Who allows urban chickens? Municipal staff have been finding out in preparing report for councillorsBy Our StaffThu. Feb 5 - 5:43 AM
Here’s a nugget from Halifax city hall: municipal staffers have been dipping into regulations in other Canadian jurisdictions to see how those communities handle chickens within city limits.
According to a municipal staff report to be presented to Peninsula community council on Monday, staffers researched five cities on their policies covering "the keeping of fowl." Two other municipalities were also mentioned in the report.
Studying the urban chicken issue had public servants from Halifax Regional Municipality’s planning services department checking such cities as Victoria, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Toronto.
Staffers were directed by community council to prepare the report about a year ago. Councillors asked for the study because of a well-publicized land-use matter last year involving a west-end Halifax resident who kept backyard hens.
Those chickens were relocated to Hants County.
"At this time, there is no uniform land-use bylaw approach within HRM regarding the keeping of fowl," says the staff report, approved by Austin French, the city’s planning services manager. "In the suburban and rural areas, fowl are included in the land-use bylaw definition of ‘livestock,’ whether or not they are kept for commercial purposes."
In Victoria, the municipality "prohibits roosters and farm animals within the city," the report says. "However, hens are not considered to be farm animals, so they are permitted in urban residential areas."
In Edmonton, "the keeping of fowl for domestic egg production would be considered a non-commercial farm, which the land-use bylaw only permits in certain rural zones."
Back in Halifax, Mayor Peter Kelly said city employees regularly do research on many issues. But he acknowledged the chicken issue may be "out there in terms of the seriousness" of running a municipality.
Mr. Kelly said the chicken study was not a waste of staff time or taxpayer dollars.
"Do I always agree that all the research that council asks for is appropriate? No, I don’t," the mayor told The Chronicle Herald.
"But in this democracy, and in the areas of motions and emotions, and the ability to seek information," it is imperative the city do its homework, Mr. Kelly said.
As news items go, the chicken story has legs. It began last winter when former urban chicken owner Louise Hanavan was ordered to get rid of her three backyard birds after a neighbour complained they were attracting rodents.
Actually, rats. Big rats.
One of Ms. Hanavan’s chickens went missing last year, after it was farmed out to Hants County, and is presumed dead. A separate case involving pet chickens landed in court in Halifax.
Ms. Hanavan said in a recent release that 1,000 people in metro signed a pro-chicken petition last year. She said Halifax city hall should "show leadership in Canada by encouraging urban agriculture."
( newsroom@herald.ca)
Now isn't that interesting? And before the keyboards catch on fire, I would like to remind you that as someone who tries to live a fairly self sufficient life, I am all in favour of extending the same privileges I enjoy to like minded urban dwellers. Particularly when much of HRM was 'country' twenty years ago.
You might say that I can enjoy these freedoms because I live in the country ... but no .... my neck of the woods is classed as Residential Forestry and as such there are things that I cannot do even if I wanted to. Cattle and pigs are out of the question, but yes I could have chickens and even goats if I wanted. Over the years in my travels I have visited many places where small animal husbandry was a successful part of urban communities.
But the point I'm trying to make here in my rambling, 'haven't' finished my first cup of coffee' way is that if HRM is prepared to go all out for the chickens, why do they keep resisting change about Bylaw A 300?
By my best estimate, there are a lot more dog and cat owning voters than urban chicken ranchers in HRM. I suspect many of them never lose a minute's sleep over the animal control bylaws .... until that unpredictable moment happens and they run afowl of the 'law' ( Or in HRM's case .... somebody 'thinks' or is 'afraid' they have done something dangerous )
So WHY is HRM so concerned about chickens? Because 1000 HRM tax paying voting residents have signed up to support the issue. I know I sound like a stuck record, but the way ahead for anything is always paved by voter feedback. It is really the only tangible way our politicians have of understanding the importance of any issue.
Responsible pet owners provide regular vet care, good food and of course lots of love. From seatbelts to winter boots to obedience classes, they do not hesitate to do whatever it takes to protect their pets. How is it then, that so many do not understand the value and importance of their input to their municipal councillors? Anyone living in HRM can contact their councillor ( Councillors E-mail )to discuss this issue .... before any chickens come home to roost and HRM starts sneaking in BSL bylaws when no one is paying attention.
The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, its indifference. Elie Wiesel
No comments:
Post a Comment