This is a placeholder text
Group text
by OGBS on 12 March 2010 - 22:03
Okay! Thanks!
But, here is the quote from the Navy.
In a written response to questions from The Pilot, the Navy said that as of April 1 - the date all of the dogs were to begin working at the bases to which they'd been assigned - none of the dog-handler teams was able to pass the Navy's certification test. By early July, 16 of the teams had passed, the Navy said.
But, here is the quote from the Navy.
In a written response to questions from The Pilot, the Navy said that as of April 1 - the date all of the dogs were to begin working at the bases to which they'd been assigned - none of the dog-handler teams was able to pass the Navy's certification test. By early July, 16 of the teams had passed, the Navy said.
by BabyEagle4U on 12 March 2010 - 22:03
The U.S. Navy never signed a contract with Securitas Security. They signed a contract with Lockheed Martin and terminated it July 1, 2009. Lockheed Martin signed a 3rd party contract with Securitas Security. Lockheed Martin's 3rd party contract ended October 1, 2009.
The U.S. Navy repo'd all Lockheed Martin dogs October 3, 2009 @ Securitas Security. Hence the U.S. Navy "ended up buying" the dogs from Securitas Security.
The U.S. Navy repo'd all Lockheed Martin dogs October 3, 2009 @ Securitas Security. Hence the U.S. Navy "ended up buying" the dogs from Securitas Security.
by OGBS on 12 March 2010 - 23:03
Baby Eagle,
That is true about the contracts, as I stated such earlier from the report, and you are also correct, the Navy did buy the dogs and paid $800,000 to Securitas for them.
I have seen conflicting reports about the date of retrieval, but, most reports have the Navy saying they picked up the dogs on October 5th.
They had also been in the facilty in August to see the dogs after the contract was canceled.
The Navy said the dogs looked great at that time.
What I want to know, and without a lot of ignorant speculation, is what transpired between the Navy, Lockheed and Securitas from that time in August to the time the dogs were retrieved in October that would lead the dogs to be neglected like this?
I have only seen one or two pictures of these dogs, so, was it all of them, or just a few of them???
There are still a lot of unanswered questions about all of this.
When it is all ferreted out I hope that heads roll for all of those persons deemed responsible.
That is true about the contracts, as I stated such earlier from the report, and you are also correct, the Navy did buy the dogs and paid $800,000 to Securitas for them.
I have seen conflicting reports about the date of retrieval, but, most reports have the Navy saying they picked up the dogs on October 5th.
They had also been in the facilty in August to see the dogs after the contract was canceled.
The Navy said the dogs looked great at that time.
What I want to know, and without a lot of ignorant speculation, is what transpired between the Navy, Lockheed and Securitas from that time in August to the time the dogs were retrieved in October that would lead the dogs to be neglected like this?
I have only seen one or two pictures of these dogs, so, was it all of them, or just a few of them???
There are still a lot of unanswered questions about all of this.
When it is all ferreted out I hope that heads roll for all of those persons deemed responsible.
by CrysBuck25 on 12 March 2010 - 23:03
OBGS
The three S's apply only when there is no other option...Dog is chasing/killing your livestock (which, by the way, is the primary reason that most people would do such, anyway), and the only option you really have is shooting the dog, and if the owner will not contain the dog and will not do anything about the problem, and the law won't act either, you have to. The Sheriff's department has advised people to do exactly that...And it's common practice in many agricultural areas to shoot any dog that is at large and presents a threat to livestock. If someone doesn't care about their dog enough to keep it at home, then what happens, happens.
The blatant ignorance and laziness of some dog owners, and the price their dogs pay for it, is not the issue here, and you know it. These dogs were kenneled and weren't chasing livestock. They weren't harrassing anyone or anything. They were abused by neglect. And I agree, someone's head is going to roll for it.
I absolutely get irate at people who will not keep their dogs at home, who can't be bothered to tether, kennel, or fence their "beloved" dog...If they loved that animal, they would make sure that it was not running at large. I would much prefer to apply the three S's to the owners, but as you know, some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill them. As it stands, when your livestock is threatened, you are allowed to defend it, even if it means killing the offending dog. Yes, it is in some dogs' natures to kill, but as owners it is our job to know where our dogs are, what they are doing, and be sure that they are not harming property, people, or anything else.
For you to be so snide about it has me wondering...What would you prefer? That livestock owners just sit back and cluck their tongues at the problem? Call the sheriff's department and AC and hope that someone does something? I do not allow my dog to roam, for her protection as well as mine. I love my dog, and as the human being who took on the responsibility of her well-being, I have no choice but to be a responsible dog owner.
The three S's offends you so much, but how about dogs being splattered on the roads? Poisoned by eating various substances? Caught by the collar in a fence and strangled? Kicked to death by a cow, horse, or moose? The simple solution is to just keep them at home. And if you don't, you can't be offended when they get hurt or killed.
Crys
The three S's apply only when there is no other option...Dog is chasing/killing your livestock (which, by the way, is the primary reason that most people would do such, anyway), and the only option you really have is shooting the dog, and if the owner will not contain the dog and will not do anything about the problem, and the law won't act either, you have to. The Sheriff's department has advised people to do exactly that...And it's common practice in many agricultural areas to shoot any dog that is at large and presents a threat to livestock. If someone doesn't care about their dog enough to keep it at home, then what happens, happens.
The blatant ignorance and laziness of some dog owners, and the price their dogs pay for it, is not the issue here, and you know it. These dogs were kenneled and weren't chasing livestock. They weren't harrassing anyone or anything. They were abused by neglect. And I agree, someone's head is going to roll for it.
I absolutely get irate at people who will not keep their dogs at home, who can't be bothered to tether, kennel, or fence their "beloved" dog...If they loved that animal, they would make sure that it was not running at large. I would much prefer to apply the three S's to the owners, but as you know, some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill them. As it stands, when your livestock is threatened, you are allowed to defend it, even if it means killing the offending dog. Yes, it is in some dogs' natures to kill, but as owners it is our job to know where our dogs are, what they are doing, and be sure that they are not harming property, people, or anything else.
For you to be so snide about it has me wondering...What would you prefer? That livestock owners just sit back and cluck their tongues at the problem? Call the sheriff's department and AC and hope that someone does something? I do not allow my dog to roam, for her protection as well as mine. I love my dog, and as the human being who took on the responsibility of her well-being, I have no choice but to be a responsible dog owner.
The three S's offends you so much, but how about dogs being splattered on the roads? Poisoned by eating various substances? Caught by the collar in a fence and strangled? Kicked to death by a cow, horse, or moose? The simple solution is to just keep them at home. And if you don't, you can't be offended when they get hurt or killed.
Crys
by BabyEagle4U on 13 March 2010 - 00:03
* "What I want to know, and without a lot of ignorant speculation, is what transpired between the Navy, Lockheed and Securitas from that time in August to the time the dogs were retrieved in October that would lead the dogs to be neglected like this?" *
-- I dunno, but I'm glad the Navy did the right thing waiting for the Lockheed Martin - Securitas Security Services USA, Inc contract to end. That was a bold move and brave to override an "interest" of the Department of Defense. This whole deal was well worth the $ 7.5 million, IMO.
Will be interesting to follow that State now too.
-- I dunno, but I'm glad the Navy did the right thing waiting for the Lockheed Martin - Securitas Security Services USA, Inc contract to end. That was a bold move and brave to override an "interest" of the Department of Defense. This whole deal was well worth the $ 7.5 million, IMO.
Will be interesting to follow that State now too.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top