VICTORY for roosters!
Backyard roosters are safe for now.
UPDATE (5/5/21)
Thanks to public input, the proposed ordinance has been modified to target only gamecocks and no other breed of roosters. Pet roosters are safe for now!
Read the updated proposed ordinance language. (see pp. 25, 36-37)
We will keep this page updated if anything changes. Thank you for helping the roosters!
February 2021
In fall 2021, the Santa Cruz County Board of Commissioners will vote on a set of proposed changes (see page 16 - chapter 6.08.110) to the county’s animal-care regulations that will radically restrict pet-poultry ownership and kill countless pet roosters.
Although pet roosters have always been safe in areas zoned “Residential Agriculture” in Santa Cruz county, the proposed changes would completely upend the zoning laws by requiring a “rooster facility license” for anyone who has more than a few pet roosters, regardless of the size of the property.
The requirements to receive a license are so extreme (including impromptu, warrantless searches of residences by law enforcement) that no reasonable citizen would agree to them. Consequently, untold numbers of roosters would be turned into animal control (which has a nearly 100 percent euthanasia rate of roosters), while current rescue organizations within the county would be forced to turn away all roosters-in-need.
YOU CAN HELP:
Please write to the county Board of Supervisors and ask them to OPPOSE any changes to the current animal-keeping regulations that would impact roosters, or to the very least allow the public to read proposed rules and give input before considering any changes. (See a sample letter here.)
Send a message to the whole board at: boardofsupervisors@santacruzcounty.us
Send messages individually (for greater impact):
District 1: manu.koenig@santacruzcounty.us
District 2: Zach.friend@santacruzcounty.us
District 3: ryan.coonerty@santacruzcounty.us
District 4: greg.caput@santacruzcounty.us
District 5: bruce.mcpherson@santacruzcounty.us
You can also fax all the above individuals at (831) 454-3262 or call (831) 454-2200
Talking points:
The proposed changes will not affect cockfighting: Cockfighting exists in California because it is only a misdemeanor first offense, and cockfighters write off the measly misdemeanor penalties as the cost of doing business. The answer to California’s cockfighting issue is to enact a felony cockfighting law, not to spray gun the entire population of chicken-keepers with unconstitutional restrictions.
The proposed changes are illogical: Cockfighters utilize a very specific breed of rooster — the gamecock — that is selectively bred for generations for maximum aggression, strength, and agility. Gamecocks are not therefore commonly kept as backyard pets, and they are easily distinguishable from backyard rooster breeds. Just as jurisdictions targeting dogfighting do not try to restrict all dog ownership, neither should those targeting cockfighting go after all roosters.
The proposed changes are obfuscatory: Poultry-keeping guidelines are already outlined in the county’s zoning laws. Adding contradictory restrictions into the animal-care code only further obfuscates the rooster issue.
The proposed changes will hurt animals: Placing even MORE restrictions on backyard-poultry keepers will result in untold numbers of roosters being turned into animal control, which has a nearly 100 percent euthanasia record regarding roosters. People who don’t want their roosters euthanized will instead likely set them free in parks or the side of the road, where they will most certainly perish.
The proposed changes are unconstitutional: By making anyone seeking a rooster facility license “subject to an onsite inspection of the premises by an animal control officer, a State Humane officer, or peace officer upon demand,” the county seeks to deprive a chicken ladies of basic Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure (i.e., the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution).
The proposed changes are sneaky: Santa Cruz Animal Services is trying to ram through these regulations without any input from the public, during a global pandemic and mere months after the county was devastated by wildfires.
Although SCAS cynically states that the proposed changes have been available to the public on its website, the broader poultry-keeping public who would be most affected by them do not have any idea the proposed amendments even exist, and would have no reason to investigate anything on the SCAS website. The county needs to allow the public reasonable opportunities to weigh in on the proposal before enacting such rash measures.