ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Caitlyn Leary
In Alaska Trappers Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Valdez, 548 P.3d 332 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court held that a city ordinance regulating trapping was a valid exercise of the city’s authority over public safety and land use. (Id. at 340). In 2005, the City of Valdez enacted an ordinance that generally allowed trapping for recreational and subsistence purposes, barring some areas of the city. (Id. at 333). The city enacted the ordinance to protect “all persons from hazardous devices and to protect domesticated animals and pets from damage and destruction which may result from uncontrolled trapping activities.” (Id.). The Alaska Trappers Association challenged the ordinance as “invalid and unconstitutional.” (Id.). The superior court granted summary judgment to the City of Valdez and denied the Association’s motion for reconsideration. (Id. at 335). On appeal, the Association alleged that because the Alaska Constitution directs the legislature to “provide for natural resource management,” any municipal ordinances affecting natural resources are in direct conflict. (Id. at 335). But the supreme court affirmed the superior court’s grant of summary judgment. (Id. at 340). In balancing the city’s interest in public safety with the state’s authority over natural resource management, the Court reasoned that the “ordinance’s impact on wildlife or natural resource management is incidental.” (Id. at 339). That is, the city enacted the ordinance pursuant to its powers to regulate public safety and land use, not to exercise control over natural resources. (Id.). Furthermore, the Court noted that the Association failed to show that the ordinance had such a “substantial effect” on trapping as to constitute a wildlife resource regulation. (Id. at 340). Affirming the superior court’s decision, the supreme court held that the city’s ordinance was not preempted by state law and was a valid exercise of its authority over public safety and land use. (Id.).
