BY JAMES WERNICKE
Los Alamos

“It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” – Abraham Maslow

“All rules we propose are open to public scrutiny and comment, after which we make needed changes. Only after are we sure the rule is needed and properly constructed do we make it final.” – US Fish & Wildlife Service

The argument for prohibiting wildlife feeding is rooted in concerns about the health and safety of the community and wildlife. Feeding wild animals has the potential to cause dangerous human-wildlife interactions, including attacks, spread diseases to humans such as rabies, and vehicle collisions. Furthermore, it can disrupt animals’ natural foraging behaviors, contribute to malnutrition, and spread diseases such as chronic wasting disease.

I agree that respecting wildlife’s independence is a better way to preserve the welfare of both of us, but I oppose this feeding ordinance because it lacks clear evidence that it would significantly reduce public harm and introduces potential negative consequences.

The evidence fails to clearly support intentional feeding substantially increases human-wildlife interactions. Unintentional feeding through fruit trees, gardens, and lawns may play a significant role in attracting wildlife, particularly deer. Suburban development creates forest thresholds where deer can thrive. Additionally, increased vehicular traffic and infrastructure changes further alter wildlife patterns. Ironically, regulation has also contributed to the problem. If intentional feeding is not a significant factor in the issues at hand, banning it through the ordinance would not lead to a substantial reduction in harm. The underlying causes of the problem may not be addressed, leading to limited effectiveness, a false sense of security, and undue administrative costs.

On October 30, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s raided a wildlife sanctuary because the owner Mark Longo did not have a license to keep Peanut the Squirrel and Fred the Raccoon. These animals had gained popularity on social media since 2017. The government’s decision to seize and euthanize these animals, even though they were not causing clear harm, resulted in severe public backlash, including condemnation of law enforcement, legal action against the state, and legislation. This example highlights the risks of government actions that are excessively punitive in the name of health and safety. A wildlife feeding ban could lead to similar consequences for the community, including lawsuits or public resistance, especially if the ban is perceived to be enforced arbitrarily.

Implementing and enforcing the ordinance could also strain public resources. If enforcement is not robust or consistent, the ordinance may become a symbolic gesture rather than an effective tool. The dog waste ban illustrates this concern, as it remains largely unenforced and ineffective. If a law cannot be consistently enforced, it risks undermining respect for the rule of law, fostering the public’s disillusionment with the government’s ability to regulate effectively.

The proposed ordinance may not be the most effective or necessary solution to the problem. The evidence does not clearly support that intentional feeding is the primary driver of wildlife-related issues, and the administrative burden of enforcement could undermine its potential success. Moreover, there is a risk of overreach, which could harm citizens and undermine compliance. Continuing to focus on education, voluntary compliance, and innovative culling may be more effective than regulation.

AI was used to increase clarity and cohesiveness of the author’s original work.