Feeding wildlife has shifted from a well‑meaning habit to a regulated activity with significant legal risk in many cities. In 2025, councils and state agencies are expanding bans, raising fines, and clarifying enforcement powers to curb wildlife conflicts, disease spread, and property damage. This guide explains how these rules work, what counts as illegal feeding or “attractants”, which exceptions exist for bird feeders, and how to avoid penalties while coexisting safely with urban animals.
Urban bylaws increasingly prohibit intentionally feeding wildlife or leaving attractants on public or private property. Attractants include unsecured food waste, compost, and pet food left outdoors, as well as deliberate placement of grain or seed at ground level that draws in non‑target animals like raccoons or coyotes. New rules commonly allow elevated, above‑grade feeders for songbirds but require designs and placements that deter access by mammals. Enforcement typically relies on notices of violation and escalating fines for repeat offenses, with penalties ranging from a few hundred dollars to four figures for persistent noncompliance. Some ordinances authorize officers to demand identification, issue fixed‑penalty tickets, and pursue higher statutory penalties for egregious or repeat violations.
Cities are pairing bans with specific fine schedules and education campaigns. One municipal model sets fines at approximately $250 for a first offence, $500 for a second, and $1,000 for subsequent violations, explicitly covering feeding or leaving attractants that could draw wildlife. These frameworks also carve out limited exceptions for elevated bird feeders on private property while maintaining blanket prohibitions on feeding predatory mammals. The stated aim is risk reduction and a “coexistence” approach that discourages habituation, which is associated with aggressive animal behavior and public safety incidents.
Outside North America, large metros are adopting similar measures with higher ceilings. In 2024, a territory‑wide ban expanded to include feral pigeons and introduced a fixed penalty system coupled with maximum fines up to the equivalent of five figures and potential jail for illegal feeding. Multiple agencies share enforcement authority, including conservation and health departments, and officers can require identification to aid enforcement. Public campaigns emphasize “no feeding” as a cornerstone of urban wildlife management, linking feeding to disease, ecosystem disruption, and costly property damage.
Media and local notices reflect growing U.S. enforcement as well. Reports describe fines reaching up to roughly $1,000 for feeding wildlife in parks or city properties, with gardens growing fruits and grains generally exempted when not used to feed wildlife intentionally. Other cities publicize strict crackdowns focused on predatory mammals, citing fines up to several thousand dollars and potential misdemeanor charges for repeat or willful violations. These policies are embedded in broader wildlife management plans intended to protect both animals and residents by preventing habituation and dangerous encounters.
State frameworks can also classify feeding as harassment or nuisance activity. In some jurisdictions, feeding wild animals may be charged under codes that prohibit harassment of wildlife, with fines up to around $1,000 for acts like feeding squirrels in certain communities. Local associations add community‑specific rules that prohibit any birdseed on patios or common areas, limiting feeders to specific types such as enclosed hummingbird feeders. Enforcement is paired with sanitation rules barring trash and pet food outdoors to reduce rodent and predator attraction.
For residents, compliance starts with understanding that “feeding” includes both direct hand‑outs and indirect attraction through unsecured waste, compost, and pet food. Maintaining sealed bins, promptly cleaning outdoor eating areas, elevating and squirrel‑proofing bird feeders, and avoiding ground scatter are practical steps that align with most ordinances. Where bird feeders are allowed, ensure they are above grade, inaccessible to mammals, and located away from structures to reduce conflicts. If contacted by enforcement, cooperate, remove attractants, and document corrective actions to minimize penalties.
Property managers and HOAs should update community rules to reflect current law. Recommended measures include standardized waste storage requirements, posted guidance on compliant bird‑feeding practices, seasonal reminders, and coordinated outreach with local parks or conservation departments. Documented policies and warnings support fair enforcement and help residents avoid citations. Where wildlife incidents persist, managers should work with municipal officers on site assessments and tailored mitigation.
As more cities adopt bans and fixed‑penalty systems, the trend is clear: intentional wildlife feeding and negligent attractants face increasing scrutiny and fines, while narrow bird‑feeding exceptions remain available under stricter conditions. Adopting simple compliance habits protects neighborhoods, reduces legal risk, and supports healthier wildlife behavior in urban environments. When in doubt, check local ordinances, confirm any bird‑feeder exceptions, and err on the side of eliminating attractants to avoid costly penalties and ensure safe coexistence with urban wildlife.
