E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Christ Chavez for msnbc.com
Army Specialist David Bandrowsky with "Benny," his prescribed service dog on June 2, 2012. Both are stationed at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas.
One day this spring, Army Specialist David Bandrowsky, 27, played Russian roulette with his .38 revolver.
Bandrowsky planned to end his life, which had been at turns unbearable since he returned from a 16-month deployment in Iraq in 2008. He had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, a traumatic brain injury and depression as a result of his combat experience.
Right before he pulled the trigger, his service dog, Benny, jumped up and knocked the gun out of his hand.
"He saved my life," Bandrowsky said.
Benny was not trained for that scenario, but the 18-month-old Shepherd-hound mix has been taught to, among other tasks, push Bandrowsky away from crowds, wake him if he removes a sleep apnea mask at night and nudge him into a petting session if he seems on the verge of a panic attack.
Last fall, Benny was prescribed to Bandrowsky by a mental health counselor at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, where he is stationed. Bandrowsky has received counseling and drug therapy and undergone in-patient mental health treatment twice. It is Benny, though, that gets Bandrowsky through each day. He was paired with Benny in November and feels unsafe if the dog is not at his side.
But Bandrowsky may lose permission to have Benny at Fort Bliss because of an Army policy implemented in January.
That policy, which limits how soldiers can get service dogs, created a regulatory system that critics worry might put the lives of soldiers recovering from physical injuries and mental illness at risk.
In some cases, local posts have issued their own guidelines in addition to the Army's policy, and soldiers report being harassed by fellow soldiers as well as higher-ranking officers for having a service dog.
"They’re trying to make it so difficult that it can’t be done," said Bob Thorowgood, who runs Hounds2Heroes, a service dog program, and has placed service dogs with soldiers at Fort Campbell in Kentucky.
'They aren't like normal pets'
Before January, service dogs were permitted on Army posts as per the American Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires businesses to allow people with disabilities to enter with service animals. Service dogs had frequently been prescribed by mental health counselors or doctors to perform specific tasks for injured soldiers, the majority of whom remain active-duty, but are transitioning through a medical retirement process.
While the ADA does not impose national standards on training, the new Army policy stipulates that dogs must now be provided by organizations approved by Assistance Dogs International (ADI). That umbrella organization certifies local companies and non-profits according to its own criteria, but does not have affiliated chapters in 18 states. Soldiers who want a service dog in a state without an ADI-affiliated organization, such as Louisiana, Montana or Georgia, would have to seek assistance elsewhere.
The policy also requires that soldiers first seek approval for a service dog from their commander. Eligibility would be considered by a panel of health-care professionals, including a primary care doctor, physical therapist and mental health counselor.
Fewer than 60 active-duty soldiers have service dogs at Army bases around the country, estimates Maria Tolleson, a spokeswoman for the Army Medical Command, the agency that issued the new policy.
The agency was developing a new policy early this year, Tolleson says, when a 6-year-old boy in Oak Grove, Ky., was fatally mauled off-post by a dog belonging to an Army service member at Fort Campbell. The animal was reportedly a service dog. The incident occurred on January 29 and the new policy was issued the next day.
The policy is under review, and representatives of the Army Medical Command met in early May to discuss the changes.
Debbie Kandoll, who is based in Las Cruces, N.M., attended the meeting and has been a vocal critic of the policy, saying that its requirements are prohibitive. Kandoll has placed more than 40 service dogs with soldiers at Fort Bliss through her organization M*A*S*H: Mutts Assisting Soldier Heroes. She believes the policy doesn't acknowledge how instrumental service dogs can be to injured soldiers.
"We’re talking about disabled Americans who are broken, who are on their way out of the Army and trying to put their lives back together again," she said. "They are trying to achieve a new normal."
The policy means Thorowgood and Kandoll, who are not affiliated with ADI, can no longer provide their services to active-duty soldiers. Neither charges soldiers for thorough training programs or for matching them with an animal, and say they have not received complaints about their service dogs misbehaving.
Sharan L. Wilson, executive director of Freedom Service Dogs (FSD) of America, Inc., an ADI-affiliated service dog organization in Englewood, Colo., believes the Army policy is an attempt to address problems with unqualified service dog providers. She said an official at Fort Carson, also in Colorado, called her recently after a soldier there paid $10,000 for a service dog that was a three-month-old puppy. When the soldier brought the dog into a commander's office, it urinated on the floor.
The Army has to see the professionalism of the service dogs to understand that they aren’t like normal pets, Wilson says. It takes six to nine months for her organization to fully train a service dog and that is followed by a two-week course for the owner as well as an observation period when the trainer visits the dog's new home.
FSD, which relies on donations and grants, places about 35 dogs a year at no cost to the soldier; there are 64 people on the organization's waiting list. Many of the requests FSD receives are from the Wounded Warrior Battalion at Fort Carson.
"The service dogs aren’t a silver bullet, but in the right situation, they really are making a difference," Wilson said. "These dogs are the things that are keeping these guys from committing suicide."
Life has become 'hell'
Since the policy was issued, some posts have written their own rules. At Fort Bliss, a policy published on April 4 stated that soldiers must now exhaust all other treatment options before seeking a service dog. They also must submit a command approval letter to the review panel in addition to other documents. Soldiers who had service dogs prior to the new policy are now required to provide several documents, including a memo from a medical professional documenting at least three tasks that the service dog can perform to assist with specific disabilities.
Bandrowsky says he has not yet been able to provide that document in particular as his off-post mental health counselor was not permitted to write the letter. As a result, he doesn't know if he'll be able to keep Benny.
Dennis R. Swanson, a public affairs officer at Fort Bliss, told msnbc.com that no service dogs have been removed from their owners. "We're just bringing all the service dogs into compliance," Swanson said. "If [a soldier's] dog is not in compliance, then we'll work with them to get a dog that is in compliance."
Even if Bandrowsky is able to keep Benny, he says that having a service dog has subjected him to harassment.
When he joins unit formations, one sergeant will whistle and bark at Benny. Per the Fort Bliss policy, if a service dog is disruptive, a commander can forbid its presence.
Another sergeant makes derogatory remarks about Bandrowsky's need to bring Benny into his office. Since the policy came down, Bandrowsky says, his life has become "hell."
Christ Chavez for msnbc.com
Army Specialist Blake Hilson with his prescribed service dog, "Bella," on June 2, 2012. Hilson is stationed at Fort Bliss, where a new controversial policy is changing the way soldiers get service dogs.
Specialist Blake Hilson, also at Fort Bliss, says he is routinely hassled for having his service dog, Bella, on post. Hilson, who was injured during basic training in February 2010 and hemorrhaged four discs in his back, uses Bella for support if his legs give out, to help him up stairs and to get up.
"Soldiers often accuse me of falsifying all my injuries and that I just want to bring my pet to work," Hilson, 24, said. Recently, a higher-ranking soldier walked by Hilson and Bella as they stood against a wall and kneed the dog in the face. Hilson believes the action was deliberate.
Swanson said any harassment of a soldier is "against Army policy and Army doctrine."
Both Hilson and Bandrowsky are going through the medical retirement process, which can take more than a year. They feel the harassment may be designed to pressure them out sooner by snapping or overreacting. If they are discharged dishonorably, they will lose lifetime healthcare and pension benefits.
Having a service dog "is almost the same thing as having a cane or wheelchair -- you’re looked at as being the weak one in the herd," Hilson said. "They see that as physically weak, but also mentally weak because I need a companion 24 hours a day."
'It's a harassment thing'
These anecdotes do not surprise Thorowgood, who runs Hounds2Heroes in White Plains, Ky.
Thorowgood estimates he placed about 20 service dogs with active-duty soldiers at Fort Campbell who were going through the medical retirement process. In February, the post issued its own rules, specifically forbidding service dogs in transition units for badly injured soldiers. Approval for a service dog, according to the policy, will only happen after a soldier "reaches their highest level of independence and is living off post."
Thorowgood had heard from an injured soldier who was not permitted to ride the shuttle bus on post with a service dog. One soldier with PTSD and TBI in the warrior transition unit who got a service dog and was trying to help others do so was pressured to stop.
"It’s a harassment thing," said Thorowgood, an Air Force veteran. "To see these people, the way they suffer where they can’t go out in public and then they can when they have a dog -- it’s important me to keep doing what I’m doing."
Though the Army policy remains under review, other posts, including Fort Hood and Fort Carson, are considering implementing their own policies.
Bandrowsky expects to learn soon if he can keep Benny, but the possibility of losing him is catastrophic.
"I will get chaptered out before I give Benny up," Bandrowsky said, referring to a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. "I’ll give my [medical retirement] up before I give Benny up. Because if I give Benny up — I can’t."
Jason Strachman Miller contributed to this report.
Rebecca Ruiz is a reporter at msnbc.com and a 2011-2012 Rosalynn Carter Mental Health Journalism Fellow. Follow her on Twitter here.
War veteran Joseph Worley talks about his helping canine, Benjamin. America's VetDogs trained the golden retriever specifically for Worley who lost a leg to an IED explosion in Iraq. TODAY.com's Dara Brown has the story.
Related stories:
Leave a Comment:
Of course, it is just another part of Obama's war on our troops, cutting health care, stripping the numbers in the ranks. Absolutely no concern for the people that put thier lives on the line for us.
Better to let people wonder if you're an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
All forms of healthcare got cut, but the defense budget got $634 billion. Maybe if they cut that down to $200 billion, which is still basically double China's budget, there would be money for more healthcare for all in need and not just soldiers, especially children.
Well it's nice to know that some people just never grow out of being a bully. These service members who harass or otherwise mistreat anyone, be it a person or an animal, should get a dis-honorable discharge.
The dog knocked the gun out of his hand, preventing a suicide. And who told that story, the dog? And another one uses a dog for support when his back fails? That's cruelty anywhere else. And the sarge whistling and barking at formation - I'd blow a stitch; only the dog pissing on the commanders floor would beat that.
Stephanie,
When the world looks to China rather than the US to solve its crises, then we can swap defense budgets.
That's just stupid. The article is not about cutting healthcare or stripping the number of troops. It's about service dogs, some of which were not qualified to be service dogs (the 3 month old service dog costing $10,000 which peed on the commander's floor). The abuses towards the service dogs were not committed by the President or even his representative - but by other troops who were either ignorant of what a service dog was, or were showing anger at the member who owned them. In the past, the sevice member would just be discharged and would be left on their own to get a service dog, if it was even possible.
Thank you Commander and Chief. For once in your term do something right and overturn this bullsh*t. Speed of the boss is the speed of the game.
yabecoo...this is NOT the Commander and Chief causing the issue, but rather the Army leadership which on average tend to be conservative republicans. The same leadership that requires that all military and civilians complete suicide awareness training on an annual basis. Not so they can actually help prevent suicides, but just so that they can put the blame on the lower level personnel when something happens. The "training" provided tries to put all the responsibility on the untrained (non mental health experts) members of the solider's Unit or any of the civilians that work with the solider. If they really wanted to help prevent suicides they would not be forcing solider's out via trumped up charges or having doctor's commit fraud by saying that the mental issues were not the result of the military service. If the Army leadership really wanted to help these individuals they would bring charges against anyone who bully's the solider's with the service dogs.
And if the president DID overturn it, you would criticize him for micro-managing and stepping on the toes of command. For those like you who hate our president, you will never do anything but whine and criticize.
What ever happened to the days when all you needed was a 5th of scotch a pack a smokes and a happy ending...
I-belive: We now refer to those therapies as alcoholism, cancer and suicide.
"but the 18-month-old Shepard-hound mix..." I can't believe that the person who wrote this article can't spell shepherd and that the story was published with this mistake. They are herding dogs shepHERD.
I think everyone who needs a service dog should get one. However, I do believe that these dogs should be certified as service dogs and that means the trainers should be certified. This would benefit both the soldier and the dog. Members of the military warrior mindset can and do harrass individual's for perceived "weakness" and that's sad. Kudos to everyone who is trying to help.
Correct, Jean. I have read that the military dogs are "not like regular pets". Good! They are used to being trained and responding to that training. Much like the soldiers who handle them in war zones, if they can't handle training and execute that training, they may well end up dead.
I have 30 plus years of training dogs that are "not like regular pets", and the mental acuity, memory, sense of responsibility and loyalty of these dogs is beyond what regular pet owners are able to grasp. What do you do? Do you destroy these loyal dogs? Do you turn them loose on a weak willed "rescue" type that attempts to coddle them while they subtly take over the household? No, you reward them for their service to America by placing them with the soldiers who handled and trained them. You employ them to help train the younger dogs and handlers, and you keep them in an environment of loving discipline, sense of purpose and vigorous exercise. Some handlers have lost dogs. They might be happy to get another retired animal that knows what they are thinking, feeling and intending.
I'd take one in a second. Any returning soldier with small children can initiate these dogs to love of family, and those children will never be touched or harmed by a stranger. Hope the stranger's health insurance is paid up.
To the Officers in charge of this heaping pile of disrespect, @!$%# YOU!!!!
turn them loose on a weak willed "rescue" type -
wow what crawled up your patoot and died? so animal rescues are now bad? or people who give a crap about the homeless and abused animals are weak? oh thats right , i bet your one of those "know it alls, im so perfect"c animal people. your way is the only way and everyone else is wrong- well your wrong, theres more than 1 way to crack an egg.
For our government to behave this way towards the men and women they used up and broke is deplorable and henious, who gives a crap if a dogs on base and quite frankly who gives a crap if 1 kid got mauled if it saves hundreds of other lives. last time i did math 3 digits is more than 1 so as it goes that makes it a better solution. acceptable losses imho
Steve the Dog man- You are correct. It breaks my heart every time I hear of a Well trained well mannered dog who has performed service having to be put down. My father was in the military when I was very young and brought home a retired border dog. He was my best companion and best babysitter my mother could have ever asked for.
Through the wills of fate, have a Service dog for reasons I will not get into here, but without her, not only would life be incredibly difficult, but would be empty and vapid at best.
telemaster51,
"To the Officers in charge of this heaping pile of disrespect, @!$%# YOU!!!!"
I don't know if it's the military officers who are so much to blame as the civilian bureaucrats who work for the military. In my experience, these civilians spend most of their time building and jealously guarding the little bureaucratic empires they have made for themselves for fear that anyone else might encroach on their turf . They're the real obstacle, I think.
Not eveything that goes on with the military goes through the White House. This is an issue created by the Army. No one knew what post tramumatic symdrone was after Viet Nam. A friend was the head of a local pych ward and had grown men sitting there crying their eyes out.
Now we know what these kids go through. If a service dog saves even one life then it should be allowed.
Mostly to Miss coppers Mom. I agree with you wholeheartedly. If it were only that simple though. The bureaucrats ( whether they be republican or Democrat ) are always sticking their noses into the frivolous reasons why not to do something. For example...and this is somewhat of a different subject that deals with the soldiers defending our country and others in harms way. But, do you remember that when it was found out that the vehicles that were issued to the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan had little or no protection from any enemy weapons fire. Especially I.E.D's. It took almost three years after finding this information "IMPORTANT INFORMATION" before anything was even remotely done to repair this situation. the bureaucrats ( whose children don't have to serve in a combat zone ) just hymned and hawed and sat on their hands before deciding to tell the commanders to just put sand bags on and around the doors and flooring of the vehicles. And if you have ever seen an Improvised Exploding Device when it detonates. It is devastating. It just seemed like the individual soldiers were not even given the true attention needed to fix this issue. Not until several hundreds of them were killed and the press picked up the story did anything serious get done about it. And even then it took another four years to finally issue the proper equipment and shielding that they have now. And as uncuz ( someone else leaving a comment ) says If a service dog saves even one soldiers life. In combat or after the dust clears and these soldiers are asked to just convert to their normal way of life after serving three to five tours of duty in that god awful place. Then by all means it definitely should be allowed. I wouldn't even mind a slight tax increase of those of us here in the United States of America to help fund a project like this. Provided the money collected goes to where it is supposed to and not just in some bureaucrats pocket, bank account or estate. Thank you for letting me up on the soap box for my opinions. p.s. It is a well known and proven fact that inmates in federal prisons that are some of the worst criminals known to society. become better people when given the ability to care for a dog. Dogs love unconditionally and are natural healers.
Thank You
Would love to know "the rest of the story"! I am willing to bet some very serious money that kid was tormenting the dog. As someone who has a service dog, I can tell you point blank that many kids go out of their way to torment the daylights out of my dog and the parents get all bent out of shape when I snap at their brats. They don't need to fear the dog but they sure as hell need to fear me! She won't bite but I will. She has been trained that she may not respond by bark, growl, bearing of teeth or snap or bite but doesn't mean I won't. I have had kids come up and kick, hit, pull fur and tail and throw things at her. And yeah, I will chase down the brat doing it and raise all sorts of hell with the parent. If they can't respect any animal they will learn to respect a service animal. No one has the right to come between the service animal and their handler. Yes, it takes time and effort to train these dogs and no, no "service dog" is a three month old puppy! That is a dog in training.
Also, just because a commander or other members of the service do not like a dog does not give them the right to harass the soldier who needs one. However, before a service dog is given, it should be investigated that there is a real reason for one. As is pointed out, these dogs are not pets but they are companions to their handler and do provide a lot of services. I have personally had a lot of people who have asked how to "get around" the rules so they can get their dog listed as a service dog. It is pointed out just how illegal it is and how big the fine is and no one who has a legitimate need for a service dog is going to help someone cheat.
People tell lies when they claim to support the troups. They don't really and neither do the politicians, and the leaders of all of the branches. If they did support the troups, we would've had a draft so these honorable soldiers wouldn't have to be redeployed several times. No wonder so many of them are suffering long after leaving the field of battle. Shame on our fearless leaders.
Some of you didn't read much of the story. It's not about returning work dogs, it's about giving teddy bears to soldiers while still on the job. Life's not fair and I'm not opposed to a full plate of benefits for the deserving but when a social companion takes a dump on the Captain's rug the program needs change. These guys are in or out. When you're with the troops you act like the troops. If you've been honestly debilitated, then you're out the door and get the keys to the castle.
cheetah - except they aren't in or out. Medical transition is a process that takes a significant amount of time. From the article - " the medical retirement process, which can take more than a year." Imagine being told you couldn't use a prosthetic leg until you were officialy retired.
Sounds like the Army I remember, bunch of overzealous paper tigers with high rank or a little authority, most of which have never seen combat trying to play billy bad ass by harassing anything or anyone they don't like or perceive as different. Reminded me of high school. Doesn't surprise me a bit. I remember this new officer that was brought in just before I got out who thought she was God. She was a replacement for a much beloved and respected female officer who went on to better things. Great example of how leadership is something you have or you don't, nobody can teach it to you. The new officer would have encouraged this kind of harassment because it didn't fit in with her idea of Army policy. All of which is based mostly on perception than any UCMJ rule. The sad thing is soldiers who actually fought and were wounded will continue to be harassed by dumbasses until their enlistment is over. Even if a lawsuit was brought against the Military for violating the ADA, I doubt it would do any good. Some soldiers and officers will always act like immature teenage bullies because they can, picking on the perceived weaknesses of other soldiers. It's just how things are in the military. It will take decades to get rid of the stigma that the military assigns to soldiers who develop mental disorders or become injured in or out of combat. Joint base Lewis-McCord is a good example of what is wrong with the U.S. Military today. A positive change will never happen though, because nobody in a leadership position is currently doing anything about it.
Cheetah: Evidently YOU didn't read the story because that puppy did not take a dump on the rug - it peed. It wasn't a social companion but a service dog, even though it should not have been certified because proper training would take over 6 months, and the dog was 3 months old. It does take a while to transition out when you don't have an obvious reason to be discharged like missing limbs. Very likely, the fact that the soldier's cause for discharge and possession of the service dog - PTSD - is what prompted the higher raning soldier's kneeing the dog's face as many in the service think that there isn't such a thing as PTSD, and (like George Patton) think that the soldier is trying to get out of doing his duty.
Berkeley Suncookies -
When I first saw your "moniker," I thought uh-oh. However, I'm posting to let you know I admire your thoughtfulness in trying to get to the root of a problem (less individual combat time = less need for combat-related stress remedies, including service dogs). And, I wouldn't refer to those who "direct OTHERS" as "fearless LEADERS" (it's strange how the phrase 'chicken hawk,' so apropos for most of them, has been muted).
Red tape, red tape, red tape....leave these soldiers alone, with their dogs, and stop with the hoops you feel they need to jump through.
It takes a lot of time and effort to train a service dog. Most of the time the Labrador Retrievers are the dogs of choice, because of their nice disposition and intelligence.
Sometimes the dogs are valued at $16,000.oo USD after thay are trained, because of all the work and the difficulty in training a dog for a particular disability. The training of a dog may be for blind people, which is different from an autistic individual, or a soldier with mental problems.
I would really like to be able to learn how to train one of these dogs. I think that problem is that there are not that many people that really know how to do it correctly. There are several societies, and most of them have waiting lists for people that have required a dog for a family members with some sort of need.
All they are doing is making things worse for these soldiers by forcing them to jump through all these hoops to get the help they need. These service animals work wonders for some people and to set up all these roadblocks is unforgivable. To arbitrarily pick one organization that does not even have a national presence as the only organization recognized to certify service animal providers is absurd. I can understand the need to ensure that the service animals being provided to soldiers are properly trained and that the organization providing them is not a scam, but there has got to be a better way to go about it. Certainly some criteria could be established for these organizations instead of looking to one private outfit that apparently does not have a national reach as the sole certification authority. Obviously the soldier who was charged $10,000 and given a three month old untrained puppy was taken advantage of, but there has got to be a better way to address these rare problems. Certainly whatever policy is adopted should not result in a soldier losing a service animal that they already have that is making a big positive difference in their life.
What absolute bu11$h1t!!!
These military personal have risked their lives and their sanity following order in a bogus war. Now the army wants to deprive them of the dearest relationship a person can have?!
Yes, I did say dearest. Partners, kids, parents. sibs. ass't friends and relations are fine as far as they go but they can never go the distance a dog does in giving total, unconditional love.
Only a sick s.o.b. would deny these fine military personal the best medicine they can have.
All I can say is stupid. What these dogs can do for our Service Men speak volumes. Why are they making it difficult. STUPID. Dumb.
There's nothing spared when it comes to sending our brave warriors off to war. Why pull in the pursestrings at the other end? This action is both prohibitive and immoral. Contact the White House and your Congressional teams in each and every state to undo this wrong!
The Dept of the Army sitting in the Pentagon and Leon Panetta can darned well change this action immediately!
The bureaucracy never ceases to amaze me. As the wife of a veteran with PTSD (who also has several friends with PTSD) I know dogs can sometimes be these guys' only hope. Many of them do not have functional families or support systems, and a dog can give them an outlet and some normalcy. I do not disagree at all that service-members/our government should not pay $10k for an untrained puppy - the system needs checks and balances. But to allow discrimination of service-members with dogs or to deny them is just downright wrong.
These young people have served their country - many of them coming home missing limbs and witnessing friends and co-soldiers dying horrible deaths. I can't even begin to imagine what they have gone thru - in service to their country.
The very least we (our country) can do for them is provide them with service dogs and counseling to help them process what they saw and did in this horrible war.
Once again I am ashamed of our country. We're supposed to be the best and the model for all other countries to emulate. I say bull-loney. We have much to learn and this is just more evidence.
Whatever the cost of training these dogs - it's worth it. These brave people deserve anything and everything we can do for them.
IndigoKid: Couldn't agree more. It's disgusting how we "rally behind the troops" until they come back with needs and problems.
Cut the spending for 2 cruise missiles and you have your money.
People join the military and actually think the military cares about there well being. The military only cares about one thing, money, and how to get more. The main principle that governs the military's actions toward it's people, all branches are the same, is, "you play ball with us, and we'll shove the bat right your ass"!!
MomGrandma,
"Red tape, red tape, red tape....leave these soldiers alone, with their dogs, and stop with the hoops you feel they need to jump through."
You're right. I spent more than 5 years working in the Pentagon so I know all about the military's penchant for bureaucratic red tape. You've always got to keep the little empire builders (bureaucrats) happy or else they won't have anything to do. We could save the tax-payers a lot of money if we could just eliminate half that bureaucracy.
I'm not sure what to think about this story. Some of it sounds made up. $10,000 for a puppy that is an ESA? Does that sound bogus to anyone else? Are we just being jerked around by a 'story'.
Having trained and handled dogs in the Army, it's not asking too much that a dog be able to demonstrate they can perform. Drug detector dogs need to be able to find drugs. Sentry dogs need to be able to alert on enemies. In addition they need to be able to follow a whole range of commands that show the handler is in control. To be able to do three things is not a lot.
That said, the person asking for the performance should have some understanding/qualification in what constitutes passing performance. My neighbor has an ESA and I can tell you that dog is trained to follow commands as well as sense when he is 'needed'. Just being a 'dog' does not certify or classify as an emotional service animal.
Finally, to take the Military's side of this issue, it makes sense that there be some standards and some distinctions on what is legitimate. If an animal is going to allowed to be in the constant company of a soldier, it needs to be trained to a pretty high standard. It's going to be around gunfire, military vehicles, and people that are aggressive by nature. It's going to be around a lot of noise. In addition the soldier caring for the ESA needs to be trained. They need to show they can control the animal and keep it from harm.
If taking the side of the military sounds harsh, I'm sorry. But a pet is not automatically an ESA. I'm all for giving wounded soldiers the care they need whether the wounds be physical or emotional. But just like every doctor needs to be licensed and every prescription needs to meet FDA standards, every ESA needs to meet some acceptable standards that show they are capable of responsibly fulfilling a medical need. That is beneficial for the soldier, the military, the public and the service dog.
You are correct SprDg. By definition a service animal is a service animal and not a pet. Service animals are trained to the highest standards to perform specific task(s) for the disabled. An animal that is treated as a pet is not and cannot be a service animal by the ADA definition of what a service animal is. A service animal must also learn things like going to the bathroom on command, or not displaying emotional responses to outside stimuli. A service animal is a tool to assist a disabled person and nothing more. The animal is trained to play this role.
The confusion comes in with so called therapy dogs which required absolutely no training and have no regulation. These animals do not fall under the standards of the ADA and are not protected under the ADA definiton of a service animal. As a former Animal Control Officer (ACO) I can not begin to count the number of bite cases I had to investigate over the years which involved "Therapy Dogs". My last case involved an 84 year old Alzheimer patient and a Beagle "Therapy Dog" that took a chunk out of her face when she went to snuggle with it.
All of these issues can be avoided if congress would simply rewrite the Americans with Disabilities Act and include better standards and better definitions for service animal, as well as including better definitions for the disabilities covered under the act. I actually read the act several years ago for a better understanding, in the performance of my duties, and I can tell you that it is extremely vague. The only thing that separates a service animal from a pet in the ADA is whether the owner treats it like a pet. Other than that any animal can be considered a service animal if the owner states that it is and states it provides a service to them. If they tell you these two things then the animal is covered under the ADA. It is no wonder why we have such a huge number of unqualified animals in the service animal industry, or that people are getting bitten, or mauled by these animals. This is one time that the government needs to outline the standards and regulate the industry, so the people that really need these animals can get them without all the red tape and the animal they do get meets the highest standards of a service animal.
This is a disgusting military response to a need experienced by more and more soldiers as they are returning from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Thank heaven we have a President who has chosen to increase benefits for our military instead of cutting benefits as the Republicans (including John McCain) have voted to do. We luckily have a President and First Lady who have made our military families one of their top priorities from the first day they took office.
To anyone who would deprive our soldiers of the help they require to adjust to life back in the states - shame on you!
the article says it will be harder for servicemen to get these dogs. and what about the soldier in florida who was buried in a cardboard box?
Reading about the actions of other servicemen toward those who have service animals is sickening. I'd rather see my tax dollars going to provide companion animals who actually do make a difference than a handful of pills.
Germ, who cares what they're buried in once their dead. This story is about how to help them while they're alive.
Only 34% of active military support Barack. I imagine it is lower with retired military.
Only 34% of active military support Barack. I imagine it is lower with retired military
and?.... What does that have to do with the dogs?
leroy - first your figures are not correct but more importantly, what does that have to do with service dogs? Just a chance for you to post your dislike of Obama? Grow up!
wow, pedestrian has a lot of respect for our soldiers. and btw, I was just noting some observations that negated the comment that our politicians do so much for our servicman. go jump off your chinese bridge ped sf lol
and if what the left says about the right being so pro-military is true, it would only make sense that the military would lean right.
To the U.S.A Arm Forces.....SHAME ON YOU!!!
Insanity was thanking heaven that the soldiers have Barack. Only 34% want him.
That poll was about 2 weeks old. The numbers are probably going down all the time.
EJBP. screw off. Or would you rather be speaking German?
No offence Gem. I like English.
Yup, I'd prefer to help them while they're alive instead of crying and beating my breast over them once they're dead. Try not to act stupider than you absolutely must, germ.
GermanGem - the soldier in Florida who was buried in a cardboard box was buried in 2004. It seems odd you would choose now to bring this up? Was there an actual point? If you actually read the article, there are steps being taken to see that this doesn't happen again.
leroy2112 - your figures are manufactured by you.
Bullshiite. I saw it on the nightly news and then again on Yahoo news. don't slander me without proof. That is what I would expect of a liar and coward so don't lower yourself.
A huge majority of the military must support the President if leroy feels compelled to lie about it.
NevadaJ - they do support the President because he has taken veterans issues to heart.
Leroy maybe the statistics you saw cited were defined differently then you understood or they misquoted them as to precisely the question they asked people in the poll.
Weary warriors favor Obama | Reuters
www.reuters.com/.../us-usa-poll-military-idUSBRE84C02120120513
you're so sweet PEDophileSF. Its called RESPECT. My DOG was buried with more dignity, in an $8,000 casket. And to SS, the article was just printed a day or so ago. Can you people EVER look at things objectively???? It seems the only thing you can do is name-call and insult.
lol... looks like someone's got her panties in a wad. Again. What's wrong, Germ? Can't put things in perspective? We're talking about service animals for troops here - the guys who are still alive, needing care. Looks like you're the angry little name caller here. Try to focus in the future instead of sharing your fantasies about how you would waste money if you had it, mkay, hon?
Germ::: Your dog was buried in an $8,000 casket? I hope YOU paid for it. Do you expect the federal government to pay for an elaborate casket for EVERY veteran who dies and no one claims the body? Use your head! If they did, you'd be bitching the loudest about the government wasting your tax money. And that casket for a dog was a waste of money.
My canine helpmate was cremated and buried with dignity. Sure it wasn't a fancy urn-- but he didn't care. He got the dignity he deserved while he was ALIVE.
And as for service dogs, true service dogs that have been trained to do what they are supposed to do are valuable animals. The soldiers should be allowed to keep trained service dogs.
I remember Tonto, who worked at the V A hospital where I volunteered. Rather, his BLIND owner worked there and Tonto assisted him. That was one nice dog-- I never patted him, as he was a service dog and I didn't want to upset him. But I would stop and talk to them, and his owner appreciated my talking and not patting.
Maybe you should learn to live like a normal person and not someone who would waste money on a $8,000 casket for a dog.
I'm shaking my head at you, why is it always Obama...do you know how things in politics and or the military work? Have you been in the military? As much as I loved my 20 years, they have had some of the most ridiculous rules and I can see that a service dog would/will be an issue to some...give it some time, let the wheels work and let some folks/vets make some noise...it will change.
Air Force Vet
Are you kidding? He's the commander and chief. He can put a stop to this in one fell swoop.
yabecoo - actually he CAN'T change things in the military "in one fell swoop." Do you even have an idea of how the military works???
I'm guessing yabecco doesn't have much of a clue how anything actually works.
And I can hear it rattle from here. Let the wheels work, they will run over you.
Actually the Dork in Charge (DIC), normally called the CIC can change things with "one fell swoop."
If there are votes involved it happens and he has demonstrated it. He has a clear history of not enforcing policies and even laws that he doesn't believe in. Of course, there will be those that do what they want but if the DIC called together his "boys" and gave them the word to fix this you can know that things would change, quickly. But of course he won't, no votes in it.
This is a sad state of affairs. The service members give all, and this administration continues to take more from them.
Army Vet.
I'm with you yabecoo...if the "Commander" can't get a simple thing like this done what good is he. And please the rest of you...spare me the how the military works crap. Things can be changed and in this instance should be changed. We can do crap like take democracy to countries that don't want it and can't spell it...but we can't do a simple and small thing like give a hurting soldier a dog to help him recover from a war he shouldn't be fighting?! If we as a country can't get a simple thing like that done we are pretty pathetic as a country.
So, Bill, what have you to say about the Repub governor of WI who allowed thugs on his staff to steal from veterans on his watch?
Bill I was actually responding to the FIRST post that was collapsed...but that's okay, just call out a fellow vet @!$%#, must be the Obama comment...LOL
Possibly you will learn to quote who you are responding to as there was nothing in your post that would help folks know what you were talking about. Call out a fellow vet; only if they speak BS. Vet or not, when you are wrong, your wrong.
My response was to your "question of being in the military." and your slant of what happens in the military as if it was "fact." You know damn well things like this can be fixed if one cares to and fixed rather quickly.
Obama has chosen not to help the service folks and this is just another example of it. With the polls running they way they are; I'm sure he will figure a way to fix it for a few more votes. He plays that game well. Meanwhile, the service members continue to get the short end of the stick.
Bill from Oregon - you are just plain not telling the truth. President Obama has done more to increase benefits and recognition of our veterans than other Presidents. He has stood against Congress when they wanted to cut benefits to our men and women who have served - a position McCain voted against.
I believe more should be done for our veterans but this President has stood up for them time and time again - against the GOP. You should be ashamed for your lies.
And I see you avoided answering the direct question about the governor of WI who allowed his staff to steal from veterans. Why am I not surprised?
President Obama has done the following for vets:
He announced a new VA budget of $112.8 billion, a 15.5-percent increase over the previous year. Among other things, the higher budget calls for hiring more staff, treating 122,000 more patients, and beginning the switch of patient records to an electronic system that can be accessed by all VA facilities. The increase will also pay for an uptick in education claims by veterans who are taking advantage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, passed last year.
• The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act added another $1.4 billion to the VA budget, to be used toward improving services, including grant money to states to build extended care facilities for vets, and the hiring of 1,500 new claims processors to speed up delivery of benefits.
• The Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Initiative mandates that the DOD and VA work together to build a coordinated computer system that will provide accessible patient information from the day an individual enters military service throughout the rest of his/her life. This will remedy one of veterans' main complaints about the VA.
• In a related issue, the Obama administration is pushing for a measure that would let Congress approve VA money a year in advance, thus avoiding the delays for budget reasons that have plagued the agency.
• Just two weeks ago, the VA and DOD held a joint Mental Health Summit in Washington, designed to "harness the programs, resources and expertise of both departments to deal with the aftermath of the battlefield." The initiative will include removing the stigma many soldiers feel about admitting to PTSD symptoms, and, finally, treating PTSD and traumatic brain injuries more fully, rather than how it's been dealt with in the past, as something to be merely contained enough to keep it from causing major social (or political) problems.
• With more than 100,000 veterans going homeless on any given night, Obama proposes pilot programs with non-profits to specifically target vets' homelessness and its related problems. A more concrete plan is expected within a few months.
The American Legion posts that President Obama has done more for veterans than any of his 4 predecessors.
Bill from Oregon::: I gather from reading your post that you know nothing about how the government has worked in the past when it comes to the military. And the dependents.
I have to say, the government DID ship the military dependents out of the Philippine Islands in 1941 before the war started. But that is about all they did.
Unfortunately, the President doesn't set branch policy. That's done in the upper eschelon of the branch of service. When you get cretins who don't understand how something helps, they sometimes just make things up along the way and put their own little twist on everything. True, Yabecoo, he can stop this in one fell swoop, PROVIDED he even knows that it's happening. Chances are that it has not reached his eyes. Maybe after the press makes it into enough of an issue, but for it to rise through the ranks, it has to go through the same people who make the policy. If one sees that there is opposition to one's policy, that person is going to make sure the complaint doesn't go any higher.
This is the most backward, irresponsible, archaic thing I've ever heard of. I am embarrassed that this country treats soldiers this way. These service dogs are an important part of rehabilitation. We should do everything we can to help them get better and reaclimate to society, not further alienate them. Shame on those who support this limitation.
The worst part, is that the soldiers and their dogs are being harassed/bullied by their own, god forbid if the shoe was on the other foot.
Air Force Vet and mother of a Combat Soldier...HOOAH!!!
Steelermama: Agreed. What I'm seeing though is that the ones who are being harassed are the ones with NON-VISIBLE battle wounds - those with PTSD, which have long been a source of derision. General Patton scolded the boy in the hospital who was there for being shell shocked (which is now called PTSD) and even slapped him. A lot of military people believe that people with PTSD and other psychological issues are "faking" or "slacking" to get out of being sent into combat again. Some of them may be undiagnosed suffers of PTSD themselves, or may be feeling guilty that they DIDN'T have PTSD from their tour. As for the guy with the injury from Basic Training, he's probably thought of as being a "slacker" who didn't adjust to being in the military, and they are aiming their hostility at his service dog because they can't knee HIM in his face. I think that at the very least anyone who physically does anything to the animal - like the kneeing - should be charged with animal cruelty. At least that will stop anyone from hurting the animal. I don't necessarily know what to do with the guy in formation that whistles or barks to distract the dog, but perhaps his superior officer should tell him to act like a soldier. I was one at one time, and I KNOW that barking and whistleing in formation is a no-go. He can and should get called for being disorderly in ranks.
Agreed debnran,
I was an injured NCO within a medical transition company. Those with PTSD were singled out as loafers and fakers, because their wounds were not visible and because some of the things they would do with PTSD would lead to court martials if it were a soldier without PTSD. They were seen as trouble and were constantly dogged and harrassed by the higher echelon. I also witnessed abusive use of power when it came to treatment and discipline of these soldiers all under the auspices of corrective training. It was cruel and criminal, but sanctioned by the chain of command. I was happy that my wounds were visible and that my transition time was very short.
As the wife of a combat veteran, this really upsets me. We have pets (not service animals), but I know they make a huge difference for my husband. The military has a way of really throwing a wrench in things that don't benefit the population as a whole. They don't like it when someone gets any kind of preferential treatment. It's sad and frustrating, but it's the way it is. Yes, there are all kinds of "policies" in place to prevent bullying - but no one enforces them. Just let the soldier keep his dog - it's not causing harm to anyone else and the dog clearly provides a service to him that no one else can.
Marinewife: You very delicately mentioned something I had a Lieutenant Colonel tell me when I mentioned that I had a family to relocate before going to Viet Nam: "If the Air Force had wanted you to have a family, they'd have issued you one." That pretty well sums it up. If the military want a GI to have a service dog, it'll issue one, not the medical branch, not some do-good organization on the outside, the militzry. The GI will get whatever crappy animal the military have lying around, and be damned glad for it. It might help (maybe one chance in a thousand), but probably won't. If I sound cynical and bitter, perhaps it's because I am.
Sad, but true. The military has little compassion for just about anything. My husband almost got his leave denied for us to get married a few years ago. Didn't matter that we had been planning our wedding for months and that we had a date and everything set to go.
They'd much rather do things their own way, whether its right or wrong. I know plenty of my husband's buddies who should have been treated for PTSD, but weren't because they were too ashamed to admit they needed help. They all know how the guys are treated if they have "weakness".
I'm sorry, I never served, but I just don't understand why having a service animal is a problem, especially for those that have been terribly injured physically and emotionally in needless wars. This makes no sense to me whatsoever.
In my personal opinion, it's a reminder that we have people stuck in Med Hold (Med Hell), or the Warrior Transition Battalion who have been waiting for over 2 years for a Medical Evaluation Board to decide their case. If you're young and ready to take bullets the military loves you. if you're broken (even from serving your country in combat)...you're a disability and an embarrassment. Sorry if that sounds harsh but it's the way it is.
Doc: The proper attitude for a GI to have, at least in the eyes of the military, is "dulce et decorum est pro patria morire" ("It is sweet and decorous to die for one's country."). That seems to be the military's attitude. Serve. Die. But never, NOT EVER, come back wounded, or disabled (in any way), no matter how gallantly you have served, no matter how victorious you are. Come back whole, and in a victory charriot, or not at all. By the way, I am a 100% service-connected disabled Vietnam Combat veteran. Been there, done that. Have some understanding of what these guys are going through.
Fred. Yep, I'm way too familiar with the attitude. Ol_Doc isn't just a handle I made up.
Really. Drugs before dogs? Not sure why I am suprised. Same 'ol stuff.
If there is any politician out there who cares please lift this limitation...crap does any one care about anything other than a vote
Come on......don't make life more difficult for our troops coming home. My goodness, if they need a service dog, give them a service dog. Should be a no-brainer. Sick of the red-tape nonsense. Use common sense for heaven sakes and quit playing "macho men don't need service dogs." Macho men have feelings, worries, and problems like the rest of us....especially after seeing and being in war. Not to mention, how many "tours of duty" are these men and women receiving? Just unbelievable! Now, they have to fight for service dogs? Whatever they need, we should supply for them!
Thank you all for your service! Hugs, love, and hopefully service dogs, when and as needed!
AllPeopleRights - we should be working to provide MORE dogs for our returning military as they appear to have a great effect on the soldiers.
And, for any other soldier to belittle someone with a dog - they should be reprimanded.
The thing that baffles me is that you'd think the military would understand what returning troops need, and that they would do their best to provide those things. But they don't. My husband was originally diagnosed with PTSD before returning home from Afghanistan, but they "overturned" his diagnosis and said he's fine. No treatment. No nothing. It's the "macho men" higher-ranking military that seem to not understand what the guys need who are actually out there in combat.
I have watched documentaries/stories of prisons having service dog training programs. Now THAT is a win/win situation that should not cost taxpayers additional money. Except for dog care. They were heart warming stories with lucky people receiving a wonderful dog once the dog graduates.
Most of you are giving too much credit to the smarts of the Military. The reason the "thugs" who kneed the dog and all the other baby b.s. are probably jealous of the dog because they know his IQ is at least 3 times theirs. Let's get real. Most soldiers have never been rocket scientists, never will. Before saying anything, yes I was in V.N in the mid sixties and served more than my time. I agree with all stating "leave the poor guy alone". He requires a dog, so be it. GD it, grow up for a change little boys.
More than likely the ones that are doing the harassing are the ones who have never done anything in the military. They dont know what its like to have your best friend blown to pieces right next to you or watch a kid burning alive until they stop moving and you cant do anything about it. Some of the people only think they have seen real combat because they were shot at while on a convoy. Fact of the matter is that if you are broken or for some reason can do your job then you are not wanted.
Marinewife24: I saw an article that this guy had brain damage from the shock of a blast - evidently it hit close enough to him to have the shock waves toss his brain around, but fortunately (unfortunately for him?) did not even have a single shrapnel wound. They decided to call it a pre-existing condition and put him out of the service with no medical treatment. So the kid is now brain damaged, no medical discharge which means no medical treatment or medical insurance, no way to get a job because he's too damaged to get one, and no way to get help. And the VA let it stand when his family tried to get it reversed. I guess it's good that your hubby didn't get put out. That's what we get for failing to strengthen military medical and va services BEFORE we go into a war.
Yes service dogs are wonderful. So are many dogs that are on death row at shelters and would love the chance to have a great home and develop relationships with those in need.
You are so right! I wish i'd said that.
SUDS --- where do you think these service dogs come from? The VAST majority of service dogs are pulled from shelters and trained for their job. These are not pure bred, purchased dogs but dogs saved from shelters.
Titan1963 - and they are loyal to their masters beyond belief. Dogs which are rescued always seem to be the most caring. However, some of the dogs are bred to be service dogs. I saw a program about a group that raises them just for that purpose.
agreed ... it's win win ... why not .... cheaper than drugs or full time nursing care ....
Oh my gosh! What kind of a intolerant, ruthless people have we become to deny these who have been sent to defend our freedoms their right to a service animal. For cryin out loud, give them their dogs. I'd rather be around the dogs than some people!
I'd rather be around dogs then most people these days.
I hear that Suds.
patti, Having worked with veterans since 1968, now with homeless veterans, you would be shocked with what we as a society are capable of doing! All the talk about the politicians, government agencies, or the military solving the problems is just that....talk! I think that at some point I will have seen and heard everything, but then I am faced with something yet again. My sons and I construct facilities to house, feed, educate, and rehabilitate homeless veterans. The support, we receive from the "government" is ZERO! The support that we receive from other non profit groups is ZERO! We fund these projects with money raised from the public, and it is a slow process. Once they are constructed, we are able to run them and they are self supporting. We as a society are three hairs removed from apes and we act like it daily!
MrKnowItAll: you are so right! My father retired from the AF in 67. During his time in, he served in the Berlin Airlift, Korea, Cuban Missle Crisis, and Vietnam. Somewhere along the way they took him up in an unpressurized airplane and blew out his ear drums. But, since he was a mechanic, he was allowed to finish his career, and do his 20+ years. He was exposed to Agent Orange, and all sorts of other things. His supervisor didn't want to lose him as a mechanic so they BURIED his request to cross train into becoming a pilot. Yet he still retired. He was awarded a 20% disability for them causing him to lose almost 90% of the hearing in one ear and 75% in the other. His disability amount was deducted from his retirement check, and given to him in his tax free disability check so in essence, his diability was the TAX he saved on 20% of his retirement check. He got nothing when he was diagnosed with Cancer which may have come from Agent Orange exposure because they said it COULD have come from cigarette smoking. They also got his widow to sign off that he wasn't in Vietnam when she was in grief less than a week after his passing. I was able to get them to revisit it after proving that he TDYed to Saigon, and did a year in NKP Thailand during the Vietnam Conflict, but they still didn't get any compensation.
Who are the macho schmucks in the service who harass these soldiers on base? They, the higher-ranking officers especially, should be ashamed.
We can't afford that dog for you soldier...........suck it up we need new tanks and Drones more than we need you...........SARCASM...............
We are a hypocritical nation when it comes to honoring our soldiers while they are away and then forgetting about them and their mental wounds when they get back..........Honor their service and help them readjust when they are HERE!
soldiers suffering from issues dont need any help from our obama run govt. after all they are throw away toys that can be replenished with many more of our young men and women, (a lot of sarcasm intended in that statement) its time for the American people to vote wisely in 2012 and not follow the herd and if you do vote stupidly once again then reap what you sew.
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who own swords"
What????
dissapointed1-920275 - Really? Name a President in the last 30 years who has done as much for veterans as Obama, and name his accomplishments...it's OK...I'll wait. And how about a First Lady who has done as much for military families.
Ol_Doc - exactly!
dissapointed::: And what grand and glorious things have been done for our military and veterans in the past?
This isn't an Obama issue! Poor treatment of american soldiers has been happening long before you or I ever came along and it will continue for years after we are gone. It doesn't matter who we have for a President. Take your one sided politics out of the coversation and try to contribute something meaningful.
Oh my gosh, it rained today...I guess that was President Obama's fault too! This war has been going on for more than 10 years....yes is was the attack on 9/11 that started it, but that was under BUSH's administration. Instead of a quick strike with the force of our very brave and powerful military, he let it trickle alone, he committed more troops and more troops and more. It was BUSH that continued it, even after he got his daddy's enemy Saddam Hussein. President Obama isn't the problem. He isn't perfect, but he's a helluva lot better than any Republican candidate that I've seen in the last 16 years (8 for Bush, 4 for the joke McCain/Palin, 4 for Romney). The PROBLEM is the Republican controlled house. President Obama could try to get a law passed that every American send flowers to their mama (a joke people) and I have no doubt that the Republicans would vote NO. If President Obama were white and Republican, then he could do no wrong. As far as what he has done for the troops, I suggest that you read the comments above by SeekingSanity.
If you can f--k up a good simple thing the Army can do it. I always thought the Corps ,Navy then Army ,boy was I wrong!
I think you forgot a few words. incoherent.
Come on government, use your head for once. A service dog vs. medicating soldiers. No-brainer.
And the army will choose pills over dogs right?
Drugs are easier, especially during a draw-down. Get them strung out then discharge them for drug abuse. Simple problem simply solved.
"This Veteran Medicated for Your Safety"
Ol_Doc,
"Get them strung out then discharge them for drug abuse."
And that's easy enough to do with our troops in Afghanistan, the Opium Capital of the World! How many of our troups return from Afghanistan addicted? The Army claims drug abuse is not a problem, but I have been overseas (Thailand, Taiwan, Philippines, Korea and Okinawa) and know better than to believe that.
Mickey - It isn't a problem for the military...Article 15...bang, you're out. No muss no fuss and no benefits or treatment.
If you want an eye-opening and heartening look at this, read 'Until Tuesday, A Wounded Warrior and the Golden Retriever who Saved Him', by Luis Carlos Montalban. Luis is a former Army Captain, wounded in Iraq and suffering from PTSD. He describes the hell his life was, and sometimes still is, and how Tuesday, a purebred Golden Retriever trained to be an assistance dog, came into his life and profoundly changed it.
Luis describes the many forms of discrimination he faced/faces about having a service dog and the resistance from Army brass.
Tuesday was trained by ECAD - Educated Canines Assisting with Disabilities, in New York state. (ecad1.org)
This is a GREAT BOOK! Kudos to Senator Al Franken for sponsoring legislation to make it easier for our vets to get assistance from service dogs. Shame on the Army for limiting access to these wonderful dogs by being bureaucratic.
'Until Tuesday - until-tuesday.com
Thanks for the tip. I'll definitely read this book. We use to have a wonderful golden and I still miss her so much. As for these wounded vets, they should be able to have a service dog without question. If it eases their pain any, then so be it.
The military uses dogs to sniff out explosives, and aid in military actions anyway they see fit. But if it's to aid a solider that has been wounded, physically or mentally they suddenly have a problem with dogs on military bases? This isn't about the dogs or their training, this is systematic abuse and harassment of disabled soldiers. The dog is no different then any other assistive device, i.e. cane, wheelchair, hearing aid, and is protected in the civilian realm under the americans with disabilities act. These soldiers did not chose to become disabled, they weren't waiting in line to get shot so they could bring a dog with them to work. These soldiers are trying to get on with their lives and the assistive device they need just so happens to have four paws and a wagging tail. It's not about the dog, it's about the healing, and no one has a right to get in the way of that.
Apparently some soldiers today are too coddled and pampered. Toughen up you sissies.
Mic your a sissy, how much combat have you seen and don't just say Iraq or Afghanistan, that's too easy.
Mic - I truly hope you're being sarcastic. If not - please just go away.
Worst part is, Mic represents a large part of the military mind-set.
Spoken like a man who has never served in a war
Mic You are a Narcissistic Sicko. As long as it is not you, you don't care. Being a big macho man is easy until you are the one in a wheel chair,or having nightmares that you are not sure is reality or a dream an you cannot wake-up from.
I have PTSD and was never in a war..I was the first person on the scene moments after my 12 year old son was shot in the face with a shotgun at close range and his baseball glove stolen by the 15 year old shooter.I still hear his gurgling last breath as I held him in my arms and his life left him...
PTSD.... When reality becomes a nightmare you cannot escape from. When your nightmares touch your sole with the same reality and emotional churning as actual event itself..I have tried to wake-up from my nightmare and get caught between the reality of the event and the knowledge that it is a nightmare, but cannot escape. My brain screams wake up, wake-up,but until it releases me I can not wake up.
I got me a little brown 10 lb mix breed from the pound and he has been my Angel of Mercy.. He jumps on top of me and jumps and jumps until i wake -up. And then he stares into my eyes with a look of great concern then licks away my tears and loves me with gentle kisses.
Sounds like something Limbaugh or Cheney would say, never having served themselves of course.
Mic - Suppose you man up and tell us where you served and in which wars. Cause I can tell you that my friend's father served in Vietnam and is only now getting treated for PTSD. He says that getting treatment is the best thing he's ever done. So maybe you'd like to tell the retired Col. that he's a pansy and see how far you get.
All you ding-a-lings realize we're talking about soldiers who just want a $10,000 dollar puppy right. If they have issues they should be handling their problems other ways. I'm sure most of you can understand this since you probably treat yourselves with self-prescribed drugs and alcohol.
Our service personnel and vets deserve to have their needs properly taken care of, period. They make the sacrifices (that many are not willing to do) to protect us. For the the life of me, I cannot understand what the issue is with those who so callously deny crucial services. If we have men and women who need these animals to heal, make it happen! Stop playing the scrooge tactic! If money needs to be saved, rethink the lucrative defense contracts of those corporate buddies. There's a lot of graft and waste right there.
I agree with you Shared Nest. and as for the money to train these animals STOP all aid to Pakistan and Afganistan and any other country that is fighting with the U.S and your government will be billions better off to help these soldiers. Dogs before drugs.
This is appalling and shocking. Let these service men and women keep their dogs. It's proven that therapy dogs assist men, women and children with living better, more productive lives. And any army officer that knees a dog in the face should face charges. That's disgusting.
Karen - You don't get it do you? Command wants them off post and off the books. Quite a few wounded soldiers are accepting admin discharges rather than waiting in WTB or Medical Hold for 2+ years awaiting a PEB determination. Many are having Article 15s compiled on them to warrant an "other than honorable" discharge to "clear the books". No VA Benefits, no matter how many deployments you were on.
Leave it to our government to treat our service men like garbage. Serve your country, even lay down your life but when you need help as simple as a dog that helps you they (the government) say NO figures. Jerks! I hope you will be able to keep your dog I am sure he is very important to you and you are important to him. Screw the Government in my openion
The military uses trained dogs in many situations--ranging from bomb detection to SEAL Team 6's successful raid on bin Laden's Abottabad compound.
They have no problem doing so.
Why, then, is there a diffuculty in providing service dogs for veterans in need of support?
Really simple answer keeter, because it's acknowledging PTSD.
It doesn't matter if your a Democrat, Independent or a Republican - we should all agree (and it looks like almost all on this site do) our service men and women deserve far better than we give them. They have served our country and return with wounds - some visible, others not so much so - and we owe them. We as a country need to do whatever is necessary to help them when they come back. If it means better medical support - we need to provide it. If it means service dogs - this is the least we can do. If it means psychiatric help - there is not dishonor in getting the help you need and we have to make sure this is available for each of them.
To the soldiers who belittle these men and women - shame on you. You don't know that this won't be you at some future date. And, even if it's not, these people deserve our help. They are us.
Thanks Steelermama--and a one-up for you.
My Pittsburgh Dad didn't say much about his experiences in WWII except that seeing enemy body parts did not enrich his life.
Understand Keeter, my dad and my grandpa also served in several wars and my son just got back from Afghanistan.
@Steelermama: Please thank your son for his service on my behalf.
@SeekingSanity: Great post. Couldn't have said it better.
keeter - thank you. I just sent a note to President Obama asking him to address this issue specifically. If enough people contact him, I believe he will work to remedy this problem. He has done a lot for veterans and continues to work hard to see that they are served well.
Yeah, as long as you get your request in BEFORE the election!