Skip to comments.
Lawmakers: Make It Easier For Military Dogs To Reunite With Soldiers After War
DailyCaller ^
| 7/23/14
| Alex Pappas
Posted on 07/24/2014 8:52:08 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
TOPICS: Military/Veterans; Pets/Animals
KEYWORDS: doggieping; military; militarydogs; soldiers; veterans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-35 last
To: familyop; Kartographer
It’s not publicized much, but I have read that many military dogs are killed, after they are no longer useful, because they are deemed too dangerous to be adopted by “ordinary families”.
Don’t you think it’s much better both for the dogs and their handlers to be adopted by their military handlers?!
Here is one article, I’ve seen others and the US is doing the same thing.
Majority of 350 ex-military dogs put down for ‘age and welfare’ reasons
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10401353/Majority-of-350-ex-military-dogs-put-down-for-age-and-welfare-reasons.html
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed it had put down 42 dogs due to a ‘’dangerous temperament’’, while 27 developed cancer-related health problems.
The majority (117) were put down due to ‘’age and welfare’’ reasons, while 76 had osteoarthritis.
An MoD spokesman said it was reviewing its policy to ensure that a military vet, in conjunction with an experienced dog handler, would be involved with every decision to put a dog to sleep.
21
posted on
07/26/2014 6:31:25 AM PDT
by
Innovative
("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
To: Kartographer
It should definitely be easier for handlers to get their dogs if they wish, but I take isse with several statements.
No dog “served” in our civil war.
Neither did Rinty or Lassie serve in any war.
Strongheart was actually a war dog, though.
22
posted on
07/26/2014 7:00:48 AM PDT
by
the OlLine Rebel
(Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Federal-run medical care is as good as state-run DMVs.)
To: Kartographer
I think you overeact and get defensive.
People responding are not saying to abuse the dog or ignore it. It just is not their top priority, though it may not be necessary to the discussion.
And it might help to stop copying everywhere that statement, which needs to be proofread and corrected. ;-)
23
posted on
07/26/2014 7:12:32 AM PDT
by
the OlLine Rebel
(Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Federal-run medical care is as good as state-run DMVs.)
To: the OlLine Rebel
"No dog served in our civil war." In an official capacity, true; however, there were numerous, "unofficial," dogs that served as mascots, guards, etc. perhaps the most notable was "Jack," of the 102nd PA Infantry. Jack was taken prisoner by the Confederacy, and later exchanged for a Confederate (human) prisoner held by the Union...
24
posted on
07/26/2014 7:22:16 AM PDT
by
Joe 6-pack
(Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
To: familyop
There are precisely two reasons why an American MWD should be put to sleep. Suffering beyond mending, and to keep them from falling into the hands of a Muslim.
ANYTHING else is wasteful and disrespectful to a living creature that has given the best years of their life serving and saving the lives of American military folks.
25
posted on
07/26/2014 7:58:18 AM PDT
by
Fire_on_High
(RIP City of Heroes and Paragon Studios, victim of the Obamaconomy.)
To: Joe 6-pack
"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).
26
posted on
07/26/2014 2:21:39 PM PDT
by
familyop
("Dry land is not just our destination, it is our destiny!" - -Deacon character, "Waterworld")
To: the OlLine Rebel
I read your post and those of Veteran Handler FReepers. I stand with the handlers and I believe that to be the just of my post.
27
posted on
07/26/2014 5:02:27 PM PDT
by
Kartographer
("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
To: Kartographer
28
posted on
07/26/2014 5:06:22 PM PDT
by
Kartographer
("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
To: familyop
>> Men are not to be equated with dogs.<<
I agree. Dogs are so much more loyal and kind.
29
posted on
07/26/2014 6:47:01 PM PDT
by
Lil Flower
(American by birth. Southern by the Grace of God! ROLL TIDE!!)
To: Lil Flower
Ecclesiastes 3:19 Mans fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless.
30
posted on
07/26/2014 7:55:13 PM PDT
by
Kartographer
("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
To: Kartographer; Lil Flower
Comments 29 and 30 are, in sum, another Hellenistic work of art, translation and all.
31
posted on
07/27/2014 4:11:30 PM PDT
by
familyop
("Dry land is not just our destination, it is our destiny!" - -Deacon character, "Waterworld")
To: familyop
A bible verse is a Hellenistic work of art?
32
posted on
07/27/2014 5:51:20 PM PDT
by
Kartographer
("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
To: Kartographer
Yes, that too. First, the history of the Septuagint will reveal that (Alexandria, hellinized scribes in Egypt). Then, the history of the NIV and associated versions, histories of academics on those projects, etc. (”meaningless” vs. “vanity.” contemporary Hellenism: also see Humanism).
33
posted on
07/27/2014 7:39:21 PM PDT
by
familyop
("Dry land is not just our destination, it is our destiny!" - -Deacon character, "Waterworld")
To: Kartographer
I’ll explain. Solomon didn’t mean that we’re no more important than animals. He meant that if we act like animals, we’ll be treated like animals. That’s more clear in the Orthodox Jewish Tanakh (Judaica Press or Mesorah Stone Edition).
34
posted on
07/27/2014 9:19:03 PM PDT
by
familyop
("Dry land is not just our destination, it is our destiny!" - -Deacon character, "Waterworld")
To: familyop
Well how bout you tell me how many dogs have committed mass murder, or started world wars?
35
posted on
07/29/2014 7:31:50 PM PDT
by
Lil Flower
(American by birth. Southern by the Grace of God! ROLL TIDE!!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-35 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson