Hollister
– What’s good for the gander of bleary-eyed, sleep-deprived
rural residents, might not be good for the goose, or in this case,
rooster, some local farmers contend.
Two San Benito County poultry producers are challenging the
legality of the county’s crowing fowl ordinance claiming that it
violates animal cruelty laws, their property rights and damages
their businesses.
Hollister – What’s good for the gander of bleary-eyed, sleep-deprived rural residents, might not be good for the goose, or in this case, rooster, some local farmers contend.
Two San Benito County poultry producers are challenging the legality of the county’s crowing fowl ordinance claiming that it violates animal cruelty laws, their property rights and damages their businesses.
The ordinance, which went into effect last month, limits the number of crowing fowl allowed on an individual’s property and regulates the housing of the noisy birds. It requires property owners to get a permit if they have less than 11 crowing fowl. Those with more than 12 birds, are required to go before the planning commission to get a conditional use permit. The ordinance also requires the fowl to be housed in such a way that does not create a nuisance, such as in a sound-proof enclosure or behind a sound-proof wall.
Local poultry producers Frank Del Carlo and Jimmy Hayhurst filed the complaint against the county earlier this month in San Benito County Superior Court. Attorney Bill Marder, who represents both men, alleges in the complaint that the ordinance inadvertently deprives Hayhurst and Del Carlo of their property.
“This ordinance basically has the effect of depriving them of their property because it won’t work. It’s not healthy for the birds and it’s cruel to put them in a box,” Marder said. “It takes their property and without any compensation. These folks spent a lot of money on their businesses, long before the ordinance was passed, so you can imagine their dismay.”
The complaint, which is a precursor to a lawsuit, seeks $720,000 in damages from the county for the lost revenue and alleged inadvertent condemnation of Hayhurst’s and Del Carlo’s property.
Marder also asks for a local judge to rule on the legality of the issue, alleging that the ordinance violates state laws prohibiting animal cruelty and is therefore unenforceable.
“It’s bad to put a bird in a box or enclosure because then they have to breathe in ammonia from their own fecal matter,” Marder said.
The ordinance, which took nearly a year to draft and implement, came in response to complaints from Lone Tree Road residents. They complained about being awakened before dawn each day by nearly 500 crowing roosters. Although Marder and his clients believe the birds weren’t as loud as residents claimed, many were just fed up early-morning crowing.
Supervisor Don Marcus, who was instrumental in drafting the ordinance, was disappointed that Del Carlo and Hayhurst didn’t raise their objects to law during the two public hearings the county held on the issue.
“I’m concerned that they didn’t come forward earlier,” he said. “We could have addressed these concerns and mitigated these effects.”
Marder said his clients never expected the ordinance to pass and that in the case that it did, supervisors would respect the property rights of poultry producers as well as weary of crowing roosters.
The county has 30 days to respond to the complaint at which time both parties will have an opportunity to settle the case or proceed to trial.
Brett Rowland covers agriculture and public safety for the Free Lance. He can be reached at 831-637-5566 ext. 330 or br******@fr***********.com.
