Lally

Actually, I'd be very careful of making statements like 'taught to attack' and 'dog was abused' in a public forum when the identify of the owners is known. Just my view.

Here is the latest report in Melbourne's Herald-Sun. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/...x-1225844490946

Dogs "turning" is largely a myth. The fact that the victim cannot identify the trigger for the attack doesn't mean there wasn't one. :D Which, to me, is fairly alarming. If someone's lived with a dog for 3 years, and, apparently, they know each other reasonably well, why can't they identify the trigger? Is it due, then, to the very nature of the dog? I have no answers; I'm just wondering.

Just listened to a report on Jon Faine's ABC Melbourne program and his interview with one of the two men who broke in and saved the woman. He said that the scene was horrific and saturated with blood. The neighbour was summoned by the woman's grand daughter who was hysterical. He and his brother tore over and smashed their way in and confronted the dog with a green wheely bin and finally forced it into another room and closed the door. The dog had been living with the victim for 3 years and its actual owner, her grandson, had visited but just returned to Melbourne. As she walked in her back door, the dog lunged at her, he said, without apparent rhyme or reason. The rescuer knew the dog well for years, liked the dog, said that it had never been a problem before, it seemed a happy and likeable dog....it aparently just snapped and attacked. Of course there is now a talk-back debate ensuing. The bottom line is that these type of dogs terrify many people, as do some of the owners of these dogs. Evidence that this well-liked dog 'turned' without warning or provocation, if confirmed, will simpy add to this fear.

I know that it's an ad, but it's done with a new, phantom camera and is exquisite. If the link doesn't work go to YOU TUBE - slow motion dog food ad.

They're wonderful stories, all. I believe that most dogs are inherently protective. Many years ago, at dusk, I went to the door of our house which can't be seen from the street and to my surprise saw 10 tall figures, dressed in black robes, with covered faces and some with skeletons painted on. They were standing in a semi-circle, with the theme from Ghostbusters blaring from a ghetto-blaster. It was the birthday of my recently dead, beloved grandmother and DH and I were sharing a bottle of champagne in her honour, so we were a bit squiffy I suppose. Immediately, I let out a suppressed scream myself - I was momentarily startled - and I guess that I sounded quite scared in those first few seconds. Well, my two laid-back, male Cavalier King Charles Spaniels tore out of the house to the 'intruders' barking and (and this is what surprised us) desperately jumping at them, growling, and trying to get to their faces (so we thought). Their indignation and protectiveness was completely astonishing. The tall, black robes immediately dispersed, running in all directions. We later learnt, much to our embarrassment, that the intimidating black-robes were actually various teenagers from the neighbourhood who were out 'celebrating' Halloween, i.e. just silly kids, and that they were very upset at our reaction. However, we had no idea of what was going on, and three of the boys were so tall and threatening looking. Interestingly, when two of the girls in the group came to our house a week later with their parents, neither of the dogs would go near them, though they were typically friendly towards the parents. One of my favourite stories is told by my friend who has a big, big Rotti called Frederik. He's a huge boy and as you would expect with a powerful dog, he's beautifully trained, and as a result, is one of the most delightful dogs of my acquaintance, ever. One day, my friends returned from work and no Frederik greeted them. As Frederik could get in and out of the house they walked around calling his name and heard him bark back, conversationally they said, in response. Following the bark's sound they arrived at the back bathroom to discover two men huddled up against each other in the shower, terrified, while Frederik calmly and patiently sat in front of the shower door. The burglars burst into tears with relief when my friends appeared, and cried again when the police took them away. One policemen said 'you're a very, very good boy, Frederik, and I'd like to shake your hand'. Frederik promptly offered his paw to the policeman.

The bottom line for me, as I suppose that it is for everyone, is that my dogs are special and that nothing is too good for them. Also, like most, I assume that paying for health insurance for them is a financial burden but one that is willingly accepted to ensure that the very best treatment can be given them, irrespective of cost, when and if the need arises. I would be happy enough to never need to claim on this insurance and for the company to make a profit; nevertheless, I expect the insurer to live up to its claims when one of my dogs becomes ill. Currently, my now seriously ill 8 year old Cavalier girl's medication is costing over $200 per month (Vetmedin; Fortekor; Frudix) which represents approximately double the annual re-imbursement available under the terms of the policy. However, in my opinion, the insurer (Hollard) has already indicated that it's prepared to allegedly manipulate my claims to reduce its obligation. This is not what insurance is supposed to be about, at all. I remain a supporter of vet insurance, despite my problems. However, I'm backed, fully, by our vet, who will support me in any or all conflicts with the insurer, which is a great first step. My recommendation is that you discuss any policy which you're contemplating with your vet first if you have a good relationship with him/her. Whereas few will comment on the commercial aspects of a policy, most vets will give an 'ad hoc' assessment of any policy relevant to your dog's future, probable needs. Finally, any policy worth its money should include cover for your dog's life.

Please note - Most pet insurers are underwritten by the same outfit - Holland Insurance, with whom I'm in conflict. I've copied my post of late January in case you missed it. After a traumatic experience with one my last Cavaliers, whom I adored, and who cost me many, many, thousands of dollars in treatment, I decided to insure my last girl. Unfortunately, this was after a near-death experience in June, 2006, when the Lort Smith Animal hospital in Melbourne miraculously treated her and saved her life from struvite bladder stones and an almost uncontrollable high temperature due to a concomitant staph infection. Of course, I told the insurer, RSPCA, about this pre-condition. However, and this is something which everyone who's contemplating pet insurance should understand, the underwriter for nearly every policy, no matter who offers it, is the same - Hollard Insurance. There is just not enough competition in this field in Australia, in my opinion. I'm currently in dispute with the insurer and I think that the best way to inform you of my problems is to quote my last letter to them: "I refer to the Special Policy Conditions outlined in the Certificate of Insurance invoice which I recently received, viz., Specific Exclusions: All Renal conditions and any claim that arises either directly or indirectly from these conditions. As there are no indications that Purdy has suffered from any renal dysfunction I would be grateful to know on what basis this has been determined. I would also welcome your advising me of the name/s of your technical adviser/s. This is not the first time that Purdy's policy has been arbitrarily, in my view, encumbered. At the last renewal, you excluded 'bladder stones'. Whereas I had advised you at the time of purchase that Purdy had once suffered from struvite bladder stones, she later showed signs of developing oxalate stones. Two vets confirmed to me that one sort of bladder stone had no correlation with the other, however you made no distinction. I verbally questioned this and was informed that the matter would be further considered. However, no explanation was forthcoming. Currently, when Purdy visits the vet for any reason, her urine is automatically tested. Recently, a slight rise in protein levels was indicated. Further tests to ascertain cause included a blood test to examine her kidneys. This test proved negative - her kidneys were functioning very well. I presume, though, that this is the basis on which you've now excluded 'all renal conditions.' I note, particularly, from your information page on the internet, which I read closely before taking out insurance: Life Time Cover -once insured cover may be renewed for life with no reduction of benefits or exclusions added. It is my opinion that Purdy's insurance cover, more expensive than most others but which I accepted as a way of contributing to the RSPCA, is not providing the cover and support which it claimed. I have not before heard of an insurer restricting its cover, annually, unless fraud or deceit was proven. Of course, it's now too late for me to switch to another provider, so I am doubly disadvantaged. In early October, Purdy was diagnosed with an enlarged heart. This is despite her breeder's organising annual check-ups for mitral valve disease, luxating patella and eye problems in his dogs. None of Purdy's siblings, are similarly afflicted, and I trust that I can rely on this policy's not being changed, yet again, in response to this serious illness. However, I noted that the first claim for her X-Ray and medications took longer to be reimbursed, i.e. the insurance cheque was not sent until after the policy's annual renewal date. I assume that this was to reduce the cost to you of claims during the 2009/2010 period? I will be pleased to receive your reply at your earliest convenience. Thank you." As you can see, I'm not a happy camper. I have received no reply at all, but I will take the matter up further with the insurance Ombudsman if Hollard continues to shirk its obligations to cover my very sick girl. My advice is to be very cautious about pet insurance. I would not be without it, that's true, unless one's prepared to euthanase one's dog when he or she becomes seriously ill, which I never would. But unless you're prepared to stand up for your dog's and your rights pet insurance can be a financial trap. One good thing about this policy is that there are no additional impositions due to age. However, there is every indication that the underwriter will, allegedly, try to shrug off its obligations if it deems it necessary.

I'm far from being an expert, but I've owned 13 cavaliers over about 20 years. In my opinion, your puppy's weight is worrisome. I once had a tiny little girl who just wouldn't/couldn't put on weight no matter what topline food I gave her, which she didn't eat, and she lived to age 12, though she did have serious digestive problems for most of her life. When I sent her to the vet to be speyed, the vet discovered that she had severe, entrenched tonsilitis. To this day, I'm convinced that she associated eating with pain. To tempt her, when she rejected all and every food choice she was offered, I found that she would actually try shaved ham and grated cheese: not at all wholesome for a puppy, I know, but it got her into the habit of eating. Gradually, I introduced her to chicken,mashed rice and mashed vegetables which she seemed to accept after a lot of trial and error. Puppies need more than one meal per day, and one filled with proteins, good carbohydrates, and vitamins, at that. When she was a difficult eater, I also gave her a drop or two of Pentavite. She was exercised a lot less regularly than my other dogs as I was anxious to not exhaust her. I also gave her electrolytes via a syringe which our vet gave us to ensure that her bodily functions were not too compromised. Good luck!

Hi all, After a traumatic experience with one my last Cavaliers, whom I adored, and who cost me many, many, thousands of dollars in treatment, I decided to insure my last girl. Unfortunately, this was after a near-death experience in June, 2006, when the Lort Smith Animal hospital in Melbourne miraculously treated her and saved her life from struvite bladder stones and an almost uncontrollable high temperature due to a concomitant staph infection. Of course, I told the insurer, RSPCA, about this pre-condition. However, and this is something which everyone who's contemplating pet insurance should understand, the underwriter for nearly every policy, no matter who offers it, is the same - Hollard Insurance. There is just not enough competition in this field in Australia, in my opinion. I'm currently in dispute with the insurer and I think that the best way to inform you of my problems is to quote my last letter to them: "I refer to the Special Policy Conditions outlined in the Certificate of Insurance invoice which I recently received, viz., Specific Exclusions: All Renal conditions and any claim that arises either directly or indirectly from these conditions. As there are no indications that Purdy has suffered from any renal dysfunction I would be grateful to know on what basis this has been determined. I would also welcome your advising me of the name/s of your technical adviser/s. This is not the first time that Purdy's policy has been arbitrarily, in my view, encumbered. At the last renewal, you excluded 'bladder stones'. Whereas I had advised you at the time of purchase that Purdy had once suffered from struvite bladder stones, she later showed signs of developing oxalate stones. Two vets confirmed to me that one sort of bladder stone had no correlation with the other, however you made no distinction. I verbally questioned this and was informed that the matter would be further considered. However, no explanation was forthcoming. Currently, when Purdy visits the vet for any reason, her urine is automatically tested. Recently, a slight rise in protein levels was indicated. Further tests to ascertain cause included a blood test to examine her kidneys. This test proved negative - her kidneys were functioning very well. I presume, though, that this is the basis on which you've now excluded 'all renal conditions.' I note, particularly, from your information page on the internet, which I read closely before taking out insurance: Life Time Cover -once insured cover may be renewd for life with no reduction of benefits or exculsions added. It is my opinion that Purdy's insurance cover, more expensive than most others but which I accepted as a way of contributing to the RSPCA, is not providing the cover and support which it claimed. I have not before heard of an insurer restricting its cover, annually, unless fraud or deceit was proven. Of course, it's now too late for me to switch to another provider, so I am doubly disadvantaged. In early October, Purdy was diagnosed with an enlarged heart. This is despite her breeder's organising annual check-ups for mitral valve disease, luxating patella and eye problems in his dogs. None of Purdy's siblings, are similarly afflicted, and I trust that I can rely on this policy's not being changed, yet again, in response to this serious illness. However, I noted that the first claim for her X-Ray and medications took longer to be reimbursed, i.e. the insurance cheque was not sent until after the policy's annual renewal date. I assume that this was to reduce the cost to you of claims during the 2009/2010 period? I will be pleased to receive your reply at your earliest convenience. Thank you." As you can see, I'm not a happy camper. I have received no reply at all, but I will take the matter up further with the insurance Ombudsman if Hollard continues to shirk its obligations to cover my very sick girl. My advice is to be very cautious about pet insurance. I would not be without it, that's true, unless one's prepared to euthanase one's dog when he or she becomes seriously ill, which I never would. But unless you're prepared to stand up for your dog's and your rights pet insurance can be a financial trap.

May I ask who you are with? PetSecure. I've only had 1 issue with a claim and that was when Zoe punctured the lens in her eye. She has had other issues with her eyes before so they initially knocked it back. As it was an injury and nothing to do with issues she had before, after a letter from the specialist it was paid.