Replies

"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.

"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."

I assume you were a good leader in logistics and did what was best for the handlers and dogs.

"In your condescending mind, does that give me enough status to comment on the matter?"

Having been enlisted with only little instructional authority at times, no authority most of the time, only a reserve component soldier then and a civilian now, I don't consider status one way or the other in regards to this topic. You've had some experience with dogs and handlers in the Army (what does matter), and it appears that you commented just fine. You have knowledge relevant to what you did.

"Yes they are "property.""

As we were but in different ways.

"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."

But one question would be, "Should each dog be discharged to the world upon the demobilization of his first handler or rotated to the next handler?" That would be a funding issue. And should retired (sick) dogs be sent home with any handlers? Would sick dogs become suffering franken-dogs after thousands of dollars of surgeries and other treatments in civilian homes, as so many dogs are treated by non-prior-service civilians?

My experience with dogs is mostly in agriculture. I like dogs, cattle, goats, sheep, etc., but see them more as they are than most folks. Some considerations that are important to people aren't important to animals (examples: the future, history). Other things are important to animals (examples: how they feel during a present moment, immediate compulsions to do what they've been trained to do or otherwise learned to do).