Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Wildlife topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Los Alamos County council bans intentional feeding of large wildlife, ordinance passes 6-1
Summary
After a public hearing with mixed testimony from residents and wildlife experts, Los Alamos County adopted an ordinance (02-373) prohibiting intentional feeding of wild animals, excluding bird feeding. The measure passed 6-1; Councilor Reger voted no.
Los Alamos County Council on Sept. 30 adopted Ordinance 02-373, which makes it unlawful to intentionally feed wild animals in the county. The ordinance, which specifically excludes bird feeding, passed on a 6-1 vote after public testimony that ranged from warnings by wildlife professionals to objections from residents who feed birds and maintain gardens.
County staff and law enforcement presented the ordinance as a public‑safety and wildlife‑health measure. Chief Gamblin told the council the rule was intended for “the individual with the 50‑pound bag of oats” who deliberately attracts large amounts of animals and creates human‑wildlife conflicts. He said the ordinance would not be enforced against ordinary gardens or bird feeders.
The ordinance drew both support and opposition during the public hearing. David Hampton, who said he has attended prior meetings on the issue, told the council he “strongly support[s] this ordinance,” citing testimony from veterinarians and wildlife specialists about harm caused by humans feeding deer and other large animals. Several commenters, including Sally Fitzgibbon and Chris Tremmel, described long‑running personal experiences feeding birds or trying to obtain permits; they warned the ordinance as written could unintentionally affect gardeners and yard bird feedings and questioned enforceability.
Council discussion focused on the ordinance’s scope and enforcement. Councilors and staff said accidental or incidental feeding — for example, fruit trees or traditional gardens — would not be the target and that criminal enforcement would require clear evidence of “intent.” Counselors also cited behavior changes in deer — such as boldness around people and roads — as a reason for regulation.
Councilor Hammond moved adoption; Councilor Neil Clinton seconded. The roll call vote was: Haberman—yes; Reedy—yes; Hunt—yes; Kull—yes; Reger—no; Herman—yes; Neil Clinton—yes. The motion passed 6 to 1.
Council members and staff said the county will focus on public education and targeted enforcement against clearly intentional large‑scale feeding rather than routine backyard gardening or bird feeding.
