Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Leon Valley council removes pet‑shop sourcing rules, approves animal ordinance amendment
Summary
After hours of public comment focused on the San Antonio Aquarium and dangerous‑animal exemptions, Leon Valley council approved amendments to the animal control code but removed pet‑shop sourcing and related penalty provisions; the measure passed unanimously.
Mayor Chris Riley said the council would take up agenda item 7.1 in open session after a legal consultation, then opened the public hearing and allowed proponents and opponents to speak.
Councilor Campos moved to approve the proposed amendments to Chapter 2 (animal control) while removing section 2.010.027 subsections i–k — the pet‑shop sourcing, recordkeeping and related penalty provisions — and Councilor Orozco seconded. Staff read the removed subsections aloud so the public could hear exactly what would be deleted from the code. After public comment and council discussion, the council took a roll‑call vote and approved the ordinance change unanimously (5 ayes, 0 nays).
The public hearing drew multiple speakers focused on whether the proposed "dangerous wild animal" definitions and an "educational animal exhibition" exemption would leave regulatory gaps and public‑safety risks. Sydney Bence of the PETA Foundation told the council the draft had "concerning holes" and that it "fails to consider state and federal law" for many of the species at issue. Rebecca Smudzinski, the PETA Foundation's deputy director for captive wildlife, urged rejection and warned that the San Antonio Aquarium, which she said has a history of USDA citations, would benefit from the changes.
A parent, Britney Taryn, described a July 14 incident at the aquarium in which her child was grabbed by an octopus and said the amendment would reduce safeguards for both animals and visitors. Local pet‑store owners and other residents urged the council to preserve protections that require disclosure about animal sources and to ensure local businesses are treated fairly.
The motion approved by council explicitly removed the pet‑shop sourcing and enforcement subsections (i–k) from the ordinance as read into the record. The council did not adopt additional changes to the dangerous‑animal language at that vote. Councilors also directed that the animal‑ordinance matter had been reviewed in executive session for legal advice prior to the public vote. The voted motion carried unanimously.
