NFU and barefoot trimmers

S

sodapop

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 May 2011
Messages
235
Visit site
This is just adding to the original post, someone may have already said this but I got lost trying to follow all the arguments. I am insured with the NFU so I phoned them to check, they told me they don't recognise any barefoot trimmers/podiatrists or their professional organisations and you must use a registered farrier. As I have already paid an arm and a leg for my insurance I have had to have my horse shod rather than pursue barefoot.
 
I think theres a lot of confusion by this.,

NFU and other insurance companies who are starting to follow this stance are NOT insisting you have your horse shod, they are more than happy for your horse to be Unshod.

However what they are saying is any treatment of your horses feet, (trimming/shoeing etc) MUST be carried out by appropriately trained and Approved registered farriers. This is due to there being No legal requirement for barefoot trimmers (some of whom are very good/some not so good) to have qualifications or registration to a professional body.

The insurance companies are trying to protect our (horse owners) rights as well as their own, as if your farrier messes up - it's a lot more effective to pursue thru the farriery council
 
Sorry I ran out of lunch break and didnt fully explain!
My horse was having problems with her feet and I had chosen to pursue barefoot because the farrier wanted to put shoes on. When I saw a post on here about the NFU I decided to phone them and check, they said that they did not recognise any barefoot qualification or organisation. This has led me to have to put shoes on because I have paid nearly£400 for a years insurance and cant risk not being covered. My insurance is high because my previous horse was killed in car accident and other insurers wanted even more money off me, plus NFU have always been brilliant in paying out. I wanted to make sure that others with insurance and using barefoot trimmers know of the issues if ever they need to claim for foot related issues, especially as the feet can be the cause of so many health problems.
 
sodapop said:
My insurance is high because my previous horse was killed in car accident
Click to expand...

Sums up insurance companies for me. This is even worse than ridiculous exclusions. Sorry that you lost your horse, Sodapop. Completely unjustified in my opinion that they raised the premium of your next horse based on this. :(
 
Could you find a different farrier who was willing to do a trim if you want your horse unshod?
 
sodapop said:
Sorry I ran out of lunch break and didnt fully explain!
My horse was having problems with her feet and I had chosen to pursue barefoot because the farrier wanted to put shoes on. When I saw a post on here about the NFU I decided to phone them and check, they said that they did not recognise any barefoot qualification or organisation. This has led me to have to put shoes on because I have paid nearly£400 for a years insurance and cant risk not being covered. My insurance is high because my previous horse was killed in car accident and other insurers wanted even more money off me, plus NFU have always been brilliant in paying out. I wanted to make sure that others with insurance and using barefoot trimmers know of the issues if ever they need to claim for foot related issues, especially as the feet can be the cause of so many health problems.
Click to expand...

Have you tried another farrier? There is one here who is perfectly happy for me to be barefoot, I don't campaign for others to do the same.
 
You probably don't have to have the horse shod, just seen/trimmed by a farrier. I'm with Amtrust and I called them a couple of years ago to ask about using a trimmer... they told me they were in the process of changing their T&Cs to say you could use a podiatrist or a farrier, but wouldn't accept a trimmer. When my renewal came, I checked the policy booklet and they had changed it to say podiatrist or farrier. I'm pretty sure that now (18 months later and one further renewal along) that clause has been removed altogether.

So maybe change your insurance co?
 
x-di-x said:
The insurance companies are trying to protect our (horse owners) rights as well as their own, as if your farrier messes up - it's a lot more effective to pursue thru the farriery council
Click to expand...

I've worked with a few and I can tell you for a fact that the insurance companies aren't one bit interested in protecting your horse, they are only interested in minimising claim payouts

I believe that this change of wording has happened because NFU are currently being legally challenged over a refusal to pay fees for a foot lameness rehabilitation yard, in spite of that yard's phenomenal success in returning horses due to be put down or retired to work.

Once the NFU wake up to the fact that these treatments by non-farriers are so successful, you can bet your bottom dollar that their policy will require a barefoot rehab for caudal hoof lameness before they will pay out for remedial shoeing and medication and that, at that point, they won't give a damn if the person who does it is a witch doctor practising voodoo.
 
Insurance companies rely on medical treatment, hoof treatment, physiotherapy etc being done by people who are fully trained. Fully trained to them means that the person has completed recognised training. Unfortunately many of the 'barefoot trimmers' have been on a course for a few days & then start treating horses. I'm not saying all but a large number. Insurance companies are bound to be reluctant to pay for/condone trinmming by people they considered as unqualified.
 
Toby_Zaphod said:
Insurance companies rely on medical treatment, hoof treatment, physiotherapy etc being done by people who are fully trained. Fully trained to them means that the person has completed recognised training. Unfortunately many of the 'barefoot trimmers' have been on a course for a few days & then start treating horses. I'm not saying all but a large number. Insurance companies are bound to be reluctant to pay for/condone trinmming by people they considered as unqualified.
Click to expand...

I'll eat my hat if the NFU do not reverse this decision to recognise the four trimming qualifications operated in this country at some stage.

They are not bound to pay for trimming, they are only bound to pay for treatment of mistakes. I'll eat another hat it, allowing for a difference in volumes, they are not paying out a damned site more for vets fees, loss of use and humane destruction of horses being damaged by their shoeing than they are of horses being damaged by inept trimmers. Inept trimming is generally grown out in days or weeks. Shoe damage is very often life shortening. When they wake up to that, they'll change their tune.
 
It has proved very difficult to find a farrier willing to take a single horse on and one that comes via a recommendation. This farrier isnt against horses being unshod he just feels it is the right thing for my horse. I did get quotes from other insurers but once you have to declare a claim the size of mine they all turn out even more expensive than NFU. Maybe when it's been more than 5 years from my accident I will have more choice. I do hope the insurance companies will change their requirements but for now I have had to make the best decision I can in my situation.
 
My farrier is currently working on a horse that was seriously lamed by a "trimmer."
I have, however, used trimmers in the past and they have done an excellent job.
 
Pssst....
I am not stupid... as I said the farrier isnt against unshod horses he just feels my horse needs shoes. My original point of the post was to make sure those insured with NFU or thinking of using them knew that I had asked the question directly to NFU and that they really don't recognise anything to do with barefoot trimmers or podiatrists.
 
sodapop said:
Pssst....
I am not stupid... as I said the farrier isn't against unshod horses he just feels my horse needs shoes. My original point of the post was to make sure those insured with NFU or thinking of using them knew that I had asked the question directly to NFU and that they really don't recognise anything to do with barefoot trimmers or podiatrists.
Click to expand...

But you didn't say that in your original post.

As I have already paid an arm and a leg for my insurance I have had to have my horse shod rather than pursue barefoot.
Click to expand...

If your farrier feels your horse needs shoes, shoe it.
 
amymay said:
If your farrier feels your horse needs shoes, shoe it.
Click to expand...

Or change your insurance company and join the ranks of the many of us with horses working barefoot which farriers told us would never cope without shoes.

Feet that farriers say cannot cope without shoes are usually amongst the ones that show the most changes and improvement.
 
I'm saddened to read of your predicament sodapop.

I wonder when it will become universally recognized that shoes can and often do cause more damage in the long term. Till then it's all just a money making system with horses best interests often last on the list way behind what some ?many vets and farriers deem to be what the horse needs.

When will farriers have to account for allowing hooves to become severely abnormal/sick under shoes? We've all seen the photos of horses with severely under run heels, long toes, severe thrush infections, white line disease etc. with a shoe somewhere at the bottom of the hoof... :(

What is a "podiatrist" according to NFU then?

Orangehorse, I hope the owner is taking action against the trimmer you refer to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top