Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Invasive Species Iguana topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Margate approves ordinance letting property owners remove nonnative iguanas; residents sharply divided
Summary
After a public hearing with extended testimony, the Margate City Commission approved a second-reading ordinance to allow the humane removal of nonnative invasive iguanas on private property and to recognize certain wildlife sanctuary exceptions. The measure passed 4-1.
The Margate City Commission on May 21 approved a city ordinance on second reading that permits property owners and authorized agents to humanely remove nonnative invasive iguanas on private property and establishes limited sanctuary exceptions and enforcement rules. The measure passed 4-1 after a lengthy public hearing in which residents described extensive property damage and safety concerns.
The ordinance amends City of Margate Code, including Chapter 6 (Animals and Fowl) and provisions in Chapter 33 (Police and Law Enforcement Offenses), to carve out an exception for nonnative invasive iguana species while preserving other animal-protection language. City staff and several residents referenced Florida's list of invasive species and noted the state allows euthanizing certain invasive animals; commissioners said the change is intended to align local code with state practice and to allow property owners to act on their own land or to authorize others to act.
Residents who supported the ordinance described extensive landscaping and infrastructure damage. Several public speakers said iguanas dig burrows that undermine seawalls and foundations, eat ornamental and fruit trees, and create unsanitary conditions. One speaker, Gwen Arteaga, said a seawall repair cost about $14,000 and attributed much of the damage to iguana burrowing; another speaker said he counted more than 40 baby iguanas emerging from a yard last year. Supporters said humane removal is often the only practical remedy after repellents and exclusion measures fail.
Opponents and some commissioners warned the change could create public-safety risks. Speakers cited incidents of people shooting from canals and concerns about pellet and air rifles, the risk to bystanders and pets, and enforcement difficulties. Mayor Arlene Schwartz said she would vote no because of safety concerns and the potential for illegal shooting into private property, though she noted such conduct already would be illegal. City officials and some commissioners encouraged residents to use licensed professionals and to be mindful that state law already prohibits shooting onto another person's property.
The final roll-call vote was 4-1: Commissioners Rosano, Casciano, Simone and Vice Mayor Serio voted yes; Mayor Arlene Schwartz voted no. City staff said the ordinance becomes effective immediately.
