.webp?t=1760385816&width=1000)
One of the many benefits that attracts hoof-care professionals to practice the art and science of farriery is the freedom it offers.
Farriers have the freedom to set their work hours as they prefer, trim and shoe their clients' mounts according to their needs, and provide services to whomever they wish. Outside of racetrack farriers, it’s one of, if not the, least regulated industry in the U.S.
While some farriers advocate for regulation, the vast majority don’t. Yet, there’s a segment within the veterinary community — albeit a minority — who wish to wrest control of the trade from farriers.
Farrier Exemption
The American Veterinary Medical Association’s (AVMA) House of Delegates (HOD) recently approved its Model Veterinary Practice Act (MVPA). Although the MVPA is not law, it’s used as a guide for preparing or revising a practice act in state statutes. State lawmakers can refer to commentary contained within the MVPA to determine intent.
The MVPA’s adoption came after 3 years of delays, which were caused by objections to various issues, including the farrier exemption. While it retains the exemption, a push was not only made to strike it down but also to seize control of farriery.
“The AVMA worked on this MVPA in 2022, but due to many issues and objections in various areas of veterinary medicine, there was no vote on it,” Dr. Frank Reilly tells American Farriers Journal. “One of the issues was stopping the farrier exemption and putting farriery under veterinary medicine, with farriers under the supervision of veterinarians and possibly requiring farrier licensing.”
JAVMA reported in its September 2025 issue that the revised MVPA was adopted. There was no mention of the farriery exemption. However, when reviewing the updated MVPA, Section 14.1 and 14.1.7 state, “This Act shall not be construed to prohibit: … Any individual lawfully engaged in the art or profession of farriery.” The language remains unchanged from the 2019 MVPA.
“It’s great news that the exemption stayed in place,” Reilly says. “The independence of farriers as part of the team of professionals helping horses is maintained. No recommendations or requirements for farrier licensing have been added to the 2025 AVMA Model Practice Act. This is a great example of veterinarians and farriers working together to protect horse health.”
Critical Exemption
The farrier exemption is vital for protecting farriers and their ability to trim and shoe horses. If the exemption was omitted from the MVPA, farriers could be accused of practicing veterinary medicine, which is defined in Section 3.18-3.18.1.4.
“‘Practice of veterinary medicine’ means: To diagnose, prognose, treat, correct, change, alleviate, or prevent animal disease, illness, pain, deformity, defect, injury, or other physical, dental, or mental conditions by any method or mode, including: … determination of the health, fitness, or soundness of an animal.”
The italics contained in the definition are the MVPA’s emphasis.
“It’s great news that the exemption stayed in place,” Reilly says. “The independence of farriers as part of the team of professionals helping horses is maintained. No recommendations or requirements for farrier licensing have been added to the 2025 AVMA Model Practice Act. This is a great example of veterinarians and farriers working together to protect horse health.”
What if?
It’s not the first time the farrier exemption has been on the chopping block. The 2019 MVPA was adopted following a lengthy review process. Initially, the farrier exemption was removed. The exemption was reinstated after the farrier industry, veterinarians and horse owners publicly rallied against its omission.
What would happen if the exemption were omitted? The hoof-care work certainly won’t go away. However, your independence would. Farriers no longer would be free to provide hoof-care services without a veterinarian. You likely would be considered similarly to vet techs and require some form of veterinary supervision. These include immediate, direct and indirect supervision, which are outlined in Sections 3.20-3.20.3 of the MVPA.
“3.20. ‘Supervision’:
“3.20.1. ‘Immediate supervision’ means a licensed veterinarian is:
“3.20.1.1. immediately available on the premises within audible or visual range of the patient and/or individual being supervised; and
“3.20.1.2 has assumed responsibility for the veterinary care given to the patient by an individual working under their direction.
“3.20.2. ‘Direct supervision’ means a licensed veterinarian is:
“3.20.2.1. readily available on the premises where the patient is being treated, and
“3.20.2.2. has assumed responsibility for the veterinary care given to the patient by an individual working under their direction.”
The most likely scenario, though, might be indirect veterinary supervision.
“3.20.3. ‘Indirect supervision’ means a licensed veterinarian:
“3.20.3.1. need not be on the premises;
“3.20.3.2. has given either written or oral instructions for treatment of the patient;
“3.20.3.3. is readily available by telephone or other forms of immediate communication; and
“3.20.3.4. has assumed responsibility for the veterinary care given to the patient by an individual working under their direction.”
The framework is in place and has been for some time. Of course, it’s not a forgone conclusion that farriery in the U.S. is destined to be a veterinary-supervised service. After all, there’s a shortage of equine vets and a sizable majority who don’t want to take farriery under their supervision. However, the advocates’ voices are growing louder.
Will farriers be prepared for the next attempt?
