Barefoot cruelty

Zargon_91 said:
This is a real interesting thread...
and spot on haha
Im not against barefoot, im not against shoes.
Im for what works for each individual horse- however each horse should be treated by a QUALIFIED FARRIER.
I wonder how many barefooties are aware that currently there are massive movements going on amongst the BHS/farriers guild/welfare groups to get barefoot trimming covered under the same legislation as other alternative treatments. When it is passes, it will be ILLEGAL for anyone to treat a horse (including their own) without the permission of their vet, and a full professional qualification. This is the same legislation which covers physiotherapy and chiropractic etc.
Click to expand...

I would think it would be impossible to enforce a law which stops a person trimming their own horses feet! Or for that matter trying a bit of amateur phsyio on them! :D
 
Zargon_91 said:
This is a real interesting thread...
and spot on haha
Im not against barefoot, im not against shoes.
Im for what works for each individual horse- however each horse should be treated by a QUALIFIED FARRIER.
I wonder how many barefooties are aware that currently there are massive movements going on amongst the BHS/farriers guild/welfare groups to get barefoot trimming covered under the same legislation as other alternative treatments. When it is passes, it will be ILLEGAL for anyone to treat a horse (including their own) without the permission of their vet, and a full professional qualification. This is the same legislation which covers physiotherapy and chiropractic etc.
Click to expand...

Trimming a horses feet is not treatment .
If they did this I would simply find a vet who would ok my trimmer if not I'd move vets I spent £10000 with the vet last year I would find one who thought my way
 
Goldenstar said:
But what about respect for my VERY imformed choice to have 3 out 4 horses BF the start of original post showed no respect for my choices those with BF horses have been told that our horses can't be sound on the road and we are cruel during this thread .
I don't like the way some Pro BF posters express themselves but it goes both ways you know.

Yes, you're quite right, but that point has been addressed enough, this was a response to the post made at the top of this page (with my page settings).

If I said that someone who shod their horse was cruel there would be an outcry but it's ok for the pro shoeing lobby to say that.
Click to expand...

Not really, if anyone says "shoeing is always cruel" or "not shoeing is always cruel" there would be about equal outrage (and or p!ss taking ;) ) IME.
 
Last edited:
same people that would get upset about you sticking pins in it if you were into acupuncture at a guess. Also an interesting point that insurance companies can refuse a claim if its anything to do with the lower leg if youre horse has seen a trimmer rather than a farrier. I just think people should be aware.
 
Goldenstar said:
Trimming a horses feet is not treatment .
If they did this I would simply find a vet who would ok my trimmer if not I'd move vets I spent £10000 with the vet last year I would find one who thought my way
Click to expand...

I will continue to show my horses hooves to my farrier and 9 times out of 10 he will continue to say they don't need doing. Not sure how they'd prosecute roads for trimming.
 
Zargon_91 said:
same people that would get upset about you sticking pins in it if you were into acupuncture at a guess. Also an interesting point that insurance companies can refuse a claim if its anything to do with the lower leg if youre horse has seen a trimmer rather than a farrier. I just think people should be aware.
Click to expand...

I am aware and never insure my horses as I like desisions taken to be mine alone.
Don't get your acupuncture point only an idiot would have a go at that and no law stops idiots.
 
unfortunately the key work there is farrier, an individual who holds a professional qualification- and equally is registered to an association who will hold them liable and try them under professional court if they screw up. And acupuncture really isnt so different to trimming. (now im opening a box of snakes) When you consider the risks if anything goes wrong, they are comparable.
 
Zargon_91 said:
unfortunately the key work there is farrier, an individual who holds a professional qualification- and equally is registered to an association who will hold them liable and try them under professional court if they screw up. And acupuncture really isnt so different to trimming. (now im opening a box of snakes) When you consider the risks if anything goes wrong, they are comparable.
Click to expand...

Have had issue after issue with farriers until I stopped i just wont use them for trimming I wanted to learn about BF care and as my farrier attitude was horses can't work BF I was not going to learn much from him no trimmer needs to learn how to shoe horses they just need to learn to trim .
They need to get it sorted out so trimmers have the proper protection they deserve and so do their customers mine is insured I checked all that out.
Next I am going to learn myself ( to trim I mean ) its a year now my first ones been without shoes and I feel ready now to learn.
 
it does happen, there have been a few cases in the past year- and more cases are brought to the farriers council and often ruled as not the fault of the farrier (usually for matters such as the owners not disclosing a history of laminitis when a new farrier is used- sometimes the hoof capsule will look completely normal but the pedal bone still might have rotation etc.) Arguably the fewer cases brought forward, the better it looks on the farriers in the UK, but yes- it does happen.
 
The impression I get is that the barefooters want good regulation more than farriers do. When a farrier screws up, the general ( correct imo ) view is that one individual has screwed up. However when you get something like anglegrinder woman's home guide book, the general view is that it represents all barefoot trimmers, which is unfair on the majority of pro barefooters.
 
Zargon_91 said:
This is a real interesting thread...
and spot on haha
Im not against barefoot, im not against shoes.
Im for what works for each individual horse- however each horse should be treated by a QUALIFIED FARRIER.
I wonder how many barefooties are aware that currently there are massive movements going on amongst the BHS/farriers guild/welfare groups to get barefoot trimming covered under the same legislation as other alternative treatments. When it is passes, it will be ILLEGAL for anyone to treat a horse (including their own) without the permission of their vet, and a full professional qualification. This is the same legislation which covers physiotherapy and chiropractic etc.
Click to expand...

Good! Legislation will get rid of the bad trimmers and make it as a profession get taken more seriously. Maybe we can hope it will encourage farriers to have a section on maintaining a barefoot working horse in their training too?
 
Goldenstar said:
Have had issue after issue with farriers until I stopped i just wont use them for trimming I wanted to learn about BF care and as my farrier attitude was horses can't work BF I was not going to learn much from him no trimmer needs to learn how to shoe horses they just need to learn to trim .
They need to get it sorted out so trimmers have the proper protection they deserve and so do their customers mine is insured I checked all that out.
Next I am going to learn myself ( to trim I mean ) its a year now my first ones been without shoes and I feel ready now to learn.
Click to expand...

Agree trimmers do need this protection- im coming across agressive, and this wasnt the intent... and of course not all farriers are ideal but they have consequences if they go wrong. The way forward would perhaps be a combined course where trimmers and farriers learn about anatomy and technique etc (entire first year of farrier course i.e. pre-farriery is all book based learning) then farriers/trimmer could go on to specialise in shoeing/trimming- this way all would be equally qualified, and should have equal protection but also would have a standard to uphold nationally
 
littlelegs said:
The impression I get is that the barefooters want good regulation more than farriers do. When a farrier screws up, the general ( correct imo ) view is that one individual has screwed up. However when you get something like anglegrinder woman's home guide book, the general view is that it represents all barefoot trimmers, which is unfair on the majority of pro barefooters.
Click to expand...

You may well be right if good sensible regulation comes for trimmers it removes the FC's biggest gun.
However the FC would not be in this situation if they did more in terms of checking farriers work and addressing bad practice and less protecting their own.
 
tallyho! said:
Antagonism can only come about when there is a protagonist. I think the shod "camp" feel antagonised by the BFT.

Yet, all the BFT do is state fairly simple facts and do not perceive people who shoe as a threat or obstacle so therefore do not try and antagonise. BFT are false protagonists and are seen as a protagonists only by those who FEEL antagonised by the words used. It's a non issue until someone feels threatened by the beliefs.

There is no sense in antagonising because BFT's see shoes as useful and it is a use-as-needed tool rather than a must. Not even I would continue to work a horse barefoot if I could not make it sound without. But I don't see shoes as a "failure" as some people from the shod camp seem to think we think. We see barefoot as the norm and shoes as a tool.

They are fairly simple statements that can be construed to take on any meaning anyone likes. A "pro" barefoot would not see that as antagonistic, but someone who puts themselves on the antagonised side, will feel the need to defend themselves as is what is happening.

It's perfectly natural so we should just carry on and satisfy ourselves. Everyone loves a "goodie & baddie" story... the colateral damage here is, sadly, the innocent horse.

:D
Click to expand...

Tallyho you put that so much better than I did lol!

I do think whoever highlighted the post being quite anti shoes was right though, those few people who want to ram the barefoot stuff down everyone else's throats are the ones doing the most damage from this side. It's just such a shame that there has to be sides in the first place. :confused:
 
Zargon_91 said:
Agree trimmers do need this protection- im coming across agressive, and this wasnt the intent... and of course not all farriers are ideal but they have consequences if they go wrong.
Click to expand...

The trouble is that the consequences do seem to be generally insignificant.. even if you go and mutilate a horses feet in the field (twice?) because you've had a spat with the owner you only get a 3 month (?? iirc) ban :(.
 
ester said:
The trouble is that the consequences do seem to be generally insignificant.. even if you go and mutilate a horses feet in the field (twice?) because you've had a spat with the owner you only get a 3 month (?? iirc) ban :(.
Click to expand...

That finished any respect I had for them.
 
Zargon_91 said:
its better to have faith in something than in nothing at all, which is what trimmers are regulated by.
Click to expand...

Well, let's have a dispassionate look at that idea, shall we? :)

We want to know whether people have any come back if (a) a farrier, regulated by the FRC, or (b) a trimmer, not regulated by any national body, causes a problem with their horse.

Take two recent cases. In one, a farrier caused wilful injury to two horses who had previously been in his care. The issue was dealt with by the FRC and the farrier was suspended for three months.

In another, a trimmer was taken to court by the FRC, for applying a hoofcast to a horse, because they deemed this equivalent to applying a shoe. The Magistrates Court imposed a £450 fine per offence, a victim surcharge of £15 and ordered the trimmer to make a contribution towards prosecution costs of £1,000.

So, regardless of whether there was a regulatory body in place, it was possible to deal with the actions of the trimmer. But despite there being a regulatory body in place, the farrier - who deliberately lamed two horses, was simply suspended for three months. As this was April, he's presumably back out there, working with horses.

I do not make decisions on faith, but on evidence, and this evidence suggests to me that having a regulatory body is ineffective.
 
ester said:
The trouble is that the consequences do seem to be generally insignificant.. even if you go and mutilate a horses feet in the field (twice?) because you've had a spat with the owner you only get a 3 month (?? iirc) ban :(.
Click to expand...

Yes. Hardly great regulation...
 
The thing about barefoot horses is... once they get going they don't need much interference so the frc and the trimmers may well need a day job....

:D
 
Foxhunter49 said:
Some horses can go barefoot - some horses can do full work barefoot but many cannot.

I had a big heavyweight Irish Draught that had terrible feet in that the walls of his feet were paper thin. Being a hunter he had his shoes off in the summer when out at grass.
he was never sound when the ground got hard. He hated to go to the water tank if there was hard standing around it and, walking up the track he was a cripple.

When he retired he was full time lame because he had no shoes on. It was not a matter of not trying because we did but, he had poor feet and needed shoes.
Click to expand...

My hunter would also grow poor feet if he was at grass 24/7 all summer and shod all season. As it is, he hunts fine barefoot on nightime grazing spring/summer/early autumn, with careful mineral balancing and carbohydrate control.

He's a 17 hand Shire cross.
 
Sadly BB, you are correct. :(

The person that I know who is the most appalled and in despair about the state of the FRC is in fact a farrier himself. His opinion is that the FRC are more interested in protecting their income and 'their own', rather than the welfare of the horses.

The case of the farrier who chopped the shoes off the horses (and his pathetic punishment) reflects this.
 
Alyth said:
ROTFLMAO!!! I am pleased you are happy with your choices.....it's simply that you haven't considered any alternatives yet, if you have looked at the possibilities you haven't yet understood them. Or you believe the various lines that have been said for many many years. That's fine. However "professional" you are - your knowledge is in that area, not the area of barefoot horses.....that's fine!! Your horses, your choices. I sincerely hope you never have major decisions to make that is about their hoof health!! As has been said many times - all horses can go barefoot - not all owners can!! Good luck.
Click to expand...

All Hail The Sage!

My god people......we are saved....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top