Living in the Pacific Northwest means sharing space with wildlife, from Roosevelt elk on coastal beaches to flocks of wild turkeys strutting down suburban streets. But when these animals get too comfortable and take over neighborhoods, cities and residents face a tough balance between wildlife protection and private property rights.

Most municipalities understand the need to manage growing wildlife populations. Across the state, numerous cities, counties, community groups, and state agencies have worked exhaustively to find viable solutions. Yet some local governments take a far less effective route – and in their rush to fix the issue, end up penalizing the very homeowners they are supposed to protect.

In this article, we will look at two different wildlife management ordinances from two very different areas of the state – Cannon Beach and the City of Phoenix – and discuss how these approaches to solving this beastly problem can harm property owners.

Cannon Beach: A Bull-Headed Solution Makes a Bad Problem Worse

Tucked along Oregon’s northern coast, Cannon Beach is renowned for its sandy shores, dramatic coastal headlands, and the iconic, 235-foot Haystack Rock. Yet beyond its postcard-perfect scenery and charming cedar-shingled village, the town has become famous for an increasingly volatile local fixture: large herds of wild Roosevelt elk that treat the municipality as their personal stomping grounds – an all-you-can-eat buffet.

In recent years, the local elk population has steadily overtaken residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors. Drawn by manicured lawns, ornamental gardens, and a complete absence of natural predators within city limits, the massive animals roam freely across driveways, block traffic, and bed down in front yards. Local news reports and city council sessions highlight escalating tensions, with officials documenting bull elk aggressively charging residents and their pets.  

The herd has grown so comfortable with human presence that what was once a scenic novelty has turned into a daily safety hazard for those who live in Cannon Beach, sparking intense municipal debate over how to manage animals that have effectively taken over the town.

In an attempt to solve this issue, the City has decided on a two-prong approach: a public education campaign and (2) regulatory deterrence. The first prong involves launching a public education campaign about not getting too close to the elk and respecting local wildlife. The second approach consists of the adoption of a “wildlife protection” ordinance that some believe is more geared at protecting the elk than protecting Cannon Beach’s property owners.

Here is what Ordinance 26-05 says:

6.14 Wildlife Protection

1) To ensure the safety of both people and elk alike, no person shall willfully approach within 100 feet of an elk located within city limits.

2) No person shall harass an elk within city limits. For the purposes of this section, “harass” means to follow, pursue, or feed the elk

3) Nothing herein shall preclude or otherwise limit the activities of any individual, employee, group or organization which has been duly authorized by an agency or department of the city, state or federal government. Further, conduct which would otherwise constitute a violation hereunder shall be deemed justifiable when the provisions of ORS 161.200 apply.

4) Violations of this section shall be punishable as a Class A violation pursuant to the provisions of ORS 153.

Foremost, this Ordinance appears to apply on private lands within city limits, which causes big problems.

Under this proposal, it becomes unlawful to willfully approach within one hundred feet of an elk or engage in conduct deemed harassment, which could encompass pursuing or actively deterring animals from private property. On its face, this ordinance appears to try and limit human and elk interactions to avoid safety issues. It also takes the important step of prohibiting the feeding of elk, which is a known attractant.

However, the Ordinance doesn’t define feeding. Does this mean putting out buckets or apples or does it mean planting vegetables in your garden, growing an apple or pear tree,  or fresh ornamental landscaping? No one knows, because it doesn’t say.

Additionally, because the Ordinance broadly outlaws coming near or pursuing an elk without providing clear exemptions for homeowners defending their property, routine actions (like stepping onto your front porch, walking to your car, or shooing a herd off your driveway or out of your garden) could expose you to municipal penalties – effectively leaving residents trapped in their houses while the herd grazes uninterrupted.

The ordinance also refers to an interesting statute – ORS 161.200 (“Choice of Evils”).

In criminal and civil violation law, the “choice of evils” defense allows a person to justify otherwise unlawful conduct if they can prove two things: first, that their action was immediately necessary to avoid an imminent public or private injury; and second, that the threatened injury was grave enough that avoiding it clearly outweighed the societal harm of breaking the law. In layman’s terms, it’s an emergency situation, where through necessity you have the break the law to prevent serious injury from happening.

In the context of the Cannon Beach ordinance, the city includes this provision as an affirmative defense for extreme situations. For example, if an aggressive bull elk charges you or your child, you are legally permitted to breach the 100-foot buffer or take defensive action to prevent serious physical harm.

In practice, however, this defense offers little protection to everyday homeowners trying to defend their yards or simply move freely around their property. Because the statute requires an action to be an emergency response to imminent harm, courts set a very high bar. While stopping an elk from charging your child qualifies as an emergency, an elk destroying expensive landscaping or bedding down on fresh sod will likely not justify violating the municipal code.

Similarly, while rushing to the emergency room or evacuating during a natural disaster likely meets the threshold for breaking the 100-ft buffer, ordinary daily activities –  walking your dog, gardening, or stepping into your own backyard – likely do not qualify as legal emergencies.

Additionally, relying on a choice of evils defense offers cold comfort to ordinary homeowners. A necessity defense does not prevent an enforcement officer from citing you; it merely gives you a legal argument to raise in municipal court after the fact. This means that property owners will still bear the expense of defending themselves from a Class A citation.

Without any discussion of any of these issues or providing greater clarity in the Ordinance, the City Council moved to adopt this ordinance on August 6^th. 

City of Phoenix: Cutting the Turkeys Off Cold Turkey

By contrast, the City of Phoenix, Oregon, demonstrated a far more restrained and practical approach in its response to neighborhood conflicts with aggressive wild turkeys.

Rather than imposing sweeping buffer zones or stripping homeowners of their right to protect their premises, Phoenix advanced an ordinance narrowly focused on the root of the problem: prohibiting the intentional feeding and attracting of wild animals.

The City of Phoenix’s proposed ordinance (see page 152) prohibits the intentional feeding and attracting of non-domesticated mammals and birds, declaring the practice a public nuisance to reduce habituation, property damage, disease, and public safety risks. Under the proposed rules, it is unlawful to knowingly distribute food or attractants to draw wild animals or to store pet and livestock feed in a manner that unreasonably attracts them.

However, the ordinance explicitly exempts ordinary lawns, ornamental landscaping, gardens, orchards, ponds, composting, songbird and hummingbird feeders, domestic pet feeding, and authorized state or federal wildlife management activities. Violations are treated as civil infractions, and enforcement generally begins with a written notice requiring the responsible party to remove or secure the attractant within a specified timeframe before daily penalties apply.

Compared to Cannon Beach’s approach, Phoenix delivers a far more restrained and thoughtful solution that protects a property owner’s right to use and enjoy their land. The city of Phoenix’s Ordinance is slated for adoption in early September.

The IP 28 Lesson: Oregonians Value Common Sense Wildlife Management

The clear need for pragmatic wildlife management is highlighted by a broader sentiment recently proven at the statewide level. The collapse of Initiative Petition 28 – an extreme measure to criminalize hunting, farming practices, and routine wildlife management that failed to qualify for the statewide ballot.

The epic failure of IP 28 demonstrates that Oregonians clearly value common sense and active wildlife stewardship. The public roundly rejected IP 28 because everyday people understand that regulated hunting and proactive wildlife management are not inherently bad; rather, they are necessary, beneficial tools that keep animal populations balanced and communities safe.

Local governments must recognize this moment and realize their constituents value reason over ideological extremes. Letting wildlife run amuck through neighborhoods is an abdication of municipal duty. At the same time, criminalizing property owners for simply trying to use their own backyards, gardens, and driveways is an overcorrection that runs afoul of basic property rights.

The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not represent the opinions or positions of any party represented by the OPOA Legal Center on any particular matter.