The overpopulation crisis in the city of Los Angeles has resulted in the implementation of various regulations and advancements.  Although the  issue of overpopulation emerged around the early 1950’s, it became more significant in the 1990’s when euthanasia practices were more strongly contested. 

In a record of meeting minutes from 1951, a discussion of issuing permits instead of dog licenses was discussed. In response,  “Mr. Bonner said the purpose of the proposed change is to have greater control over dogs, which is becoming increasingly necessary as the rapid growth of the City and increased human and dog population presents greater problems of dog control”[M.7]( https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/17658). In another record of meeting minutes from 1968, the issue of overpopulation is again present, and even more prominent than it was in the 50’s; “The surplus dog and cat population seemed to be the Committee’s main concern. The Committee was informed the Department is conducting a comprehensive study to determine ways and means to augment or improve the animal care and control programs in the Department, including methods which the Department can undertake to reduce the animal population[M.13]( https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/17664). By the 1990s, overpopulation was at its peak, and many officials were trying to take part in controlling it. “The California Veterinary Medical Association, in conjunction with the University of Davis, sponsored a symposium on pet overpopulation in 1991. Invited to that symposium were animal control, humane societies, veterinarians, breeders, etc. All contributed to the problem of pet overpopulation” [M.20](https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/17671). 

        Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, overpopulation has urged the progress of the spay and neuter program along with educational campaigns informing the public about its impact. It has also awakened owners— reminding them of their responsibilities towards their pets, and broadly reminding them “to quit treating animals like litter” [A.7.32](https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/11369).   Lastly, it has allowed shelters to address the practice of killing animals, ultimately reaching a state that is more humane to the animals. 

        At a glance, we can see the incredibly large number of animals being thrown into shelters, as well as the high number of euthanized animals. “ The Los Angeles Animal Regulation Department impounded 74,000 animals during fiscal year 1994-95. Almost 50,000, or more than two-thirds of them, were eventually euthanized [A.7.32](https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/11369).  Also to put it into perspective,  other states, like New Jersey, also had similar practices taking place in their shelters. Animal shelters in Camden County killed “7,514 dogs and cats” [A.7.17](https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/11352).  With this data, one might put the full blame on the shelters for euthanizing so many animals, however, one must take into account the full story. The consequence of overpopulation in the city has largely been due to irresponsible breeders breeding their animals and not taking proper care of them.  Dan Knapp, General Manager of the Department of Animal Services from (1999-2001) is quoted as saying, “ When I explained that we find homes for 11,000 to 15,000 animals a year, and we take in 81,000, one remarked,  Well, it's collateral damage. We cannot play God’" [A.20.4](https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/11050).  For this reason the department was eager to implement several ordinances to regulate breeding and hold owners accountable.

        The Responsible Breeders Ordinance was executed and emphasized that the owner is responsible for spaying or neutering their pet as well as licensing them. The cost for licensing is $10 for an altered pet and $30 for an unaltered pet [A.2.1](https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/10992).  Another program that emerged was the Administrative Internship Coordinating Services Program- Breeders License Data Collection and Analysis Project. “The objective of this program is to decrease pet overpopulation by obtaining information for the purpose of locating unlicensed dog breeders and breeders who are in violation of humane laws” (1990 to 1991 Minutes-Board of Animal Regulation (Item M.19)). Furthermore, the Pet Overpopulation Ordinance was adopted by the Council and became effective on November 15, 2000 [A.4.5](https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/11238).   The goal of this ordinance was to emphasize the responsibility of spaying and neutering pets, and enforcing the notion that breeding is a privilege, not a right [A.2.1](https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/10992). Lastly, pamphlets and public outreach, such as the ones portrayed above, have been crucial in convincing owners of the overpopulation problem. 

        With such initiatives being executed, there was still some uncertainty within the public. Various owners were concerned about the health of their pets if they were to be spayed. Others were concerned about the costs that came with it. Patt Morrison, journalist and author writes,  “It costs L.A about $4 million a year to take in and kill those 55,000 dogs and cats. The staggering proposed $500 fee is not intended as a cash racket; it is intended to price people into doing the right thing” [A.9.9]( https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/11526).   Eventually the issue of cost was combated, with the owners having access to low cost spay and neuter clinics. The issue of health concerns was still prominent, however, professionals like Dr. Matsura reassured people that early spaying and neutering has been proven safe and effective. She explained that “she was taught in school to spay and neuter no earlier than six weeks of age”[M.20] (https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/17671). 

        As the city attempted to regulate overpopulation, the issue was never fully addressed and the shelters still faced the consequence of not having enough space to accommodate all the pets. Over the years, the methods of euthanasia have changed. Back in the 30s, one method of killing was by electricity [M.2](https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/17653).  As time progressed, they started to kill animals with carbon monoxide gas [M.4] (https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/17655).  By the 40s, they started using a compression chamber [M.5](https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/17656).  And by the 70s, Senate Bill 400 recommended the abolition of High Altitude Euthanasia, and the act of euthanasia by injection became prominent [M.13](https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/17664). 

        Although the animals were euthanized in a humane fashion, the public still condemned the act of killing so many animals, and wanted shelters to go “no-kill”—a difficult goal to achieve under any circumstances. Caras proclaims, "he runs a no kill shelter. But we don't brag about it because it's unfair. Someone else does the killing for us" [A.17.11](https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/10877). These shelters who claim to not be killing animals are actually the ones sending them to shelters that kill the animals.

        Overpopulation has been a very prominent issue, leading to increased spay and neuter, decreased euthanasia, and changes in the Department’s outreach and prominence in LA. While the act of killing so many animals is disheartening, the issue in itself is complex, and shelters have barely enough resources to combat the issue. Although not killing animals and going no-kill would be a great end goal, it is a very high bar, as this would require that every person in society, as well as the Department, would be doing their role to maintain the animal population at acceptable levels. It is a goal and a task that the Department continues to work on.