The U.S. Government: Treating Dogs Like "any other weapon"
A recent story about Rex, a German Shepherd Dog that fought at his handlers side in Iraq, brings to light an alarming issue in animal welfare while revealing a peculiar double-standard about the value of dogs as living creatures.
Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jamie Dana and her canine partner, Rex, were both seriously injured when an explosion in Iraq flipped their Humvee three times, leaving both of them on the precipice of death. After the accident, while she was still in a fog from medical treatment, she was told Rex had died.
"When I was told Rex had been killed . . . it was like being told your child would never be coming home again," Dana said. She was beyond happy when she later discovered Rex was, in fact, alive. She wanted to adopt Rex at that point, but a law that prohibited military dogs from being adopted prior to the end of their military tour stood in her way. Rex had already risked his life in service to the United States, and unlike all his human companions, he had no choice in the matter. Yet, he happily obliged, content to stay by Dana's side and see her through the dangers of battlefield. Despite his sacrifice, the U.S. government wanted to patch him back up, tear him away from his partner, and send him back onto the battlefield.
The United States government viewed Rex as a military asset, like any other weapon in the national arsenal. "Some people said the government should not be giving up military assets with a war going on," said Maj. Paul D. Cairney, commander of the unit where Dana and Rex were teamed, as reported by the Rocky Mountain News,. The Rocky Mountain news also reported that the The American Humane Association intervened, saying the story of Dana and Rex "affirms the power of the connection between people and animals." Dana's story moved members of Congress, who pushed for a change in the law to allow Rex to retire and spend the rest of his years living a peaceful civilian life.
This story illustrates two very important issues. First, the U.S. Government, even as many of its politicians proclaim a strong interest in animal welfare and humane treatment of animals, doesn't hesitate to put dogs in very dangerous situations. Of course, it's not hard to understand why the military uses dogs in the field. Dogs have a keen sense of smell, unflagging loyalty, and have saved thousands of human lives. Stubby, America's first and most decorated war dog was a little "pit bull" that saved his regiment from a surprise Mustard Gas attack and caught a German spy by the seat of his pants. Dogs are faithful companions to soldiers on the field, and they put their lives in danger every day for no more pay than a bed, some food, and an occasional doggie biscuit. All states have laws relating to animal cruelty. In some places, you cannot tether a dog in your backyard. There has even been movement to ban choke collars and other corrective devices. Yet, politicians don't blink an eye over sending a dog over a field containing land mines, nor do the dogs hesitate to do such duty when required. A contradiction? Perhaps. Though certainly one could logically argue that it is necessary to use dogs in the field to save human lives, whereas no human lives are at stake because of animal cruelty regulations in the Homeland.
Regardless, despite all that dogs do for this country, this country doesn't return the favor. Instead of respecting dogs as living, sentient, intelligent creatures, politicians view them as things to be rounded up and killed because they MIGHT present a danger to someone....someday.... maybe. Laws banning dogs have resulted in the deaths of thousands of loving family pets that have done nothing wrong. Even the German Shepherd has been targeted by laws in the United States, and Illinois currently has a law pending that would declare Pit Bulls and German Shepherds, among other breeds, as dangerous.
This brings us to the second issue. On one hand, when it's good press, politicians boldly proclaim to recognize and appreciate the strong connection between people and animals. On the other hand, when it makes good press, they strongly proclaim the breed of the month "dangerous" or "vicious" and mandate that all members of that breed (or breeds) should be exterminated for the good of the public. Denver and Aurora, Colorado have banned Pit Bulls, euthanizing hundreds and hundreds every year. California State Assemblyman Tim Leslie (R), when stating why he supported SB 861, said, "It's time to get rid of these Pit Bulls. I think we ought to string 'em all up." SB 861 was a breed discrimination bill initiated by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and authored by State Senators Jackie Speier and Tom Torlakson (democrats). The Governor signed the bill into law on October 7, 2005.
Meanwhile, dogs continue to serve their human companions both at home and on the battlefield. Many have even gone happily with their executioners, wagging their tails and hopping gleefully into the back of an animal control truck for a ride, as they're torn away from their loving homes, tossed into a lonely kennel cell, and then brought into a sterile room and given a lethal injection.... not because they've ever done anything wrong or because their family didn't want them anymore...
But just because they were born of the wrong breed, at the wrong time.
-Dawn Capp-
Attorney at Law