Oakley council to chime in on chickens
by Samie Hartley
Mar 31, 2011 | 2424 views | 3 3 comments | 11 11 recommendations | email to a friend | print
At its next meeting, the Oakley City Council will decide whether or not to amend the municipal code to adjust the number of small animals allowed per home in residential districts.

The council was to discuss the matter at last week’s meeting, but it was determined that the public hearing notice was released prior to the final draft of proposed revisions, so the council advised staff to re-notice the hearing, which is now scheduled for April 12.

While the council didn’t comment on the matter as the hearing was postponed, members of the public were invited to speak at the March 22 meeting in case they’re unable to make the next meeting. The three residents who spoke before the council supported the amendment that would allow up to three chickens, chinchillas, hamsters or rabbits in all residential districts. Roosters, however, will be prohibited.

Cheryl Metzler said she was unaware of the ordinance and allowed her son Kyle to raise three chickens at their Oakley home. While Kyle treated the chickens as pets, a neighbor’s dog dug under the fence in January and “murdered” two of his “babies.” As a result, the other chicken was removed from the property.

According to Metzler, chickens are quiet, easy to care for, and make good pets. Her son learned a lot about responsibility by caring for the birds, and she urged the council to allow her family to get a new batch of baby birds to raise.

Metzler told the council that since chickens don’t lay waste all over the place and are no danger to neighbors, they make better pets than cats or dogs.

“Chickens don’t attack people …” Metzler said. “A chicken doesn’t bark aggressively when you go to take your garbage out. They don’t have beer parties and blast loud music all summer long. They don’t make any more noise than a bird chirping in the tree, which we hear all the time and actually enjoy.”

Kyle also addressed the council and asked its members to vote in favor of the amendment. As a member of 4-H living in a residential area, he is unable to raise livestock, but he would be able to participate by legally raising chickens if the amendment is passed.

For Shawn Horrocks, whose family of five is allergic to cats and dogs, the amendment would allow her family to own rabbits and chickens. They have owned fish, but according to Horrocks, “a fish in a bowl just doesn’t cut it.” In preparation for the potential amendment, Horrocks and her children have been researching at the Oakley library how to care for chickens and how to prepare a coop for them.

Horrocks read a letter to the council on behalf of her 11-year-old daughter, who was too shy to speak, giving the council other things to consider during the April 12 public hearing.

“I do not want to breed chickens, and I’m not getting a rooster,” Horrocks read. “Chickens are in a way similar to dogs and cats. They’re easy to clean up after, friendly and, all in all, a good pet, but chickens are good in other ways too.” Unlike dogs and cats, Horrocks read, chickens lay eggs, they are a natural form of pest control, and their waste can be used as fertilizer. It’s more than a family pet – it’s an environmentally friendly “money saver.”

Mayor Jim Frazier apologized for the inconvenience of the hearing postponement and thanked the speakers for their thoughts and encouraged them to attend the April 12 meeting if possible. For more information about the proposed ordinance, call 925-625-7000.
Share This Article |
similar stories

Oakley seeks applicants for library commission | 14 days ago

Oakley seniors on the move | 26 days ago

Oakley downtown plan moves forward | 12 days ago by Samie Hartley

Oakley seniors to host open house | 26 days ago by Samie Hartley

Clinic serves up health care for all | 26 days ago by Samie Hartley

Comments
(3)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
cmetzler5
|
April 08, 2011
Chickens, chinchillas, hamsters or rabbits are not food for everyone, and in some cultures (even here in America) people eat cats and dogs. That you care for, and love an animal that may or may not be considered food for someone else, does not lessen the bond for the pet and pet owner. While I sympathize for the loss of your dogs (which YOU CHOSE to surrender rather than register as potentially dangerous) the tragedy for both families would have been averted had you kept your dogs on your own property. They were so aggressive that they felt compelled to dig under my fence to attack, maul and kill whatever lay on the other side. It could have been a cat, small dog or small child, your dogs had no way of knowing, except that they wanted to get into my yard and attack whatever they found. They were a nightmare every time we took out our garbage or walked past on the sidewalk. They would attack the fence and bark aggressively, trying to get to anyone that passed. Sadly, had the hot wire been left in your backyard, as it was for the previous occupants Extremely aggressive Rottweilers , and activated, we would still have our pets, and so would you. There is no happy ending for your family or ours, but at least your pets have found new homes, ours are just dead. My chickens did not fly or dig under the fence to provoke the dogs, My chickens did not attack the dogs. They were peaceful gentle pets that my child raised since they were 2 days old. One of the killed chickens won the Grand Championship for eggs at the Contra Costa County fair, and 1 dozen of the eggs got $300 in auction. They had names and personalities and were every bit as much loved for YEARS by my child, where as you state that your children had their pets for only one month. Your children did not have to see their beloved pets bloody and torn to shreds. And NEVER at any time did anyone say shoot the owners. When the officers stated they were afraid the dogs would bite them, the comment was made to shoot the dogs if they attacked. No one should have to get attacked by an aggressive dog, police included. I get that you are upset by this, but don't make the entire community suffer for a personal vendetta. I am not trying to ban all dogs, because you were an irresponsible dog owner, unable to control your animals. You cannot ban every animal that a poorly trained, trespassing, unsupervised dog may or may not attack. We are neighbors, once were friends, we both were hurt in this, but I wonder how you would feel if the situation were reversed, if my dogs dug under your fence and mauled and killed your pets (without me ever apologizing) and then I were in turn to try and ban the gentle, peaceful creatures for the entire city............Maybe you should be grateful your dogs didn't get out and maul a person instead. Would you then try and ban all people from their OWN backyards ?
Reply
cmetzler5
|
April 08, 2011
Chickens, chinchillas, hamsters or rabbits are not food for everyone, and in some cultures (even here in America) people eat cats and dogs. That you care for, and love an animal that may or may not be considered food for someone else, does not lessen the bond for the pet and pet owner. While I sympathize for the loss of your dogs (which YOU CHOSE to surrender rather than register as potentially dangerous) the tragedy for both families would have been averted had you kept your dogs on your own property. They were so aggressive that they felt compelled to dig under my fence to attack, maul and kill whatever lay on the other side. It could have been a cat, small dog or small child, your dogs had no way of knowing, except that they wanted to get into my yard and attack whatever they found. They were a nightmare every time we took out our garbage or walked past on the sidewalk. They would attack the fence and bark aggressively, trying to get to anyone that passed. Sadly, had the hot wire been left in your backyard, as it was for the previous occupants Extremely aggressive Rottweilers , and activated, we would still have our pets, and so would you. There is no happy ending for your family or ours, but at least your pets have found new homes, ours are just dead. My chickens did not fly or dig under the fence to provoke the dogs, My chickens did not attack the dogs. They were peaceful gentle pets that my child raised since they were 2 days old. One of the killed chickens won the Grand Championship for eggs at the Contra Costa County fair, and 1 dozen of the eggs got $300 in auction. They had names and personalities and were every bit as much loved for YEARS by my child, where as you state that your children had their pets for only one month. Your children did not have to see their beloved pets bloody and torn to shreds. And NEVER at any time did anyone say shoot the owners. When the officers stated they were afraid the dogs would bite them, the comment was made to shoot the dogs if they attacked. No one should have to get attacked by an aggressive dog, police included. I get that you are upset by this, but don't make the entire community suffer for a personal vendetta. I am not trying to ban all dogs, because you were an irresponsible dog owner, unable to control your animals. You cannot ban every animal that a poorly trained, trespassing, unsupervised dog may or may not attack. We are neighbors, once were friends, we both were hurt in this, but I wonder how you would feel if the situation were reversed, if my dogs dug under your fence and mauled and killed your pets (without me ever apologizing) and then I were in turn to try and ban the gentle, peaceful creatures for the entire city............Maybe you should be grateful your dogs didn't get out and maul a person instead. Would you then try and ban all people from their OWN backyards ?
Reply
robert1978us
|
April 02, 2011
This story has inaccuricies. First the chicken she has were never removed from her property. The dogs in the story were 1 years old and were rescue puppies that were only rescued for a month. They bit and injured the chickens and stopped not understanding what had happened. The chickens later died due to the injuries. Also my 4y/o boy,and 12y/o and 11y/o girls were devestated to have there Christmas present(there dogs)taken from them, because the woman had illegal chickens. If she was a responsible pet owner she would have registered her pets and found out you are not allowed to own fouls. we dont eat dogs because there pets but we do eat chickens because there food. Let's be grown up and STOP PLAYING WITH OUR FOOD. Chickens attract mice which i've had to kill two already and they also attract lice. The pluck pluck of the chickens do not sound like natural chirping of birds. Also the fact that only one side was interviewed for this story is very sad as the city of Oakley code enforcer called all parties against the right to own chickens in residential area to tell us that they rescheduled and the topic would not be heard. Also the fact that the ladies children were screaming shoot the dogs and their owners is unhumane. Hope the Contra Costa times gets the facts right.
Reply
Postings are not edited and are the responsibility of the author. You agree not to post comments that are abusive, threatening or obscene. Postings may be removed at the discretion of thepress.net.