Navy says 3 dogs died after contractor neglect - Page 3

But that's what it's all about...Who cares if the job is done right, as long as you get your profits from it.  The dogs were just property, I understand that, OBGS.

What I don't understand is how anyone who trains dogs or runs any type of kenneling operation (who, in theory, loves dogs enough to have bothered to learn how to even feed them, to begin with) could allow any dogs in their care to starve like that, regardless of contract termination.  7.5 million over five years, is a little over a million a year.  Can't even feed the dogs for that?  Big corporation like SSS can't afford a few thousand dollars for FOOD?

I'm sorry, regardless of the incident, there is always a way to take care of the animals.  Ask for donations, for God's sake, but don't let them starve because you're too greedy to spend a few dollars to feed them properly.  And regardless of how slow the Navy was at reclaiming their dogs, there is no excuse for failing to provide proper care and maintenance...It's all about passing the blame, when the blame rests solely on those in whose care the animals were placed.

Remember that case a few months ago where everyone was up in arms when that guy had the fancy website and was letting boarded dogs and his own starve?  I forget where and all the specifics, but no one suggested the owners should be to blame there...Never did figure out what the lowlife did with the money he took in from boarding, but the dogs died, regardless.

A multi-million dollar corporation has no excuse.  None.

Crys

Here is how I feel about Securitas Services not feeding the 50 dogs in their care.

I don't care if the government should have picked them up sooner.  The government rarely does things right.

If they didn't want to spend a penny feeding them they could have given notice that the dogs must be picked up by a certain date and after that , they could be picked up at the local humane society.  Starving dogs to the point where they started dying is inexcusable.

Here is what I think about excuses for letting the dogs starve.



Michele

* " This Navy photo shows one of the Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. dogs soon after the military picked up the animals in October. Internal Navy e-mails say the photo was taken after the dog had been cleaned and groomed and after it had gained some weight. (U.S. Navy)" *

* "Ringo, a military dog, looks up at its handler Seaman Tim Stonecipher at the kennel building at Norfolk Naval Station on Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2010. It was among the dogs that the Navy ended up buying from Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (U.S. Navy)" *

I'll say it again, this situation was handled improperly, horribly, whatever you want to call it.
I know that. It isn't difficult!
I don't give a crap about Securitas. I am not defending them!

Michelle,
How do you know that Securitas did not repeatedly request that the dogs be removed from their facility? You don't. You are just speculating as to what happened.
Taking them to the local humane society?? Are you kidding? They are government property. You would have been screaming to high hell if they had done this and even one of them was euthanized.

None of us knows what the terms of the contract stated if it were to be terminated. None of it, nothing!

CrysBuck,
I find it comical that you chime in on anything concerning the welfare of animals when you told us a few months back that your version of animal control is the three S's.
Shoot 'em
Shovel 'em and
Shut up
It's wonderful how you feel that it is appropriate to punish (actually kill) an animal because of the stupidity of its owners.
After reading that, pretty much anything you have to say falls on deaf ears!

It took the U.S Navy 3 days to go repo the dogs after they discontinued the contract with Lockheed Martin Corp to include Securitas Security as of October 1, 2009. The first picture I posted above was October 6th, 3 days after the repo.

There is plenty of info about this on Youtube and Google.

I wrote a letter to the CO of the U.S. Navy. Interesting to learn SEIU is defending Securitas Security.

Go U.S. Navy !!!

LAVK-9 will take the contract...........HELL SHE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET THEM TO SNIFF OUT BOMBS , BUT HANDS DOWN THEY'LL BE ABLE TO WALK ANY TIGHT ROPE/TRIP WIRE ANYDAY OF THE WEEK.................UNLESS THEY ARE BARKING AT THE DOOR THEN WE BETTER CALL SOME REAL K-9 TRAINERS TO BREAK THE CASE..

They could have given Ivan Balabanov the contract.

He loves dogs and Would never for any reason starve them.

He is also a world class trainer for scent dogs.

There are many others but, the most important thing in this contract was greasing the slimey friends of SEIU.

Thanks for the additional information Eagle.  Those dogs didn't get in that condition in three days.

Good luck Seattle, you are going to need it.

Michele

PS.  My last comment wasn't clear enough.  Try this one.

                        

Baby Eagle,
That is incorrect. The contract was terminated July, 2009 and the Navy does not dispute that.
The Navy also expected these dogs to be ready to go on April 1, 2009. They basically assumed that Securitas could have these dogs ready in three months. Sorry, they should have known that it takes more than three months to train explosives dogs. The latest report also says that 16 of the teams were ready for deployment in July. This means 32 of the dogs were ready. Two dogs were assigned to each base.
The report has also been corrected to read that none of the dogs were dead when the Navy picked them up in October, and that only one had died after it was picked up.

Again, the whole thing sucks and the dogs are who paid for the negligence of Securitas, and, most likely, the Navy.
Shame on both of them.

What ever you say OGBS.