DOG DAYS IN LOS ANGELES
The settlers who founded the pueblo of Los Angeles in 1781 brought with
them a variety of farm animals: horses, cows, oxen, pigs, sheep - and
apparently dogs, although none are mentioned in the record. They had been used
by the missionaries in Baja California in the early 1700s to herd goats, and
the large number of sheep both at Mission San Gabriel and in or near the pueblo
argues for an early introduction of canines to Los Angeles.
By January, 1836, dogs were a problem in the Mexican outpost. Amid
concern about hydrophobia, residents were not allowed to keep more than two,
which had to be leashed. Those found loose were killed. To that end the
alcalde offered to provide poison at his own expense.
Poison apparently was an important means of animal control into the 1850s
and 1860s. Harris Newmark, writing sixty years after the death of his dog in
Los Angeles in 1853, noted that "Evil-disposed or thoughtless persons, with no
respect for the owner, whether a neighbor or not, were in the habit of throwing
poison on the streets to kill off canines...." But even Newmark conceded that
there was "certainly a superabundance" of dogs in town.
Describing the same era but without citing sources, Stephen Longstreet
wrote that "the streets were besieged by nearly 500 dogs of an evil mongrel
appearance, more than half strays without owners." He quoted an early day
letter to a Los Angeles paper that read: "They sleep on the sidewalks, trot
through your legs, push children down, trip horses, throw riders and fill the
whole city with fleas." The solution? Meat laced with strychnine or arsenic
was left out on the street and the following day a work gang from the jail
picked up the dead dogs. This attitude prevailed until the state enacted
legislation in 1874 to protect children and animals.
But state laws did not change attitudes of those residents who had to put
up with the annoyance caused by dogs, whether stray or owned. While the
'eighties found a population increasingly sympathetic to the plight of hapless
dogs, those residents who considered the antics of the city's canine population
to be a nuisance countered the call for more humane treatment with calls of
their own. Throughout the decade the Times letters column remained a front
line for the battle between dog-lovers and those who insisted on curbing both
strays and pets.
The opening round appeared in the Times on Dec. 27, 1881, in the letter by
"F. S.," printed in the introduction to this volume. But it was far from the
last word. While even dog-lovers would agree with "F. S." that the conditions
he described needed correction, they were shocked by the efforts of city
officials to deal with the nuisance. A few months after the Times printed the
letter from "F. S.," "Citizen" denounced enforcement efforts.
{Times, June 7, 1882, p. 3}
DOG CATCHING.
A Mark of Distinguishment For the Author of the System.
The System Denounced as Tending to Demoralize and make
Hoodlums of our Youths--Sensible Talk.
Editor Times:--The man or set of men who were the first
to devise the means of enforcing the dog ordinance at present
in vogue in Los Angeles should be awarded some mark of public
recognition. A leather medal with ears a yard and a half
long would be good. I have arrived at this conclusion for
several reasons. First, because I question the right or the
power of the municipal government to convert the streets of
the city into a school for the propagation of either
lawlessness or hoodlumism. Second, because I question the
power of the Chief of Police, although backed by the order of
the Council, to turn loose upon the streets a crowd of
irresponsible boys with instructions to disturb the peace of
the city and endanger the lives of citizens who may happen to
be driving spirited horses in the neighborhood of such an
unusual scene as the strangling of a dog in the public
streets. Third, because I question the right of the city to
jeopardize the safety of its stranglers, who may happen to be
killed or maimed in the unlawful attempt to take a dog from
beside his master; for they wear no badges or authority (nor
is there any such prescribed) and men have the right to use
necessary force to protect person or property from unlawful
attack. Fourth, because I deny the right of the city
government to override the State law for the prevention of
cruelty to animals by authorizing young ruffians to drag even
dogs along the streets in a manner that subjects them to the
torture of strangulation, as I also deny its right to subject
them to a process of starvation for days after their
incarceration. Upon the whole the system is a disgrace; and
if the dog ordinance cannot be enforced, except in this way,
it had better be repealed.
CITIZEN.
Not all residents felt that the inhumane practices "Citizen" objected to
were as bad as the nuisance caused by the dogs themselves, as evidenced by the
reply printed in the Times the following day.
{Times, June 8, 1882, p. 3}
DOG CATCHING AGAIN.
The Other Side Presented--A Better Method Wanted.
Editor Times: Of course no one but a cowboy can see any
fun in lassoing the dogs, and we all deplore the necessity of
so doing, but they must be thinned out every year, or their
number would be legion. Of the three thousand dogs in this
city only two hundred have been licensed this year, and in
three months the number would be more than doubled if nothing
was done to prevent it. In the present system the police are
only doing what must be to them an unpleasant duty.
The Chief has failed to find any men who will be hired to
catch the boys, but has done the next best thing, by getting
large boys to follow the cart and do the work; and boys not
so engaged with the cart are positively forbidden to molest
any dogs whatever. As for the writer, he would much rather
endure the present system for a few days, than be kept awake
the whole year round by numberless dogs every night.
AN OBSERVER.
Despite enforcement of the dog ordinance, disgruntled Angelenos such as "A
Nervous Resident" continued to complain about sleepless nights, urging
stricter enforcement. "Jason" offered a more thorough solution, only to be
reprimanded by "Fair Play." The letter by "Citizens" indicated that a bit of
the frontier spirit remained in Los Angeles.
{Times, Oct. 2, 1883, p. 3}
On Dogs.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I see in this
morning's Times a notice of a dog for sale. Now, I do not
want to buy a dog, but I certainly think if the person who
wishes to sell that dog would come down to the corner of
Pearl and Tenth streets, he would be sure to find a buyer,
for this is certainly a dog-loving part of the city. I never
look out of my windows without seeing six or eight dogs, and
all night long the air is filled with the melody of their
voices. Now, if we just had that "little snow-white pet" to
join in the chorus, I can imagine how many more hours sleep I
could lose at night.
Seriously, I think so many dogs are a public nuisance,
and the authorities ought to look after them and see how many
have had the taxes paid on them, thereby reserving them the
right to live, bark, howl and make night hideous.
A NERVOUS RESIDENT.
Pearl and Tenth.
{Times, June 22, 1886, p. 2}
An Ordinance by "Jason."
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: Whereas, there are a
great many dogs upon the streets of this city of no practical
value, and as their presence upon the sidewalks is a public
nuisance in many ways, and their coyote-like howlings during
the night are a very great annoyance, and the efforts of the
poundkeeper, heretofore, have not produced the desired
effect--to abate, in some degree, this state of affairs;
while we are a practical people, and admit that a dog may be
of some value on a farm, we hold to the converse opinion when
in the city; therefore, it is
Ordered: That every dog be banished from within the
limits of this city, and that no pseudo tax, or five cent
strap, or any other thing, be allowed to make null and void
this order; and that we mean its strict enforcement, and that
the dogs must go.
Ordered: That this shall take effect upon and after the
1st day of July next, which will be before the dog-days, and
will give owners of fancy stock time to build country
residences for their animals.
Ordered: That the City Marshal and police force, the
constables of all the courts of justice, the pound-keeper,
and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, be
commissioned to carry into effect this order.
JASON.
{Times, June 23, 1886, p. 2}
The Modern Jason.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: There was once a Jason
who gathered a thieving crew and stole valuable property
belonging to a powerful and prosperous people. In the howl
of a modern Jason--that our faithful and devoted friends, the
dogs, be banished, we recognize the injustice of an
hereditary taint. Banish the dogs and what shall hinder the
loafers, thieves and other Jasonites from practicing their
depredations at all hours. Out upon such meanness! The
dog's life is, in its degree, a noble life and is as worthy
of preservation as any other creature's. A good dog is
better company than the individual so narrow-minded as to
want the whole earth, or so bloated with conceit as to be
wholly absorbed in self-love.
FAIR PLAY.
{Times, Oct. 6, 1888, p. 6}
Bow! Wow!
Los Angeles, Oct. 5.--[To the Editor of The Times.] We,
the citizens of Los Angeles, owning property and residing
south of Sixth street, desire to know at once if there is any
law legalizing Mexicans and low Americans to travel over our
streets from morning till night lassoing dogs and throwing
them into a filthy wagon? Under whose instructions or
authority are they plying their trade?
We have consulted legal authorities on this subject, and
have each time been informed that dogs are private property,
and that lassoing or catching them is illegal, and that the
"hoodlums" are liable for every dog they touch. If it be
true that they have no legal right to lasso the dogs, then we
propose or intend to shoot the first one of these wretches
who attempts to lasso or catch one of our dogs; and we will
be justified in doing so.
CITIZENS.
As the decade neared an end, the debate continued. Added to the complaint
over the cruelty involved in capturing loose dogs was "A Woman's" criticism of
the city's dog pound, located near what is now the North Broadway bridge over
the Los Angeles River. Despite the editor's optimism that officials would
correct the situation, seven months later two additional letters raised the
same concern. In the meantime a Times reporter had visited the pound and
verified in a Feb. 9, 1889, article that both the pound and the manner by which
dogs were captured needed major reform. "The whole system is wrong and something
should be done by the authorities."
{Times, Sept. 15, 1888, p. 3}
An Appeal for the Poor Dogs.
Los Angeles, Sept. 13.--[To the Editor of The Times.] I
see you devote a column of your paper to the use of the
people, so I avail myself of the privilege, and will call
your attention to a very cruel thing which I think ought to
be stopped. In the first place, have you a humane society in
Los Angeles? If you have, is it properly provided with
humane officers, and do the managers of the society take a
proper interest in the prevention of cruelty to animals.
What I wish to call your attention to is the Los Angeles dog
pound. I went over the Downey-avenue bridge the other day,
and my attention was attracted to the most pitiful sounds I
ever listened to, and so I inquired what it all meant, and
was told that right near, in the river bed, in a big wooden
pen they had a lot of poor dogs confined, taken up by the
dog-catchers and thrown into that pen to be either released
or killed. Now, what I want to know is this: Is it human or
Christian-like, here in a large city, to keep such a place of
torture for those poor dumb creatures? There, in a close
pen, right down on the river bed, in the hot sun, and, for
all I know, nothing to eat or drink, and the large dogs and
small dogs all thrown into a heap together, where their howls
and pitiful cries would touch a heart of stone to only hear
the poor animals. And nearly all those poor dogs are
somebodies' pets, poor things, crying to go home, suffocating
with heat, and crowded and hungry and thirsty. Oh, my God!
Why is it that human nature is so cruel? Why do we cause so
much suffering, when our reason teaches us to be humane?
Mr. Editor, for humanity's sake, call the attention of
somebody to this cruel wrong. And two of the ladies on Water
street on the East Side told me that they felt as if they
ought to do something, but did not know what to do to have
this stopped. The cries of those poor dogs make the nights
hideous, and those ladies say they are obliged to hear the
poor animals without having the power of relieving them in
any way. Now, you have the power and I trust you will use
it. Let us do what little we can to relieve suffering.
Hoping you will not throw this short letter into the
waste-basket to make room for some political notice which
will not relieve pain and suffering, as the notice taken of
these few lines may do.
A WOMAN
[We suspect that this case is not so aggravated as is
represented by this correspondent, whose investigations do
not appear to have been at all close; but the official who is
responsible will be kind to the poor unfortunate dogs if he
is a humane and right-feeling man.--Ed.]
{Times, April 29, 1889, p. 5}
The Dog Pound Again.
Los Angeles. April 28.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
The people residing in the vicinity of the covered bridge
wish by the favor of your paper to call the attention of our
City Council to an intolerable nuisance which has lately been
located a short distance above said bridge in the river bed
and called a dog pound or den, but it would be more proper to
call it a dog hell, where the poor creatures, regardless of
age or sex, from the child's little pet poodle up to the
agile greyhound and trusty mastiff, are, after having been
lassoed and dragged, often from their master's premises by a
lot of men and hoodlum boys, who, for the want of something
more respectable to do, and it might be said more honorable,
bring them down to this den, where they are imprisoned and no
doubt starved for the purpose of obtaining scalp money from
their owners, should they chance to find their poor lost pups
there. Now, the nuisance complained of is this: When the
den becomes pretty well filled with the suffering canines,
and they fully realize their deprivation of liberty, coupled
with the forlorn hope of ever again being fed by the crumbs
from their Master's tables, their desperation knows no
bounds, and they set up such a yelping, howling, weeping,
wailing and gnashing of teeth that what should be the quiet
hours of rest are made most hideous, and just at that time,
too, to make it still more unbearable, every mother's son of
a cur in the neighborhood will join in the chorus. Without
any reference to Prof. Moeller's Science of Astrology, it is
possible that many if not all the dogs in the city have come
into existence under unfavorable planets--at least one might
think so, judging from the dire calamity that seems to be
awaiting them on every hand. But as time and circumstances
are ever changing, it is most sincerely hoped that our City
Council will take immediate steps to have the infernal dog
pound eliminated from our midst, and if the dirty work of
impounding and killing dogs has to be carried on in the city,
let it be removed to a more secluded place.
THE VOICE OF MANY CITIZENS.
{Times, April 29, 1889, p. 5}
A "Horror of Horrors."
Los Angeles, April 27.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
Will you please inform your readers where they may find the
"Horror of Horrors?" Just a few yards above the covered
bridge--in the river bed--is a small board hut called the dog
pound, in charge of some wretch not fit to live. All the
dogs that can be caught by foul means or fair are thrown into
that hovel to starve a few days, and if no one comes to
release them by paying a fee, they are killed, and sometimes
buried in the river, poisoning the water for man and beast.
Just now, as I write, many of the helpless captives are
begging for food, water or air, and every hour, night and
day, the heart-rending howling never ceases, and I wonder
what kind of creatures those can be, called city fathers, and
draw such a princely salary for looking after the interests
of those who support them.
EAST SIDE PIONEER.
The debate continued. "T. W." voiced many of the same concerns that had
bothered "F. S." eight years earlier. On the day "T. W.'s" letter was printed,
the Times ran a news article regarding a wailing dog that had kept residents
awake night after night. While the owner had finally succumbed to the pleas of
his sleepless neighbors and had given the dog away, Police Judge Walter
Lockwood still imposed a fine of $10. Note that the editor, who had prodded "A
Woman" for overstating her case regarding mistreatment of animals at the dog
pound, now made the same charge about "T. W.'s" complaint over the city's
failure to control vicious dogs. The decade ended with the issue unresolved.
{Times, Oct. 25, 1889, p. 5}
Alleged Fierce Dogs
Seeking Whom They Mout Devour Somebody.
Station C, Oct. 22.--[To the Editor of The Times.] The
recent event occurring in Los Angeles of a workingman, while
going to his employment, being attacked by eight fierce dogs
in the street, loudly calls for the suppression of a
dangerous nuisance which has so long prevailed in this city,
and which is becoming more and more intolerable. Numerous as
are the fierce, ugly curs roaming our streets and beautiful
suburbs, yet it is rare to see any token of the owners of
these dogs having paid any license or tax for them. My
little boy was attacked and bitten by a dog the other day,
whose owner could not be found, and when complaint was made
to the Constable at Rosedale, nothing was done, and the dog
still prowls around, and it has since attacked another of my
boys when returning from church. When the Constable was told
that I would shoot the dog, he said that the law would not
allow me to do so, and that if I did I could be arrested for
cruelty to animals.
Is there no law to suppress this dog nuisance? Our
wives and children cannot take a walk in any direction
without being snarled at or attacked by some worthless cur.
It would be a good thing if the City Council or Supervisors
of the county would order a tax of $10 on every owner of
dogs, as was done in one city in Canada, which quickly
cleared the streets of wandering and useless dogs. There is
too much consideration given these animals here and the
public suffer accordingly. I could fill several columns of
your paper with complaints of this dog nuisance during the
past few months, but it would be no use if the law is as the
Rosedale Constable interprets it. The S.P.C.A. will
prosecute the man who kicks a dog for biting him. It is
cruelty to animals, you know; but what about the poor man who
is bitten? A short time ago a workingman was walking on
Laurel street, and a large dog bit his leg so severely that
he had to have the wound sewed up and could not walk or work
for some time. He told the owner of the dog that he would
shoot it, but he begged him not to do so, and paid the
doctor's bill and his wages while unable to work. The same
dog is still prowling about, watching for another chance to
bite somebody. The owner would no doubt be glad to pay a $10
tax to have the privilege of keeping such a dog to prey on
passers-by for his amusement. If there is any remedy for
this evil, let the public know, so they can act accordingly.
Yours truly,
T. W.
[We suspect that this correspondent is a trifle flighty,
and overstates things as to our dumb friends, the dogs. Of
course vicious dogs should be muzzled, and common curs are
not worth cultivating; but there are hundreds of valuable
dogs in the city and county that do not deserve proscription.
They should be taxed, but protected.--Ed. Times.]