Email
Re: Enforcement questions answered
To: Various city officials
From: Annette Janka
Date: November 14, 2013
I have heard a few trappers around Cordova say that State ADF&G regulations have precedence over City trapping ordinances so that City ordinances are not enforceable, except perhaps on city land. This concerns me as we enter another trapping season. Knowing that 9 other Alaskan cities have trapping prohibited ordinances, I decided to find out their legal position, so emailed a few of them a simple general inquiry. These cities are some of those in Alaska that have trapping prohibited city ordinances, but are not included in the Fish and Game regulations booklet. I include here my question and their responses, as well as the legal opinion of Cordova’s city attorney on this issue.
I hope that this will be helpful in the continuing conversation.
Thank you.
Annette Janka
This is the question that I emailed to them:
I am seeking information about Alaskan law and wonder if you or someone in your department could clarify something for me. I have been told that even though [ city ] has a city ordinance that prohibits trapping within city limits, that Alaska State Fish and Game laws have precedence over city laws so that the city law is not enforceable by city police or state wildlife troopers. So, if someone with a trapping license put a trap in [ city ], could they be arrested or fined by a police officer or trooper? Does it matter whether the land where the trap is placed is owned by the city or by the state?
Thank you for your help.
Alaska Wildlife Trooper Response; AWT Directors Office
"In response to your question, city ordinances can be more restrictive but not less restrictive than state law. You are correct that state troopers do not enforce city ordinances. If someone placed a trap within a city's trapping prohibited area they could be arrested or fined by a city police officer. It does not matter who owns the land within city limits, city ordinances apply."
I hope this answers your questions.
Fairbanks Police Department response:
"While City Ordinance cannot be less restrictive than State Statute, the City can and does enact laws which prohibit certain activities that are otherwise lawful in other parts of the state. Another example is fireworks, which are prohibited within the city limits but legal in most other parts of the state. Therefore, the City Ordinance prevails. Trapping is prohibited by ordinance (46-77) anywhere within the city limits, regardless of property ownership."
Thank you for checking with us.
Kenai Police Department response:
"Per the Kenai Municipal Code, “No person may use a trap within the City limits that can kill or mangle an animal.” Any person doing so could be cited by the City. It wouldn’t matter if the land was owned by the City or the State; only that it occurred within the City limits."
Nome Police Department response:
"City code applies within the city limits. I will forward the trapping regulations to you. There are specific requirements for setting traps in the city that are enforced."
Homer Police Department response:
"The objective of the city ordinance on no trapping inside the city is because of the potential to kill/injure domestic pets and animals. ...my understanding of the city ordinance on trapping is that it is not allowed by conventional means."
City of Cordova legal opinion by Cordova’s city attorney:
MAIN PARAGRAPHS TAKEN FROM THE LEGAL OPINION REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE FISH AND GAME REGULATIONS
On February 12, 2013, Cordova’s city attorney sent to the city his ruling on the legality of this trapping petition initiative, with additional attention to some specific questions that had been raised by some local trappers regarding city ordinances versus state Fish and Game regulations, land ownership issues and enforcement. It is a six page document with some complex legal language and law, but in summary, his key points are as follows:
”3. The Alaska Constitution gives the state broad authority to regulate game and other natural resources for common use and sustained yield. Under this general authorization, the Board of Game has been created.” “However, such broad authority does not necessarily preclude municipal legislation touching on the same subject. Merely because the state has enacted legislation concerning a particular subject does not mean that all municipal power to act on the same subject is lost.”
“The Trapping Initiative is not directed toward the conservation or development of game resources, as is the state’s regulatory scheme. Instead, it is intended to function as a safety measure, limiting the potential for injurious encounters with traps by children and pets. In its function, and effect on the taking of game, the Trapping Initiative is analogous to CMC 9.36.020, which prohibits most discharges of firearms within City limits- a commonly accepted form of local regulation, even though it incidentally restricts hunting within the City. Thus, I conclude that controlling authority does not preclude the enforcement of the Trapping Initiative as a matter of law due to preemption by the state’s comprehensive regulation of the taking of game.”
The Trapping Initiative’s “sponsors appear to have tailored its geographic application on the basis of their assessment of where injurious encounters with traps by children and pets are likely to occur. In doing so, it permits trapping to occur within the City at locations where its sponsors believe it will not create conflicts with other activities.”
“I conclude that the Trapping Initiative neither violates any constitutional or statutory rule regulating initiatives, nor proposes an ordinance for which controlling authority precludes enforcement as a matter of law.”
Re: Enforcement questions answered
To: Various city officials
From: Annette Janka
Date: November 14, 2013
I have heard a few trappers around Cordova say that State ADF&G regulations have precedence over City trapping ordinances so that City ordinances are not enforceable, except perhaps on city land. This concerns me as we enter another trapping season. Knowing that 9 other Alaskan cities have trapping prohibited ordinances, I decided to find out their legal position, so emailed a few of them a simple general inquiry. These cities are some of those in Alaska that have trapping prohibited city ordinances, but are not included in the Fish and Game regulations booklet. I include here my question and their responses, as well as the legal opinion of Cordova’s city attorney on this issue.
I hope that this will be helpful in the continuing conversation.
Thank you.
Annette Janka
This is the question that I emailed to them:
I am seeking information about Alaskan law and wonder if you or someone in your department could clarify something for me. I have been told that even though [ city ] has a city ordinance that prohibits trapping within city limits, that Alaska State Fish and Game laws have precedence over city laws so that the city law is not enforceable by city police or state wildlife troopers. So, if someone with a trapping license put a trap in [ city ], could they be arrested or fined by a police officer or trooper? Does it matter whether the land where the trap is placed is owned by the city or by the state?
Thank you for your help.
Alaska Wildlife Trooper Response; AWT Directors Office
"In response to your question, city ordinances can be more restrictive but not less restrictive than state law. You are correct that state troopers do not enforce city ordinances. If someone placed a trap within a city's trapping prohibited area they could be arrested or fined by a city police officer. It does not matter who owns the land within city limits, city ordinances apply."
I hope this answers your questions.
Fairbanks Police Department response:
"While City Ordinance cannot be less restrictive than State Statute, the City can and does enact laws which prohibit certain activities that are otherwise lawful in other parts of the state. Another example is fireworks, which are prohibited within the city limits but legal in most other parts of the state. Therefore, the City Ordinance prevails. Trapping is prohibited by ordinance (46-77) anywhere within the city limits, regardless of property ownership."
Thank you for checking with us.
Kenai Police Department response:
"Per the Kenai Municipal Code, “No person may use a trap within the City limits that can kill or mangle an animal.” Any person doing so could be cited by the City. It wouldn’t matter if the land was owned by the City or the State; only that it occurred within the City limits."
Nome Police Department response:
"City code applies within the city limits. I will forward the trapping regulations to you. There are specific requirements for setting traps in the city that are enforced."
Homer Police Department response:
"The objective of the city ordinance on no trapping inside the city is because of the potential to kill/injure domestic pets and animals. ...my understanding of the city ordinance on trapping is that it is not allowed by conventional means."
City of Cordova legal opinion by Cordova’s city attorney:
MAIN PARAGRAPHS TAKEN FROM THE LEGAL OPINION REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE FISH AND GAME REGULATIONS
On February 12, 2013, Cordova’s city attorney sent to the city his ruling on the legality of this trapping petition initiative, with additional attention to some specific questions that had been raised by some local trappers regarding city ordinances versus state Fish and Game regulations, land ownership issues and enforcement. It is a six page document with some complex legal language and law, but in summary, his key points are as follows:
”3. The Alaska Constitution gives the state broad authority to regulate game and other natural resources for common use and sustained yield. Under this general authorization, the Board of Game has been created.” “However, such broad authority does not necessarily preclude municipal legislation touching on the same subject. Merely because the state has enacted legislation concerning a particular subject does not mean that all municipal power to act on the same subject is lost.”
“The Trapping Initiative is not directed toward the conservation or development of game resources, as is the state’s regulatory scheme. Instead, it is intended to function as a safety measure, limiting the potential for injurious encounters with traps by children and pets. In its function, and effect on the taking of game, the Trapping Initiative is analogous to CMC 9.36.020, which prohibits most discharges of firearms within City limits- a commonly accepted form of local regulation, even though it incidentally restricts hunting within the City. Thus, I conclude that controlling authority does not preclude the enforcement of the Trapping Initiative as a matter of law due to preemption by the state’s comprehensive regulation of the taking of game.”
The Trapping Initiative’s “sponsors appear to have tailored its geographic application on the basis of their assessment of where injurious encounters with traps by children and pets are likely to occur. In doing so, it permits trapping to occur within the City at locations where its sponsors believe it will not create conflicts with other activities.”
“I conclude that the Trapping Initiative neither violates any constitutional or statutory rule regulating initiatives, nor proposes an ordinance for which controlling authority precludes enforcement as a matter of law.”