Posted on 11/28/2005 5:40:47 AM PST by Wolfie
Congress acts to let wounded soldier to keep her on-duty dog
McKean County native to adopt 'Rex,' her bomb sniffing canine
This is the story of a soldier and her dog, and the act of Congress required to keep them together.
It began in July, when Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jamie Dana woke up, confused, in a hospital bed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.
Her last memory was riding in a military convoy in Iraq after she and her bomb sniffing dog, Rex, had searched a village. She remembered being in extreme pain. And she remembered asking frantically about Rex, eventually being told that he had not survived.
But she didn't know that the military had told her husband, fellow Air Force security officer Mike Dana, that she wasn't going to survive her injuries.
She didn't know that, after a bomb exploded under her Humvee, she spent more than a week in military hospitals in Iraq and Germany before arriving in Washington.
And she didn't know that Rex had survived the bombing with only a minor burn on his nose.
Click here for rest of story.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
I read an article about her and her dog last week. It brought tears to my eyes. God bless those who voted to let her keep him!
Thanks archy!
Post 140
I understand your statement and normally, I'd agree. Let me put this in different terms... what if that resource refuses to be used by anyone other than that girl? This is the likely scenario... so what do we do with the dog if it won't work with anyone else? Shoot it?
Mike
There are some crucial issues we really don't have the word on -- like how old this dog is, what its useful working life is, and how expensive/complex retraining would be versus training a new dog.
Actually, adopting a war dog was prohibited because the government was worried about liability issues from turning loose "attack dogs" on the general public.
WRT the dogs in Vietnam and other tropical stations, there were also worries about importing exotic canine diseases into the U.S. dog population.
That didn't make it any easier for my friend whose long-time K-9 was euthanized when he retired . . .
I think this is an urban legend, but will defer judgement if you can provide a source for this "policy".
I believe that if the dog is no longer servicable she should get it. The adoption rules already allow for that. These dogs are needed at every US military base and embassy in the world, not to mention countering the deadly explosive threat in Iraq.
I don't support pulling it out of service early when it can save lives. Perhaps I don't see the big picture here...
I agree with you completely. But, I know dogs, they become very loyal and many times they will work with only one person. Many very good dogs have been killed because they would not work with another person in the field. They view their master as the alpha male or female and they are the triple zed in the pack. Anyone else is considered a threat to the pack and the dog many times will not obey.
It's less time consuming and more productive to train a new dog with a handler to replace the outgoing pair. The bond is stronger and the dog will work harder for that person. Yes, it's expensive but in the long run the payoff is better.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that by removing the handler, the dog's usefullness is very limited. Basically, the chances that it'll make a difference to save lives has been reduced to almost nil. The dog would have to be re-trained with the new handler which would cost money, the loyalty the dog feels for it's owner would be non-existant and there would likely be obedience problems. The loss the dog feels by it's handler being sent back to the states is something that most people don't consider. It's best to give the dog to it's original handler and train a new and highly effective dog and handler team as a replacement.
Mike
First, it is NEVER selfish to genuinely love someone -- even a dog.
Second, if the United States Congress chooses to give her the dog, then it no longer belongs to the Army.
Well, my Shelley-dog ran O.K. for my friend, although we use somewhat different signals so Shelley didn't understand her command to hit the weave poles. She stopped in mid career, turned around, and you could almost see her put her paws on her hips and yell, "WHAT did you say?"
And her Mocha-dog ran o.k. for me, until she came around the turn to the pause table, saw her owner holding Shelley, and just HAD to drop everything and run over and say "HI! Whatchya doin' holding that strange dog there?" before running back to me to complete the course (she DID do the weave poles perfectly. Good Dog.) Lots of yummy liver treats for all Chocolate Labs involved . . .
. . . and, yes, the instructor DID notice the switcheroo . . . Mocha being about 15 pounds heavier and considerably taller than Shelley. Louder too (she barks a lot - Shelley is one of those still waters run deep types.) But Mocha is an amazing young dog - she's a rescue who had WAY too much energy for her former owners, a splendid big girl just as powerful as they come. Shelley is a little, fine-boned sprinter who looks like a greyhound beside Mocha.
You are absolutely correct. Lets strip all emotion from this case and follow the rules to the letter.
"Absolutely, we're the target. We're the enemy," Murtha said. "(The Iraqis) are a proud people, they've been around a lot longer than we have. They've going to win this themselves, they're going to settle this themselves. They have to, there's no alternative."
From Yahoo News, Nov 21, 2005.
You are in Iraq. I didnt expect to have to explain this to you.
"Absolutely, we're the target. We're the enemy," Murtha said. "(The Iraqis) are a proud people, they've been around a lot longer than we have. They've going to win this themselves, they're going to settle this themselves. They have to, there's no alternative."
From Yahoo News, Nov 21, 2005.
Next question?
I was in Iraq. Not anymore.
interesting comment.
"Absolutely, we're the target. We're the enemy," Murtha said. "(The Iraqis) are a proud people, they've been around a lot longer than we have. They've going to win this themselves, they're going to settle this themselves. They have to, there's no alternative."
This is what Murtha said and this is why he was branded a coward. And rightly so.
With all due respect it is not her dog.... It's the US Army's dog and it is needed to save lives. It costs $18,000 and a couple of years to train one of these animals. I can sympathize with the Sergeant, but this is kind of selfish. ""
The last I heard, she is recovering from injuries, and expects to be re-deployed in Iraq. I awwume Rex will go back with her. She knows his value, both monetarily and on a daily basis with the troops. I didn't get the impression she was planning to go back to Iraq without him.
Have you ever had a dog, especially one with the kind of relationship these people have with their companions? Lighten up! Small reward for putting her life on the line for our freedom!
What IS your problem?! Show a little compassion and thanks to one of our bravest.
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.