Bill Overview
Title: Canine Members of the Armed Forces Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense to classify military working dogs as canine members of the Armed Forces (not as equipment) and provides for certain requirements and authorities related to the retirement, transfer, transportation, and recognition of such canine members.
Sponsors: Rep. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI-8]
Target Audience
Population: Military working dog handlers, their families, adoptive families, and related support personnel
Estimated Size: 25000
- The bill specifically relates to military working dogs, suggesting a direct impact on dogs serving in military roles.
- The legislation changes the classification of these dogs from 'equipment' to 'canine members,' which could impact the way these animals are treated during and after service.
- Families or individuals who adopt retired military dogs will be impacted by this legislation due to new provisions related to transportation and transfer.
- Veterinary services and other support services that cater to military dogs may also see changes in policies or procedures based on these new classifications.
Reasoning
- The target population for the policy is relatively small, estimated at 25,000 in the U.S., which includes military dog handlers, their families, and adopters of retired dogs.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy should focus on the main areas impacted: reclassification of dogs, retirement and adoption processes, and support services.
- Reclassification could lead to better treatment and more recognition for military dogs, which impacts the morale and wellbeing of handlers.
- Post-retirement adoption support could enhance the wellbeing of adopters.
- Interview subjects also cover indirect effects such as public perception and potential improvements in animal welfare.
Simulated Interviews
Military dog handler (San Diego, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy will finally give our dogs the recognition they deserve. They are much more than equipment.
- Being treated as a member of the Armed Forces means better care and appreciation for their hard work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Veterinary technician for the Army (Fort Bragg, NC)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could bring more resources for veterinary care, allowing us to do our jobs more effectively.
- Reclassification might increase the demand for specialized veterinary training.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Civilian who adopted a retired military dog (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transportation and transfer support would really help, as it was expensive to adopt our dog.
- I believe more recognition could help our community value these dogs more.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Animal rights activist (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a significant step forward in recognizing the service of military animals.
- I hope this improves their post-service lives significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Military dog trainer (Honolulu, HI)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These dogs are our partners, not equipment. This policy enforces that belief.
- I'm hopeful this leads to better training resources and support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Air Force Officer (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy should hopefully improve deployment conditions for our dogs.
- I'm curious how they'll handle the budget for retirements and transfers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired Navy SEAL (Virginia Beach, VA)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel proud knowing the dogs I worked with will get the acknowledgment they deserve.
- We must ensure sufficient oversight so this policy fulfills its intentions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Dog psychology specialist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good for the dogs, they're often traumatized after service.
- Expecting more demand for my services as people become aware.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Military family advocate (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These animals deserve better after all they sacrifice.
- Anything that helps my daughter and her dogs is welcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Defense policy analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reclassifying these dogs is an overdue shift in policy.
- Budget allocation will be critical to making a real impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $4200000, High: $6200000)
Year 3: $5400000 (Low: $4400000, High: $6400000)
Year 5: $5800000 (Low: $4800000, High: $6800000)
Year 10: $6900000 (Low: $5900000, High: $7900000)
Year 100: $13000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- Reclassification of military working dogs aligns with ethical treatment standards and may improve public perception of military practices.
- The potential for increased burden on military families and adoption families regarding transportation and care requirements.
- Long-term impact on military protocols and logistics regarding canine units.