San Antonio council approves ordinance banning animal abandonment after debate over wording and enforcement

SAN ANTONIO — The San Antonio City Council approved an ordinance on Sept. 11 adding an abandonment prohibition to Chapter 5 of the city code, a change City Hall officials said will give local authorities an additional tool to deter people who dump animals in neighborhoods.

The measure, pulled for individual consideration by Councilwoman Melissa Aldrete Gavito (who represents District 7) and advanced after debate, adds language that makes it a violation to “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly abandon or release any animal anywhere in the city that has been trapped and within a person's control and possession.” Council members voted to approve the ordinance; the meeting transcript records the motion as carried but does not include a roll-call tally.

City officials said the ordinance is designed to complement existing state law and to target deliberate relocations and dumping inside city limits. “Our recommendation, our staff recommendation is to approve, the ordinances for you today,” John Gary, director of Animal Care Services, told the council during the Sept. 11 discussion. The proposed city code change would treat the municipal violation as a class C offense under city code while the comparable state statute, Texas Penal Code Sec. 42.092, makes certain abandonment offenses a higher-level misdemeanor in state law.

Supporters and staff described the local change as a narrow enforcement tool for cases in which animals are captured and then moved or released in other neighborhoods. Joe Nino of the city attorney’s office answered council questions about the word “trapped” and said the ordinance was not intended to criminalize routine or incidental acts by residents: “To give you a more specific answer, this does not apply to a 12 year old releasing a frog from a jar. It does not.” The city’s presentation said fines under the city schedule would range from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $2,000 for a first offense, with higher minimums for repeat offenses.

But animal rescuers and advocates at the meeting urged the council to slow down and refine the language. “Please vote no on item number 7. Bring it back. Allow public discussion,” said Kelly Walls, an animal rescuer who testified against the ordinance, arguing that the draft would make prosecutions harder because many abandonments do not involve a prior act of “trapping” the animal.

Multiple rescuers and advocates warned the new text could unintentionally penalize people who try to help animals. Speakers described examples — people who take in an injured or starving animal to provide water or shelter, or renters who suddenly must vacate housing and cannot pay a surrender fee — and said the ordinance as written could punish those well-intentioned acts. Several speakers also asked the city to align 3-1-1 guidance and Animal Care Services practice so callers receive consistent advice about whether to hold animals or file a stray report.

Council members who supported the change said local prosecutions give the city another enforcement option and address a public-safety problem. Councilwoman Aldrete Gavito said the change is “just 1 more step in the right direction of making San Antonio a safer place for animals,” and Councilman Greg Brockhouse (speaking during the meeting as Councilman White) said abandoning animals is cruel and can be a public-safety risk. A city prosecutor noted that municipal prosecution of the ordinance would be handled by the city’s prosecution team rather than the district attorney’s office.

Animal Care Services staff told the council that abandonment complaints are difficult to prove and relatively rare: the department receives roughly 400 complaints a year but pursued about half a dozen abandonment prosecutions in the prior year, the director said. Staff also emphasized the agency’s first priority is keeping animals with owners whenever possible by offering resources such as spay/neuter assistance, collars, microchips and rehoming guidance.

Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones and other council members urged clarifications and public education to reduce confusion about the ordinance’s scope. The mayor recommended aligning municipal language with the state standard and asked Animal Care Services to prepare a detailed communications plan explaining what residents should do if they find a stray or injured animal. Councilwoman Aldrete Gavito said she considered the ordinance ready to move and opposed delaying the vote; the council approved the item that day.

City officials said they will proceed with outreach to clarify the ordinance’s application, emphasize that lawful trap-neuter-return programs for feral cats are not targeted, and coordinate 3-1-1 messaging with Animal Care Services. Enforcement and prosecution details, city staff said, will be guided by the facts of individual cases and by existing state law.

A copy of the adopted ordinance and any subsequent implementation guidance will be posted by the city. Animal advocates who opposed the ordinance said they will continue to press for language changes and additional public engagement to avoid penalizing rescuers and low-income residents who surrender animals.