Estimated read time: 2-3 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SANDY — Some fowl gender ambiguity has caught City Hall's attention, and the planning staff is recommending that ambiguity be replaced with outright discrimination.
The question is the intent of an ordinance that talks about chickens.
Residents complaining about crowing roosters take the approach that a city ordinance referring to "chickens" means "hens," not "roosters." But rooster owners responding to those complaints have taken exception to that interpretation, said Sharon Dennison, director of the city's animal services department.
The city gets quite a few complaints about rooster noise and (the animal services director says) that the city has generally taken the point of view that "chicken" means the bird that lays eggs.
Dennison said the city gets quite a few complaints about rooster noise and that the city has generally taken the point of view that "chicken" means the bird that lays eggs. "We just don't really want roosters," she said.
Roosters' penchant to noisily let the neighborhood know dawn has arrived makes them exceptionally unpopular in an increasingly urban setting. Sometimes chicken owners keep them around "because they are under the impression you need a rooster to have eggs, and you don't," Dennison said.
So the planning staff is recommending the ordinance be clarified by adding a distinction for "roosters," although the proposed ordinance change still referred to hens simply as "chickens."
Related:
Wintering backyard chickens in Utah
With so many Utah residents new to keeping urban chickens, many might not be aware of the extra care and attention needed during harsh winter weather.The change wouldn't ban roosters altogether, but it would set some limits: Residents would have to have at least a half-acre lot to have a rooster, and then could have only one — and only if their lot is zoned for farm animals.
Hens would claim a victory reminiscent of George Orwell's "Animal Farm," where some animals are more equal than others, because they also qualify as a household pet. "Roosters are not allowed as a household pet," the proposed ordinance revision reads.
The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the change when it meets Thursday in City Hall at 6:15 p.m. If the recommendation gets the commission's approval, it would then go to the City Council.
Email:sfidel@ksl.com
