It would be great if we could compile the best, most sane ordinances allowing "backyard chickens" as pets so they would be a handy reference for someone trying to get similar passed in their towns. It's really hard when one is in the middle of a controversy like this - such as the family that is the subject of the article - to then try to cobble info together. There's not enough time to do it when the axe is falling.
We could also compile the most eloquent words about why chickens are not only legitimate pets, but can be tremendous pets. And why it makes no sense to prohibit them.
Whats happening to these people as a result of illogical local ordinance is sad, and certainly serious for their feathered friends (sad enough that they got rid of their roo).
There is a huge difference between having few numbers of any animal as pets and having many for commercial purposes. If dogs happened to be able to lay edible eggs, would they be deemed livestock and only allowed on farms? Chickens should not be penalized just because they happen to be capable of producing something humans can consume. How can it be a-okay to have a parrot but not a chicken? What makes livestock livestock? The fact that the animal is capable of creating economic value to humans or the fact that it does? If the latter, then chickens not kept for commercial purposes should be deemed "pets" and not "livestock". (There is of course a whole other category of people with backyard chickens who make small amounts of money selling eggs and this should also be allowed, but that will require another level of effort).
We can evolve ordinances across the land, but it's going to take effort and the use of good calm logic. Model ordinances in even a few towns can be used to set off a chain reaction elsewhere.
Maybe I will start a thread on this subject so we can gather the info all in one place............
JJ