Ocean Shores planning commission narrows trapping rules, excludes dogs and cats amid legal concerns

Ocean Shores planning commissioners on Tuesday approved an amendment to the city's draft trapping ordinance that expressly bars trapping of dogs and cats and lays out a multi-step process for authorizing wildlife removals.

Commissioners said the ordinance is meant to allow residents to seek remediation when wildlife causes property damage or threatens safety, while keeping trapping by individuals off private initiative. The commission added language that makes trapping of "dogs and cats" unlawful and requires code enforcement to confirm the problem, contact the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and rely on a state-licensed wildlife control operator to obtain permits before trapping begins.

The change matters because it alters who may authorize trapping and how. Under the commission's draft, a resident who claims property damage must first contact city code enforcement. If enforcement "determines" there is an issue, the city will contact WDFW and then "establish contact with a licensed wildlife control operator," who must secure required WDFW permits and notify the city safety officer (the chief of police) before trapping begins. The ordinance also states that all costs would be the property owner's responsibility. Commission members repeatedly emphasized that residents acting on their own would remain subject to code penalties.

But during public comment, a legal expert warned the commission that the draft could conflict with Washington state law. Vida (identified only by first name in the record), who said she had reviewed relevant statutes, cautioned the commission that the draft equates "hunting, trapping, and hunting with a trap," when RCW chapters distinguish those activities. She told commissioners the city may lack authority to turn what state law treats as a civil infraction into a Class B criminal offense under the city's code and recommended the commission reexamine the penalties and the procedural language before forwarding it to council. "Show me where the city has the authority to criminalize what would otherwise be considered a civil infraction under state law," she said.

Commissioners and other speakers raised additional implementation questions: who makes the initial determination of "property damage or personal harm," whether code enforcement alone should make that call, whether a right of appeal is needed, how liability is handled if a licensed trapper is hired at the city's direction, and whether commercial pest-control businesses (examples named in the meeting included Beacon) should be exempt or further identified as "commercial licensed operators." One speaker asked that the ordinance explicitly require WDFW or its agent to verify damage, rather than leaving the initial determination solely to the city.

The commission moved to adopt the specific edit that adds dogs and cats to the unlawful list and passed the motion by voice vote ("Aye"), with no roll-call tally recorded in the meeting minutes. Commissioners repeatedly said the draft would be revisited to clarify procedural steps and legal exposure before being presented to the City Council.

Commissioner Mark (chair) and staff member Marshall (city planner) both said the draft is designed to prevent unregulated trapping by residents and to route removals through licensed professionals. Vida urged the commission to specifically review RCW 77 (fish and wildlife statutes) and the city's chapter 7 enforcement provisions before finalizing criminal penalties.

Going forward, commissioners instructed staff to gather clarifying information on state statute alignment, return with clearer language on who makes the damage/safety determination, and identify appeal or review pathways. No final City Council action occurred at the meeting; the commission's change will be forwarded per the commission's process.

The commission also discussed commercial "pods" (U-Haul-style moving containers) and Connex/intermodal shipping containers in the context of the trapping item only insofar as commercial operators may perform pest control; they did not adopt any commercial-exemption language at this meeting.