Two Sturgeon County chicken owners say the county is pressuring them to get rid of roosters they believe they’re allowed to have under county law.
Juniper Hills resident Samantha Dobler is set to appeal an enforcement order issued by county bylaw on Nov. 30 in regard to Section 5.4 of the county's animal control bylaw.
That section states that “no Owner or Hen Keeper shall keep a Rooster.” “Owner” is defined as anyone who keeps any animal, while “Hen Keeper” specifically refers to urban hens.
Dobler, who participated in Edmonton’s urban hen pilot project, has lived on a three-acre site zoned R1 south of Redwater since January 2020. When she bought the site in 2019, she said county bylaw officers told her she could have up to 30 chickens and roosters on the site. The family brought in its birds early in 2020, prior to the passage of the county’s revised animal control bylaw in October 2020.
Dobler said she currently has about 25 chickens, one rooster, and two ducks. She used to have 13 roosters, but cut back to one this summer under pressure from county bylaw officers.
Dobler’s neighbour, Stacey Czarnecki, has lived in Juniper Hill for four years and has kept chickens for the last three on her three-acre, R1 site. She currently has one rooster and 20 hens.
Chicken fight
Dobler and Czarnecki said they were visited by county bylaw officers in May and told to get rid of their roosters within two weeks.
“A bylaw officer came and told us we can’t have roosters,” Dobler said.
“My husband said that’s not true, and the officer said, get rid of the roosters.”
A Sept. 17 enforcement order signed by Sturgeon County protective services manager Pat Mahoney provided by Dobler to The Gazette shows that her household had been cited under Section 5.4 of the animal control bylaw.
Dobler and Czarnecki argue that this section does not apply to their lands. While Section 5.4 bans owners from keeping roosters, Section 5 itself refers to urban hens, which are associated with R1 properties smaller than 2.47 acres.
As Dobler and Czarnecki have three-acre plots, they believe their properties should be regulated under Section 7.1, which states that R1 properties between 2.47 acres and 3.95 acres in size can keep up to three “animal or bird units” of livestock, poultry, or fowl, which translates into up to 30 “ducks, turkeys, chickens, pheasants, geese, or other similar fowl.”
Dobler argued Section 5 did not apply to her birds under this provision as they are considered livestock.
“They’re mixing up Sections 5 (urban hens) and 7 (animal livestock),” Dobler said.
“If we didn’t have birds, we could have 15 llamas. That’s what it says.”
(Section 7.2 says one animal or bird unit is equivalent to one donkey, five llamas, or 10 chinchillas, among other animals.)
The Gazette was unable to determine if Section 5.4’s ban on roosters also applies to livestock as defined under Section 7.
In an Aug. 24, 2021, committee of the whole meeting, Mahoney, without naming Dobler and Czarnecki specifically, said the county was investigating two rooster complaints under the animal control bylaw.
“It’s not related to the size of the property. It’s strictly related to the noise of the rooster.”
Mahoney specifically cited Section 4.3 of the community standards bylaw, which bans annoying noises between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. in R1 districts.
Dobler said Mahoney was speaking about her and Czarnecki’s case. She said bylaw officers did not raise the noise issue in any of their dealings with them. (A Sept. 10 letter from county chief operations officer Scott MacDougall provided to The Gazette mentions “rooster noise complaints” but specifically cited Section 5.4 of the animal control bylaw as the issue, not the community standards bylaw.) She also said her roosters do not crow at night or while in their coop, and do not come out of their coop until about 8:15 a.m., meaning Section 4.3 should not apply.
(The Gazette notes that Section 4.5 of the community standards bylaw might apply, as it covers noise at any time of day, but could also be superseded by Section 4.2, which says, “Nothing in this [bylaw] shall prevent bona fide Agricultural Practices,” which could include raising chickens.)
Dobler said her chickens are part of a hobby farm and argued that they should be subject to Section 2.1 of the provincial Agricultural Operations Practices Act, which states that anyone carrying on an agricultural operation that does not contravene the local land use bylaw is not liable for nuisances related to those operations. Any nuisance complaints also have to be investigated by the agricultural minister under that law.
“We are in the middle of agriculture,” Dobler said of Juniper Hills, and many of the surrounding farms and properties have noisy animals.
Council to hear case
Dobler argued that the county was going against its own bylaw in requiring her to get rid of her roosters.
“That means anyone who owns a hobby farm is now at risk,” she argued.
Mahoney, former area councillor Karen Shaw, and current council representative Neal Comeau declined to comment on this matter.
In an email, county spokesperson Lucas Warren said council could not speak on this matter as it is set to review it Nov. 30, and that no enforcement action would happen before council’s review.
Dobler and Czarnecki said they wanted an apology from the county and an acknowledgement that they could keep roosters under county law.
Dobler said she has been harassed by bylaw officials for months and has been “on eggshells” waiting for bylaw officers to take her roosters away.
“I just want to be left alone.”
Dobler is scheduled to speak to county council at 10 a.m. Nov. 30.
