‘This is about the Constitution.’ Rooster owners threaten to fight proposed ban

When does the American tradition of protecting property rights infringe on others’ peace and quiet?

When roosters are involved.

That’s what a few frustrated people told Stanislaus County planning commissioners on Thursday, urging an ordinance amendment outlawing roosters as well as noisy ducks, geese and other pesky “small livestock farming” animals from many unincorporated areas near cities and towns.

Others — some quite angry during the tense hearing — threatened to sue county leaders if they push ahead with the ban.

When hundreds of roosters are crowing in her area west of Modesto, “It’s a nightmare,” Connie Goesch said. “The noise is ridiculous. You can’t open your windows when it’s nice out, to have the air come in, because of the noise.”

Shady characters fleeing from police busting an illegal cock fight pointed guns at Michele Peterson while running through her yard, she said.

In the past 2 1/2 years, the county has logged 157 rooster complaints, mostly about cockadoodledoing and illegal breeding for cock fight gambling.

But others showed up Thursday in greater numbers to warn planners not to tread on their law-abiding ability to do what they like with their land.

“This is not about chickens, this is not about quacking ducks. This is about the Constitution and property rights,” said John Harless of Sonora, president of the California Association for the Preservation of Gamefowl.

He said Solano and Monterey counties have been sued over similar ordinances, and said his group is “prepared to sue other counties who violate our Constitutional rights.” Another man, Brian Hodges, also cited case law and concluded, “It’s probably not a good idea to pass something like this when there are people out there who do have good lawyers and are willing to use them.”

Commissioners reminded the audience that their job was to screen the idea and pass a recommendation to the county Board of Supervisors, who have authority to make a final decision. Planners also noted that nearly everyone protesting on Thursday would not be affected by the proposal, when all said they live on large parcels in rural areas. The proposal focuses on small parcels just outside cities and towns, planners said.

They then unanimously recommended that supervisors adopt the amended ordinance, and urged opponents to show up and air concerns when the board takes up the matter, probably in a few weeks. Commissioners agreed to recommend a six-month grace period during which code enforcement officers with the county’s environmental resources department would not issue citations.

In addition to roosters, the proposal would prohibit “quacking ducks, geese, guinea fowl, peafowl, worms (except for personal use), or any other small domestic animal determined by the Planning Director to have the potential to cause a nuisance.” It also would clarify limits on chickens, turkeys, pigeons, rabbits and beehives.

“What’s the issue with worms?” asked commissioner Marjorie Blom. “Do they smell? I know they don’t bark or quack.”

Some have complained about the smell of worm feed, assistant planner Denzel Henderson said.

Garth Stapley: 209-578-2390, gstapley@modbee.com.

This story was originally published September 8, 2017 at 3:59 PM with the headline "‘This is about the Constitution.’ Rooster owners threaten to fight proposed ban."