CANINE RESCUE AND PROTECTION
We offer lifesaving rescue and a second chance at life to homeless, distressed and displaced canines through rescue, education and sanctuary. We are a no-kill animal rescue facility. We provide veterinary medical care, nourishing food, and housing, as well as rehabilitation and training for victimized canines as they recover and prepare for placement through adoption and therapy.
We provide educational materials and canine assist services through community enrichment projects for youth and adults that advance quality care and compassion for companion animals.
WFLF has been at the forefront of efforts in the fight against the organized inhumane exploitation of canines including shelter cruelty, breed discrimination, vivisection, their use as food and fiber, and the inadequate standards of protection for the canine population as a whole.
Shelter Creulty- Gas Chambers: Overview
WFLF is a no-kill rescue organization that additionally fights against shelter creulty including the use of gas chambers to kill animals. Animals in a gas chamber do not die quickly or painlessly. They struggle for breath. They claw to get out. When animals inhale carbon monoxide, they can suffer convulsions, vomiting, angina, and muscular spasms. Some will not die the first time.
Shelter workers are at risk from carbon monoxide poisoning when they unload the gas chamber, breathing in low levels of the gas on a regular basis. This can lead to many health problems, and even death. Carbon monoxide is also extremely flammable, odorless, colorless, and difficult to detect.
U.S. Rep. Jim Moran has introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives that calls on states to ban the use of CO gas chambers. For more on that and how you can help pass it…..
Ohio state law does not even regulate the use of this dangerous gas in shelters. Many states have banned its use, most recently Alabama, Pennsylvania, and Texas, and relatively few shelters in the U.S. still use this archaic, cruel method of killing animals.
The Association of Shelter Veterinarians has issued a statement that “the use of carbon monoxide for individual or mass companion animal euthanasia in shelters is unacceptable due to significant humane, operational and safety concerns…[C]arbon monoxide euthanasia should be banned in shelters.”
The ASV report elaborates, “[A]n acceptable method of euthanasia must be quick and painless, and should not cause distress. Any gas that is inhaled must reach a certain concentration in the lungs before it can be effective (AVMA 2007). The high gas flow rates necessary to achieve the recommended concentration of 6% can result in noise levels that frighten animals. Placing multiple animals in the chamber may frighten and distress the animals and dilute the effective concentration of carbon monoxide that each animal receives, creating a haphazard euthanasia experience that can be prolonged, painful and ineffective.
Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) Overview
BSL is a ramped trend in legislation that currently threatens pet owner’s rights and the core of their human/ pet bond as a family unit.
BSL is based on a belief the dog’s behavior is dictated by breed, even appearance, and not owner’s treatment of the dog. Breed bans usually require all dogs of a certain appearance be removed; destroyed.
In a well known study researchers in the UK examined the frequency and severity of dog-bite injuries at a hospital accident and emergency department. The UK's Dangerous Dog Act bans four breeds of dogs, the pit bull, Japanese tosa, dogo Argentino and fila Brasileiro. Researchers found that the percentage of bites involving "dangerous" dogs increased from 6% to11% following passage of the Dangerous Dogs Act. The study also determined that the Act did not result in any decline in dog bite incidents with 73.9% before and 73.1% after enactment of the law. In fact, the UK Dangerous Dogs Act was declared a failure in 2007 when it was found numbers of dog bites had risen 10% in a year and 50% since 1998-1999. According to the BBC, hospitalizations due to dog bites increased by 25% after 'pit bulls' were banned in Britain.
Another study in Germany from 2000-2002 tested several hundred dogs belonging to several breeds including those banned or deemed dangerous according to BSL. 95% of the dogs, regardless of breed, reacted appropriately during testing. 5% displayed excessive aggressive behavior in inappropriate situations. These instances were associated with the dogs' fear or inappropriate handling by the owner. The study found no significant difference between breeds and no indication of dangerousness in specific breeds. The study found no justification for the BSL.
Basing its opinion on these studies, the Central Administration Court in Berlin, upheld a ruling that voided Lower Saxony's ban on Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and Pit bull Terriers and regulation of Rottweilers and Dobermans.
In June, 2008, the Dutch Minister of Agriculture, Gerda Verburg, announced to the parliament that the 15 year old rule banning pit bulls in The Netherlands would be lifted. The reason? The breed specific legislation failed to reduce incidents of dog bites.
Communities that have repealed pit bull bans because they were found to be (1) too costly; (2) difficult to enforce and (3) ineffective: Detroit, MI, East Point, MI, Redford, MI, Saginaw, MI, Baltimore, MD, Belton, MO, Bourbonnais, IL, Beloit, Kansas, Alguna, Washington, Hudsonville, MI.
In April of 2007, Middletown, Ohio lifted its 2 year old pit bull ban. Pit bulls accounted for 5% of bites the same percentage of bites before and since the ban.
Sheltering, vet care and other costs of care for restricted breeds that have been impounded and must be held pending hearings; less in licensing fees as owners decline to register restricted breeds for fear of not being able to afford or follow through on restrictions; an increase in restricted breeds in shelters in surrounding communities.
BSL is costly to administer and enforce, particularly given that it does not work to reduce bites
1. In Prince George's County, Maryland, the cost to enforce a pit bull ban from 2001 to 2002 was at least $560,000. Of the 900 pit bulls euthanized during that time, animal control reported that 720 were nice family pets.
2. Baltimore, MD estimated that in 2001 it cost the city $750,000.00 a year to enforce the BSL which was later repealed as ineffective, unenforceable and too costly.
3. Ontario spent $170,000 per year on enforcing a pit bull ban. After the ban passed in 2005, animal control spent 25% of its time on pit bull-related calls, but only 4% of licensed dogs were pit bulls.
4. Cincinnati, Ohio spends $160,000 per year trying to enforce a pit bull ban and millions in litigation defending challenges to the ban.
5. A pit bull ban means additional animal control workers for identification and enforcement and litigation