Posted on Sep 19, 2014
Military dogs are termed as mere “equipment” in laws and policies
44.1K
439
129
63
62
1
Not only do men and women go through great lengths to serve and protect our country, but dogs do too. However, military dogs are termed as mere “equipment” in laws and policies. Military dogs must be treated as soldiers, especially since their lives are put on the line to save others.
Military Working Dogs (MWD) are specifically trained to sniff bombs, protect their own bases and identify the locations of the enemy. This kind of work is dangerous and traumatic for a living, breathing being. During active service, a dog’s rank is considered higher than its handler’s. However, all of this is put aside once the dog becomes too old or irrelevant. The same dog is then declared unnecessary equipment, which can be left behind--often at foreign bases.
This is wrong. The bond between a dog and its handler is very strong. They are practically comrades. The dog protects its handler and other soldiers during crossfire. You can leave behind equipment, but you can never leave behind a comrade! Military dogs should be reclassified as manpower or K-9 service members. That way, they will return their country with the armed forces. In the Vietnam War, the U.S. military included 4900 dogs, and only 1600 made it back after the war ended.
Military dogs are not left behind in war zones anymore. Bill Clinton passed a law in 2000 that allows civilians, former handlers and law enforcement agencies to adopt retired MWDs. However, this bill didn’t reclassify war dogs. Representative Walter Jones (R-NC) submitted a bill back in 2012 that would reclassify MWDs as K-9 members of the military, called Canine Members of the Armed Forces Act. Unfortunately, in the process of incorporating the bill in the larger National Defense Authorization Act for 2013, a key part of reclassifying military dogs was left out.
The armed forces do respect all MWDs. Service members who are handlers cannot imagine their dogs as equipment and would never intentionally leave them behind. But the moment an MWD retires, it is considered equipment and is not transported back to headquarters. The dogs left behind at a foreign base can be adopted by a U.S. civilian, but the civilian would then have to pay for the monumental shipping costs. This discourages people from adopting war dogs.
The Air Force is making a policy change that would no longer classify MWDs as gear, but changes still need to be made across the services. We are making progress, but it's taking quite some time. MWDs do nothing less than serve our nation and military. They have every right to be reclassified as service members. If the military can transport MWDs overseas, then MWDs should be brought back as well.
What is your experience with dogs in the military? How should they be reflected in laws and military policies?
Military Working Dogs (MWD) are specifically trained to sniff bombs, protect their own bases and identify the locations of the enemy. This kind of work is dangerous and traumatic for a living, breathing being. During active service, a dog’s rank is considered higher than its handler’s. However, all of this is put aside once the dog becomes too old or irrelevant. The same dog is then declared unnecessary equipment, which can be left behind--often at foreign bases.
This is wrong. The bond between a dog and its handler is very strong. They are practically comrades. The dog protects its handler and other soldiers during crossfire. You can leave behind equipment, but you can never leave behind a comrade! Military dogs should be reclassified as manpower or K-9 service members. That way, they will return their country with the armed forces. In the Vietnam War, the U.S. military included 4900 dogs, and only 1600 made it back after the war ended.
Military dogs are not left behind in war zones anymore. Bill Clinton passed a law in 2000 that allows civilians, former handlers and law enforcement agencies to adopt retired MWDs. However, this bill didn’t reclassify war dogs. Representative Walter Jones (R-NC) submitted a bill back in 2012 that would reclassify MWDs as K-9 members of the military, called Canine Members of the Armed Forces Act. Unfortunately, in the process of incorporating the bill in the larger National Defense Authorization Act for 2013, a key part of reclassifying military dogs was left out.
The armed forces do respect all MWDs. Service members who are handlers cannot imagine their dogs as equipment and would never intentionally leave them behind. But the moment an MWD retires, it is considered equipment and is not transported back to headquarters. The dogs left behind at a foreign base can be adopted by a U.S. civilian, but the civilian would then have to pay for the monumental shipping costs. This discourages people from adopting war dogs.
The Air Force is making a policy change that would no longer classify MWDs as gear, but changes still need to be made across the services. We are making progress, but it's taking quite some time. MWDs do nothing less than serve our nation and military. They have every right to be reclassified as service members. If the military can transport MWDs overseas, then MWDs should be brought back as well.
What is your experience with dogs in the military? How should they be reflected in laws and military policies?
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 63
This might have already been said but these dogs would be great for vets with PTSD
(1)
(0)
I firmly believe that after their tenure, MWDs should be able to live a peaceful life as pets. preferably with their handlers. they should be able to live their lives to the fullest after they retire.
(1)
(0)
It is true that in the AF MWD's are equipment loaded on to an equipment account detail with the appropriate national stock number (NSN) based on the skills of the MWD. When one of these dogs die or is retired, they have to be adjusted off the AF Supply System records with the appropriate code for why (dead, battle loss, retirement, etc). How do I know this? Because I had to do it when I worked as a supply troop in the inventory section.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
TSgt Joshua Copeland Thank you. I was going to point that out. I believe that is the standard practice in the DoD.
(1)
(0)
SSG Paul Lanciault
From the view point that they are equipment, then we can find homes for those that are in good condition (safe for a family) or with the handler. We can buy a truck at the auction, so this can't be too difficult.
(1)
(0)
Should be ranked the same as police k-9's which are police officers at least in Ohio!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next


MWD: Military Working Dog
Dogs
Command Post
