Man being fined $500/day for keeping ducks

[JEB NC 10]

Here's a link to the news story. Pennsylvania man being bullied by local government. I wish some of these local leaders would truly educate themselves before passing/enforcing local ordinances out of ignorance!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/03/quackdown-pennsylvania-town-fines-man-for-pet-ducks/

 

[Miss Lydia]

Here's a link to the news story. Pennsylvania man being bullied by local government. I wish some of these local leaders would truly educate themselves before passing/enforcing local ordinances out of ignorance!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/03/quackdown-pennsylvania-town-fines-man-for-pet-ducks/

You are so right.

 

[Amiga]

I hope he gets the support he needs. It's interesting that some make the distinction between poultry and waterfowl, some do not.

 

[Going Quackers]

I think it's unfortunate, all that said if it's against bylaws then it is, whether it's right or wrong, and the ignorance's behind the bylaws aside, one should investigate what is legal for your zoning.

Here? you are not zoned rural, you get nothing that is exotic, livestock etc... whether i agree or disagree is a moot point, we checked into what we were allowed to have years before anything set a hoof or foot on the place.

 

[JEB NC 10]

I think that often times it takes someone like this gent to "break the law" and get the attention like the kind he's getting now to truly embarrass the local authorities so they'll realize how stupid ordinances like this can be. Who knows? Maybe his defiance will actually led to the ordinances being changed.

 

[Ultra]

I think it's unfortunate, all that said if it's against bylaws then it is, whether it's right or wrong, and the ignorance's behind the bylaws aside, one should investigate what is legal for your zoning.

Here? you are not zoned rural, you get nothing that is exotic, livestock etc... whether i agree or disagree is a moot point, we checked into what we were allowed to have years before anything set a hoof or foot on the place.

The ordinance is against "poultry", not any specific type of bird. The term poultry, by definition, only applies to birds you are raising for meat or eggs.

The man in the article has only drakes and doesn't plan to eat his pets. Drakes don't lay eggs so they are not poultry, just pet ducks. Ducks are not specifically banned in the ordinance.

His board hearing is on July 22nd, and he will win if he simply opens a dictionary and reads to the board what the word "poultry" means (assuming the board members are fair).

The real injustice here is it cost him $400 to have the hearing and he is out that money win or lose. That's insane.

 

[Going Quackers]

The ordinance is against "poultry", not any specific type of bird. The term poultry, by definition, only applies to birds you are raising for meat or eggs.

The man in the article has only drakes and doesn't plan to eat his pets. Drakes don't lay eggs so they are not poultry, just pet ducks. Ducks are not specifically banned in the ordinance.

His board hearing is on July 22nd, and he will win if he simply opens a dictionary and reads to the board what the word "poultry" means (assuming the board members are fair).

The real injustice here is it cost him $400 to have the hearing and he is out that money win or lose. That's insane.

Here it's defined as poultry too. Hopefully, he will get somewhere with that but the fact remains, it's against the bylaws so that opens him up for fines and so forth. Perhaps, it will have the area re-evaluate and redefine the meanings/bylaws but he could still find himself against it and have to get rid of his birds. Should be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[Going Quackers]

I think that often times it takes someone like this gent to "break the law" and get the attention like the kind he's getting now to truly embarrass the local authorities so they'll realize how stupid ordinances like this can be. Who knows? Maybe his defiance will actually led to the ordinances being changed.

I am mixed on this mainly because Innocent animals get caught in the crossfire, not all are able to change it and the animals must go.

 

[Ultra]

Rabbits and guinea pigs are livestock if you raise them for meat. If not, they are just pets. The ordinance bans "livestock" as well, but I doubt they would go after a guy with a pet rabbit.

Same goes with birds, a duck that is not raised for meat nor eggs is not "poultry". The ordinance does not list any particular bird species, just the term "poultry". He's not raising birds for the purpose of harvesting meat or eggs, so he is not in violation of the ordinance. If the board is reasonable, they will find him not in violation and won't have to change any laws.

Merriam-Webster:

poul·try

noun \ˈpōl-trē\

​

: domesticated birds kept for eggs or meat