The proposed Anchorage trapping ordinance 2019-50 is on the agenda for public hearings at tomorrow’s (April 23rd) Anchorage Assembly meeting. The public hearing portion of the meeting begins no earlier than 6:00pm. Here is link to the agenda. http://publicdocs.muni.org/sirepub/pubmtgframe.aspx?meetid=1458&doctype=agenda The public hearing section is item 14 and the trapping ordinance is 14.V. If you are unable to attend the meeting I would encourage you to submit written comments to the assembly it you haven’t already. You can email your comments to all assembly members by using this email address wwmas@muni.org

Stand down tonight.

We have been told by the Municipal Clerks's office that the sponsor of the ordinance, assemblyman Pete Petersen, will make a motion tonight to have the public hearings rescheduled probably for May 7 and that it is extremely unlikely that motion will fail.

They are getting wrapped around the axle with everything that is coming at them and are not ready for a vote, so we are told.

It might be best to hold off on any further comment at this time in order to see if a revised version of the ordinance is presented.

Will, or may?

They run the meeting on Roberts Rules, and anyone can object to the motion, and or may not vote in favor of the postpone for a time certain.

I get not wasting everyones time, but if this is important, i would make sure that there are people there to testify.....in case his motion doesn't pass or isn't made.

They can also amend the agenda prior to approving it...

If he is the sponsor, and sees that no one is there to testify against it, perhaps he wont make the motion. I don't think that a clerks email is binding..

Maybe just make sure that presentable, articulate and well spoken folk attend tonight to testify...

I agree with Hoopy. Roberts Rules, in the hands of one well versed in them, can be played with not only on the floor, but with "leaked" mis-information, lack of a quorum, or "insider trading", if you will.
Just how far do you trust the guy that brought this proposal forth?
A big showing, whether heard or not, sends a message.

Well I guess I would say that if they are so desperate that they would collaborate in a campaign of misinformation to keep a few citizens away then what difference would it make if there were 0 or 100 trappers in the room anyway?

Public testimony has been officially extended to the May 7 meeting.

Was there a reason given, or just a motion to extend, that carried?

A motion to extend carried.

Guessing they didn't expect much resistance.

Exactly! And we need to keep up the "resistance....."

Pete

I think they're getting an earful. They have opened up a can of worms, a tangle of local, state, federal and tribal law. I don't know what they expected in the way of resistance at Tuesday's meeting but it seems obvious they were not ready for a vote.

The trapping ordinance 2019-50 is scheduled for public testimony on Tuesday evening May 7 sometime after 6:00 at the assembly chambers at Loussac Library.

Here is the link to the updated version of the ordinance. The definition for "developed trails" has been modified and the vague definition of "public use" trails has been removed.
http://publicdocs.muni.org/sirepub/cache/0/3fy2aa45iwmobz55vth1kd55/97707905052019114325701.PDF
The public hearing is in the assembly chambers in the Loussac Library Tuesday May 7 starting no earlier than 6 p.m it is Item number 13A on the agenda. We need a big showing and alot of voices to shoot this thing down. If you can make it hope to see you there, if you cant make it please send in one more email.

Thank you trappers.

Due to your input there have been significant positive changes to the ordinance but still this is the wrong process.

Instead the Anchorage assembly should continue to work with users, the State of AK, and bring in the Feds (subsistence), then take a proposal to the Board of Game.

There is no need to rush this through.

The justification being used to avoid the Board of Game process is Public Safety even though negative events obviously involve off leash dogs, not people. There has never been an incident involving humans that anyone can point to and there is a leash law on the books that covers the entire Municipality of Anchorage.....

Recognizing that the threat to people has been greatly exaggerated as well as the complexity of the issue, assembly member John Weddleton intends to introduce an amendment to exempt certain traps and slow things down. We should voice support for his amendment.

See you there tonight

Good luck! Do not give an inch. You will never get it back. Stick to the facts. Dress and speak well. Presentation is critical. Be articulate.

Well unfortunately we were extremely out numbered and it seemed half the assembly already had their mind made up. The ordinance passed, which is bad news for everybody, I'm wiling to bet that the mat-su will revisit their ordinance in the wake of this and Juneau, Skagway and Valdez will have their defenses strengthened. Now would be a good time to write the governor and your state representatives and ask them to condemn the Anchorage assemblies usurpation of the Board of Games authority.

Too bad, but not unanticipated. Hopefully some legal action will be undertaken to point out (once again) that a municipal government should not usurp the authority of the BOG in this regard.

Pete

They were directly told by the state lawyer they are overstepping their authority. Not only that but any closures on federal land, namely Chugach National Forest, will instantly be at odds with Title VIII of ANILCA, federal subsistence. The municipal lawyer knows this and offered language for an amendment to get fed and state concurrence before jumping off the deep end...but their was a contingent on the assembly hellbent to do this. Frankly they are in over their heads and do not know about subsistence, etc, etc.

It would get interesting if they yank some subsistence trappers gear or cite them for legally trapping under ANILCA.....

I saw our buddy Rick Steiner was there, saying this is not a BOG issue....Imagine that.

Our situation here is similar, in many respects. However, in Juneau's un-paralleled greed, the city annexed the entire borough into the city. You can Google it, but Juneau is the largest city in the nation, by land mass.
The "city" can not even think about dealing with trapping issues. It falls clearly on the Troopers. The same thing will happen in Anchorage.

AV, at least in two meetings here in Fairbanks. AWT said it dose not enforce city or borough ordinances. Their are committed to enforcing state law and regulations. So i do not think, by AWT's omission that enforeing ordinances fall on the troopers.

That is pretty much the same, here. Just pointing out that it is likely that the Troopers will remain the face of trapping laws enforcement, not the local police.

So if an Anchorage police officer or municipal Code Enforcement Officer yanks up a trap that is legally set under STATE law................ wonder if the trapper can have that person cited under the Hunter/Trapper Harassment statute (AS 16.05.790?)

Let's be POSITIVE here boys and girls, this actually could become an amusing exercise!

Pete

Would the ATA foot the legal costs ??

I would say no. AS 16.05180 Power To Search Without A Warrant.
Law enforcement has been given great ladditue to investigate (many court cases). All they need is "probable cause". if a trap is concealed, a "peace office of the state" can yank it up to see if it is a lawful trap. The same thing happens when peace officers check bear bait sites, they can not be charged with "harassment". They have probable cause to check the site for regulatory compliance. Also 5 AAC 92.012 (b) No person may refuse to present for inspection any license, tag, or any game, or any apparatus designed to be capable of being used to take game.
This is the regulation law enforcement usually hangs their hat on. Their interpenetration of this regulation dose not mean that a person has to be physically there, as the regulation may state. Because "you may not refuse". The issue is you do not need to be there, because you could not refuse, if you there or not. they can inspect.
I tried to amend this regulation a few years ago. it did not go over well with AWT.
A "peace officer" is: As 16.05.150 Enforcement authority. (1) an employee of the department authorized by the commissioner. (2) a police officer in the state. (3) any other person authorized by the commissioner.
With that, the fact is AWT will not enforce city or borough ordinances. generally, city police only have jurisdiction with in city limits. they do not enforce borough or municipality ordinances. A few boroughs have policing authorities ( North Slope Borough police). I know Fairbanks North Star Borough dose not have policing authority.Not aware that the municipality of Anchorage dose.

Pete,
I imagine there will be some trap tampering but I don't think it will be law enforcement. I imagine it will be some one who thinks a legal trap is illegal. I don't want to expound on it any more than that in case they are watching

Well, then there is the case, of course from Juneau, of the woman that admitted to illegally tampering with legal traps. The criminal case was dropped by the District Attourney.
The trapper filed civil, (Forrest-vs-Adair), and the ATA took up the case with legal assistance.
The trapper was successful in winning his case, however no damages were awarded.

It will be interesting to see as the power to search without a warrant is under title 16 but this municipal ordinance is not a fish and game regulation and does not fall under title 16. Furthermore the Muni insists this is not in any way regulating trapping, but is a land use regulation implemented for public safety. I'd imagine the Muni would be in a pickle to argue 16.05.180 applies while insisting they're not regulating trapping.

The idea that the Muni SAYS this ordinance does not regulate trapping does not make the statement true. That is like them passing an ordinance saying that basketball is not a game played by teams of 5 and using a round ball! It is certainly arguable.

I think the legal aspects of this ordinance will be argued over for quite a while to come.

From everything I know, ATA will be involved in trying to find an equitable solution. ATA is not known to be an organization that just gives up...

Pete

I'd rather see a legal solution rather than equitable. "Equitable" smacks of compromise. I don't like starting at that position.

Again they are in over their heads but were determined.
I told them don't do it.
Their lawyer told them don't do it.
Then they did it anyway.

We all appreciate your efforts Tom. The fat lady has not sung yet....!