I have no problem with culling, although I was willing to take a mallard to the vet for him but he doesn't like anyone helping with his animals. It all comes down to basics of care which he is not even meeting according to law. I understand what you are saying but I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Withholding food and water for long periods of time is not acceptable, nor are the filthy conditions. When it comes to the point that so many of your flock are dying form dehydration/starvation/preventable disease (and not being culled to at least stop their suffering) that you've run out of room in a large freezer to keep them and you start just throwing them over the fence, then something definitely needs to be done. Thanks for your advice, I do truly appreciate your opinion but I refuse to stand by and do nothing. Perhaps if more people made a stand, perceptions of "utilitarian" animals could change and their need to be treated just as humanely as any other animal could be recognized.
Truth is plural, in that even honest folks can draw differing conclusion from the same facts ... that doesn't mean we necessarily disagree ...
For certain, when "animals" (which includes aves w/in your state) suffer from neglect, then something absolutely should be done about it. And, for certain, the conditions you've described fall short of even those lowest standards of legal requirement ... however, in North Carolina? The maximum penalty, even for the worst imaginable cases, is 6 months in jail, and fines are capped at $1,000. There are no provisions for mandatory counseling of offenders, and, although their animals may be taken? The Courts can't prevent them from owning another ... can't imagine the logic behind that one.
To "deprive of necessary sustenance" is a Class 1 misdemeanor, and to kill by "intentional deprivation of necessary sustenance" is a Class A1 misdemeanor. However, there are exemptions w/in North Carolina's abuse statutes ...
Quoting relevant points from § 14-360:
(c) However, this section shall not apply to the following activities:
(2) Lawful activities conducted for purposes of biomedical research or training or for purposes of production of livestock, poultry, or aquatic species.
(2a) Lawful activities conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption.
So, when I suggested that the Investigator/Officer from Animal Control failed to perform his/her duties? I was mistaken, as there is most probably nothing they could do, unless it could be established that his activities were not lawfully conducted.
It sounds as if you're in a suburban/city setting, so perhaps you could look to see if he's in violation of Code/Ordinance(s) by having 'em where they are. After seein' how he's treated 'em? Perhaps they'd be confiscated, if allowed, or he might at least be fined for his violation, so as to force him to give 'em to somebody (anybody) else. But, in this case? That may be about all you can do.