Oh dear…we find the strangest things in the news!
A proposed ordinance allowing backyard chickens in the city of Racine, Wisconsin is being acted on by the City’s Council. Backed unanimously by the City Board of Health last week, the proposal would allow single-family… (Single-family? They’re discriminating against multi-family homes right off the bat?)…owner-occupied households… (Owner occupied? now they’re discriminating from renters? Renters’ money isn’t good enough???) …in the city to keep up to four hens, but no roosters. (What the cluck???)
(Why up to 4? Why not 6 or 10, or 20? Are they concerned about square footage per chicken? Or perhaps the decibel level of 5 chickens is the maximum that can be tolerated by the neighbors. Clucking volume must be it… so are we now looking at a clucking chicken noise ordinance? Have you ever heard the ear-splitting sound a single chicken makes while laying an egg? Is this in consideration? And no roosters? Why no roosters? Is council denying chickens their rights to have male companionship now? Isn’t that now a sexist factor? The girl chickens have needs after all. No, I get it. They’re worried about the production of baby chickens, and more baby chickens, and soon the entire city of Racine will be overrun with little chickens. What a bunch of clucking sexists.)
The news comes about eight months after a local resident approached the board to see if its members might craft a measure allowing residents to keep the birds. Since then, the Public Health Administrator has been working with the board and others, including the Wisconsin Humane Society and City Attorney’s Office, to draft and fine-tune the would-be ordinance. Under the guidelines set forth in the proposed law, residents could only keep chickens for domestic use. (“Domestic use“? What use? How does one “use” a domestic chicken? Oh, it’s a pet! We can put a harness leash on it and take a walk around the block…the same as we do with Fido!) Chicken owners could not slaughter the chickens, sell their eggs, or breed the animals for sale. They would also have to keep the chickens in the backyard in a coop and/or pen approved by the department’s Environmental Health Division. In addition to those requirements, owners would have to follow strict rules for the disposal of chicken droppings and the size of the enclosures and pens.
(Wait, what about our constitutional rights here? We can breed & sell all other kinds of animals, like dogs and cats. Why discriminate against the chicken? Could this be a hidden attack against right-Wing — get it? “Wing”??? What a tough crowd! Chicken owners and restaurants like Chic-Fil-A? Where’s Al Sharpton? There might be police officers shooting innocent chickens! The chickens will riot, and burn down innocent Chic-Fil-A restaurants! Call in Jesse Jackson, too! We need Colonel Sanders to come back on a Wing and a prayer! Okay, we’re winging it on our commentary here, give us a break. Preferably a chicken sandwich break, made from all breast meat… oh, damn, now WE’re being sexist!!!)
(WOW! These guidelines are stricter than our human guidelines. I haven’t seen government workers work this much in insuring the health and welfare of our citizens. The poor, needy, poverty, government housing polilticians, just have to keep adding rules and laws upon us poor owners, ignoring the renters, clucking us every chance they get…)
There also are recommendations for the bedding, feeding and watering of the animals. (What? now we have to buy chickens new beds? Hey, Petsmart, what aisle are the chicken beds on???) Those who want to keep the birds would be required to get a $50 license from City Hall. (More discrimination against the chicken! Dogs and cats don’t require $50 licenses! Only rabies tags!) Part of the cost of the annual license would fund inspections aimed at ensuring that coops are the right distance from adjacent properties and maintained in the backyard area of homes. Anyone violating the rules set forth in the ordinance could lose their license or face a possible $500 fine. If a license is revoked it couldn’t be renewed for three years. The last time city officials discussed the possibility of allowing chickens in the city was 2010. City officials ended up receiving about 250 signatures from residents opposed to the idea, and the Committee ultimately voted to set it aside. The City Council is slated to consider the proposal. Although aldermen could decide to approve the ordinance or vote it down, they could also decide to send it back to the Board of Health or City Attorney’s Office for adjustments or to another committee for more in-depth discussion.
(You mean the chickens have been put on the back burner again?!? Oh my! I want mine with mushroom sauce, please!!!)