Military dogs abandoned overseas?

heza · Sep 5, 2014

http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2014/09/us-abandons-military-dogs-overseas/

Even though combat dogs save about 200 human lives during their service, rather than be given a hero’s welcome home, they are often left in overseas war zones once they are no longer “useful.”

I hadn't heard much about this. If it's true, I'm fairly appalled and will start writing letters to my representatives.

robjvargas · Sep 5, 2014

A couple of links removed, there's this from CNN (emphasis mine):

Today, dogs are no longer left in war zones. In 2000, President Bill Clinton signed a law that allowed the dogs to be adopted by former handlers, law enforcement agencies and civilians. But Kandoll says this law didn't go far enough and is pushing for an amendment to include the reclassification of war dogs.

I don't quite buy either absolute. Everyone seems to agree that these dogs are getting classified as equipment, but I don't think it's as simple as what you read.

heza · Sep 5, 2014

robjvargas said:
I don't quite buy either absolute. Everyone seems to agree that these dogs are getting classified as equipment, but I don't think it's as simple as what you read.

I'm not sure what you're saying... that this isn't a problem?

From your article (which is from 2012):

But if the dogs are retired on an overseas base, the military will not provide for their transportation back home, a practice that Kandoll says is like leaving them behind.

"The day the dog is retired, the dog is considered excess equipment and not entitled to any transport back," she said.

When a dog is retired on an overseas base and is adopted by someone in the United States, the adopter is charged the dog's shipping cost, which can be up to $2,000.

This USA Today article from September says:

Legislation pushed by Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., that would require military dogs to be retired only upon return to the U.S. has been languishing in Congress for years.

From what I can tell, legislation was put forward to address several problems sometime in 2012 but only parts of it were enacted.

This is the Facebook page of the United States War Dog Association. Several posts down ("16 hrs" ago, as of this post), someone addresses several of the articles about dogs being left behind, calling it misinformation. In the comments section, there's some back and forth about it. However, people keep asking about Contract Working Dogs, and no answer seems to have been given, yet. And the original Facebook post does say that dogs who are returned to home bases in foreign countries but aren't adopted still possibly aren't being returned to the US, so I'm not sure what that's about or what's happening instead:

The only situation that we are trying to correct is, if there is no one to adopt a military dog at the home base such as let say Germany, South Korea or Japan, then return the MWD to Lackland AFB or another suitable base in the states before retiring the MWD. This way the MWD can be legally put on a Cargo plan and flown to the USA. Let us keep these false story off our site. or check with me first. Thank you.

So it sounds like if dogs are retired while still overseas, there's no requirement to provide for their transportation back to the US?

robjvargas · Sep 5, 2014

Nope. I was simply saying it's more complicated. Dogs *are* being pulled from war zones.

What you pulled clarified that even further.

heza · Sep 5, 2014

robjvargas said:
Nope. I was simply saying it's more complicated. Dogs *are* being pulled from war zones.

What you pulled clarified that even further.

But not all MWDs are being provided for, and we're not sure what's happening to dogs with contract companies--that's what I got out of whole mess.

GingerGunlock · Sep 5, 2014

It would seem that there is, in fact, a Canine Members of the Armed Forces act which was signed into law last year,

which authorizes the Secretaries of the various military services to transfer back to Lackland Air Force Base or another location for adoption any Military Working Dog (MWD) who is to be retired and for whom “no suitable adoption is available at the military facility where the dog is located.” This language is needed to ensure that the military returns MWDs to the U.S. so that prospective adopters do not face that expense. The bill also authorizes the Secretary of Defense to create a program to provide veterinary care to adopted retired MWDs.

It would seem that prior to this, potential adopters were responsible both for the transport of the dogs, and also all subsequent veterinary bills for "problems related to their military service."

(Here's the full text of the bill HR 4310, which I admittedly have not read. Section 371 is the "MWD matters" part [I did read that part])

cornflake · Sep 5, 2014

That says they're authorized, not required.

I'm shocked, or completely the opposite of that.

How much of the budget goes to the military, but they don't fly dogs back or provide vet care as a matter of course?

heza · Sep 8, 2014

cornflake said:
That says they're authorized, not required.

I'm shocked, or completely the opposite of that.

How much of the budget goes to the military, but they don't fly dogs back or provide vet care as a matter of course?

I just can't tell what they do... Or whether "authorized to" means that they do it.

I know there was legislation to address some of these issues... now, I'm just concerned with the idea that dogs are being retired overseas (and therefore no longer eligible for MWD status...) before being shipped back—and then aren't shipped back.

Roxxsmom · Sep 9, 2014

The CNN article was confusing. It said dogs are no longer left in war zones, but it also says that they're classified as equipment which means they could be left in war zones the way old tanks and trucks are, and that adopters have to pay their transportation costs, because it doesn't make sense to ask the military to pay people who purchase surplus equipment for transport or maintenance.

What it doesn't say is whether or not all military dogs that are retired while they're still deployed are adopted or not and what happens to any that aren't.

I wonder if they're quietly euthanized. Now I'm guessing some are so messed up or injured that this is necessary for humane reasons, but it's a heartbreaking reminder of what war does to living beings, including the ones who have no idea why they're being asked to fight.

We're not doing a great job of caring for our injured and traumatized human soldiers or easing their transition back into civilian life either.

GingerGunlock · Sep 10, 2014

My understanding (I'll need to dig for citations) is post-Vietnam era, war dogs have never been left in a war zone. Other outside our country bases, yes, but we haven't left dogs in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Also, since they allow for adoptions, I don't think many of them are euthanized. The assumption that war dogs = vicious dogs unsuitable for civilian life was made at the end of World War II but largely regretted, hence the legality of adoptions for retired dogs.

Lady MacBeth · Sep 10, 2014

GingerGunlock said:
My understanding (I'll need to dig for citations) is post-Vietnam era, war dogs have never been left in a war zone. Other outside our country bases, yes, but we haven't left dogs in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Also, since they allow for adoptions, I don't think many of them are euthanized. The assumption that war dogs = vicious dogs unsuitable for civilian life was made at the end of World War II but largely regretted, hence the legality of adoptions for retired dogs.

I hope this is true. I have been following this thread and found it quite disturbing.

Ken · Sep 11, 2014

Was a dog in The Story of G.I. Joe, adopted by the troops.
Hope he was brought home from Salerno.
Cute fella :-(

Military dogs abandoned overseas?

heza

robjvargas

heza

robjvargas

heza

GingerGunlock

paralibrarian

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

heza

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

GingerGunlock

paralibrarian

Lady MacBeth

Out, damn'd spot! out, I say.

Ken