Worthwhile Petition

[Danger-Mouse]

Petition by Andy McNab, not sure if it's the "real one" but either way it's worthwhile. Unless they're unsafe these dogs have served our country and may well have saved our soldier's lives. They don't deserve to be just thrown away.

https://www.change.org/p/defence-animal-centre-save-our-veteran-dogs?utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_signer_receipt&utm_campaign=triggered&share_context=signature_receipt&recruiter=616988915

[12gauge82]

Very good cause, signed and shared ?

[wisdom]

Signed and shared.

[loriusgarrulus]

Signed and shared.

[getthegat]

What the hell ! I'm on it.

[Lord Geordie]

Signed!

[old man]

On it!

 

[Hendrix's rifle]

Done. Along with my Mrs and whoever else she's now sent it to

[Newbie to this]

Signed

[Delboysparky]

Totally misleading news article. 

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Delboysparky said:

Totally misleading news article. 

Why?

[Delboysparky]

12 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Why?

Because the dogs in question are not being re-homed due to their temperament and the fact the dog handlers can’t control them without being bitten. 

By their nature and training they are dangerous.

[12gauge82]

17 minutes ago, Delboysparky said:

Because the dogs in question are not being re-homed due to their temperament and the fact the dog handlers can’t control them without being bitten. 

By their nature and training they are dangerous.

Fair point, I feel after what these dogs have been used for and the fearless loyalty some will have shown their handlers in action that they deserve more than euthanasia, they could have a program for them when they come back, if not I personally don't think it right they use them in the first place.

[Delboysparky]

7 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Fair point, I feel after what these dogs have been used for and the fearless loyalty some will have shown their handlers in action that they deserve more than euthanasia, they could have a program for them when they come back, if not I personally don't think it right they use them in the first place.

I think it’s worth knowing that most military dogs are re-homed, they are only put to sleep when they have significant medical issues or because of temperament or experience (IE Afghan) they are to dangerous to re-Home. 

One of these dogs is an ex SF dog, it trains to kill men, you can’t put that animal in a domestic setting 

Edited December 3, 2017 by Delboysparky

[ShootingEgg]

5 minutes ago, Delboysparky said:

One of these dogs is an ex SF dog, it trains to kill men, you can’t put that animal in a domestic setting 

If this is the  case then it is yet again media only showing people what they want to be seen. It would bbe insane to put that kind of dog into a family home. 

[12gauge82]

7 minutes ago, Delboysparky said:

I think it’s worth knowing that most military dogs are re-homed, they are only put to sleep when they have significant medical issues or because of temperament or experience (IE Afghan) they are to dangerous to re-Home. 

One of these dogs is an ex SF dog, it trains to kill men, you can’t put that animal in a domestic setting 

Inteesting and a point I wasn't aware of, I still feel that after the service these animals will have given and the men' lives possibly saved they should be cared for by the military on return and not be euthanized, some way to treat an animal that will give it's last breath for it's handler, if that's not possible they should not be using them.

[AULD YIN]

18 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Inteesting and a point I wasn't aware of, I still feel that after the service these animals will have given and the men' lives possibly saved they should be cared for by the military on return and not be euthanized, some way to treat an animal that will give it's last breath for it's handler, if that's not possible they should not be using them.

good post

[Delboysparky]

I don’t know what you can do with a dangerous dog and still give it some quality of life without endangering people. It would end up isolated.

Truth is a dogs life is less important than a human, that’s why they are used to clear IEDs.

We have to be realistic about it, I don’t support euthanasing of any animal unless it’s necessary. 

Edited December 3, 2017 by Delboysparky

[12gauge82]

4 minutes ago, Delboysparky said:

I don’t know what you can do with a dangerous dog and still give it some quality of life without endangering people. It would end up isolated.

Don't create one in the first place!

Truth is a dogs life is less important than a human, that’s why they are used to clear IEDs.

Obviously agreed.

We have to be realistic about it, I don’t support euthanasing of any animal unless it’s necessary. 

Then don't do it, if the dogs can't be housed safely by the army, then how do they look after them inbetween tours ect? funny they can manage it when they're useful to them!

 

[Delboysparky]

Just now, 12gauge82 said:

 

I think you have misunderstood, most dogs owned by the MOD (not just the Army) are safely managed and re-roled upon return to the UK, most being re-homed after service.

However, the experience these dogs have can change their temperament and they can suffer irreversible mental trauma which makes them dangerous. 

SF dogs are a peculiarity.

Without using dogs, human lives would be lost, and that’s less acceptable than euthanising a small number of animals each year.  

The reporting by the media doesn’t give the full picture. I am sure The Defence Animal Centre would welcome suggestions, but what they won’t do is risk one of these dogs killing a child because of sentiment.

[12gauge82]

To mention kids is a cop out in my opinion, they wouldn't have contact with children if the army looked after them after service would they! But we're going in circles now, I've made my point so will leave it there.

[Delboysparky]

32 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

To mention kids is a cop out in my opinion, they wouldn't have contact with children if the army looked after them after service would they! But we're going in circles now, I've made my point so will leave it there.

If professional dog handlers struggle to manage these dogs, then what hope is there? 

The only point you have made is people should be put at risk to keep dangerous animals alive. 

Where is the money coming from to Home these dogs for the next ten years? There isn’t enough to keep the MOD afloat now.  Would you sacrifice body armour, numbers of troops, funding for training ammo?  I certainly wouldn’t. 

Edited December 3, 2017 by Delboysparky

[12gauge82]

9 hours ago, Delboysparky said:

If professional dog handlers struggle to manage these dogs, then what hope is there? 

The only point you have made is people should be put at risk to keep dangerous animals alive. 

Where is the money coming from to Home these dogs for the next ten years? There isn’t enough to keep the MOD afloat now.  Would you sacrifice body armour, numbers of troops, funding for training ammo?  I certainly wouldn’t. 

And now we come to the real point, money, no people shouldn't be put at risk, as you've said yourself, "the small number" that can't be rehomed should be looked after by the army on return not euthanized and no, that shouldn't mean less body armour, troops, training ammo or aircraft carriers, the services these dogs will have given they deserve more than a death sentence for their loyalty, if that really can't be done, then they shouldn't be used.

[Luckyshot]

Why not keep these dogs on base in the uk, they could have an outside kennel and run. After all it’s the least they deserve. They can’t be that hard to handle or they wouldn’t be using them.

[Delboysparky]

3 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

And now we come to the real point, money, no people shouldn't be put at risk, as you've said yourself, "the small number" that can't be rehomed should be looked after by the army on return not euthanized and no, that shouldn't mean less body armour, troops, training ammo or aircraft carriers, the services these dogs will have given they deserve more than a death sentence for their loyalty, if that really can't be done, then they shouldn't be used.

Of course it has a financial element, there always will be. 

I don’t disagree that animals who have served should have a decent retirement.

The fine detail isn’t know, if these dogs are posing such a risk professional dog handlers cannot handle them without the risk of being mauled, then euthanasia has to be considered.  

10 minutes ago, Luckyshot said:

Why not keep these dogs on base in the uk, they could have an outside kennel and run. After all it’s the least they deserve. They can’t be that hard to handle or they wouldn’t be using them.

They aren’t being used that’s why they are at the Defence Animal Centre. 

Animals change, you can’t account for what operations will do to them.