Information is from October 1, 2023 – August 31, 2024 Information compiled via ASO Power BI dashboards. Difference of outcomes - intakes Outcome Year (fiscal) Intake Year (fiscal) Dog totals Cat totals Totals Dog totals Cat totals Totals Dog totals Cat totals Totals Cats Adoption Transfer Euthanasia Died Missing Total Dog Adoption Transfer Euthanasia Died Missing Total RTO/RTO Adopt SNR (former SCRP) RTO/RTO Adopt 2024 4812 5291 10103 2024 4798 5233 10031 2024 -14 -58 -72 2024 3362 139 1146 100 67 4 415 5233 2024 3210 715 763 81 26 3 4798
What Is a Glue Trap? A glue trap is a small board made of cardboard, fiberboard, or plastic and coated with a sticky adhesive. It can ensnare any small animal who wanders across or lands on its surface. Glue Traps Are Indiscriminate Small “nontarget” animals, including birds, hamsters, lizards, snakes, and squirrels, often fall victim to these traps. Glue Traps Cause Prolonged Suffering Animals trapped in the glue panic and struggle, which causes them to become even more ensnarled. Often, the glue tears off their fur, feathers, or skin. Some break bones or even chew off their own limbs in a desperate attempt to escape. The screaming of ensnared wildlife is extremely upsetting to people who don’t know how to “dispose” of these sentient beings. Left alone, the terrified, injured animals die, sometimes days later, of blood loss, shock, suffocation, or thirst. Or they die from being crushed in the garbage, which is where the instructions on the traps advise consumers to put them. Glue Traps Are a Health Hazard The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns the public not to use glue traps because they increase people’s exposure to disease. Animals stuck in the glue continue to produce urine and feces, through which pathogens, including hantavirus, salmonella, and the bacteria that cause leptospirosis, are transmitted. Glue Traps Don’t Work Glue traps are not a long-term solution for controlling “unwanted houseguests.” When rodents are killed, the survivors and newcomers breed faster, which causes an increase in the population! And they fail to address the source of the problem: If holes aren’t plugged up and attractants aren’t removed, more animals will move in to take the place of those who have been killed. The Way Forward Multiple countries—including England, Iceland, Ireland, and New Zealand—as well as two states and one territory in Australia and nearly all 28 states and 8 union territories in India have banned glue traps. And hundreds of companies and other entities have prohibited their sale or use, including Target, Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Rite Aid, CVS, Walgreens, Walmart Canada, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Public Storage, and more than 100 airports. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 501 Front St., Norfolk, VA 23510 • 757-622-PETA • PETA.org GLUETRAPCRUELTY
Austin Can Lead the Way for Animals: Ending the Use of Glue Traps What are glue traps? A small board made of carboard, fiberboard or plastic and coated with a sticky adhesive. The glue trap is designed to ensnare any small animal who wanders across or lands on its surface. “One of the cruelest methods of killing animals in existence today…” – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Glue Trap Fact Sheet. “Responsible for more suffering than virtually any other wildlife control product on the market…” –Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Glue Boards. Why End the Use of Glue Traps? Five reasons to stop using glue traps in Austin • They inflict immense, prolonged suffering • They are indiscriminate • They are ineffective at addressing the problem • Customers are unaware of the cruelty • The CDC says not to use them Glue traps cause immense, prolonged suffering. Animals trapped in the glue panic and struggle, causing them to become even more stuck. In their desperation to break free, the glue tears off their skin or feathers. Some animals’ faces becomes stuck, leading to suffocation lasting hours. Some break bones or chew off their limbs, desperate to escape. Animals suffer slow, painful deaths and can be thrown in the garbage while still alive. Most trapped animals die of blood loss, shock, suffocation, or dehydration, after days of suffering. They die starved and exhausted. Instructions on glue boards have suggested that the traps be thrown away while the animal is still alive. Simply check reviews on Amazon to understand how inhumane glue traps are. They cause indiscriminate suffering. According to the Wildife Center of Virginia's WILD-ONe database, which collects information from wildlife rehabilitation and animal hospitals, 179 species of wildlife have been documented in glue traps, including some protected species of birds. • Source: Schwirtz, M. (2024, March 28). In New York City, glue traps face scrutiny amid push for humane rodent control. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/28/nyregion/glue-trap-rodents-nyc.html They do not solve the problem. The only long-term way to control rodent populations is to make the area unattractive and inaccessible to the animals. The CDC states: “Removing food sources, water, and items that provide shelter for rodents is the best way to prevent contact with rodents.” Consumers are not prepared. People report being unsure of how to handle discovering an animal immobilized on a glue trap. The …
Administrative Report ACTION ITEM HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Ben Harvey, City Manager Brian Popovich, Management Analyst TO: FROM: DATE REPORT PREPARED: MEETING DATE: February 27, 2024 February 16, 2024 SUBJECT: Introduction of Ordinance to Prohibit the Use and Sale of Glue Traps Within the City of Ojai Recommendation Introduce an Ordinance prohibiting the use and sale of glue traps within the City of Ojai. Discussion The issue of the use of glue traps has been raised in recent years by animal rights advocacy groups. Recently, the City Council has directed staff to draft an ordinance banning the use of glue traps. The City has a history of supporting items that promote animal welfare, including the recent passing of an ordinance adding the right to bodily liberty for elephants. Glue Traps Glue traps, also known as a sticky board or glue board, is composed of a layer of cardboard, plastic or wood that is coated with a non-drying adhesive, or a shallow tray of adhesive. The goal of the glue trap is to entrap rodents or other pests when they cross the board since their feet or other body parts get stuck in the adhesive. The animals are incapable of freeing themselves and slowly other parts of their bodies get stuck to the trap. After an extended amount of time, the captured animal typically dies from starvation, dehydration, or suffocation. The process is extremely cruel and painful, and subjects the animal to an inhumane and slow death. Glue traps are primarily used by homeowners, food processors and pest management companies to control rodent populations. Glue traps are commonly used for rodents, however, the People for Ethical Animal Treatment (“PETA”), states that these traps have been used to capture other wildlife such as birds, snakes and squirrels. According to PETA, there are reports of cats becoming stuck in glue traps and requiring veterinary assistance afterwards. Furthermore, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) warns against the use of glue traps due to potentially producing harmful human health impacts as the trapped animals produce urine and feces. 344240.1 Page 1 of 3 3-1 While the larger glue traps designed to capture vertebrate animals such as rats tend to be the most problematic due to the increased likelihood to capture larger animals or multiple animals, smaller glue traps designed to capture invertebrate animals such as ants, flies, insects and cockroaches present similar dangers. …
August 2024 AUSTIN ANIMAL SERVICES REPORT 1 Animal Services News • The live outcome rate for August was 97.82%. • A total of 904 animals were brought to the shelter which included 491 cats, 357 dogs, 32 wild animals, 14 guinea pigs, 3 lizards, 2 rabbits, and 1 tortoise. • A total of 735 animals were adopted (148 adult dogs, 126 puppies, 1 neonatal puppy, 360 kittens, and 100 adult cats). • A total of 73 dogs and cats were returned to their owners (RTOs and RTO-Adopt). • On August 1, there were 1,045 dogs and cats within the ASO inventory (553 onsite, 486 in foster, 2 • On September 1, there were 892 dogs and cats within the ASO inventory (524 onsite, 364 in at a vet clinic, and 1 at TLAC). foster, 1 at a vet clinic, and 2 at TLAC). Animal Protection • Animal Protection Officers (APOs) returned 47 animals to their owners in the field. • Officers handed out 13 fencing assistance applications and implanted 1 microchip(s). • Officers impounded 139 injured animals and delivered approximately 104 wildlife animals to Austin Wildlife Rescue. • Officers entered 257 rabies exposure reports and submitted 41 specimens for rabies testing. We had 11 positive bats, 1 positive skunk, 4 decomposed bats and 2 decomposed skunks, and 1 decomposed fox. • 76 total coyote related activities (Behavior types include Sighting, Encounter, Incident, and Observation. “Observation” is defined as hearing coyotes howling and finding scat or footprints.) o 46 Wild Sick o 23 Sightings o 3 Encounters o 2 Wild Speak o 1 Observation o 1 Wild Injured • Out of 76 coyote related activities, 27 (24%) reports fell within the reported behavior types (sighting, encounter, incident, and observation) o Encounters: Pets were a factor in 3/3 (100%) of encounters reported. An encounter involved two coyotes following caller and pet. An encounter involved a coyote being chased by residents’ dog for 2-3 blocks. An encounter involved a coyote with mange lunging at a dog, once the caller and dog came around the corner and startled the coyote. • Out of 76 coyote related reports, 55 (72%) reports were updated to the correct behavior types. 2 o 16 sightings updated to wild sick (Due to mange) o Residents are mistaking coyotes with mange for dogs 15 stray injured dogs updated to wild sick coyotes 3 stray roam …
Strategic Planning Update to Animal Advisory Commission Stephanie Hayden-Howard, Assistant City Manager Samantha Eaton Moncayo, Business Process Consultant Senior Dr. Larry Schooler, Consultant September 9, 2024 W o r k in g Gr o u p M e e t in g • D r . Sch o o le r fa cilit a t e d s e co n d w o r k in g gr o u p m e e t in g o n Au gu s t 2 9 t h • D is co ve r y Se s s io n • P r io r it ie s d is cu s s io n Strategic Planning Update 2 Data Overview DATA METHOD Interviews Listening Sessions Public Survey Staff 9 Leadership Interviews 9 listening sessions (94 Staff) 103 total staff Volunteers 4 listening sessions 40 volunteers Community 1 month posted 2000+ responses ASO Data Analysis 09/09/2024 3 Community Survey TIMEFRAME FORMAT The community survey was open from July 17th until August 14th on Public Input. Online mixed methods survey with quantitative and qualitative questions using Public Input platform. RESPONSES 2,041 participants *567 responses excluded because they failed to complete 2 or more required questions and most other data left blank. MARKETING The survey was shared through ASO social media, a City press release, internal City newsletter, City social media, all City Public Information Officers, and a social media kit was sent to partner agencies. ASO Data Analysis 09/09/2024 4 Participant Demographics Zip Code Distribution Age Please note: Demographic questions were completed by 66%, 49%, 47% and 47% respectively ASO Data Analysis 09/09/2024 5 Participant Demographics Gender Race/Ethnicity The areas of the pie chart not visible on the graphic represent the following out of 971 respondents. America Indian or Alaska Native - 1, Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish; American Indian or Alaska Native Indian or Alaska Native; Other - 1, White; Black or African-American; American Indian or Alaska Native- 1, White; Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish; American Indian or Alaska Native Asian - 1, White; Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish; Other White; Black or African-American - 2, White; American Indian or Alaska Native - 1, White; Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish; - 2, - 1, White; Other - 1, Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish; Asian - 1, White; American - 4 ASO Data Analysis 09/09/2024 6 Participants Interactions with ASO Please note: Participants can indicate more …
ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 The Animal Advisory Commission convened in a regular meeting on September 9, 2024, at 301 W. 2nd St in Austin, Texas. Chair Clinton called the Animal Advisory Commission Meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Ryan Clinton, Chair, Travis County Whitney Holt, D5 Sarah Huddleston, D9 Dr. Paige Nilson, D4 Lotta Smagula, D1 Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Ann Linder, Vice Chair, D3 Beatriz Dulzaides, D2 Commissioners Absent: Nancy Nemer, Parliamentarian, Travis County Dr. Amanda Bruce, D10 Luis Herrera, D6 Laura Hoke, Mayor’s Appointee Larry Tucker, D7 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Catherine Chamblee - Exacerbation and strain caused on Austin’s own stray and shelter animal population by transportation of more out of area shelter animals into Austin Remington Johnson – Enforcement of Kennel Size Pat Valls-Trelles – Process, Policy, Progress, etc. Sandra Muller – Dog Bite Scale, Live Release Rate, Austin Pets Alive! Repairs APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1 1. Approve the minutes of the Animal Advisory Commission Regular Meeting on August 12, 2024. The motion to approve the minutes from the meeting of August 12, 2024, failed on Commissioner Smagula’s motion, Commissioner Holt’s second on a 6-0 vote. Commissioner Nilson abstained. Parliamentarian Nemer, Commissioners Bruce, Herrera, Hoke, and Tucker were absent. STAFF BRIEFING 2. Staff briefing regarding monthly reports provided by the Animal Service Center. The presentation was made by Don Bland, Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services and Jason Garza, Deputy Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services. Commissioner Smagula requested that Animal Services staff provide information on which category the animals listed in the “Lost, Stolen, or Missing” fall under. Commissioner Dulzaides requested that Animal Services staff provide information on how many animals are microchipped each month. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. Discussion of the Animal Services strategic plan and planning process. A presentation was made by Stephanie Hayden-Howard, Assistant City Manager; Samantha Eaton Moncayo, Business Process Consultant, Senior, Financial Services; Dr. Larry Schooler, Consultant. Commissioner Holt recused herself from the discussion. Discussion of City of Austin use of glue traps for pest control. Discussed. 4. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS None. A motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:21 p.m. was approved on Commissioner Nilson’s motion, Commissioner Huddleston’s second on a 7-0 vote. Parliamentarian Nemer, Commissioners Bruce, Herrera, Hoke, and Tucker were absent. The minutes were approved at the October 14, 2024, meeting on Commissioner Nilson’s motion, Commissioner Holt’s second on …
REGULAR MEETING of the ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION August 12, 2024, 6 p.m. Austin City Hall, Room 1101 301 W. 2nd St Austin, Texas 78701 Some members of the Animal Advisory Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, contact Eric Anderson at eric.anderson@austintexas.gov or (512) 974-2562. CURRENT COMMISSIONERS: Ryan Clinton, Chair, Travis County Nancy Nemer, Parliamentarian, Travis County Lotta Smagula, D1 Beatriz Dulzaides, D2 Ann Linder, Vice Chair, D3 Dr. Paige Nilson, D4 Whitney Holt, D5 Luis Herrera, D6 Larry Tucker, D7 Sarah Huddleston, D9 Dr. Amanda Bruce, D10 Laura Hoke, Mayor CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL AGENDA The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Animal Advisory Commission Regular Meeting on July 8, 2024. STAFF BRIEFING 2. Staff briefing regarding monthly reports provided by the Animal Service Center. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Discussion of the Animal Services strategic plan and planning process. ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting date. Please contact Eric Anderson, Office of (512) 974-2562 or eric.anderson@austintexas.gov for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. For more information on the Animal Advisory Commission, please contact Eric Anderson at (512) 974-2562 or eric.anderson@austintexas.gov. the City Clerk at
1. ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 2024 The Animal Advisory Commission convened in a regular meeting on July 8, 2024, at 301 W. 2nd St in Austin, Texas. Parliamentarian Nemer called the Animal Advisory Commission Meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Nancy Nemer, Parliamentarian, Travis County Luis Herrera, D6 Laura Hoke, Mayor’s Appointee Paige Nilson, D4 Lotta Smagula, D1 Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Ann Linder, Vice Chair, D3 Beatriz Dulzaides, D2 Sarah Huddleston, D9 Commissioners Absent: Ryan Clinton, Chair, Travis County Amanda Bruce, D10 Whitney Holt, D5 Larry Tucker, D7 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Rochelle Vickery – Spay and Neuter, Found Dogs Jeff Gjertson – Found Dogs, Shelter Intake APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approve the minutes of the Animal Advisory Commission Regular Meeting on June 10, 2024. 1 The minutes from the meeting of June 10, 2024, were approved on Vice Chair Linder’s motion, Commissioner Smagula’s second on an 8-0 vote. Chair Clinton, Commissioners Bruce, Holt, and Tucker were absent. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding monthly reports provided by the Animal Service Center. The presentation was made by Don Bland, Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services. Commissioner Dulzaides requested that information on the number of animals microchipped this year be provided by Animal Services staff. Presentation by Austin Pets Alive! regarding license agreement reports. The presentation was made by Stephanie Bilbro, Austin Pets Alive! Director of Operations. Discussion of the Animal Services strategic plan and planning process. A presentation was made by Stephanie Hayden-Howard, Assistant City Manager. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. 4. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM 5. Approve a recommendation to Council on animals at City of Austin Cooling Centers. The motion to approve the recommendation to Council on animals at City of Austin Cooling Centers was approved on Commissioner Smagula’s motion, Commissioner Herrera’s second on an 8-0 vote. Chair Clinton, Commissioners Bruce, Holt, and Tucker were absent. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS None. Parliamentarian Nemer adjourned the meeting at 7:11 p.m. without objection. The minutes were approved at the XX, meeting on Commissioner XX’s motion, Commissioner XX’s second on a X-X vote. 2
Information is from October 1, 2023 – June 30, 2024 Information compiled via ASO Power BI dashboards. Difference of outcomes - intakes Outcome Year (fiscal) Intake Year (fiscal) Dog totals Cat totals Totals Dog totals Cat totals Totals Dog totals Cat totals Totals Cats Adoption Transfer Euthanasia Died Missing Total Dog Adoption Transfer Euthanasia Died Missing Total RTO/RTO Adopt SNR (former SCRP) RTO/RTO Adopt 2024 4455 4800 9255 2024 4419 4618 9037 2024 -36 -182 -218 2024 2902 130 1035 94 62 2 393 4618 2024 2936 651 731 74 25 2 4419
July 2024 AUSTIN ANIMAL SERVICES REPORT 1 Animal Services News • The live outcome rate for July was 97.31%. • A total of 932 animals were brought to the shelter which included 511 cats, 378 dogs, 28 wild animals, 6 guinea pigs, 2 rats, 1 chicken, 1 turkey, and 1 rabbit. • A total of 769 animals were adopted (166 adult dogs, 123 puppies, 398 kittens, and 82 adult • A total of 70 dogs and cats were returned to their owners (RTOs and RTO-Adopt). • On July 1, there were 1,278 dogs and cats within the ASO inventory (683 onsite, 592 in foster, and • On August 1, there were 1,045 dogs and cats within the ASO inventory (553 onsite, 486 in foster, 2 cats). 1 at a vet clinic). at a vet clinic, and 1 at TLAC). Animal Protection • Animal Protection Officers (APOs) returned 25 animals to their owners in the field. • Officers handed out 24 fencing assistance applications and implanted 7 microchip(s). • Officers impounded 151 injured animals and delivered approximately 92 wildlife animals to Austin Wildlife Rescue. • Officers entered 205 rabies exposure reports and submitted 46 specimens for rabies testing. We had 4 positive bats, 2 decomposed bats and 2 decomposed skunks. • 67 total coyote related activities (Behavior types include Sighting, Encounter, Incident, and Observation. “Observation” is defined as hearing coyotes howling and finding scat or footprints.) o 54 Wild Sick o 9 Sightings o 2 o 1 o 1 Wild Speak Encounters Incident • Out of 67 coyote related activities, 12 (18%) reports fell within the reported behavior types (sighting, encounter, incident, and observation) o Encounters: Pets were a factor in 2/2 (100%) of encounters reported. ▪ An encounter involved a coyote with mange running up to caller and dog. ▪ An encounter involved a coyote following caller and dog. o Incidents: Pets were a factor in 0/0 (0%) of incidents reported. ▪ An incident involved a coyote with mange chasing a man after the caller ran from the coyote. • Out of 67 coyote related reports, 49 (73%) reports were updated to the correct behavior types. o 23 sightings updated to wild sick (Due to mange) o Residents are mistaking coyotes with mange for dogs ▪ 7 stray injured dogs updated to wild sick coyotes ▪ 5 stray roam dogs updated to wild sick coyotes ▪ 1 stray sick dog …
July 2024 Travis County Coyote Report Prepared by: Emery Sadkin Total number of Coyote Calls: 2 Coyote Calls by Behavior Type July 2024 1 0 Sighting 0 0 Encounter Incident Obseravtion Behavior Type Figure 1. Coyote activity by behavior. Out of 2 coyote related reports, 1 fell within the reported behavior types (Sighting, Incident, Encounter and Observation) Coyote Calls by Precinct July 2024 s t r o p e R e t o y o C f o r e b m u N 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 s t r o p e R e t o y o C f o r e b m u N 2.5 1.5 0.5 2 1 0 Wild Speak Wild Sick Wild Injured Obseravtion Incident Encounter Sighting P1 P2 P3 P4 Precinct Figure 2. Coyote reports by precinct. All coyote reports took place in P2. Sick and Injured Coyote calls by Behavior Type July 2024 1 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 s t o r p e R e t o y o C f o r e b m u N 0 0 Wild Injured Wild Sick Behavior Type 0 Wild Speak Figure 3. Out of 2 coyote related reports, 1 report fell within the reported behavior types. Behavior types including Wild Sick, Wild Speak, Wild Injured. “Wild Speak” is defined as a resident not seeing the coyote (Example: Reporting for a neighbor) or having questions regarding coyotes. Location Where Activity Took Place July 2024 Neighborhood 100% Figure 4. Type of location where activity took place, based on confirmed reports. “Habitat Fragment” is defined as a natural area adjacent to human habitation, which could include dense vegetation, creek beds, greenbelt areas, and other undeveloped land not habituated by humans. “Open field” is defined as an area where vegetation is cleared for industrial or commercial use. “Greenbelt” is defined as a belt of parkways, parks, or farmlands that encircles a community. “House Property” defined as a sighting on side of house, rather than front or backyard. “Building Strip” defined as a series of shops within a strip. Potential Attractants July 2024 50% 50% Open Field Greenbelt Figure 5. Potential attractants which could help explain coyote presence in the location of reported activity. “Habitat Fragment” is defined as a natural area adjacent to human habitation, which could include dense vegetation, greenbelts, or another undeveloped greenspace. “Human Source” is defined …
July 2024 Travis County Wildlife Report Prepared by: Emery Sadkin Total number of Wildlife calls: 38 Wildlife Related Activities s t r o p e R e f i l d l i W f o # 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Investigate Exposure Wild Injured Wild Speak Wild Sick Wild Confined Assist Fire Assist Storm Drain Activities Figure 1. Wildlife Related Activities that took place in Travis County. Type of Wildlife Picked Up e f i l d l i W f o e p y T Duck/Goose Hawk Fox Deer Snake Skunk Rabbit Opossum Bird Raccoon Bat 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 4 4 4 7 11 0 2 6 8 10 12 # of wildlife species P4 P3 P2 P1 Figure 2. Type of Wildlife that was involved in activities that took place, based on confirmed reports. “Other” refers to wildlife such as armadillos, porcupines, ring-tailed cat, etc. Jurisdiction Where Activity Took Place 1 1 1 2 35 Travis Bee Caves Manor Pflugerville Rollingwood Figure 3. Where wildlife activity was reported based on Jurisdiction within Travis County.
