Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Los Alamos Council adopts ordinance banning intentional feeding of large wildlife after public hearing
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing with opposing testimony, Los Alamos County Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting intentional, large‑scale feeding of wild animals (excluding bird feeding) to address public safety and wildlife health concerns; the measure passed 6–1.
Los Alamos County Council voted 6–1 on Sept. 30 to adopt ordinance No. 02‑373, prohibiting the intentional feeding of wild animals that draws high concentrations of wildlife and creates public‑safety and ecological problems.
Chief Gamblin told council the ordinance targets flagrant intentional feeding — for example, someone scattering 50‑pound sacks of feed — not ordinary gardens or bird feeders. “It really is for the … individual with the 50‑pound bag of oats that's bringing in large volumes of wildlife,” he said during the briefing. He emphasized enforcement would focus on clear, intentional violations rather than incidental plantings.
Supporters at the public hearing described health and safety risks. David Hampton said wildlife experts had testified about detrimental effects of deliberate feeding and urged adoption, noting the ordinance specifically excludes bird feeding. “So, please pass this ordinance,” Hampton said.
Opponents and some residents warned the ordinance as written could sweep too broadly. Ken Whirley and residents who gardened raised examples of county parks, community gardens and fruit trees that provide food for wildlife and asked how routine landscaping would be treated; one speaker said county‑maintained sites already draw wildlife. Several speakers urged careful tailoring and public education rather than punitive enforcement.
Council discussion focused on intent, burden of proof and enforceability. Councilors and the county attorney said the ordinance is written to prohibit intentional feeding and that proving criminal intent would require clear conduct. Councilor Reiger (who opposed) questioned effectiveness and overlap with state Fish and Game authority; other councilors cited expert testimony about animal health and changed wildlife behavior.
On the roll call, Councilors Haberman, Reedy, Hunt, Kole, Herman and Neil Clinton voted yes; Councilor Rigger voted no. The ordinance will be codified in county code and county staff said the county will emphasize outreach and education as the new rule is implemented.
Next steps: staff will publish the ordinance language in final form and signal enforcement priorities and outreach materials so residents understand exemptions (including bird feeders and ordinary gardens) and the high enforcement threshold for intentional feeding.
