and only that. Why do you think Fitzwygram or even the T square have evolved, been developed and then to disappear from view after a few years, simply because they have been found not to work by farriers having to keep horses sound for owners that earn their living with them. The fact that owners don’t earn their living in the basic way with horses is no reason to return to the bad old ways on what is after all only a whim.

People don’t have to come forward with fresh research, any one with an atom of common sense will realise that the reason the toe wears in that manner is because the animal uses it, just as I might add a tyre wears because you use it, and there is an analogy between tyres and shoes in that neither wants to be replaced by a worn one. All horses use their toe at some stage of their movement, why research something that has been researched and proved before someone decided they did not need a part of the shoe that aids their propulsion through miss-interpreting the facts in order to bolster their own failed research. If you get back to basics and why do you think horses have a toe in the first place ? so a farrier can come and cut it off !! I think not.


Return to “farriers - contact your FRC rep”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest