The big picture
According to city documents, the ordinance amends Chapter 5 of the City Code, titled “Animals,” and creates a new section—Section 5-23—which adds penalties for individuals who are convicted of intentionally abandoning any animal within city limits that is under a person’s control or possession. The ordinance expands upon existing state law to cover all animals, instead of just specific types.
New animal abandonment fines:
- First offense: minimum of $500 and a maximum of $2,000
- Second offense: minimum of $1,000 and maximum of $2,000
- Third and subsequent offense $2,000
Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones argued that the process was rushed and needed more time. She suggested having the city’s legal representatives look over the language at the state and local levels, and have San Antonio Animal Care Services, ACS, develop a very detailed communications plan on what the updated City Code would mean for residents and who would be affected by it. She said that once these steps are completed, the ordinance could be placed on the Oct. 2 consent agenda.
“I recommend that we ask legal [counsel] to ensure that the language at the state level and at the city level is the same so there's no confusion there,” Jones said. “I would also ask that ACS develop a very detailed communications plan on what these things would mean, because I think some of the instances that were raised here and raised by No Kill San Antonio are very concerning, and we just don't need that misinformation or disinformation out there.”
ACS Director Jonathan Gary refuted the claim that the ordinance would intentionally target good samaritans who assisted loose animals by feeding and treating wounds, and said the ordinance specifically targets intentional abandonment and would not target people who assist an animal not previously under their control.
District 7 council member Marina Alderete Gavito argued against Jones’ claim that the process was rushed, stating that the process began during Mayor Julian Castro’s term.
“We know who we're looking for, and it is the people that come to the south side in my district and go by the river and just drop a box of puppies there, and that has happened, so that is where my concern is, and why are we supporting this today,” Gavito said. “The other thing in this conversation that we're having [and] this process began with Mayor Castro in trying to make sure that we made people understand when you say hello, when you decide to adopt, you have a responsibility to find out and prepare yourself for when you have to say goodbye, whether that is rehoming the animal or having to put the animal down because they're suffering.”
The vote passed 9-1, with Jones voting against.
Also of note
Additionally, in an effort to better formalize the handling of the wild peafowl population in San Antonio, the ordinance also names San Antonio as a bird sanctuary and bars the capture, killing, shooting, trapping, removal or relocation of exotic birds by untrained/unlicensed individuals.
The policy allows:
- ACS workers to humanely capture, remove and relocate peafowl or other exotic birds, but only after receiving community input and weighting the benefits of relocation to a sanctuary or rescue within city limits
- Creating an ordinance to only allow licensed/permitted handlers to remove and relocate peafowl or other exotic birds
The background
According to city documents, Gavito first submitted a council consideration request, or CCR, on March 11, 2024, that requested the city to consider a bird sanctuary designation and outlined actions for the handling of protected bird populations. The CCR also suggested the creation of a new ordinance specifically addressing the wild peafowl population in the city.
On Feb. 25, District 7 and ACS hosted a town hall meeting at Bob Ross Senior Center to gather feedback from residents from neighborhoods with wild peafowl. On March 19, ACS presented the issue to the Animal Care Services Advisory Board for input.
After gathering input from the ACS advisory board, a CCR was presented to the Public Safety Committee on April 15, which proposed establishing a peafowl management plan and updating Chapter 5 of the City Code to prohibit releasing peafowl within the city. During the process, Gary suggested expanding the ordinance to all animals.
Quote of note
Jones released a statement after the City Council meeting, detailing her reasoning on voting against the ordinance.
"Today, I voted 'no' on the proposed change to the abandonment ordinance because it lacked the required due diligence and public engagement,” Jones said. “The Animal Care Services Director acknowledged the proposed change would have a ‘minimal impact,’ and longtime animal rights community leaders clearly stated the proposed ordinance would be counterproductive and cause public confusion. I appreciate the intent of this ordinance, and I look forward to working with fellow council members and Animal Care Services to ensure: we’re prioritizing public safety, our citizens understand what this policy means in practice, and we’re caring for animals while not inadvertently decreasing the number of spay and neutered animals in our community."
