Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cannon Beach council debates elk ordinance language; staff to rewrite with narrower enforcement language
Summary
Councilors, staff and residents debated a proposed municipal code regulating interactions with elk, focusing on definitions of 'harass' versus permissible actions to move animals (honks, car remotes, 'hazing' permits). Council asked staff to revise language to emphasize intent and public exceptions and return to a future work session.
Cannon Beach — Councilors and community members spent a lengthy portion of the June 9 meeting debating draft municipal code language intended to reduce harmful interactions between people and the town’s elk population. No ordinance was passed; staff were directed to revise the draft and return with narrower, clearer language.
The draft prohibition originally used broad phrasing such as "no person shall willfully approach, remain, or otherwise engage in any activity within 100 feet of an elk," and defined "harass" to mean "frighten or chase." Several councilors and residents raised practical concerns: ordinary, non‑aggressive actions (honking a car to move an elk off a street, using a key‑fob to make a car beep, or banging pots to protect property) could inadvertently fall within the ordinance unless intent and context were clarified.
Residents who spoke urged the council to protect wildlife while also preserving reasonable actions owners take to access their cars or property. Gary Smith, a longtime resident who described property damage from an elk encounter, warned of public safety and property impacts if the code were too restrictive. Councilors and staff discussed aligning any local code with state statutes and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) procedures — for example, ODFW permits that allow authorized hazing on private property.
Council and staff suggested revising the ordinance to focus on intentional pursuit or close approaches (terms such as "willfully approach," "pursue," or similar) and to include explicit exceptions for self‑defense, necessary movement through public ways, and authorized hazing performed under state permits. Staff said they would redact or reframe the 100‑foot language and return with a revised draft clarifying intent, enforcement criteria, and coordination with state agencies.
What happens next: Staff will prepare a revised draft that narrows prohibitions to willful, intentional harassment/pursuit and that clarifies exceptions for ordinary, non‑harmful actions and ODFW‑authorized hazing. The council will review the revised draft at a future work session before any ordinance is scheduled for adoption.
