The city of Langley is considering adopting an ordinance that prohibits people from harming or feeding wildlife.

During a meeting this week, the city council briefly discussed the draft of a proposed ordinance presented by Nathan Goodman, a resident of the Highlands neighborhood. Earlier this year, his neighborhood association passed a “no harm, no feed” rule in order to mitigate conflict between humans and wildlife.

“We were motivated by our iconic Langley bunnies, which at the time we passed our rule were abundant in our neighborhood,” Goodman said. “They were everywhere. Pretty much the day after we passed our rule, that terrible virus struck and now of course they’re all gone.”

In June, the state Department of Agriculture confirmed the presence of rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus type 2 in rabbits in Island County. Rabbits on the Whidbey Island Fairgrounds tested positive for the deadly disease, which decimated Langley’s bunny population this past summer.

The city council authorized a task force in July to explore the possibility of enacting a wildlife ordinance in the Village by the Sea.

Goodman explained that the draft ordinance outlaws trapping and poisoning of wild animals, including feral domesticated animals. Exceptions are allowed for home infestations, such as in the case of rats or mice. A coyote attacking pets or livestock is also fair game.

The ordinance restricts feeding of wildlife, except birds. Feeding, Goodman said, attracts predators and can spread disease.

Councilmember Craig Cyr asked if a person who theoretically had 100 rabbits on their property could humanely trap them and relocate them. Goodman responded that the trapping would have to be done by a licensed professional qualified to carry out those activities.

“Most of the time when people trap – whether it’s bunnies or anything else – the animals die,” he said. “You really have to know what you’re doing. Live traps have to be tended very regularly.”

Cyr said he hoped specific penalties for feeding or harming wildlife would be outlined in the final ordinance.

Councilmember Rhonda Salerno said she will present the ordinance to the city’s attorney. City staff, such as the planning director, will also review it, and a first reading is expected sometime in the new year.

Councilmember Harolynne Bobis, however, said she was not comfortable with Salerno approaching the city attorney.

“I feel like you’ve gone to the attorneys a lot, far more than the rest of us,” Bobis said. “Perhaps staff should go to the attorney since this is a staff-related thing.”

Salerno responded that she wanted to make sure the council was supportive of the ordinance before attorney time and staff time is spent on the matter.

Councilmember Thomas Gill noted that given the ordinance is restricting personal land use, it needs to come before the city’s citizen-led Planning Advisory Board and have a proper public process.

“We have to have the conversation because this is a small group and we need to make sure everyone’s aware of what the impact will be, top to bottom, before we go and actually codify this and put something into law,” he said.