The Army dogs of World War II marked the first use of large numbers of dogs in the U.S. military forces. In the Zone of Interior, 10,368 trained dogs were issued by dog centers to the U.S. Army and the U.S. Coast Guard; 1,894 of these were transshipped to oversea commands and theaters (1). In the Central Pacific Area, two dog training centers issued and reissued 344 trained dogs. Another 200 dogs were obtained or raised in Greenland, and 500 or more trained dogs were borrowed from our Allies and used at the American airfields, bases, and depots in the European theater and the Southwest Pacific Area. These animals received professional care and supervised management from the Army Veterinary Service similar to that provided for the Army’s horses and mules-having for its objectives the protection of dog health, preservation of physical efficiency, and the safeguarding of troop health against those diseases transmissible to the human being. These objectives were accomplished by physical examinations; establishment of quarantine procedures; treatment and hospitalization of disabled dogs; practice of preventive veterinary medicine; technical supervision over animal management, including their food, shelter, and transportation; and technical training of dog-handling personnel. In-service deaths, or destructions on account of disease and injury, of trained Army dogs from the Zone of Interior were 1,267 (2).
Before World War II, the Army Veterinary Service was concerned with dogs only to the extent that individual veterinary officers at the Army camps provided professional care for troop mascots and animals privately owned by military personnel. At times, there were matters of operating a rabies control program and of supervising the quarantine of pet dogs being shipped, particularly to or from the oversea departments. In 1938 the Veterinary Division, Surgeon General’s Office, was asked to furnish medicines for the care of 44 sled dogs1 at Chilkoot Barracks, Alaska (3, 4). In mid-1941, the Army Veterinary Service made arrangements for the care and reconditioning of 40 sled dogs which had been given to the Army by the Byrd Antarctic Expedition, and later, conducted physical examinations of a few sled dogs which were being procured to augment the Byrd dog teams-these then being transshipped to Greenland (5, 6, 7). A small project of dog procurement and training was started by the Coast Artillery Corps at Fort MacArthur, Calif., in December 1940 (8).
1After January 1941, this group of dogs was transferred to Fairbanks, Alaska.
The foregoing antedates the official recognition which is generally given to Army dogs, 13 March 1942, when the Under Secretary of War granted approval to the Quartermaster Corps to accept 200 trained guard dogs that were offered by the American Theater Wing, Inc. (9, 10). The civilian project, dependent upon the volunteer efforts of dogs owners and trainers and without a potential to expand if more dogs were needed, was soon replaced by the War Dog Program (11, 12). Under this program, Dogs for Defense, Inc.-representing the interests of the Nation’s patriotic dog owners-was named as the agency to procure dogs, other than sled dogs, by donation from civilian dog owners (13, 14), and the Quartermaster Corps undertook their training. Sled dogs were to be obtained by Army purchase. During July 1942, the Secretary of War asked for an expansion of the Army War Dog Program, and, 2 months later, the War Production Board named the Army Quartermaster Corps as the sole agency to supply trained dogs to the armed services and other Federal agencies (15, 16, 17). On 1 March 1945, Dogs for Defense, Inc., ceased its dog procurements for the Army; thenceforth the Quartermaster Corps purchased or received gift donations of all dogs direct from the civilian owners. Until this time, Dogs for Defense, Inc., had accepted the voluntary donation of approximately 40,000 dogs. After preliminary examination at dog assembly and shipping centers, 18,000 of these dogs were sent at Government expense to the Army dog reception and training centers. The Army procurement numbered 1,380 dogs as of late August 1945.
The veterinary service for these dogs after they had been accepted by the Army, was continuous. It began with the physical examinations that were conducted on the sled dogs and at procurement points on all other Army-procured dogs after 1 March 1945. However, the 18,000 recruit dogs received from Dogs for Defense, Inc., were not examined by the Army Veterinary Service until after their arrival at the Army dog centers. The latter group of dogs may have been examined by civilian veterinarians on a volunteer basis at the Dogs for Defense, Inc., assembly areas and shipping points (18, 19, 20). An estimated 1,500 recruit dogs died, or were destroyed with the owner’s consent, for physical disability,2 or on account of disease or injury before being actually entered into the Army dog centers (2). One recruit dog developed rabies within a few days after its arrival at the Fort Robinson, Nebr., dog training center (21), and an investigative survey of dogs for leptospirosis at the Front Royal, Va., center showed that leptospirosis was far more widespread in the United States than was suspected (22). Unfortunately, both the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Kennel Club
2A total of 2,500 recruit dogs were destroyed on account of temperament. An unknown number of recruit dogs, rejected for temperament or physical disability, were returned on request of the civilian dog owners.
could accomplish little to prevent this flow of disabled and diseased recruit dogs into the Army dog centers.
In the Zone of Interior, six Army dog centers (table 57)-originally designated war dog reception and training centers-were established (21, 23 through 28). Their mission was to receive, train, and issue dogs and to instruct dog-handling personnel. The Camp Rimini center was designed particularly for processing only sled and pack dogs,3 and the installation at Beltsville was established within the Agricultural Research Center for purposes of conducting research on dog nutrition and developing an Army dog ration. These dog centers, with the exception of the Cat Island installation (24) which was originally an activity of the Army Ground Forces (September 1942 to April 1943),4 were operated by the Quartermaster Remount Service in a manner comparable to the operation of remount depots (for horses and mules). Each dog center organization included a veterinary detachment which operated a dog dispensary or hospital. Drawings for the construction of these dispensaries were prepared during November 1942 by
TABLE 57.- Location of Army dog centers, Zone of Interior, 1942-45
|Location||Opening date||Closing date|
|Front Royal, Va.||4 Aug. 1942||17 Nov. 1944|
|Fort Robinson, Nebr.||3 Oct. 1942||December 1945|
|Cat Island, Gulfport, Miss.||September 1942||15 July 1944|
|Camp Rimini (Helena), Mont.||11 Dec. 1942||20 June 1944|
|San Carlos, Calif.||28 Dec. 1942||31 Oct. 1944|
|Beltsville, Md.||January 1943||August 1944|
the Office of the Chief of Engineers (29). The veterinary hospitals, on recommendations made by the Veterinary Division, Surgeon General’s Office, were constructed outside of the dog training areas and, wherever possible, near existent veterinary (horse and mule) hospitals (fig. 67) in order to effect economies of certain services and supplies (30, 31). The veterinary hospital requirements were described as comprising an office, storage room, an examining-operating room, and a number of hospital kennels equal to 6 percent of the center’s dog population. The capacity of the veterinary facilities newly constructed in the six dog centers in the Zone of Interior approximated 400.
3A few Army-owned pack or sled dog teams were trained for the Army at a civilian dog kennel. The Army Veterinary Service experienced difficulties in establishing a program of preventive veterinary medicine for these dogs until after an enzootic of canine distemper had caused the loss of many dogs. 4The Army Ground Forces project on training dogs was conducted by a civilian-employee trainer whose methods proved to be undesirable, including a disregard for the veterinary and humane treatment of the animals during their training. The project was located in an area where filariasis was indigenous, and, on its discontinuance, the center’s dogs were refused admission into at least one other dog center.
FIGURE 67.-Interior of the Front Royal, Va., dog center hospital, showing the aisleway into the surgical ward.
During the first 2 years, dogs received in the Army dog centers were representative of a great number of breeds. At one time 18 dog breeds were listed by Dogs for Defense, Inc., as being acceptable for donation to the Army. Later, only 7 breeds of dogs were accepted: German shepherd, Belgian sheep dog, Doberman pinscher, farm collie, Siberian Husky, Malemute, Eskimo, and crosses of these breeds. Regardless of their breeding, the dogs were examined individually by Veterinary Corps officers as to physical condition, age, height (as measured at the shoulder), sex, and color. The dog most desired was one between 14 months and 2 years of age, 20 to 26 inches tall, weighing 40 to 80 pounds, and possessing a neutral-colored haircoat (that is, no solid white or black color). A male dog was preferred, although a spayed bitch (unsexed female dog) was acceptable. At the beginning, female dogs were recruited, but after the fall of 1943 many of these were spayed5 pursuant to a policy agreeable to Dogs for Defense, Inc. (32). Other features of this veterinary examination included observations for general conformation, freedom from unsoundness and clinical signs of disease, and classification as to suitability for a particular kind of military work such as
5The female dog during periods of oestrus unaccountably caused the disruption and lengthening of the dog’s training. Manifestly superior breeding bitches, including sled types of dogs, were not spayed. Dog owners were to be advised of this action by Dogs for Defense, Inc.
attack (or police), cart, messenger, pack, sentry, scout, sled, or trail. Specialty dogs were those trained in mine detection and chemical warfare agent detection, and the so-called casualty dog.6
Veterinary physical examination procedures relating to health status of the recruit dogs were enunciated first in the letter, dated 4 March 1943, from the Veterinary Division, Surgeon General’s Office, to Veterinary Corps officers at the Army dog centers in the Zone of Interior. This directed that examinations be made for the following diseases: Leptospirosis, filariasis, demodectic mange, sarcoptic mange, and general parasitism. Dogs shown to be infected with leptospirosis were to be destroyed, and those having filariasis, mange, or any physical defect which could impair their usefulness were to be disposed of in a manner deemed to be in the best interests of the Army and the civilian dog owner. However, where the recruit dogs had the normal intestinal parasitic infestations or showed clinical symptoms of an acute infectious or contagious disease (such as canine distemper), they were to be treated and held until recovery.
Following the physical examination, the acceptable recruit dogs were placed under a 21-day quarantine. During this time, the dog center veterinarian initiated a dog record card, identified the dog with a tattoo on the dog’s left ear or flank, in accordance with the Preston brand system used in horses and mules, administered anthelmintics for the treatment of intestinal parasitism, and dipped the animals to control external parasites. Prophylactic inoculations were administered against canine distemper, if the dog was less than 2 years of age, and against rabies.
ARMY DOG CARE AND MANAGEMENT
Following their reception, processing, and training, the dogs were issued by the Army dog centers. During the advanced stages of the training, the potential dog-handling personnel were ordered into the centers to become acquainted with the dogs and to receive on-the-job instructions in dog care and management. The dog issues were made individually to camps, depots, ports, and airbases, or by groups, such as to casual detachments and platoons. These issues from the Army dog training centers in the Zone of Interior totaled 10,368 dogs-of which number, 7,665 went to the Army and 3,174 were issued to the Coast Guard. It was axiomatic that only healthy dogs in good condition be issued. Following issue, the pertinent commander became responsible for the use, care and management, and veterinary service for the trained dogs. This veterinary service normally was provided on call by the nearest assigned and most readily available Veterinary Corps officer, although the larger dog
6The mine detection dog, developed by the Quartermaster Corps, did not prove to be very satisfactory. The gas detection dog was studied by the Army Veterinary Service. The casualty dog was one trained in the locating of casualties. In field service tests, such dogs failed to differentiate casualties from the unwounded personnel. The casualty dog was rejected by the Army Ground Forces.
detachments and platoons had their own organically assigned veterinary personnel.
Whether in the Army dog centers or in the field, in the Zone of Interior or overseas, the problems of managing, feeding, sheltering, and transporting dogs were common to all concerned throughout the Army. Methods of assuring a proper approach to these included the dissemination of technical information, the operation of programs of training, and the inspection and reporting on Army dogs on duty with troops. The beginning of the war found a single technical publication relating to dogs-the Army field manual on the care of transport dogs in Arctic areas (33, 34). For the purpose of advancing good zootechnics in the developing Army dog program in the Hawaiian Department (Central Pacific Area), a veterinary officer and a civilian dog trainer prepared a training memorandum in booklet form on dog handling, feeding, and care; it was given Army-wide distribution in a circular letter by the Office of the Quartermaster General during November 1942 (35, 36). In the following year, the Veterinary Division, Surgeon General’s Office, provided professional assistance in the revision of the technical manual relating to pack and sled transport dogs and in the development of another relating to the care and management of Army dogs in general (37, 38, 39).
These publications were used in programs of training for all dog-handling personnel when ordered into the dog centers to receive dogs. In the Zone of Interior this training was received by 2,100 Army personnel and 2,700 Coast Guard personnel. Closely related to this training was the integration of certain veterinary subjects in the mobilization training programs which were developed for the qualification of officer and enlisted specialists as dog trainers for the Army (40); 15 percent of their technical training period included instructions in first aid, preventive veterinary medicine, foods and feeding, kennel sanitation, transportation of dogs, and use of the dog gas mask.
Another control feature over Army dogs was the veterinary inspection and reports on their efficiency and health. Its usefulness in the command evaluation of Army dog deployment was recognized in the Central Pacific Area where a specially devised report was used and in the European theater where the inspections were recorded in monthly recurring sanitary reports (41, 42). Unfortunately, the control was not practiced Army-wide because the Control Division, Army Service Forces, rejected the recommendations made by the Surgeon General’s Office for initiating a veterinary reporting system on Army dogs such as was being maintained for the Army’s horses and mules (43). During May 1944, the existent Veterinary Report of Sick and Wounded Animals7 was revised to include an entry of the dog mean strength, but this new report form did not become available in most areas until late in the war or after V-J Day.
7Also referred to as WD AGO Form 8-129, Control Approval Symbol MCV-22, which superseded the former WD MD Form 102.
The food for Army dogs was of good quality, nutritious, and clean. The same quality and sanitary control over the dogfood supply was maintained by the Army Veterinary Service as was applied to the feed and forage supply for Army horses and mules. Sometimes this dogfood originated with the food supply for troops. For example, canned evaporated milk, canned salmon, and canned meat components of Type C rations were fed to Army dogs,8 and in the Central Pacific Area, a daily issue of 2 pounds of fresh frozen ground beef was authorized for each dog (44). Actually, the dogfood supply throughout the Army was quite variable and presented a number of nutritional and sanitary problems. The feeding of raw rabbit meat, for example, caused a serious outbreak of taeniasis (or tapeworm) among dogs in the Northwest Service Command (45). In the United Kingdom (in the European theater), the Army Veterinary Service required that all meats be cooked, after finding that some of the supply included meats rejected for human use on account of tuberculosis (46).
In the Zone of Interior, during November 1942, the Quartermaster Corps authorized the procurement of commercial dogfood and meat-the latter to supplement the diet (47). The commercial dogfoods then available and specifically marketed for sale to the owners of household pet dogs and cats could not, without supplementation, maintain an Army dog in good working condition (48). The dogfood manufacturers later experienced difficulties in maintaining high-quality products under the conditions of wartime shortages and priority allocations of raw material. This was taken into account during March 1944 when the War Department amended the Army’s dogfood supply and authorized meat as the principal component of the dog ration. All kinds of meats and meat by-products were suggested, but special reference was made to horsemeat. Horses and mules found unserviceable and condemned by the Army were mallein tested for glanders (49) and slaughtered under veterinary supervision at a number of Army camps, dog centers, and commercial establishments. Particular attention was paid to interstate movements of the horsemeat, pursuant to Federal laws and regulations, as well as to its special labeling (“Horse Meat for War Dogs Only”) and handling separate from the troop food supply. At the Seattle, Wash., depot, the Army Veterinary Service developed a canned dogfood by combining ground horsemeat and herring; this was supplied to the Alaskan Department (50).
Notwithstanding the great variety of dogfoods used during the war, it must be understood that the Veterinary Division, Surgeon General’s Office, undertook the study of dogfood in July 1942 or soon after the official start of the Army dog program. In November 1942, the Office of the Quartermaster General expressed requirements for a complete Army dog ration (51). Tech
8The meat components of the Type C ration were meat and vegetable hash, meat and vegetable stew, and meat and beans. These were trial-fed to dogs at three centers in the Zone of Interior pursuant to the request of the Office of the Quartermaster General, dated 25 Day 1944. The Army dog center veterinary officers, reporting on the trial feeding, found that Type C ration meat components were satisfactory supplements.
nical assistance was sought from the civilian Joint Committee on Feeds, American Veterinary Medical Association and American Animal Hospital Association (52, 53), and from members of the dogfood industry. In cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, studies made on the nutritional requirements of dogs led to the development of at least five dog food formulas.9 Many of these were trial-fed in tests conducted by the dog centers at Beltsville, Fort Robinson, and Front Royal (51, 54). Considerable difficulty was experienced with the procurement of ration components that were inexpensive and available under the conditions of wartime supply and in obtaining a suitable binder (55, 56, 57, 58). The trial feeding was stopped in mid-1944 after the test rations were shown to have poor palatability and to cause diarrheal conditions and weight losses among Army dogs when working (59, 60, 61, 62).
Studies on the defensive measures and protective equipment against chemical warfare were initiated (63). Beginning in August 1942, research by veterinary personnel of the Medical Section, Office of the Chief of Chemical Warfare Service, Edgewood Arsenal, Md., was conducted on the anatomical and physiological features that increased the dog’s susceptibility to chemical agents. This led to the engineering of a dog gas mask which, after service testing at the San Carlos dog center, was standardized and procured for issue to Army dogs in the oversea theaters (64). During 1944, these research studies led to the approval by the Surgeon General’s Office of the issue of BAL (British anti-lewisite) eye ointment to dog handlers in the oversea theaters (65)
The housing problem for Army dogs, much like the feeding problem, was met in a variety of ways throughout the Army. The Front Royal dog center maintained a large number of dogs in individual kennels constructed about a wooden barrel and a front porchlike addition. At Fort Robinson, a doublecompartment kennel was devised for protection against the cold and included a roof on hinges which could be turned back for ease of cleaning. Individual kennels were favored over buildings which could house several dogs. Later, the Veterinary Division, Surgeon General’s Office, cooperated with the Office of the Chief of Engineers in the development of plans for a single dog kennel and a kennel building10 with capacities up to 80 dogs (figs. 68 and 69) (66, 67, 68). However, the development did not prevent the heterogeneous array of dog kennel construction that appeared in the Zone of Interior and in over
9Tentative U.S. Army specifications for dogfood ration (dry), were dated 14 October 1942, 9 November 1942, 3 December 1942, 22 February 1943, and 19 November 1943. The latter comprised the following ingredients, in pounds: Yellow corn meal, 8; wheat gray shorts, 10; wheat red dog flour, 16; second clear red wheat, 20; meat meal, 15; animal liver and glandular meal, 6; dried skim milk, 4; soybean oil meal, 5; peanut oil meal, 5; hydrogenated shortening, 3; alfalfa leaf meal, 2; bone meal, 3; dried brewer’s yeast, 1.37; iodized salt, 1; fish oil, 0.63; and water. The composition of the final product was not under 28 percent protein, 7 percent fat, and 40 percent nitrogen-free extract, and not over 3 percent fiber and 8 percent moisture. 10The plans for the kennel buildings could be used also in constructing a veterinary dog hospital at Army dog centers and camps, the former being attached to the type of veterinary dispensary as previously described.
FIGURE 68.-A multiple-kennel unit at the Front Royal, Va., dog center.
FIGURE 69-Cleaning and disinfection of Army dog kennels, Front Royal, Va., dog center.
sea theaters. In the Panama Canal Zone, a so-called tropical kennel-screenenclosed and elevated above the ground-was developed. A collapsible-type wooden kennel was developed in the Central Pacific Area. The War Dog Detachment, China-Burma-India theater, sheltered its dogs from the tropical heat by hanging canvas over the kennels which were placed in an elevated position over freshly dug holes in the ground.
In the matter of transportation of dogs, the Army Veterinary Service assured the movement of only those which were in good physical condition and free of infectious or contagious diseases, and provided veterinary health certificates to cover the shipments. Within the Zone of Interior, no law or civilian regulatory agency existed that could prevent the interstate, export, or import shipment of Army dogs-in fact, almost any dog-on account of health reasons. The Army Veterinary Service alone took steps against the dissemination or introduction in the United States by Army dogs of such diseases as filariasis and leptospirosis. Actually, few Army dogs were returned to the Zone of Interior from the oversea theaters. Other than quarantine requirements which affected the deployment and disposition of Army dogs, transportation presented no real problem, whether by truck, railroad, airplane, or ship. Veterinary reports on seven truck shipments in the Zone of Interior during 1945 showed no losses on account of disease and injury among the 71 dogs involved. Railroad shipments were equally successful\-no losses being reported among 1,043 dogs in 130 shipments during the war period. Likewise, no real problem was experienced in connection with their movement by airplane.11 As a matter of fact, the sled dog teams with the Air Forces Arctic search and rescue emits were trained for routine movement by airplane. During the Burma campaigns, disabled dogs of the China-Burma-India War Dog Detachment were evacuated by airplane (69).
Records on 10 overwater movements by ship involving 341 animals indicated that only four dogs were lost. The Army Veterinary Service at the ports of embarkation routinely examined the dogs prior to their loading and assisted in the supervision of those preparations of ships that had a bearing on animal health and management (70 through 77). Ordinarily, the kennel crates which were used in bringing the dogs to the ports were installed on the ship’s deck (fig. 70). A certain amount of gastroenteric disorders and dermatitides was reported in the dogs while en route, but these were caused by the dogs licking or being in contact with salt water which was used in flushing the kennel area on the ship (78, 79, 80). In the voyages through tropical waters, it became necessary to clip the heavier-coated dogs and to keep the dogs off the hot sun-heated steel decks.
The Army Veterinary Service also cared for dogs outside of Army control, including those issued from the dog centers for use in the protection of civilian establishments which were engaged in manufacture of critical supplies
11So far as is known, no studies were made on the dropping of dogs from airplanes by parachute as were conducted in the British Army.
FIGURE 70.-Special shipping crates for dogs, stowed aboard ships loading out of the Los Angeles, Calif., port. The processing of dogs for oversea deployment in World War II was under the supervision of the port veterinary service, using the same principles of preventive veterinary medicine that have been developed over a quarter of a century for the shipment of horses and mules.
or were vital to civilian economy. However, in the Zone of Interior, in instances where Veterinary Corps officers were not readily available, service command commanders were authorized to obtain the services of local civilian veterinarians to treat Army dogs at civilian establishments (81). A large number of the Army-trained dogs that were issued to the Coast Guard came under the professional supervision of Veterinary Corps officers-these being attached to Coast Guard districts under the original provisions of a wartime agreement, between the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy in September 1942, relating to the mounting of beach patrols (82 through 86).
The Coast Guard dogs used in the Central Pacific Area12 were given professional services on request (44). There too, U.S. Marine Corps “devil dog” platoons, arriving during September 1944, were cared for by the district veterinary officers on the islands of Maui and Hawaii. Special veterinary quarantine and professional services were rendered in the Hawaiian Islands for seeing-eye dogs13 belonging to discharged veterans (44, 87, 88, 89).
The diseases and injuries reported in Army dogs were of the variety which are observed in household dogs. The diseases and injuries commonly observed in trained Army dogs included digestive upsets, respiratory disorders, and bite wounds; also filariasis which was cause for the return of many from the Army camps to the dog centers for disposition. In the Zone of Interior, actual losses of the dogs at Army camps were negligible (90, 91, 92, 93). For example, in the First Service Command with 563 dogs during 1943, only 9 dogs died or were destroyed on account of disease and injury.
However, the losses and the morbidity rates were greater at the Army dog centers where recruit dogs were assembled, conditioned, and trained, as seen in the following tabulation of dog morbidity and mortality at the Front Royal dog center:
|Average mean strength||786|
|Average days per admission||18|
|Died or destroyed||1308|
|Number admitted per 1,000 average strength per year:|
|Number per 1,000 average animal strength per year died or destroyed||427.5|
1The specific causes of the loss of 308 dogs included the following diseases and injuries: Filariasis, 223; leptospirosis, 19; and sarcoptic mange, 7.
The dog morbidity and mortality at the Front Royal dog center may be compared with those reported at Fort Robinson where, with an average mean strength of 1,340 dogs in the period from January 1943 through December 1945, the losses on account of disease and injury approximated 783.4 per 1,000
12Between October 1944 and June 1945, more than 50 Coast Guard dogs were entered into quarantine under the supervision of the Army Veterinary Service at Fort Armstrong, Oahu, pursuant to the animal quarantine laws and regulations of the Territory of Hawaii. 13The veterans’ seeing-eye dogs were obtained from civilian sources through the facilities of the Veterans’ Administration. One such dog, on arrival from the Zone of Interior, was found to have filariasis.
average dog strength per year (21). This loss included the death or destruction of 536 dogs with canine distemper or its complications. Based on reports of 1,826 cases of canine distemper for 1942 through 1945, the case fatality rate for this disease approximated 31 percent. At the San Carlos dog center, admissions for veterinary hospital treatment in the period from January through August 1943 totaled 1,183 of which number 87 animals died or were destroyed; an estimated 4.5 percent of that dog center’s animal strength was in the veterinary hospital at all times (94). These 1,183 hospital cases included 211 for enteritis, gastritis, and gastroenteritis, 198 for coryza (colds) and pneumonia, 113 for canine distemper, and 31 for eczema. At all dog centers, the control of external parasites (fleas, sand gnats, and ticks) and the treatment for internal parasitism were continuing problems. Bites of venomous snakes at the Cat Island center and burns in 92 dogs at the San Carlos dog center, which was partially destroyed by windstorm and fire (in December 1943), were the more unusual cases of dog wounds.
Aside from the routine professional veterinary services, programs of disease research and development on disease control were undertaken. The Front Royal dog center and the Army Veterinary Research Laboratory, with the assistance of the Army Institute of Pathology, collaborated in studies on leptospirosis and filariasis. Detailed necropsy protocols were made on 340 dogs during the period from 1 December 1942 through 20 October 1944, with results as follows (95, 96):
|Infectious and parasitic diseases:|
|Diseases of the nervous system and organs of special sense:|
|Encephalitis and encephalomyelitis||23|
|Diseases of the circulatory system:|
|Diseases of the respiratory system:|
|Diseases of the digestive system:|
|Dilation of stomach||1|
|Torsion of small intestine||1|
|Diseases of the urinary system:|
|Diseases of the skin and cellular tissues:|
|Injuries (violent and accidental causes):|
Diagnostic tests on filariasis were studied at the San Carlos dog center in cooperation with the Ninth Service Command Medical Laboratory-some of these eventually finding their way into the research on human filariasis in the Southwest Pacific Area.
Army dogs were deployed in most of the oversea theaters during World War II. These included the 1,894 animals in casual detachments, replacement shipments, a mine detection company, and 15 dog platoons that were sent from the Zone of Interior. One of the earlier dog detachments shipped overseas was the eight-dog organization that was used in the Southwest Pacific Area to test the dog in jungle warfare. Larger detachments-each with attached veterinary personnel-were shipped to New Caledonia (in the South Pacific Area) and the China-Burma-India theater, and an Engineer Corps company of mine detection dogs was sent to the Mediterranean theater (fig. 71). Other dogs were sent to the Alaskan Department, the Caribbean Defense Command (including the original Panama Canal and Puerto Rican Departments), the Northwest Service Command (in western Canada), and the oversea base commands in Greenland and Newfoundland. Hundreds of others were trained locally in the Central Pacific Area and were procured from Allied sources in the European theater and the Southwest Pacific Area. Local procurement was occasioned by the imposition of restrictive or prohibitive quarantines against dog importations into the Territory of Hawaii, the United Kingdom, and Australia.
FIGURE 71.-A guard dog party of the War Dog Detachment, China-Burma-India theater, detrucking in the Myitkyina, Burma, area in July 1944.
The early reports of the apparent successes with dogs in certain kinds of military work gave origin, in the spring of 1944, to a unit suitable for assignment and deployment with the ground forces. This was the Quartermaster War Dog Platoon (including 24 messenger and scout dogs as well as 1 mine detection dog); later, in that year, it was redesignated14 as the Infantry Scout Dog Platoon (including 27 animals) (97, 98, 99). The platoon included the space authorization for one veterinary enlisted man in the grade of sergeant, who was trained and equipped to provide first aid care and treatment to the platoon dogs. Additional professional assistance was to be sought by the enlisted technician from the nearest available veterinary officer in the theater of operations. A total of 21 such dog platoons were activated in the Zone of Interior; of these, 15 were deployed overseas, as follows: 7 to the Southwest Pacific Area, including 2 platoons which were transferred from the Central Pacific Area and another platoon which arrived first in the South Pacific Area; 1 to the Central Pacific Area; 6 to the Mediterranean theater; and 1 to the European theater. Platoons which were not deployed overseas were six in number, the 46th through the 51st Infantry Scout Dog Platoons.
14The mine detection dog was removed from the platoon, the number of messenger dogs was decreased from 12 to 6, and the number of scout dogs was increased from 12 to 18.
Another type of unit having dogs was the Army Air Forces Arctic Search and Rescue Squadron (100, 101). The squadron Flights B, C, and D, each with veterinary enlisted personnel, were each authorized 36 dogs to mount 4 dog sled teams. Dog sled rescue teams were used by the Alaskan and the North Atlantic Divisions of the Air Transport Command (102).
Wherever deployed, the dog detachments and platoons-many with attached veterinary personnel-were provided all assistance possible by the Army Veterinary Service in the theaters and oversea commands. This included aid in the procurement of dogfood, veterinary supplies, professional treatment, and obtaining command attention to matters relating to zootechnics and animal health. The outstanding problem was quarantine. The latter probably ranked second only to the more important and basic factor of military usefulness or tactical efficiency in determining whether or not dogs would be deployed. Animal quarantine gained its importance with respect to its influence on the shipment of U.S. Army dogs from the Zone of Interior. None were sent to the United Kingdom, and all were prohibited entry into Australia; in the Territory of Hawaii, initial requirements were satisfied with the output from a locally developed Army dog procurement and training program.
In England, the military needs for dogs were met by the loan of trained sentry dogs from the British Ministry of Aircraft Production (46, 103, 104). These dogs were received by the U.S. Guard Dog Training School, Gloucestershire, England, established in late 1943, where a program of instruction in dog handling was conducted for American soldiers. For a short period of time, veterinary officers were assigned to the school to register the dogs (or tattoo them for purposes of identification) and to vaccinate the dogs against rabies (105). The dogs, issued in teams of eight, became the responsibility of the commands to which assigned, and the Army Veterinary Service was assigned the responsibility to provide first aid or emergency treatment for those becoming disabled and to supervise the care, management, and feeding of the dogs within such commands. Unfortunately, the theater’s veterinary service was handicapped because the Quartermaster Corps could not advise on the location and the expected deployment of the dogs and the Chief Surgeon’s Office withheld early approval on requisitioning the necessary veterinary supplies (106, 107). The former situation was overcome somewhat during October 1943 when monthly sanitary reports were required from commands having British-trained dogs (42). The other problem was lessened when the shipping of supplies from the Zone of Interior became less critical and veterinary animal service equipment and medicines were stockpiled. In the interim, authorization was granted for calling upon the British civilian veterinarians to treat the disabled dogs and for the return to the British of seriously disabled dogs. By the end of 1943, an estimated 22 teams of these dogs were on duty with the U.S. forces.
A large number of the British-trained guard dogs accompanied the U.S. forces in the campaigns on continental Europe. Before their departure from the United Kingdom, the dogs were immunized against rabies and again at yearly intervals (108). During 1944, the Army Air Forces had an estimated 250 dogs (109), and another 50 were used by the First U.S. Army. Locating the dogs was a major veterinary problem. Records of those becoming sick or injured seemed to have not been kept. In December 1944, on request, disabled dogs requiring extensive care or treatment were evacuated to a British veterinary hospital located in the vicinity of Rouen, France.
It was not until some time after the cross-Channel invasion of the European Continent that Army dogs of U.S. origin were brought into the European theater. Coming directly into France, these dogs could be deployed at once without holding them in quarantine, as would have been imposed if the dogs were landed in the United Kingdom for staging and subsequent use on the Continent. As of 1 August 1944, a dog unit-the 42d Quartermaster War Dog Platoon (Mine Detection)-was being used by the First U.S. Army, which also had British-trained guard dogs (110). During the early months of 1945, 23 dog sled teams were flown into an airfield at Thionville, France, from the Dog Rescue Unit, North Atlantic Division, Air Transport Command. These were to be used to assist in the medical evacuations from the frontline areas which were covered with snow at the time; however, the snow soon disappeared, and the teams were little used. These teams were assigned to the First and Third U.S. Armies.
Southwest Pacific Area
Australia, (in the Southwest Pacific Area) refused the entry of animals from the Zone of Interior (111). An eight-dog detachment sent there in early 1943 was redeployed to New Guinea and then to Goodenough and New Britain Islands. Pending their preparations for return to the United States, sometime after February 1944, three dogs were destroyed for reason of having been used in an area where scrub typhus was prevalent among troops, and no factual information was available on the transmission of this disease by dogs harboring the insect vector (mite).15 Subsequently, seven war dog platoons came into the Southwest Pacific Area and were used in the campaigns in New Guinea, Northern Solomons, Philippines, and Ryukyus Islands. The demands in Australia were met in part with a local dog program, evolving about the Quartermaster Dog Kennels, which was established in mid-1943. As of the fall of 1943, the Veterinarian, Base Section 3, Brisbane, was providing professional care for 35 dogs assigned to a quartermaster unit (112).
The dog platoons coming into the Southwest Pacific Area included the 25th Quartermaster War Dog Platoon on Bougainville and the 26th Quar
15The cause of loss of the other five dogs previously included: two destroyed for gun-shyness, one ran off, and two died (cause unknown).
termaster War Dog Platoon on Morotai; subsequently, both were entered into the Philippine campaigns. The 39th and 43d Quartermaster War Dog Platoons arrived later, as did the 40th and the 41st Quartermaster War Dog Platoons which came into Leyte from the Central Pacific Area during late 1944. Gastrointestinal disorders without apparent cause or due to changeover to type C rations, ancylostomiasis, and eczema were experienced as the more common diseases of the dogs in the tropical Pacific islands (113). Revaccination against rabies became necessary after the dogs arrived in the Philippine Islands. The 40th, 41st, and 45th War Dog Platoons-the latter having had a stopover on Espíritu Santo (in the South Pacific Area)-were deployed with the Tenth U.S. Army after the landings on Okinawa (1 April 1915) (114)
Central Pacific Area
The Territory of Hawaii, unlike Australia, permitted the entry of Army dogs from the Zone of Interior but imposed a 120-day quarantine period under the provisions of local laws and regulations which had been in effect for many years (44). Thus, during September 1944, two dog platoons (the 40th and 41st Quartermaster War Dog Platoons) came into the Territorial Animal Quarantine Station, Honolulu, but before long the platoons were transshipped to Leyte (in the Southwest Pacific Area). Of course, any holding of dogs inactive during quarantine was detrimental to the unit’s efficiency. Thus, in the spring of 1945 when a third unit-the 44th Infantry Scout Dog Platoon-arrived, the Governor of Hawaii relinquished civilian responsibility to the Army to maintain a “working quarantine” over these trained Army dogs (115). However, the responsibility of maintaining the quarantine outweighed other factors, and the platoon was soon transshipped to Saipan (in the Marianas group) for continued training. Actually, the original requirements for Army dogs in the Central Pacific Area were met entirely by a local program of dog procurement and training which was comparable to that established in the Zone of Interior.
The Army dog program in the Central Pacific Area (the successor command to the Hawaiian Department) was separate from that undertaken in the Zone of Interior and originated on 24 May 1942, with the approval by the Headquarters, Hawaiian Department, of a plan submitted by the department veterinarian (116, 117). On 5 August 1942, the provisional Veterinary General Hospital, Fort Armstrong, established a dog training center on the premises of the Territorial Animal Quarantine Station; a subcenter was established, with the assistance of the district or service command veterinarian, on Maui about 5 months later. In December 1942, the local dog program had become a Quartermaster Corps responsibility; a Quartermaster Corps employed dog trainer (Mr. E. Humphreys, of Seeing Eye Dogs, Inc., Morristown, N.J.) and local dog owners added much to the early development and success of the program. Trained dogs were sent initially to Guadal-
canal, and within a year more than 400 dogs were deployed at depots, outpost positions, and vital civilian centers on all of the Hawaiian Islands as well as on Baker, Canton, Christmas, Midway, and Palmyra Islands; later, a few dogs were deployed to Guam, Saipan, and Okinawa. Altogether, the Army Veterinary Service conducted physical examinations on 3,259 dogs recruited from the civil population, of which number 815 were accepted for training and 344 completed their training.16 The major causes for rejecting recruit dogs on preliminary physical examinations at assembly areas or procurement points included otitis media, mange, ringworm, current disability, dental irregularities, and abnormalities of conformation. Filariasis was diagnosed in 12 percent of the original 310 recruit dogs which were examined, but the disease did not constitute a cause for rejection except where the dog manifested clinical symptoms; filariasis was an indigenous disease. Dogs accepted for training were inoculated against canine distemper but not against rabies since the disease was not existent in the Hawaiian Islands. After April 1944, by amendment to the original quarantine laws and regulations of the Territory of Hawaii, the importation of all animals, except direct from the Zone of Interior, Australia, and New Zealand, was prohibited (118), but, by special waiver, many locally trained Army dogs which had seen service on the Pacific island bases were returned to the Hawaiian Islands.
South Pacific Area
In the South Pacific Area, a 120-animal Casual Dog Detachment-complete with its own veterinary detachment-was deployed on New Caledonia. During the 6 to 8 months following their arrival on 21 March 1943, the dogs were used at airfields and depot facilities; others were sent to Guadalcanal and Espíritu Santo where they were retained for only a brief period of time (119). By November 1943, the dogs were placed in a caretaking status, and, in late 1944, the detachment was disbanded. The principal causes of animal inefficiency included heat exhaustion, ancylostomiasis (hookworm infestation), and canine filariasis (120). The last-named disease appeared in a severe form, seemed to resist treatment, and was cause for the disposition of the dogs locally rather than returning them to the Zone of Interior.
The War Dog Detachment, Chine-Burma-India theater, included a casual detachment of 100 dogs shipped from the Zone of Interior during the early months of 1944; another detachment with 25 replacement animals joined during the spring17 of the next year (80, 121). Stationed originally at
16The number of dogs volunteered by civilian owners totaled 7,359. More than 50 percent of the applications of volunteered dogs were rejected after a review showed the dog to be unsuitable in one way or another. 17The detachment departed, on 27 January 1944, from the San Francisco Port of Embarkation on the S.S. Benjamin Ide Wheeler and arrived on 6 April 1944, at Calcutta, India. En route, two dogs died.
Kanchrapara (near Calcutta), India, the detachment, however, was deployed for the greater part of the time in the Assam area (at Thanai, and later at Raidang). Groups of the dogs were deployed in the Burma campaigns with the 5307th Composite Regiment (or GALAHAD Force) and the 5332d Provisional Brigade (or MARS Force) and were used also by the Office of Strategic Services, in China. The principal activities of this unit’s veterinary detachment was the selection of kennel areas and the arrangement for veterinary animal service for the various groups of dogs that were assigned to services of supply facilities and the combat forces throughout the theater. Diseases and injuries causing the most trouble, including the common parasitic infestations (such an ancylostomiasis and taeniasis), were Lucilia macellaria infestation of wounds, filariasis, and diseases of the skin (dermatitis and eczema); gastroenteric disturbances occurred with great regularity. The most serious contagions included the tick-transmitted babesiasis (or piroplasmosis) and a case of rabies in a dog, previously inoculated with a rabies vaccine of local manufacture, that may have been bitten by wild animal. During the period of operations in the theater, 369 cases of disease and injury were treated, of which number 45 dogs died or were destroyed, as shown in the following tabulation:
|Average mean strength||76.9|
|Average days per admission||10|
|Died or destroyed||145|
|Number admitted per 1,000 average animal strength per year:|
|Number per 1,000 average animal strength per year died or destroyed||350.7|
1The specific causes of the loss of 45 dogs included the following diseases and injuries: Encephalitis, 12; piroplasmosis, 8; unreported, 4; wounds, all kinds, 3; and filariasis, 3.
The Army Veterinary Service rendered professional and technical supervisory services for Army dogs in many other oversea commands and theaters. For example, there was the 228th Engineer Mine Detection Company (Dog), complete with its own organic veterinary detachment, which was deployed in the Mediterranean theater to test the efficacy of dogs in detecting land
mines.18 Two clinical cases of rabies were reported in that company during the fall of 1944 (122). At about this time, six dog platoons came into the theater from the Zone of Interior (the 33d through the 38th Quartermaster War Dog Platoons, of which the 36th was specialized in mine detection).
A serious outbreak of taeniasis was reported among a group of 30 Army sled dogs during 1943, at Camp Prairie, Alberta, Canada (in the Northwest Service Command). This parasitism-attributed to the feeding of raw rabbit meat-was brought under control by removing rabbit meat from the dog diet and by the feeding of cooked meats (45).
In the Alaskan Department, Army dogs were maintained at a number of places, including the Aleutians. During the period from January 1943 through May 1944, the veterinary officer at Ladd Field, Alaska, aided in the care and management of 42 to 58 sled dogs, as follows:
|Average mean strength||49.9|
|Average days per admission||8|
|Died or destroyed||6|
|Number admitted per 1,000 average animal strength per year:|
|Number per 1,000 average animal strength per year died or destroyed||80.0|
The United States Forces in Newfoundland received 35 Army dogs from the Zone of Interior during 1942, and the 3d Infantry Division at Harmon Field had 4 sled dogs as of September 1943 (123, 124). There the dogs were vaccinated against canine distemper each year due to the constant presence of a highly virulent form of the disease among the civil dog population. At Sondre Strom Fjord, Greenland, another 125 military dogs were stationed, as of December 1943 (125). A program of vaccination against canine distemper was begun in Greenland during the fall of 1944 when an enzootic of that disease led to the loss of 53 dogs (126, 127). Up to that time, canine distemper, as well as rabies, was reportedly nonexistent in Greenland.
A relatively large number of Army dogs were stationed throughout the Caribbean Defense Command. The Puerto Rican Department received 24 guard dogs from the Zone of Interior during November 1942 and used them
18The company was activated and organized during November 1943 at the Cat Island dog center; it was disbanded about 1 year later.
at Fort Buchanan and on Jamaica and Antigua (128, 129). The Panama Canal Department received dogs during December 1942 (130, 131) and lost 28 dogs on account of disease and injury, as shown in the following tabulation:
|Average mean strength||59.0|
|Died or destroyed||28|
|Number admitted per 1,000 average animal strength per year:|
|Number per 1,000 average animal strength per year died or destroyed||152.5|
The return of Army dogs from the oversea theaters and the disposition from Army dog centers of those found unsuitable or to be surplus to military needs were continuing problems. Disposition, normally, was made after the dog owner, who had originally volunteered the dog, advised the Army dog center of his desire concerning the return of the dog; if the dog owner did not desire the dog, the Army took the option of issuing the dog to a military organization as a mascot, giving it to a breeders’ organization, or destroying it (132). Where the dog had been given to the Army (that is, not volunteered) or purchased, the disposition was made pursuant to that usually prescribed for Army horses and mules. The volunteered dogs were fully reconditioned, demilitarized, and examined for freeness from contagious or infectious disease. Emphasis was placed on releasing dogs in a state of well being possibly better than that observed at the time the animal was recruited. A high degree of importance was attached to precautions against the release of dogs harboring a disease that could be disseminated or introduced among the civilian dog population.
So far as the health status of the released dogs was concerned, no differentiation was made between the recruit dogs coming from Dogs for Defense, Inc., and the trained Army dogs which had seen active military service. Unfortunately, a large number of recruit dogs-many of the younger age group-found unacceptable upon arrival at the Army dog center were incubating or exposed to canine distemper; these were treated at Government expense and then sent back to the owner. On the other hand, of the 18,372 received at the Army dog centers, 1,500 recruit dogs were destroyed, with
the owner’s consent, or had died on account of their physical health, including a great number of cases with filariasis and a few of mange.19 Leptospirosis-infected dogs were destroyed, and the owners were so advised. These diseases, particularly filariasis, could not be kept out of the Army dog centers and, not being amenable to treatment, caused losses among Army dogs in active military service. They presented another problem when the Army, after December 1943, started to release volunteered dogs to civilian owners. Owners of dogs which were infected with filariasis were advised of the condition of their animals, the difficulty in a successful permanent treatment, the threat of recurrence, and the dangers of possibly spreading the disease to other dogs in the civilian community. Few dog owners desired the return of their dogs when so advised (133, 134). Later, this disposition policy for filariasis-infected dogs was changed; after January 1944, all Army dog centers in the Zone of Interior were authorized to destroy filariasis-infected dogs whenever found (135).
Under existing Federal laws and regulations almost any dog-healthy or diseased-could be legally imported; however, the Army established effective controls against the return of Army dogs from the oversea commands, except those which qualified, after physical examination by Veterinary Corps officers, as being “* * * not infected with or carriers of a disease harmful to man or animal” (136, 137). Mainly for these quoted reasons, the Army dogs used in scrub typhus areas in the Southwest Pacific Area and filariasis-infected dogs in the South Pacific Area were destroyed locally rather than returned to the Zone of Interior. In the winter of 1945-46, the Army required that war dogs be vaccinated against rabies prior to return to the Zone of Interior.
1. Memorandum, Col. W. O. Kester, VC, Veterinary Division, SGO, for Historical Division, SGO, 9 Jan. 1948, subject: War Dog Statistics.
2. Letter, Brig. Gen. R. A. Kelser, Veterinary Division, SGO, to Leo Pollock, King Features Syndicate, New York, N.Y., 31 Aug. 1945.
3. Letter, Surgeon General’s Office, to Surgeon, Chilkoot Barracks, Haines, Alaska, 16 Dec. 1938, subject: Final Report on Treatment of Dogs.
4. Letter, Surgeon, Chilkoot Barracks, Haines, Alaska, to The Surgeon General, 31 Jan. 1941, subject: Final Report on Treatment of Dogs.
5. Letter, Col. G. H. Koon, VC, Veterinarian, HQ 1st Coast Artillery, Boston, Mass., to Veterinary Division, SGO, 26 May 1941.
6. Letter, Newfoundland Base Command, HQ 1st Coast Artillery, to The Adjutant General, 9 June 1941, subject: Transfer of Dogs and Equipment to Newfoundland, with indorsements thereto.
7. Letter, Veterinarian, HQ 1st Coast Artillery, 15 Sept. 1941, subject: Examination of Sledge Dogs Prior to Purchase.
8. Reynolds, F. H. K.: K-9 Command, Fort MacArthur, Calif. In: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service in the Ninth Service Command, Zone of Interior.
19See footnote 2, p. 616. Also, an estimated 450 trained Army dogs, which had become vicious or which could not be demilitarized for return without risk to the owners, were destroyed pursuant to the owners’ requests or to the findings of an Army board of officers.
9. Letter, R. Crothers, American Theater Wing, War Services, Inc., 730 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y., to The Quartermaster General, 28 Jan. 1942.
10. Memorandum, Office of the Quartermaster General, for the Undersecretary of War, 29 Jan. 1942, subject: Acceptance-Gift of Dogs, with 1st indorsement of reply, 10 Feb. 1942.
11. MacKellar, R. S., Jr.: World War II History of the Animal Service Branch, Veterinary Division, Surgeon General’s Office.
12. Quartermaster Corps Accomplishments During World War II. Remount Service Installations Division, Office of the Quartermaster General.
13. Going, C. G.: Dogs at War. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1946.
14. Dogs for Defense, Inc.: We’re in the Army Now!
15. Memorandum, Lt. Col. F. C. Foy, Purchasing Division, HQ SOS, for The Quartermaster General, no date, subject: Training and Issuing of Dogs for War.
16. QMG Circular 1-20, 30 Nov. 1942.
17. SR 10-115, 6 Sept. 1944.
18. Special Commission on Diseases of Small Animals. Report adopted at 8th Annual Meeting, American Veterinary Medical Association, 25-26 August 1943. J. Am. Vet. M. A. 103: 344-345, November 1945.
19. Sentry Dogs for National Defense. J. Am. Vet. M. A. 100: 365, April 1942.
20. Letter, Office of the Quartermaster General, to The Surgeon General, 16 Sept. 1943, subject: Veterinary Hospital Statistics at San Carlos, Calif.
21. Sager, F. C.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Fort Robinson Quartermaster Remount Depot, Fort Robinson, Nebr. [Official record.]
22. Jones, T. C., Roby, T. O., Davis, C. L., and Maurer, F. C.: Control of Leptospirosis in War Dogs. Am. J. Vet. Research 6: 120-128, April 1945.
23. Wolfe, W. R.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Front Royal Quartermaster Depot (Remount), Va. [Official record.]
24. Williams, G. A.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Cat Island War Dog Reception and Training Center, Gulfport, Miss. [Official record.]
25. Annual Report, Army Veterinary Service, War Dog Reception and Training Center, Camp Rimini, Mont., 1943.
26. Twisselmann, N. M.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, War Dog Reception and Training Center, San Carlos, Calif. [Official record.]
27. Harris, F. M.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Western Remount Area. [Official record.]
28. Merenda, J. J.: Report, Army Veterinary Service, War Dog Reception and Training Center, Beltsville, Md., 15 Jan. 1946.
29. Drawing No. 1100-725, Construction Division, Office of the Chief of Engineers, 21 Nov. 1942.
30. Memorandum, Requirements Division, SOS, to Chief Engineer, SOS, 12 Aug. 1942, subject: Establishment of Dog Reception and Training Centers.
31. Letter, Veterinary Division, SGO, to Requirements Division, SOS, 24 Aug. 1942, subject: Establishment of Dog Reception and Training Centers.
32. Letter, Office of the Quartermaster General, to Commanding Officer, Front Royal Dog Center, 13 Nov. 1943, subject: Spaying of Unspayed Bitches.
33. FM 25-6, 4 Jan. 1941.
34. FM 25-6, 19 Aug. 1941.
35. Training Memorandum 19, HQ Hawaiian Department, subject: War Dogs: Notes on Their Handling, Feeding, and Care.
36. Circular Letter 415, Office of the Quartermaster General, 19 Nov. 1942, subject: Handling, Feeding, and Care of War Dogs.
37. Letter, The Surgeon General, to Office of the Quartermaster General, 26 Nov. 1943, subject: Dog Transportation Manual, with 1st indorsement dated 6 Dec. 1943.
38. Letter, Office of the Quartermaster General, to the Surgeon General, 1 May 1943, subject: Proposed Technical Manual on War Dogs, with 1st indorsement dated 24 May 1943.
39. TM 10-396, 2 July 1943.
40. Mobilization Training Program 10-5, 1 July 1944.
41. Letter, HQ Hawaiian Department, 28 Jan. 1943, subject: Veterinary Service for War Dogs.
42. Letter, Col. E. M. Curley, VC, Veterinarian, Chief Surgeon’s Office, ETOUSA, to veterinary officers, ETOUS A, 16 Oct. 1943, subject: Veterinary Sanitary Report on Guard Dogs and Pigeons.
43. Letter, Lt. Col. R. S. MacKellar, Jr., VC, Veterinary Division, SGO, to Control Division, ASF, 7 Apr. 1944, subject: The Veterinary Canine Report, with 1st indorsement dated 7 Apr. 1944 and 2d indorsement dated 7 Apr. 1944.
44. Kester, W. O., and Miller, E. B.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Central Pacific Area. [Official record.]
45. Bills, W. E.: Annual Report, Army Veterinary Service, Northwest Service Command, 1943.
46. Curley, E. M.: Annual Report, Veterinary Division, Chief Surgeon’s Office, ETOU SA, 1943.
47. OQMG Circular 1-20, 20 Nov. 1942, subject: Remount.
48. Letter, Lt. Col. F. W. Koester, QMC, Army Dog Center, San Carlos, Calif., to Remount Division, Office of the Quartermaster General, 16 Apr. 1943, subject: Test of Dog food.
49. QMC Miscellaneous Letter 7, HQ Eighth Service Command, Dallas, Tex., 22 Dec. 1943, subject: Mallein Test of Animals Prior to Sale or Processing for Dog Food.
50. Betzold, C. W.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Seattle, Wash., Army Service Forces Depot. [Official record.]
51. Letter, Office of the Quartermaster General, to The Surgeon General, 12 Nov. 1942, subject: Development of Complete Dog Ration, with 1st indorsement dated 17 Dec. 1942.
52. Letter, Maj. R. S. MacKellar, Jr., VC, Veterinary Division, SGO, to M. L. Morris, Joint Committee on Foods, American Veterinary Medical Association and American Animal Hospital Association, New Brunswick, N. J., 24 July 1942, and letter of reply dated 27 July 1942.
53. Letter, M. L. Morris, Joint Committee on Foods, to Brig. Gen. R. A. Kelser, Veterinary Division, SGO, 2 Oct. 1942.
54. Letter, Richmond ASF Depot, Richmond, Va., to The Quartermaster General, 5 Oct. 1943, subject: Specification for Dog Food Ration (Dry), with 1st indorsement dated 20 Nov. 1943.
55. Vitamin A Order Revised by War Production Board. J. Am. Vet. M. A. 101: 313-314, October 1942.
56. Alternative Dog Foods. The National Provisioner 107: 22, 31 Oct. 1942.
57. Letter, T. B. King, Grain Products Branch, Marketing Programs Division, Food Distribution Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, to Lt. Col. R. S. MacKellar, Jr., VC, Veterinary Division, SGO, 27 Oct. 1943.
58. Letter, P. E. Quintus, Administrator of FDO 54, Food Distribution Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, to Lt. Col. R. S. MacKellar, Jr., VC, Veterinary Division, SGO, 20 Nov. 1943.
59. Letter, Maj. C. D. Barrett, VC, Veterinarian, Fort Robinson Dog Center, Nebr., subject: Experimental Feed Test.
60. Letter, Capt. G. B. Schnelle, VC, Front Royal Dog Center, Va., 18 July 1944. subject: Field Test of Dog Rations (Dry), Type I.
61. Letter, Lt. Col. C. D. Barrett, VC, Veterinarian, Fort Robinson Dog Center, Nebr., 20 July 1944, subject: Experimental Feeding Test.
62. Letter, Capt. G. B. Schnelle, VC, Front Royal Dog Center, Va., 1 Aug. 1944, subject: Feeding of Type I Dog Feed Wet.
63. Mace, D. L., and Wagers, R. P.: Veterinary Historical Activities in Chemical Warfare Research and Training, Edgewood Arsenal, Md. [Official record.]
64. TB 3-205-6, 2 Sept. 1944.
65. Letter, Office of the Quartermaster General, to The Surgeon General, 29 Apr. 1944, subject: MRL (EA) Report No. 17, with 1st indorsement dated 15 June 1944.
66. Preliminary Drawing TO 700-6035, Construction Division, Office of the Chief of Engineers, 28 Nov. 1942.
67. Drawing TO 700-6035 and -6036, Construction Division, Office of the Chief of Engineers, 9 Dec. 1942.
68. Drawing TO 700-6037 and -6038, Construction Division, Office of the Chief of Engineers, 6 Aug. 1943.
69. Reports of Sick and Wounded Animals, CBI War Dog Detachment, December 1944 through March 1945.
70. Case, L. I.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Boston Port of Embarkation. [Official record.]
71. Richter, J. B.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Hampton Roads Port of Embarkation. [Official record.]
72. Kunnecke, R. P.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Los Angeles Port of Embarkation. [Official record.]
73. Rife, G. J.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, San Francisco Port of Embarkation. [Official record.]
74. Kingdom, E. G.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Seattle Port of Embarkation. [Official record.]
75. Tierney, W. F.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Fort Hamilton, N.Y. [Official record.]
76. Letter, 1st Lt. W. T. Oglesby, VC, to Port Veterinarian, New Orleans Port of Embarkation, no date, subject: Report on Ten Dogs Received at New Orleans PE Evening of 20 Nov. 1942.
77. Letter, 1st Lt. A. A. Moore, VC, to Port Veterinarian, New Orleans Port of Embarkation, 28 Dec. 1942, subject: Shipment of Sentry Dogs.
78. Letter, 1st Lt. P. Myers, VC, New Orleans Port of Embarkation, 25 Nov. 1942, subject: Résumé of Voyage Covering Shipment of 34 Sentry Dogs.
79. Letter, 1st Lt. J. B. Key, VC, Presidio of San Francisco, Calif., to The Surgeon General, 20 Apr. 1943, subject: Surgeon’s Report of Voyage.
80. Letter, Capt. G. G. Miller, Jr., VC, CBI Casual Dog Detachment, to Veterinarian, CBI, 21 July 1944.
81. Memorandum S30-15-42, Adjutant General’s Office, SOS, 22 Dec. 1942, subject: Feed and Veterinary Care for War Dogs.
82. Derrick, J. D.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, First Service Command, Zone of Interior. [Official record.]
83. Wight, A. C.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Eighth Service Command, Zone of Interior. [Official record.]
84. Letter, Forward Echelon, HQ Ninth Service Command, to Fort MacArthur, Calif., 6 Mar. 1943, subject: Veterinary Service for Dogs Assigned to Coast Guard Patrol Duty.
85. Letter, Veterinary Division, SGO, to Veterinarian, HQ Ninth Service Command, 12 Mar. 1943.
86. Finance and Supply Circular 125-43, U.S. Coast Guard, 15 June 1943, subject: Procurement of Veterinary Supplies for Horses and Dogs.
87. Hawaii Defense Act Rule 131, Territory of Hawaii, 23 Feb. 1945.
88. Hawaii Defense Act Rule 144, Territory of Hawaii, 7 Sept. 1945.
89. Miller, E. B.: History of the Army Veterinary Service, USAF, Middle Pacific, 1 July-31 Dec. 1945. [Official record.]
90. Derrick, J. D.: Annual Report, Army Veterinary Service, First Service Command, Zone of Interior, 1943.
91. Caldwell, G. L.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Third Service Command, Zone of Interior. [Official record.]
92. Shook, L. L.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Sixth Service Command, Zone of Interior. [Official record.]
93. Reynolds, F. H. K.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Ninth Service Command, Zone of Interior. [Official record.]
94. Memorandum, Col. F. W. Koester, QMC, San Carlos Dog Center, for Col. Daniels, Office of the Quartermaster General, 9 Sept. 1943.
95. Jones, T. C.: Annual Reports, Veterinary Research Laboratory, Front Royal, Va., 1943-45.
96. Jones, T. C.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Research Laboratory, Front Royal, Va. [Official record.]
97. T/O&E 10-397T, 1 Mar. 1944.
98. T/O&E 10-397T, 24 June 1944.
99. T/O&E 7-167, 14 Dec. 1944, as amended.
100. Advance copy, T/O 1-618, 26 May 1943.
101. T/O&E 1-618, 15 Sept. 1943.
102. Karr, J. R.: Duties of the Veterinary Officer in the Air Transport Command. Air Surgeon’s Bull. 2: 394-395, November 1945.
103. Sperry, J. R., and Huebner, R. A.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, European Theater of Operations. [Official record.]
104. Letter, PGA, Headquarters, SOS, ETOUSA, to Base Sections and the Eighth and Ninth Air Forces, 21 Dec. 1943, subject: Guard Dog Training School.
105. Letter, Col. J. H. McNinch, MC, Executive Officer, Chief Surgeon’s Office, HQ ETOU SA, to British Ministry of Aircraft Production, London, Eng., 6 July 1944.
106. Letter, Maj. J. G. Eagleman, VC, Surgeon’s Office, Eastern Base Section, SOS, ETOUSA, to Chief Surgeon, ETOUS A, 3 Jan. 1944, subject: Medical Supplies for Veterinary Officers Kits, with indorsements thereto.
107. Info Routing Slip, Veterinary Division, Office of the Chief Surgeon, HQ ETOUSA, 17 Apr. 1944, subject: Equipment for Veterinary Care of Guard Dogs, with four numbered memorandums.
108. Circular 57, HQ ETOUSA, 27 May 1944, subject: Vaccination of Dogs.
109. Blood, B. D.: History of the Army Veterinary Service with the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in Europe During 1944. [Official record.]
110. Letters, Col. R. G. Yule, VC, Surgeon’s Office, HQ First U.S. Army, 3 Feb., 10 Mar., and 6 Apr. 1945, subject: Veterinary Report on Guard Dogs, War Dogs, and Sled Dogs.
111. Smock, S. C., and Baker, J. E.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Southwest Pacific Area. [Official record.]
112. Report of Sick and Wounded Animals, Base Section 3, SWPA, September through December 1943.
113. Quarterly historical reports, Veterinary Service, HQ Sixth U.S. Army, 16 Feb. and 28 Apr. 1945.
114. R. T. Seymour, Surgeon’s Office, HQ Tenth U.S. Army, Report on the Veterinary Service, Okinawa, for the Period 1 April to 30 September 1945.
115. Hawaii Defense Act Rule 136, Territory of Hawaii, 7 May 1945.
116. Cranfield, J. G.: Veterinary History of the War Dog Program in the Central Pacific Area, 1945. [Official record.]
117. Miller, E. B.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Maui Island, Central Pacific Area. [Official record.]
118. Stainbach, I. M., Governor of Hawaii: Proclamation Pursuant to Section 211, R.L.H. 1935, 6 Apr. 1944.
119. Hodgson, E. E., and Moore, R. O., Jr.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service; SoPac Area. [Official record.]
120. Annual Report, Surgeon, Island Command; New Caledonia, 1944.
121. Mohri, R. W.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, CBI. [Official record.]
122. Reports of Sick and Wounded Animals, 228th Engineers Mine Detection Company (Dog), September through November 1944.
123. Carter, P. R.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Newfoundland Base Command. [Official record.]
124. Reports of Sick and Wounded Animals, 3d Infantry Division, September 1943.
125. Letter, Capt. G. R. Donahue, MC, 190th Station Hospital, to Base Veterinary Officer, APO 858, 31 Dec. 1943, subject: Veterinary Report.
126. Letter, HQ Greenland Base Command, to The Surgeon General, 29 Jan. 1944, subject: Prophylactic Immunization of Dogs in Greenland, with lst indorsement dated 9 Feb. 1944.
127. Letter, Capt. B. W. Larsen, VC, HQ Greenland Base Command, to Base Surgeon, 2 Jan. 1945, subject: Monthly Veterinary Sanitary Report.
128. Annual Report, Veterinary Service, Surgeon’s Office, Puerto Rican Department, 1942.
129. Annual Report, Veterinary Service, Surgeon’s Office, Antilles Department, 1945.
130. Stewart, R. B.: World War II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Panama Canal Department. [Official record.]
131. Annual Reports, Veterinarian, Surgeon’s Office, Panama Canal Department, 1943-45.
132. Letter, Office of the Quartermaster General, to Army dog centers, 20 Dec. 1943, subject: Disposition of Surplus Donated Dogs.
133. First indorsement, Lt. Col. R. S. MacKellar, Jr., VC, Veterinary Division, Surgeon General’s Office, to 1st Lt. G. A. Williams, VC, Veterinarian, Cat Island Dog Center, 15 May 1943, in reply to basic letter, 10 May 1943, subject: Disposition of Animals Known to Have Filariasis.
134. Second indorsement, Brig. Gen. R. A. Kelser, Veterinary Division, SGO, to Office of the Quartermaster General, 2 Feb. 1944, on basic letter, Capt. H. M. Rhett, Jr., QMC, Cat Island Dog Center, to Remount Branch, Office of the Quartermaster General, subject: Disposition of Dogs Infested With Microfilaria Immitis.
135. Letter, Office of the Quartermaster General, to Army dog centers, 29 Jan. 1944, subject: Disposition of Dogs Infected With Filariasis.
136. First indorsement, Maj. Gen. C. L. Corbin, Acting Quartermaster General, to Commanding General, CPBC, 8 Feb. 1945, subject: Disposition of War Dogs Overseas; basic letter not available.
137. Second indorsement, San Carlos, Calif., to 25th QM War Dog Platoon, 25 Sept. 1944; in reply to basic letter, 21 Sept. 1944, subject: Return of War Dogs Not Suitable for Tactical Use.