# Insurers get tough on 'barefoot' horse claims



## PeterNatt (6 April 2012)

A leading equine insurer has warned that it may reject claims involving 'horses' feet when the animal has had hoof care from anyone other than a registered farrier.
NFU Mutual's move is clearly directed at owners choose to keep  and ride horses without shoes and often use use so-called 'barefoot trimmers' to tend to their horses feet.
"We fully support owners who choose not to have their animals shod, which is why our policy wording refers to 'regular foot care' rather than 'regular showing" Nicola Whittaker of NFU Mutual told ETN.
"We refer to a 'registered farrier' to avoid unregistered and unqualified farriers carrying out farriery - which is illegal under the Farriers 9 Registration Act 1975 in this way, we can be certain that the person caring for the horse's feet has the appropriate qualification and experience".
"Should a policyholder choose to use someone other than a registered farrier to provide foot care for their animal, then in the event of a claim involving or related to the foot, the NFU Mutual could repudiate the claim".
"If a claim related specifically to the horse's foot, for example, in the case of Lameness due to foot imbalance, then NFU Mitual would want to reassure itself that the person who had carried out any shoeing or trimming of the horse's feet was suitably trained and  qualified  to provide this care and had not inadvertently contributed to the problem"

From Equestrian Trade News April 2012


----------



## quirky (6 April 2012)

Very interesting and probably very prudent of NFU as it appears anybody can put a rasp in their hand and call themselves a BP etc.


----------



## YasandCrystal (6 April 2012)

That makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## Goldenstar (6 April 2012)

Good for them next they ought to get to work to save money by sorting out the work of some of the registered farriers.


----------



## guido16 (6 April 2012)

Thats going to upset a few people on here!    May aswell put away my angle grinder then. .


----------



## Littlelegs (6 April 2012)

Damn. Hope my clients don't find out when I've just invested in a new electric bread knife!


----------



## Cedars (6 April 2012)

Great news, well done NFU.


----------



## Pedantic (6 April 2012)

Totally agree with them, I think all horse insurance companies should do the same.


----------



## amandap (6 April 2012)

I thought "Farriery" was trimming and preparing a hoof for a shoe under the Farriery act? 

I will await 'experts' sorting this one.


----------



## jinglejoys (6 April 2012)

Hmm so it looks as though IF I want to get a very expensive NFU policy I'm goin to have to have a farrier who sometimes turns up(or doesn't),brngs his dog to bounce around dashing under my mules feet,rushes to do the job as quick as he can to whiz on to the next appointment he's late for,doesn't tell me a thing about what he's doing or move the mule around,digs it in the ribs with a file and doesn't even know that mules and donkeys are trimmed differantly to horses...I'll stick to what I've got thank you


----------



## Goldenstar (6 April 2012)

amandap said:



			I thought "Farriery" was trimming and preparing a hoof for a shoe under the Farriery act? 

I will await 'experts' sorting this one. 

Click to expand...

That's my understanding to however The Nfu can write up there policy's as they like.


----------



## guido16 (6 April 2012)

Littlelegs, I have a couple of chairs if you have popcorn?


----------



## amandap (6 April 2012)

amandap said:



			I thought "Farriery" was trimming and preparing a hoof for a shoe under the Farriery act? 

I will await 'experts' sorting this one. 

Click to expand...

ps. It looks as if it wont affect horses already in shoes needing to go barefoot to rehab though.  These claims are often because of shoeing.



Goldenstar said:



			That's my understanding to however The Nfu can write up there policy's as they like.
		
Click to expand...

They will have to word it very carefully if they are sighting the Farrier Act as a definition I imagine though. I don't know much about the legal side.

Have you got a link to your source PeterNatt?


----------



## Tinypony (6 April 2012)

I don't think anyone would need to worry if they had taken a horse barefoot under vet's supervision, even if they were using a barefoot trimmer.
Having said that...  aren't NFU the insurance company that are widely acknowledged as wanting to frighten off their equine business with by hiking up their premiums?  
I don't insure for vets cover, and many people who own more than one horse don't, choosing instead to put money aside every month and just insure for public liability.  Even if I had one horse, I'd think twice to be honest, the cost of insurance is so high now.


----------



## Littlelegs (6 April 2012)

Thankyou guido 16, don't have popcorn but can offer nutella on toast?


----------



## DragonSlayer (6 April 2012)

Hooray! Might stop those people and their angle-grinders!

Good old NFU.


----------



## Goldenstar (6 April 2012)

I don't insure my horses as I have to many but if the NFU want to save on claims they need to stop insuring horses without a five stage vetting last year I saw them pay out thousands in vet fees to a horse that was purchased pin fired lame behind and with the most terrible bad feet ( terrible shoeing) it cost them up to the vet fees limit and was then PTS madness.


----------



## DragonSlayer (6 April 2012)

...and before anyone gets upset, barefoot trimming is fine, although I am happy with my farrier doing my horses, it's the use of an angle grinder I take serious exception to. Those beasties were designed for METAL, not on a live animal.


----------



## guido16 (6 April 2012)

Mmm nutella. Yummy. Bring the jar!


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2012)

NFU are just looking for yet another way to save paying out on claims, of course.

But I completely agree with them restricting hoof care to qualified people for people who are insured with them. There are four organisations in this country offering good, extensive training. I believe at least one of these runs courses which are accredited for qualified farriers Continuing Professional Development points.

I look forward to a more enlightened time when they refuse to pay out for huge vets fees or humane slaughter before a horse with navicular spectrum lameness has been given a proper barefoot rehab.

I also look forward to a time when farriers training includes an in depth knowledge of how nutrition affects feet and requires a period in the training of a farrier who actually has hard-working barefoot horses on his books.

And oh, let's see that pink pig fly now, when the Insurers include a clause that says all horses must have their shoes removed for 3 months of the year, like we did in the old days before there were so many diagnoses of caudal hoof lameness.


----------



## lannerch (6 April 2012)

NFu may are just covering their backs quite rightly so, why should they pay out on a claim caused by an amateurs error!


----------



## Black_Horse_White (6 April 2012)

You wouldn't use an unqualified vet to treat your horse then try to claim off your insurance, so why would you use someone unqualified to do your horses feet? Same principle I would of thought.


----------



## Goldenstar (6 April 2012)

cptrayes said:



			NFU are just looking for yet another way to save paying out on claims, of course.

But I completely agree with them restricting hoof care to qualified people. There are four organisations in this country offering good, extensive training. I believe at least one of these runs courses which are accredited for qualified farriers Continuing Professional Development points.

I look forward to a more enlightened time when they refuse to pay out for huge vets fees or humane slaughter before a horse with navicular spectrum lameness has been given a proper barefoot rehab.

I also look forward to a time when farriers training includes an in depth knowledge of how nutrition affects feet and requires a period in the training of a farrier who actually has hard-working barefoot horses on his books.
		
Click to expand...


Exactly the organisations offering good comprehensive training to  need now to push to get official status and set good clear professional guidelines . The vets should be helping to lead this forward but as far as I can see are not I think in my experiance some have been turned off considering barefoot by the evangelical attitude of some trimmers and perhaps the fact that it's not a great money spinner .
Farriers could be said to have a vested interest in discrediting barefoot and there governing body should be trying to get standards up within there industry.


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2012)

Goldenstar there are clear professional guidelines in place but at the moment there is no independent organisation who can be found who will agree to police them.


----------



## Goldenstar (6 April 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Goldenstar there are clear professional guidelines in place but at the moment there is no independent organisation who can be found who will agree to police them.
		
Click to expand...

That's a real shame it holding things back particularly with the vets and that's the big break though trimmers need to make now.
My vet was mega anti barefoot with the one I am trying it with but she coming round a bit but we have had difficult conversations along the lines of you can condem this without ( barefoot)  seeing how it goes but farrier x is doing awful work laming horses and that's somehow ok you just muddle along with them.
Vets is where the breakthrough to coming more into the mainstream will come for trimmers they will have to work hard to gain that respect but the problem is that one bad trimmer makes it very hard for the good ones as the vets just tend to write them all off.


----------



## Goldenstar (6 April 2012)

Black_Horse_White said:



			You wouldn't use an unqualified vet to treat your horse then try to claim off your insurance, so why would you use someone unqualified to do your horses feet? Same principle I would of thought.
		
Click to expand...

But not all trimmers are unqualified to trim feet .


----------



## Black_Horse_White (6 April 2012)

I'm not saying that all of them are not qualified, I'm saying why would you use one that isn't ?


----------



## xxMozlarxx (6 April 2012)

guido16 said:



			Littlelegs, I have a couple of chairs if you have popcorn?
		
Click to expand...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


----------



## Goldenstar (6 April 2012)

Black_Horse_White said:



			I'm not saying that all of them are not qualified, I'm saying why would you use one that isn't ?
		
Click to expand...

Of course not but neither would I use a farrier that slaps on the shoes with no heel support lets the horse develop long toes with all the problems that brings or let's the feet get laterally imbalanced etc etc so many horses are having there lives blighted by this.


----------



## Black_Horse_White (6 April 2012)

And equally so many don't.


----------



## maisie06 (6 April 2012)

About time too. I have 2 horses in work one is shod, one is not, both are seen by a qualified farrier every 6 weeks. The unshod one has feet as hard as rock so I've no need to shoe him at the moment - I'm not barefoot taliban if he needs shoes he'll get them! But he does need a trim and balance. I have seen some horrendus "trimming" by a podiatrist when a barefoot activist was on the yard, this person charged £45 for a trim (hack) faffed around like a moron and funnily enough both horses they did always had lameness issues and really odd movement.


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2012)

Black_Horse_White said:



			You wouldn't use an unqualified vet to treat your horse then try to claim off your insurance, so why would you use someone unqualified to do your horses feet? Same principle I would of thought.
		
Click to expand...

Can we get back on track BHW? The point was that the NFU have disallowed claims from people who use a _qualified_ trimmer.  Since we have at least one farrier on this forum who says he would trust a trained trimmer to have been taught more about the biomechanics of the foot than a farriery apprentice, that is worrying.


----------



## Goldenstar (6 April 2012)

Black_Horse_White said:



			And equally so many don't.
		
Click to expand...

That's not the issue here its lame horses that are the issue here not the sound well shod or well trimmed ones there no difference.
The NFU could say no cover for horses who are shod at more than six week intervals ( although I never let any here go more than five) and that would cut the claims down too..
I do not disaggree with the NFUs position by the way .


----------



## MerrySherryRider (6 April 2012)

lannerch said:



			NFu may are just covering their backs quite rightly so, why should they pay out on a claim caused by an amateurs error!
		
Click to expand...

Agree. Good for NFU.

 Expect other insurance companies will follow suit, if they haven't already, as they're the ones dealing with the results of the current fad for hoofcare by these self professed 'experts'.


----------



## Happy Horse (6 April 2012)

Who issues qualifications to Qualified barefoot trimmers?


----------



## amandap (6 April 2012)

cptrayes said:



			There are four organisations in this country offering good, extensive training. I believe at least one of these runs courses which are accredited for qualified farriers Continuing Professional Development points.
		
Click to expand...

Might be helpful if you could list them. I only know of two for certain, so I'd be interested in the others.


----------



## Goldenstar (6 April 2012)

horserider said:



			Agree. Good for NFU.

 Expect other insurance companies will follow suit, if they haven't already, as they're the ones dealing with the results of the current fad for hoofcare by these self professed 'experts'.
		
Click to expand...

And there also dealing with all the problems caused by shoes there's little difference.


----------



## Flame_ (6 April 2012)

I don't like this. What's next, they won't pay out for laminitis because you fed it? They won't pay out for KS because you tried a chiro? They won't pay out heel pain because the horse had shoes on? A lot of horses problems are, arguably, to some extent our fault but if people pay their premiums and do what they think is best for their horses, they should damn well be insured IMO.


----------



## Black_Horse_White (6 April 2012)

Cytrayes, sorry I misread it I tought they were refusing claims by only unqualified trimmers not all. Must put brain in gear before posting


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2012)

Black_Horse_White said:



			Cytrayes, sorry I misread it I tought they were refusing claims by only unqualified trimmers not all. Must put brain in gear before posting 

Click to expand...



No problem 


I just wish that the FRC would get their act together and train apprentices to care for working unshod horses properly and make the trimming organisations completely unnecessary. 

Trimming organisations only exist because farriery training does not teach them how to keep a hardworking horse unshod unless his Master happens to have them on his books, which most don't.


----------



## Goldenstar (6 April 2012)

Flame_ said:



			I don't like this. What's next, they won't pay out for laminitis because you fed it? They won't pay out for KS because you tried a chiro? They won't pay out heel pain because the horse had shoes on? A lot of horses problems are, arguably, to some extent our fault but if people pay their premiums and do what they think is best for their horses, they should damn well be insured IMO.
		
Click to expand...

This is exactly where vets fees insurance is heading why should they pay out out because snuggles got laminitis because he likes grass and the owner can't take responsiblity or the horses backs damaged becaused the owner bought a saddle from eBay and slapped it on ,expect vets fees  insurance to became much more difficult.


----------



## Flame_ (6 April 2012)

Where do you draw the line? Should they pay out if the horse gets a tendon injury because the owner went showjumping? Maybe the horse wasn't adequately fittened or booted. Maybe not. 

There'll come a point where everything has some sort of exclusion or get out clause and there will be no point at all insuring. People have first horses, they make mistakes with their management due to inexperience. Are they still entitled to a payout should they need it? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to insure at all unless they've had at least ten years experience around a range of horses? Companies can't offer horse insurance for fair fees then exclude more than they'll actually pay out for. Why single out barefoot as an excluded management option when it has done plenty of good in reducing lameness issues and could well lead to less claims in the future?


----------



## criso (6 April 2012)

Guess I'll be cancelling my policy.

After bad experiences with 4 farriers (shod and barefoot) that left my horse lame after over aggressive trimming or 'remedial farriery' and I don't mean slightly footy, I mean going from sound to unable to bear weight I use a UKNHCP qualified trimmer to give his feet the tidy he needs from time to time.

I had two years of massive claims which they paid out for foot problems when my horse was shod, since he's been barefoot my claims went down so much that they discounted my premium this year so you figure what's working best and what saves the insurance company money.


----------



## Luci07 (6 April 2012)

Do tend to agree with you on that. I also agree that it just makes sense that barefoot trimming is recognised and incorporated into " standard" farriers. There is a real move for farriers to keep up to date with the new thoughts in foot balance, feeding, horse confirmation and I have seen that for myself. The days of a farrier needing to make all the feet look exactly the same are going. I have seen bad farriers ruin a young horse, I have seen good farriers keep another going. I am not against barefoot at all either but done properly..!


----------



## Goldenstar (6 April 2012)

Flame_ said:



			Where do you draw the line? Should they pay out if the horse gets a tendon injury because the owner went showjumping? Maybe the horse wasn't adequately fittened or booted. Maybe not. 

There'll come a point where everything has some sort of exclusion or get out clause and there will be no point at all insuring. People have first horses, they make mistakes with their management due to inexperience. Are they still entitled to a payout should they need it? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to ensure at all unless they've had at least ten years experience around a range of horses? Companies can't offer horse insurance for fair fees then exclude more than they'll actually pay out for.
		
Click to expand...

Well in time that's where I think it's going I think insurance for vets fees will fizzle out.


----------



## MrsMozart (6 April 2012)

jinglejoys said:



			Hmm so it looks as though IF I want to get a very expensive NFU policy I'm goin to have to have a farrier who sometimes turns up(or doesn't),brngs his dog to bounce around dashing under my mules feet,rushes to do the job as quick as he can to whiz on to the next appointment he's late for,doesn't tell me a thing about what he's doing or move the mule around,digs it in the ribs with a file and doesn't even know that mules and donkeys are trimmed differantly to horses...I'll stick to what I've got thank you 

Click to expand...

Change farriers. None of mine have ever done anything remotely like that, other than one be late on occassion (because the previous appointment people didn't have their horses in when the farrier arrived there - on time).

Mine have always explained what they do, why they are doing it, watch my horses walk up before and after, enquire as to how they've been going, etc.

Should have added: they show an interest in what the horses are fed and why, and at the moment my four neds are unshod. One had shoes for one period (six weeks) as one hoof balance suddenly went to pot - neither vet nor farrier could explain why - a set of shoes for a period and she's right as rain again and back to being unshoc all round.

As to the OP - I can understand the reasoning behind NFUs policy.


----------



## muffinmunsh (6 April 2012)

I will probably get shot down for this but I must say I agree with NFU ... Been insured with them fir years, have seen prices go up and so on. However, when push came to shove they have always paid out and without any problems. Of course they have to protect their members from claims where the problem is caused by undue care. Admittedly, it would be beneficial to also include qualified barefoot trimmers but how are they supposed to do that with no overall governing body? So, as long as that isn't sorted and no lobby for barefooters in place I am afraid it is the only way I can see them deal with the problem.


----------



## Goldenstar (6 April 2012)

muffinmunsh said:



			I will probably get shot down for this but I must say I agree with NFU ... Been insured with them fir years, have seen prices go up and so on. However, when push came to shove they have always paid out and without any problems. Of course they have to protect their members from claims where the problem is caused by undue care. Admittedly, it would be beneficial to also include qualified barefoot trimmers but how are they supposed to do that with no overall governing body? So, as long as that isn't sorted and no lobby for barefooters in place I am afraid it is the only way I can see them deal with the problem.
		
Click to expand...

That's fine now how do they deal with the farriers that are costing them a fortune.


----------



## criso (6 April 2012)

muffinmunsh said:



			I will probably get shot down for this but I must say I agree with NFU ... Been insured with them fir years, have seen prices go up and so on. However, when push came to shove they have always paid out and without any problems. Of course they have to protect their members from claims where the problem is caused by undue care. Admittedly, it would be beneficial to also include qualified barefoot trimmers but how are they supposed to do that with no overall governing body? So, as long as that isn't sorted and no lobby for barefooters in place I am afraid it is the only way I can see them deal with the problem.
		
Click to expand...

But your claims are going up because they paid almost up to the £5000 limit on people like me for a traditional approach to footcare which wasn't working.

If I'd gone barefoot at the start then they wouldn't have paid for much more than the initial investigations.


----------



## MrsMozart (6 April 2012)

criso said:



			But your claims are going up because they paid almost up to the £5000 limit on people like me for a traditional approach to footcare which wasn't working.

If I'd gone barefoot at the start then they wouldn't have paid for much more than the initial investigations.
		
Click to expand...


So where do you start the vetting level? £1,000 purchase price? £500?

For what it's worth, I bought a horse for £3k, no vetting with E and L. They paid out £ks in vets fees and then the purchase price when she had to be put to sleep a year after I got her; bought a horse for £5k, no vetting with NFU. They've paid out £ks in vets fees and £4k in loss of use. The second horse's issues probably wouldn't have shown up on a vetting. Plus I have heard of numerous horses that pass five stage vettings only to go lame/have an issue shortly after purchase.

I can understand that for on-going care, why NFU (and no doubt other insurance companies to come) want to go the professionally qualified route.


----------



## criso (6 April 2012)

MrsMozart -I'm not saying set a vetting level or any level.  The horse is question flew through a 5 stage but the foot problems I had with him were probably waiting to happen.

I'm just saying that following the route that NFU recommend cost alot more money than if I had taken an approach they don't.   And by using a suitably trained trimmer I feel I am going down the professionally qualified route.

FWIW I think the issue is that there are alot of expensive diagnostics and expensive treatment with limited research and benefit that we tend to throw at horses with little thought as insurance covers it.
Vets ask are you insured and if you're not they say let's do A as it really helps, if you are insured they will say and we'll do B and C as well which we're not sure if it helps but can't do any harm and insurance is paying.


----------



## MrsMozart (6 April 2012)

criso said:



			MrsMozart -I'm not saying set a vetting level or any level.  The horse is question flew through a 5 stage but the foot problems I had with him were probably waiting to happen.

I'm just saying that following the route that NFU recommend cost alot more money than if I had taken an approach they don't.   And by using a suitably trained trimmer I feel I am going down the professionally qualified route.

FWIW I think the issue is that there are alot of expensive diagnostics and expensive treatment with limited research and benefit that we tend to throw at horses with little thought as insurance covers it.
Vets ask are you insured and if you're not they say let's do A as it really helps, if you are insured they will say and we'll do B and C as well which we're not sure if it helps but can't do any harm and insurance is paying.
		
Click to expand...

I'm a tad confused (it happens, I'm getting on a bit), but NFU are saying use a qualified person to take care of the horses' hooves, otherwise, if the care has not been to a professional standard by a suitably qualified person, NFU may determine that the 'sub-standard care' has contributed to the issue and therefore reserve the right not to pay out.


----------



## criso (6 April 2012)

MrsMozart said:



			I'm a tad confused (it happens, I'm getting on a bit), but NFU are saying use a qualified person to take care of the horses' hooves, otherwise, if the care has not been to a professional standard by a suitably qualified person, NFU may determine that the 'sub-standard care' has contributed to the issue and therefore reserve the right not to pay out.
		
Click to expand...

No -  they are saying use a registered farrier.

There are organisations in this country do offer guidelines and offer proper training for trimmers.  However although they are pushing for this there  is currently no independent body to oversee them.

By choosing someone who has been through the UKNHCP training, I feel they are suitably qualified, NFU would not agee.  I will move my horse to a company which is taking an active interest in the barefoot rehab route and therefore I feel will  be more sympathetic to my circumstances.

Ultimately they can put choose to put any restrictions they like and I can choose to take out their insurance or not.  But I think their approach is flawed and will not save them money.


----------



## Ollie's Mum (6 April 2012)

jinglejoys said:



			Hmm so it looks as though IF I want to get a very expensive NFU policy I'm goin to have to have a farrier who sometimes turns up(or doesn't),brngs his dog to bounce around dashing under my mules feet,rushes to do the job as quick as he can to whiz on to the next appointment he's late for,doesn't tell me a thing about what he's doing or move the mule around,digs it in the ribs with a file and doesn't even know that mules and donkeys are trimmed differantly to horses...I'll stick to what I've got thank you 

Click to expand...

Is that what farriers are supposed to be like?  Wonder where I'm going wrong then? Mine's never missed, or been late for an appointment in over 10 years, he takes time to stand and look before he starts and is patient enough to answer any of my questions and impart useful information. He fusses my pony as we stand having a friendly chat with our tea and cake and is an all round good bloke - oh and he doesn't have a dog!

How can you tar everyone with the same brush?


----------



## Amaranta (6 April 2012)

cptrayes said:



			NFU are just looking for yet another way to save paying out on claims, of course.

Which would infer that they have had lots of claims because of barefoot trimmers, otherwise they would not have put in the clause.

But I completely agree with them restricting hoof care to qualified people for people who are insured with them. There are four organisations in this country offering good, extensive training. I believe at least one of these runs courses which are accredited for qualified farriers Continuing Professional Development points.

completely agree
I look forward to a more enlightened time when they refuse to pay out for huge vets fees or humane slaughter before a horse with navicular spectrum lameness has been given a proper barefoot rehab.

Hmmm I agree in principal, but I already know of one or two cases when a horse has been put down on a vets insistence, one a 4yo with OCD (never had shoes on in it's life) and another who had bone cancer, interestingly the insurer was NFU, they refused humane destruction, so I would be worried that they would just use this as an excuse not to pay out

I also look forward to a time when farriers training includes an in depth knowledge of how nutrition affects feet and requires a period in the training of a farrier who actually has hard-working barefoot horses on his books.

Would not be a bad thing tbh

And oh, let's see that pink pig fly now, when the Insurers include a clause that says all horses must have their shoes removed for 3 months of the year, like we did in the old days before there were so many diagnoses of caudal hoof lameness.
		
Click to expand...

 Hmmm sorry but this would never ever work, on several levels, the first being why on earth would someone whose horse is perfectly happy and sound shod be forced to go barefoot for 3 months?  Despite what people say on here, there are horses who should not go unshod and it is not always down to diet either no matter how much people protest that it is - just watching that pink pig fly 

I say good on NFU and am sure other insurers will follow their lead

ETA:  I also thought that qualified trimmers would be OK, I see now that they are not.  IMHO trimmers now need to be pushing to have a properly recognised and policed organisation,which will stop all the dodgy trimmers in their tracks OR they need to apply to be recognised by the WCF


----------



## Lancelot (6 April 2012)

So... my horse is referred to a very reputable business specializing in barefoot *by my vet* following months of unsuccessful treatment including remedial farriery and NFU refuse to contribute. How is that fair?


----------



## Goldenstar (6 April 2012)

It is not good for horses feet to be shod without a break most farriers will tell you this this exactly why when I was young the hunters who had not brilliant shoe by our standards had less hoof trouble . The differences where
When they were in work they worked extremely hard getting lots of movement.

They where unshod from the end of march until the end of July

They where turned out on a huge moor never got fat stayed fit moving around where half fit when they came in 
And funnily enough that moor will have been a very low starch diet.

I think now that the hoof boots hoots are getting so much better that there is no reason why horses in work all the year round can't do a period without shoes using boots if necessary . This is my experiment for this summer OH 's hunter shoes off now having a short holiday shoes off ten days now will start a bit of leading around next week building up to him going into light work probally with boots in April .
I think he will need shoes to hunt so he can go back into them in autumn but that long period without shoes will di him a world of good.
My vet is very enaged with seeing how this goes as a managment system as she says she sees lots of problems with year round shoeing.


----------



## Nailed (6 April 2012)

NFU.. I LOVE YOU..

About time!


----------



## criso (6 April 2012)

Amaranta I don't think there are huge number of claims about horses going barefoot which has led to this and I don't think that is why they have put this clause in.

I think this has come out of a specific case of people claiming for barefoot rehab which is a tiny tiny amount in the grand scheme of their claims.

To support some cases that are going to the ombudsman they have changed their wording to registered farrier so they can say that barefoot rehab is not provided by a suitably qualified professional.

Not all insurers are taking the same view though.


----------



## Tinypony (6 April 2012)

I don't know what all the excitement is about. Not all equine insurance companies make this stipulation, using the word "farrier".  I suspect that, just as has happened with bitless riding, other enterprising insurance companies will pick up the lost NFU business by setting up suitably worded policies for those who use properly trained trimmers.
NFU are hardly at the forefront of providing cost-effective equine insurance that meets the needs of their customers are they?


----------



## Amaranta (6 April 2012)

criso said:



			Amaranta I don't think there are huge number of claims about horses going barefoot which has led to this and I don't think that is why they have put this clause in.

I think this has come out of a specific case of people claiming for barefoot rehab which is a tiny tiny amount in the grand scheme of their claims.

To support some cases that are going to the ombudsman they have changed their wording to registered farrier so they can say that barefoot rehab is not provided by a suitably qualified professional.

Not all insurers are taking the same view though.
		
Click to expand...

Ahh I see, then the answer has to be that the barefooters get recognised by WCF or get proper veterinary recognition.

There was a time when MRIs were not covered under insurance, most insurance companies now pay out for at least 1/2 the cost, there is also a provision for 'alternative treatment' in most policies these days.


----------



## criso (6 April 2012)

Amaranta said:



			Ahh I see, then the answer has to be that the barefooters get recognised by WCF or get proper veterinary recognition.
		
Click to expand...

And I don't think anyone shod or barefoot would disagree with that but it's not straightforward and not for lack of trying by the good barefoot organisations.


----------



## Goldenstar (6 April 2012)

criso said:



			And I don't think anyone shod or barefoot would disagree with that but it's not straightforward and not for lack of trying by the good barefoot organisations.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know much about how the barefoot organisations stucture them selves but yes it's time they organised themselves and stood alongside other professions who provide horse care and as I said in my earlier posts it's the vets that are key to them joining the mainstream.


----------



## ester (6 April 2012)

I was studying my petplan T & C's recently and couldn't see a mention of regular foot care (dentist (must be qualified.. although that was/is on a similar level to trimmers re qualifications for a while I think)/worming/vaccinations etc all included) or who was to do it if they did. 

I thought they best know that under vets agreement I was taking the shoes off Frank who is the subject of a current claim started in Nov '11 and queried the use of a trimmer (which has also been agreed with vet and who is UKNCHP qual). Person on the phone wasn't sure and checked with legal, legal said WCF only (but then I suppose this is the easiest thing to say regardless) and although farrier has done a good job since Nov, previously it likely contributed to the lameness that then developed before that.

In addition my farrier is not up for taking videos/discussing tracks and diet/and doesn't come with a full hoof boot fit kit


----------



## Fransurrey (6 April 2012)

Amaranta, back when I was studying Equine Podiatry (2005), the organisation was in constant contact with the WCF, trying to get accreditation and ease the tension. As far as I know, this is still ongoing, as the WCF went into Stonemason mode and refused to play out with the hippies. 

As far as independent regulation goes, don't make me laugh. Who regulates farriers in this country? Oh, that's right, the WCF...

Don't make this into a shod Vs unshod debate. This is clearly another way of reducing claims, by catching out customers who don't read the microscopic print. In 12 years of policy, I had one claim for LGL. 4 years later, they still tried to exclude laminits, EMS, IR and Cushings. Utter, utter bolox and the reason I finally had enough and went PL only with the BHS.

Btw, I do use a farrier.


----------



## amandap (6 April 2012)

Here's the link to the NOS standards for barefoot care which were drawn up by LANTRA with consultation with trimming organizations, farriers and vets. 
http://www.lantra.co.uk/getattachme...4d/Equine-Barefoot-Care-NOS-(April-2010).aspx

I don't know what the latest WFC position is but ?they (some farriers) wanted their training as the benchmark in 2009 which seems a bit pointless as much of it is to do with shoeing and making shoes.  Hopefully sense will prevail and this can be sorted. Trimmers and bare hoof care isn't going away whether you like it or hate it.


----------



## Amaranta (6 April 2012)

Fransurrey said:



			Amaranta, back when I was studying Equine Podiatry (2005), the organisation was in constant contact with the WCF, trying to get accreditation and ease the tension. As far as I know, this is still ongoing, as the WCF went into Stonemason mode and refused to play out with the hippies. 

As far as independent regulation goes, don't make me laugh. Who regulates farriers in this country? Oh, that's right, the WCF...

Don't make this into a shod Vs unshod debate. This is clearly another way of reducing claims, by catching out customers who don't read the microscopic print. In 12 years of policy, I had one claim for LGL. 4 years later, they still tried to exclude laminits, EMS, IR and Cushings. Utter, utter bolox and the reason I finally had enough and went PL only with the BHS.

Btw, I do use a farrier.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but I am NOT trying to make this into a shod vs unshod debate, please read my posts properly.  You may well be right and it is another way for them to wriggle out of claims, insurance companies are very good at that.


----------



## Amaranta (6 April 2012)

amandap said:



			Here's the link to the NOS standards for barefoot care which were drawn up by LANTRA with consultation with trimming organizations, farriers and vets. 
http://www.lantra.co.uk/getattachme...4d/Equine-Barefoot-Care-NOS-(April-2010).aspx

I don't know what the latest WFC position is but ?they (some farriers) wanted their training as the benchmark in 2009 which seems a bit pointless as much of it is to do with shoeing and making shoes.  Hopefully sense will prevail and this can be sorted. Trimmers and bare hoof care isn't going away whether you like it or hate it.
		
Click to expand...

I think your problem is that the WCF are a very old died in the wool organisation, if I were a barefooter I would agree with Goldenstar, vets are probably the way to go, if you can get proper veterinary recognition you will be half way (if not all the way) there.


----------



## rockysmum (6 April 2012)

Afraid I agree with NFU, wouldn't let a barefoot trimmer near mine, but then I wouldn't let half the farriers around either.  I have had some bad experiences with farriers and seen some that other people have had with trimmers.

My current farrier is also trained as a barefoot trimmer and is the person our vets use for both.

This has got to be the way forward.  Apprentices should now be fully trained in both methods and the circumstances in which either would be appropriate.

Us poor customers would then not be torn by different opinions which often appear to be in direct conflict with each other.

A governing body which has representatives from both camps would appear sensible.

Yes it would mean barefoot trimmers would have to do an apprenticeship, well good, I think they should anyway.


----------



## Oberon (6 April 2012)

I guess I'll be cancelling my policy with the NFU then.

I won't go back to using the farrier who made my horse stand in pools of blood.

I'll stick with my UKNHCP trimmer who has been nurturing for my horses' hooves and doing a great job for many years now.

I won't be bullied by an insurance company.

End of.


----------



## Orangehorse (6 April 2012)

This is strangely ironic.  The insurers would payout for "barefoot treatment" with Vet's approval, to put right what could well have been caused by shoeing by a Registered Farrier.

But if you decide to keep your horse barefoot and use a trimmer (properly trained and insured) and, say, your horse steps on a nail, the insurance company won't pay out?


----------



## amandap (6 April 2012)

rockysmum said:



			My current farrier is also trained as a barefoot trimmer and is the person our vets use for both.

This has got to be the way forward.  Apprentices should now be fully trained in both methods and the circumstances in which either would be appropriate.
		
Click to expand...

I agree but many farriers it seems don't see any need to learn what trimmer training teaches. This is I believe the sticking point but the fact that some farriers have bothered to do trimmer training says to me there _are_ differences and both can learn from each other...


----------



## ester (6 April 2012)

Orangehorse said:



			This is strangely ironic.  The insurers would payout for "barefoot treatment" with Vet's approval, to put right what could well have been caused by shoeing by a Registered Farrier.

But if you decide to keep your horse barefoot and use a trimmer (properly trained and insured) and, say, your horse steps on a nail, the insurance company won't pay out?
		
Click to expand...

apparently so, whilst on the phone advisor actually suggested we could probably try claiming for the bf treatment of his lameness!  on the rockley blog a while ago Nic said she was going to say who they found were easiest or not to deal with insurance wise.


----------



## indie999 (6 April 2012)

I would rather use a person that has had training and belongs to a nationally recognised professional body...no different to doctors, dentists, lawyers, nurses, vets. Good and bad in every profession but at least it cuts the risk. 

I would never let anyone other than my farrier touch horses feet. And yes he is barefoot, retired etc etc 

Completely agree with NFU on this one. 


How can they insure someones animal when they are not using a nationally recognised professionally qualified person?


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2012)

by cptrayes
This is just NFU trying to avoid paying claims.

by Amaranta
Which would infer that they have had lots of claims because of barefoot trimmers, otherwise they would not have put in the clause.
		
Click to expand...

Not so. It simply means that when a horse gets a foot abscess or an infected overreach or a keratoma or .... , as both shod and unshod horses can do from time to time, that they can refuse to pay out on the unshod one.


----------



## ester (6 April 2012)

I think that works for lots of things though, how can they insure for say worm-induced colic when the owners are responsible for the worming of the horse?

T & Cs say must be wormed regularly but owner knowledge frequently seems to be lacking in this area, but it would be owners word v. insurers as to whether appropriate worming had actually taken place or not.


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2012)

indie999 said:



			I would rather use a person that has had training and belongs to a nationally recognised professional body..
		
Click to expand...

So would I. But the only organisations which train in depth to keep a horse working hard and on tough surfaces without shoes on are the trimming ones.

For your farrier, it depends entirely on whether or not he trained with a Master who had any on his books, and very few do.


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2012)

*OPEN LETTER TO THE WORSHIPFUL COMPANY OF FARRIERS*


Dear WCF

What we horseowners want is this:

Your trainees to be taught in depth about hoof mechanics and to dissect hooves of both shod and unshod horses during their training and to note the internal differences.

Your trainees to be taught in depth about how nutrition and metabolic issues (Cushings, IR, EMS, EPSM) affect a horse's feet.

Your trainees to spend a period with a Master who has a number of unshod eventers/hunters/long distance horses on his books.

You to have two strands of apprentices - those who are accredited to shoe and trim   and those who are only accredited to trim.

PLEASE pull your fingers out and get on with it!

The Horse Owning Public.


----------



## Ranyhyn (6 April 2012)

I use the person who keeps my horse sound.  

Don't bother with insurance anyway we just have money aside for the animals


----------



## Fransurrey (6 April 2012)

Amaranta said:



			Sorry but I am NOT trying to make this into a shod vs unshod debate, please read my posts properly.  You may well be right and it is another way for them to wriggle out of claims, insurance companies are very good at that.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, should have been clearer. Only the first sentence was aimed at you. I was on my phone and so hard to scroll up when typing a long post (so called smartphones...).


----------



## Amaranta (6 April 2012)

Fransurrey said:



			Sorry, should have been clearer. Only the first sentence was aimed at you. I was on my phone and so hard to scroll up when typing a long post (so called smartphones...). 

Click to expand...

Ahh no problem


----------



## LucyPriory (6 April 2012)

Fransurrey said:



			Sorry, should have been clearer. Only the first sentence was aimed at you. I was on my phone and so hard to scroll up when typing a long post (so called smartphones...). 

Click to expand...

interestingly NFU insure barefoot trimmers.


----------



## barehoofhannah (6 April 2012)

Hello,

When everyone; farrier asociation and trim schools sat round the table they updated the minimum LANTRA NOS for farriers and created the trimming ones. They*are the same apart from the metal/shoe training. Involved was*representatives from, FRC (Farriers Registration Council), WCF (Worshipful Company of Farriers), FTA (Farriery Training Agency) and NEWC (National Equine Welfare Council) Trimming organisations: IAEP (Institute of Applied Equine Podiatry) EPAUK (Equine Podiatry Association UK), AANHCP (American Association of Natural Hoofcare Practitioners) ESA (Equine Sciences Academy) and the UKNHCP (UK Natural Hoofcare Practitioners)

These are both now signed off and as previously mentioned on LANTRA's website. I'll ask LANTRA if they can do more awareness raising of this.

Many of the trim schools include a lot of detailed training around feed, nutrition and other 'whole horse' learning well above what's included as a minimum. From my learning so far with the Equine Sciences Academy I would say its pitched at least degree level. From what I know of the standards and curriculum I imagine that's probably the case of the UKNHCP as well and I don't know about the other schools but I'm sure others on here could update. *I can't remember what the minimum standards ask for off hand, NVQ 3 maybe?

Another question; there has been mention of apprentices going out alone on behalf of their farrier. If insurances could identify this would they refuse to pay out as not done by a registered farrier?*

I think I'll contact LANTRA and see if they can have any influence or inform insurances of what trimming organisations pass the minimum training requirements and whether they can pass this info on to main insurance companies saying if you can confirm qualification from one of the above schools then the standard has been met. Those not involved at the time could submit their schemes of work/curriculum to see whether they are at a suitable level.

Oh I don't know, prob rambled on.

Happy Easter everyone


----------



## ester (6 April 2012)

barehoofhannah said:



			Hello,


Another question; there has been mention of apprentices going out alone on behalf of their farrier. If insurances could identify this would they refuse to pay out as not done by a registered farrier?*



Happy Easter everyone
		
Click to expand...

when I looked recently apprenctices are 'registered' with the WCF but not qualified as such so I think they would be covered.


----------



## barehoofhannah (6 April 2012)

Sorry it's put stars everywhere, I also may have missed bits out, so poss not completly a full and thorough account and missed of representatives. I wasn't on the group but have heard from attendees at the meetings and LANTRA during its development.  I've been interested as I'm training myself and it's tough, it's also not easy when there is negativity about an occupation.  I guess there is good and bad of everything, a lot down to the individual person and how much they adopt an open mind/critical thinking approach and want to develop professionally.

Best wishes
Hannah


----------



## MotherOfChickens (6 April 2012)

LucyPriory said:



			interestingly NFU insure barefoot trimmers.
		
Click to expand...

seriously!? god, I hate insurance companies! 

and of course, if you want your horses trimmed by a trimmer you would do your research and get a qualified one (unless you are an idiot) and you would look into that training/qualification (unless you are an idiot) to see if it's up to snuff.  

If I were an NFU customer I would want to know why they insure trimmers and take their money, while endorsing farriers only.


----------



## Fransurrey (6 April 2012)

LucyPriory said:



			interestingly NFU insure barefoot trimmers.
		
Click to expand...

You know, Lucy, that's a very good point! When I was training I looked at getting an insurance policy and the local NFU office drew one up for me, no problem at all. I never went through with it (decided I couldn't deal with the owners - kudos to the farriers for that!). Had I gone through with it, they would have insured an unqualified trimmer, as I was still training and in those days the Diploma was only recognised by some owners and KC La Pierre!!


----------



## amandap (6 April 2012)

LucyPriory said:



			interestingly NFU insure barefoot trimmers.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but... 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 Just typical!  

Thank you for that post peteralfred. 

I also sign your open letter too cptrayes.

The current Professional status situation really is a total farce. I'm no longer in UK but I would change insurers on principle and just imagine the wasted (insurance) man hours trying to clariify the confusion when 'suspect' claims come in. That's what you are really paying for as far as I can see. Surely the vast majority of hoof claims are with shod horses anyway.


----------



## SO1 (6 April 2012)

Actually this is not a new thing as it was in my 2011 policy along with appropriate worming, vacinations and annual dental checks.

I think potentially a lot of people could get caught out and I know a lot of people who do not have annual dental checks for their horses for example and even if the problem is not related to teeth if you are not complying with the terms and conditions of the policy they could refuse to pay out. However I am not sure if they are asking for evidence of all of the these if you make a claim, amazingly enough I actually had a claim free year last year!

However when when my vet came in 2010 as my pony had a hock injury and I made a claim he did mention that insurance companies were getting strict with such things as vacinations and dental checks being kept up to date and not paying if they were not even if it was unrelated to the injury. There was also a section on the claim form for the details of my farrier. I don't think NFU are the only ones putting definitions on what is deemed as reasonable care, I saw one policy with another insurer which said it would refuse to payout any claims if your horse or pony was overweight.

I think in part it does make it clearer for those with insurance what "reasonable care" is if there are some examples of what is expected as people definitions of "reasonable care" are different.

I think NFU perhaps have taken a big financial hit with their horse insurance as so many people went with them due to their reputation of paying out and and with more advanced vet treatment available the costs of treatment is often more and I know very few people who have never made a claim on their insurance!

I doubt the WCF would ever incorporate the trimmers, as my understanding is that the trimmers use a different method to the farriers which is why they are used instead of the farriers. If they used the same method then the WCF might consider registering but then that would defeat the object as there would no reason to use a trimmer if they were using the same method as the farrier!


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2012)

SO1 said:



			I doubt the WCF would ever incorporate the trimmers, as my understanding is that the trimmers use a different method to the farriers which is why they are used instead of the farriers. If they used the same method then the WCF might consider registering but then that would defeat the object as there would no reason to use a trimmer if they were using the same method as the farrier!
		
Click to expand...



A good trim is a good trim. There is no "different method" although one organisation  registered a name for their training so they could package it for marketing purposes.

A good trim will be the one that suits that foot, on that horse. Lots of farriers do them too and there is no barrier to them training apprentices to trim hardworking horses. Some already do, but it is far too few because far too few train with Masters who have hardworking unshod horses on their books.

The reason that there is a need for trimmers is that most farriers are not taught to trim hardworking horses at  all, are not taught biomechanics to the same level, are not taught the differences in the physiology of a shod foot from a barefoot one (ie the effects of shoes on the internal foot development), or in any depth about the effect of nutrition  on foot quality or of  mild metabolic conditions on ability to work without shoes on.

Shame on the WCF, I say.


----------



## Marydoll (6 April 2012)

jinglejoys said:



			Hmm so it looks as though IF I want to get a very expensive NFU policy I'm goin to have to have a farrier who sometimes turns up(or doesn't),brngs his dog to bounce around dashing under my mules feet,rushes to do the job as quick as he can to whiz on to the next appointment he's late for,doesn't tell me a thing about what he's doing or move the mule around,digs it in the ribs with a file and doesn't even know that mules and donkeys are trimmed differantly to horses...I'll stick to what I've got thank you 

Click to expand...

Just sounds like youve had a s hit farrier


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2012)

LucyPriory said:



			interestingly NFU insure barefoot trimmers.
		
Click to expand...

*(&£&^%&*^&%* hilarious


----------



## JFTDWS (6 April 2012)

guido16 said:



			Thats going to upset a few people on here!    May aswell put away my angle grinder then. .
		
Click to expand...





Flame_ said:



			I don't like this. What's next, they won't pay out for laminitis because you fed it?
		
Click to expand...

I could get on board with that, if the horse has been on a wildly inappropriate diet and the owner is oblivious to good management 

I don't care, I don't insure for vets fees anyway and I'd always seek out a good farrier, I wouldn't consider a barefoot trimmer.


----------



## Goldenstar (6 April 2012)

SO1 said:



			I doubt the WCF would ever incorporate the trimmers, as my understanding is that the trimmers use a different method to the farriers which is why they are used instead of the farriers. If they used the same method then the WCF might consider registering but then that would defeat the object as there would no reason to use a trimmer if they were using the same method as the farrier!
		
Click to expand...

There honestly seems to be very little difference as far I see it the trimmer I use is more careful checks the lateral balance witha great deal of care ( compared with my farrier ) and does not trim the sole or the frog my farrier loves cutting away the frog.
The trimmer is very interested in the management of the horse the work he is doing etc etc the farrier has never asked a question about the horse.


----------



## Holly Hocks (6 April 2012)

Oberon said:



			I guess I'll be cancelling my policy with the NFU then.

I won't go back to using the farrier who made my horse stand in pools of blood.

I'll stick with my UKNHCP trimmer who has been nurturing for my horses' hooves and doing a great job for many years now.

I won't be bullied by an insurance company.

End of.
		
Click to expand...

Well said.  Everyone knows that NFU stands for "No ******* Use".  Shoes made my horse lame - barefoot and trimmer made her sound.  I will NOT have any insurance company tell me who I use to treat my horse - my horse, my decision - End of.


----------



## Tinypony (6 April 2012)

"I wouldn't use a barefoot trimmer..."
"I wouldn't use a farrier..."
Can't we get past this?  Surely we all use who we think best for our horses, rather than discounting a whole set of individuals just because of the label they have attached?  Similarly, insurance policies should allow owners some freedom of choice if it can be justified as being in the best interests of the horse.  Of course they shouldn't pay up if someone who hasn't been properly trained does damage, but if the trimmer or farrier (and there are unqualified "farriers" working out there...) has some relevant accreditation that should be enough.
Does everyone check that the farrier who does their mates horses and can fit theirs on his/her round as well is a member of the Worshipful Whatever?  A few years back a mate of mine got a terrible shock when it transpired that her yard farrier, who had been practising for years, had never actually finished his qualification.


----------



## Nic (6 April 2012)

jinglejoys said:



			Hmm so it looks as though IF I want to get a very expensive NFU policy I'm goin to have to have a farrier who sometimes turns up(or doesn't),brngs his dog to bounce around dashing under my mules feet,rushes to do the job as quick as he can to whiz on to the next appointment he's late for,doesn't tell me a thing about what he's doing or move the mule around,digs it in the ribs with a file and doesn't even know that mules and donkeys are trimmed differantly to horses...I'll stick to what I've got thank you 

Click to expand...

Or get another farrier...


----------



## LadyRascasse (6 April 2012)

hear hear about time too! Farrier train for 4 years before they can do what they do barefoot trimmer one day isn't it?


----------



## SO1 (6 April 2012)

But surely there has to be enough of difference between trimmers and farriers for those who use trimmers to prefer them over farriers and for NFU to make an issue of it in their insurance policies? Or is it that those who use trimmers have just had back luck and not been able to find a suitable farrier?

Perhaps the main governing body for qualified trimmers should be lobbying insurance companies and vets to persuade them to recognise their methods before other insurance companies follow NFU's lead (they may not all say it in their small print but does not mean that they won't use it as a reason not to pay out if they feel they can do).

QUOTE=Goldenstar;10588611]There honestly seems to be very little difference as far I see it the trimmer I use is more careful checks the lateral balance witha great deal of care ( compared with my farrier ) and does not trim the sole or the frog my farrier loves cutting away the frog.
The trimmer is very interested in the management of the horse the work he is doing etc etc the farrier has never asked a question about the horse.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Goldenstar (6 April 2012)

LadyRascasse said:



			hear hear about time too! Farrier train for 4 years before they can do what they do barefoot trimmer one day isn't it?
		
Click to expand...

I am not an expert on this but I do not think most trimming courses are one day the prob is its difficult to know exactly what qualification your trimmer has unless you do some research this needs sorting and the trimming organisations need to get it done .
However training for four years is no guarantee that your horse won't be crippled and end his working life due to bad shoeing .
I should add all but one of my horses are shod and the shoeless one was not taken shoeless due to lameness .
I am so glad I don't insure so my desisions are my own.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (6 April 2012)

LadyRascasse said:



			hear hear about time too! Farrier train for 4 years before they can do what they do barefoot trimmer one day isn't it?
		
Click to expand...

why don't you go look it up instead of guessing?


----------



## MotherOfChickens (6 April 2012)

Tinypony said:



			"I wouldn't use a barefoot trimmer..."
"I wouldn't use a farrier..."
Can't we get past this?  Surely we all use who we think best for our horses, rather than discounting a whole set of individuals just because of the label they have attached?  Similarly, insurance policies should allow owners some freedom of choice if it can be justified as being in the best interests of the horse.  Of course they shouldn't pay up if someone who hasn't been properly trained does damage, but if the trimmer or farrier (and there are unqualified "farriers" working out there...) has some relevant accreditation that should be enough.
Does everyone check that the farrier who does their mates horses and can fit theirs on his/her round as well is a member of the Worshipful Whatever?  A few years back a mate of mine got a terrible shock when it transpired that her yard farrier, who had been practising for years, had never actually finished his qualification.
		
Click to expand...


good post!

as for finding another farrier, if you live out in the sticks it's not always that easy.


----------



## Oberon (6 April 2012)

LadyRascasse said:



			hear hear about time too! Farrier train for 4 years before they can do what they do barefoot trimmer one day isn't it?
		
Click to expand...

Yes they only do one day's training...7 hours to be exact - with a 30 minute lunch break.

And half of that day is learning about voodoo.


----------



## abitodd (6 April 2012)

Amaranta said:



			ETA:  I also thought that qualified trimmers would be OK, I see now that they are not.  IMHO trimmers now need to be pushing to have a properly recognised and policed organisation,which will stop all the dodgy trimmers in their tracks OR they need to apply to be recognised by the WCF
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And the leading oganisations are trying to do this,but the wheels of 'government' grind very slow!



amandap said:



			Here's the link to the NOS standards for barefoot care which were drawn up by LANTRA with consultation with trimming organizations, farriers and vets. 
http://www.lantra.co.uk/getattachme...4d/Equine-Barefoot-Care-NOS-(April-2010).aspx

I don't know what the latest WFC position is but ?they (some farriers) wanted their training as the benchmark in 2009 which seems a bit pointless as much of it is to do with shoeing and making shoes.  Hopefully sense will prevail and this can be sorted. Trimmers and bare hoof care isn't going away whether you like it or hate it.
		
Click to expand...

My farrier was at many of these LANTRA meetings and apparently many minutes were wasted discussing whether it should be 'equines' or 'equids' or whether a bullet point was needed,or should that be a full stop or comma. 
As mentioned above,red tape must be arranged and plaited before decisions can be made!
However minimum standards were decided. A governing body is yet to be established.



cptrayes said:



*OPEN LETTER TO THE WORSHIPFUL COMPANY OF FARRIERS*


Dear WCF

What we horseowners want is this:

Your trainees to be taught in depth about hoof mechanics and to dissect hooves of both shod and unshod horses during their training and to note the internal differences.

Your trainees to be taught in depth about how nutrition and metabolic issues (Cushings, IR, EMS, EPSM) affect a horse's feet.

Your trainees to spend a period with a Master who has a number of unshod eventers/hunters/long distance horses on his books.

You to have two strands of apprentices - those who are accredited to shoe and trim   and those who are only accredited to trim.

PLEASE pull your fingers out and get on with it!

The Horse Owning Public.
		
Click to expand...

You might need to re write this. Perhaps we should have a meeting and decide on the exact wording. i.e. you should perhaps say equines rather than horses to cover donkeys,mules etc. I also think  bullet points are needed. Do you agree? If you do I might sign it!



barehoofhannah said:



			Hello,

When everyone; farrier asociation and trim schools sat round the table they updated the minimum LANTRA NOS for farriers and created the trimming ones. They*are the same apart from the metal/shoe training. Involved was*representatives from, FRC (Farriers Registration Council), WCF (Worshipful Company of Farriers), FTA (Farriery Training Agency) and NEWC (National Equine Welfare Council) Trimming organisations: IAEP (Institute of Applied Equine Podiatry) EPAUK (Equine Podiatry Association UK), AANHCP (American Association of Natural Hoofcare Practitioners) ESA (Equine Sciences Academy) and the UKNHCP (UK Natural Hoofcare Practitioners)

These are both now signed off and as previously mentioned on LANTRA's website. I'll ask LANTRA if they can do more awareness raising of this.

Many of the trim schools include a lot of detailed training around feed, nutrition and other 'whole horse' learning well above what's included as a minimum. From my learning so far with the Equine Sciences Academy I would say its pitched at least degree level. From what I know of the standards and curriculum I imagine that's probably the case of the UKNHCP as well and I don't know about the other schools but I'm sure others on here could update. *I can't remember what the minimum standards ask for off hand, NVQ 3 maybe?

Another question; there has been mention of apprentices going out alone on behalf of their farrier. If insurances could identify this would they refuse to pay out as not done by a registered farrier?*

I think I'll contact LANTRA and see if they can have any influence or inform insurances of what trimming organisations pass the minimum training requirements and whether they can pass this info on to main insurance companies saying if you can confirm qualification from one of the above schools then the standard has been met. Those not involved at the time could submit their schemes of work/curriculum to see whether they are at a suitable level.

Oh I don't know, prob rambled on.

Happy Easter everyone
		
Click to expand...

As above. The wheels are in motion. The new farrier syllabus may even include elements from trimming schools. The problem they are having is finding farriers willing to teach the subject. This country has many farriers specializing in barefoot,but they are all too busy trimming to find time to teach!

The UKNHCP has been recognised as a provider of CPD for farriers.



LadyRascasse said:



			hear hear about time too! Farrier train for 4 years before they can do what they do barefoot trimmer one day isn't it?
		
Click to expand...

I could print up some business cards and set myself up as a barefoot trimmer tomorrow. I know LOADS,honestly!
The leading barefoot oganisations have stringent training which is spread over a year or more offers excellent CPD opportunities. Therefore there are  many excellent barefoot practitioners.
I do agree though. Every horse is different and feet grow and reflect the work of the trimmer. It can take months or even years for mistakes in the trim(or shoeing) to manifest as a problem. In a four year apprenticeship,farriers get to see the effects of their work and they get to see hundreds of horses. I am afraid a 2 week KC La Pierre course cannot compete with this.
IMO it would be great if the WCF included natural hooves in its training and had modules which those wanting to exclusively practice barefoot could do,under the supervision of a master.


----------



## hackedoff (6 April 2012)

Personally think its another way of insurers looking to wiggle out of honouring claims. Iv just reverted from barefoot to shod as my old boy just likes his shoes. My excellant farrier was genuinly very happy with how barefoot trimmer had done horsies tootsies for the last year.


----------



## smellsofhorse (6 April 2012)

Makes sense, I agree with it.


----------



## AlDestoor (6 April 2012)

I agree with this tbf. I wouldnt let anyone near my horses feet, back, or teeth without the approrpriate qualifications. 

A friend on my stables uses a Natual Barefoot Trimmer as shes into natural horsemanship and he costs more than my Blacksmith for a trim! Its only around £20 for a trim so might as well just invest in someone who knows the horses foot and has the qalification to prove it. 

And i would never let anyone with an angle grinder near my horses feet. Horses are very unpredictable and who knows what might happen.


----------



## Bedlam (6 April 2012)

I'm a vet.

No - honestly, I am!

Let me treat your horse and then I'll give you a bill and you can pay me and then claim off your insurance.

What do you mean they want me to be qualified and a member of some weird professional group that monitors standards of practice? 

How odd that they won't pay out just because I say that I'm capable of doing what I'm doing. 

How strange that they want me to be a member of some registered, governed body with standards and guidelines.

I just don't get it.


----------



## AlDestoor (6 April 2012)

Bedlam said:



			I'm a vet.

No - honestly, I am!

Let me treat your horse and then I'll give you a bill and you can pay me and then claim off your insurance.

What do you mean they want me to be qualified and a member of some weird professional group that monitors standards of practice? 

How odd that they won't pay out just because I say that I'm capable of doing what I'm doing. 

How strange that they want me to be a member of some registered, governed body with standards and guidelines.

I just don't get it.
		
Click to expand...


Love it! 

Its a no brainer for me, if you're daft enough to let someone unqualified near your horse then you should pay for it when it goes wrong!

Qualified people only if you honestly care about your horses. You wouldnt take your loved ones to an unqualified doctor/dentist/ surgeon etc. Same thing to me.


----------



## ester (6 April 2012)

that isn't really the issue though here, the fact is that insurance companies (I don't specifically know about nfu) will pay out for a barefoot rehab, with none farriers/WCF registrees, however they are stating that if a horse is trimmed as a matter of course by one of these such people regularly they will not be covered which is somewhat oxymoronish!

From what I have heard I'm not sure that the WCF is that great on upholding standards of practice either.

eta Lucy-Jay I think you need to define 'unqualified' in this context, my shod horse has gone wrong, in part due to shoeing ...


----------



## AlDestoor (6 April 2012)

ester said:



			that isn't really the issue though here, the fact is that insurance companies (I don't specifically know about nfu) will pay out for a barefoot rehab, with none farriers/WCF registrees, however they are stating that if a horse is trimmed as a matter of course by one of these such people regularly they will not be covered which is somewhat oxymoronish!

From what I have heard I'm not sure that the WCF is that great on upholding standards of practice either.

eta Lucy-Jay I think you need to define 'unqualified' in this context, my shod horse has gone wrong, in part due to shoeing ...
		
Click to expand...

Same, Had an ex racehorse that was bound by a newly qualified farrier. I changed farrier. But i would never go to someone who had had a days training on the horses foot compared to someone who has had 4 years. If you needed surgery, would you go to someone who only did say 1 years training and said they could do it, or would you go to someone who did the full 7 years and knows the ins and outs of whatever it was that needed doing. 

I understand this is about insurance policies and it truly is each to there own on this one. But me personally, believe that no one should be able to claim for this as they have taken the choice to have someone unqualified trim there horses. My own policy covers complementary therapies which does infact include, Barefoot Trimmers. My point is, i would still seek out a registered farrier to do the work that was needed i.e. special shoeing etc. There are qualified Blacksmiths that would do this. Its just common sense to me.


----------



## ester (6 April 2012)

I do wonder where this 'days' training comes from... 

honestly I was a pretty big sceptic a couple of years ago, I suspect I could find some posts by me saying pretty much what you are ,  it would have been common sense to me too  

I have researched the training required to be a member of each of the bf organisations and selected someone on that basis and recommendation. Horse has been remedially shod by a qual farrier.. and the results are there to see, hoof balance is externally much better, horse is still not properly sound and there is little more to be done medically (has had joint injections) or shoeing wise long term. Hence getting to the point that maybe an alternative approach is required if the horse is not to retire. 

It's not the trimming I'm too worried about tbh, I could tell my farrier to leave the frogs alone  it is more some help and advice on feeding and management which I felt my farrier (although not completely unknowledgable on unshod) could not give me (or anymore than I know myself), at least in the first instance of starting off... I want my hand holding a bit more! and don't think I am being completely foolish in allowing someone else to touch my horse's feet (not that anyone has yet)


----------



## Oberon (6 April 2012)

The vitriol comes from people who have either never used a trimmer, used a bad one...or from someone who is watching your horse be trimmed by a trimmer and still not be sound....so the trimmer, "must be doing something wrong"

It's so sad that such ignorance exists still.

There's room in this world for everyone.


----------



## AlDestoor (6 April 2012)

In that case, I would be trimming my horses feet. 

I dont go by what other people recomend to me on the basis that i have done this before, and ended up with my horse being bound. 

I go by personal experience. My livery friend has a barefoot trimmer who does infact give her some good advice, on the other hand he gives her some absolute nonsense. 

I'm not against barefoot trimmers. I just think that if you look at it from an insurers point of view, these people dont really have any decent qualifications to be trimming horses feet and when that is the case, i feel they have every right to refuse payment. 

To me, it is just easier to use a qualified Blacksmith, that way you have no issues with your insurance. Its also probably cheaper to use a farrier, my friends Barefoot Trimmer costs £35 to trim her horse, My Blacksmith costs £20...


----------



## abitodd (6 April 2012)

PeterNatt said:



			A leading equine insurer has warned that it may reject claims involving 'horses' feet when the animal has had hoof care from anyone other than a registered farrier.
"We fully support owners who choose not to have their animals shod, which is why our policy wording refers to 'regular foot care' rather than 'regular showing" Nicola Whittaker of NFU Mutual told ETN.
"If a claim related specifically to the horse's foot, for example, in the case of Lameness due to foot imbalance, then NFU Mitual would want to reassure itself that the person who had carried out any shoeing or trimming of the horse's feet was suitably trained and  qualified  to provide this care and had not inadvertently contributed to the problem"

From Equestrian Trade News April 2012
		
Click to expand...

Does it state anywhere about the timescale between visits,I wonder?
What if the horse is only seen by the farrier every 4 or 6 months?


----------



## Bedlam (6 April 2012)

Oberon said:



			The vitriol comes from people who have either never used a trimmer, used a bad one...or from someone who is watching your horse be trimmed by a trimmer and still not be sound....so the trimmer, "must be doing something wrong"

It's so sad that such ignorance exists still.

There's room in this world for everyone.
		
Click to expand...




No vitriol from me - just a complete understanding of where insurance companies are coming from.

They absolutely cannot pay out for treatment from any old guy. They HAVE to restrict payouts to treatment received from members of regulated bodies.

I have just claimed around 5K from my insurers for fees relating to a SI injury to my eventer. They have paid without question my vets fees and ACPAT registered physios fees. 

I've also had Gavin Scofield see my horse. God alone knows what he does, but it bloomin' works. Insurance won't pay for him though - he's not registered with anything or anybody as far as I know. And that's fine - cos I don't understand it either! LOL! As far as the insurance company stands he's just any old guy. How could they possibly judge any other way?


----------



## AlDestoor (6 April 2012)

Bedlam said:



			No vitriol from me - just a complete understanding of where insurance companies are coming from.

They absolutely cannot pay out for treatment from any old guy. They HAVE to restrict payouts to treatment received from members of regulated bodies.

I have just claimed around 5K from my insurers for fees relating to a SI injury to my eventer. They have paid without question my vets fees and ACPAT registered physios fees. 

I've also had Gavin Scofield see my horse. God alone knows what he does, but it bloomin' works. Insurance won't pay for him though - he's not registered with anything or anybody as far as I know. And that's fine - cos I don't understand it either! LOL! As far as the insurance company stands he's just any old guy. How could they possibly judge any other way?
		
Click to expand...

agreed!


----------



## criso (6 April 2012)

abitodd said:



			Does it state anywhere about the timescale between visits,I wonder?
What if the horse is only seen by the farrier every 4 or 6 months?
		
Click to expand...

The word used is  'regular' which is not the same as often ;-)


----------



## ester (6 April 2012)

It isn't about who they will pay to treat in the event of a claim though. 

I would love to know if nfu have paid for any to go to rockley..


----------



## Flame_ (6 April 2012)

Oberon said:



			The vitriol comes from people who have either never used a trimmer, used a bad one...or from someone who is watching your horse be trimmed by a trimmer and still not be sound....so the trimmer, "must be doing something wrong"

It's so sad that such ignorance exists still.

There's room in this world for everyone.
		
Click to expand...

I've come across two on my livery yard. One lamed a perfectly sound endurance horse, the other one trims the feet so lob-sided you'd think he has to be drunk! A lot of the principles are impressive but IMO in practice there is drastic need for standardization (is that a word?  ). I'm not anti barefoot, but I am anti miserable horses.

i still think that while it is perfectly legal for anyone to learn to trim hooves and provide the service, not using farriers is not a valid reason to void insurance.


----------



## cptrayes (6 April 2012)

I've worked with the actuaries of insurance companies and believe me, they aren't interested in whether anyone is qualified or not. They are only interested in minimising claim payments, and they can do this by restricting payouts on all sorts of bases. If they can wriggle out of a claim for a foot abscess because of the completely unrelated fact that your horse is trimmed by a non-farrier, they will. 

When they finally discover that  barefoot horses get less caudal hoof lameness than other horses, that horses with self balancing feet get less joint problems than other horses, that horses on carefully mineral balanced diets get less mud fever than other horses, that horses on low grass/sugar diets get less sweet itch than other horses, that horses with caudal hoof lameness can be cured without £5000 worth of investigations, medications and remedial shoes,  etc etc, they'll be begging us all to use the barefoot trimmers who know about these things.


ps standard joke in the industry - why does someone choose to become an actuary? Because they find accountancy too exciting.


----------



## Tinypony (6 April 2012)

Oberon said:



			Yes they only do one day's training...7 hours to be exact - with a 30 minute lunch break.

And half of that day is learning about voodoo.






Click to expand...


----------



## Oberon (6 April 2012)

Lucy-Jay said:



			I'm not against barefoot trimmers. I just think that if you look at it from an insurers point of view, these people dont really have any decent qualifications to be trimming horses feet and when that is the case, i feel they have every right to refuse payment.
		
Click to expand...

My trimmers have trained in the US and the UK and trained with many different people.

They are members of the UKNHCP, who offer a high level of training and they continue to study and develop their practice even now.

I know I am getting the very best in hoof care for my horses.

Even my ubber traditional YO states simply that with a farrier her horses were lame. With my trimmer, the horses are sound.

I don't care what the NFU says. I'm sticking with what I've got thank you very much.

It really irritates me when people declare all BF trimmers as charlatans with only one day's training. Of course there are bad ones out there. But please don't tar everyone with the same brush. We Barefoot Taliban would never do that with the farriers...however sorely tempted


----------



## criso (6 April 2012)

Bedlam said:



			No vitriol from me - just a complete understanding of where insurance companies are coming from.

They absolutely cannot pay out for treatment from any old guy. They HAVE to restrict payouts to treatment received from members of regulated bodies.
		
Click to expand...

But that's not the issue in the statement they released.

What NFU are saying is if you make a claim for vets fees and have been using a trimmer instead of a farrier, then they can reject your claim.  

They are also refusing to pay for barefoot rehab where other insurance companies are but that is a second and different issue.


----------



## AlDestoor (6 April 2012)

criso said:



			But that's not the issue in the statement they released.

What NFU are saying is if you make a claim for vets fees and have been using a trimmer instead of a farrier, then they can reject your claim.  

They are also refusing to pay for barefoot rehab where other insurance companies are but that is a second and different issue.
		
Click to expand...

I've hear ALOT about NFU recently. I, myself am not with NFU, but have heard about them increasing insurance rates ridculously recently. I was with them for 10 year untill 2 years back when they wanted £50 for my 12 yr old TB a month!!

No tar, i went somewhere else!


----------



## Tinypony (6 April 2012)

Blimey, I must be getting to be a grumpy old woman.
All these daft anecdotes about the bad trims people have seen, the bad shoeing that people have seen.  When will people get the message that every horse owner needs to educate themselves so that they are able to recognise bad work when they see it?  Bad work by a farrier or a trimmer?  
I've seen some complete lash-up shoeings (some on here), but I don't say all farriers are rubbish as a result.  If I did that would be as daft as saying that I'd seen the work of one or two bad trimmers and that therefore all barefoot trimmers were to be dismissed out of hand as well.
Wouldn't it?
Cptrayes has got it right.  This is not about NFU making some sort of brave stand against barefoot trimmers.  It's all about the bottom line and how they can squeeze in a clause that sometime down the line will mean they can refuse some poor sod's insurance claim.


----------



## Goldenstar (6 April 2012)

Tinypony said:



			Blimey, I must be getting to be a grumpy old woman.
All these daft anecdotes about the bad trims people have seen, the bad shoeing that people have seen.  When will people get the message that every horse owner needs to educate themselves so that they are able to recognise bad work when they see it?  Bad work by a farrier or a trimmer?  
I've seen some complete lash-up shoeings (some on here), but I don't say all farriers are rubbish as a result.  If I did that would be as daft as saying that I'd seen the work of one or two bad trimmers and that therefore all barefoot trimmers were to be dismissed out of hand as well.Wouldn't it?
Cptrayes has got it right.  This is not about NFU making some sort of brave stand against barefoot trimmers.  It's all about the bottom line and how they can squeeze in a clause that sometime down the line will mean they can refuse some poor sod's insurance claim.[/


Yes that's the problem getting polarised at either end of this foot debate you need to keep an open mind keep learning and keep questioning what you do and why you do it.
As for the insurance thank god I dont
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Amaranta (7 April 2012)

cptrayes said:



			I've worked with the actuaries of insurance companies and believe me, they aren't interested in whether anyone is qualified or not. They are only interested in minimising claim payments, and they can do this by restricting payouts on all sorts of bases. If they can wriggle out of a claim for a foot abscess because of the completely unrelated fact that your horse is trimmed by a non-farrier, they will. 

When they finally discover that  barefoot horses get less caudal hoof lameness than other horses, that horses with self balancing feet get less joint problems than other horses, that horses on carefully mineral balanced diets get less mud fever than other horses, that horses on low grass/sugar diets get less sweet itch than other horses, that horses with caudal hoof lameness can be cured without £5000 worth of investigations, medications and remedial shoes,  etc etc, they'll be begging us all to use the barefoot trimmers who know about these things.


ps standard joke in the industry - why does someone choose to become an actuary? Because they find accountancy too exciting.
		
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with your first paragraph, insurance companies do try to wriggle out when they can, sad but true.  On the other hand, I can understand them insisting that only qualified people can attend to a horse that is not their own.

Has there been proper research carried out on the claimed benefits of barefoot?  Has it been published and peer reviewed?  If not that would be a good start, the WCF and, more importantly, the veterinary profession would have to take you seriously.  Anecdotal evidence is simply not enough I'm afraid.

Chiropracters  were at one time excluded, until the veterinary profession started to recognised them.


----------



## amandap (7 April 2012)

Tinypony said:



			When will people get the message that every horse owner needs to educate themselves so that they are able to recognise bad work when they see it?  Bad work by a farrier or a trimmer?
		
Click to expand...

This, this and THIS


At the end of the day your horses are YOUR responsibility.

I'll go off and bang my head somewhere else.


----------



## ester (7 April 2012)

can you get papers amaranta?

I have just had a quick search in WOK.. not read it properly yet but will have a look at some point. 

Title: Effects of barefoot trimming on hoof morphology 
Author(s): Clayton H. M.; Gray S.; Kaiser L. J.; et al.
Source: AUSTRALIAN VETERINARY JOURNAL  Volume: 89   Issue: 8   Pages: 305-311   DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2011.00806.x   Published: AUG 2011 
Times Cited: 1 (from All Databases) 

summary of results Results (although sample size was small- 7)

Establishment of the barefoot trim involved significant shortening of the toe, heel and medial and lateral walls, with increases in angulation at the toe, medial and lateral walls, but not at the heel. Maintenance of the trim resulted in a palmar/plantar migration of the heels, with increases in support length, heel angle and solar angle of the distal phalanx (P3). 

Conclusions Bevelling the toe and engaging the frog and bars in the weight-bearing function of the foot resulted in elevation of the heel angle and solar angle of P3. These changes may be beneficial in treating under-run heels and negative solar plane angulation of P3.

That's the most relevant I can find atm, I assume that there is an intention to publish the project dexter results when they are finished.


----------



## Flame_ (7 April 2012)

Amaranta said:



			Chiropracters  were at one time excluded, until the veterinary profession started to recognised them.
		
Click to expand...

The insurance might not pay out for chiro treatment, but they wouldn't have said they wouldn't payout for veterinary KS treatment if the horse has received regular chiro treatment. 

I can understand the insurance not supporting paying for barefoot rehabilitation treatment because AFAIC its still in its early, developmental stages and there isn't enough research and data to support it *yet* (although ironically if they did it would probably save them a lot of money), but what this is saying is that insurance for foot problems, or possibly even any problems like hocks or back for example, which could and do happen to any horses, could be void because people don't use registered farriers. That can't be right when a lot of people are confident that they are doing the best thing for their horses having their feet regularly cared for by a trimmer.


----------



## ArcticIce (7 April 2012)

Bedlam said:



			I'm a vet.

No - honestly, I am!

Let me treat your horse and then I'll give you a bill and you can pay me and then claim off your insurance.

What do you mean they want me to be qualified and a member of some weird professional group that monitors standards of practice? 

How odd that they won't pay out just because I say that I'm capable of doing what I'm doing. 

How strange that they want me to be a member of some registered, governed body with standards and guidelines.

I just don't get it.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Flame_ (7 April 2012)

Actually, having given this more thought, if insurance start going down the "only qualified professionals" route, could my insurance end up void because I hardly ever use a saddle fitter? For all their qualifications, I don't trust them and I usually fit my own horses saddles, so following this logic it would be a matter of time before my insurance was void too, wouldn't it?


----------



## Littlelegs (7 April 2012)

Like many others have said, its just yet another way of reducing the no of claims they have to pay out on. It's nothing to do with barefoot really, i'm pretty sure if a horse ended up with a back problem & you said you'd fitted the saddle yourself they'd try & back out of paying regardless of whether it was related. Same goes for teeth, worming etc.


----------



## amandap (7 April 2012)

Now I've calmed down and banged some slight sense into my head...

I think everyone agrees that trimmers (and all professionals) need a regulatory body but it seems this is taking time for various reasons...

The important thing is imo any regulatory body needs to be truly good at what it does and it therefore has to be knowledgeable not some sort of club where you just pay to be a  member...

The main trimming orgs in UK have a strict CPD and peer review structure in place already, all trimmers have to be insured and each of the organizations has a complaints system already in place. Hopefully soon there will be a separate overall regulatory body to police them.

There are stories of poor trimming, farriery, veterinary care etc. etc. and even as mentioned on this thread farriers practicing who aren't quallified. These sort of people are in all walks of life and you can't tell by looking. 

It is down to the owner to check for themselves, get references and have some knowledge and ability to observe your horses responses to hoof care and monitor the impact of any professionals intervention. Demand clear explanations and openness, the professional is not your enemy they are part of your team keeping your horse healthy and regaining health, communication between you and them is vital in my view.

Oh and don't forget you are paying for their services...


----------



## DragonSlayer (7 April 2012)

...I'm still wondering who the heck decided an ANGLE GRINDER that is purely for CUTTING METAL is suitable for the use on a living creature??

Barefoot trimmer/farrier, whoever you chose, using an angle grinder in my book, is quite, quite dreadful, and oneday, there is going to be hell of an accident....


----------



## YorksG (7 April 2012)

DragonSlayer said:



			...I'm still wondering who the heck decided an ANGLE GRINDER that is purely for CUTTING METAL is suitable for the use on a living creature??

Barefoot trimmer/farrier, whoever you chose, using an angle grinder in my book, is quite, quite dreadful, and oneday, there is going to be hell of an accident....
		
Click to expand...

This^
Plus it is possible that the NFU, while possibly looking for means to exclude claims, are also concerned about practices such as above. The woman promoting the angle grinder claims to be a foremost performance barefoor trimmer, it is people like her and those who defend her, who call the whole practice into question.imo


----------



## Littlelegs (7 April 2012)

In fairness, as I said on the other thread, the idiot with the angle grinder isn't someone I'd associate with the general practice of barefooters, anymore than I assume rolkur is a fair example of all dressage trainers.


----------



## YorksG (7 April 2012)

littlelegs said:



			In fairness, as I said on the other thread, the idiot with the angle grinder isn't someone I'd associate with the general practice of barefooters, anymore than I assume rolkur is a fair example of all dressage trainers.
		
Click to expand...

That is fair enough, but I have never come across an e-book promoting rolkur. Also there are many sites 'educating' owners as to how to trim their horses hooves themselves. Until the barefoot trimmers/equine podiatrists have a regulatory body, which precludes anyone just setting themselves up, with protected title, then I think the insurance companies will take this route.


----------



## Littlelegs (7 April 2012)

YorksG- agreed. Although I doubt nfu's stance has anything to do with the interests of protecting horses welfare, its just a handy way to wriggle out of claims.


----------



## Amaranta (7 April 2012)

littlelegs said:



			YorksG- agreed. Although I doubt nfu's stance has anything to do with the interests of protecting horses welfare, its just a handy way to wriggle out of claims.
		
Click to expand...

I suspect you may be right.  I no longer insure with NFU for many reasons the biggest of which is the cost of their premiums.  I don't think they are trying to get out of equine insurance as they tried like hell to keep my business, however, although mine are unshod, they are seen by a farrier every 6 weeks or so, so this clause would not have affected me.

I also agree with Yorksg, the lady with the angle grinder is one of many and until there is a proper regulating body who polices these people, then the barefoot movement will continue to cause consternation.


----------



## amandap (7 April 2012)

It's not just that woman that uses angle grinders to trim hooves btw. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fV5jhzL8rw
I'm sure it's not unusual at all tbh. It's the training owners to trim using one that is so scary to me.  Add to that the distance/unsupervised learning aspect and...


----------



## LadyRascasse (7 April 2012)

Oberon said:



			Yes they only do one day's training...7 hours to be exact - with a 30 minute lunch break.

And half of that day is learning about voodoo.






Click to expand...

This is why I would never use one. I have no objection to horses being barefoot but i would prefer someone who has studied the equine foot and has do CDP to keep said qualification. I have had a horse crippled by bad shoeing, currently have my horse shod all round but she may be having them off very soon (not for anything relating to the shoes) I will still have my farrier out to trim her.


----------



## Littlelegs (7 April 2012)

It is indeed scary. I think I find the fact these nutters promote it worse than the fact they do it themselves. Just so wrong.


----------



## JFTDWS (7 April 2012)

The only time I've ever felt the need of an anglegrinder around my horses was when I lost my hitchlock keys and had to cut the flippin' think off the trailer


----------



## amandap (7 April 2012)

LadyRascasse said:



			This is why I would never use one. I have no objection to horses being barefoot but i would prefer someone who has studied the equine foot and has do CDP to keep said qualification. I have had a horse crippled by bad shoeing, currently have my horse shod all round but she may be having them off very soon (not for anything relating to the shoes) I will still have my farrier out to trim her.
		
Click to expand...

I am sure oberon was being sarcastic. 

UKNHCP are actually accredited to provide CPD to farriers. 
It's all such a jumble and farriers really must get together with trimmers formally.


----------



## Amaranta (7 April 2012)

amandap said:



			It's not just that woman that uses angle grinders to trim hooves btw. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fV5jhzL8rw
I'm sure it's not unusual at all tbh. It's the training owners to trim using one that is so scary to me.  Add to that the distance/unsupervised learning aspect and... 

Click to expand...

Jesus those feet!  Looks like that horse had not had it's feet done for a very long time!

The other thing that struck me was that the farrier had lovely hair


----------



## indie999 (7 April 2012)

My farrier today had up to 5 years of training and exams and I would rather use him than someone who thinks its like cutting toe nails!

Yes he agreed vets do recommend barefoot trimmers but is at a lost to understand why as he does barefoot too? But he said the reason farriers became registerd in first place was to stop bad practice. 

I think NFU are right. Would you go to see a GP that had a crash course in medicine?


----------



## amandap (7 April 2012)

indie999 said:



			Would you go to see a GP that had a crash course in medicine?
		
Click to expand...

I'm wasting my typing time but repeat, many trimmers have done much more than a crash course. Perhaps if your farrier looked at say for eg. UKNHCP training or did some of their CPD he might find out why some vets use 'good' trimmers.


----------



## lannerch (7 April 2012)

Many trimmers may have done more than a crash course but many have not! And those that have done more than the crash course I bet those that have done the equivalent of 5 years training with exams are in the minority.
And unfortunately they are all called bare foot trimmers!


----------



## Goldenstar (7 April 2012)

amandap said:



			I'm wasting my typing time but repeat, many trimmers have done much more than a crash course. Perhaps if your farrier looked at say for eg. UKNHCP training or did some of their CPD he might find out why some vets use 'good' trimmers.
		
Click to expand...

You are wasting your time, the people who are completly convinced that just because a farrier has studied for four years he must be doing a good job will change that view.
But every show I go to I see examples of horrendous shoeing done by farriers that have studied for four years.
A proportion of these horses will suffer shoeing induced long term injury that just how it is.
I was fortunate to have at a great young farrier at one time who trained me to look at shoes all the time to asses balance he was great.
What did he do ? Went on to start a barefoot practise and train farriers and trimmers.


----------



## quirky (7 April 2012)

amandap said:



			I'm wasting my typing time but repeat, many trimmers have done much more than a crash course. Perhaps if your farrier looked at say for eg. UKNHCP training or did some of their CPD he might find out why some vets use 'good' trimmers.
		
Click to expand...

Yes and there are others that boast of doing a 3 week course and then promote themselves as qualified.

I think the crux of the matter is, we all know how long a farrier has spent training. A barefoot bod can do 3 weeks or 3 years training and pitch themselves at the same competence level.
Until barefoot people have a recognised and transparent syllabus to follow I think they'll be on a hiding to nothing.

As for angle grinders  I would not let anybody near my horse with one. Soft tissues and rotating metal discs should be kept a respectful distance apart imo .... and that would be more than the length of a pastern!


----------



## amandap (7 April 2012)

Anyone can *tell* you they are qualified it's up to the owner to check.  It seems even some (I'm sure a small minority) farriers aren't qualified but how many owners check the register?


----------



## quirky (7 April 2012)

amandap said:



			Anyone can *tell* you they are qualified it's up to the owner to check.  It seems even some (I'm sure a small minority) farriers aren't qualified but how many owners check the register?
		
Click to expand...

I have moved round the country and have _always_ sourced my new farrier off the register. Needed to find a number for them somewhere


----------



## LadyRascasse (7 April 2012)

I am not saying all trimmers are bad, just i personally would always use a farrier. Like is said previously I have had a horse crippled by bad shoeing, and seen others badly shod but I am very happy with my farrier and would never change him. I have also seen some horses crippled by some barefoot trimmers. For my piece of mind I would have to use a farrier as they are accountable and there is a legal procedure you can go though should you be unhappy with them. I suppose this is a bit like good dealer/ bad dealer debate.


----------



## amandap (7 April 2012)

quirky said:



			I have moved round the country and have _always_ sourced my new farrier off the register. Needed to find a number for them somewhere 

Click to expand...

That's the way to get one and by recommendation if you're lucky enough to have a choice. 

It is in the end personal choice who you use be it farrier or trimmer but you must take steps to ensure they are up to the job.


----------



## SusieT (7 April 2012)

'We Barefoot Taliban would never do that with the farriers'
You only have to look at this thread to see that thats not ture. The suggestion that all farriers leave horses standing in pools of blood/lame/let their dogs run around.


----------



## SusieT (7 April 2012)

And here's a question-why do barefoot trimmers NOT set themselves up a properly recognised course so that we can all move past the 'but they're not qualified' sticking point?


----------



## Oberon (7 April 2012)

SusieT said:



			'We Barefoot Taliban would never do that with the farriers'
You only have to look at this thread to see that thats not ture. The suggestion that all farriers leave horses standing in pools of blood/lame/let their dogs run around.
		
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you are misquoting. I never said anything about dogs or laming horses (although I could share more stories).

I mentioned a farrier left my healthy horse standing in pools of blood after a routine trim. That is a fact and that is when I turned to using a trimmer.

I don't slag off farriers.

But I am explaining my decision to use a trimmer and why, after they've been doing a great job for many years now, I will continue to do so despite the NFU decision.


----------



## LucyPriory (7 April 2012)

SusieT said:



			And here's a question-why do barefoot trimmers NOT set themselves up a properly recognised course so that we can all move past the 'but they're not qualified' sticking point?
		
Click to expand...

Actually if you read previous threads you will realise they have.  There are now agreed NOS, but so far no funding to adminster them.

I even got a government grant for part of my training.


----------



## Oberon (7 April 2012)

SusieT said:



			And here's a question-why do barefoot trimmers NOT set themselves up a properly recognised course so that we can all move past the 'but they're not qualified' sticking point?
		
Click to expand...

There has been many mentions on this thread that main organisations have been trying for many years.

They were very excited in 2007 that it would all be sorted 'soon'


----------



## Goldenstar (7 April 2012)

SusieT said:



			'We Barefoot Taliban would never do that with the farriers'
You only have to look at this thread to see that thats not ture. The suggestion that all farriers leave horses standing in pools of blood/lame/let their dogs run around.
		
Click to expand...

If my memory serves me right one person had had a pools of blood episode , one mentained unruly dogs ( mine does this it drives me mad big dog growls at mine pees on Haynets) .
The trimmers need to sort their status no one disaggrees with this I dont think.
It's in a way a new disapline and I think in time it will become more mainstream.


----------



## cptrayes (7 April 2012)

SusieT said:



			'We Barefoot Taliban would never do that with the farriers'
You only have to look at this thread to see that thats not ture. The suggestion that all farriers leave horses standing in pools of blood/lame/let their dogs run around.
		
Click to expand...


Why is it that every time a barefoot taliban member says "a farrier did this to my horse", that we are accused by the anti-barefoot brigade of saying "all farriers do this to all horses" ?

No-one on this thread has said "all" farriers do anything.

So let's drop that old rant now, shall we?



SusieT said:



			And here's a question-why do barefoot trimmers NOT set themselves up a properly recognised course so that we can all move past the 'but they're not qualified' sticking point?
		
Click to expand...


They have, long ago. There are four reputable trimming organisations with lengthy and expensive training with fully qualified trimmers operating in the UK - AEP, UKEP, ANHCP, UKNHCP. As I belong to none of them I think I can say without prejudice that from my point of view, having looked closely at them all, that there are minor differences in what they are taught to do, but that in the end every sound working barefoot horse's foot ends up looking as if it could have been done by any of them or by a farrier.


----------



## Amaranta (7 April 2012)

cptrayes said:



			They have, long ago. There are four reputable trimming organisations with lengthy and expensive training with fully qualified trimmers operating in the UK - AEP, UKEP, ANHCP, UKNHCP. As I belong to none of them I think I can say without prejudice that from my point of view, having looked closely at them all, that there are minor differences in what they are taught to do, but that in the end every sound working barefoot horse's foot ends up looking as if it could have been done by any of them or by a farrier.
		
Click to expand...

That could be part of your problem, why on earth are there four separate organisations?  Surely one, with clearly defined standards would be better?  Having four just muddies the waters


----------



## LadyRascasse (7 April 2012)

Would it not be better for the farriers council to run a qualification for people to be qualified as just trimmers? That way they are fully accountable for there actions in a court of law/insured and have CPD.


----------



## indie999 (7 April 2012)

ok Why do BAREFOOT trimmers do the FARRIER training and do barefoot afterwards then??????

ie that it is an extra discipline in addition to a profession.

Farriers were registered due to poor or non existent hoof care years ago! Now we are going backwards with other organisations? They should be united. 

So barefoot become farriers.


----------



## Amaranta (7 April 2012)

indie999 said:



			ok Why do BAREFOOT trimmers do the FARRIER training and do barefoot afterwards then??????

ie that it is an extra discipline in addition to a profession.

Farriers were registered due to poor or non existent hoof care years ago! Now we are going backwards with other organisations? They should be united. 

So barefoot become farriers.
		
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good starting plan to me


----------



## cptrayes (7 April 2012)

Amaranta said:



			That could be part of your problem, why on earth are there four separate organisations?  Surely one, with clearly defined standards would be better?  Having four just muddies the waters 

Click to expand...


"Your problem"  -  "We" don't have a problem. There is no "we".

It is history that there were two US organisations and the UK arms split off leaving 4. They do all operate to the same standards, the NOS standards that have already been pointed to in previous posts.

The answer to this mess is for the WCF to get its finger out and train trimmers who are not accredited to shoe, on a shorter apprenticeship, AND to train shoeing farriers better in how to manage barefoot horses.

Then we can put a law in place making it illegal to trim for payment unless you are registered.

Blame the WCF for this fiasco, for not responding to what people need. Don't blame the trimming organisations, all they have done is try to fill a gaping great hole in the horse foot care market.


----------



## YorksG (7 April 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Why is it that every time a barefoot taliban member says "a farrier did this to my horse", that we are accused by the anti-barefoot brigade of saying "all farriers do this to all horses" ?

No-one on this thread has said "all" farriers do anything.

So let's drop that old rant now, shall we?




They have, long ago. There are four reputable trimming organisations with lengthy and expensive training with fully qualified trimmers operating in the UK - AEP, UKEP, ANHCP, UKNHCP. As I belong to none of them I think I can say without prejudice that from my point of view, having looked closely at them all, that there are minor differences in what they are taught to do, but that in the end every sound working barefoot horse's foot ends up looking as if it could have been done by any of them or by a farrier.
		
Click to expand...

The fact that there are four trimming organisations speaks volumes to me. Until they can agree one umbrella organisation, which can then regulate all 'qualified' trimmers, they will appear to be at best amateur. They cannot hope to present a well regulated work force, when they do not all work to the same standard. The cost of a regulatory body is usually born by the members.


----------



## Amaranta (7 April 2012)

cptrayes said:



			"Your problem"  -  "We" don't have a problem. There is no "we".

It is history that there were two US organisations and the UK arms split off leaving 4. They do all operate to the same standards, the NOS standards that have already been pointed to in previous posts.

The answer to this mess is for the WCF to get its finger out and train trimmers who are not accredited to shoe, on a shorter apprenticeship, AND to train shoeing farriers better in how to manage barefoot horses.

Blame the WCF for this fiasco, for not responding to what people need. Don't blame the trimming organisations, all they have done is try to fill a gaping great hole in the horse foot care market.
		
Click to expand...

But YOU do have a problem, at present there is no ONE governing body who trains, regulates and polices barefoot practitioners.  This organisation should be liaising with WCF, at present there is nothing to prevent anyone setting themselves up as a trimmer, this is wrong and not best practice.  Instead of lambasting the WCF for not taking you seriously, you (in a generic sense) have to prove that you deserve to be recognised and have something to offer THEM.

Taking the 'I know better' or 'why should we' stance is going to get you absolutely nowhere.


----------



## amandap (7 April 2012)

There is one easy answer to those who dislike trimming and that is... just stick to your butch, handsome farrier and keep your horse 'safe' in your eyes whilst enjoying the view.   Don't use a red head though.  

I'm off to spend some lovely time rather than be involved in this revolving pointless thread.


----------



## cptrayes (7 April 2012)

Amaranta said:



			But YOU do have a problem, at present there is no ONE governing body who trains, regulates and polices barefoot practitioners.  This organisation should be liaising with WCF, at present there is nothing to prevent anyone setting themselves up as a trimmer, this is wrong and not best practice.  Instead of lambasting the WCF for not taking you seriously, you (in a generic sense) have to prove that you deserve to be recognised and have something to offer THEM.

Taking the 'I know better' or 'why should we' stance is going to get you absolutely nowhere.
		
Click to expand...

Who do you think "you" is?

I am not even a paid trimmer, I only do my own. There is no "you", there are only an increasing number of individuals trying to help other people, some of whom make a living from barefoot trimming and have been properly trained.

The WCF have let people down by not listening to barefoot trimmers or to people who have had big problems with shoeing. I fail to see how it is the fault of the trimming groups that they have had, in the face of some fierce and very nastily worded opposition from many, many farriers to set up their own training to provide what the WCF do not. 

It is much to the credit of UKNHCP that their courses are accredited for points for CPD for farriers. They DO talk to the WCF.

"This organisation should be liaising with WCF,"

I disagree. It should *BE* the WCF but they are failing to bite the bullet. They've made a change in their syllabus of a few words which are completely meaningless unless an apprentice is one of the lucky few who trains with a master who has working barefoot horses on his books. 

The WCF is at fault here, not the trimming organisations who have simply responded to customer demand to fill a hole that the WCF steadfastly refuse to accept exists.

If I had a tenner for every farrier who is STILL saying that all horses doing a lot of roadwork need shoes I'd be a rich woman.


----------



## ferrador (7 April 2012)

one thing i do not really understand is how a trimmer can get liability insurance if they supposerly have no recognised professional qualification and  registration . 
chris


----------



## Amaranta (7 April 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Who do you think "you" is?

I am not even a paid trimmer, I only do my own. There is no "you", there are only an increasing number of individuals trying to help other people, some of whom make a living from barefoot trimming and have been properly trained.

The WCF have let people down by not listening to barefoot trimmers or to people who have had big problems with shoeing. I fail to see how it is the fault of the trimming groups that they have had, in the face of some fierce and very nastily worded opposition from many, many farriers to set up their own training to provide what the WCF do not. 

It is much to the credit of UKNHCP that their courses are accredited for points for CPD for farriers. They DO talk to the WCF.

"This organisation should be liaising with WCF,"

I disagree. It should* BE *the WCF but they are failing to bite the bullet. They've made a change in their syllabus of a few words which are completely meaningless unless an apprentice is one of the lucky few who trains with a master who has working barefoot horses on his books. 

The WCF is at fault here, not the trimming organisations who have simply responded to customer demand to fill a hole that the WCF steadfastly refuse to accept exists.

If I had a tenner for every farrier who is STILL saying that all horses doing a lot of roadwork need shoes I'd be a rich woman.
		
Click to expand...

I meant the You in a generic sense, you may only do your own but there are many who practice commercially, it is these people particularly who need to have properly recognised qualifications, they, like farriers, also need policing - at the moment anyone can practice - even people like Mrs Angle Grinder

Having four governing bodies is a shambolic state of affairs and until this is remedied nothing will change and more insurance companies will make it an excuse not to pay out.

You miss my point, you simply cannot expect the WCF to bend over backwards to accomodate you (again I mean you in a generic sense) and then blame them when they don't.  It is up to you to prove to them that you have something to offer them, this could take years and before they will even think about you seriously, you need to get your house in order and sort out your governing body.  Interestingly, my farrier recently attended a barefoot course, I believe this was through the WCF so it does appear they are doing something.

My last two farriers buck your trend btw, both actively encouraged me to keep my horses unshod


----------



## Cedars (7 April 2012)

Having read all of this thread, I have one thing to say. 

GET A GRIP. 

Those who's farriers have been awful-sack them and get another. Those who want to trim, get trained or a trained person and crack on. Those who's farriers insist on horses being shod, get a new farrier. Those who insist on being barefoot, get real. 

THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS IN LIFE!


----------



## PeterNatt (7 April 2012)

I am afraid that I do not have a link to the article as I read it as hard copy on page 13   in ETN (Equestrian Trade News) April 2012 Volume 36 No 4 Monthly published by Equestrian Managements Consultants Ltd  Equestrian Trade News  Stockeld Park  Wetherby  West Yorkshire  LS22 4AW


----------



## Goldenstar (7 April 2012)

indie999 said:



			ok Why do BAREFOOT trimmers do the FARRIER training and do barefoot afterwards then??????

ie that it is an extra discipline in addition to a profession.

Farriers were registered due to poor or non existent hoof care years ago! Now we are going backwards with other organisations? They should be united. 

So barefoot become farriers.
		
Click to expand...

Why on earth would people who wish to learn to trim horses feet need to spend four years apprenticed to someone who nails shoes to feet what a waste of time.


----------



## cptrayes (7 April 2012)

Amaranta said:



			You miss my point, you simply cannot expect the WCF to bend over backwards to accomodate you (again I mean you in a generic sense) and then blame them when they don't.  It is up to you to prove to them that you have something to offer them, this could take years and before they will even think about you seriously, you need to get your house in order and sort out your governing body.
		
Click to expand...

I do not miss your point. I do not agree with you.

It is not, in my opinion up to anyone to prove to the WCF that barefoot trimmers have something to offer or for them to "accommodate" trimming organisations. It is up to them to train their apprentices in every aspect of horse hoof care and_* they do not do that*_.

They claim that every horse owner is safe in the hands of a farrier for their horse's hoof care and continue to turn out a high proportion of apprentices who have never seen a barefoot hunter/eventer/long distance in their entire four year apprenticeship, don't know a horse with low grade laminitis when it hits them between the eyes and trim sole callous off a barefoot horse.

Far from missing your point, you do not understand mine. Which is that there is a gaping great hole in apprentice farrier training which the WCF are doing nothing whatever to fill, while they continue to take the moral high ground saying that they are the horse hoof experts.

Trimming organisations only exist because the WCF has failed. Once it stops failing, the trimming organisations will disappear and we will all know where we stand with qualified horse hoof care.



ps I think that you will find that your farrier's course was run either by UKNHCP or UKEP. It would be interesting to know and a genuine step forward if it was actually run by the WCF.


pps I did not want to trim my own horses. I was forced to learn to do it by a lack of trimmers 7 years ago and by an experienced and a newly qualified farrier who both insisted that my horses could not do the work I do without shoes on.  If the WCF had trained them properly they would still be looking after my horses today. I'm gald they didn't, I've learnt such a lot and saved a fortune


----------



## cptrayes (7 April 2012)

ferrador said:



			one thing i do not really understand is how a trimmer can get liability insurance if they supposerly have no recognised professional qualification and  registration . 
chris
		
Click to expand...

Because insurance actuaries are only interested in risk and the fact is that even a badly trained trimmer is unlikely to do enough damage to result in an insurance claim, now that Strasser is effectively illegal in this country.   Their bet is that they will receive more in insurance premiums than they will ever pay out in claims. I think they are right.


----------



## criso (7 April 2012)

ferrador said:



			one thing i do not really understand is how a trimmer can get liability insurance if they supposerly have no recognised professional qualification and  registration . 
chris
		
Click to expand...

Just to point out that someone on here mentioned they are insured by the SAME insurance company that are the subject of this discussion in case anyone thinks NFU are doing this out of a moral concern about welfare and not just trying to have to both ways.


----------



## LucyPriory (7 April 2012)

I can't comment on the NFU position - just that I know they insure barefoot trimmers.

I am insured by Eastlake and Beachell a company which insures farriers.  Every year my premium goes down.  It wasn't that much to begin with.

As previous poster said, insurers are concerned with risk, not morals.  Obviously E&B must think me pretty low risk as my premium was low to start with and is getting lower, despite my workload going through the roof.

I do have a genuine concern with some hoof care work. Over the years I have seen some pretty shoddy stuff.  And the genuine truth of it is that all of the really bad work has been done by registered farriers, even award winning ones.

I have come across poor work by trimmers, mostly owner trimmers, but not always, but none of them have done the sometimes substantial damage I've seen done to shod horses.


----------



## SO1 (7 April 2012)

We are not like the states here litigation is rare the likihood of a trimmer or farrier being sued is small. For example how many of the people on here who mention farriers being responsible for problems that their horses had actually sued their farriers - none I expect. 



cptrayes said:



			Because insurance actuaries are only interested in risk and the fact is that even a badly trained trimmer is unlikely to do enough damage to result in an insurance claim, now that Strasser is effectively illegal in this country.   Their bet is that they will recieve more in insurance premiums than they will ever pay out in claims. I think they are right.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with what some others have said here that the trimmers need to come across as more professional with one governing body with an accredited qualification based on scientic facts to lobby for them and it will probably take a few years for them to set themselves up. At the moment anyone can set themselves up as a trimmer or set up an organisation registering trimmers which causes confussion for insurance companies and customers. I think if there was one organisation which had the backing of the majority of vets as well as farriers they would get recognition. A really respected trimming organisation may also get farriers and vets signing up with them too.


----------



## LucyPriory (7 April 2012)

SO1 said:



			A really respected trimming organisation may also get farriers and vets signing up with them too.
		
Click to expand...

You mean like the AANHCP - which was started by a farrier, has a fair number of ex farriers in the ranks and has vet members too?  

And I found out about a year ago that my vet from when I was much younger has trained as a trimmer too.


----------



## alsiola (7 April 2012)

LucyPriory said:



			You mean like the AANHCP - which was started by a farrier, has a fair number of ex farriers in the ranks and has vet members too?
		
Click to expand...

They might be better respected if their founder didn't come out with statements such as...




			As strange as it seems  the bones neither 
carry weight nor propel mass! In short, they are 
simply along for the ride.
		
Click to expand...

Made with complete disregard for scientific evidence, and supported only by mindless thought experiments.

I'm not anti-barefoot, and do think the majority of horses I see do not require shoes.  The problem I have is that if I recommend a trimmer to someone, then I'm concerned that alongside good foot care and sensible dietary advice, they are also going to preach anti-scientific drivel in which I will appear complicit.


----------



## hairycob (7 April 2012)

Juat had a look on their website - they list 7 practitioners in the in the UK.


----------



## cptrayes (7 April 2012)

SO1 said:



			I agree with what some others have said here that the trimmers need to come across as more professional with one governing body with an accredited qualification based on scientic facts to lobby for them and it will probably take a few years for them to set themselves up. At the moment anyone can set themselves up as a trimmer or set up an organisation registering trimmers which causes confussion for insurance companies and customers. I think if there was one organisation which had the backing of the majority of vets as well as farriers they would get recognition. A really respected trimming organisation may also get farriers and vets signing up with them too.
		
Click to expand...


I do not think that it is good for the horse or the horse owning community for horse foot care to be split between two organisations at all, never mind more than two as at present. If the WCF would only get its act together we could move away from the dafter statements made by K C la Pierre as pointed out by Alsiola, (a vet), and know where to go for hoof care for our horses.

The "really respected trimming organisation" should, in my opinion, be the WCF, otherwise we have this crazy situation where KC trademarks his "High Performance Trim, HPT" in order to  market it, some AANHCP bang on about wild horses  and owners worry that one trim is different from another and fret over which they should choose.  It's such a load of nonsense. Farriers could all be great barefoot hoofcare practitioners if only their apprenticeships would teach them to be. 

And who better to have trim your barefoot horse for you than the person who can actually apply a shoe should you need it, like in the case of a foot bone fracture?


----------



## amandap (7 April 2012)

I think that quote Alsiola posted was written by Jaime Jackson (not K. C.) in one of his articles. I seem to remember discussion about the article a good while ago on Vet board. 
I remember understanding what he (JJ) was getting at.


----------



## cptrayes (7 April 2012)

amandap said:



			I think that quote Alsiola posted was written by Jaime Jackson (not K. C.) in one of his articles. I seem to remember discussion about the article a good while ago on Vet board. 
I remember understanding what he (JJ) was getting at. 

Click to expand...

Oh yes I think you are right Amanda. I read the whole article and thought I understood what he meant but that it didn't really make any sense as he wrote it.

I'm confusing it with KC's book that I found contained a lot of unreadable pseudoscientific gobbledegook. At one point he actually suggests a trimmer judge the sole plane by holding a rasp parallel with the sole of the foot but not touching it. This would be a physical impossibility, judging "parallel" while holding a rasp suspended above a horse's foot and looking down on it 

I think it is a real problem for people wanting to go barefoot to know who the devil to trust among the four organisations and many unqualified or part qualified people.  I just found out that someone who I thought was very good is only part qualified.  It's a minefield and I blame the WCF (just in case you hadn't noticed )


----------



## indie999 (7 April 2012)

Goldenstar said:



			Why on earth would people who wish to learn to trim horses feet need to spend four years apprenticed to someone who nails shoes to feet what a waste of time.
		
Click to expand...

The reason is some horses can do with shoes and some without so they can offer a full professional service. Unfortunately not everyone agrees with barefoot or can do barefoot. 
One professional body for all. I have both options with my wonderful farrier. 

It puts me off buying a horse if I cannot put shoes on it(ie if remedial is ever needed) I like to have that option. I think all horses should be able to take shoes if ever needed. 

Why do registered chiropodists spend years learning to do foot work? I think its about 3 years????

Its raising the standards thats all.


----------



## SO1 (7 April 2012)

You are completely right this would be the best scenario. My farrier does shoes and trims and I am not sure if the trims are the same as the barefoot trims people talk about or something completely different most confussing! Some clients have shoes on all four hooves, some have trims only and some like my pony have a combination, he has front shoes only and trims on the back hooves which works well for him, sometimes he does not need his backs trimming as my farrier checks them says they are balanced and have worn down evenly and don't need doing.

I would say that most farriers who are good at shoeing should be good at trimming as surely they have to balance and trim the hoof before they put the shoe on. 



cptrayes said:



			I do not think that it is good for the horse or the horse owning community for horse foot care to be split between two organisations at all, never mind more than two as at present. If the WCF would only get its act together we could move away from the dafter statements made by K C la Pierre as pointed out by Alsiola, (a vet), and know where to go for hoof care for our horses.

The "really respected trimming organisation" should, in my opinion, be the WCF, otherwise we have this crazy situation where KC trademarks his "High Performance Trim, HPT" in order to  market it, some AANHCP bang on about wild horses  and owners worry that one trim is different from another and fret over which they should choose.  It's such a load of nonsense. Farriers could all be great barefoot hoofcare practitioners if only their apprenticeships would teach them to be. 

And who better to have trim your barefoot horse for you than the person who can actually apply a shoe should you need it, like in the case of a foot bone fracture?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Holly Hocks (7 April 2012)

indie999 said:



			I think NFU are right. Would you go to see a GP that had a crash course in medicine?
		
Click to expand...

No I don't go to my GP who has trained for several years at all - I go and see the practice nurse who has had a fraction of the training.  There isn't one GP at my practice who I would consider going to see.....


----------



## LucyPriory (8 April 2012)

I am fortunate to have a reasonable command of the written word, although I am the first to realise it is far from perfect. 

In previous jobs my role included rewriting the words of many people, all educated to the highest standard, but completely unable to make themselves understood in written English.

I think it is rather cruel and disrespectful to deride someone just because they are less fortunate, in any respect, including an inability to express themselves clearly.

Which is just as well because few in the medical professions are able to write in an accessible, user friendly form.

And I do agree JJ's use of English (American) is dreadful, and so is some of the material he produces, but he is no worse than any English vet I have come across, bar maybe two.   

In the spirit of Easter, let's be generous and cherish people for their good points and accept that none of us are perfect, no matter how hard we try.


----------



## cptrayes (8 April 2012)

Alsiola is a vet Lucy, and I see her point entirely if she was to recommend an AANHCP trimmer who believed every word Jaime writes, who then tells her client that horses don't carry weight on their bones.  He's done a lot of great stuff, but he has positioned himself, by his publications, as an expert in horse movement. We have to be able to criticise someone who puts himself in that position if he publishes nonsense, even if a lot of what he has done is great, sorry


----------



## amandap (8 April 2012)

I am 100% with Lucy on this one. 
If we disregard someone because of one or two aspects then we must disregard _everyone_. Including my vet who told me emphatically that wet grass causes diarrhoea. I still use him and respect him.

JJ's writing is hard to follow but I look way past that to how much he has done for horses and desperate owners. He was my original inspiration and source of answers to my questions when I was looking for answers that made sense. Imo his methods have stood the test of time exceptionally well and been a foundation for thousands of gifted trimmers who have gone on to learn even more. Surely that's what matters. 

ps. If we must only listen to 'scientists' the world would stop turning and imo we'd be in a right old state. lol

PPs.My Uncle was an academic and it was difficult to hold a conversation with him. I often think many inspirational and gifted people who think out of the box are like this. Imo we need people like this in the world.


----------



## Goldenstar (8 April 2012)

indie999 said:



			The reason is some horses can do with shoes and some without so they can offer a full professional service. Unfortunately not everyone agrees with barefoot or can do barefoot. 
One professional body for all. I have both options with my wonderful farrier. 

It puts me off buying a horse if I cannot put shoes on it(ie if remedial is ever needed) I like to have that option. I think all horses should be able to take shoes if ever needed. 

Why do registered chiropodists spend years learning to do foot work? I think its about 3 years????

Its raising the standards thats all.
		
Click to expand...

My point is there is no point in training people to shoe if they are never going to do it also a lot of the time apprentices are not in training they are out on there own shoeing I hardly ever see the farrier only the apprentices who are out and about before qualification practising on people's horses.
I have no problem with swopping  between the farrier and the trimmer and swopping between shod and unshod.
By the way I dont mind the apprentices shoeing mine they are thoughtful young men very enaged with their training and I am happy with their careful thoughtful work .
But barefoot needs to ditch the physio babble that some of the more self publishising ones have gone in for and get professional finally all of this is not rocket science the principles are simple .


----------



## LucyPriory (8 April 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Alsiola is a vet Lucy, and I see her point entirely if she was to recommend an AANHCP trimmer who believed every word Jaime writes, who then tells her client that horses don't carry weight on their bones.  He's done a lot of great stuff, but he has positioned himself, by his publications, as an expert in horse movement. We have to be able to criticise someone who puts himself in that position if he publishes nonsense, even if a lot of what he has done is great, sorry 

Click to expand...

I know, and I agree with you.  But I think my point may have been missed.  We all fail to express ourselves clearly from time to time.  Including many vets.  Including vets that publish books, articles and research papers.  Particularly this group perhaps.

Personally I don't have a huge amount of time for JJ. He presents himself as an expert on a huge range of issues for which he lacks sufficient experience or training.  So what's new?  I find that all the time with vets, farriers, riding instructors, barefoot trimmers, the person on the supermarket checkout, politicians, tv presenters and let's be honest a lot of people who post on forums.

My point is that just because most of us can be pretty dumb at times I don't find it at all helpful to fail to explore someone's point of view, to try to shut down intelligent discussion or to condemn a group of people because of this.  (Although some of the religions do try my patience). As always it is our responsibility to sort the wheat from the chaff.  The problems occur when people lack the resources (and willingness to make the effort) to do this.

If some individuals didn't make the effort to step out from the crowd, to try and maybe fail, and possibly look a complete idiot for all to see, then we would still be killing navic horses that could be rehabbed by taking their shoes off and changing their diet/exercise.  And I would still be treating my horses for sprains when they actually suffer from laminitis. And Grace would be on the meat lorry, put there by a vet who failed to realise she needs a low carb diet.  She would be equally dead mind, if I had followed a particular barefoot guru's dietary advice!


----------



## LucyPriory (8 April 2012)

I have come across two people who have 'burnt their horse's frogs out' because someone on this forum suggested they use a bleach type product to treat thrush.


----------



## amandap (8 April 2012)

LucyPriory said:



			I have come across two people who have 'burnt their horse's frogs out' because someone on this forum suggested they use a bleach type product to treat thrush.
		
Click to expand...

I will never mention even cleantrax again.


----------



## LucyPriory (8 April 2012)

amandap said:



			I am 100% with Lucy on this one. 
If we disregard someone because of one or two aspects then we must disregard _everyone_. Including my vet who told me emphatically that wet grass causes diarrhoea. I still use him and respect him.

JJ's writing is hard to follow but I look way past that to how much he has done for horses and desperate owners. He was my original inspiration and source of answers to my questions when I was looking for answers that made sense. Imo his methods have stood the test of time exceptionally well and been a foundation for thousands of gifted trimmers who have gone on to learn even more. Surely that's what matters. 

ps. If we must only listen to 'scientists' the world would stop turning and imo we'd be in a right old state. lol

PPs.My Uncle was an academic and it was difficult to hold a conversation with him. I often think many inspirational and gifted people who think out of the box are like this. Imo we need people like this in the world.
		
Click to expand...

We cross posted Amandap - I agree with you wholeheartedly too.  Just check out the history - we would still be condemning those who argued the world was round and not flat and we'd still be burning witches at the stake and putting kids up chimneys (although that might not be a bad idea...........)  and I remember learning that the 'educated' folk used to argue that the world would fall apart if we abolished slavery.  The list is endless.

And re your point about your vet.  I have the same with mine.  Not the best diagnostician on the planet, but honest about it. And he doesn't get up his own backside in awe of himself - instead he realises he is just an ordinary human being the same as everyone else.  As do all the best vets I've come across.


----------



## LucyPriory (8 April 2012)

amandap said:



			I will never mention even cleantrax again. 

Click to expand...

 it wasn't you (as far as memory serves) and it wasn't cleantrax.


----------



## cptrayes (8 April 2012)

LucyPriory said:



			I have come across two people who have 'burnt their horse's frogs out' because someone on this forum suggested they use a bleach type product to treat thrush.
		
Click to expand...

That's two more idiots in the world we have identifed then, if they were not even looking at what was happening to their horse's frogs with whatever product they were using. 

My own vet recommended thin bleach itself, not even a "bleach product", and it works, but surely only a half-wit would use it until it "burnt out" a frog?


----------



## cptrayes (8 April 2012)

LucyPriory said:



			I know, and I agree with you.  But I think my point may have been missed.  We all fail to express ourselves clearly from time to time.  Including many vets.  Including vets that publish books, articles and research papers.  Particularly this group perhaps.

Personally I don't have a huge amount of time for JJ. He presents himself as an expert on a huge range of issues for which he lacks sufficient experience or training.  So what's new?  I find that all the time with vets, farriers, riding instructors, barefoot trimmers, the person on the supermarket checkout, politicians, tv presenters and let's be honest a lot of people who post on forums.

My point is that just because most of us can be pretty dumb at times I don't find it at all helpful to fail to explore someone's point of view, to try to shut down intelligent discussion or to condemn a group of people because of this.  (Although some of the religions do try my patience). As always it is our responsibility to sort the wheat from the chaff.  The problems occur when people lack the resources (and willingness to make the effort) to do this.

If some individuals didn't make the effort to step out from the crowd, to try and maybe fail, and possibly look a complete idiot for all to see, then we would still be killing navic horses that could be rehabbed by taking their shoes off and changing their diet/exercise.  And I would still be treating my horses for sprains when they actually suffer from laminitis. And Grace would be on the meat lorry, put there by a vet who failed to realise she needs a low carb diet.  She would be equally dead mind, if I had followed a particular barefoot guru's dietary advice!
		
Click to expand...


This is very sound


----------



## alsiola (8 April 2012)

LucyPriory said:



			I am fortunate to have a reasonable command of the written word, although I am the first to realise it is far from perfect. 

In previous jobs my role included rewriting the words of many people, all educated to the highest standard, but completely unable to make themselves understood in written English.

I think it is rather cruel and disrespectful to deride someone just because they are less fortunate, in any respect, including an inability to express themselves clearly.

Which is just as well because few in the medical professions are able to write in an accessible, user friendly form.

And I do agree JJ's use of English (American) is dreadful, and so is some of the material he produces, but he is no worse than any English vet I have come across, bar maybe two.   

In the spirit of Easter, let's be generous and cherish people for their good points and accept that none of us are perfect, no matter how hard we try.
		
Click to expand...

If I came across as deriding his style/clarity of writing then I have mistyped.  While his articles aren't the easiest to read I felt I understood the message he was trying to convey.  It was the underlying thinking behind it that I disagreed with, and the presentation of speculative theorisation as proven fact.  I agree that communication - especially written - is also often poor in veterinary medicine, and that are many vets who will also present their personal ideas as unanimously accepted.  Vets who do this should be challenged just as much as any trimmer, farrier, physiotherapist or chiropractor.    I hope that this is gradually changing in the veterinary world - vets who qualify now have a much better foundation as scientists than those of 20 years ago in my opinion.  

Essentially I was just using his writing - admittedly a cherry picked excerpt - to demonstrate the issue I have with promoting barefoot trimming.  Although these American trimmers may have been instrumental in founding the modern approach to barefoot horses, I feel that it would be advantageous both to practising barefoot trimmers  to distance themselves from their quasi-evangelical views.


----------



## amandap (8 April 2012)

Which brings us nicely back to owners taking some responsibility in, as was said earlier, "sorting the wheat from the chaff ". Any professional can only advise, they cannot be responsible for what someone does with that information.
The point about striving for clarity and simplicity in things is also very important I believe. In situations where there is no direct feedback and clarification of understanding it is well known that what people actually understand from the same information in the same format, has huge variation. 
The more we coddle ourselves with 'oh it'll be ok because this 'expert' said so', the more we will try/use the get out of goal free cards of blame and litigation if something goes wrong. Trouble is the horse is in the middle of all this.


----------



## Amaranta (8 April 2012)

LucyPriory said:



			I have come across two people who have 'burnt their horse's frogs out' because someone on this forum suggested they use a bleach type product to treat thrush.
		
Click to expand...


Hydrogen Peroxide does treat thrush well, but is very old fashioned, I agree with cptrayes, only an idiot would burn out a frog with it.

However, idiots abound, there was a woman on facebook recently who advocated puting bleach (of the houshold type) in drinking water, to keep it fresh  I have to say she backtracked rapidly when people expressed their horror


----------



## amandap (8 April 2012)

There's already more than enough bleach in drinking water.   I've got flouride too here, I don't drink it and I now collect rain water for the horses to drink as one of mine is definitely adversely affected by the tap water here.


----------



## LucyPriory (8 April 2012)

alsiola said:



			If I came across as deriding his style/clarity of writing then I have mistyped.  While his articles aren't the easiest to read I felt I understood the message he was trying to convey.  It was the underlying thinking behind it that I disagreed with, and the presentation of speculative theorisation as proven fact.  I agree that communication - especially written - is also often poor in veterinary medicine, and that are many vets who will also present their personal ideas as unanimously accepted.  Vets who do this should be challenged just as much as any trimmer, farrier, physiotherapist or chiropractor.    I hope that this is gradually changing in the veterinary world - vets who qualify now have a much better foundation as scientists than those of 20 years ago in my opinion.  

Essentially I was just using his writing - admittedly a cherry picked excerpt - to demonstrate the issue I have with promoting barefoot trimming.  Although these American trimmers may have been instrumental in founding the modern approach to barefoot horses, I feel that it would be advantageous both to practising barefoot trimmers  to distance themselves from their quasi-evangelical views.
		
Click to expand...

I agree


----------



## paddy555 (8 April 2012)

alsiola said:



			Although these American trimmers may have been instrumental in founding the modern approach to barefoot horses, I feel that it would be advantageous both to practising barefoot trimmers  to distance themselves from their quasi-evangelical views.
		
Click to expand...

How different it would have been if, 10/12 years ago the WFC had come on board... People turned to Strasser. They knew there was a better way for navics and laminitics. They were proved right. WFC didn't want to know. Strasser was the only option. The American trimmers only came as UK ones didn't want to know. KC was asked over in desperation to provide an alternative to break the Strasser stronghold. How ridiculous we thought it was at the time that whilst we had well trained trimmers (AKA farriers) in the UK we had to look abroad for people to come and teach us to trim. We had to learn to trim ourselves BTW as the majority of farriers simply didn't want to know about BF horses. 

I wonder what it would be like today if WFC had got it's act together all those years ago. We could have had a system whereby trimmers were tested and registered with WFC. Vets would be happy to recomend them. 
There would be none of the BF and anti arguments. BF methods would just be another method in the toolbox. 
Dream on for another 10 years I suppose.


----------



## Goldenstar (8 April 2012)

alsiola said:



			I feel that it would be advantageous both to practising barefoot trimmers  to distance themselves from their quasi-qevangelical views.
		
Click to expand...


I also agree strongly with this it put me agaist trying barefoot  for a long time.
At the time even people calling it barefoot put my teeth on edge I used to think why the h**l can't they call it working without shoes, horses dont have feet.
My curiosity got me in the end


----------



## LucyPriory (8 April 2012)

paddy555 said:



			How different it would have been if, 10/12 years ago the WFC had come on board... People turned to Strasser. They knew there was a better way for navics and laminitics. They were proved right. WFC didn't want to know. Strasser was the only option. The American trimmers only came as UK ones didn't want to know. KC was asked over in desperation to provide an alternative to break the Strasser stronghold. How ridiculous we thought it was at the time that whilst we had well trained trimmers (AKA farriers) in the UK we had to look abroad for people to come and teach us to trim. We had to learn to trim ourselves BTW as the majority of farriers simply didn't want to know about BF horses. 

I wonder what it would be like today if WFC had got it's act together all those years ago. We could have had a system whereby trimmers were tested and registered with WFC. Vets would be happy to recomend them. 
There would be none of the BF and anti arguments. BF methods would just be another method in the toolbox. 
Dream on for another 10 years I suppose. 

Click to expand...

and it does well to remember Strasser is a vet


----------



## amandap (8 April 2012)

LucyPriory said:



			and it does well to remember Strasser is a vet
		
Click to expand...

... and she is STILL teaching her 'clinic' trim to her trimmer students. She hasn't modified what she teaches at all in that respect. This radical trim, *if* it is ever needed should be performed in strictly controlled environment with veterinary support in my opinion.

Luckily most of the modern bf movement is grasping and incorporating all the positive new learning it can.


----------



## paddy555 (8 April 2012)

LucyPriory said:



			and it does well to remember Strasser is a vet
		
Click to expand...

absolutely, a nightmare vet as it turned out but the point I was trying to make was how much further forward we would be now if WFC had "taken over" barefoot trimming/training/ registration etc at the time the Strasser fiasco was going on.


----------



## LucyPriory (8 April 2012)

paddy555 said:



			absolutely, a nightmare vet as it turned out but the point I was trying to make was how much further forward we would be now if WFC had "taken over" barefoot trimming/training/ registration etc at the time the Strasser fiasco was going on.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe they need to get their own house in order first?

Seeing as how an apprentice recently told a client that laminitis is caused by the wet.  (I paraphrase).  Apparently he was very sincere and no it wasn't April 1st.

So if we all fitted our horses with wellies and macs they'd be fine?

Now there's a marketing opportunity.


----------



## amandap (8 April 2012)

I see a theme developing here with wetness...


----------



## ferrador (9 April 2012)

a lot of owners with laminitics are "wet"


----------



## ryoungo (25 April 2012)

I use a BF trimmer because she is just a much better horse person than any farrier I have ever met (and I have dealt with a fair few). I work hard to get my horses, mainly youngsters, well behaved with their feet (all from very mixed back-grounds, one a rescue) but it is not an overnight process. I don't believe in sedation unless for medical emergencies and certainly not twitching, and the last thing I want is a farrier who can't even stand a horse twitching a muscle to get arsy with them. BF makes sense to me, none of our 4 ponies have been lame since we've owned them and we want to keep them that way. My trimmer takes time and helps me with my training process and does not shout at my horses, threaten or hit them with rasps etc etc. I have seen this on far too many occasions, from so called 'reputable' farriers. A barefoot trim is about more than just the foot, a general farrier trim is NOT the same! Hence why BF trims tend to cost more - they take more than 5 minutes!! 
One of our youngsters had strangles last year (supposedly, I do not believe he did, but that is another story!). We used a well-regarded local veterinary practise (equine specialist department) to diagnose and treat him - all 'qualified' professionals. Due to constantly sending us young, inexperienced vets to do numerous swabs (and even a trainee to 'have a go' on our 2 year old pony), he is now very head shy and spooky where he was totally laid back before. He is getting better but still not the same horse we had previously. If he had an accident because of his now nervous nature, would the insurance company refuse to pay?? We already have an exclusion on strangles now until he can have a 'vet report' done 12 months after he was swabbed clean, no doubt needing to involve more swabs which would only exacerbate the problem and make our pony more vet-shy!. My point? Just because someone is a 'qualified professional' doesn't mean they necessarily know best or, indeed, are good with horses!


----------



## Kat (25 April 2012)

Someone needs to wake up and realise that there is room for more than one professional to deal with equine hoof care. Many professions have different branches dealing with slightly different specialisms and training methods and manage to co-exist and recognise the benefits. If only Farriers and Barefoot Trimmers could manage to do the same and work together with the aim of getting rid of the poorly trained unregistered charlatans then horses would benefit. 

As an example, solicitors and barristers manage to co-exist perfectly well (although the lines are blurring between them now) but traditionally only barristers could present a case in certain courts, while other tasks could only be done by solicitors. They both recognised that the other had a slightly different skill set and specialism that coudl work together hand in hand. 

Is there any reason why farriers and trimmers could not both posses qualifications that could be recognised by all the same bodies but that promote their individual strengths? They could both undergo the same initial training with only some being qualified to shoe, and only some having further training in aspects of managing barefoot horses and barefoot rehab. They could refer clients to one another and they could show a united front to make it illegal for anyone not registered to "trim" a horse's hooves, the combination of tighter regulationm, better provision of services, and better working relationships between farriers and trimmers would benefit equine welfare. 

Seriously, is that so difficult to envisage? 

I think the danger for farriers is that if they don't embrace the trimmers at this stage the trimmers will eventually get their own regulation set up in competition, and once they do that they will start to want to expand what they do and break into new areas eventually seeking to break down the barriers entirely and farriers will end up being a niche profession defending increasingly small areas of work. 

I'm seeing this in my own profession now, solicitors and legal executives with higher rights of audience, solicitors and legal executives becoming judges, legal executives and barristers becoming partners in solicitors firms etc


----------

