April 12, 2007
Assembly Business and Professions Committee
Attn: Tracy Rhine, Committee Consultant
1020 N. Street, Room 124
Sacramento, CA 94249
The Italian Greyhound Club of America (IGCA) opposes California Assembly Bill 1634, known as the California Healthy Pets Act, assigned to the Assembly Business and
Professions Committee on Monday, March 26..
IGCA strongly supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and does not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously. We oppose all provisions and amendments in AB 1634 .
We believe mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems, it fails to address the real issue – irresponsible ownership. Over regulating never solves a problem. Enforcing current laws (e.g., leash laws) and enacting public education programs are better and more cost effective ways of addressing the issue.
The homeless pets in shelters are not the product of California’s responsible breeders who screen and offer ongoing support to their puppy adopters, but rather the result of compulsive purchases via pet stores (who most often buy their puppies from out of state) and out of state internet purchases.
Sincerely,
Debora L. Wolfenbarger
President
Italian Greyhound Club of America
1055 S. Lilac Ave.
Rialto, CA 92376
909-879-0475

April 30, 2007
The Honorable Mark Leno
Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee
California State Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 94249
RE: Oppose AB 1634 as Amended in Business and Professions Committee on April
24 th
Dear Mr. Chair:
The Italian Greyhound Club of America is writing today to ask you to oppose Assembly
Bill 1634 when it comes before your committee. Please ensure that our opposition is reflected in the committee analysis. AB 1634 would require mandatory spaying/neutering of dogs and cats over four months of age unless the owner qualifies for and purchases an intact animal permit.
The Italian Greyhound Club of America represents dog owners not only in California, but nationwide and we believe that AB 1634 will be detrimental to the sport of purebred dogs, as well as to all dog owners in California.
The Italian Greyhound Club of America was founded in 1954 and consists of serious
Italian Greyhound breeders, exhibitors and other aficionados all over the United States who are interested in learning as much as possible about the Italian Greyhound and helping to dispense that information to the general public, along with some of the love they share with this charismatic little dog. While we have members in most states and
Canada, California boasts our largest contingent of members.
Like other national breed clubs, the IGCA is not really a "club" in the manner most people think of clubs. The IGCA exists mainly to further the best interests of the breed.
We organize and present specialty shows in different parts of the country; plan educational programs for breeders, judges and other fanciers; sponsor research at major institution’s on genetic and other health problems; distribute breed information to newcomers to IG's and to those who want to know about our dogs; maintain a breed rescue organization and attempt to establish a network of ethical, responsible breeders to whom inquiries can be referred.
Over the years, our club has hosted many specialties including our most recent in October of 2006 at the Crown Plaza Hotel in Burlingame, CA. We had an entry of well over 200 dogs. In previous years, we have held specialties in Long Beach and Indio as well. Our

club had looked at having our 2008 National in either Long Beach or Ventura – but have decided at this point to look for another venue out of state.
Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue—irresponsible ownership. These laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. It will hurt responsible breeders who raise healthy, well cared-for dogs and work to ensure that these puppies are placed with responsible owners.
Responsible owners who are already complying with local animal control laws will be unfairly punished by AB 1634, while irresponsible owners will continue to make problems for the community and local shelters. Concentrating animal control efforts on dogs whose behavior demonstrates that they are a problem for the community would be a much better use of taxpayer funds.
I respectfully ask that you support responsible owners and breeders by opposing AB
1634.
Sincerely,
Debora L. Wolfenbarger
President
Italian Greyhound Club of America
Cc: Chuck Nichol
Chris Ryan

Dear Mr. Marshall,
My name is Debora Wolfenbarger, a resident of Rialto, CA, in Assembly member
Carter's district. Last week I met with Juan Lopez and he gave me your contact information.
I own a kennel in Rialto, am an active breeder/exhibitor of Italian greyhounds.
I am also the President of the Italian Greyhound Club of America.
Assembly member Carter's district is home to many dog fanciers, professional kennels, show dog handlers, breeders and the Orange Empire Dog Club. Most of these individuals are voting constituents and have previously worked on dogrelated legislation both in her district and elsewhere in California. Assembly member Carter voted for AB 1634 in Business and Professions Committee and
I would like her to vote NO on this bill when it hits the assembly floor.
While based on good intentions, AB 1634 is flawed on many levels. I pay a business tax on my kennel, why should I be forced to pay an additional fee to keep my dogs intact? That double taxation confounds me since it is so foreign to traditional democratic values. Italian greyhounds are a toy breed with a history of anesthesia issues. Toy breeds can be tiny at 4 months, too tiny to risk a forced surgical procedure, especially with a compounded anesthesia risk.
As a conservationist for my chosen breed, I, as a breed expert am more capable than the state of California in making decisions as to which animals should be kept intact for breeding and that decision cannot be made at 4 months of age.
Most animals are not turned into shelters due to issues with their reproductive status. The usual reasons are owners are moving, divorce, can't afford the vet bills, doesn't get along with the new puppy, etc... Unfortunately, we live in an impulse society. I turn away many owners who I feel are not suited to my breed. Invariably, they purchase a dog off of the internet from out of state and in a couple of weeks will turn that dog into a shelter or breed rescue group. You can't legislate a consumer's impulse buying and thinking that spaying/neutering all dogs and cats over the age of 4 months will stop it is wishful thinking given the vast and easy resources out of state to buy a puppy or kitten.
The good news is, shelter and euthanasia rates ARE dropping and have been. We need to be able to enforce our current laws which most cities are struggling to do. Several weeks after I moved to Rialto, I had to wait hours for an animal control officer to respond after a loose dog attacked and bit my daughter.
This was the second bite that dog perpetrated on that day. Rialto only has 2 animal control officers - how could they deal with this ordinance if they can't respond quickly to an emergency?
I have offered and have had offers of support from several local kennel owners to give FREE dog care and canine good citizenship courses for the community.
We are waiting for someone to take us up on this.
I have included a paper that includes a fact sheet on the current state of the dog population and tables regarding shelter and euthanasia statistics.
Best Regards,
Debbie Wolfenbarger
Wolfenbarger Kennels
President, Italian Greyhound Club of America
1055 S. Lilac Ave.
Rialto, CA 92376
909-879-0475
Cell: 818-653-4508

By T.E. Houston, PhD
Quick Facts:
• What is the dog population in California?
Estimates based on 40% of households or based on licensing data (10-20% compliance) puts the dog population at 8-10 million.
• What is the relative percentage of dogs impounded in shelters to the total population?
Based on data from the Veterinary Public Health (VPH) section, for 1998, the last year of nearly complete data, 500,000 dogs were processed. For a population of
10 million this is approximately 5% of the dogs.
• What is the relative percentage of dogs euthanized in the shelters?
Based on data from VPH, from 1998, just over 300,000 dogs were euthanized.
This represents approximately 3% of the dog population.
• What exactly is included in the euthanasia numbers?
We do not know what is being included, dogs owner surrendered for euthanasia, dogs too sick/injured, dogs with behavior problems. Just how many of these are adoptable? We do not know.
• How many dogs are owner surrendered?
Roughly 25% of dogs coming into the shelters are owner surrendered, these are dogs that HAD homes. Reasons: moving, too much work, too old, too sick, not enough room, etc...etc. THIS fact is something that should be addressed!
• Do we have complete and quantifiable data of intakes in the shelters?
The data from VPH is not complete. Since 1998 there has been an increase in non-compliance (nearly 25%) of counties to a state mandate of reporting.
California Healthy Pets Act (AB1634) introduced by Assembly Member Lloyd Levine (D-Van
Nuys) would require all dogs and cats in the state to be spayed or neutered by 4 months of age. Exceptions to this regulation would be for working police dogs, service dogs, dogs/cats registered with a recognized kennel club, or a dog/cat that has medical issues which a veterinarian states would compromise the animals life. The bill claims this would help solve
California’s purported pet “overpopulation” problems and help to reduce the number of animal bites, particularly dog bites. Information on the Act’s website states that almost 1 million unwanted and abandoned dogs and cats enter the California shelters each year. Before making any conclusions on the Act, it is important to ascertain all the information and data put forth and understand what the actual situation is.
Data from the California Department of Health Services, Veterinary Public Health (VPH) section indicates a very different scenario. The number of dogs and cats entering the system has been declining since 1973. For discussion, just the intake of dogs coming into the shelter will

be evaluated. (Figure1). While one of the major problems is a lack of compliance by the counties in reporting data to VPH, particularly since 2000, a reporting that is a state mandate, the overall trend is a decline in the intakes to the shelter.
What do the numbers mean?
When it is stated some X number of dogs have entered the shelter for a given year that number includes a lot of variables. As an example, since 2005 is referenced in an article in the Madera Tribune, let’s look at this. In 2005, 308,203 dogs entered the system. These are dogs captured by animal control (about 45%), dogs owner surrendered (another 25%), those dogs the public brings in (another 25%) and those dogs that are impounded for quarantine due to bite incidents and dogs transferred from another facility (about another 5%). The distribution varies with the year. What is important is the disposition of these dogs after they are in the system, so the actual number of dogs may differ. For 2005, 293,142 dogs were
“processed”. Approximately 39% of the dogs were euthanized, about 20% were reclaimed by their owners, another 30% were adopted, and some 5% were transferred. Along with a smaller percentage of dogs that escaped/stolen or died from other causes.
What is observed from the graph is that impounds have declined over the 30 years, while euthanasia has remained fairly relative at about 50%. The surprising aspect of this data is the relative steady state of reclaims and adopted animals. What can be gleaned from this information? That something is actually working, in that fewer dogs are entering the system for varying reasons, increased spay and neutering of the animals, greater attention to the leash laws, basically more over-all responsible dog ownership.
In 2 separate studies of dogs presented to veterinary clinics in San Francisco and Sacramento
(both in 2003), nearly 80% of the dogs were identified as being spayed or neutered. This compares with a national average of about 70% from a survey by the American Pet Products
Manufacturers Association. While on a day by day basis those working in the sheltering industry see potentially adoptable dogs that have to be euthanized, with in a larger context, we are making progress in decreasing that number.
What is missing is the denominator, the total number of dogs in the state. There are no exact figures on the number of dogs in the community, licensing of dogs is probably only at 10-20% of the dog population. Urban areas may have fewer dogs per household than suburban and rural communities. A very rough estimate of the potential dog population may be made based on the households on the state. California has over 12 million households, and if even 50% of those households have 1 dog, the minimal population would be 6 million dogs. If based on the licensing being approximately 20%, then an estimate of nearly 8 million dogs may be made.
From this information with approximately 300,000 dogs entering the shelter system in 2005, this represents roughly 4% of the potential dog population.
The euthanasia rate then is about 2% of the total dog population. The numbers will depend on each county, and is a function of those counties resources. A model of the dynamics of the pet population into the shelters nationwide indicates euthanasia rate of about 5%. (Patroneks paper? Any one have a link??)
A similar attempt to legislate euthanasia rates was the Hayden Law (SB1785) signed in 1998.
( The Hayden Law SB 1785 ). The purpose of the Hayden law was to decrease euthanasia and increase adoption of animals in the state shelter. The law mandated standardized recordkeeping, improved veterinary care and treatment of the animals. With the increased financial costs of the law, what has resulted is an increase in non-compliance of reporting.
There is no oversight and no regulatory agency that can or will enforce the laws or clarify the wording.
Public policy should be made on complete and accurate data, not on emotion and misleading information. California is a large and very diverse state. The resources of the larger, highly urban areas are not necessarily available to the more rural counties. It would be better to look closer at a particular county/city situations that may yield a better picture on what may be going on over time. We need to factor in local resources, animal control/shelter policies and changes, and the local demographics. Basically, if humane organizations want to help improve the conditions for dogs and cats over the long haul, work with the individual counties.

With over 20% of the dogs being owner surrendered to the shelters, efforts should be made to address ways of increasing commitments to the animals for the life time. Many of the rural counties do not have the finances, personnel, or resources to implement programs. Making available grants for improving the shelters, many of which are old, help develop programs that are directed towards the counties demographics would be a much more effective use of time and money. AB1634 is not the solution.
Figure 1: Dogs in California Shelters*: Impounds and
Dispositions 1973-2005
* Not all of the counties have reported data. In fact the compliance from the jurisdictions decreases from the mid 1990’s, with 44-57 of the counties reporting. 1999 seems to be an anomaly with a significant drop in numbers, it is not clear why, other than not complete data.
Figure 2: The California human population shows steady growth over the last 30 years; while impounds of dogs into the shelters has declined*.

* Not all of the counties have reported data.
Santa Cruz dogs impounded for the years 1990-2002 compared to
California wide impounds (x100). Data from Veterinary Public Health.

Santa Cruz dog euthanized for the years 1990-2002 compared to the numbers statewide (x100 for state).