Raise the Hammer
By Ryan McGreal
Published January 16, 2012
Last Thursday, City Councillors in the planning committee voted to direct staff not to investigate the possibility of allowing backyard chickens. This isn't the first time Councillors have shied away from even considering whether to revisit the city's ban on urban hens.
Once again, it is Councillor Lloyd Ferguson behind the push to take chickens off the table without even bothering to find out whether the current policy still makes sense.
"At the end of the day," Ferguson is quoted saying in the Spectator, "we're just going to shut it down anyway. There are health risks, there are rodent risks, there are odour issues."
Except that the city's own public health department is saying chickens pose no greater risk than cats or dogs.
Kudos to Councillor Jason Farr for trying to revisit this issue, but shame on the rest of the planning committee for refusing to get informed before deciding to leave the ban in place.
One Hamilton resident isn't content to let the matter rest. Teresa Gregario has organized a petition calling on City Council to stop ducking the issue.
Backyard chickens allow for fresh, extremely local food production on a small, manageable scale. The reasons cited for banning these animals from within city limits are unfounded. They pose no greater health risk than cats and are not anywhere near the noise disturbance of dogs. Responsible pet ownership makes urban chickens not only efficient food producers, but sensible animals to allow within the city limits of Hamilton, Ontario.
As at this writing, the petition has 219 signatures (disclosure: one of them is mine).
By seancb (registered) - website
Posted January 16, 2012 at 08:12:31
By SpaceMonkey (registered)
Posted January 16, 2012 at 15:33:29
in reply to Comment 73058
I don't know much about the issue, so I'm not yet for or against hens in the backyard, but I'm surprised you chose to mention New York in your list. New York is considered to be the city with the most rats.
In fact, of the cities in the US with the biggest rat problems (Atlanta, Boston, New Orleans, Chicago, Baltimore, New York), only Boston doesn't allow hens in the backyard.
Another thing I which causes me concern is that even a website devoted to backyard hens admits/warns that rats are a major problem where hens are kept.
By Robert D (anonymous)
Posted January 16, 2012 at 17:34:22
in reply to Comment 73092
I'd be interested to know if any studies have been done on the causes of rat problems, and whether or not there is any correlation with backyard chickens.
I would think that the number of people who actually have backyard chickens in New York is rather small overall, and perhaps not directly connected to the areas where rats present the largest problem. But again, this is just my guess.
By jason (registered)
Posted January 16, 2012 at 18:00:21
in reply to Comment 73096
By SpaceMonkey (registered)
Posted January 16, 2012 at 18:20:43
in reply to Comment 73098
By jason (registered)
Posted January 16, 2012 at 08:44:20
Have no fear though, we are allowing tarantulas and snakes.
I have a friend in Portland who has 3 kids and a couple chickens. They love it for the food production and the kids love playing with the hens. Fairly strict guidelines too for those wanting to have backyard chickens. Chickens will never become the blight on our cities that stray cats and dogs are.
Edit: the thing most annoying to me about this isn't whether they vote to allow chickens or not, but that they are choosing to keep their heads in the sand and not even debate it.
Also, as we've found recently is becoming the norm, they ignore excellent advice or staff reports presented to them. Why are we paying for lawyers and staffers if council is just going to sit around and ignorantly pretend that they know better??
Comment edited by jason on 2012-01-16 08:57:31
By lawrence (registered) - website
Posted January 16, 2012 at 14:55:25
in reply to Comment 73059
the thing most annoying to me about this isn't whether they vote to allow chickens or not, but that they are choosing to keep their heads in the sand and not even debate it.
It isn't cool and we need to push that this be reviewed. @SeanCB hit the nail on the head. We want to be a big city, stop ignoring seemingly small issues that could go a long way in changing the way people look at Hamilton.
EDIT:
300 cities across North America have lifted bans on urban chickens
300 cities in North America including the major metropolitans mentioned, realize there is no reason to ban chickens for noise, health or any other reasons.
How do you not read one small paragraph like that and decide it's something that must be reviewed. You couldn't even use an excuse like 'Staff is swamped'. You don't need staff. There are 300 other communities with the document we need to lift this ban. Ask for the right to use it and change out the city at the top. Then spend some time reading it, realize there is no reason to not change this bi-law, and put this to bed. Watch the emails in outrage over this stop. That's gotta save some 'time' in itself. Or maybe council will receive some positive emails and phone calls expressing their joy over such a success story. I bet it would feel good to receive a few of those.
Comment edited by lawrence on 2012-01-16 15:34:54
By jason (registered)
Posted January 16, 2012 at 09:04:06
A bit more background. Over 300 North American cities allow chickens:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunsw...
By Rick Santorum (anonymous)
Posted January 16, 2012 at 09:34:42
In Hamilton, the definition of domestic animal has not ever to my knowledge included chickens. That's not to pick on chickens. It's not, you know, chickens, or hens, or roosters, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that one thing you have a dramatic impact on the quality [of life]."
By Brandon (registered)
Posted January 17, 2012 at 09:54:24
in reply to Comment 73062
By Leghorn (anonymous)
Posted January 16, 2012 at 09:40:59
Hamilton should certainly allow backyard chickens, but license all urban animals and funnel resources to animal welfare enforcement. Housing a chicken and collecting its delicious ova is one thing. Caring for it and paying to have it treated by a qualified vet if and when it gets sick is another.
By SpaceMonkey (registered)
Posted January 16, 2012 at 15:38:39
in reply to Comment 73066
By Simon (registered) - website
Posted January 16, 2012 at 14:23:20
in reply to Comment 73066
By Pxtl (registered) - website
Posted January 17, 2012 at 17:22:06
in reply to Comment 73084
By beer can (anonymous)
Posted January 16, 2012 at 17:27:39
in reply to Comment 73084
I just sent the following letter to Council:
Dear Councillors,
Prudent leadership requires leaders to consider the evidence before making public policy decisions.
Unfortunately, on the matter of legalizing backyard hens within the urban boundary, the planning committee instead decided to maintain the ban without the benefit of evidence, and indeed not to bother collecting evidence at all - on the assumption that it would not change their minds.
The committee took the same stance in May 2009 when its members turned down an offer by Hamilton resident David Thompson to present a case in support of backyard hens.
Surely this is not Council's idea of how Hamilton can be "the best place in Canada to engage citizens", as our vision directs us!
Had the planning committee sought staff input into the policy, we might have learned that Public Health has already concluded hens pose no more risk than cats or dogs.
We might have learned that more than 300 cities across North America have lifted bans on urban chickens - including Vancouver, Halifax, Fredericton, New York, Seattle, and Portland.
We might have learned that there are significant differences in scale between a commercial operation and a hen or two in the backyard that matter from a policy perspective.
We might have learned that hens are considerably quieter than dogs and produce about an order of magnitude less solid waste.
The assumptions behind the committee's decision not to review the evidence before rendering a decision mostly amount to myths and misconceptions that the evidence itself could help to dispel.
This may not seem to be an important decision in the grand scheme of the city's priorities. Nevertheless, it reflects poorly on our ability to form sound, evidence-based public policies.
Sincerely,
By Ryan (registered) - website
Posted January 16, 2012 at 14:31:42
in reply to Comment 73075
I've received a few replies from councillors, including a quick "Thank you" from Jason Farr.
Brenda Johnson wrote:
Thank you for your email Ryan.
Along with Councillor's Partridge and Farr, I voted to proceed with the direction given to staff in November to report back regarding Urban Chickens.
Unfortunately, we were out numbered.
Judi Partridge wrote:
Thank you for the email and taking the time to send your comments, I appreciate it.
My concern is also that, when we approved the direction to staff to further study the urban chicken issue, we gave our word to citizens that we would wait for more information and evidence before making a decision. I voted in support of the direction to have staff continue, which as you know was defeated.
Regardless of the outcome of the final vote on urban chickens, we needed to do our due diligence and allow everyone the opportunity to be educated on the facts before a decision was made.
I appreciate Councillors Farr, Johnson and Partridge for getting back to me so quickly.
By Ryan (registered) - website
Posted January 17, 2012 at 06:43:38
in reply to Comment 73085
By Lisa (anonymous)
Posted January 26, 2012 at 12:31:09
in reply to Comment 73108
That's exciting! I live in Ward 1. I only became aware of the possibility of urban chickens a few weeks ago when I was forwarded a link to Teresa Gregario's petition and I think it's a wonderful idea. It's really frustrating to know that members of our elected government would ignorantly vote down an idea no matter what it was.
By jason (registered)
Posted January 16, 2012 at 18:03:30
in reply to Comment 73085
By Feather In Your Cap (anonymous)
Posted January 16, 2012 at 15:16:47
in reply to Comment 73085
By Leghorn (anonymous)
Posted January 16, 2012 at 17:27:18
Was just a suggestion. You can make licensing free, if you like, and make the penalties steep and have them go to help underwrite welfare standards enforcement. Cats and dogs have recommended/mandated shot schedules, so we'd probably look at that in certain situations. And then, just to be progressive, we would allow people to raise cats and dogs for food.
By Colin (anonymous)
Posted January 16, 2012 at 17:46:53
By Colin (anonymous)
Posted January 16, 2012 at 19:10:41
in reply to Comment 73097
“In general, things in a place like Portland are really great, so little concerns become ridiculous. There are a lot of people here who can afford—financially but also psychologically—to be really, really concerned about buying local, for instance. It becomes mock epic. It’s like Alexander Pope’s ‘Rape of the Lock.’ I was standing in line at Whole Foods, and the guy in front of me says, ‘I really wish you guys sold locally made fresh pasta.’ And the cashier says, ‘Look, we do.’ And the guy says, ‘No, no—that’s from Seattle.’ Really? You don’t have a bigger battle?”
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/02/120102fa_fact_talbot
By TnT (registered)
Posted January 16, 2012 at 22:06:27
Maybe this is bad advice, espeically coming from me, but I will be there are numerous chickens and other livestock being kept inside city borders. It is against the law, technically, but the city just doesn’t have the resources to enforce it. Again, I know that is the wrong attitude, but the real issue should be moving away from huge, outdated bylaws and toward a more citizen minded approach. I’ve been reading up on the hotel laws as of late, and did you know innkeepers need a certain amount of space to house horses? Horses fine. Chickens no.
By D. Shields (registered)
Posted January 27, 2012 at 11:57:03
in reply to Comment 73105
By Undustrial (registered) - website
Posted January 17, 2012 at 00:30:18
I may be vegan, but this rule seems a little bizzare. If nothing else because of the greatly exaggerated disease, pest and waste problems which come from centralizing chicken "production" into colossal hundred-thousand-bird warehouses. For those who aren't convinced though, here's what chickens can do for you, even if you don't eat them.
By lawrence (registered) - website
Posted January 17, 2012 at 11:13:36
in reply to Comment 73107
By Leghorn (anonymous)
Posted January 17, 2012 at 07:59:03
"Two chicken inspectors showed up at a farm in Southern Ontario not long ago. They flashed badges and inspected the premises and, sure enough, they found what they were looking for: chickens. About 100 of them, wandering across open pastures, pecking at bugs, worms and blades of grass.
The inspectors quickly put a stop to all that. They told the farmer to get rid of his chickens or face the consequences. Then they visited other nearby farms, issuing threats of fines (up to $10,000 a day), and leaving more than one Amish farm wife in tears.
These were not police, RCMP or public-health officials. They were employees of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario, the body that represents Ontario’s roughly 1,000 chicken farmers, and they have the legal right to “inspect the books, records, documents, lands and premises and any chickens of persons engaged in producing or marketing chickens.” In other words, they can carry out chicken busts. And on this particular bust, their suspicions were confirmed: Delicious pastured chickens were being sold without quota.
Quota is a legal requirement for marketing chickens, turkey, eggs or cow milk in Canada. Without it, the simple bucolic act of selling a block of farmstead cheese or several dozen eggs at a farmers’ market is against the law. It’s been this way for almost half a century. If you want access to the market, you have to pay for it. And access isn’t cheap.
This kind of arrangement is better known as a cartel. Cartels fix prices. Usually, they’re illegal, but not in Canada. In fact, when it comes to poultry, dairy and eggs, not being part of a cartel is illegal – as many an Amish farm wife can tell you.
The Canadian food cartel goes by its own special name: “supply management.” Critics have charged that supply management makes food disproportionately expensive (especially for the poor), cripples our agricultural sector and is holding us back from entering lucrative trade deals with Asia.
But here’s what hasn’t been said about supply management: It is the enemy of deliciousness.
If you have ever wondered why you can buy heritage chickens such as the famed poulet de Bresse in France but not in Canada, or pastured butter the colour of an autumn sunset in Ireland but not in Canada, or why it’s so hard to find pastured eggs here, the reason is supply management.
Great ingredients, as any good cook will tell you, come from small producers who lovingly tend their flocks and the land that sustains them. These artisan producers – the very people attempting to make food local and sustainable – are stifled under supply management because it requires the one thing these starry-eyed pastoralists almost always don’t have: money. A single cow’s worth of dairy quota, for example, costs about $27,000 (up to $40,000 in B.C.). Quota for one egg-laying hen can cost upward of $200."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/food-and-wine/trends/trends-features/why-you-cant-find-heritage-poultry/article2290035/singlepage/
By Undustrial (registered) - website
Posted January 17, 2012 at 13:10:07
in reply to Comment 73109
Wow. Just wow. And wow again.
Over time I never found a lot of disagreement between the animal rights books on my shelves and old roommate's fine antique french cooking books. It's well understood that any kind of mistreatment (especially in the hour or so before slaughter) leads to inferior meat. Extend that over a lifetime of cruelty, confinement and crowding, and the quality of the meat you produce will suffer immeasurably. No wonder it's now considered terrorism in America to videotape and publicize these conditions.
We live in a country with some of the most subsidized food on earth, yet also one where average small-farmer incomes tend to be negative. Something needs to change. It's not working for producers, consumers or the chickens involved.
By lawrence (registered) - website
Posted January 17, 2012 at 11:10:28
in reply to Comment 73109
By Just Askin' (anonymous)
Posted January 17, 2012 at 13:47:57
By SpaceMonkey (registered)
Posted January 17, 2012 at 16:23:02
in reply to Comment 73126
By seancb (registered) - website
Posted January 17, 2012 at 18:03:31
By Robert D (anonymous)
Posted January 17, 2012 at 21:45:06
By leghorn1 (anonymous)
Posted January 22, 2012 at 14:37:22
Sad that the Council don't even try to get the facts about urban chickens,,,, really surprised about Ferguson's comments .. usually he takes a tempered approach. another reason for a term limit for councillors... we need some fresh thinkers ,,, not the same old / same old
By D. Shields (registered)
Posted January 25, 2012 at 04:03:21
One thing I can say about chicken poop, is that in it's 'green stage' it's highly flammable. There could be a problem for some to manage it. It generates a lot of heat, due to the high nitrogen & ammonia content, & can simply smolder & then burst into flames when left in a heap. It needs a fairly long decomp. period before it can be mixed with other substances & used in the garden as fertilizer.
I think that people should probably attend some basic course on urban chicken management before they begin. (if any exist) At least get some books or information online.
