Page 357 - The History of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps 1962–2021

THE HISTORY OF THE ROYAL ARMY VETERINARY CORPS 1962 – 2021
CHAPTER 21
RAVC Technical Matters: The Animals’ Advocate
“The capability they (Military Working Dogs) bring to the fight cannot be replicated by man or machine. By all measures of performance their yield outperforms any asset we have in our inventory.
Our Army (and military) would be remiss if we failed to invest more in this incredibly valuable resource.” [General David H Petraeus, 2008 US Army]
In providing and delivering the use of animals in Defence, the RAVC bears an important re- sponsibility – we represent each MWA’s rights: by default, the RAVC must be the leaders and exemplars in the use of animals to preserve the agreement we have with society, the agreement that allows us the opportunity to use them in this unique role.
Animal health and welfare is at the core of all use of animals in Defence from their acquisition, training, licensing and continuing care. A Military Working Dog Team is not just a human/animal ‘pairing’, it is a relationship built on trust and to be effective, the RAVC soldier’s priority has to be their dog’s welfare. Similarly, the RAVC Veterinary capability is fundamental to enabling and sustaining MWDs and is, therefore, integrated at all force element levels.
Investing in this relationship with MWDs means maintaining and evolving the standards required, according to our Code of Practice, which is similar to the code produced for our instructors at our training establishments. It acts as a guide for all military animal users, regardless of profession in Defence.
Background:
The Training and Employment Team:
The Training and Employment Team (TET) was established in 1973 and based at the Army Dog Training School (ADTS) at the RAVC Training Centre.
It was the aim of the Team to visit all units employing Protection dogs within the UK mainland to carry out the external validation of dogs and handlers in each location, by day and night. In addition to assessing the operational efficiency of Protection dog teams, TET also advised on the correct employment of Protection dogs, Continuation Training, Canine Health
and Management, Equipment (which included kennelling), Dog Documentation and associated administrative matters.
The team tasked with making the visits – at least once every 18-months, consisted of one Veterinary Officer, one Senior Dog Trainer and one Junior Dog Trainer. Where a unit’s training standards fell below average, they received more frequent inspection and where dogs and handlers failed to maintain their standard of efficiency they received on site re-training and advice, followed by re-training courses at the ADTS. If it felt necessary, for veterinary or training reasons, dogs were replaced. It was possible for units experiencing the kind of difficulties that fell within the terms of reference of the TET, to request a special visit either through their Administrative Veterinary and Remount Officer (AVRO) or by liaising directly within the RAVC Training Centre.
The remit of the TET team also extended to making recommendations to MoD AVR regarding changes in job specifications and training objectives for Protection dog handlers. From time-to-time, they also submitted reports on trial equipment and facilities, in addition to carrying out surveys on the suitability of units for the employment of Protection dogs. It was also down to the team to submit a report to each unit they visited and to the MoD AVR and the appropriate AVRO.
A second TET was based at DASU BAOR Sennelager, covering BAOR, Berlin and Belgium. TET BAOR had the same basic aims, functions and composition of UK TET, the only differences being that visits were carried out more frequently – normally at least one visit every six-months and re-training was carried out at Sennelager. Again, much of the routine validation of the Military Working Dog teams was conducted as one would expect during the silent hours while the teams
349