Trimmer prosecuted for 'shoeing'

cptrayes said:
SCREWS!

I had a horse with cracks in his feet. The bar attached to stablilise one was done with screws of half and inch in length at the top of the hoof and 5/8 an inch further down.
Click to expand...

brace_on_hoof.jpg
 
GoldenStar - I think the ability to chose is about to be removed from us...

Regarding insurance, in this instance Tom's insurance didn't cover him for this particular issue. Here I am not sure of the details, but there have been efforts by other DAEPs to find an alternative insurance company and I am going to look at the policy shortly.

Perfect Hoof Wear has been used in this country since late late 2007/08, and Equicast for almost a decade. I would not have been surprised if this situation had arisen then, but it not 5/6 years later!

I believe the reason it has now emanates from the incident at the RDA and is a reflection on the growth and progress of barefoot/podiatry hoof care, customer demand in this area and the growth in products making it easier for the horse to transition from shod to shoeless.

If the FRC are successful in their prosecution of a hoof care provider not registered with them it will mean the following:-

Only a farrier will be able to trim a hoof in preparation for any application the FRC considers a shoe.

The definition of what is a shoe could easily be widened by the FRC to include other applications such as Vettec’s Hoof Care Products, the Easy Boot Glove Glue on System etc., and potentially any application that can support a horse during the transition stage when shoes are removed and hooves are in a vulnerable state of poor structural health.

Since they will have total discretion over what is considered to be a shoe, anyone is vulnerable to being summoned for unlawful farriery.

An owner will no longer have choice over the type of hoof care provider they can select, or the products they can use themselves or via their hoof care provider. It will be a farrier trim or nothing, if they are using any of the products named above, or other similar products.

A horse owner will have to employ a farrier just to apply any products needed to help during the transition stage from shod to shoeless. Farriers are trained to trim hooves in preparation for the fitting of a metal shoe to those hooves. The trim required for a barefoot horse is quite different. Hence the development of the theory of equine podiatry/barefoot, as applied to barefoot horses.

And owners with performance horses, such as endurance riders, who may rely on Vettec or the Easy Boot Glue on System to help them compete and train, will have to employ the services of a farrier for applications they can currently use themselves. The costs to apply will be totally at the discretion of farriers.

The FRC and its members will have an effective monopoly of the fitting of such products that will narrow the ability of companies manufacturing these products to reach all sectors of the hoof care industry.

I see this as a move designed to limit horse owners’ right to chose what they consider best for their horses.

The FRC have decided to see if the current law will work by using wraps as a Test case. They consider wraps, glue on products a horse shoe but need to find if the law will work in this respect - because it does not define what a horse shoe is. As yet it has not been tested because Tom pleaded guilty.

So if someone stood up and pleaded Not Guilty, they would have to go through the courts to do this and be able to afford a solicitor - this is very expensive and as this is an unprecedented case, could go either way. Legal Aid is unlikely to apply and the hardship fund I found out, so did Tom, really not worth applying for. Ultimately, if you were to lose then you may have additional court costs to pay - on top of your solicitors fees and costs could be huge.

So as things stand now, you risk prosecution if a case is brought against you for using - at the moment a wrap - if you are not registered with the FRC.
Click to expand...

The piece in blue seems to me to be the primary reason the FRC are doing this - aside from some sort of p!ssing contest over who can claim what territory with regards to hooves.

Every single one of us as horse owners will lose our freedom of choice if this comes to pass.
 
I believe that as a horse owner I can do much what I like with my horse, and use these casts if I want

What I can't now do is accept payment for putting them on anyone else's horse.

That's what I understand. I know a few people who are not registered FRC who do shoe their own horses - mainly because of remote location.
 
TigerTail said:
GoldenStar - I think the ability to chose is about to be removed from us...



The piece in blue seems to me to be the primary reason the FRC are doing this - aside from some sort of p!ssing contest over who can claim what territory with regards to hooves.

Every single one of us as horse owners will lose our freedom of choice if this comes to pass.
Click to expand...

And it has not come to pass yet and as I said I would want my vet to be in charge of this not the trimmer not a farrier .
Now it's easy for me I have a trimmer and a farrier the farrier took me on his books after having his arm twisted by the trimmer ( his book was full ) I also have my best friend who is my equine vet so I am unlikely to be forced to do anything .
The boot thing is just so much hot air it will never come to pass.
However if the trimming organisations could get their own act together and go to DEFRA with a single voice and discuss how to go forward things would be a lot better the present situation is not really satisfactory .
 
Goldenstar said:
And it has not come to pass yet and as I said I would want my vet to be in charge of this not the trimmer not a farrier .
Now it's easy for me I have a trimmer and a farrier the farrier took me on his books after having his arm twisted by the trimmer ( his book was full ) I also have my best friend who is my equine vet so I am unlikely to be forced to do anything .
The boot thing is just so much hot air it will never come to pass.
However if the trimming organisations could get their own act together and go to DEFRA with a single voice and discuss how to go forward things would be a lot better the present situation is not really satisfactory .
Click to expand...


Oh dear think I will have to make extra special care horse NEVER EVER gets a hoof abscess as I wont be able to poultice her hoof...

NB the National Occ Standards have been agreed with Defra by all the UK trimming orgs ... what I'm not sure of is whether the KC crowd (to which the trimmer concerned belongs) have signed up to the agreed NOS... anyone know..?? NNBB the KC trimmers are the only ones who use these wraps.
 
I am glad that all organisation of all this is going forward .
I don't understand your first sentance Zuzan I don't think anyone has suggested you will have to get a farrier to put on a poultice.
The hoof boot thing is just silly speculation there is no case law that i know of on this and I think there's very unlikely to be any.
If I understand what happened this cast was put on as part of an attempt to treat an injury and I have no issue that should have been done by a vet or a farrier under the supervision of a vet not a trimmer or a farrier without supervision.
The farriers will fight tooth and nail to hang on to their closed shop.
 
Goldenstar said:
I am glad that all organisation of all this is going forward .
I don't understand your first sentance Zuzan I don't think anyone has suggested you will have to get a farrier to put on a poultice.
The hoof boot thing is just silly speculation there is no case law that i know of on this and I think there's very unlikely to be any.
If I understand what happened this cast was put on as part of an attempt to treat an injury and I have no issue that should have been done by a vet or a farrier under the supervision of a vet not a trimmer or a farrier without supervision.
The farriers will fight tooth and nail to hang on to their closed shop.
Click to expand...

Sorry what I as trying to do was to illustrate how this case has really been taken to court to protect the farriers' business .. as you say in your last sentence.. effectively the difference between these wraps and a load of vet wrap and gaffer tape maybe very little ;) both are applied as treatment and are flexible :)
 
Last edited:
While I do ,I think have some understanding of why this trimmer chose the guilty route it would have been interesting to see it tested in court .
My feeling is that the use of screws would have been the point at which things became difficult for the trimmer.
 
Goldenstar said:
While I do ,I think have some understanding of why this trimmer chose the guilty route it would have been interesting to see it tested in court .
My feeling is that the use of screws would have been the point at which things became difficult for the trimmer.
Click to expand...

Yes I think you are prob right... but to be honest there are better methods of treating a hoof than wraps imho... and I think probably the majority of trimmers .. outside of the KC La Pierre camp anyway would hold this opinion too.
 
Goldenstar said:
While I do ,I think have some understanding of why this trimmer chose the guilty route it would have been interesting to see it tested in court .
My feeling is that the use of screws would have been the point at which things became difficult for the trimmer.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

This case means nothing and doesn't alter the current situation at all, I would love to see a full blown hearing and see how the Farriers stood up to that. There are a wealth of people with more qualifications than you can shake a stick at who would love the chance to debate this argument in a formal setting like a court.

There is also the business interests of the designers and manufacturers of some of these products. Were these products designed for the sole use of farriers under vets supervision?

I think this Guilty Plea was allowed to go through because of a lack of knowledge and understanding by the Court, just like in a lot of other situations, with a busy list to get through. No one is very interested that the FRC would try to make much of this, which they have, but it means nothing.

This isn't a stated case, and is a stand alone conviction of a person who chose not to dispute the allegation put before the magistrates.
 
It does alter the situation Pale Rider.

Unfortunately it has now become case law and it may make it more difficult for another person to obtain a not guilty verdict at trial on a similar offence. It is a great shame that it was not tested, but it is a requirement that a solicitor point out to his client that an immediate guilty plea will result in a penalty which is reduced by one third from the penalty if found guilty after trial. Costs will also be in the tens of pounds, wherease after a trial they will be in the hundreds.

That's probably why he chose not to take the risk with the FRC standing against him. A lay magistrate bench or a probably completely non-equine-affiliative District Judge was asked to choose between the only organisation legally entitled to train farriers, and a trimmer with a qualification, if he has one, from a tiny trimming outfit that's been in existence a few years. He could not take the risk.
 
Last edited:
Oberon said:
brace_on_hoof.jpg
Click to expand...

Exactly Oberon, thankyou. This is common practice for the treatment of cracks. In order to hold the strap those screws are a LOT longer than 1/3 inch ones used to give a little purchase to a cast, and probably also fitted higher where the hoof wall is thinner. There was, in my opinion, no danger whatsoever to the horse in what the trimmer did.
 
Last edited:
cptrayes said:
It does alter the situation Pale Rider.

Unfortunately it has now become case law and it may make it more difficult for another person to obtain a not guilty verdict at trial on a similar offence. It is a great shame that it was not tested, but it is a requirement that a solicitor point out to his client that an immediate guilty plea will result in a penalty which is reduced by one third from the penalty if found guilty after trial. Costs will also be in the tens of pounds, wherease after a trial they will be in the hundreds.

That's probably why he chose not to take the risk with the FRC standing against him. A lay magistrate bench or a probably completely non-equine-affiliative District Judge was asked to choose between the only organisation legally entitled to train farriers, and a trimmer with a qualification, if he has one, from a tiny trimming outfit that's been in existence a few years. He could not take the risk.
Click to expand...

I don't feel this makes any difference, but someone will put up a defence at sometime and that outcome will.
 
cptrayes said:
It does alter the situation Pale Rider.

Unfortunately it has now become case law and it may make it more difficult for another person to obtain a not guilty verdict at trial on a similar offence. It is a great shame that it was not tested, but it is a requirement that a solicitor point out to his client that an immediate guilty plea will result in a penalty which is reduced by one third from the penalty if found guilty after trial. Costs will also be in the tens of pounds, wherease after a trial they will be in the hundreds.

That's probably why he chose not to take the risk with the FRC standing against him. A lay magistrate bench or a probably completely non-equine-affiliative District Judge was asked to choose between the only organisation legally entitled to train farriers, and a trimmer with a qualification, if he has one, from a tiny trimming outfit that's been in existence a few years. He could not take the risk.
Click to expand...

It's not caselaw, cptrayes, it's just a case. Only certain cases become caselaw and they are generally ones in the higher courts, or ones that have specific points of law that need to be tested in court. Persons pleading guilty at the first instance does not caselaw make. Had he fought it, it may have become caselaw, but as it is there won't even be a written determination laying out the conclusions.

As far as the risk of pushing something so far that it becomes caselaw goes, sometimes it's worth picking your battles, and with the screws involved in this case maybe it wasn't the strongest.
 
EstherYoung said:
It's not caselaw, cptrayes, it's just a case. Only certain cases become caselaw and they are generally ones in the higher courts, or ones that have specific points of law that need to be tested in court. Persons pleading guilty at the first instance does not caselaw make. Had he fought it, it may have become caselaw, but as it is there won't even be a written determination laying out the conclusions.

As far as the risk of pushing something so far that it becomes caselaw goes, sometimes it's worth picking your battles, and with the screws involved in this case maybe it wasn't the strongest.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the correction, I'm glad I'm wrong about case law. I am still afraid that the FRC will still take it as a huge encouragement to try and prosecute other trimmers who have done no harm. I wish he had fought it, but the screws would have been a step too far for lay Magistrates or horse-ignorant District Judge I suspect.
 
The FRC have no interest whatsoever in wasting their time trying to prosecute hoof trimmers that have done no harm. It's not in their interest. What they will do is prosecute those that are doing harm either through lack of proper training or inexperience. That goes for farriers as well as hoof trimmers. What concerns me is that there seems to be sympathy for a man prosecuted for causing unnecessary suffering to a horse, just because he was a hoof trimmer! Funny how it seems to have caused uproar from a group of people who advocate not shoeing horses, even though hoof casts are far more restrictive than horseshoes. In my professional opinion they should not be used at all, and I say that both as someone who has used them, and as someone who has had a horse go lame as a result of using them. Personally I'm satisfied that the ruling was correct, and would frankly rather this type of product was banned altogether.
 
The hoof wall is generally a uniform thickness from top to bottom (give or take a few mil here and there). It doesn't get thinner as it goes up. It's common misconceptions like that that lead to incorrect assumptions.
 
Looks like a decent patch on a cob with a nice thick area of wall. Not sure what your point is, unless you know how thick the wall of the horse was this trimmer crippled, where he put each screw and how long they were. I'm afraid you simply cannot make comparisons like that and expect them to be accepted.
 
Nick kilner farrier said:
The FRC have no interest whatsoever in wasting their time trying to prosecute hoof trimmers that have done no harm. It's not in their interest. What they will do is prosecute those that are doing harm either through lack of proper training or inexperience. That goes for farriers as well as hoof trimmers. What concerns me is that there seems to be sympathy for a man prosecuted for causing unnecessary suffering to a horse, just because he was a hoof trimmer! Funny how it seems to have caused uproar from a group of people who advocate not shoeing horses, even though hoof casts are far more restrictive than horseshoes. In my professional opinion they should not be used at all, and I say that both as someone who has used them, and as someone who has had a horse go lame as a result of using them. Personally I'm satisfied that the ruling was correct, and would frankly rather this type of product was banned altogether.
Click to expand...

why are you reopening a thread that is nearly 5 years old? we have moved on a lot from then!
 
paddy555 said:
why are you reopening a thread that is nearly 5 years old? we have moved on a lot from then!
Click to expand...
Basically because these wraps are still being sold to members of the public and advertised as suitable to be used by such. I had a client buy some just a few weeks ago thinking it was ok for her to use them, when clearly it's illegal. I therefore felt it was prudent to put out a reminder, and opening a pertinent thread was a suitable way of doing that. The age of the thread is irrelevant if the information in it is still important.
 
AdorableAlice said:
Not the only, also reopened was my query regarding Cavello boots back in 2014, the advice being a vet or farrier is needed to fit hoof boots.
Click to expand...

And again in response to a post about equicast. Why all the fuss? I'm highlighting something that is a current issue! People complain just as much if you start a thread about a topic that's already been discussed as they do if you comment on an old one. If you don't have anything constructive to add then just move on to something you do want to read about. Talk about making a mountain
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top