Lawmakers: Make It Easier For Military Dogs To Reunite With Soldiers After War

DailyCaller ^ | 7/23/14 | Alex Pappas

[Kartographer]

They served in the Civil War. They were there for American soldiers during both world wars. One was even on SEAL Team Six, the military team that killed Osama Bin Laden.

But military dogs do not always get to go home with their military handlers after serving together in war.

During a Capitol Hill event on Wednesday, legislators argued it should be easier for these veterans to reunite with their dogs.

[Kartographer]

My dog heroes have always been veterans! Rin Tin Tin and Lassie both served!

[SECURE AMERICA]

This should not have to be argued or debated or anything but done!

[NFHale]

Dawg Brother Kartographer, I think it’s a great idea...

Dogs are God’s way of letting you know have a heart... because it breaks each time you lose one.

[ChiefJayStrongbow]

I’m not saying it isn’t the right thing to do, but is this really the priority?

The country is being invaded, we have debt up to our eyeballs, unemployment is through the roof and the payouts to deadbeats is bankrupting our country, our president is usurping power and running one of the most corrupt administrations.

Let’s get focused, gentlemen.

[Kartographer]

They also served those that sit, stay, search, roll over and want their belly rubbed.

[Kartographer]

As for me I am focused and nothing is to good for any that served rather they had two legs or four and especially those that came back with none.

[huldah1776]

Dogs miss their handlers, too. When I tell mine that my son is coming home she looks for him. She knows when we are a mile away from home, even after 1.5 years of being away. I pray none were left in Afghanistan or Iraq.

[familyop]

Meanwhile, behind the animal worshipping scene, many formerly enlisted veterans (men) are being cheated in business, academia and politics.

[Kartographer]

As for me I am focused and nothing is to good for any that served rather they had two legs or four and especially those that came back with none.

So what part of that statement disrespects veterans? You do understand that most of these dogs saved many a soldiers life in combat? What would you do abandoned them? Maybe shoot them? Isn't the best thing, the fair thing, the American thing is to let them comeback with their soldier?

[familyop]

Men are not to be equated with dogs.

[Kartographer]

I ask what would you do with them then?

You clearly need to have a discussion with some of the Veteran Handlers coming home. I have.

[familyop]

"So what part of that statement disrespects veterans?"

I didn't write anything about that statement being disrespectful to veterans in this thread, but since you brought it up here,...

[Kartographer]

I asked you twice and now I ask you again;

What would you do with them then?

[familyop]

"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.

[Kartographer]

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.

[familyop]

"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."

From the article, the only explanation of disposition of any particular dog:
"Bos described how a back injury forced him out of the military, causing Cila to be relocated to another service member."

The training for each one of those dogs is very expensive and comes from military funding.

[Kartographer]

Ganzert explained that military policy dictates that when a military dog is retired while overseas — and not while back in the United States — it is not given a military transport home. That makes it difficult for some veterans to afford the costs to send the retired dog home.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/23/lawmakers-make-it-easier-for-military-dogs-to-reunite-with-soldiers-after-war-photos/#ixzz38W7tzDHI

[Innovative]

doggieping

[Joe 6-pack]

WOOOF!

The Doggie Ping list is for FReepers who would like to be notified of threads relating to all things canid. If you would like to join the Doggie Ping Pack (or be unleashed from it), FReemail me.

[Joe 6-pack]

"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.