This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Seattlecameraman79 on 11 March 2010 - 22:03
Thanks OGBS, appreciate the mentoring.
As stated, I read the article two minutes ago, and figured that people who were angered by this companies actions should be aware that while they lose one contract, they gain another.
Some of those readers COULD be Seattle citizens, and MAY want to know about this change.
The company of Blackwater (or Xi) has thousands of contractors around the world, some doing truly amazing and benevolent things for society...does this mean I want them protecting our Embassies or governement buildings instead of the Marines (as was done for over a hundred years?)
No, because they have proven themselves as a company with little oversight, and a tendancy to sweep things under the rug.
But because this is the LARGEST security company on the planet (admittedly this is unverified, but thanks for being my fact checker OGBS) we should blindly trust them?
50 dogs dude...they couldn't keep 50 dogs healthy.
by OGBS on 11 March 2010 - 23:03
I'm just pointing out check the facts before you go crazy over this.
Like I said, I am horrified at what happened to the dogs!
I live in Chicago, so, this hits pretty close to home, but, again, I don't know all the circumstances surrounding what happened with the dogs, nor do you.
Do we know if it was Securitas' fault or was it the Navy/DoD's fault? The facilty they were in is equipped to handle a couple hundred dogs. My guess is that the DoD dogs weren't the only dogs there. My question concerning the original post is why would the Navy leave those dogs in Securitas' facility for three months after they terminated the contract with them?
As for losing contracts and gaining another, welcome to life! That's how it goes in business. Not all of their security services involve dogs, so, what does one have to do with the other unless they are providing explosive sniffing security dogs for Seattle Metro?
You wrote:
"50 dogs dude...they couldn't keep 50 dogs healthy"
Do you know if it was Securitas' responsibilty to keep those dogs healthy after the contract was terminated?
Again, why were they left in the facility by the DoD for three months after the contract was terminated?
There are a lot of open kennels and handlers/trainers waiting for dogs down at Lackland Air Force Base.
Was the Navy/DoD paying Securitas to feed them and house them at this point? A lot of unanswered questions are left open that make for a great story to make Securitas out to look like they did wrong here. Maybe they did, and maybe they didn't.
From a philosophical standpoint I agree 100% with you that the dogs should have been cared for.
From a business standpoint, who knows until this is all sorted out?
Like you I suspect, I am a dog lover and I would have taken care of the dogs with my last penny (I co-founded a cat and dog rescue 10 years ago), but, that may not be the same for business people.
by Seattlecameraman79 on 12 March 2010 - 00:03
Ok whew...glad you said to not take it personally...otherwise, I was getting pretty serious. See my mean face? >:)
See thats the problem right there...sarcasm doesn't translate well in text.
OGBS your point about not jumping to conclusions until all the facts are known is in concept A) valid and B) commendable...but a good chunk of facts are known....none of which paint SSS in a good light.
First they couldn't meet the timetable standard the government set....read that again. A company in this country was moving slower than our government. That's not easy.
Secondly, after failing the required standards, they were no longer to train, but only to house and feed until they could be recovered by the DOD? That's their job. And as you point out, they most likely had other dogs there, are they in just as bad of shape? Near as I can figure, (by my research on the handy "google machine" thanks for the advice OGBS,) I can get a 20 lb bag of Iams for $9 bucks. Lets say each dog eats...what a bag a week? (Obviously overstated to make a point) So for one month to feed a dog, its about $36 bucks, a year $432. For all 50 (rounding) dogs its $21,600. The dogs were there for less than this time, ate less than this, and you know that a government contractor would be getting subsidized, so that would be more like 4 dollars a bag. Out of a $7.5 million dollar contract, that couldn't be accomplished?
Lastly, their poor condition is as a result of the government not getting there quick enough? Thats the jist of your previous post....do you really think that's valid? Forget the financial/business aspect of letting your "product/tool" degrade or die, but what about the moral/fiduciary obligation to something living? Thats bad business and bad morals.
I lied, that wasn't the last thing. Now, I'm only guessing and this is clearly my opinion, but judging from your first post on this issue, I'm imagining this isn't your first thread where you take up an unpopular perspective. The question is, are you playing devil's advocate, or simply being a contrarian? And for the record (as stated in my first post, i don't have any dogs...merely spreading the word to people who were clearly concerned about this companies practices...and take none of this personally...don't have a dog in the race my friend, forgive the pun)
Either way, the bullet points (not the 100% story, but the cliff notes version,) go like this:
- Close to 50 dogs were poorly handled as a result of actions taken or not taken by SSS, 3 would die.
- This malfeasence was only discovered after government employees arrived to recover the animals.
- Thats it.
SSS was tasked with training these dogs. Some died, some were malnurished. I guess I just fail to understand why any other facts matter?
Stated differently, replace german sheppard with "school children." Would you still be saying "hold on folks, we don't know all the facts...maybe their parents didn't pick them up quick enough."
by CrysBuck25 on 12 March 2010 - 00:03
It was pointed out that SSS is a very large, very versatile company, with a facility capable of handling over 200 dogs..If they are large, then they should have had cash reserves (they aren't bankrupt, so you know they aren't hurting financially). It doesn't cost that much to feed 49 dogs for three months, even if they are no longer your responsibility to train. You still feed them every day, exercise them. To just cease to bother shows a major lack of moral compass.
For the record, I don't care what other jobs this company might do for the United States government. They had living animals in their immediate care, and they failed to care for those animals. That's all there is to it, regardless of the contract information...SHow me a memo from the DOD telling them to cease and desist from caring for those dogs and I'll blame them, but right now, the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the SSS personnel.
I hope these people never have to babysit a prisoncamp...They'll save their host government a bunch of money by starving the prisoners to death...Scary. Lowlife mercenaries.
Crys
by LAVK-9 on 12 March 2010 - 03:03
So I called, they said that they would call me when they got back.They were back a few days and I had to call again.Even though they were way past the time paid for and scheduled....didn't mean that I said screw it I am not going to take care of them any more. I did until I heard from them(a week later so 4 weeks and they didn't pay for it)
Even the client I am watching the dog for now.If she wasn't able to get home when she is scheduled to....I would keep caring for the dog.It is a responsibility and a part of the job when caring for an animal.by OGBS on 12 March 2010 - 10:03
In December 2008, the Navy signed a $350 million contract with Lockheed Martin Corp. to help guard its installations. The five-year contract included $7.5 million for 49 highly specialized K-9 units to sniff out explosives. To meet the K-9 requirement, Lockheed in turn hired Securitas Security Services, headquartered in Parsippany, N.J.
But after the dogs failed to demonstrate they could perform as promised, the Navy canceled the contract in July, Fenick said. The team of handlers were sent three months later to pick up the dogs from the Securitas' dog-training facility near Chicago.
Fenick declined to say how much the Navy had already paid Lockheed under the agreement, saying that the contract details are under review.
The time line is this: (Seattle pay attention)
Navy signed contract with Lockeed Martin in Dec. 2008. $7.5 million of that went to train the explosive sniffing dogs.
Then Lockheed hired Securitas. (Do you know when this took place? Let's say that it was the same time for argument's sake.)
The government then terminated the contract in July, 2009. Seven months later. Seven months isn't a lot of time to train "highly specialized" dogs. We do not even know when the dogs arrived at Securitas. It took the Navy three months to pick up the dogs after terminating the contract. Are we to assume that the dogs arrived at the facility immediately upon the contract being signed? I doubt it! So, Securitas probably had even less than seven months to train "highly specialized" dogs. We don't know. None of us know how all of this transpired. We only know that the Navy didn't feel that the dogs were trained as they wanted. The government cancels contracts all the time. This is nothing new.
On to the next point, do any of us know if Securitas was ever paid a dime of the $7.5 million that was owed them by Lockheed?
Seattle, this is where you really have to pay attention, Securitas wasn't paid $7.5 million up front by the Navy, they weren't even to be paid by the Navy. They were contracted by Lockheed. Do any of us know if Securitas was paid by Lockheed???
So, your mathematical wizardy about how much it costs to feed those dogs is really just more conjecture on your part as to what really happened. Maybe they were feeding these dogs for the first seven months and paying for it themselves? We don't know! Maybe Securitas was paying a lot of people a lot of money to train these dogs and hadn't yet been paid by Lockheed? We don't know! Then the contract was terminated and they got nothing and were stuck with housing 49 dogs for another three months because the Navy was negligent in reclaiming their dogs. There really are a lot of unknowns here, none of which you, or I know.
My next point is that you (Seattle) have made up some statement about the Navy telling them, "they were no longer to train, but only to house and feed until they could be recovered by the DOD? That's their job."
Really??? Where does it say anything about this in the story you read? It says the contract was "terminated".
That's it, that's all, "terminated". If the Navy did not make arrangements with Securitas to house and care for the dogs for the next three months then they are just as responsible as Securitas for the poor condition and deaths of the dogs.
by OGBS on 12 March 2010 - 10:03
Should Securitas have handled it differently? Absolutely! They blew it, but, don't assume that we know all the reasons why it was handled this way, and while were on it, don't assume that these dogs are anything other than tools for accomplishing a purpose by both Securitas and the Navy. They do not view these dogs as you, or I, view them. They are just machines to them that happen to be made out of flesh and blood as opposed to steel or plastic.
Bad business and bad morals, I agree, but, none of the involved parties do.
As to your question about playing devil's advocate or a contrarian, no, to both. I am not one to fly off the handle to create a headline when maybe there shouldn't be one. It's a big problem in our society today. A lot of headlines to grab readers attention, but, no real substance behind those headlines, or worse, a lot of misinformation. I like to look at things in their entirety before making conclusions.
by BabyEagle4U on 12 March 2010 - 12:03
I'm convinced you people cannot comprehend what you read.
by Seattlecameraman79 on 12 March 2010 - 13:03
W/o your tireless investigatory journalism where would we be in this discussion? (Focusing on my initial point seems to be an impossibility at this point.) ;)
Beyond clearly stating that everything I said was read minutes before I posted, and that some QUICK "google-math" is how I came up with my obviously overstated figures...to make a point. $21,600 was an estimate to feed all those dogs for a year...I guess it was only 3 months? So I'll round up...$6k.
Read the previous posting by others in this room that explain the OBLIGATION one undertakes in the role of "kenneling" (is that a word?) and training dogs...be they specialized bomb dogs, or when I babysit my brothers dumb-as-sin dog. It doesn't matter what my brother chooses to do or not do, I've taken responsibility for the animals well being.
And for someone who is wary of the "business" end of things as you CLEARLY are....3 months is not a long time by government standards. We're still picking up pieces from Katrina...
50 dogs dude....50 dogs. (The Big Lebowski, "8 year olds dude....8 year olds..." thought we could use a smile)
by Mindhunt on 12 March 2010 - 16:03
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top