Please donate to support our work is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »

24 thoughts on “2023 Dog Bite Fatality: Man Walking Down a Road in Rockport, Texas Brutally Killed by Multiple Dogs

Please review our comment policy.

  1. When I’m out walking I carry a weapon with me so I at least have a chance if some of these maulers are running loose. Without a weapon your only hope is help gets to you in time.

    I hope the owner at least gets charged with negligent homicide. There is no excuse for letting your dog run loose and injure or kill someone.

    • Yep. I love to walk. It’s a shame that I have to carry just to walk my neighborhood. But I do. Too many dogs running loose. It’s terrible that this man was killed by those mutant dogs. It’s time to hold these owners responsible. Charge them with murder and lock them up.

  2. I cli credit on the Adrian arispe link and it goes to Google Street view maps and I scrolled and rotated around and actually saw 2 of the dogs – the b&w mix and a tan & white pit bull and also a mom dad and little girl in another driveway possibly waiting for the school bus
    The mom appears to be looking at for off prop loose dogs
    Also in another driveway there is a an stopped at a gate and appears to be a property owner walking to the gate to let person in and person is waiting inside their car

    Pictures can sometimex tell a thousand words

  3. That poor guy walking and getting kill by pitbull or pitbull mix.this only happen in America because they won’t do anything about the dangerous dog breed whether it pitbull or some other dangerous breed.I wonder if these pitbull belong to one lady or they belong to multiple people.

    • Unfortunately for some time now America has had the best government money can buy and the pit lobby had the money. So instead of bloodsport dogs being spayed and neutered into extinction back in the ’80’s when dogfighting became illegal they got rebranded as pet animals which never should have happened. Maybe something will change once a congresscritter gets mauled to death.

  4. Another horror show in a country that has murderous “pets” running loose. No one is safe anywhere any more. Pits have contaminated all bloodlines now. It seems we’ll never be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube. The hope is for stricter laws and penalties but I’m skeptical much will change. I completely understand why people want to arm themselves just to take a walk.

    • I don’t leave home without a tactical can that would really hurt if it was being swung like a baseball bat.

  5. There has been a significant update at the bottom of this post. A second arrest and a fence line that you won’t believe!

  6. The fence is apparently just for ornamental purposes.

    I don’t understand these deaths. There are people in the USA that keep their dogs confined during the day but turn them loose at night so they can get some exercise, breed, and kill people and animals. Maybe these owners were just that kind of owner.

    • Ever feel like yer livin’ in The Purge but the dangerous crazies runnin’ loose are pitbulls and The Purge is happening nightly?

  7. They caught the 2nd owner on 1 of the border bridges-
    Obvi9sly this is an example of the authorities in a particular dept have a lot to do with how cases r handled and whether or not any justice is served so kudos to Aransas County and the d3pt that caught the 2nd individual

  8. I wouldn’t call that a fence, I’d call it a screen. Along the line where it’s WAY off the ground, there looks to be a view of the bottom 1/4 of a dog house.

    Oddly, there’s a wire fence further down, then the board fence starts up again, closer to the ground, then more wire.

    Fencing doesn’t seem to be their strong suit.

  9. Can someone please explain to me what reason or motivation a politician of either party would possibly have for vetoing that bill? I don’t understand why anyone would veto that!

  10. Bizarre fence. Not only is there an open/missing gate on the one street, but also on the street behind the house.

  11. 2 years ago a neighbor had a traveling mechanic come to his home, the man had a pit in cab of his truck. When the neighbors lab came out, the pit jumped out of the cab & viciously killed the lab. No matter where you live, or go, be cautious. My family laughs about my fear, but it is real.

  12. In Texas, Counties are managed by an elected official called the “County Judge”. They are the boss over all County employees, including those at a County Animal Care or Animal Control Agency.

    In Aransas County, in 2022 the voters booted out an elderly County Judge who had been running the show for about 20 years. The “new” County Judge, a young guy with and MBA and general contracting experience named Ray Garza was overwhelmingly elected and took over on 1/1/23.

    That New County Judge inherited a whole bunch of County employees who were set in their ways, including Aransas County Animal Care employees backed up by a whole army of “animal lover” voluteers.

    The New County Judge discovdered, just since January 2023 that Aransas County Animal Care was woefully short on facilities to keep dogs in their possession, whether “nice” strays or vicious attack dogs like the 5 who killed Mr. Flores on June 20, 2023.

    Apparently there had been many, many complaints by people who lived near the 5 vicious attack dog pack’s owners about the pack killing other animals, including goats and cats, as well as, allegedly a few little dogs. The attack dog pack had bitten people prior to June 20th. However, given the “fact” that Aransas County Animal Care agency was always “full up” the Animal Care management employees decided to allow the attack dog pack to continue to roam the community, roughly a 1 mile radius around the dog owners’ “unfenced” home. The vicious dogs were simply allowed to roam by both their owners and Aransas County Animal Care. Those reckless decisions were made in 2021-2023 and vehemently supported by the “dog lovers” who are volunteers at Aransas County Animal Care. Bottom line, they care more about dogs generally than they care that Mr. Flores was ripped to shreds and is dead.

    The REASON that Aransas County Animal Care agency didn’t have enough room to “impound” the 5 vicious attack dogs was that the old man, the 20-year Old County Judge decided to pish the County’s capital improvement budget away on building a fancy new Aransas County Court House to replace the utilitarian one. He and his 2 close pals on the County Commission picked the fancy new Court House over expanding the Animal Care and control facilities to meet the need which they KNEW existed.

    While the County borrowed the original budget money to build the lavish new Court House, there were huge cost over-runs in the construction processwhich the County had to fund “out of its pocket”.

    In essence the 20-year Old County Judge was building the Court House as a monument to his ego, and to have ‘cushy surroundings’ for County office employees excluding the Animal Care employees and the impounded and sheltered dogs who are at another location, out by Aransas County Airport. Having enough space in the “dog pound” was not a priority of the elderly Old County Judge in 2020-2022.

    Then, on top of that bad decision, the eye of Hurricane Harvey had hit Aransas County in Fall 2017, doing mega millions of dollars in damage to Aransas County’s buildings, docks and other County facilities. The County DID have hurricane insurance, and the insurance “fund” (a weird coop of government agencies) paid a significant part of the cost of the hurricane repairs to the County facilities, with the County having to go into its pocket to pay the rest of the repair costs.

    BUT THEN, things got measurably worse, because the elderly Old County Judge had hired one of his friends, a woman with no General Contractor’s license or general contracting/subcontractor supervisory experience, to be the “Manager” of the multi-million dollars in repairs of the damages to Aransas County’s buildings and other facilities. She had possession of all the “insurance money” and was supposed to be paying the contractor’s and subcontractor’s bills. But she wasn’t.

    She either pished away or ripped off a huge portion of the hurricane insurance proceeds. As a result, the County had to “go into its pocket” to the tune of millions of dollars to replace the missing insurance proceeds to pay for the repairs. Contractors got stiffed, the County got sued, and the elderly Old County Judge didn’t do a darn thing about it. Instead, the problem of the missing millions of dollars in hurricane insurance money was dumped in the lap of the young guy who became County Judge on 1/1/23.
    The New County Judge in turn had to go to the Texas Legislature to get “permission” to sue everyone involved in the disappearance of the millions of dollars in hurricane insurannce proceeds, permission which was only given about a month ago. There’s no guarantee the County’s lawyers can find the missing money or get it back out of the hide of any third party.

    So the bottom line is that Aransas County’s residents are triple-screwed. Huge numbers of stray dogs are running loose in the County, some of them biters or outright attack dogs, but Aransas County Animal Care doesn’t have enough space to “lock them up”, and has no money to build the needed Animal Care facility expansion.

    Second, Aransas County has to pay construction costs “out of its pocket” to finish the fancy, new unnecessary County Court House which the County could’t afford in the first place, but construction continues because the Old County Judge signed a construction contract with a legit contractor promising to pay the construction bills as costs were incurred by the contractor.

    Third, Aransas County is also paying the repair costs for the Hurricane Harvey damage to “cover” the insurance proceeds which were ripped off, misspent and otherwise disappeared.

    Then to “ice the cake” of the horror of Lewis Flores death at “the mouths” of the 5 vicious dogs who had been repeatedly let go because there was nowhere to impound them: The crackpot Animal Care volunteers are angry with the New County Judge, Garza, for ordering that the killer dogs be locked up whether County Animal Care employees liked it or not, ordering the Animal Care employees to “find the room” to lock the biters up.

    AND the elderly, clueless Old County Judge’s friends are still angry with his replacement, Judge Garza, that their clueless pal was shoved out of power by the voters, so the old codger’s buddies, primarily Chamber of Commerce types and real estate agents, are blaming Judge Garza that the County didn’t find enough money ($2+ MIllion) to expand the dog impoundment facilities at Aransas County Animal Care before Mr. Flores died. The Old County Judge’s pals are trying to blame the violent dog attack on the NEW County Judge, who has to clean up the economic mess created by their buddy, the Old County Judge and his 2 pals on the County Commission who were in cahoots with the Old County Judge at mis-managing the County’s budge for “capital improvements” i.e. building stuff.

    This whole mess goes to show you that people get killed by biting dogs, NOT just because of bad, lazy owners, or indifferent Animal Control employees, but also by pig-headed POLITICIANS who won’t make enough public money available to impound and shelter both bad biting dogs and good homeless ones. The public is simply let at the mercy of the clueless politicians…like Texas Governor Greg Abbott who vetoed the “toughened up” vicious biting dog bill which had been passed on a bipartisan basis by both houses of the Texas Legislature. That veto came just 3 days before the 5 vicious dogs roaming loose in Aransas County aka Rockport killed Lewis Flores by ripping him up like a shark would do.

    • Interesting details. Euthanizing unwanted animals, especially of the variety most likely to attack, would free up space.

  13. Wow. Just Wow. Vanna.

    At this point I think someone needs to say it.

    This is about corporate corrupted politicians stealing every penny out of the pockets of the working class and having zero accountability for what they do with those tax dollars.

    Having to sue over what is clearly criminal fraud and wait years to collect tax funds back, if it happens at all, is ludicrous.

    It’s not *their* wealthy gated communities that are impacted by their refusal to tackle the pitbull problem. It’s not in their corporate sponsor’s interest to back up the victims with free medical care and lawyers or to annoy the pitbull lobby and pet industry that are lining their pockets.

    The pets, livestock, children and grannies of the wealthy aren’t being torn apart by pitbulls. It’s overwhelmingly the working class neighbourhoods calling the police/Animal Control and getting no adequate response to their concerns–yet THEY are the ones footing the bills for these all these government agencies.

    The working class and working poor (regardless of actual incomes) are the main funders paying for the shelters who are shoveling pitbulls onto them and their neighbours to turn their neighbourhoods into hellscapes.

    How’s that for twisted irony?

  14. August 29, 2023 FB post about the animal control situation in that county:

    On Monday, August 28, 2023, the Aransas County Commissioners Court met at the courthouse. Because one of the issues discussed turned unexpectedly into a free-floating discussion of the Animal Care Department’s mission, I’m writing that part up first, having now reviewed the video.
    The agenda item was a discussion-only matter, concerning a couple of contracts between the county and the primary local dog rescue group, Another Chance RFT. Another Chance arranged several years ago to take special care of shelter dogs with heartworms. They bought a 10×10 storage-shed type of portable building and got the county’s permission to lease a 10×10 plot adjacent to the main shelter building. Another Chance’s small shed has its own exterior access from within the shelter’s fenced yard, but no access to the main shelter building. Another Chance also was permitted to designate two volunteers who would have key access to the fenced shelter property so they could get to the shed and medicate and walk the dogs undergoing heartworm treatment, even after hours when no shelter staff were present. There are at present no disputes over these agreements. Another Chance RFT volunteers do not have access to the main shelter building unless staff are present; when they come to walk dogs other than the special “Heartworm House” dogs, they must do so when shelter staff can let them in—i.e., weekdays 8-5, or weekends in the morning when the skeleton staff of kennel techs come in to feed and water the cats and dogs. The shelter director can view onsite cameras from home to check when staff or volunteers are arriving on weekends or after hours. There have been no issues of unauthorized access.
    Commissioner Dupnik, however, had received questions from citizens about the nature of this contractual arrangement, especially whether it affected the shelter’s budget. Cmmr. Dupnik expressed concerns about whether the shelter’s mission was ballooning in size, and about the perception that there is tension between the volunteers and the shelter staff. He noted that there are two very distinct missions now being pursued in connection with the county shelter. First, the county is tasked with preserving public order, including ridding the streets of dangerous or abandoned pets. Second, the private sector is interested in finding adoptive or foster homes for as many shelter animals as possible, and the county has for many years been interested in accommodating the volunteers in this goal, as long as the volunteers shoulder most if not all of the financial burden. The county’s primary goal, however, is public order, and its secondary goal is to keep a lid on the county budget. Rescue comes in last. At some point, Cmmr. Dupnik concluded, the separate goal of saving dogs and cats must be borne by private groups, not left as a burden for taxpayers, not all of whom have an unlimited appetite for animal rescue.
    Questions were raised about whether all volunteers have signed liability-release agreements with the county. The answer from the shelter director was ambiguous. In the past, there have been controversies over whether volunteers should be subjected to intrusive background and credit checks. No volunteers, to my knowledge, have ever objected to signing a liability release. Possibly some volunteers who were unwilling to submit to intrusive background and credit checks have not been offered a simple liability release to sign. The Animal Committee will look into this, now that I have learned it remains an open issue. I had had the impression after reviewing shelter issues for the last month that it was no longer an issue.
    Cmmr. Dupnik mentioned the donations from Another Chance RFT, typically several thousand dollars a month, that appear on each meeting’s consent agenda. He asked whether this represented a burden on taxpayers. I can’t see why it would, since these are donations to cover expenses that the county does not fund. The shelter director stated that the donations were “convoluted” in some sense. She wasn’t sure quite what they were for, but thought they had to do with offsite foster programs. Someone suggested that it might be better to direct that question to a representative from Another Chance, but unfortunately apparently no one was invited. Cmmr. Rousseau stated her belief that the bulk of the donations were the cost of vaccinations or spay/neuter vet bills. Cmmr. Casterline expressed the view that calling them donations was deceptive, because the money really was not spent on Animal Control property or in pursuit of a core county function.
    Cmmr. Dupnik asked the shelter director what the protocol was for intake of new animals when the shelter is too full. She responded that her staff pick up as best they can and juggle space. She suggested that some dogs are taking up space in the shelter even though they were not suitable for adoption. Cmmr. Chaney asked why, in that case, they were not being euthanized to make space. He complained that two bulldogs chased his daughter on Saturday, but no Animal Control Officer arrived. He said the dogs should be picked up or put down. The shelter director agreed that this was a public safety issue and that any other shelter would put them down. Commr. Chaney suggested that the shelter should start following “our policy.” The shelter director responded that she was “overwhelmed with resistance” to euthanasia. Cmmr. Chaney countered that she should be answering to her bosses, not whoever was “overwhelming” her. The shelter director complained of unclear boundaries between her staff and volunteers. Cmmr. Casterline stated that a time limit needs to be set, especially for dogs that raise safety issues. He suggested that six months was a long time, and the shelter director agreed. Judge Garza then noted that the Animal Welfare Committee is reviewing exactly these issues and will present recommendations to the Commissioners Court.
    Cmmr. Casterline expressed concern that the Animal Welfare Committee’s membership is lopsided on the anti-euthanasia side, and therefore ill-equipped to resolve the conflict between the public order mission and the rescue mission. The shelter director did not address the issue of putting dogs down to make space, but instead spoke of the occasional need to euthanize dogs who are too sick or injured to survive. She also stated the view that the shelter should be more selective on the animals it released for adoption even when there are willing takers. She recounted the story of a German Shepherd about which she was “skeptical” for reasons she did not explain. She did not say that the dog had a bite record, but she said that she generally does not care for German Shepherds and had reservations about this one. Someone wanted to adopt the dog, with Another Chance’s approval. The shelter director objected, but gave in rather than exercise her authority to euthanize the dog immediately. After some weeks, the dog suddenly attacked its new owner, who had it put down. The lesson the shelter director draws from this experience is that other people shouldn’t have ignored her experience and intuition, but should have granted her discretion to euthanize. “I was pushed,” she said. Cmmr. Chaney objected that she had the authority she needed, and should have come to the County Judge or the Commissioners Court if she felt she needed help enforcing her authority. She made the choice, no one else. Cmmr. Rousseau added that the shelter director appears to have a strong personality and the ability to assert herself. She should come to the County Judge if she feels “pushed” and can’t handle it on her own. The shelter director repeated that she needs clear boundaries between the shelter operation and the rescue volunteers.
    [UPDATE] As Another Chance was not given notice that its role would be discussed at the meeting, I agreed to include its recounting of these same events. The German Shepherd was brought into the shelter as a known bite dog and given 10 days of quarantine. Another Chance advised that it would be difficult to place a bite dog through German Shepherd rescue groups, but they were willing to help try. A friend or family member of a shelter staff person worked with the dog and seemed to make some progress, but at least some Another Chance personnel didn’t feel comfortable entering her cage. The dog was advertised on social media as needing a dog-savvy adopter. Ultimately an experienced German Shepherd rescue worker from College Station drove down to look at the dog and got interested. She worked closely with the dog and appeared to know how to handle her. The rescuer adopted the dog through Animal Control, not through Another Chance, which continued to have some doubts, but which did not try to interfere in the decision made between the rescuer and the shelter staff. Another Chance objects very strongly to the characterization that it would push a dangerous dog on an adopting family, something it is quite careful to avoid. Another Chance’s involvement in the adoption process was to advise the rescuer that the dog was heartworm-positive, and that Another Chance would pay for treatment. Another Chance routinely clearly communicates its view to the shelter that whether to euthanize a dangerous dog is the shelter director’s decision, not theirs, regardless of whether they agree in any particular case.
    A volunteer adds that many of the dog-walkers and even shelter staff, though not the director, liked the Shepherd and were rooting for her. The dog reportedly bit someone who took her into custody on the street, but played in the exercise yard with volunteers and staff. It seems that the rank and file generally were going to bat for the dog, while the directors of both Another Chance and the shelter were more skeptical. The woman who adopted the dog was given full information and took a chance on her after spending time with her. There is never any guarantee of success in rescuing a dog with a bite history, but this was an experienced rescuer with an appropriate home, with acreage, a pond, and no kids. The rescuer has never blamed the shelter; we found out about the sad ending by accident later.
    I will add here my own view as a citizen and chair of the Animal Welfare Committee. There is little controversy that there are dogs that are too sick or injured to survive and should be put down. There is not much more controversy that there are dogs with behavioral problems so extreme that they must be put down. If there is controversy on these points, it centers on the standards that will be used to evaluate the decision and the trust that the county and the public have in the person or institution that sets and enforces the standards. What we’re talking about primarily in Aransas County at present is a different issue: when and how will we decide to euthanize animals purely to make space, rather than hold them longer in the hope of finding them adoptive homes. The shelter director generally talks about risky or sick dogs, avoiding the issue of euthanizing dogs for space. But space is the problem we must solve. So the issue becomes, how long do you keep stray animals in the shelter before you admit they’re not adoptable? And when does the burden of maintaining the animals stop being the business of the county and become entirely something that private rescue groups should shoulder?
    I’m not sure what the cutoff date should be, but I believe there does exist a cutoff date after which an animal that has not in fact been adopted should be considered “unadoptable” by county standards. At that point, if the portion of the public that is committed to rescuing stray pets disagrees, the burden is on them to take the animal out of the shelter and maintain it with private resources. We, the ones who want to rescue dogs, show that an animal is “adoptable” by adopting it! I consider myself part of the public that puts a priority on rescue. If I and the people who see it the way I do want these animals to be saved, we will have to save them. It cannot be a permanent mission of the county, because there is not a consensus among county taxpayers that it should be so.
    Cmmr. Casterline is correct, I think, in saying that the Animal Welfare Committee is composed largely of people who lean very, very strongly to the side of rescuing pets rather than euthanizing them. That is a fair description of me, at any rate. It does not follow, however, that I believe the Animal Welfare Committee’s mission is to try to force the county to keep an unlimited number of stray animals for an unlimited time, with no option for euthanasia if the rescue community does not step in and take the burden over by an agreed deadline. That is not my reading of what the County Judge, the Commissioners Court, or the voting taxpayers of this county are asking for. They want and deserve a solution to the public order problem, on a reasonable budget. Beyond that, they generally are willing to accommodate rescue efforts, but only if the financial burden of the rescue efforts is borne by the rescuing community. That is the reality I take into consideration in pursuing the Committee’s work. It’s why I push relentlessly for volunteers and donations from my fellow Aransas County citizens who share my views about rescue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *