Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Trapping topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners debate trapping rewrite after council backlash; liability and state law shape options
Summary
After a council meeting drew strong public opposition, the Ocean Shores Planning Commission discussed possible revisions to city code on trapping, weighing liability, relocation practices and whether to rely on state wildlife statutes or local permits.
The Ocean Shores Planning Commission revisited proposed changes to city code on Sept. 23, 2025 after the item drew significant public comment at the recent City Council meeting. Commissioners discussed whether to simplify the draft ordinance by changing the code from prohibiting trapping to allowing it under a city permit, or to retain broader protections designed to limit municipal liability.
Commissioners and public participants described strong community opposition at the council hearing and raised operational concerns: who would trap, whether animals would be relocated or euthanized, and where trapped animals could be taken. Several participants said beavers and raccoons have generated the most complaints, including damage to landscaping and docks.
One public commenter recommended a narrow approach: provide an explicit exemption in the municipal code for state wildlife officers and professional trappers under state law rather than creating a broad local trapping program. That commenter cited Washington’s wildlife‑damage statute, RCW 77.15, and said the statute is focused on commercial agricultural properties and does not broadly authorize residential claims. The commenter recommended that the city’s existing code be modified only as needed to allow state wildlife officers to operate within city limits, rather than implementing a large new permitting regime that could expose the city to liability.
Other participants suggested a middle path: change a single word from "illegal" to "legal" but require a trapping permit analogous to a building permit, with an application fee and documentation that Fish and Wildlife had been contacted. Commissioners repeatedly returned to liability concerns: potential injuries to people or pets, risk from unregulated traps, and unclear responsibility if a third‑party contractor (a trapper) performs work under state authorization.
No formal action to adopt an ordinance or to alter the code was taken. Commissioners said the draft will continue to be refined and that any ordinance or alternate approach will be sent to the city attorney for legal review before the council considers substantive changes.
