San Angelo residents press council over shelter policy after unexplained euthanasias

Dozens of San Angelo residents, volunteers and contracted rescue partners urged the City Council on March 7 to reverse recent changes at the city-operated animal shelter that community members say allowed healthy dogs to be euthanized before rescues or the public had a chance to intervene.

Speakers at the public-comment portion of the City Council meeting described the change as a unilateral decision by city management and said the community and contracted partners were not given adequate notice or participation. They called for enforcement of existing ordinances such as mandatory spay/neuter and for the city to restore partnerships and transparency.

The protest began with Ashley Swider of District 2, who said the policy change made euthanasia “a permanent solution to a temporary problem” and argued that improved visibility and website updates would allow rescues and residents to save more dogs. “Euthanasia should only be used to end suffering that a vet can't fix,” Swider said.

Several other speakers described concrete incidents and numbers. Jimmy Black said community rescuers “pulled over 50 dogs” in response to the list and that staff still euthanized about 20 animals; he also said he was told two dogs were already euthanized when he arrived to claim them. Cindy Flores and others pressed for enforcement of spay-and-neuter ordinances and said Concho Valley Paws has spent large sums—Flores cited “more than $200,000 in a year” and Jenny Wilson of Concho Valley Paws said the organization has invested nearly $1 million in resources—to support the shelter and its animals.

Jenny Wilson, who identified herself as representing a contract vendor, said Concho Valley Paws provides adoption coordinators and medical care and that its contract with the city covers about $70,000 of those costs; she said the organization was not invited to the task force discussions and demanded “a seat at the table.”

City Manager Daniel Valenzuela addressed the council and the public, saying his priority is residents’ health and safety while maintaining humane animal-control policies. Valenzuela said the city will keep intake open and will not refuse citizens who bring found animals to the shelter. He reiterated the existing city ordinance that stray dogs must be held three days to allow owners to reclaim them, adding that that holding period “may vary if the animal is seriously ill, injured, or deemed dangerous.” Valenzuela said euthanasia is a measure of last resort in cases of overcrowding or public-safety risk and that staff will review protocols to ensure animals are not euthanized immediately after the prescribed timeframe.

Valenzuela also said the shelter has been operating near capacity and that solutions require community participation—enforcement, fostering, adoptions, volunteerism and compliance with existing ordinances. He said the task force convened to study the issue will return to council with recommendations “probably within the next three weeks.”

The meeting record shows broad public anger about the shelter decision process, persistent requests that elected officials rather than staff make life-or-death policy changes, and specific calls for the city to reestablish working arrangements with rescue partners. Commenters repeatedly asked the council to halt the current policy and reopen full public discussion; several cited specific examples of animals taken from the euthanasia list by community rescuers.

The council did not take a formal vote on the shelter policy at the March 7 meeting. Valenzuela said staff will return with a report and recommendations and that enforcement staffing and budget will be discussed in an upcoming budget workshop.