Bare foot trimmers. [Full paper on UKHSU Web site].

For farriers to raise concerns with elected Farriers Registration Council representative Peter Baker. Anonymous postings will be deleted.
PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Bare foot trimmers. [Full paper on UKHSU Web site].

Postby PNB » Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:19 am

All,

The below conclusions drawn from a much larger paper submitted to Council, and summarize my [assisted by UKHSU] current feelings regarding training and regulation of Barefoot Trimmers, these were drawn from consultation with The Union's Executive Group. Regulation may well in light of EEC law prove a Two Edged Sword.

Much more, fact and comment regarding the deregulation of farriery in order to bring it within the proposed "Veterinary Services Bill" can been viewed at UKHSU.com, [click link above]

Comment here please, or to pnbaker@tiscali.co.uk

"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 » Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:49 am

what you have missed out is : when new legislation is introduced of whatever nature it will be meaningless and worthless why? because it will only cover us and not the E.U. we will still have a unlevel playing field regardless, at the moment any new legislation will only tie down further farriers and highlight further a tax free lawlessl areana for foreigners especialy those with dodgey italian passports

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

Postby john ford » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 pm

Therefore in other words carry-on allowing Council and others to speak and write in political jargon, so that everyone can find a loophole just like they did for the 1975 Registration Act. I take it that the words of common sense and to-the-point, have no meaning any longer. Because that would cause far less confusion, and may put many of those who police and write these rules and laws out of work ?

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

A Level pitch and no ball tampering. Whats new??

Postby PNB » Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:55 am

Stuart,

So what are you saying?? The EU rules and regulations discriminate against UK citizens, in so much that UK lads have been given a far more difficult route in order for them to follow a farriery career than non UK nationals who wish to work here in the UK!!

Stuart, surely it should now be a craft objective to rationalise and standardise the international qualifications and training required to work on horses feet in the UK, if only on welfare grounds. I suppose we should feel a need at to sustain the current model, well no slippage in skill levels anyway. I seriously doubt this is achievable, it seems a liberalisation needs consideration. In the current light it may well be essential for a liberal over view to provide a divot free international pitch for every one /all to play on.

I feel you are right, tampering with UK farrier / veterinary registration without an international overview will prove to be a waste of energy and vital resources. Do we sit back and do nothing or involve the whole craft in the seeking of a solution??

PNB.

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

Postby csc » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:13 pm

peter the whole craft? what do you mean the f.r.c are responsible for policeing farriery, by the f.r.c. the f.t.a. are responsible for teaching apprentises and collecting the funds to do so from the gov the w.c.f. represent horse wefare so who is the craft ? do you mean n.a.f.b.a.e. they are all asleep and as mutch use in these matters as a oily wrag
nothing at present can change ,its the govenment that dictates these policys that afect not only us, but all other trades
it is down to the working farriers to find a way round these problems and submit our findings and not to rely on usless gits do do it for us
its down once again for the U.K.H.S.U. to take the lead and form a action group. haw about it fordy

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

Postby john ford » Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:33 pm

As you well know CSE, I tried that some time ago, but there were too many internal problems within UKHSU to progress any further. All of you have the heart to do something including me, but there are ways and means in which to go about it. And unfortunately it wasn’t my way or James Todd’s. Sorry to bring up old wounds, but it is best for me to stay on the outside tinkering about and spreading the news to those who can bring a change, if ever.

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

Postby PNB » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:16 pm

Stuart,

The whole craft, are those of us out here doing the JOB. It is down to these to direct FRC / FTA what they want for the craft and what they "The Foot Care Technician Experts" feel are the horses and technicians welfare needs, [a point so well demonstrated by the recent tripartite farrier's conduct working group meeting, (WCF, NAFBAE and FRC with other cross co-memberships) under the chairmanship of the current Registrar]. Distressingly though something totally denied by the refusal to allow interested craft groups requests, as well as your elected members on FRC access to the debates regarding the proposed RCVS invite to deregulate and replace the current Farriers Registration Act [led by the FRC secretariat].

Historically it is destabilising and inflammatory being dictated to by non working craftsmen about a lay view of pertinent equine welfare whilst undertaking equine foot care, HEAVY involvement of THE WORKING CRAFTSMAN has to be correct, democratic and the only way things should be directed and allowed to proceed.

The motivation for changes in attitudes towards a significant direct craft involvement can / could be done well through the medium of UKHSU, most certainly UKHSU will need to lead it is presently the only INDEPENDENT representative farrier craft body out here in the street.

NAFB&AE I really hope they could pull there fingers out by loudly representing the feelings of its working craftsmen membership, just like the president did after the 1st August 2004 meeting, before the silence!!.

My view for the little it is probably worth, is that to stimulate confidence NAFB&AE must cut its funded link with FTA by declining any more of its membership money, so if needs must put up membership fees to bridge any void,[ £20 extra will cover it!!] and for NAFB&AE to offer the role they currently fulfill for apprentices, free of charge, [a prerequisite for any "CHARITABLE STATUS??"].

Maybe NAFB&AE don't wish to offer this service free to all apprentices, so then hand that role over to a group that already provide a similar free service to all horse shoeing craftsmen and later allow the natural democratic progress to dictate the future relative craft needs. The FTS /A's payment of apprentice membership has proved highly divisive and psychologically destructive towards the honourable association and a proportion of it members.

PNB.

Edit updated 19th OCT 06. PNB.
Last edited by PNB on Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:08 am, edited 3 times in total.

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

Postby csc » Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:52 am

fordy mate you are being a primadona we all disagree somtimes and if you wernt interested you wouldnt post your views, its no good being negative. you have a lot input and good reasoning.

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

Postby PNB » Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:53 am

Stuart,

A follow on comment about apprentice membership has been pointed out to me.

If NAFB&AE so wished and at least the two members that consulted together do!! All apprentices could be made honorary members, be given the consultation support service free. OK, so extra funding is needed to meet the Local Authority Rates bill now, but a £20 extra membership fee could then justifiably be tabled to the membership explaining at the same time the reasoning which would demonstrate a true "CHARITABLE STATUS" by charitable action [no more rates bills then]. Who knows the apprentices or even the ATF's may stump up the £20 if it was seen as a worthwhile function for NAFB&AE to undertake.

It is a function of Council to support CRAFT organisations.

PNB.

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

Postby john ford » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:42 pm

That’s strange Peter, I thought you were trying to promote UKHSU, not NAFBAE. If you want a bigger slice of membership in UKHSU, what better than to entice apprentices over to you rather than to NAFBAE.

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

Postby PNB » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:57 pm

John,

That's your myth not mine.

I don't care who gives the working craftsman a voice, as long as he gets one [NAFB&AE, LANTRA, UCSW, CA or UKHSU], the more the merrier, the louder the better then perhaps even some one will listen.

Apprentices need a support agency no doubt, UKHSU already provide this servioce to both pre-apprenties as well as signed up trainees, free of charge and there is no need for them to become members, simply by requesting our help they become associates of UKHSU.

John, I need a bit of help memory failure, Could you list the items the craft have opposed and yet we got them if only until it was proved they didn't work. I will can start with CRB checks, and an indipendent Farrier Training Agency. Anymore??

PNB.

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

Postby john ford » Sat Oct 21, 2006 3:25 pm

How far back do you want to go Peter? First we had registered farriers demanding representation on Council, you remember that well. The next one I can remember was when I was first co-opted on to the JFTC after twelve of us ATFs at the time, created havoc with the FTS over the way they were testing and interviewing would be apprentices, after this they had to change the system due to the pressure we placed on them collectively. It was the JFTC at that time that was the fore front of bringing down the FRC chairman and the Registrar. Unfortunately for all of us after we resisted to accept NVQs, unless we had it written in a tablet of stone, that the passing of the DipWCF exam would be the only way that we would accept a person to be placed on the register, the FRC took away the powers of the JFTC to leave it just as an advisory committee with no teeth. Before this time the JFTC who as you know are made up of all working farriers, controlled the licensing of all ATFs, which is not the case today, so I believe.

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

Postby PNB » Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:38 pm

John,

Thanks for that, if anything else comes to mind please post it.

I will soon have my interview regarding MWN's complaint and wish to have a full as possible background as to the possible way the working craft feel it has been steam roller-ed over the years. Any comments will be of great help to me in my defence of a charges, basically of keeping the craft informed in the only way UKHSU could / could afford to.

I have on record Les A,s letter of complaint regarding the comments raised August 1st 2004 NAFB&AE meeting and the official response, most of the problems the then president outlined were not answered as far as I can establish. I also have UKHSU's minutes of the meeting of 15th August 2006 conference and both the official reports from Sefton House which make interesting reading.

PNB.


Return to “farriers - contact your FRC rep”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests