Proposed NJ Ord NOW VIRAL! See Post #1 (Update) & #36 newsclip

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
That was exactly my feelings on it. It was all reasonable except the land size. I can understand control of flock size and all else. We have a lot of places like that in Colo where people have 1/2 acre to 2 acre tracts with McMansions on them. I don't particularly agree with using land that way, but to each his own. It's their version of living in the country. No reason for Roos except to fertilize. Yes they are nice for keeping the hens in line and finding food for the hens. Our Roo is like a conductor. He tells them to go in the house and stands by the door while they file by. Like any female though, they could live without him. Some people will only eat fertile eggs though. I imagine it's a health or religious thing.

Overall good job for whomever wrote the rules. They addressed all sides and came to an agreement. That's how it's supposed to work. JMO

 

[jjthink]

 For a number of reasons, the notion of roosters having only temporary visitation is not advisable. It is against well established biosecurity practice to introduce new adult birds to existing flocks without careful quarantine procedures being employed whenever possible. This is important to avoid the spread of disease (possible exception might be if you know the person whose bird or birds you will be taking in and know for a fact that those birds have been healthy).
 It is also a great stressor to birds when new individuals are introduced – it is not good to bring birds in for a short period and then pull them back out. It creates a lot of trauma for all, upsetting their (sometimes very) hard-earned social structure. Where would the roosters be when they are not visiting?
 Roosters, hens, dogs, late night parties,......all have the possibility of being too loud for too long and all can be dealt with in similar fashion. There are many a dog that bark an ear-piercing grating bark for countless hours on end (when they go on that long it's generally an upset, stressed-out sound that engenders angst in most people whereas most find a cheerful cockadoodledoo much less annoying). There are people that run loud machinery for hours on end, others who play "music" for lengthy periods at astonishing decibel levels, and so on. If something becomes a nuisance it can and should be dealt with. Singling out roosters just isn’t necessary. p.s. I have known only quiet hens but some really like to yak sometimes (still way way way less than dogs), so the notion that hens are quiet and roosters aren't is way too broad brush - sometimes a group of hens like to announce rather profoundly that one of them has laid an egg - it's called the "egg song". Meanwhile, the rooster is quietly minding his own business!. A nuisance is a nuisance, never mind the cause. It might make more sense simply to require that housing for chickens be insulated and that inhabitants not be let outdoors before 7 a.m. but honestly, I’m not even sure you have to go that far (p.s. chickens go to bed at dusk so there is no issue at the other end of the day).
 Is the standard presented in "i" also the same for dogs and other forms of potential disturbance?
 The shelter/fencing requirements will meet the needs of some, but do not take into account that many people have wonderful established outbuildings that may have been built on or close to property lines years ago. It is impractical and unreasonable for them to have to build yet another building, particularly if neighboring residences are the required distance away. Are there setback requirements for dog houses?
 "e" seems to contradict with "h" ? As to chickens being required to remain within a structure and fenced area (“e”), what is the purpose? Chickens should be allowed to utilize their guardian's property, property that costs that guardian dearly in property taxes, just as dogs and cats are allowed to use their guardian's property. All guardians must keep those under their care from harming those under the care of others, plain and simple (the problem is almost never a chicken roaming at large and hurting anyone, rather it is usually a dog roaming at large that causes damage to chickens. property and people, and I say this as a lover of both dogs and birds. We would be wise to keep in mind who the predator is here). Chickens need exercise and they thrive best when they can explore and eat appropriate plants and bugs. In their enclosed areas these things are quickly depleted. "h" seems to better comprehend this, and is reasonable, in contrast to the first sentence of "e".
 Chicken tractors are often used as chicken housing. I’m not sure why that in and of itself is thought to be a problem. (personally I would hope the number of birds kept in any accommodation would be in keeping with quality living, i.e., not too crowded, but that’s a separate subject)

 

[kagedgoddess]

So where do i sign up to stud out my roosters? Or do i need a permit for a brothel? Jk jk. I think regulating mating Hilarious! My my. The poster above is correct about messing up the pecking order. That is a concern! When i reintroduced a broody to the pen, my roosters killed her. And i met a lady recently who said her hens killed a new rooster! I think the town wouldve been less a laughingstock had they just banned roosters period. If you want the whole farming lifetsyle, move somewhere its permitted. Moving to a town and complaining they dont allow livestock ( which chickens are!) is just as bad as moving to the country and complaining about crowing!

 

[mame1616]

Quote:
While I agree with your last statement, it's not as easy for people to pick up and move somewhere else. Some communities were always farming communities until the McMansions move in, almost overnight. I, for instance, couldn't move right now unless someone gave me a free house. And, a lot of people are not looking for a whole farming lifestyle, they just want a few chickens in the backyard - hence the existence of this site. My major concern is that other towns will keep regulating poultry without really knowing the facts. I'm in the middle of a neighborhood, and there are no regulations for poultry on the books in my town, but who knows if that could change? I don't like the idea of banning roosters, but we may have to accept it as a place to start. Once people see that the hens are not the destructive, smelly creatures they had imagined, maybe roosters can be included eventually.

The dangerous thing is allowing these roosters in for the limited time period, and transferring disease to your home flock. Say you're a newbie, and you don't know about the bio-security rules, etc. You borrow a rooster from your friend three hours away. Loud fighting and feather ripping ensues. Next thing you know, your cranky neighbor looks over your fence to see dead and dying chickens, and tells the township what a horrible, noisy, dangerous, disease-ridden animal it is, and then they ban them altogether. The hens that survive may come down with some disease that came in off the the feet of the visiting rooster.

While I don't agree with the ordinance, I find the time, money, and effort spent over such a stupid issue amazing, and does not speak well about the town of Hopewell. (It's obvious no one contacted the NJDA's office, or they would have found out the reasons these conjugal visits are a bad idea.) That's one of the oldest towns in NJ, and even now is not near any major roads, and still the urbanites are moving in and changing things. It's happening all over the state, which is why I'm getting out as soon as I can.