Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell council animal services problems persist; microchipping and shelter practices criticized
Summary
Several members of the public pressed the council on animal‑services issues during call to the public, citing alleged failures to register microchips implanted at city clinics, staffing and intake practices at the shelter, and recurring cat cruelty incidents.
Get email alerts on the Animal Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Multiple speakers used the public‑comment period at Wednesday’s City Council meeting to criticize El Paso Animal Services and urge changes to the city’s handling of stray and sheltered animals.
Ron Como said he reviewed shelter reports and disputed city statements about staffing and the shelter’s no‑kill plan, arguing the city had changed timeframes for veterinary certification and had not followed intake guidance at the Morehead facility. He said return‑to‑owner, adoption and rescue numbers had declined and urged the city to “get the community back caring.”
Barbara Valencia of Huckleberry Hound Dog Rescue described what she said were systemic problems with the city’s free microchip program. She said volunteers and finders repeatedly encountered microchips implanted at Animal Services clinics that had not been registered in the manufacturer’s database. Valencia said she identified 19 microchipped dogs whose chips were not registered (16 chipped in 2024 and two in 2023), and that Animal Services staff had altered an online registration default from “yes” to “no,” which she said prevented finders from obtaining owner contact information. She urged the city manager and Animal Services to fix registration procedures and be held accountable.
Claudia Contreras Siller and Malloy Calendine also spoke; Contreras urged volunteering to raise and rehabilitate kittens and asked the city to press apartment managers where poisonings are alleged, while Calendine used the platform to express opposition to Pride events and banners (a comment unrelated to animal services).
City staff did not provide a substantive response during the call to the public portion recorded in the transcript. Councilmembers did not vote on animal‑services matters during the meeting; several members heard the comments and later continued with the consent agenda and regular business.

