Very disappointing outcome. Not at all what we expected.

With luck and hard work, we will be able to achieve a legislative fix. Otherwise, a lot of municipalities are going to soon be in the "wildlife management" business and that is definitely not good.

Here is link to the decision itself: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24658650/valdez-trapping-lawsuit.pdf

Pete

Disappointing, but at least for me, not surprising. A couple decades ago, I embarked on a mission to open up several areas in Juneau that had severe restrictions regarding where trapping was and was not allowed. I'm no lawyer but was willing to dive into what legal resources were available to me at the time, as well as assistance from a couple of very helpful, knowledgeable regional biologists that had been involved with the BOG in crafting wildlife law for quite a long time.
i also had access to a "Real Lawyer", who had the unusual knack of cutting to the chase. While the biologists where very helpful in guiding my ideas as to why the restrictions where in the regulations, they were not very helpful in assisting me to craft proposals that would further my cause, easing the current, (at the time), ordinances, as well as BOG instituted trapping restrictions that had been approved by the Board, and other random ordinances imposed by a long gone city attorney.
After months of research, countless hours of conversation, and more drafts than I care to remember, my legal "advisor" simply said, "The problem you have is that the municipality is typically allowed to be more restrictive when it comes to governing human behavior. They run into trouble when they try to loosen restrictions imposed by the State. And states run into the same problem with the Feds".
That opened my eyes, and the result was a new draft that included specific language that instructed the BOG to implement precise wording directing where, how, and when trapping was explicitly restricted, as well as conditions, specific equipment, locations, and setbacks that WERE ALLOWED.
For the courts to be willing to wiggle around the obvious intent of the Legislature in giving the Board of Game broad authority in managing wildlife, and knowing they, and the city of Valdez were on thin ice, shifted to the Public Safety angle is pretty lame. I had to dig mightily back when I was on my crusade, finding actual facts regarding reported injuries caused by animal traps. And not just a simplistic search, but actual hospital records as well as insurance claims related to injuries sustained by traps.
My findings were remarkable, actually. For a 5-year period, I uncovered exactly 53 reported injuries in the United States. Unsurprisingly, 47 of them were trappers, themselves. Of the remaining 6, all were adults, and none of the injuries, NONE, required surgery that I could find, no amputations, 3 broken fingers, as I recall, and of course, no deaths.,
As Pete rightly points out, it will likely require legislative action to correct this problem. Good luck.,

Spot on AV....

If Valdez, or any other municipality in AK were asked to report exactly how many trapping "injuries" people had sustained in their respective jurisdictions in the past, they would be hard pressed to do so.

This was the quintessential "solution in search of a problem."

But now we have to buckle down and get it fixed.

Pete

Conveniently, the ruling came out, right at the end of the Legislative session and not at the beginning of it. It took the justice's nearly a year and a half to make their ruling.

Doesn't the city of Fairbanks ban trapping within city limits? The state has some agreement to allow beaver control by permit?

1. The City of Fairbanks has no ownership of the Chena River. Thus need no permission form the city.
2. I do not believe there is any state land with in city limits.

Legend has it that the beaver trapping closure (by BOG, then the BOFG) on the Chena was originally at the request of the Binkley's who wanted their riverboat guests to see the furry creatures as the boat cruised up river!

Bottom line though is that the closure is a F&G regulation, not a City ordinance as I understand it.

It has worked smoothly (except for beavers munching trees and shrubbery in yards...) and the "educational beaver trapping" program seems to take care of keeping the population in check.

Let's not rock the boat!

Pete

Now that SC has ruled. the city of Fairbanks may change trapping on the river.

Unless it's Binkley's boat

There is THAT.....!

Plus, Binkleys don't even go upstream these days.

Pete

Around 1987 I was doing damage control trapping of beaver in Fairbanks. Mark McNay issued me permits to trap in certain areas where there had been complaints. I was down in Noyes slough behind what is now REI and had a BIG beaver I was dragging back to put in my car. FAIRBANKS PD showed up. Took the beaver, having me place it on the back seat of the police car. Told them I had a permit to trap there. They told me to get the permit, I didn't have it with me, and bring it to them. I called Mark and this episode became a discussion between the city attorney and the state attorney. As I remember it was settled with the conclusion that the city could not "regulate" trapping but could ban it on public safety grounds.
I got the big beaver back but don't remember if the state continued with permits inside the city. It was shortly later that ATA was able to do a winter beaver Trapping course inside city limits which helped reduce beaver numbers.
I know Tony Hollis is currently able to issue permits inside city limits, so some sort of agreement has been agreed upon.