{"id":223192,"date":"2025-09-13T09:22:16","date_gmt":"2025-09-13T09:22:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/223192\/"},"modified":"2025-09-13T09:22:16","modified_gmt":"2025-09-13T09:22:16","slug":"trapped-animals-only-acs-clarifies-scope-of-new-animal-abandonment-fines","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/223192\/","title":{"rendered":"Trapped animals only; ACS clarifies scope of new animal abandonment fines"},"content":{"rendered":"

SAN ANTONIO<\/strong> \u2013 A set of new fines for people who abandon animals in San Antonio has a much narrower scope than originally described. <\/p>\n

Though it appears staff legal staff accurately described a key caveat during a Thursday council vote, at least two council members said they didn\u2019t realize the fines they approved will not cover people who dump their own pets.<\/p>\n

The City Council approved the following change to the city\u2019s animal code in a 10-1 vote Thursday, including fines between $500 and $2,000.<\/p>\n

\n

Sec. 5-23. Abandonment.<\/p>\n

(a) Abandonment of non-livestock and livestock animals, excluding uncaptured wild living creatures, is a violation of the Texas Penal Code and depending on the circumstances, is a class A misdemeanor, state jail felony, or a felony of the third degree. <\/p>\n

(b) It shall be a violation of this Code for a person to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly abandon or release any animal anywhere in the city that has been trapped and within a person\u2019s control and possession except if a person is trapping and releasing animals as authorized by any sections of this Chapter or by state law. A violation of this subsection is punishable as described in section 5-21. <\/p>\n

Ordinance approved by San Antonio City Council on Sept. 11<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The vote was originally scheduled for Sept. 4, but was delayed as part of an ongoing power struggle between Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones and council members<\/a> over how policy proposals advance through City Hall. <\/p>\n

Jones was also the only one to vote against it after three council members forced it back onto the Sept. 11 council agenda.<\/p>\n

In a Sept. 3 interview with KSAT, ahead of the originally scheduled vote, Animal Care Services Director Jon Gary framed the proposal as a municipal alternative to existing state law.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe ordinance that\u2019s going to be going into effect \u2014 or hopefully going into effect \u2014 that\u2019s going to put before council tomorrow will be, basically, \u2018you can\u2019t abandon any animal.\u2019 Whether that be in a parking lot, bus stop, it doesn\u2019t matter. You can\u2019t abandon any animal here in San Antonio. There is a state statute that we currently use, but for \u2014 to rise to that state level where you\u2019re talking about jail time and those kind of things, it typically requires that \u2014\u00a0that the animal \u2014\u00a0that some harm is done to the animal if it\u2019s while it\u2019s abandoned. Where this one, for at the municipal level, we will use for instances where we just catch people in the act of abandoning the animal. So, abandonment of itself will be \u2014 would be a municipal fine. We would still use the state statute in instances where there\u2019s some egregious activity, you know.”<\/p>\n

Jon Gary, ACS Director \u2014\u00a0Sept. 3 interview with KSAT 12 News<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

However, his explanation has since changed. <\/p>\n

In a Friday interview with KSAT, Gary said the fines only apply if the animal has first been \u201ctrapped\u201d and then released. <\/p>\n

People who abandon their own pets would not be subject to the city fines, Gary said, but they could still be charged under existing state law.<\/p>\n

Gary told council members that ACS receives approximately 400 complaints for animal abandonment each year. The agency, he said, is only able to successfully pursue in the neighborhood of a half-dozen cases in 2024. <\/p>\n

On Sept. 3, Gary told KSAT that enforcing the state law was difficult when there hadn\u2019t been harm to the animals.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen it comes to that level, when you\u2019re talking about jail time, the DA (district attorney) typically is gonna want something like that,\u201d Gary said on Sept. 3. \u201cNot to say they wouldn\u2019t accept those cases, but it definitely becomes a lot harder to prosecute those type of cases, if the animal\u2019s healthy.”<\/p>\n

During Friday\u2019s interview, he focused more on the difficulty of catching people. <\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s something that we\u2019ve always done,\u201d Gary told KSAT on Friday. \u201cAgain, they\u2019re rarely caught. And that\u2019s \u2014 I think that\u2019s the reason why there\u2019s so few. But we\u2019ll continue to do like we always have. We\u2019ll enforce the state statute where it pertains, and then we\u2019ll enforce our city ordinance where it pertains.”<\/p>\n

Asked about the change in how he had described the ordinance, Gary said Friday that there had been a lot of interest since last week, which spurred conversations with the City Attorney\u2019s Office about the the intent of the ordinance and how it was written.<\/p>\n

\u201cI will say through our conversations with the city attorney, and I\u2019ll have to take responsibility for that, some of it was on me,\u201d Gary said. \u201cSome of the conversations that we had and (sic) misinterpretation. But I think we\u2019re all under the understanding now that we understand what this means, that our ordinance is specific to trapping, and then we will continue to use the state statute for ones that are abandoned in other ways.\u201d<\/p>\n

The ordinance change came out of a proposal Marina Alderete Gavito submitted in March 2024 about the unlicensed trapping and release of birds after issues with peafowl<\/a> in some Northwest Side neighborhoods. <\/p>\n

\u201cAn unlicensed trailer came in and were throwing all the peacocks into the trailer. And, of course, it was screaming and broken wings and all this kind of stuff\u201a” the District 7 councilwoman said during the idea\u2019s final appearance in front of the Public Safety Committee on April 15. <\/p>\n

Gary has said he approached Alderete Gavito about widening the ordinance to include other animals.<\/p>\n

During Thursday\u2019s council meeting, city legal staff did appear to note the trapping requirement.<\/p>\n

\u201cWould using the word \u2018trapped\u2019 in this ordinance require that, for someone to be cited or convicted, they must have caught an animal with a physical trap?\u201d Alderete Gavito asked Jose Ni\u00f1o of the City Attorney\u2019s Office.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s correct,\u201d Ni\u00f1o said.<\/p>\n

\u201cUnder state law, the act of abandonment \u2014 unreasonable abandonment \u2014 is against state law right now,\u201c Ni\u00f1o also told the councilwoman. \u201cSo, this is just an extra tool that basically, like you indicated, initially started with peafowl and the trapping of peafowl and then moving to another location within the city. So, the extra tool in here was the trapping aspect of it.”<\/p>\n

However, not everyone appeared to realize the animal being trapped was a key element to be hit with the new fines. <\/p>\n

KSAT also didn\u2019t notice until Friday. Councilwoman Phyllis Viagran (D3) and Councilman Ric Galvan (D6) also said they had believed people abandoning their own pets could also be fined under the ordinance.<\/p>\n

\u201cI am surprised because now I can see where this doesn\u2019t go far enough. But it\u2019s still \u2014 to use his own words \u2014 a minimal step in the right direction,” said Viagran, who brought up concerns about people dropping \u201cbox of puppies\u201d in her South Side district during Thursday\u2019s discussion.<\/p>\n

However, she also told KSAT, \u201cI don\u2019t feel misled. I feel like \u2014 and this is the issue \u2014 we all hear what we wanna hear to kind of get the issues, so I feel I misunderstood.”<\/p>\n

She and Galvan both said they still supported the measure.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think that even though it was a bit narrower, I think it was worth passing because I think it still gives us something to build upon,\u201d Galvan said. <\/p>\n

District 1 Councilwoman Sukh Kaur told KSAT she thinks the ordinance\u2019s substance \u201cwas what we were briefed on.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t have the notes in front of me, but I\u2019m comfortable with the ordinance as it was written,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

District 10 Councilman Marc Whyte, who helped force the meeting with Alderete Gavito and Councilwoman Teri Castillo (D5), would not say directly whether he had believed the ordinance was expected to cover people dumping their own pets.<\/p>\n

\u201cMy understanding was we were imposing the fines on animal abandonment as it set forth in the statute (the ordinance language),\u201d Whyte said.<\/p>\n

Alderete Gavito\u2019s chief of staff texted KSAT a statement in response to questions about the councilwoman\u2019s understanding of what the ordinance was anticipated to cover versus what it actually covers. <\/p>\n

\n

\u201cAs was made clear during my comments during yesterday\u2019s Council meeting, this ordinance applies to the abandonment of trapped animals and also works in concert with State laws regarding the overall abandonment of animals.\u201d<\/p>\n

Councilwoman Marina Alderete Gavito (D7)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A spokeswoman for the mayor referred KSAT back to Jones\u2019 Thursday statement in which she said she had voted against the ordinance \u201cbecause it lacked the required due diligence and public engagement.\u201d<\/p>\n

More recent City Hall coverage on KSAT: <\/b><\/p>\n

Copyright 2025 by KSAT – All rights reserved.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"SAN ANTONIO \u2013 A set of new fines for people who abandon animals in San Antonio has a…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":223193,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5133],"tags":[9490,5229,3425,13239,7202,7203,358,3187,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":{"0":"post-223192","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-san-antonio","8":"tag-acs","9":"tag-america","10":"tag-animals","11":"tag-city-hall","12":"tag-san-antonio","13":"tag-sanantonio","14":"tag-texas","15":"tag-tx","16":"tag-united-states","17":"tag-united-states-of-america","18":"tag-unitedstates","19":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","20":"tag-us","21":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115196260724908233","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223192","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=223192"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223192\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/223193"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223192"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223192"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223192"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}