[Vision2020] The Fowl, Council and Right To Grow Food

Wed Nov 18 10:25:32 PST 2009

Among other things, it seems clear that a majority of the city councilpersons have little or no farm experience.  

In making laws or doing almost anything else, it is important to begin by setting out clear goals whose achievement can be measured or observed.  Although several council members claim to have business or supervisorial experience, apparently they never learned that goal setting is an essential first step in most successful endeavors.  A few seem not to understand that reality is complex, so that decisions cannot always be correctly made just by considering a few simple things and ignoring the less simple ones.

I cannot claim this to be true of all people, but in my experience most people get used to fowl/animal sounds just like they get used to trains, planes, etc -- unless they purposely focus, the sounds do not register.

W.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Garrett Clevenger 
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:24 PM
  Subject: [Vision2020] The Fowl, Council and Right To Grow Food

  Thanks, Tom, for posting the video of the city council's poultry law discussion.  

  It was a long, drawn-out and sometimes surreal discussion.  You all should watch our council in action.  It's only an hour.

  http://www.moscowcares.com/111609_06_DraftPoultryOrd.htm

  They passed the ordinance mostly to my liking.  Up to 6 turkeys will be allowed to be raised in Moscow (like you'd really ever get rid of them!) but the city won't allow mature toms.  

  I don't see why a mature tom needs to be banned, especially if they, like all the other animals, are covered under the city's nuisance laws.  If a tom becomes a problem, then deal with it then.

  They lessened the distance chickens, ducks and geese can be placed next to a neighbor dwelling from 40 feet to 25 feet, which will allow more residents in town to raise birds, but turkeys have to be kept 40 feet from the neighbor dwelling.  That discrepancy makes no sense to me, especially if mature toms are banned and you cannot keep as many turkeys as the others.

  Would you rather have 25 ducks 25 feet from your house, a horse, cow, sheep or goat that has no such distance constraint, or 6 turkeys 25 feet away?  6 turkeys are somehow considered more of a nuisance now, though, and have to be kept 40 feet away. Strange.

  One problem with having two distinct limits for chickens compared to turkeys (besides it being arbitrary) is that it could require two separate coop structures for people who would like the option to grow any of these fowl if they were able to meet the space required to raise turkeys in the first place.

  I will still be able to raise turkeys on my property, but the 40 foot rule will shut out a lot of people in town.

  Wayne Krauss wanted to require fowl be kept 25 feet from the property line, which would shut out most people from raising birds altogether.

  John Weber said he "misread" the ordinance he voted to bring to the full city council in his administrative meeting.  He thought it said it they WERE required to be 25 feet from the property line, concurring with Krauss's firm feeling.

  Weber said, "I have to rescind my agreement. I personally don't want somebody eles's chickens within 25 feet of my house." Well, that's not what the proposal said.  Did he mean "25 feet from my property"? I was confused.

  He got a good line and response when he asked. "Do chickens smell?" Someone replied, "only when they're wet."

  Both Weber and Krauss changed their mind after Amy Gray's testimony, including the comment that a neighbor's dog run can be placed right next to your house on their property line {not to mention a cow}, so why should fowl be required to be more than 25 feet away?

  Tom Lamar was the one who suggested no mature male turkeys.  He also got a good line in, saying, "...prohibit, I can't believe I'm going to say this, mature toms in the city of Moscow."  

  Lamar wanted fowl to be allowed as close as 20 feet from the neighbor dwelling.  He also wanted to increase the original 4 hen limit in the proposal to 12 hens. 

  Walter Steed said, "I don't want to do this again." I think he was reffering to having to talk about chickens.  And it was apparent, as he rescinded the 3 vote rule in his amendment to the proposal that passed and is now law.

  Gary Reidner was the one who reminded Steed that he had not specified rescinding the rule in his amendment.  I can understand a city supervisor wanting to get it over, too, and not have to spend too much time making the law as good as it can be.

  The council seemed to rush this through.  Why don't they vote to keep the rule to let the public get a chance to comment on it before making it law? 

  I feel shut out from the process, especially seeing there are flaws that could have been ironed out to make this law better.  There's a reason the 3 vote rule exists.  To thwart it dilutes democracy.

  We have a right to grow food on our property.  This council, with all its rhetoric about property rights, just limited your right to use your property compared to the law we had before.  That is something that shouldn't be rushed through, especially seeing the council could use input from the citizens they are supposed to represent. 

  Amy Gray was the only one who testified, and she was able to sway at least 2 votes.  What would have happened had the public been given two weeks to think about this law and let the council know their thoughts?  I know I would have given them more suggestions on how to improve it.

  Criticism aside, I want to thank Dan Carscallen for bringing up the turkey issue to begin with at the meeting and for the whole council who dropped the turkey ban in the final law.  

  I also want to thank city attorney Randy Fife for conveniently having a copy of a modified proposal that included the request I submitted, except for the 40 foot limit as I think 25 feet with the other fowl is fine.  Fife did allow for toms in his draft, too, which I'm disappointed the council modified.

  Special thanks to Mayor "Mom" Nancy Chaney who thankfully provides much needed maturity to the council.  What she does requires a lot of patience and composure to keep from telling the council to settle down, we don't have all night for banter.

  People have a hard time sitting through the meetings to begin with, so it seems some of the nonsense should be kept out.  Speaking as someone who's had to sit through meetings where people don't get to the point and seem to make it more of a game than it should be, I'll say it's unfair to those who have to commit their evening to attend the meetings.  That would try any person if you had to go to every one.  Time should be spent getting the issued solved as best as possible, not telling jokes and going on tangents.

  If I got anything out of this council episode, it's that they need to not pass laws with only one vote when they have a rule requiring 3 votes.  They should give citizens a chance to provide input before passing laws that will affect us all.

  Gobblegobblegobble, they keep gobbling on.

  Garrett Clevenger

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  =======================================================
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20091118/3891bcd2/attachment.html 