SwBratcher's Posts

The city is considering allowing for the following:

1. 6 hens per residence; No Roosters.
2. No "at large" chickens.
3. pen at least 10 feet from property line.
4. pen at least 25 feet from another home, business, church
5. Problems covered under present nuisance ordinances

I live in Springfield and don't have a problem with people having hens that are well cared for and under control. It would make sense that if people are choosing to have hens to have fresh eggs and healthy meat, then they would care for those animals even more attentively than some care for their canine and feline companions.

It was also discussed at the meeting that hens lay eggs two weeks on, two weeks off. Additionally, if a few birds were cycled out and consumed as meat, new chicks would need to be introduced to the coop and wouldn't lay for several months. Based on what appeared to be feedback from knowledged chicken owners who want the new regulation to allow them access to as much food from their own yard as possible, my recommendation would be the following:

1. 10 chicken limit per residence; No roosters. (residences on larger plots need the ability to get around the limit on number of birds.)
2. Coop at least 10 feet from property line, unless adjacent to an alleyway.
3. Coop at least 25 feet from another home, business, church, etc.
4. Noise and smell problems covered under present nuisance ordinances.
5. No at large birds, except on premises owned or controlled by bird owner.
6. Any slaughter of birds is to be done in privacy to avoid imposing on others by sight or sound.
7. Official waivers to be made available by download to be signed by effected neighbors to show agreement that it is acceptable to ignore distance regulations above. Signed waiver to be kept on file by chicken owner.
8. No Application or Registration requirements by the city.
9. Allow leaders in the chicken-wise community to head a city endorsed network that offers advice, help, resources, and the willingness to adopt any birds from individuals who "got in over their heads". (Following up with Columbia, MO to see how they've proceeded along these lines could help add structure to the formation of this network)

I applaud the City's openness and engagement on this topic and hope to see a fair and nonrestrictive set of ordinance modification come from these talks.

It was brought up at the meeting that the City's overriding language that prohibits chickens should be removed instead of piling more law on top. I agree with this if it is possible. I'm a proponent of less law is better law. Clear law is good law. Muddled law that is looped then re-looped is bad for any level of government. Laws should always be reevaluated with time. The councils that voted in certain law could have been short sighted, over reactive, unreasonable, or unfair. Or, maybe that law was what was necessary at the time but with technology or social changes over time, new laws, wording adjustments or elimination of ordinances are necessary to allow for things people want or need in a community.

Ideally, none of this has an ongoing cost to the city and will only impact the city at the point of nuisance complaints requiring a response. Like city research shows, I would expect this to be an insignificant cost frequency when compared to existing and persisting dog and cat complaints.