Replies

"I asked you twice and now I ask you again;

What would you do with them then?"

Are you prior service? If so, what was your MOS, and don't you trust Operations to take care of the dogs and continue to make good use of them? Those are now more relevant and less fallacious questions here.

Clearly its impossible to have a rational conversation with you as you are arguing about an article you clearly didn’t even bother to read. The dogs are RETIRED. It is clearly noted as so in the article.

I am sorry I even bothered to ask you since you are not serious about wishing to discuss the mater and only desire to find fault.

"Are you prior service? If so, what was your MOS, and don't you trust Operations to take care of the dogs and continue to make good use of them? Those are now more relevant and less fallacious questions here."

I'm prior service. I was a military police officer, so while I didn't get the privilege of being a MWD handler (handlers are enlisted/NCOs), As a Company Commander and Provost Marshal, I supervised their operational usage and coordinated logistical support for them. As an MP Battalion S4, I even made the property book adjustments when was killed or died. In your condescending mind, does that give me enough status to comment on the matter?

Yes they are "property." They are also living creatures that bond closely with their handlers, and I doubt you will find a handler out there who doesn't consider them a full partner. Unlike most government property, were you aware that there is a specific UCMJ charge under Article 134, abusing a public animal, that pertains primarily to military working dogs? That charge doesn't "give" them special status; it merely recognizes the special status they merit by virtue of their utility and inherent dignity as living creatures.