Senator proposes service dogs for veterans

[Boemy]

Minnesota senator Al Franken is proposing a bill to fund training and placement of service dogs for veterans.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Franken’s first goal: Dogs for vets - Blogs from CNN.com

"Service dogs … can be of immense benefit to vets suffering from physical and emotional wounds," Franken wrote in a column published in the Star Tribune. "Yes, they provide companionship. But they can also detect changes in a person's breathing, perspiration or scent to anticipate and ward off an impending panic attack with some well-timed nuzzling. They are trained to let their masters know when it's time to take their medication and to wake them from terrifying nightmares."

I think this is a great idea! Our veterans deserve support not only for physical injuries, but to deal with the stress and horrors of war that they've seen.

 

[Dogs6]

I agree

 

[Boemy]

I followed the Tribune link in the CNN article and read the article by Al Franken explaining why he sponsors this bill. It's because of a personal experience meeting a veteran who had a service dog named Tuesday.

Al Franken: A wounded veteran's best friend

This January, I met Luis Carlos Montalvan and his service dog named Tuesday, a beautiful golden retriever, at an inaugural event in Washington.

Luis had been an intelligence officer in Iraq, rooting out corruption in Anbar Province. In 2005, Capt. Montalvan was the target of an assassination attempt. Now he walks with a cane and suffers from severe post-traumatic stress disorder.

Luis explained that he couldn't have made it to the inauguration if it weren't for his dog.

. . .

Luis got Tuesday from one of the nonprofit agencies around the country that trains service dogs. I visited one of them, Hearing and Service Dogs of Minnesota, and saw dogs opening doors and answering phones. I saw a German shepherd named Pepsi pick a nickel off a tile floor and give it to a young woman in a wheelchair.

Dogs, they really are our best friends.

 

[Romy]

It's a lot like what Strider does. His litter brother went to a veteran, and works as a service dog too. It's a really good idea for those that are suffering.

 

[Zoom]

I absolutely love that Al Franken is in politics now.

I'm really glad he's proposing this!

 

[FoxyWench]

What an awesome idea,

 

[lizzybeth727]

Franken... said it costs about $25,000 to train and place a dog and noted his bill would provide hundreds of them to veterans.

I know this is going to sound strange coming from me, a relatively staunch democrat and service dog trainer who could one day benefit from a bill like this, but I'm not sure how I feel about the government stepping into this area. My question is, where would this money come from? $25,000 can pay someone's yearly salary.... and in this economy, with the unemployment rate so high, is this the right time?

 

[Groch]

My question is, where would this money come from? $25,000 can pay someone's yearly salary.... and in this economy, with the unemployment rate so high, is this the right time?

While I understand your concern, many staunch Democrats, like myself, would argue that it is in times of heavy unemployment that our government must spend money. The dollars would not go to the dog, or used to buy Chinese built TV's like those stimulous checks, but to employ trainers and others and that stimulates the economy.

Republicans, Democrats, and Independents can also agree that we have done nowhere near enough to support our wounded troops as they return home. There are few expenditures that in my opinion are easier to justify.

 

[Renee750il]

$25,000 could be a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of leaving veterans with serious PTSD and other combat related conditions to their own devices. It can also make the difference between someone living on disability and living WITH disability -- and being able to work and live with dignity.

One problem I do see, though, is if the government/taxpayers are paying for it, the price will skyrocket. Perhaps, rather than the government directly paying out to the supplier, a voucher could be issued to the veteran. If the veteran needed to travel a distance to obtain their dog and the last part of the training, that could go through the VA and be reimbursed in the same way travel to and from other medical appointments is, or air or rail transport arranged both ways. Give the VA clerks something constructive to do

 

[Lolas Dad]

I think it is a good idea also but I also think that all service dogs need to have some kind of registration and be able to perform certain tests in order to be a service dog by some government standard. Not just any person and definitely not by just the owner saying it is and paying some kind of company for the certificate by just agreeing that your dog meets the qualifications of a service dog.

The way the ADA laws are now on service dogs all a person needs to do is agree that their dog can perform certain functions as a service dog and agree that their dog is well behaved and not in anyway a danger to the public. They can then pay a company right over the internet for all the materials required for their dog to have access to anyplace and everyplace.

A perfect example of a service dog that should not be a service dog can be found here: San Francisco News - Service with a Snarl - page 1

 

[lizzybeth727]

I think it is a good idea also but I also think that all service dogs need to have some kind of registration and be able to perform certain tests in order to be a service dog by some government standard. Not just any person and definitely not by just the owner saying it is and paying some kind of company for the certificate by just agreeing that your dog meets the qualifications of a service dog.

That's a good point. If the gov't is paying for it, what kind of restrictions will be put on the dogs, the organizations training the dogs, and the recipients getting the dogs? Sounds like a big 'ol can of worms.

One problem I do see, though, is if the government/taxpayers are paying for it, the price will skyrocket. Perhaps, rather than the government directly paying out to the supplier, a voucher could be issued to the veteran. If the veteran needed to travel a distance to obtain their dog and the last part of the training, that could go through the VA and be reimbursed in the same way travel to and from other medical appointments is, or air or rail transport arranged both ways. Give the VA clerks something constructive to do

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Why will the price skyrocket? How will a voucher system be better than just giving the money to the training organization?

The organization I work for recently received a grant to train dogs for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. We told them how much it costs to train a dog, and how much the recipient usually has to pay for transportation and lodging during the part of training when they come to our facility. They gave us the money, and in return we just make all of the arrangements for the person - pay their hotel bill, buy their meals, etc.

This is a private grant, and though I can't remember the organization that gave it to us, I know that there are many more like it. Since we started this "official" program to train dogs for the military, we've also gotten tons of donations from individuals who want to support more dogs for people in the military. We have gotten so many donations that we cannot get enough military people to apply for all of the dogs we can now train.

With that in mind, I'm not sure that it's necessary to use tax money to fund this program.

Obviously I believe that service dogs for disabled veterans is a fabulous idea, and the government is not doing enough to support our military in general; and I know I'm in the majority sharing these beliefs. I honestly have no opinion of Al Franken, but this just sounds to me like a political move - he's proposed a bill that is sure to pass (who would vote against it??) to make his first mark on the Senate a big one.

 

[Renee750il]

Lizzybeth, it's rare that anything that becomes part of something paid for by federal funds doesn't wind up costing 10X what it does in the public sector. All those jokes about $2000 hammers -- aren't. Contracts get padded like crazy because, after all, "the government's paying for it."

Give veterans a voucher and let them choose the trainer and/or organization they want to work with instead of having a government agency take impersonal bids on contracts and then award it to someone's brother-in-law.