It's difficult to know how to be constructive here with regard to the senior people in the KC. I really question their rational capabilities when it comes to honestly discussing health issues with dog breeding. You can fool some of the people some of the time.....
The insurance premiums on sites such as Embrace have always provided this evidence.
Remember folks, the premiums are only partly made up of risk assessment, also partly supply and demand sales tactics. Statistically, mutts are less likely to be insured so it follows that lower premiums will attract sales where there may not have beren any if the premiums were the same as purebred.
Not that I think Caroline Kisko has any idea what day it is, let alone a clue about canine health!!
It is unfortunate that insurance companies aren't able to take account of the differences between lines in a breed. I have Labs. I select heavily for health and have taken time to learn some basics about dog health and care. I doubt that my vet bills total 50% of the insurance rates I'd pay if I insured my dogs. Quite likely I don't spend 25%. If the insurance companies were a little more sophisticated, I doubt that a Rott x Dobe would be given the "large crossbreed" price.
If it were as simple as X-breed = healthy, purebred = unhealthy, there would be no point to breeding purebred dogs for health.
Jennifer, I agree with you. Whilst other insurers would struggle to implement something like this, the KC could do so as it has all the pedigrees. It would also know whether the sire and dam have been health tested and the COI of the offspring. As a high COI increases the risk of the offspring inheriting two copies of a deleterious allele, they could tailor their premiums accordingly.
I think purebred breeders who select for health and temperament should be rewarded with lower premiums for their puppies. This would encourage buyers to look for health-tested, low COI, healthy-lined parents.
This does not prove anything of the sort. All this shews is that the Insurance Company concerned finds it has more claims - for whatever reasons - from owners of purebred dogs than from owners of "mutts" or "crossbreeds". As I am sure you know, insurance premia are set by the companies purely on a risk experience basis.
In the motor insurance world, there used to be lower insurance rates for women drivers (I believe this has now been scotched by the government on sex discrimination grounds), not because they are better drivers, but purely because they found they had less claims from women drivers. The same applies to older drivers, who can often get age related lower premia - and you know how many doddery old drivers one can see around the place! :-) Nicolas Broadbridge.
"For whatever reason" ???! Surely because they are generally healthier, and might not even take out an insurance?
They dont seem to discriminate between pedigree dog and crufts best of breed. But I imagine loss of earnings from stud fees might be quite high etc given that popular sire syndrome is so prevalent.
So the rottweiler and rott x dobe are the same purchase price? Either the breeder of the mix puts some serious effort into working and health clearances or the rottweiler puppy is the result of an "economy" for profit only breeding. If the latter is true, then the owners are fools and are being accordingly price-gouged by the insurance company.
When I was looking for insurance for my Italian Greyhound, I got quotes both as an IG and as a mixed breed (because she is from rescue and possibly not 100% IG, although she likely is). The quote was $2/month less for a mixed breed her age and size at the time.
It's difficult to know how to be constructive here with regard to the senior people in the KC. I really question their rational capabilities when it comes to honestly discussing health issues with dog breeding. You can fool some of the people some of the time.....
ReplyDeleteThe insurance premiums on sites such as Embrace have always provided this evidence.
Kisko needs to sharpen up. Seriously....
Caroline Kisko, the Liar? Right. Said it,and meant it. Still stand next to it.
ReplyDeletehttp://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2008/08/kennel-club-when-truth-is-incovenient.html
Remember folks, the premiums are only partly made up of risk assessment, also partly supply and demand sales tactics. Statistically, mutts are less likely to be insured so it follows that lower premiums will attract sales where there may not have beren any if the premiums were the same as purebred.
ReplyDeleteNot that I think Caroline Kisko has any idea what day it is, let alone a clue about canine health!!
It is unfortunate that insurance companies aren't able to take account of the differences between lines in a breed. I have Labs. I select heavily for health and have taken time to learn some basics about dog health and care. I doubt that my vet bills total 50% of the insurance rates I'd pay if I insured my dogs. Quite likely I don't spend 25%.
ReplyDeleteIf the insurance companies were a little more sophisticated, I doubt that a Rott x Dobe would be given the "large crossbreed" price.
If it were as simple as X-breed = healthy, purebred = unhealthy, there would be no point to breeding purebred dogs for health.
Jennifer, I agree with you. Whilst other insurers would struggle to implement something like this, the KC could do so as it has all the pedigrees. It would also know whether the sire and dam have been health tested and the COI of the offspring. As a high COI increases the risk of the offspring inheriting two copies of a deleterious allele, they could tailor their premiums accordingly.
DeleteI think purebred breeders who select for health and temperament should be rewarded with lower premiums for their puppies. This would encourage buyers to look for health-tested, low COI, healthy-lined parents.
Bwa ha ha. I see they wont put their money where their mouth is.
ReplyDeleteWhat a bunch of genuine charlatans.
Im dying to see how they try and wriggle out of this one.
Lets see....welfare discounts for owners of those poor unfortunate cross breeds?
This does not prove anything of the sort. All this shews is that the Insurance Company concerned finds it has more claims - for whatever reasons - from owners of purebred dogs than from owners of "mutts" or "crossbreeds". As I am sure you know, insurance premia are set by the companies purely on a risk experience basis.
ReplyDeleteIn the motor insurance world, there used to be lower insurance rates for women drivers (I believe this has now been scotched by the government on sex discrimination grounds), not because they are better drivers, but purely because they found they had less claims from women drivers. The same applies to older drivers, who can often get age related lower premia - and you know how many doddery old drivers one can see around the place! :-)
Nicolas Broadbridge.
"For whatever reason" ???! Surely because they are generally healthier, and might not even take out an insurance?
DeleteThey dont seem to discriminate between pedigree dog and crufts best of breed. But I imagine loss of earnings from stud fees might be quite high etc given that popular sire syndrome is so prevalent.
So the rottweiler and rott x dobe are the same purchase price? Either the breeder of the mix puts some serious effort into working and health clearances or the rottweiler puppy is the result of an "economy" for profit only breeding. If the latter is true, then the owners are fools and are being accordingly price-gouged by the insurance company.
ReplyDeleteStacey
When I was looking for insurance for my Italian Greyhound, I got quotes both as an IG and as a mixed breed (because she is from rescue and possibly not 100% IG, although she likely is). The quote was $2/month less for a mixed breed her age and size at the time.
ReplyDeleteSo there's that.