Want Your Blood To Boil?

[AmandaJ]

Question on the article.....The RSPCA states that it's dearer to insure purebreeds - is that correct?

[mita]

Question on the article.....The RSPCA states that it's dearer to insure purebreeds - is that correct?

Seems the article has produced another overgeneralisation. This time it's dearer to insure purebreds.

I looked up the website of the Australian Vets Own Pet Insurance company. Figuring they'd have the sense to look for evidence.

They say there's only a small number of pure breeds, which they claim are brought for vet attention more than the average.

List is here:

http://www.vetsown.com.au/faq1.asp

(Actually that throws cold water on the overgeneralisation that the purebred group of dogs is extensively riddled with problems. If that were so, a hard-headed pet insurance business, would have higher premiums on them all.)

By the way, the RSPCA runs a pet insurance plan....so there's some clash of interest in their making that statement.

Edited March 18, 2010 by mita

[AmandaJ]

Question on the article.....The RSPCA states that it's dearer to insure purebreeds - is that correct?

Seems the article has produced another overgeneralisation. This time it's dearer to insure purebreds.

I looked up the website of the Australian Vets Own Pet Insurance company. Figuring they'd have the sense to actually look for evidence.

They say there's only a small number of pure breeds, which they claim are brought for vet attention more than the average....& list them.

List is here:

http://www.vetsown.com.au/faq1.asp

(Actually that throws cold water on the overgeneralisation that the purebred group of dogs is extensively riddled with problems. If that were so, a hard-headed pet insurance business, would have higher premiums on them all.)

By the way, the RSPCA runs a pet insurance plan....so there's some clash of interest in their making that statement.

I just did the same thing - but I also found out that all the pet insurance is underwritten by the same group PetSure

The RSPCA site has the same fee regardless of parentage - checked a few of them in the quoting systems and they are the same too.

[mita]

I just did the same thing - but I also found out that all the pet insurance is underwritten by the same group PetSure

The RSPCA site has the same fee regardless of parentage - checked a few of them in the quoting systems and they are the same too.

Mighty interesting, Amanda!

Looks like the pet insurance business doesn't reflect anything about purebred dogs generally being riddled with health conditions.

Insurance companies base their premiums on risk assessment.

[sandgrubber]

Not to mention that the extra $5.00/month is applied to crossbreed, pure breeds, and pedigree dogs alike where these breeds are involved. Interesting to see Golden Retrievers on the list

Question on the article.....The RSPCA states that it's dearer to insure purebreeds - is that correct?

Seems the article has produced another overgeneralisation. This time it's dearer to insure purebreds.

I looked up the website of the Australian Vets Own Pet Insurance company. Figuring they'd have the sense to look for evidence.

They say there's only a small number of pure breeds, which they claim are brought for vet attention more than the average.

List is here:

http://www.vetsown.com.au/faq1.asp

(Actually that throws cold water on the overgeneralisation that the purebred group of dogs is extensively riddled with problems. If that were so, a hard-headed pet insurance business, would have higher premiums on them all.)

By the way, the RSPCA runs a pet insurance plan....so there's some clash of interest in their making that statement.

[mita]

You're not wrong on both counts, SG. Quote from the first:

"The following are Select breeds, whether pure breed or part breed,

and cost an extra $5.00 per month."

In googling around, I found a few quotes that setting higher insurance premiums for purebreeds, is more common in the UK & Europe.

Another reason why I think that RSPCA OP statement was put together from roots in the UK. And all the stuff just projected onto Australian conditions, with no local evidence.

One UK pet insurance company I found said they had a 'sophisticated' rating system for premiums, based on breed, age & post code.

Edited March 18, 2010 by mita

[justin19801]

I just did the same thing - but I also found out that all the pet insurance is underwritten by the same group PetSure

The RSPCA site has the same fee regardless of parentage - checked a few of them in the quoting systems and they are the same too.

Mighty interesting, Amanda!

Looks like the pet insurance business doesn't reflect anything about purebred dogs generally being riddled with health conditions.

Insurance companies base their premiums on risk assessment.

Insurance companies base their fees on what the market will bear. This is even more skewed in their favour with so few re-inurers. Australia does not appear to have an open market. What on earth does postcode have to do with anything.

[sandgrubber]

I took a marketing course a long time ago. Postcode is a good predictor of ability to pay.

As for the breed list, most of them are expensive dogs to purchase if pedigree . . . and have some high maintenance/expensive vet bill factors . . . APBT -- I'd guess they're pretty robust and healthy on the whole, but hell, they're declared dangerous, so why not soak 'em for a few quid. Still baffled by the GR.

I just did the same thing - but I also found out that all the pet insurance is underwritten by the same group PetSure

The RSPCA site has the same fee regardless of parentage - checked a few of them in the quoting systems and they are the same too.

Mighty interesting, Amanda!

Looks like the pet insurance business doesn't reflect anything about purebred dogs generally being riddled with health conditions.

Insurance companies base their premiums on risk assessment.

Insurance companies base their fees on what the market will bear. This is even more skewed in their favour with so few re-inurers. Australia does not appear to have an open market. What on earth does postcode have to do with anything.

[Longcoat]

Here's another charmer:

What is the dog show circuit like in Australia?

The dog show circuit is active in Australia and is taken very seriously by the pedigree dog breeders who

frequent them. The dog show circuit uses the written breed standard as the basis in determining

‘winners’ just as they do in the UK. The RSPCA would like to see a fundamental change in the attitudes

of show judges, with much less emphasis placed on physical traits.

Unlike footy, rugby, cricket, basketball, cycling, and a dozen other sports, whose supporters don't take the game seriously at all.

What is the show circuit supposed to use for judging conformation if not the written breed standard? The judge's reading of the dog's aura? Fine with me if they say some standards should move back toward earlier, less exaggerated forms . . . I'd agree with that . . . though respect people who would be opposed. And I think it would be good if some standards included more health-oriented criteria, such as making signs of allergy or shortness of breath explicit faults. As for 'much less emphasis' on physical traits . . . health criteria are physical traits. You can't say on the one hand that standards should include health criteria, and on the other that standards should place less emphasis on physical traits. Not to mention totally ignoring other parts of the show circuit, such as agility, obedience, herding, tracking, retrieving, dancing with dogs, and the rest.

The person who wrote this stuff must have been asleep at the time . . and not known much about pedigree dogs.

I agree with that to a large extent with some breeds, where the breeding of show dogs is affecting the breeds integrity when conformation has a priority above all else.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Longcoat

[Jed]

And, Longcoat, your interest in dogs is? Registered breeder and exhibitor? Non registered pet owner?

APBt owner?

Which?

[Longcoat]

And, Longcoat, your interest in dogs is? Registered breeder and exhibitor? Non registered pet owner?

APBt owner?

Which?

And the point of such a question Jed in relation to this thread topic???

Edited March 18, 2010 by Longcoat

[sandgrubber]

Here's another charmer:

What is the dog show circuit like in Australia?

The dog show circuit is active in Australia and is taken very seriously by the pedigree dog breeders who

frequent them. The dog show circuit uses the written breed standard as the basis in determining

'winners' just as they do in the UK. The RSPCA would like to see a fundamental change in the attitudes

of show judges, with much less emphasis placed on physical traits.

I agree with that to a large extent with some breeds, where the breeding of show dogs is affecting the breeds integrity when conformation has a priority above all else.

You agree with what? Logical development of the PDE report would have breed standards changed in ways that pay more attention to health . .. . and have judges still use the written standard and still judge on conformation. Not, as stated, that judges fundamentally change their attitude and put less emphasis of physical traits. And . . . of course . . . breeders should consider other things than the parts of conformation that can easily be evaluated in a show ring in making breeding decisions, eg, favour bitches capable of free whelping.

Edited March 18, 2010 by sandgrubber

[Sheridan]

I agree with that to a large extent with some breeds, where the breeding of show dogs is affecting the breeds integrity when conformation has a priority above all else.

Sorry but that doesn't make much sense. Are you saying conforming to the breed standard is affecting the dogs' health?

[Longcoat]

Here's another charmer:

What is the dog show circuit like in Australia?

The dog show circuit is active in Australia and is taken very seriously by the pedigree dog breeders who

frequent them. The dog show circuit uses the written breed standard as the basis in determining

'winners' just as they do in the UK. The RSPCA would like to see a fundamental change in the attitudes

of show judges, with much less emphasis placed on physical traits.

I agree with that to a large extent with some breeds, where the breeding of show dogs is affecting the breeds integrity when conformation has a priority above all else.

You agree with what? Logical development of the PDE report would have breed standards changed in ways that pay more attention to health . .. . and have judges still use the written standard and still judge on conformation. Not, as stated, that judges fundamentally change their attitude and put less emphasis of physical traits. And . . . of course . . . breeders should consider other things than the parts of conformation that can easily be evaluated in a show ring in making breeding decisions, eg, favour bitches capable of free whelping.

The RSPCA would like to see a fundamental change in the attitudes

of show judges, with much less emphasis placed on physical traits.[/b]

There is more to a dog's compliance with the breed standards than physical traits which I believe needs to be taken into account by the judges. A dog may have an excellent conformation, but if the other aspects that make up the breed standard for example temperament which is not desirable, the dog shouldn't be winning shows, which they often do.

[sandgrubber]

The conformation show ring is not designed to be a temperament test. . . . one reason that I'm not a big fan of shows as a way to select the best dog. Many great dogs find shows boring and do not sparkle. The show-off attitude that makes dogs sparkle in the ring isn't always associated with temperament that makes a good companion or a good working dog. Breeders should consider more than show results. But I don't think judges should try to do temperament assessments . . . other than throwing out dogs who show aggression, etc.

Here's another charmer:

What is the dog show circuit like in Australia?

The dog show circuit is active in Australia and is taken very seriously by the pedigree dog breeders who

frequent them. The dog show circuit uses the written breed standard as the basis in determining

'winners' just as they do in the UK. The RSPCA would like to see a fundamental change in the attitudes

of show judges, with much less emphasis placed on physical traits.

I agree with that to a large extent with some breeds, where the breeding of show dogs is affecting the breeds integrity when conformation has a priority above all else.

You agree with what? Logical development of the PDE report would have breed standards changed in ways that pay more attention to health . .. . and have judges still use the written standard and still judge on conformation. Not, as stated, that judges fundamentally change their attitude and put less emphasis of physical traits. And . . . of course . . . breeders should consider other things than the parts of conformation that can easily be evaluated in a show ring in making breeding decisions, eg, favour bitches capable of free whelping.

The RSPCA would like to see a fundamental change in the attitudes

of show judges, with much less emphasis placed on physical traits.[/b]

There is more to a dog's compliance with the breed standards than physical traits which I believe needs to be taken into account by the judges. A dog may have an excellent conformation, but if the other aspects that make up the breed standard for example temperament which is not desirable, the dog shouldn't be winning shows, which they often do.

Edited March 19, 2010 by sandgrubber

[Longcoat]

'sandgrubber' date='19th Mar 2010 - 01:56 PM' post='4404056']

The conformation show ring is not designed to be a temperament test. . . . one reason that I'm not a big fan of shows as a way to select the best dog. Many great dogs find shows boring and do not sparkle. The show-off attitude that makes dogs sparkle in the ring isn't always associated with temperament that makes a good companion or a good working dog. Breeders should consider more than show results. But I don't think judges should try to do temperament assessments . . . other than throwing out dogs who show aggression, etc.

Show wins too easily can provide a misrepresentation of a dog's compliance with the breed standards when used as a marketing tool to confirm breed quality. In order for a show entry to be accepted, verification that other important aspects of the breed standard have been met should be required IMHO. Working dogs for example that haven't achieved any working titles which makes up part of the breeds compliance should score lower that dogs that have. A car with the best paint job at a car show, is hardly the best car if it has no engine and can't be driven.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Longcoat

[justin19801]

I took a marketing course a long time ago. Postcode is a good predictor of ability to pay.

As for the breed list, most of them are expensive dogs to purchase if pedigree . . . and have some high maintenance/expensive vet bill factors . . . APBT -- I'd guess they're pretty robust and healthy on the whole, but hell, they're declared dangerous, so why not soak 'em for a few quid. Still baffled by the GR.

I just did the same thing - but I also found out that all the pet insurance is underwritten by the same group PetSure

The RSPCA site has the same fee regardless of parentage - checked a few of them in the quoting systems and they are the same too.

Mighty interesting, Amanda!

Looks like the pet insurance business doesn't reflect anything about purebred dogs generally being riddled with health conditions.

Insurance companies base their premiums on risk assessment.

Insurance companies base their fees on what the market will bear. This is even more skewed in their favour with so few re-inurers. Australia does not appear to have an open market. What on earth does postcode have to do with anything.

SG you are probably correct but it still sounds like stereotyping and pricegouging to me.

[Sheridan]

Show wins too easily can provide a misrepresentation of a dog's compliance with the breed standards when used as a marketing tool to confirm breed quality. In order for a show entry to be accepted, verification that other important aspects of the breed standard have been met should be required IMHO. Working dogs for example that haven't achieved any working titles which makes up part of the breeds compliance should score lower that dogs that have. A car with the best paint job at a car show, is hardly the best car if it has no engine and can't be driven.

Oft have I said that my breeds should be judged running around a farmyard covered in mud.

[justin19801]

Show wins too easily can provide a misrepresentation of a dog's compliance with the breed standards when used as a marketing tool to confirm breed quality. In order for a show entry to be accepted, verification that other important aspects of the breed standard have been met should be required IMHO. Working dogs for example that haven't achieved any working titles which makes up part of the breeds compliance should score lower that dogs that have. A car with the best paint job at a car show, is hardly the best car if it has no engine and can't be driven.

Oft have I said that my breeds should be judged running around a farmyard covered in mud.

[sandgrubber]

I took a marketing course a long time ago. Postcode is a good predictor of ability to pay.

As for the breed list, most of them are expensive dogs to purchase if pedigree . . . and have some high maintenance/expensive vet bill factors . . . APBT -- I'd guess they're pretty robust and healthy on the whole, but hell, they're declared dangerous, so why not soak 'em for a few quid. Still baffled by the GR.

I just did the same thing - but I also found out that all the pet insurance is underwritten by the same group PetSure

The RSPCA site has the same fee regardless of parentage - checked a few of them in the quoting systems and they are the same too.

Mighty interesting, Amanda!

Looks like the pet insurance business doesn't reflect anything about purebred dogs generally being riddled with health conditions.

Insurance companies base their premiums on risk assessment.

Insurance companies base their fees on what the market will bear. This is even more skewed in their favour with so few re-inurers. Australia does not appear to have an open market. What on earth does postcode have to do with anything.

SG you are probably correct but it still sounds like stereotyping and price gouging to me.

It is stereotyping and price gouging. That's a basic part of marketing.

Edited March 19, 2010 by sandgrubber