The Code of Practice for equine hoof care what do you think?
| The Code of Practice for equine hoof care - what do you think? On Line Survey -Yes or No? Vote Now The National Equine Welfare Council (NEWC) say on their web site "after long discussions with registered farriers, veterinary surgeons, welfare agencies and industry professionals a Code of Practice for Equine Hoofcare has been agreed and is now ready for consultation." The closing date for responses is the 30th April. (a copy of the Code is available at the end of this article) |  |
The NEWC go on to say the "Code is open for comment and support to anyone with an interest in this subject. A list of organisations and consultees will be made available when the consultation is complete. Pledges of Support will also be made available."
Which begs the question what about any ‘comments' of disapproval? What will happen to these?
In the Code of Practice there is some ambiguous wording such as "Only suitable persons should be allowed to trim horses' feet. Such persons should be either registered farriers or competent adults with appropriate experience and training."
But what is appropriate experience and training? And who decides? Farriers and trimmers will have their own answers but where does this leave the general horse owner? Bearing in mind an owner who employs or uses the services of someone (farrier or trimmer) who intentionally or unintentionally causes pain, suffering injury or disease, can be found guilty themselves, of an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
As things stand the majority of trimmers belong to their own self elected, self regulating bodies, while some choose to practice under their own steam. If an owner wishes to complain about the services of a trimmer and they are an independent practitioner things can get a bit uncomfortable and extremely complex if the owner wants to take matters further. If making a complaint against a trimmer practicing under one of the trimming bodies, an owner can still find themselves having to make the complaint to the very person who did the trimming, whereupon there is an instant conflict of interest. If the same owner then looks to other governing bodies for help they may receive little or no support due to the fact they did not use a registered farrier in the first place.
None of this is to say that employing a registered farrier or having to deal with their governing body is always totally satisfactory. Indeed some owners have turned to employing a trimmer, not only because generally they believe trimmers have a more holistic approach to the bare foot horse and the results are more ‘natural' and beneficial, but because of negative experiences.
There is an argument that many of these problems could be overcome if the Farriers Registration Council ran training courses that meant a person could train and qualify to become a trimmer and not have to go on to qualify as a fully fledged farrier. This does not stop anyone continuing to follow different schools of thought or practices and at the end of the day it could be considered that a person with the widest information / experience base will be better informed than someone focused on one mind set.
In stead of issuing a code of practice that leaves the area of trimming open to interpretation and abuse would it not be better if the Farriers Registration Council and the Trimming fraternity got together and combined their knowledge in the endeavour to create training that examines different philosophies, looks at different techniques and acknowledges that times and demands change?
The subject of farriers and trimmers is contentious and complex which is perhaps why the powers that be appear to be getting side tracked with options that detract from the most important issue at the very epicenter of this Code of Practice - equine welfare.
Mr House a member of The British Veterinary Association and Chairman of the National Equine Welfare Committee has been quoted in the Horse and Hound 27th March saying "the code would help welfare groups to pursue cases of suffering caused by unqualified trimmers"
What about preventing these cases in the first place? How much more money is the British horse owning community supposed to ‘fund raise' so charities can handle welfare cases that are the result of inadequate legislation? UK equine charities are already unable to attend or adequately supervise ALL the rescue and welfare cases that are currently reported.
On top of this the different trimming bodies have varied philosophies, techniques and standards so (outside of the FRC) what constitutes a qualified trimmer let alone an unqualified trimmer?
The code of practice we have been told is available for consultation until the 30th April and yet the Horse and Hound also quote Mr House as saying he hopes DEFRA will incorporate the code into its welfare code of practice.
"Isn't it about time the adequate protection of horse's ponies, donkeys and mules came before such goals?
Copyright: Voices for Horses 2008
Do you believe the Code of practice adequately protects equine welfare?
Please let us know your thoughts and vote in our survey: http://www.voicesforhorses.co.uk/surveys/survey_16_Code-of-Practice-for-Equine-Hoof-Care.html
To fill in the NEWC's response form on the Code of Practice please go to: http://www.newc.co.uk/codes/hoofcare.php
CODE OF PRACTICE FOR EQUINE HOOF CARE (As published by the NEWC)
Includes advice for the care of both the shod and unshod horse
A. INTRODUCTION
1. In the context of this Code of Practice, the term "horse" includes horses, ponies,
donkeys and any hybrids of these, and refers to horses both maintained without
shoes and shod.
2. Owners and keepers of horses have a duty of care to ensure proper hoof
management, showing regard for the need for protection from injury and
treatment of disease. There is a significant probability of suffering associated
with pain and lameness if care is neglected.
3. The majority of horses require some attention to their hooves every four to eight
weeks, occasionally more often. The exact period depends on the individual
animal taking into account their conformation, rate of horn growth, environment
in which they are kept, workload required of them and any abnormalities they
may have.
4. Where horses are shod it is particularly important to ensure shoe removal,
appropriate trimming and reshoeing as necessary is carried out at regular
intervals as indicated above.
B. ROUTINE TRIMMING by owners and keepers of horses
1. Owners and keepers of horses are permitted to carry out simple maintenance of
unshod feet.
2. There should be no pain or lameness during or following trimming.
3. There should be either no or minimal alteration of gait following trimming.
4. There should be negligible adjustment of the shape of the foot and associated
lower limb conformation following trimming.
5. This trimming corresponds to minimal removal of excess horn, including loose and
damaged horn from the walls of the foot and frog.
6. Trimming may also be carried out in an emergency to relieve suffering where a
portion of hoof has become dislodged from the wall of the foot.
C. TRIMMING AND SHOEING FOR REWARD
1. Under the provisions of the Farriers Registration Act 1975, shoeing may only be
legally undertaken in Great Britain by registered farriers, apprentices working
under them or veterinary surgeons. Such farriers must be registered with the
Farriers Registration Council. Registration follows an approved apprenticeship,
completed course of study and practical and theoretical examination.
Registration on the basis of long professional experience was allowed when the
Act came into force and the law also provides for the recognition of equivalent
overseas professional qualifications and certified experience. Farriery in this
context is legally defined as the preparation and trimming of the foot for the
immediate reception of a shoe and includes both conventional shoeing and the
use of acrylics and stick-on shoes. Farriers of course may trim feet without the
subsequent application of a shoe.
2. Other individuals may trim horses' feet for reward without the provisions of the
Farriers Registration Act. Such persons are not to be classed as Farriers but
should have received adequate training to ensure trimmed horses are protected
from pain and suffering.
D. TREATMENT FOR LAMENESS
1. Such procedures are carried out by or require the involvement of a veterinary
surgeon to comply with the provisions of The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. This
is for welfare reasons because
a) Diagnosis is required in most cases. For example even severely overgrown and
misshapen hooves often require radiography for proper assessment prior to
trimming.
b) The management of diseased and overgrown feet frequently involves the
control of pain, part of which will involve the prescription of appropriate
medication.
c) The diagnosis and treatment of related systemic disease needs to be
addressed where relevant.
2. Farriers and other competent persons may undertake the trimming of lame
horses' feet under the direction of a veterinary surgeon. While a veterinary
surgeon will remain ultimately responsible for a case throughout, the degree of
veterinary involvement will be in more chronic cases proportional to the clinical
signs presented, although regular veterinary review of such cases is necessary.
3. Farriers are specifically trained to undertake trimming and shoeing of horses'
feet in relation to the modification of a horse's action and in the correction of
developmental abnormalities. This should be carried out in conjunction with a
veterinary surgeon as necessary depending on the degree of abnormality
identified.
4. First aid may be administered to horses with penetrated, infected or bruised feet
with subsequent appropriate veterinary advice as necessary. The risk of tetanus
infection or the involvement of deeper structures within the foot must always be
considered.
5. There is a joint responsibility on the part of an owner and/or person directly
responsible for an animal, on the veterinary surgeon, trimmer and/or farrier, to
ensure that the horse's need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury or
disease is being met.
E. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Horses managed without shoes often suffer varying degrees of foot soreness
especially during the adaptive period and will require careful management,
including the use of protective boots and limited workload to ensure there is no
pain or suffering. The adaptive period is that which following shoe removal allows
the foot to assume natural hardness and resilience permitting usage without
shoes (and may take many months). Some horses will continue to always require
the use of such measures under certain working and ground conditions. Care
should be taken to ensure that any protective boots are fitted properly to avoid
significant injury from straps and fixings.
2. Only suitable persons should be allowed to trim horses' feet. Such persons should
be either registered farriers or competent adults with appropriate experience
and training.
Added on: 01/04/08.
Email this article to a friend or shareVoices for Horses offers news, articles and videos from third party providers unless otherwise stated. We do not endorse the views expressed or content and make it available to you only as a service. All news items, articles and videos are copyright of the authors, film makers and original publications.
