Ocean Shores Planning Commission reopens debate on trapping rules; no ordinance adopted

The City of Ocean Shores Planning Commission on April 22 discussed a draft ordinance that would allow licensed removal of wildlife in narrowly defined situations but took no final action.

The draft, presented by Commissioner Dan, would allow trapping when a landowner faces threats to personal safety or property damage and would rely on a multi-step process involving animal control, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and licensed wildlife control operators. "The document presented for trapping is only a draft," Dan said, summarizing the commission’s intent to create "a simple to understand and efficient process." He said compensation for property damage would not be included in the draft.

Why it matters: Ocean Shores currently has a flat prohibition on trapping. Residents and commissioners said that created no formal avenue for homeowners seeking rapid remedies when culverts or private property are damaged by beavers and other animals.

Residents urged keeping a broad no-trapping policy or, if changed, limiting the city’s liability. Vita, an Ocean Shores resident who submitted written public comment, asked the commission to "Please keep the no trapping in Ocean Shores ordinance on the books," warning the city could "incur liability for the actions of persons who may or may not get the appropriate state trapping license." She cited state code excerpts in her comment and urged educating the public and enforcing "don’t feed the wildlife" rules first.

Other residents and commissioners described property damage from beavers and plugged culverts as recurring local problems. Jane, a resident who spoke in person, said she was concerned about how the ordinance would define a "nuisance" and urged safeguards so "a homeowner or any resident could not just pick up the phone and say, hey, I need this animal trapped" without checks and balances.

Under the draft process discussed by commissioners, a resident with a safety or damage complaint would contact animal control (the city’s public safety officer/chief of police), which could assess the situation and contact WDFW if appropriate. WDFW could then authorize a licensed wildlife control operator to perform removal; the property owner would bear the cost. Dan and other commissioners repeatedly emphasized that the proposed pathway was intended to avoid city liability by requiring licensed operators and shifting costs to owners.

Opponents and some commissioners argued the city should avoid involving local animal control in determinations that are squarely within WDFW’s authority. "Why are you even involving the animal control officer?" Vita asked during public comment, suggesting property owners contact WDFW directly. Jane echoed that view, saying the issue is primarily within WDFW's purview.

Commissioners acknowledged enforcement and staffing concerns, saying the protocol could introduce additional workload for existing staff and that education would be essential if the code changes. Several commissioners said the draft needs clearer, narrowly tailored language about when trapping is allowed, who may authorize it, and the liability and permit mechanics.

Because the proposal remains a draft, the commission did not vote on an ordinance at the meeting. Commissioners instructed staff to redraft the language to clarify scope, limits, and the step-by-step process discussed and to return the item to a future agenda for further consideration.