Up to Our Wattles

Hens make the first cut

2007-01-22T08:05:00.000-08:00

Tacoma, WA - Monday, January 22, 2007

Sorry, feathered alarm clocks

KRIS SHERMAN; The News Tribune
Last updated: January 22nd, 2007 06:29 AM (PST)

Hens are in, roosters are out. It appears Tacoma residents will be able to keep chickens, cows, horses and other livestock in the city.
But the dawn-heralding crowing of roosters has got to go.

Those are among changes to a proposed animal control ordinance likely to occur as council members fine-tune a piece of controversial legislation.

If you’re a dog owner or cat owner, you still might have to pay more if you want to keep an unaltered pet in the city. But the fees are yet to be worked out.

Members of the City Council’s Public Safety and Human Services Committee spent more than two hours last week talking about ways to redraft proposed revisions to the animal control laws.

Much of the conversation focused on comments made by residents last month during a public hearing.

Council members were moved by tales from the owners of chickens, goats and other animals, who said their poultry and livestock didn’t bother anyone.

“I don’t think we need to touch the livestock,” Councilman Rick Talbert said.

But he doesn’t want chickens roaming the streets. They need to be contained in a yard or pen.

And he and Tacoma Police Capt. Mike Miller, who’s in charge of the city’s animal control unit, think the city’s no place for roosters.

Noise complaints take officers away from other animal enforcement issues, Miller said.

Other committee members agreed and asked assistant city attorney Jon Walker to redraft proposed changes to allow livestock but banish roosters.

The trickier issue is the so-called mandatory spay/neuter law that drew national attention to the city and flooded council members’ in-boxes with e-mails from breeders and dog clubs.

Under Councilwoman Julie Anderson’s original proposal, anyone who wants to keep an unaltered dog or cat in the city would have to buy a breeder’s license in addition to the normal pet license. The committee never established the fee, but the idea was to make it high enough to persuade owners to get their pets spayed or neutered.

Anderson is concerned about pet overpopulation.

During the Dec. 12 public hearing, a number of breeders and owners of purebred dogs complained the proposed law would unfairly penalize them.

Kennel club members pointed out their dogs must be anatomically correct for show purposes.

And people with valuable animals are responsible pet owners who wouldn’t allow “backyard breeding” of unwanted pets.

Humane Society officials and volunteers, however, made impassioned pleas for the council to enact laws that discourage people from having dogs and cats capable of breeding.

The council’s public safety committee is no longer considering a breeder’s license per se. But the issue of a significant differential between license costs for altered and unaltered dogs and cats remains under discussion.

The committee ultimately will make recommendations to the full council for a vote. Owners of unaltered dogs in Tacoma now pay $55 for an annual license. That’s $35 more than a license for a spayed or neutered dog or cat. The differential for adult cats is $43.

Anderson thinks licenses for unaltered pets ought to cost at least as much as an owner would pay for spaying or neutering.

“My desire is to create a pricing scheme for altered and unaltered pets that drives people toward the behavior that we want,” she said.

She hopes to stem so-called backyard breeding and impose stiff penalties on people who sell or give away puppies or kittens without the proper license.

Talbert and Councilman Mike Lonergan urged caution in setting fees.

“What we want to promote is licensing,” Lonergan said. He worried setting fees too high would only promote “scofflaw behavior” and drive up the number of unlicensed animals.

Committee members asked attorney Walker to bring them examples of other cities’ fee structures.

Northeast Tacoma resident Mitty Gregory was pleased to hear her chickens aren’t likely to be sent packing.

Gregory, 79, has nine laying hens.

“I think it’s sensible,” to not ban livestock, she said Friday. “I just feel like people who want good organic vegetables grow their own. And people who want good fresh eggs grow their own.”

Gregory gives the eggs her hens lay to friends and neighbors.

“My chickens don’t bother anybody,” she said. “In fact, everybody I know I loves my chickens. I have nine hens, and every one of them laid today,” she added with a note of pride.

Kris Sherman: 253-597-8659

kris.sherman@thenewstribune.com

What’s next

Tacoma City Council members are expected to discuss proposed changes to animal control laws at least three more times before they vote on them.

• The issue will go back to the council’s Public Safety and Human Services Committee for more discussion and possible revision, probably in a few weeks.

• All nine council members will receive a presentation on the subject. More revisions could follow that meeting.

• The final version of proposed changes will go before the council for adoption.

There are no dates set for the meetings. All will be open to the public, though public testimony will not be taken at each meeting.

For more information, go to www.cityoftacoma.org or call 253-627-PETS (7387).

Kris Sherman, The News Tribune

Originally published: January 22nd, 2007 01:00 AM (PST)

Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Contact Us | About Us | Site Map | Jobs@The TNT | RSS
1950 South State Street, Tacoma, Washington 98405 253-597-8742
© Copyright 2007 Tacoma News, Inc. A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company

Email from Councilman Stenger

2006-12-28T19:19:00.000-08:00

----- Original Message -----
From: Stenger, Thomas
To: Vic Bottomly
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 11:09 PM
Subject: RE: Banning Chickens

I agree with you and have publicly asked Councilwoman Anderson and the Public Safety Committee members to withdraw the ban on poultry, horse, and livestock. There's no evidence nor any outcry for it. Thanks for the e-mail.

Email from Councilman Fey

2006-12-28T19:16:00.000-08:00

----- Original Message -----
From: Fey, Jake
To: Vic Bottomly
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:04 PM
Subject: RE: Banning Chickens

Mr. & Ms. Bottomly,

Please excuse my delay in acknowledging your e-mail concerning the proposed banning of livestock in the City of Tacoma. We have received a large number of e-mails and letters on this subject as well as many people testifing at our public hearing. The City Council has referred the matter back to the Public Safety Committee for rework and I expect that the new proposal which I expect to see in the first quarter of 2007 to be substantially different. I personally do not see the need to ban chickens in the city limits. Roosters might be a different matter altogether. I will try to advise you when we have further public hearings on the subject. Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

Jake Fey
Tacoma City Council

More Letters to Councilmen

2006-12-21T10:25:00.000-08:00

Dear Councilman Talbert,

My husband wrote to you earlier about the proposed ban on livestock in Tacoma. His letter was published in TNT (Dec. 20), and we were rather horrified to see that it was edited to remove your title, "Councilman" in one place and refer to you only by your last name. This is not the way my husband submitted the letter, and the tone implied by the editing was not intended. As Christians we respect the dignities placed over us and would not refer to them publicly without proper titles of respect.

I sympathize completely with your experience of having chickens roaming loose in your neighborhood. This is already illegal, and it really needs to stop. In Enumclaw, fowl roaming at large constitutes a breach of the "disorderly conduct" statute--along with public drunkenness! Unconfined poultry are a nuisance and a health hazard, and only irresponsible people would permit this; it endangers their birds as well. Poultry need to be confined so they cannot come into contact with other birds that might vector disease, and there are other obvious nuisance factors as well. I am an attorney and have had many occasions to be dismayed at the negligence of animal owners. My neighborhood is under siege by stray dogs, as well as constantly barking dogs left in fenced yards all day.

Apparently, many people do not realize that hens lay eggs without the presence of roosters. Roosters do make noise--not as much as coyotes, C-17s, and blasting stereo systems, but noise. Hens do not. Our hens abide without the companionship of a rooster and lay perfectly wonderful unfertilized eggs.

My husband and I would be very pleased to show you what we believe is a model hen coop, protected on top from other birds, underground against burrowing predators, and gated all around. Our hens have never been at large, they sleep through the night, and during the day they sound, predictably enough, like birds. We are far from being animal-rights people; we consider this a matter of long-held property rights of owners to peaceable enjoyment of their own property without encroaching on others' rights to do the same.

We appreciate your concern for upholding the diverse interests of Tacoma with integrity. Please feel free to contact us any time to see our arrangement.

******************
Dear Mr. Stenger,

My husband and I appreciate your support in opposing the livestock ban. I was dismayed to see the honestly moronic comments following my husband's letter to the editor in TNT (Dec. 20), but I have no doubt there is a class of people that thrives on venting without fuel. Also, my husband's letter was unfortunately edited to remove "Councilman" and read simply "Talbert" in one place, which gives a very incorrect tone. As Christians, we respect the dignities God has put into place to govern, and we would not refer to a member of the City Council without a proper title of respect.

Since so much ignorance prevails about this issue, I thought it might be helpful for your colleagues to have a few ready facts at hand.

First, many people assume that roosters are present where there is egg production. This is not true. Chickens lay unfertilized eggs without roosters. We, for instance have no rooster. From the comments to my husband's letter, those in support of the ban object to rooster noise.

Second, this is not an "animal rights" or "chicken rights" issue. This is a matter of people exercising their long-held property rights in a legal fashion. As a lawyer, I recall that "private property" means essentially the right to exclude others, not the right to exclude others' legal enjoyment of their own property.

Third, the City of Tacoma has, and I think very sensibly, made it known that people will be living with wildlife in their urban environment. The City has let them know they need to deal with it privately. We have coyote noise, we have C-17 noise. We have had problems with horrific noise from rooftop and car stereos. (We live in your district; I'm sure you understand.) Hens make no noise at night, and during the day they sound like birds.

Confinement of poultry is crucial, not only to protect the birds from predators, but the public from bird-borne disease. Our coop is probably a model one and we would be very pleased to show it to you. It is covered across the top to protect our hens from other birds. The fencing is buried two feet underground to protect our birds from burrowing predators; and it is gated all around to protect them from raccoons, foxes, and coyotes, all of which have visited our property. I do sympathesize with Councilman Talbert's concerns of chickens roaming at large in his neighborhood. Again, this is illegal and should be stopped. I note that in Enumclaw, having fowl at large is contrary to the city's "disorderly conduct" ordinance--along with public intoxication!

We would be very pleased to hear from you to discuss this further, and to show you our shy-quarter-acre arrangement. Please feel free to contact us by email or by phone: 253-820-7802.

Again, thank you for your support, and God keep you as you undertake the very challenging tasks of preserving the diverse interests of Tacoma with integrity.

Letter to TNT Published 12/20/2006

2006-12-21T08:17:00.000-08:00

Tacoma, WA - December 21, 2006
Welcome, Guest
Log in | Sign up! Bigger text Smaller text E-mail this story Print this story Text only Comments (12)
Sledgehammer approach in proposed poultry ban

R.V. BOTTOMLY; Tacoma
Published: December 20th, 2006 01:00 AM

My wife and I missed notice of the recent Tacoma City Council proposal to ban chickens. We were mystified as to the reason for the proposed ban until we found the answer in The News Tribune’s archives: Councilman Rick Talbert is upset about chickens running at large and noisy roosters (TNT, 12-9).
News flash: Under the Tacoma Municipal Code, roaming chickens are already illegal.

The owners of noisy animals (already defined as public nuisances) can be cited. Other kinds of livestock are banned unless there is a variance. The city already has enforcement authority to address Talbert’s concerns. The law does not need to be changed, just enforced.

Before we established our small flock of five hens, we looked up the city code and followed it to the letter. Out of respect for our neighbors, we decided not to have roosters. The hens sleep quietly all night.

The proposed ban on chickens is a sledgehammer approach to a problem for which solutions exist. Following Talbert’s reasoning, we should also ban all dogs and cats (how about coyotes?) because some of them run at large and make annoying noises at night.

Visitors, especially children, are invariably delighted to meet our chickens. The City Council should drop the sledgehammer, encourage compliance with existing laws, and allow urban homesteaders their humble chickens and homegrown eggs.

Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Contact Us | About Us | Site Map | Jobs@The TNT | RSS
1950 South State Street, Tacoma, Washington 98405 253-597-8742
© Copyright 2006 Tacoma News, Inc. A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company

Response from Councilman Stenger

2006-12-19T08:31:00.000-08:00

From: Stenger, Thomas
To: Vic Bottomly
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 11:09 PM
Subject: RE: Banning Chickens

I agree with you and have publicly asked Councilwoman Anderson and the Public Safety Committee members to withdraw the ban on poultry, horse, and livestock. There's no evidence nor any outcry for it. Thanks for the e-mail.

Letter to the Editor

2006-12-18T20:12:00.000-08:00

Tacoma News Tribune
12/18/06
Dear Editor:

My wife and I missed notice of the recent City Council proposal to ban chickens. We were mystified as to the reason for the proposed ban until we found the answer in the Tribune's archives. Councilman Talbert is upset about chickens running at large and noisy roosters.

News Flash to Councilman Talbert: under the Tacoma Municipal Code, roaming chickens are already illegal. The owners of noisy animals (already defined as public nuisances) can be cited. Other kinds of livestock are banned unless there is a variance. The City already has enforcement authority to address Mr. Talbert's concerns.

The Council need not change the law, just enforce it.
As responsible owners, before we established our small flock of five hens, we looked up the city code and followed it to the letter. Out of respect for our neighbors, we decided not to have roosters. The hens sleep quietly all night.

The proposed ban on chickens (and rabbits) is a sledgehammer approach to a problem for which solutions exist. Following Councilman Talbert's reasoning, we should also ban all dogs and cats (how about coyotes?) because some of them run at large and make annoying noises at night.

Visitors, especially children, are invariably delighted to meet our chickens. The City Council should drop the sledgehammer, encourage compliance with existing laws, and allow urban homesteaders their humble chickens and homegrown eggs.

Tacoma News Tribune Advisory

2006-12-18T19:32:00.000-08:00

Tooth and nail in Tacoma

KRIS SHERMAN; The News Tribune
Published: December 9th, 2006 01:00 AM

Too many unwanted dogs and cats are being killed because there aren’t homes for them.
Too many crowing roosters are robbing people of sleep.

Too many barking, baying, howling, squealing, crying, bleating, screeching, whining and otherwise noisy pets are disturbing the peace in Tacoma.

Some City Council members say they’re weary of increasingly high euthanasia numbers from the Humane Society and tired of residents’ complaints about troublesome pets.

They’re working to tighten animal control laws.

Some revisions, including penalties for people whose pets are incessantly noisy, were adopted by the council Tuesday night.

But the most controversial proposals – including what’s loosely being called a “mandatory spay/neuter law” – are still under discussion.

The proposal sets significantly higher fees to keep an unaltered dog or cat in the city. If that pet gets loose and is impounded even once, it would be spayed or neutered before the owner could get it back. And the owner would have to pay the vet bill.

Another revision would ban livestock in the city, making it illegal for residents to keep chickens, pigs, horses, cows and a list of other animals.

A public hearing is scheduled next week, but council members’ e-mail in-boxes already are filling up with comments from around town and across the nation.

The sharpest criticism comes from dog owners.

Some want to preserve their pets’ anatomical correctness for show and breeding purposes.

Others say it’s a property rights issue. They argue the city should not financially bludgeon owners into spaying or neutering their pets.

“You are crossing the line between my personal freedoms and decision regarding my animals,” wrote TJay Farley of Tacoma, who described himself as a responsible pet owner and said his dog’s been altered.

“The idea to ‘force’ a person to spay or neuter their pet is tantamount to forcing a person to get a vasectomy or tubal ligation,” he wrote.

The spay/neuter proposal would require the owners of unaltered cats or dogs to buy a breeder’s permit in addition to normal licensing fees. Licensing a dog or a cat that’s not spayed or neutered already carries a financial penalty.

The breeder’s license fee hasn’t been established. But the idea is to make owning an altered pet so expensive that people would rather get Lady and Tramp spayed or neutered.

TRACKING OVERPOPULATION

Councilwoman Julie Anderson calls the proposed law “a very necessary step in curbing pet overpopulation.”

Nearly 2,500 healthy, adoptable dogs and cats were euthanized at the Humane Society for Tacoma and Pierce County last year.

“It’s not only costly to the city for us to have to manage and maintain unwanted pets, it’s also cruel to the animals if they’re brought into the world and there’s nobody to care for them,” Councilman Rick Talbert said.

The Humane Society put public focus on the issue earlier this year when it publicized plans to make Tacoma and Pierce County a “no-kill” community by the end of 2008.

Better enforcement and animal control laws coupled with the creation of “free and accessible” spay and neuter clinics can help achieve that goal, Anderson says.

For Susan Hayes and Venus Dergan, tiny mewing mouths give daily evidence that pets often produce offspring that have no immediate homes.

Both Humane Society volunteers provide foster care to kittens until they can be adopted.

“I’d like to see the City of Tacoma set an example for the rest of the state,” said Dergan, the owner of three adopted cats and foster mom to seven kittens.

“The most healthy and respectful thing you can do is spay and neuter your pet,” she added.

If you choose to own an unaltered dog or cat, “a breeder’s license is a small price to pay,” Hayes said.

People who invest a lot in licensing their pets are less likely to let them run loose where they can breed with other strays, said the two women, who stressed they were speaking as Tacoma residents, not on behalf of the Humane Society.

PUREBRED OUTRAGE

Not everyone agrees.

“I don’t think it’s right,” said Tacoma resident Debra Tribble, owner of three Chihuahuas – Maeve, Too Much and Captain. She’s been advertising in the newspaper to sell puppies from her purebreds.

“They’re already charging extra money” to license unaltered pets, she pointed out. “So you’re being double-charged.”

Members of kennel clubs and breeders groups from Tacoma to Gig Harbor, Utah to Kentucky and beyond also oppose the proposal.

The American Kennel Club Web site carries a “legislative alert” on the issue, urging concerned dog owners to “express their opposition to this overly restrictive and punitive legislation.”

“The whole idea behind dog shows is that you’re judging or evaluating breeding stock, and that includes having an intact dog,” said AKC spokeswoman Lisa Peterson.

She condemned what she said was government intervention of “what you can and can’t do with your dog.”

She also questioned the enforceability of such a law.

“If you have a problem with dogs running in the streets, having all these litters, perhaps you ought to look at your leash laws,” Peterson said. “People who are involved in these backyard breedings probably won’t follow the law anyway,” she added, referring to the spay/neuter proposition.

URBAN LIVESTOCK AT ISSUE

Complaints about crowing roosters rousing neighbors from sleep at 4 and 5 a.m. prompted Councilman Talbert to propose the ban on livestock.

“You can go in parts of my district, and there are chickens walking on the road,” said Talbert, who represents the East Side.

Densely populated urban areas are not the best place for farm animals, said Councilwoman Connie Ladenburg, who chairs the Public Safety and Human Services Committee.

If the livestock ban were adopted as proposed, 79-year-old Mitty Gregory would have to bid farewell to the chickens she waited years to have.

There’s no grandfather clause in the draft law.

Gregory, who was raised on a farm, longed for the barnyard’s “happy little sounds that were calming and nice,” she said.

Husband Lee nixed the idea while the retired couple did a lot of traveling.

Last year he relented. She now has laying hens – no roosters – at her Northeast Tacoma home. They present her with nine eggs a day.

Gregory says she’ll follow the law if it’s passed, but she’d miss her chickens and their fresh eggs.

“They taste much better,” she said of the eggs. “As soon as the ones in the store taste as good as mine, I wouldn’t have an argument.”

ENFORCEMENT QUESTIONED

Both Anderson and Ladenburg stress the animal control proposals are in draft form and will likely be modified before anything is adopted. Anderson expects the livestock portion will be revised.

But she’s adamant about tougher spay/neuter laws.

She knows it’s “an encroachment on people’s rights.” Even so, she insists tough regulations are “really necessary until we get the pet population under control.”

Jodie Trueblood, the city’s tax and licensing manager, says she knows Anderson’s plan would be difficult to enforce. Even now, city officials estimate only about half the dogs and cats in Tacoma are licensed. There are no plans to hire a battalion of animal control officers.

Most of the animals that city crews find lost or dead on the street have not been spayed or neutered, Trueblood said.

Stiffer animal control laws “would hopefully be a cure” to unwanted litters, Trueblood said.

Ladenburg agrees with both Trueblood and Anderson.

“When we’re killing animals, it’s everyone’s problem,” she said.

Kris Sherman: 253-597-8659

kris.sherman@thenewstribune.com

HAVE YOUR SAY

What: A public hearing on proposed changes to Tacoma’s animal control laws

When: 5:30 p.m. Tuesday during a meeting of the Tacoma City Council

Where: Tacoma City Hall, 747 Market St.

What’s next: There is no timeline set for council action on the changes. If revisions are made, they will probably occur next year.

PET LICENSING IN TACOMA

Tacoma requires that dogs and cats over 8 weeks old be licensed. But officials estimate as many as half such pets are unlicensed.

License fees* Altered dogs Unaltered dogs Altered cats Unaltered cats

Number of licensed pets Spayed or neutered dogs Unaltered dogs Spayed or neutered cats Unaltered cats

For more information: Call 253-627-PETS (7387) or go to http://www.cityoftacoma.org/ and click on “Animal Care and Control” on the right-hand side of the page.

POLICING YOUR PETS

Tacoma City Council members will take public testimony next week on a proposal that would make sweeping changes to the city’s animal control laws. Among them:

• Higher cost for unaltered pets. In addition to a larger license fee, you’d have to buy a breeder’s license if you wanted to keep a dog or a cat that’s not spayed or neutered, even if you didn’t plan to mate your animals. The fee for the breeder’s license hasn’t been set.

• Mandatory spaying or neutering for impounded dogs and cats except when a veterinarian gives a written statement that the surgery would be harmful to the animal. Owners would pay the spaying or neutering cost to retrieve pets.

• Limit on unaltered pets. You could own only two dogs and/or cats that aren’t spayed or neutered.

• Ban on livestock. You wouldn’t be able to keep chickens or other fowl, horses, mules, cattle, llamas, sheep, goats, pigs, ostriches, emus and other animals.

• Dangerous dog rules. They would be euthanized or sent to a facility outside the city that cares for such animals. The proposal provides definitions for dangerous dogs.

• Ban on pet ownership for residents defined as “problem owners.” The proposal sets out criteria for defining problem owners based on repeat violations of animal control laws.

Comments to the Tacoma City Council

2006-12-16T18:39:00.000-08:00

(I sent this to all of the Tacoma City Council this evening. Any responses received will be posted.)

Dear Mayor Baarsma, Honorable City Council Members:

My wife and I were dismayed to learn that the City of Tacoma is considering banning poultry in conjunction with its overhaul of the animal control ordinances. I understand that a hearing on this issue was held on December 12, 2006. I am sorry we did not know of the meeting because this is an issue of great concern to us.

We keep five hens in our backyard in Tacoma. They live in a clean and spacious coop. All of the eggs they produce are consumed in our home. We were very careful to check the Tacoma Municipal Code when we started raising them and were happy to comply with its provisions.

None of our neighbors have ever complained about our small flock. Indeed, our next-door neighbor tells us that our birds soothe him. Another neighbor is delighted to see our chickens bounding about catching bugs. We think they are an attractive asset to our neighborhood. It also is a wonder and a great pleasure for us to eat fresh home-grown eggs.

What are the policy concerns behind a total ban?

I ask this question seriously, especially given the fact that the proposed ordinance does not contemplate banning dogs or cats. I am not proposing such a ban, but rather am raising the point that certainly more public nuisances involve barking (and biting) dogs or howling stray cats than chickens. (I also note that the draft proposes banning rabbits—a quieter and meeker creature is hard to be found). Whatever the rationale may be for banning rabbits or chickens, certainly the same could be invoked more forcefully for dogs and cats.

I ask the Council to keep in mind that banning chickens is in fact a change in land-use policy. We use our shy quarter-acre to raise grapes, blueberries, raspberries, apples, pears, garden crops, and our chickens. The birds are integral to our production. The proposed ban would disrupt our attempt at producing wholesome food in an integrated and self-contained manner.

I also remind the Council that Washington State law frowns upon the drastic measure of a total ban on a previously recognized use:

"An ordinance requiring an immediate cessation of a nonconforming use may be held to be unconstitutional because it brings about a deprivation of property rights out of proportion to the public benefit obtained."

State ex rel. Miller v. Cain, 40 Wn.2d 216, 218 (Wash. 1952)(quoting Austin v. Older, 283 Mich. 667, 278 NW 727 (1938).

So the policy question is quite legitimate. The draft ordinance proposes to deprive a property right completely out of proportion to any readily identifiable public benefit.

The current ordinance is sufficient.

The current ordinance already prohibits raising other livestock without express permission from neighbors. 5.23.010. In addition, the code specifically regulates how chickens should be kept. For instance, it prohibits chickens at large. 5.30.020. It regulates how close to other dwellings they may be kept. 5.30.010. It allows for variances in situations in which neighbors approve. 5.30.030. The current ordinance reflects Tacoma's traditional progressive attitude of encouraging neighborly tolerance and productive use of land. There is no need to change these provisions.

But, if there is some pressing problem not known to some of us residents, wouldn't the proper and more sensible remedy be to adjust the existing provisions to address the issue? Instead of banning chickens altogether, address the specific problem, if there is one.

Backyard flocks are growing in popularity and allowed in many other cities.

I hope the Council is aware that other cities do not ban chickens, but in fact have actively encouraged backyard flocks. Madison, Wisconsin; Des Moines, Iowa; Portland, Oregon; and even the glamour girl to the north, Seattle, all expressly allow for backyard flocks. What is possessing Tacoma's leaders to abandon their city's heritage and go against the trend that is followed by other progressive and beautiful cities? I hope it is not a desire to turn Tacoma into some kind of sanitized cookie-cutter community. There are plenty of those to choose from elsewhere.

Consider that more people are interested in fresh food and locally-grown produce. Tacoma's successful Farmer's Market thrives on this interest. The City should encourage this trend. Backyard flocks are a simple, unobtrusive, and satisfying way of producing wholesome local food. A total ban on chickens is contrary to the interest of sustainable local (and small-scale) farming.

Many people we have met are delighted to know that we produce our own eggs. Visiting children are invariably fascinated. They are eager to learn of things that, in the past, were common knowledge. A ban on raising chickens destroys this heritage. Instead of children having the opportunity to actually raise their own bird, learn responsibility, and gain understanding about where food comes from, they would be forced to visit museums.

For these reasons, and for the personal reason that we enjoy our five hens in the backyard, I ask the City Council to reject the draft proposal with regard to poultry and rabbits.

In addition, I request a response to my question regarding the policy considerations and an actual copy of the proposed ordinance.

Thank you for your consideration.

Vic and Lauren Bottomly,
Tacoma, WA.

Urban Flocks Under Threat By Nuisance Neighbors

2006-12-15T20:15:00.000-08:00

Keeping small flocks of chickens in the city is a long held American tradition. Keeping backyard poultry is a tradition grounded in autonomy, self-sufficiency, and preservation of the connection between man and his beast in urban settings that might otherwise snuff his sensibilities to nature altogether.

We live in Tacoma, Washington. Chickens have been affirmatively legal here for as long as we can determine. By "affirmatively legal," I mean that they are specifically contemplated by reference in the Tacoma Municipal Code. The code reads that chicken coops must be at least fifty feet from any residence. Well, that means there can be chicken coops, and that means there can be chickens.

Chickens are not brilliant creatures, but they have more sense than people who want them banned from private urban property. I put up with barking dogs, howling coyotes, C-17s with rumbling engines...and now the Tacoma City Council is hearing testimony from people who think chickens are too noisy to share our urban lives.

Wildlife abounds within our city limits. In our backyard, we have had coyotes, foxes, and raccoons. The City of Tacoma will not undertake any animal control over wildlife pests--the property owner must secure the services of a private trapper at his own expense if he desires a wildlife pest removed from his property. The city invites you to view its "Living With Wildlife" information on a website. But chickens, all of a sudden are gaining a reputation as a nuisance. "Living With Chickens" is not to be countenanced.

Chickens are birds. They make bird noises. Almost anyone with normal hearing would find chicken sounds more pleasing to the ear than crows or seagulls. There is no rational reason why chicken sounds are less natural to the urban environment than any other bird sounds.

Chickens eliminate waste that is immediately useful as fertilizer. It might become smelly in summer if not immediately turned under the soil. Does that mean we should ban chickens in the city? Do we ban other smelly fertilizers from use in urban gardens?

In short, there is no rational reason to ban chickens in urban settings, as long as they are properly constrained to their own property and protected from predators as they should be anywhere else. They prosper in small spaces; they motivate people to care for them and appreciate them for their eggs. They show enormous gratitude for table scraps, and offer sweet-natured company. My five Plymouth Rock hens are my biggest motivation for hauling my arthritic knees and spine outdoors. I feed them, check for eggs, and listen to them tell me about their busy day.

The Tacoma City Council is hearing testimony supporting a ban on chickens in the city. We will be entering testimony in support of keeping chickens. Right now, the Tacoma Municipal Code sets no limit on the number of chickens an urban household may have, and does not prohibit roosters. We have no rooster, out of consideration for our neighbors. We would resist any change in the law that would cause us to forfeit our hens. We urge others to contact us, become team members on this blog, and support our efforts to preserve the right to the traditional liberty to keep backyard poultry in cities nationwide.