[DutchKarin]

Wow... if even part of this story is true it is unbelievable how crappy humans can be. All these people should know better and should pay dearly for this behavior. The story outlines how a military contractor sold dogs, adopted etc dogs they knew that former military handlers wanted to adopt... had submitted paperwork to adopt. Ugh.

I'm sending this to my political reps... not that I think they are any better... but come on.

Troops betrayed as Army dumps hundreds of heroic war dogs | New York Post

 

[noregrets]

wow. this whole article, I'm speechless.

The amount of cover ups is absurd.

 

[dogma13]

That's just heartbreaking.

 

[NormanF]

I'm not perfect but I know better than to dump a dog.

I'd never do it. Just when you think people do right by dogs, along comes a story like this.

I wouldn't give the Army a second chance. This wasn't something you couldn't foresee, this is deliberate cruelty.

And those dogs deserved better for their service to their country.

 

[selzer]

It's crappy.

Better than what happened to the dogs used in Vietnam, but still crappy.

 

[Jenny720]

The army is going out of there way to be pointless and cruel to there own. I hope a documentary is made.

 

[newlie]

Shameful. Just shameful.

 

[Dainerra]

the Army had nothing to do with it. They didn't betray the handlers and refuse to give them the dogs. The army never owned the dogs - they were owned by a 3rd party contractor.

 

[Jenny720]

the Army had nothing to do with it. They didn't betray the handlers and refuse to give them the dogs. The army never owned the dogs - they were owned by a 3rd party contractor.

Did i not read that right:crazy: In the article said the pentagon, army and the hired K2 Solutions are covering up and still covering up the dumping of military dogs.

 

[Stonevintage]

There is some information that was not covered here that I read on the Lackland Military Dog site that is important to this story.

The dogs, once trained do not stay with their original handler. If they don't go out disabled - they can serve 3 three year tours, most likely with a different handler each tour. That leaves most original handlers up to 6 years before they can hope to see their dog again.

With that in mind, all the dogs for adoption at K2 would have been over 11 years old. I saw no mention of geriatric dogs so that must mean that the dogs K2 puts up for adoption washed out and it sounds like most of it is PTSD.

The Lackland interview also stated that Military Dogs that were Patrol dogs are never allowed to be released to anyone as the detection dogs are. They are brought back from deployment and put down. These are the patrol dogs that were trained in bite work. It is the army veterinarian division that does this because they can never again be trusted among human population.

I have no idea about the differences in the articles or when and how K2 got involved but the article at the Lackland military dog adoption is worth a read too. Many think great!- the dogs are getting out after service - but the patrol dogs never get out only the detection dogs...

 

[DutchKarin]

... don't know what it says at Lackland... but I know of several apprehension dogs that have been adopted by their handlers. One is David Winners who used to post here regularly. So not to sure about that Stonevintage. The Warriordogprogect.org also takes in apprehension dogs to retire them or rehab and adopt them out. I hope a MWD handler posts here because I believe that there often is a third party contractor involved. That is not unusual. Still should follow the guidelines of their military bosses.

 

[Stonevintage]

... don't know what it says at Lackland... but I know of several apprehension dogs that have been adopted by their handlers. One is David Winners who used to post here regularly. So not to sure about that Stonevintage. The Warriordogprogect.org also takes in apprehension dogs to retire them or rehab and adopt them out. I hope a MWD handler posts here because I believe that there often is a third party contractor involved. That is not unusual. Still should follow the guidelines of their military bosses.

Your right. I read the article I think about 9 mos ago. I just went to the site to get a link if anybody wanted to read it and they have pulled all that information. There is a new information chart that now says Patrol dogs are in the adoption program but not suitable for homes with children. The is also a clause about the dogs that are contracted that says that adoption program is separate. There's only 1/2 page chart there with a note that their updated policy will be shown 1/26/2016.... still blank - no surprise. Here's the link if you want to take a quick peek.

It also states that any negotiations regarding the release and early retirement of these contract dogs must be worked out between the handler and the contractor.

http://vetsadoptpets.org/militaryworkingdogadoptions.html

 

[selzer]

I think you have to look at it kind of like a race horse and not like a dog. Racehorses have trainers and jockeys, and people that take general care of them. None of these people generally own the horse. And when they move on to another job, or retire, they do not get to take the horse with them.

The same is true with MWDs. It is all warm and fuzzy to think of the soldier who risked his life for us taking home the furry critter that helped him do his job, perhaps saved his life, perhaps more than once. It is what every dog owner wants to read about. But the handlers do not OWN the dog. The dogs are highly trained animals that have to go back out in the field and work.

So, when the dog is 10 or 11 years old, retirement age, we think, why not let one of their handlers adopt them? They can handle the dog. They have an interest in the dog. Seems a win-win situation.

If the dogs are owned by a third party contractor, than what happens to the dog at the end of the day is up to them. The handlers should not think they are entitled to the dog. If some of these dogs do get adopted by retired handlers, awesome.

 

[Jenny720]

No they are not entitled to the dog but i would think that when the dog has ,ptsd ,injurys,has issues and is old its the least they can do is look in the file and contact the person who risked his life for this country to let them know the dog is available it should be mandatory.

 

[selzer]

No they are not entitled to the dog but i would think that when the dog has ,ptsd ,injurys,has issues and is old its the least they can do is look in the file and contact the person who risked his life for this country to let them know the dog is available it should be mandatory.

We all have a personal list of what ought to be mandatory. When you are talking about a private business, how they run it, well, part of the reason you open a business is because you want to make the rules. Now if folks don't like your rules, they go elsewhere. That is what it means to have a private business. Your customers are the people you please, otherwise you go out of business.

But otherwise you maximize income, and minimize expenses, and try to make the business cover costs (pay the employees and overhead) and have something left over at the end of the month. The government can make some things mandatory, like filing and paying taxes, and not discriminating against people for their race, etc. But the government should not be making your choices not choices. They are not in the business of forcing decency out of people. I mean, if an employee's kid needs braces, it would be real nice for the employee's employer to pay a percentage of that, but the government shouldn't be making that mandatory.

Forcing a business owner to GIVE a dog to a hander after it is retired from military service for whatever reason would be similar to forcing the owner of a race horse to GIVE the racehorse to its trainer when it retires from the track.

 

[selzer]

What if there are three separate individuals who risked their life for this country and handled the dog and wants the dog? Who should get the dog?

A lot of breeders do not like to place puppies with people in the military. They move all the time, do not make a ton of money, and sometimes the dogs need to be rehomed if they land on a base where their dog isn't welcome.

I think there may be more to this decision than what we are hearing. For example, if the dog came out of the situation pre-retirement age with serious issues or injuries, and the organization footed the bill to vet and rehab the dog, then a congressman was willing to pay for the dog and the business could recoup their losses, why is that such a terrible thing. Oh, because people selling dogs are never, ever, supposed to be considering the monetary value of the dog. All business decisions concerning dogs should be made out of feelings, not logic, not business.

 

[Jenny720]

There are contractors that reunite the retired military dogs or injured dogs with their handlers. This particular contactor is in question.

 

[selzer]

There are contractors that reunite the retired military dogs or injured dogs with their handlers. This particular contactor is in question.

There are employers that offer health insurance including dental and braces. But some people take a job where there is no health or dental insurance.

People should not be forced/compelled to do something. People should do something because they want to, or they should not do it. But the handlers should not feel entitled either.

And social media campaigns to malign the character of people/businesses to get their way at a thing, well, that makes me ill. Partly because it works sometimes. It doesn't mean the giver is in any better position to give whatever it is that is to be given though.

When we are in the black, we can afford to be generous and to give someone something out of the goodness of our hearts. But if we are out giving away property that we could make money out, while creditors are being left high and dry, well, that's wrong too. We don't know the whole story.

We just know enough, that we can collectively carry on about how mean or unfair or awful it is that someone else did not give away something of theirs to someone we admire and sympathize with.

 

[Jelpy]

What I found particularly appalling is the fact that dogs that are no longer capable of performing their jobs due to PTSD etc are being placed in the field. This is a disaster waiting to happen and a tragedy for these canine veterans.

Jelpy

 

[Jenny720]

Selzer there is a law called robbys law that soldiers have first priority in adopting retired or dogs sent back to the country due to medical issues or pstd. Then the dogs are offered for adoption to the public. But this hired contractor particular hAndled things differently and adopted 200 dogs to the public without offering them to the soldiers who many have been seeking adoption and were told they could not give them any information. 13 of the 200 dogs that were adopted to civilians were resold by civilians for much money and cannot be located.