Recognizing Canine Members of the Armed Forces

Discussion in 'Dog Chat' started by Melody, May 19, 2012.

  1. Melody

    Melody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    76
    Location:
    CA
    I received an email today from the ASPCA. There's a new piece of federal legislation called the "Canine Members of the Armed Forces Act".

    If signed into law, the act would provide for renaming dogs used in the military as "Canine Members of the Armed Forces". They are currently listed as equipment. It would provide for their care including assistance when they have retired. According to the ASPCA, this would not use federal dollars.

    Here is more information:
    http://capwiz.com/aspca/issues/alert/?alertid=61336366

    I'm not sure how they would achieve maintaining the programs mandating under the act without federal funds. The short writeup doesn't seem to say, though, I might have missed that part.

    What do you think about this idea? Should the military stop labeling dogs as equipment? Should they be required to provide for their retirement when their services are no longer needed?
     
    Melody, May 19, 2012
    #1
    King Browny likes this.
  2. Melody

    Victor Leigh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,209
    Likes Received:
    126
    How did dogs end up labeled as equipment in the first place?

    Yes, I am in full support of the idea. Dogs who have finished their tour of duty and are retired from the field should, no, make that must be cared for until the end of their natural lives. They should add a clause right at the top which outlaws euthanasia, too.
     
    Victor Leigh, May 19, 2012
    #2
  3. Melody

    zararina Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    43
    I always though that dogs in the military or police forces are not just equipment. As I would always here they are called K-9 dogs or police dogs. In which for me it means they are buddies and not just equipment.
    I also support that idea...
     
    zararina, May 19, 2012
    #3
  4. Melody

    Melody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    76
    Location:
    CA
    It is probably an antiquated term from an era when we did not see dogs as family members. I would like to think the soldiers who work with the dogs bond with them and it is more than human and equipment relationship. In fact, the bonding is probably essential to training. The dog must trust his handler emphatically. The handler must be sure the dog is going to do the assigned task.
     
    Melody, May 19, 2012
    #4
  5. Melody

    King Browny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    39
    Don’t the handlers get to take the war dogs in their home as pet after their retirement? Or if their master dies… well, I read twice in the news before that the dog die soon after his military partner die. Anyhow, what become of military dogs after finishing their service?
     
    King Browny, May 20, 2012
    #5
  6. Melody

    Victor Leigh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,209
    Likes Received:
    126
    Victor Leigh, May 21, 2012
    #6
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.