Heterozygous traits, how much would you pay for 100% reassurance?

Sammy,

Yes.

I can see where breeders could use this to sort possible hets.

As a buyer I would still rather just buy hets from trusted sources. Problem solved.

It is doing little good after I buy when I have to pay a lawyer, travel to another state, and go through a bunch of court proceedings and eat up my personal time. Especially if the seller is a fake name that I cant sue anyway. So I really dont see how this is "insurance" at all.

I'm kind of lost here as well. Insurance is one thing....genetic proof is something totally different. When you say "insurance", I'm thinking you mean a slip of paper that you pay for saying that the animal is guaranteed to be a het.....which I don't think would be any more helpful than most folks' currently used guarantee paperwork.

If you mean the assurance of a genetic test PROVING beyond a shadow of a doubt the animal carries a certain gene, that's a whole different ball game entirely.

Another thought here......you are asking us to put a dollar amount on what we would be willing to pay.....but I think it would really depend on what kind gene we were talking. I would be willing to pay a higher dollar amount to prove that an animal was het for a more expensive morph....it's hard to say an exact figure.

If you are talking about genetic testing, it is an interesting (but not new) idea. It is costly from what I have heard from others who have looked into it for geckos, and I see it only being beneficial to breeders in testing the possible hets to determine if they are gene carriers or not (hets or normals).

I only buy het animals from people I know and trust that produced the animals themselves, so if you are talking about some type of insurance, I wouldn't really need that.

The problem is you are asking what a service would be worth to us but you are being sufficiently vague that we have no idea what exactly the service is. Everybody's reply to the thread contains the term "if you're talking about"

WHat genetic testing would boil down to in the end iis buyers would come to expect the seller to have it done and that would open up the possibility of a seller having an actual het tested then selling normals with copies of the het's results.
I can see a real use for it within a breeders collection, like I said before, to expidite the breeding process by eliminating possible hets and telling the breeder which females to hold back etc.
This would, most certainly, speed the production rates in recessive morphs and result in even faster price decline however. The efforts of breeder males would not be wasted trying to determine the genetics of his 3 year old daughters.

From a buyers perspective, it basically after the fact information. Sure it's admissible evidence, but you still have to hire a lawyer, go to court, like Sammy said.
If the seller is providing the testing before the sale you still have to worry about fraud.
It would be a nice thing to have available, but it wouldn't make me comfortable enough to buy from someone I wouldn' tbuy from today. Buy from a breeder you trust to begin with and avoid the whole issue.

Unless adressed directly, I will refrain from posting further to this thread until something resembling details of what is being suggested are provided.

It is doing little good after I buy when I have to pay a lawyer, travel to another state, and go through a bunch of court proceedings and eat up my personal time. Especially if the seller is a fake name that I cant sue anyway. So I really dont see how this is "insurance" at all.

My question is, do we have a better protection right now?

Regards.

Originally Posted by The BoidSmith

My question is, do we have a better protection right now?

Regards.

If you are talking about genetic testing, no.

If your talking about insurance, maybe yes. Many jurisdictions have consumer's statutes; the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act allows for up to 3 times the damages as compensation, plus the losing side has to pay attorney's costs.

So under the consumer statute here in Texas, and more and more popular statutes elsewhere, you would get:
Attorney's fees paid by the scammer
Time value of several years wasted
Difference between the value of the fake het and a real het
and the second and third items can be tripled for you so we are talking about substantial money.

Of course there would have to be proof, but we are not talking about beyond a reasonable doubt, we are talking the more relaxed civil burden of preponderance.

I actually like this statute in Texas because it means I will be able to help even small purchasers who get scammed, and have the scammer pony up my fee. That's sweet.

Lucille,
I can't disagree with the provisions of the law, but think a certain dose of added detail is in order.
On just the headache side of things, Sammy pointed out some of the "costs" to the complainant bringing the suit.
In many cases, we would be talking a het valued at $1500 or less. Small claims would likely not hear the case, and would only be valid on assets in the state where the case was brought if it did. I say "not hear it", for as soon as the judge realized there were many instances of one word against another ( I bred this to it .... where's your proof that you bred that?) and genetic probabilities, he's not going to rule. So, to bring the suit to full court, with base damages of $1500-3000 or so, the complainant would have to commit $10-15Gs. If he defendent can't afford to fight it, then he can't pay up if you win. If he/she can afford to fight it, then the liability could go over $20-30K, as he may countersue. Surely, a few letters could be written for under $1000, but to get all the damages and fees, its only remedied in a full court. The burden of proof would still be quite high, even with a civil jury, as its still one word against another for the most part. And what is at stake? The complainant may be seeking a net award of under $5000, but have to put up 2-3 times that amount easily with no guaranteee of recovery. On top of it all, you are going after a "scammer", and you can't get the proverbial "blood out of a turnip". Bottom line, IMHO, it just ain't gonna happen.

Originally Posted by The BoidSmith

My question is, do we have a better protection right now?

Regards.

Dan, in my mind, yes. You buy from reputable people to begin with.


Lucille,

That is great what they are doing in Texas, but that still dont mean you can get blood from a turnip. If the person in question is broke or hiding their money then you still dont see a dime. Sadly that happens all the time in civil cases. You cant take from people what they dont have.