There Goes the Rooster…
On Tuesday, Seattle City Council’s Regional Development and Sustainability Committee met to hear, amongst other agenda items, a presentation by the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) on the proposed urban agricultural code amendments. These changes stemmed from the 2008 Local Food Action Initiative’s goal of removing code barriers to urban agriculture. Before the presentations began, a number of community members expressed their support for the proposed legislation changes, with one exception…the banning of roosters.
One of the proposed amendments would increase the allowable number of chickens on residential property from three to eight. However, the amendment would also deem keeping roosters illegal.
To drive home the fact that roosters are agreeable animals, one family brought in their rooster, Birdie. Birdie is not only the most popular fowl in the neighborhood, he has also kept the rest of the flock safe from predators and has fathered many chicks–which provides others in the area with a local supplier of chickens.
The biggest complaint about roosters, understandably, is generally their loud, unfathomably early crowing routines. However, as Birdie has demonstrated to his owners, that’s not the case with all roosters. Furthermore, there is already a noise ordinance that regulates the crowing disturbances. Why is there a need to ban roosters outright when the only complaint is the racket they cause and that’s already being controlled by the city?
During DPD’s presentation, Senior Land Use Planner Andrea Petzel said she was surprised at the number of pro-rooster outcries on the DPD’s online discussion board on these proposed amendments. Though, she also said she’s heard a number of people praising the ban, presumably, so they can get their peaceful rest.
Councilmember Jean Godden clearly put herself in the anti-rooster camp during the presentation. When Councilmember Mike O’Brien asked if roosters were currently a major issue in the city, Godden interrupted, stating rather emphatically, “They are a problem…about 3:30 in the morning…wake people up…”. Petzel was asked by Council President Richard Conlin to compile some more information on the debate by looking at the number of noise complaints related to roosters. Godden then requested Petzel to find any “aggressive behavior” roosters may have on the books as well, noting that some “get a little bit hostile.”
Other reasons for banning roosters, DPD noted, include the fact that many other cities prohibit roosters and the need to keep the definitions of “keeping animals” separate from “animal husbandry.”
DPD’s presentation begins at approximately minute 60:33–click “CB” on the right side menu. (Chicken debate begins around minute 73:37.)
Public hearing on these issues will be held July 21 at Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m.
Related posts:
- Comments on Urban Ag Code Amendments
- The Nitty Gritty of Seattle’s Urban Ag Code Changes
- Vancouver Considers Building a Shelter for Homeless Chickens
Comments RSS You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
6 Responses to “There Goes the Rooster…”
Leave a Reply
Categories
Copyright Urban Farm Hub 2010 | Designed by Woonerfs
There is no reason to add limitations re: roosters. You are correct that they are already covered under noise ordinance policies. If there isn’t much noise, or if the neighbors don’t mind, then it isn’t an issue for anyone. As far as aggressiveness- many people have dogs/cats in their own yards that could be deemed very aggresive and much more damaging than a chicken.
Obstructionist Councilmembers are a problem…about 8-5 m-f…they step on the public in favor of the private. I would like to request Godden to find a living subject that does not posses “aggressive behavior” and would also like to note that Mean Jean herself has been accused once or twice of “getting a little bit hostile”.
I couldn’t agree more with Meg’s comments. I’m sure there are many more complaints about noisy dogs than there are roosters and I’m fairly certain they won’t be outlawed. …and just because people oppose the ban on roosters doesn’t mean that everyone will run out an get one. Roosters are currently legal and many people don’t have one. I keep chickens in Seattle and don’t plan to get a rooster, but I do hope to borrow someone’s on occasion when I have a really broodie hen or want some chicks.
I understand the concerns about roosters because I have one, a gorgeous Rhode Island Red rooster named Rudy. And it is true that they crow at 4:00 am, sometimes 3:00 – that is why we take the responsibility of bringing him into our garage EVERY NIGHT and let him sleep in a large dog crate covered with towels. He loves it, it’s a little ‘bachelor pad’ for him and he sings a very impressive chortling sing-song each night that he’s put away. Owning a rooster comes with responsibility – which is covered under the city noise ordinance – a ban on roosters is not necessary.
[...] the process, the largest debate on these code amendments swirled around chickens. At first, it was proposed that roosters be banned [...]
I live on a small city lot in Bellevue. My neighbor has a rooster in a pen which is about 40 feet from my house. Their rooster wakes up a number of the surrounding neighbors most every morning. They don’t care, because the noise doesn’t bother them. Incredibly selfish. They have received hate mail, police visits and friendly chats. They don’t care. The police don’t have a big interest in enforcing noise ordinances, and when they try, they have to actually drive over and hear the noise to issue a citation. When the rooster crows for several minutes then stops for 10 or 15, the police never hear it.
Saying a rooster is like a dog barking is laughable. I would NEVER leave my dog out to bark at 4am, 5am, 6am, or ANY time. I can also train my dog.
Roosters cannot be trained to not crow. its what they do.
I’m very much for maximizing individual liberty, but roosters are not appropriate on small city lots where the noise has a significant impact on neighbors.
If the noise ordinances could be improved, I would be fine with relying on that. Minimally, there should be setback limits of 200′ from property lines, which would restrict roosters to larger size lots.