Call me heartless, but I can see reasons why the chief would not want to spend $1,100 in taxpayer money on a dog that isn't likely to recover without extensive treatment.

A lot of folks have close relationships with their pets and would not hesitate to spend that kind of money to try to save their pets life.

I'm not one of them. Don't get me wrong. I pay to have my animals spayed/neutered and get them all the required vaccinations including heart worms. I've even paid for minor surgery for a few pets. But, in the event of a terminal disease, I find it humane to put the animal down.

Also, I would have ethical issues with paying big money for a dog's life while their are children starving in the world.

Different priorities than some and I understand that. However, because of that, I can see the point of view of the police.

My understanding was that the Dog was diagnosed with cancer, at which time the GPD decided that the cost associated with treatment didn't warrant the uncertainty that the dog would recover.

The dog's handler "adopted" the dog which made the animal the handler's personal property. The handler inititated the cancer treatment, not the city.

The handler is responsible as he made the choice to take on the liability for the dog when he took him to the vet.

The heart strings are tough with this one. Where's the Police Benevolent Association? If there ever was a cause for them to step up to the plate and cover costs, it is this one.

I agree with hugh. I can see why the GPD won't pay for this, but how about arranging a fundraiser or taking up a collection? They dropped the ball when it came to their response and their image suffered. Maybe they need a good public relations person working for them.

I responded in an earlier remark without knowing all the "facts". I still maintain my position.
Some readers might find difficulty with this but I value the life of animals. I particularly feel that we have a responsibility to the quality of life for a dog who served our community and served it well. If I'm not pushing my point too far, this dog was a "police officer" who was trained and could have lost his life in the service of our protection. This dog performed unique police functions that we humans could not or might not be able to do. If nothing else, out of decency and respect for the dog's service, medical care should have been given a shot.

The city of Greensboro doesn't have health insurance for it's canine employees? Oh the horrors! Too bad it wasn't a work related illness, work comp insurance could have picked it up.

I would like to know the facts better. If Hugh is correct, I could see the reasoning for not using tax dollars for a dog that at best will not work again at worst will die. I do agree with phillipa that a fundraiser would have been a good idea.

One other note: there are so many important things going on today that I can't figure out why the N&R is obsessed in printing LTEs about animals. First was the myriad of animal shelter LTEs that lasted over a month, now 3 LTEs in one day about a police dog! Print a few sure, but enough with the overkill.

Before anyone goes nipping at my heels about not being an animal lover, au contraire. I spent $2500 on our dog to have emergency surgery for internal bleeding. During the surgery they noticed widespread cancer and she only lived a few months.

I've also put up with living with a cat that my wife brought into the marriage over 8 years ago. I like cats on the condition they live in someone elses house. Just don't like litter boxes, puked up hairballs, and meowing at 3 am.

Well, let me revisit this topic once more. As Dan says, he is an animal lover.

However, I personally draw the line where some folks seem to put equal importance on a police officer and a dog. I cannot put a dog's life on the same level as a humans no matter how much I might love my dog.

And then there's me....

I would much rather give police dogs "free healtcare" than illegal aliens or welfare people.

The dogs do much more for us than either group does. They work for their keep, and they are here legally.

But that's just my opinion...

Regards,
Marty

Pet insurance is available, and I think that considering how much the city depends on these animals I don't think it is any more unreasonable to atleast provide insurance coverage then it is to plant flowers in the grassy medians on city streets.

I agree that GPD should not pay medical for a terminal dog.......but they didn't pay to find out it was a terminal condition. If I kick a police dog, I get charged with assult on an officer. If they hold these dogs in such high reguard then the least they can do is diagnose the problem. Come on 1100 bucks? Sheesh thats nothing. It just goes to show that GPD cares more about money than officers. And yes they do treat K-9's as officers!

Styler,

Perhaps you are correct. Maybe they do treat k-9's as officers. Would they perform a test on an officer to find out if his problem was terminal?

In my opinion, spending $1,100 just to find out if the dog has a disease is out of the question. If it is terminal, then you put him down, right? What if he's not? How much you reckon it would cost to treat the dog? If the test itself is $1,100, I can imagine the treatment would be at least that much if not much more. It sounds like the dog is no longer in service. If the problem is terminal, then the dog will die. If not, the dog will live.

As far as $1,100 being "sheesh, that's nothing":

You might want to go ahead and volunteer to pay the cost yourself since it's nothing. And while you're out it, maybe you could slip a few of those nothings my way.