Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Wildlife Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ocean Shores planning commissioners debate rewrite to trapping ordinance, urge reliance on state wildlife rules
Summary
The Ocean Shores Planning Commission discussed a rewrite of the city's trapping ordinance focused on nuisance wildlife, clarifying which species are covered, requiring licensed wildlife control operators and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife involvement, and removing direct city trapping authority.
The Ocean Shores Planning Commission on Oct. 14 discussed a rewrite of the city's ordinance on trapping nuisance wildlife aimed at clarifying who can trap, which species are covered and when city involvement is required.
Commissioner Johnson, who chaired the meeting, said the rewrite removes most city enforcement and directs residents to contact the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife first. "So we've taken out the city, first step. Just if you've got an issue, call the Department of Fish and Wildlife," Johnson said during the public discussion.
The draft presented to the commission narrows the ordinance to species the city describes as "fur-bearing animals," listing beaver, muskrat, fox, raccoon, marten, weasels, mink, badger, river otter and bobcat, and explicitly excludes domestic dogs and cats. The draft would require a licensed wildlife control operator to obtain any permits required by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and to notify the city's public safety officer (specified in the draft as the chief of police or designee) before placing traps inside city limits. The draft also places costs for trapping on the property owner.
Commissioners, city staff and a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife representative discussed how state law frames "damage." Scott, a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife representative who attended the meeting, told the commission that state statutes and agency rules are primarily written to address agricultural damage, not private residential complaints. "Damage only refers to commercial operations, not private property," Scott said, citing state definitions in RCW 77.36.010 and related sections governing wildlife damage and permits.
Commissioners and several members of the public raised practical questions about how homeowners would document or demonstrate property damage that would justify trapping, and whether the city should allow homeowners to set traps themselves in some cases. The draft text read aloud at the meeting would still make trapping without the required permits or licensing a Class B offense under the municipal code.
Public commenters and commissioners repeatedly urged clearer definitions and a simple process. One resident suggested separating domestic pet retrieval and removal from the nuisance-wildlife ordinance so that pet-related trapping would be handled in the animal control code rather than in the nuisance-wildlife section.
A resident with municipal-code experience also offered a procedural suggestion: use PDF comparison tools to identify outdated language and streamline edits across older ordinances. "In Adobe Pro, there's a function called compare," Peter said, explaining how successive comparisons can produce a report of changes that the commission could use when updating multiple older ordinances.
Commissioners agreed to continue refining the draft, with staff to supply a model ordinance text and to separate provisions that apply to domestic pets from those intended for nuisance wildlife. No ordinance was adopted; the item remained in discussion for further revision and referral back to staff.
Ending: Commissioners scheduled continued work on the draft at future meetings and asked staff to return with a clearer model ordinance and definitions to guide enforcement and homeowner remedies.
