Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/24/2013city of App e Val ey Meeting Location: Municipal Center 7100 147th Street West Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 URBAN AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE TENTATIVE AGENDA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2013 4. ACTION ITEMS: a. REVIEW DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 91 (ANIMALS) b. PUBLIC COMMENT MEETING 5. OTHER BUSINESS - None - 6. ADJOURNMENT NEXT URBAN AFFAIRS MEETING Date to be Determined 7:00 p.m. Staff: Margaret Dykes — Planning and Development 952-953-2569 Ben Pierson — Code Enforcement 952-953-2571 S:\planning\Urban Affairs\2013 Animal Ordinance\092413a.doc CITY OF APPLE VALLEY URBAN AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 27, 2013 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Urban Affairs Advisory Committee meeting was called to order by Chair Schwartz at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Barry Berg, Sandy Breuer, Edwin Holmes, Walton Mahlum, Sharon Schwartz, Pamela Sohlberg and Earl Wilson. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Planner Margaret Dykes, Code Compliance Specialist Ben Pierson, City Attorney Sharon Hills and Department Assistant Joan Murphy. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Schwartz asked to make a change to the agenda to introduce the newest Committee Member Walton Mahlum. MOTION: of Sohlberg, seconded by Wilson, approving the agenda as amended. Ayes - 7 - Nays - 0. 3. INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMITTEE MEMBER Chair Schwartz welcomed Walton Mahlum and each Committee Member introduced themselves and stated how long they had been on the Committee. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JUNE 25, 2013. Chair Schwartz asked if there were any changes to the minutes. Hearing none she called for a motion. MOTION: of Sohlberg, seconded by Holmes, approving the minutes of the meeting of June 25, 2013. Ayes - 7 - Nays — 0. 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Animal Ordinances Review Planner Margaret Dykes reviewed the revised draft amendments to Chapter 91 (Animals), and the staff memo for the Committee's meeting of August 27, 2013, which addressed the following items: 1. Any criteria for the certification of service animals under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Urban Affairs Advisory Committee Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 2 of 3 2. Any certification for animal foster homes. 3. Procedures of various cities/counties with respect to stray animals. 4. Violations of City ordinances. 5. The September 24 public comment meeting. Committee Member Berg stated he had a concern on certified animals and that you cannot ask if a dog is a certified animal unless it is disruptive. Dykes provided information regarding the City's procedures on stray animals. Stray dogs are impounded by the Apple Valley Police Department but the City does not pick up stray cats. Violations are a misdemeanor. Committee Member Berg inquired why the City does not deal with stray cats as they do with stray dogs. Dykes answered it was cost prohibitive. Chair Schwartz asked where would a rabbit hutch need to be located. Attorney Hills stated rabbit hutches would need to follow the zoning code as it relates to accessory buildings on properties and would need to follow the setback requirements. Committee Member Berg asked if the City would be responsible for wild animals such as coyotes. Chair Schwartz commented that service animals should be included in the maximum number of pets. Committee Member Berg inquired why there would be a need for more than one service animal per person. Committee Member Mahlum asked why service animals were even being discussed. Dykes answered that the Committee wanted to call service animals out separately but now after discussion, service animals would be included with the three dog maximum. She asked what the Committee wanted to do regarding rabbits. Committee Member Wilson commented there should be a limit on rabbits to alleviate hording. Chair Schwartz asked Code Compliance Specialist Pierson what his experience has been in the community with any abundance of pets. Pierson answered there was one residence with about one hundred parrots but has had no complaints on rabbits. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Urban Affairs Advisory Committee Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 3 of 3 Chair Schwartz inquired what Mr. Pierson would do if he encountered conditions that were inhumane. Pierson stated he would contact the Police Department because they are more equipped to handle that type of situation. Committee Member Breuer commented she would like to strike the rabbit number and just leave it alone. 6. OTHER BUSINESS A. Review of upcoming meeting. Planner Margaret Dykes stated that the next Urban Affairs Committee meeting would take place Tuesday, September 24, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. and would be a public comment meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Urban Affairs Advisory Committee, Chair Schwartz asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: of Wilson, seconded by Breuer, to adjourn the meeting at 7:47 p.m. Ayes - 7 - Nays - 0. Respectfully Submitted, n Murphy, Planning II epa ent Assistant Approved by the Apple Valley Urban Affairs Advisory Committee on City of Apple Valley TO: FROM: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: Urban Affairs Committee Members Margaret M. Dykes, Planner September 24, 2013 Review of City Codes Regarding Domestic Animals - Public Comment Meeting MEMO Community Development Department Background At its meeting of October 11, 2012, the City Council directed the Urban Affairs Advisory Committee (UAC) to review the City's existing animal ordinances. The City Council called the UAC to meet because it had been asked by residents in single-family residential neighborhoods to review the ordinances so that they may keep animals such as chickens and goats on their property. Currently, the City Code allows for the keeping of "domestic animals commonly kept as 'house pets' for non-commercial purposes, for the use of the occupants of the premises" as permitted accessory uses on single-family residential properties. The City Code does not have a definition of "house pets". The City has in the past determined that "house pets" means dogs, cats, fish, and small animals that are caged and generally kept inside the residence; it has not included chickens, goats, or other animals commonly found on farms. However, the City Attorney advised that the current standards should be clarified so that there is no ambiguity. Current City Regulations The City Code regulates animals in two sections: the entirety of chapter 91, and references in chapter 155 (the zoning code). • Chapter 91: This chapter pertains primarily to cats and dogs; it does not address other animals. However, if the City Council choses to amend the Code to allow or prohibit animals other than house pets, it would make sense for it to be in this section. • Chapter 155: This is the zoning section of the Code and references only "house pets", which is not defined. Section 155.053, which regulates permitted accessory uses in single- family residential neighborhoods, allows "domestic animals commonly kept as 'house pets' for non-commercial purposes, for the use of the occupants of the premises." Staff has interpreted this dogs, cats, small animals kept indoors, etc.; horses can be kept in the "R-1" zones as a permitted accessory use. The Code does not list performance standards relative to the keeping of animals in this chapter. Chickens have been considered to be livestock and are permitted only on those parcels zoned "AG" (Agricultural). Fewer than 60 acres in the City remain zoned for agricultural uses. 1 H:\DEVELOPM\2013 Projects\Domestic Animal Ordinance Amend\UAC\092413 UAC memo.doc UAC Meetings To date, the UAC has held four (4) announced public meetings in April, May, June, and August to discuss the current City ordinances related to animals. The UAC discussed the current ordinance with Code Compliance Specialist Ben Pierson to determine what changes would address concerns found in the community. Because the current code related to animals generally only addresses dogs and cats, residents have sought clarification about the types of animals they may keep on their property. The UAC also reviewed materials related to the keeping of chickens and goats, reviewed other cities' ordinances, and reviewed policy considerations related to any ordinance changes. The minutes for these meetings can be found on the City's website: www.ci.apple-valley.mn.us Potential Changes to the City Code Based on the information received so far, the UAC is considering several changes to the Code that clarify what animals would be permitted on residential property. Some of the changes are minor and would make the Code consistent with changes in State Statutes. Some of the changes would be more substantive and add regulations where there are none currently. There are three (3) substantive changes that the Committee is considering: 1. Create a new definition for "Household Pet", and list specific animals that would be exclusively considered a Household Pet. These animals would include only the following animals: dogs, cats, ferrets, birds (excluding all farm poultry such as chickens and ducks), rabbits, rodents and other similar small animals, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and fish. Any service animal as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act would also be permitted. It should be noted that the majority of the animals listed must be caged and kept inside the residence. The exceptions being dogs, cats, rabbits, and fish, which may be kept outside of the residence in appropriate shelters or enclosures. This list for housepets contains the most common pets kept in the United States according to the 2012 U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). 2. Limit the number of certain animals that may be kept at each residence. Currently, the Code states that no more than three (3) dogs and three (3) cats may be kept at a residence. The draft amendment would include ferrets and also limit them to no more than three (3) per residence. The UAC also believes that there should be no more than six (6) animals of these three species at any residence. For example, a household could have one dog, three cats, and two ferrets. Please note that the proposed ordinance should not be interpreted such that a residence would be allowed to have 6 dogs or 6 cats and no other pets. At no time would any residence be allowed more than 3 dogs or 3 cats or 3 ferrets. The UAC has not determined whether other animals should be included in the limit. 3. Prohibit certain animals from residential property. The prohibited animals would include the following: • Farm animals including goats, cattle, sheep, pigs (including potbellied), and bees. 2 H:\DEVELOPM\2013 Projects\Domestic Animal Ordinance Amend\UAC\092413 UAC memo.doc • Farm poultry including chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, and pigeons. • Any animal prohibited by Federal or Minnesota law. • Any wild or non-domesticated animal, including but not limited to bears, lions, wolves, raccoons, poisonous snakes, and apes. The UAC, up to this point, has determined that at this time there is no compelling reason to change the ordinance and allow the keeping of farm animals and farm poultry, including chickens and goats, on residential lots. The UAC thought an amendment to the ordinance allowing farm poultry and/or farm animals would create opportunities for conflicts between neighbors and potential public nuisances. Though there are cities that have allowed chickens (but not goats) on residential lots, there are also many cities that do not allow these types of animals. The City of Cottage Grove completed a survey in November 2012 of 52 cities in the Metro area; about 2/3 of these 52 cities did not allow the keeping of chickens on urban residential lots. Some of the larger cities that do not allow chickens include Blaine, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids, Eden Prairie, Edina, Lakeville, Maple Grove, Plymouth, St. Louis Park and Woodbury. This information was presented to the UAC previously. Recommended Action • Open the public comment meeting and receive comments. When all meeting attendees who wish to speak have done so, staff recommends the UAC close the meeting. The public comments received will be further evaluated as part of a recommendation and forwarded onto the City Council for consideration. It should be noted that public comments received after the September 24 meeting will still be accepted while the UAC continues its work; these comments will be forwarded onto the City Council. The City Council will review the work and recommendation of the UAC and determine what ordinance changes should occur. Staff anticipates the UAC could deliver a recommendation from the UAC to the City Council in the first quarter of 2014. Attachments: 1. Draft Amendments to 2. Public Comments received via email or City Animal Ordinance Facebook page H:\DEVELOPM\2013 Projects\Domestic Animal Ordinance Amend\UAC\092413 UAC memo.doc Draft Amendments to Chapter 91 - Animals SECTION 91.01 DEFINIITIONS. (NOTE: These definitions to be added or modified) ANIMAL. Other than a human being, any living thing of the kingdom of animalia, including mammals, birds, fish, amphibian, insects, and reptiles. DOMESTIC ANIMAL. Any of the various animals domesticated so as to live in a tame condition as a work animal, food source, or household pet. FARM ANIMAL. Any of the various species of domestic animals commonly kept for agricultural purposes such as, but not limited to, horses, cattle, goats, sheep, llamas, potbellied pigs, pigs, and bees. FARM POULTRY. Any of the various species of domestic animals commonly kept for agricultural purposes such as, but not limited to, chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, pigeons, swans, and doves. HOUSEHOLD PET. Domestic animals kept for non-commercial and non- agricultural purposes generally housed within the principal structure throughout the entire year, but for purposes of this Chapter, exclusively consisting of the following domestic animals: (1) Dogs - any animal in whole (excluding hybrids with wolves, coyotes, or jackals) of the species Canis familiarus; (2) Cats — any animal in whole (excluding hybrids with ocelots or margays) of the species Felis catus; (3) Ferrets — any animal of the species Mustela putorius furo; (4) Birds — any of the class of Ayes (birds) that are caged or kept inside the residence, excluding all farm poultry; (5) Rabbits — any animal of the order Lagomorpha that are caged and kept inside the residence or in an outdoor hutch on the subject property; (6) Rodents — any of the order Rodentia such as mice, rats, gerbils, hamsters, chinchillas and guinea pigs that are kept caged and kept inside the residence; (7) Reptiles — any of the class non-poisonous Reptilia such as snakes less than three (3) feet in length, lizards less than three (3) feet, and turtles that are kept caged an d kept inside the residence; (8) Amphibians — any of the non-poisonous class of Amphibia such as salamanders, frogs, and toads that are kept caged and kept inside the residence; (9) Insects — any of the non-poisonous mostly small arthropods class of Insecta such as butterflies, ants, grasshoppers that are kept caged and kept inside the residence; (10) Fish — all varieties commonly raised as pets in tanks inside or in decorative outdoor ponds at homes or commercial businesses unless specifically prohibited by state or federal law, and those listed elsewhere in this Chapter. 1 AFT Draft Amendments to Chapter 91 - Animals SERVICE ANIMAL. Dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities that are directly related to the person's disability. Examples of such work or tasks include guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling a wheelchair, alerting or protecting a person who is having a seizure, reminding a person with mental illness to take prescribed medications, calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack, or performing other duties. A dog whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support does not qualify as a service animal. VACCINATION AGAINST RABIES. The inoculation of a dog, cat or ferret with a rabies vaccine. The vaccination shall be performed by a veterinarian duly licensed to practice veterinary medicine. WILD ANIMAL. Any animal which is not naturally tame or gentle, but is o wild ild nature or disposition or which, because of its size, vicious nature, or other charactens ie would constitute a danger to human life or property. 91.06 ANIMALS WITHIN CITY LIMITS. (NOTE: Proposed language for new section) (A) The keeping of animals within the city is subject to the provisions of this chapter and applicable state and federal statutes, rules and regulations, including but not limited to those addressing prevention of cruelty to animals, animal health, stray animals, companion animals, service animals and dangerous animals. (B) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in the Code, no person shall keep or harbor any animal other than a household pet or service animal within the city. (C) Limitation on Number. (1) Purpose. The owning, harboring and keeping on any premise of a large number of pet animals within the city adversely affect the welfare of the entire city due to various noise, odor, health and safety problems resulting from the keeping of a large number of pet animals, which constitute a public nuisance. (2) No person shall keep in any one dwelling unit, lot, or premise or portion thereof more than three (3) service animals or three (3) of each of the following household pets: dogs, cats, or ferrets over the age of four (4) months of age, but not to exceed a combined total of six (6) said animals. This provision shall not apply to veterinary clinics or hospitals, licensed kennels or catteries, pet stores, animal shelters, pet care facilities, or other similar uses permitted by the Code. (D) Keeping Of Certain Animals Prohibited. (1) Prohibited Animals: No person shall keep, maintain or harbor within the city any of the following animals: (a) Any animal or species prohibited by Minnesota or federal law. 2 Draft Amendments to Chapter 91 - Animals (b) Farm poultry or farm animal, except in the following cases: (1) Farm poultry or farm animals may be kept on property zoned for agricultural uses. (2) Horses may be kept on property zoned "R-1" (Single Family Residential/minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft.). (c) Any animal or species not defined as a "household pet". Examples of prohibited animals include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) All skunks, whether captured in the wild, domestically raised, descented or not descented, vaccinated against rabies or not vaccinated against rabies. (2) All large cats of the family Felidae, such as lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, cougars and ocelots, except commonly accepted domesticated house cats. (3) All members of the family Canidae, such as wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingoes and jackals, except domesticated dogs. (4) All crossbreeds, such as crossbreeds between dogs and coyotes or dogs and wolves, but does not include crossbreeds between domesticated animals. (5) All poisonous snakes, such as rattlesnakes, coral snakes, water moccasins, cobras or copperheads. (6) All raccoons. (7) All piranhas, northern snakeheads, and similar aggressive carnivorous ( All apes and monkeys. (2) Selling Prohibited: No person shall offer for sale, within the city limits, any animal identified in Paragraph (D)(1)(a) and (c) of this section. (3) Exceptions; Permit Required: (a) Any persons desiring to keep animals prohibited under (D)1 of this section for entertainment, exhibition, show or promotional purposes only may obtain a permit from the city council. Such a permit shall be issued for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days and shall specify further conditions under which such animals shall be kept. A public zoo or other institution engaged in a permanent display of animals may be issued a permanent permit, provided applicable zoning requirements are met. The Minnesota Zoological Gardens is exempt fr® this requirement. 3 Draft Amendments to Chapter 91 - Animals (b) Any accredited education or research institution or veterinary hospital are exempt from the permit requirement, provided protective devices adequate to prevent such animals from escaping or injuring the public are provided. (E) Removal of animal waste required. The owner or keeper of any animal shall be responsible for the immediate removal and proper disposal of any feces deposited by such animal on any property, public or private, not owned or exclusively occupied by the owner or keeper. The owner or keeper of any animal shall also be responsible for the periodic removal and proper disposal of feces deposited by such animal on property owned or exclusively occupied by such owner or keeper so as to prevent the creation of a public nuisance within the meaning of § 94.15. 4 Animal Ordinance Comments: Sept 6 — 9:32 a.m. Hi, I'm just an Av resident that I would like to leave a comment on your proposed animal ordinance change. I've been a 30 year member of Apple Valley and I have a pretty big lot and I would like to keep my 2 or 3 chickens on the lot. I don't feel that there would be any smell. I'm not going to attract rodents, or snakes or coyotes to my property. I think you should let people decide what they want to have on their own piece of property. Eagan and Burnsville allow people to have, you know, one specific little animal or two. I don't think you should mess with people that harshly. Thanks (caller did not identify herself) Sept. 6 — 12:00 p.m. John Erickson — 7905 — 133 Street W. — 952-431-2511 Is opposed to chicken coops in Apple Valley. Does not want rosters crowing. Mentioned that in Kaui — huge hurricane in Hawaii and the chickens got lose and now they are wild and now they are everywhere. Sept. 9 - Peter Mecklenburg — 15785 Garden View Dr. Thinks they should allow chickens and pigs. He would like a couple chickens for eggs. He would slaughter the pig on the property. Maybe a goat to have for goat cheese would be good. Sept. 9 - MJ Campana — 5744 — 144 Street W Thought chickens and chicken coops are ok. Does not believe ferrets or goats should be allowed. Sept. 12 — Jeanne Olson — 15747 Hemlock Ct Lived in Apple Valley since 1979 and likes Apple Valley. Said this is for city living not country living. Feels Apple Valley should change the ordinance to allow only dogs and cats and maybe a bird. She prefers Apple Valley to allow only 2 dog and 2 cats. Dykes, Maggie From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Murphy, Joan Wednesday, July 17, 2013 11:08 AM Dykes, Maggie Nordquist, Bruce; Pierson, Ben FW: Chickens From: Gordhamer, Shawn [_ Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2u13 10:32 AM To: Murphy, Joan Subject: Chickens Hello. I am a resident of Apple Valley. I have read with interest the discussion of allowing chickens in the last few Urban Affairs committee meetings. I know several people who own chickens in urban areas. Chickens are very quiet, as long as you do not have roosters. They make much less noise and have much less odor than a typical dog that is left outside. As for the definition of pets, I would argue that chickens could be considered pets. My sister's children love and play with their chickens as they do with their dogs. I live between two neighbors who have fenced in yards and who keep dogs outside much of the time. The noise and distraction I hear from those dogs is much more than I'd ever receive from a few chickens. I would personally rather live next to a fenced in flock of chickens than a fenced in dog. Shawn Gordhamer Application Tech Specialist AIS ADA Provider E-Services 952-594-6910 This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. 1 Dykes, Maggie Fromm Sent: To: Subject: From: Jessie Koehle [mailto: Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 10:24 AM To: Grawe Charles Subject: Council Communication Dear Apple Valley Mayor and City Councilmembers, Grawe, Charles Monday, July 22, 2013 10:26 AM Dykes, Maggie; Lawell, Tom; Nordquist, Bruce; Bodmer, Kathy FW: Council Communication ] 1 am an Apple Valley resident of 3 years, and 1 also happen to work at the City of Eagan so 1 am fairly familiar with both cities, as well as the daily goings-on in cities internally. Thanks to you and to city staff for all your good work. I have several concerns about the recent discussion of proposed ordinance changes regarding pets, and wanted to take the time to express them to you, as I will be unable to attend the council meeting this Thursday. First, | am a supporter or urban chicken ownership, and am disturbed that Apple VaIley is not as progressive as other cities in this regard. I understand the argument that chickens will need protection from inhumane practices, but it seems that requiring permits for chicken ownership would suffice for this concern. I understand that permits would need inspections, which is a further demand on city workers' time, but I believe that there is more interest than you have yet heard about for chicken ownership in Apple Valley. I support the ordinance change to reflect that chickens are not standard pets, but I would ask that you keep a close watch on your neighboring cities' chicken ownership program, to see both how many people really are interested in owning backyard chickens, and also to see how much work it actually produces. However you should consider this being a source of revenue as well- some cities charge annual fees that would cover an employees time spent in permit inspections. If you didn't want to be overwhelmed the first year (which you wouldn't be, if your implication that "not that many people are interested" is correct?) then perhaps consider a yearly cap on number of new permits allowed, or some sort of lottery for permits if you had more interest than you could handle. / am trying to make a strong argument in favor of city dwellers owning backyard chickens because I believe that urban environments are increasingly diverging from country lfe, and the connection that exists between farm and table. I want my own daughter to be able to raise a few chicks for the experience because it shaped my own childhood greatly. | want to be able to have chickens around to eat insect pests in the lawn so we have less need for toxic chemicals to control pests. | want to be able to have a healthy, local, and practically free source of free range eggs to feed to my family. | think in the end, allowing citizens to raise humanely-kept and permit-controlled backyard chickens has much more benefits than drawbacks. Second, although 1 have never raised bees, it concerns me that you are considering banning beekeeping from city limits, because honeybees and other bee species are already in decline for a variety of reasons, and pollinators are incredibly important to our society's food supply as a whole. 1 encourage you to research the recent decline of ho for example a recent Ted Talk text, by Marla Spivak at the University of Minnesota(http://blog.ted.com/201 e-big-bee-bummer- rneda-spivak'et-ted0|obel-ZOl3/), statingthatmanysmaUbeeco|oniesaremuchmoreeffectivethanfevver(fanned)|argebee colonies at maintaining a population of pollinators, or the New York Times article from last year reporting unprecedented bee deaths (htte /7vvww.n times.oznT 2013 03 29 science earth soarin -bee-deaths_in-2012_sound_a|arnl_on- rna|ady.htm|?paAewanted=aU& r=2&). Without honeybees and other pollinator species, we will have terrible struggles with our food supply as a nation, and it could help to stabilize bee populations if more people in the community chose to have small hives. Also, many people have backyard gardens, and local bees undoubtedly make a big difference in increasing the production of these important staples in people's |k/es.The more folks growing fresh produce in their backyards, the better- leading to a healthier community as a whole, and again, a greater connection between earth and table. 1 Finally, perhaps a technicality, I read something about "6 pets maximum" per household. I currently have a fish tank with about 8 little guppies... am I not allowed to have more than 6 fish in my tank? Perhaps the wording in your proposed changes cover this in more detail, but I would encourage you to avoid future pitfalls by explicitly making fish, reptiles, insects, and amphibians exempt from the 6-pet-per-household rule. I appreciate your consideration, and again I encourage you not to ditch the chicken idea completely, but perhaps take a wait- and-see attitude while watching your neighboring cities' progress with their backyard chicken permitting programs. Please leave the door open for future consideration of backyard chickens, and honeybees. Please feel free to contact me by email (ikoehle@citvofeagan.com) or phone (651-485-8472). I will do my best to follow this discussion and attend future council meetings related to these issues. Thank you, -Jessie Jessie Koehie 1 Water Resources Technician 1 City of Eagan Maintenance Facility! 3501 Coachman Point 1 Eagan, MN 55122 651-675-5320 (Office)1651-485-2235 (Ce11)1651-675-5360 (Fax) 1 JKoehle@cityofeagan.com 2 Dykes, Maggie From: Sent: To: Subject: Begin forwarded message: Thank you. Joe Kl 'vva 13605 Harwell Path Apple Valley, MN 55124 952'431'0953 Grawe, Charles Monday, September 09 2013 1:00 PM Nordquist, Bruce; Lawell, Tom; Dykes, Maggie Fwd: Apple VaIley ordinances on the keeping of chickens (hens) Fronn:' —. ,"C p ` ~ -- • Date: September 9, 2013, 12:44:44 PM CUT To: "info@d.app|e-vaUey.mn.us"<info@ciapp|e-vaUey.mn.us» Subject: Apple Valley ordinances on the keeping of chickens (hens Hello, It appears that Apple Valley is considering a draft ordinance that prohibits the raising of chickens on land that is not zoned agricultural. I would like to say that I am one of many citizens in AV that disagree with the draft and would like to raise a few chickens for laying eggs as well as for the educational opportunities for my children. There are many options for small coops/pens that are unobtrusive and attractive. Chickens do not require large amounts of land, the hens are relatively quiet, and they eat pests/insects. Has this been discussed at an council level. If so, could you direct me to the d unci|minutes.|would like to pass on this email to the city council members and the mayor for their consideration to amend the draft ordinance. There are many fine cities in the metro area that allow chicken raising, including Burnsville. This is a link to their license permit. ht w.burnsville.o documentcenter view 1888 1 Dykes, Maggie From: Sent: To: Subject: From: Gary and Sherry Caracofe Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 9:24 AM To: comdev s ciia i • le-valle .mn. us Cc: Grawe, Charles Subject: Chicken Coops To whom it may concern, Gary L. Caracofe 15875 Garrett Path Apple Valley, MN 55124 952-431-2092 Grawe, Charles Monday, September 09, 2013 8:16 AM Lawell, Tom; Nordquist, Bruce; Dykes, Maggie FW: Chicken Coops Based on reading the September 6th issue of "Sun This Week" regarding chicken coops in Apple Valley I would like to voice my very strong opposition to the possible change in ordinance to allow this within the city limits. Code Enforcement right now has a tough enough job enforcing the current ordiances rules in keeping resident properties in compliance (height of grass, vehicles parked in yard, disabled vehicles on blocks, trash clutter behind homes, etc). Changing the ordinance to allow this in adding chicken coops (and I assume, expecting the City to monitor them for compliance) is a waste of time/resources and in my opinion will bring about more unsightly eyesores in the backyard of one's neighbor who has one. We do not need the smell, the noise or the dire need to fall into line with any other neighboring cities who may allow this. If you want to raise chickens, live on a farm or require the persons wanting to raise chickens to live on a property of 1 acre or larger (which should effectively eliminate that in most of Apple Valley's residential areas). Please do not bring this before the City Council, they have better things to do than approve (and have Code Enforcement monitor) chicken coops with the city limits. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 1 Murphy, Joan •"•'•••••••••"•,,,•• From: Sent: To: Subject: To the Members of the Urban Affairs Committee: We wholeheartedly support your recommendations as outlined in the draft ordinance. While we consider ourselves animal lovers, we particularly wish to emphasize our vehement opposition to allowing farm animals in residential neighborhoods! Further we strongly oppose increasing the number of animals allowed in any household, both in individual species and in the aggregate. No residence should be allowed to harbor more than six pets. Thank you for your efforts on this matter; our city council should certainly accept the draft ordinance as written. Sincerely, Dan and Deb Lingen 13196 Heritage Way 952.686.7333 Monday, September 09, 2013 9:28 PM Murphy, Joan Comment on Draft Ordinance 1 Murphy, Joan From: Sent: To: Subject: Grawe, Charles Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:15 AM Murphy, Joan; Nordquist, Bruce FW: Karl Moberg commented on a link City of Apple Valley, MN shared. From: Facebook [mailto:update+kidm dkdijh @facebookmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 8:41 PM To: Grawe, Charles Subject: Karl Moberg commented on a link City of Apple Valley, MN shared. 'A* Karl Moberg commented on a link City of Apple Valley, MN shared. Karl wrote: You should start to allow chickens in Apple Valley again!!" - to ema tc ( .....)r) th link, social©ci.apple-valley.mn<us., unsubscribe„ 1 Murphy, Joan • From: Sent: To: Subject: From: Facebook [mailto:update±kjdm dkdijh @facebookmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 6:17 PM To: Grawe, Charles Subject: BJ Knight commented on a link City of Apple Valley, MN shared. • Grawe, Charles Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:15 AM Nordquist, Bruce; Murphy, Joan FW: BJ Knight commented on a link City of Apple Valley, MN shared. EU Knight commented on a link City of Apple Valley, MN shared. BJ wrote: "Less than 4 would be better. No one needs 6 animals on a residential lot in Apple Valley." unstibscribe:. 1 Dykes, Maggie From: Sent: To: Subject: Grawe, Charles Monday, September 09, 2013 8:17 AM Lawell, Tom; Nordquist, Bruce; Dykes, Maggie FW: Beth Lewis commented on a link City of Apple Valley, MN shared. From: Facebook [mailto:update+kjdm dkdijh @facebookmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 9:16 PM To: Grawe, Charles Subject: Beth Lewis commented on a link City of Apple Valley, MN shared. tOirle* Beth Lewis commented on a link Cit of A.. e Valle MN shared. Beth wrote: "I moved from Apple valley to NW Arkansas a year ago and I'm now apart of the animal service department run by the city of Rogers. we have extensive ordinances here thanks to our animal shelter manager. Rogers is probably about the size of Apple Valley (maybe a little smaller but growing). We just passed a bunch of new ordinances which seem to be well received in this community. Good luck with everything., I learned really quick down here animal ordinances and enforcement is an important part of public safety and a happy community. I miss Apple Valley a lot." Ref* to this erriail tic.) corthment this link_ social@cLapple-valleT,mn.us, unsubscribe, Dykes, Maggie From: Sent: To: Subject: From: Facebook [mailto:update+kjdm dkdijh ©facebookmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 8:29 AM To: Grawe, Charles Subject: Diana M Young commented on a link City of Apple Valley, MN shared. 4 Grawe, Charles Monday, September 09, 2013 8:16 AM Lawell, Tom; Nordquist, Bruce; Dykes, Maggie FW: Diana M Young commented on a link City of Apple Valley, MN shared. ; tins ernall conlinenti on Inv Diana M Young commented on a link City of Apple Valley, MN shared. Diana wrote: "Chickens in Apple Valley? Absolutely not. Want to be like China and eventually introduce SARS to our community not to mention all the poop and bugs. People really will not take care of them or the environment. Fun at first but a lot of work later after losing its attraction. And if you are inclined to allow this, the owner will need to be at least on 1 acre. already live next door to a single family home turned into a multifamily who would do the chicken thing." - 1111E; rnEg!saige social@ci.apple-valleymn.us, Tr unsubscribe, Animal Ordinances Review Public Comment Meeting Urban Affairs Advisory Committee September 24, 2013 Background • October 2012- City Council directed Urban Affairs Committee (UAC) to review existing animal ordinances. • Some residents in single - family residential neighborhoods asked City Council to review ordinances in order to keep animals other than "house pets" on their property. • These residents interested in keeping chickens and goats. • Current ordinance does not allow keeping of these types of animals. • City Council directed UAC to review City's existing animal ordinances. 9/24/2013 1 UAC Meetings • UAC has met 4 times — April, May, June and August. All meetings were open to the public and publicly announced. • UAC also had joint meeting with City Council in July to update the Council and get feedback. • UAC reviewed Apple Valley ordinance, other cities' ordinances, Code Enforcement issues, policy considerations, and other material. Current Ordinance • Chapter 91: Pertains primarily to cats and dogs; does not address other animals. • Chapter 155 (Zoning Code): References only "house pets ", which is not defined. • Section 155.053 allows "domestic animals commonly kept as 'house pets' for non - commercial purposes, for the use of the occupants of the premises" as permitted accessory uses in single - family residential neighborhoods. • City practice: dogs, cats, small animals kept indoors, etc.; horses can be kept in the "R -1" zones per Code. • No performance standards in Code for keeping of animals. 9/24/2013 2 Other Cities' Ordinances • UAC reviewed City of Cottage Grove survey of 52 cities done in November 2012. • Roughly 2/3 prohibit chickens on urban residential lots. • e.g. Blaine, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids, Eden Prairie, Edina, Lakeville, Maple Grove, Plymouth, St. Louis Park and Woodbury • Roughly 1/3 allow chickens to be kept on urban residential lots, generally with permits and limited in number. • Urban residential lots = smaller than 18,000 sq. ft. • Equals Apple Valley's "R -2" zoning district (Single Family Residential /minimum lot size 18,000 sq. ft.). • Keeping goats, bees, pigs, and similar livestock is prohibited in most cities. • Generally seen as more disruptive to residential neighborhoods, and not consistent with the single - family uses. UAC Discussion • Based on the information reviewed, UAC determined that changes were needed to the ordinance to create standards for the keeping of animals. • To address issues of clarity, clean up language so that it was easier to understand, address changes in State statutes. • 3 major changes to the animal ordinances in Chapter 91: 1. Create a definition of "Household Pet "; 2. Limit the number of certain animals that may be kept at residential properties; 3. Clarify which animals would not be allowed to be kept at residential properties. 9/24/2013 3 Potential Ordinance Amendments • Create a new definition for "Household Pet" (none currently exists). • Includes only these animals (most commonly kept pets in U.S.): • Dogs • Rabbits • Cats • Rodents • Ferrets • Reptiles, Amphibians • Birds excluding all farm (non- poisonous) poultry • Insects (chickens, ducks, etc.) • Fish • Service animals also permitted to be kept per ADA laws. • Animals must be caged and kept inside the residence, except dogs, cats, rabbits, and fish, which may be kept outside of the residence in appropriate shelters or enclosures. Potential Ordinance Amendments • Limit the number of certain animals to be kept at each residence. • Not more than 3 dogs, or 3 cats, or 3 ferrets at each residence. These 3 types are limited because of rabies protocol for these animals. • Current code limits dogs and cats — no more than 3 each. Not more than 6 of these animals in any combination per residence. • e.g., At a typical residence, there could be 2 dogs, 2 cats, and 2 ferrets, or some similar combination. But no residence would have more than 3 dogs, 3 cats or 3 ferrets at any one time (except with kennel license). Limitations on number of other types of animals not considered by UAC at this time. 9/24/2013 4 Potential Ordinance Amendments • Prohibit keeping these animals on residential property: • Farm animals including goats, cattle, sheep, pigs (including potbellied), and bees. • NOTE: These animals are currently not considered "house pets" and not permitted to be kept on residential lots. • Farm poultry including chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, and pigeons. • NOTE: These animals are currently not considered "house pets" and not permitted to be kept on residential lots. • Any animal prohibited by Federal or Minnesota law, and wild or non - domesticated animal, including but not limited to bears, lions, wolves, raccoons, poisonous snakes, and apes. Ordinance would also prohibit the sale of these animals in Apple Valley. Public Comments • Press releases were sent to Star Tribune, Pioneer Press, Apple Valley- Rosemount Patch, and Apple Valley Sun ThisWeek. • News stories ran in Patch and Sun ThisWeek. • Information regarding the draft amendments were posted on City's website and Facebook page. • City has received comments from the public via phone calls, emails, and the City's Facebook page. • About 20 comments as of September 23rd. Generally pertain to keeping of chickens on residential lots, with about 50 -50 split supporting /opposing chickens. • These comments have been shared with the UAC, and forwarded to the City Council. • The comments received will be evaluated as part of a recommendation for ordinance changes. 9/24/2013 5 Next Steps • UAC will continue to meet to determine what changes should be made to the City Code regarding animals. • When the UAC believes issues have been addressed, UAC will forward recommendation to City Council for consideration. • Staff anticipates the UAC could deliver a recommendation to the City Council in the first quarter of 2014. • City Council will review the work and recommendation, and determine what ordinance changes should occur. Recommended Action • Open the public comment meeting and receive comments. When all meeting attendees who wish to speak have done so, staff recommends the UAC close the meeting. • Please note, public comments received after the September 24th meeting will still be accepted while the UAC continues its work; these comments will be forwarded onto the City Council. 9/24/2013 6 9/24/2013 7 Received Tuesday, September 24, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Animal Ordinance Comment: From: Christina Vincent 297 Pinewood Dr. Apple Valley, MN 55124 She would like to see chickens allowed in Apple Valley. She feels the health benefits are better than store bought eggs. Feels up to 6 chickens should be allowed but no rosters. She does not think there should be a yearly application fee. Received Tuesday, September 24, 2013, 11:15 a.m. Animal Ordinance Comment: From: Brenda Selner 13580 Geyser Path Apple Valley, MN 55124 She is in favor of chickens. She has heard positive comments about chickens in Lakeville, Eagan and Rosemount. Murphy, Joan From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tom O'Keefe Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:20 PM Murphy 1ran; carawe@ci.apple-applevalley.mn.us Comment on change of City Code for chickens To: Sharon Schwartz, Chair of the Urban Affairs Committee, and members of that Committee Arthur Zimmerman, Chair of the Traffic and Safety Committee, and members of that Committee Charles Grawe, Assistant City Manager John Rechtzigel, Police Chief Re: City of Apple Valley Urban Affairs Committee Requests for Comment on proposed changes to City Ordinances In my opinion the City of Apple Valley should evaluate the number of complaint calls related to people who may own chickens in within the Apple Valley City Limits. If it's not many why not allow people to have 4 or less chickens if they follow the new City Code for owning chickens. This new Code , if adopted , should be modeled after the Code that the City of Burnsville and other adjacent communities have adopted for allowing chickens to live on one's property within the city. But I think the City needs to go beyond this issue with the chickens related to changes that need to be made in the City Ordinances. How long has it been since they were revised? The City has changed much in the 22 years I've lived here. The City Ordinances have to relate to State Law and have to adapt to changes that have been made in State Law and the demographics and current culture of the city. For example; there are city ordinances on the books for those violating the use of fireworks but they are seldom enforced even though there are I would guess THOUSANDS of complaints around the City regarding the abuse of illegal fireworks around the 4th of July. The City also MUST write a new ordinance and enforce a new ordinance related to bicycle/pedestrian safety. There is NO requirement from the City to acquire a license for bicycles even though the City has over 60 miles of bike trails now most of which are also pedestrian walkways. I can't tell you the number of times that I or my small dogs have almost been hit by inconsiderate bike riders even though they are supposed to follow Minnesota Statute 169.222 Operation of Bicycle which states: " Subd. 4.Riding rules. (a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations: 1 (d) A person operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk, or across a roadway or shoulder on a crosswalk, shall yield the r' ht.-of-way to an edestrian and shall •ive an audible siunal when neeessar before overtakinu and )assintz a n. destrian. No person shall ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk within a business district unless permitted by local authorities. Local authorities may prohibit the operation of bicycles on any sidewalk or crosswalk under their jurisdiction." Rarely to bike riders give this warning on the path 1 walk on adjacent to Pilot .Knob (West side) between McAndrew and Diamond Path because 1.) They don't know this law exists, 2.) they aren't required to know it because of an absence of a licensing process, and 3.) the path is designated as an official "Bike Route" so they ASSUME they don't have to obey the above law. ( I know this because I've asked them. ) To summarize, I believe the City has to go beyond changing the ordinance related to chickens and evaluate ALL the ordinances. Some may need deletion. The City may need to add NEW ones that correspond to State law and the City, in my opinion , needs to do a better job enforcing laws and ordnances that are already on the books and have a high number of complaints and/or violations like those related to fireworks. Thank you for considering any comments above. Thomas S. O'Keefe 12664 Emmer Place Apple Valley, MN 55124 2 Dykes, Maggie From: Sent: To: Subject: •••-,,,,,•-••••• • From: Ben Schultz [r Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 1:42 PM To: Grawe, Charles Subject: Council Communication Mayor Hamann-Roland Council members: John Bergman Tom Goodwin Ruth Grendahl Clint Hooppaw Ben Schultz 156 Chaparral Drive Apple Valley, MN. 55124 Grawe, Charles Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:42 AM Lawell, Tom; Dykes, Maggie; Nordquist, Bruce FW: Council Communication The purposed ordinance to allow chickens in Apple Valley is ridiculous. Our Mayor stated how proud she is that Apple Valley is a great place to live and is rated as the 17 best place to live in the country. Now, a few people want to have chickens so we have to change the ordinance despite the fact that the majority of resident to not want to turn Apple Valley into a barnyard. What's next, if someone wants to have a cow in their backyard? Just because Farmington allows chickens doesn't mean that Apple Valley has to follow down that path. I am a dog lover but for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would need six dogs. My Neighbor had a dog pen next to my bedroom window and because of the smell; I could not open my window during the summer. My wife was attack by a loose dog while walking down the street. Now she has to live with the scar. I believe the calls to code enforcement will increase exponentially not only for barking dogs but also for unleashed dogs. I have lived in Apple Valley for almost 40 years and have seen my city grow to its present state. So far, the city has done an outstanding job of keeping my city a great place to live. Please do not turn Apple Valley into just another city full of chickens, barking dogs and a place where a few people can change the desires of the majority. Dykes, Maggie From: Sent: To: Subject: From: brent schulz [mailto: Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 it:ui AM To: Grawe, Charles Subject: Chicken Coops? Mayor Mary and the Apple Valley City Council — Grawe, Charles Monday, September 23, 2013 8:09 AM Lawell, Tom; Dykes, Maggie; Nordquist, Bruce FW: Chicken Coops? There is a meeting on Sep 24 concerning the ability to maintain CHICKENS in Apple Valley that I will be unable to attend, but I want to express my COMPLETE SUPPORT for this capability. Please forward this letter to the appropriate individuals for me. As a residential real estate broker I know that there are a number of strong trends affecting the housing market, and that safe, LOCALLY SOURCED food is one of them; having laying hens in your back yard is the ultimate local food supply! The program would have to be STRUCTURED PROPERLY of course; limit on the number of birds, no roosters, property line setbacks, and humane conditions (heat, water, food, space). It is already legal to keep chickens in both Mpls and St Paul. If those cities can design and monitor a successful laying hen program on their 40'x125' city lots then we should certainly be able to do it on our typically HUGE LOTS. I strongly support this measure, and I would welcome the opportunity to serve on a city advisory committee helping to draft the necessary ordinance. Thanks you, teiv, Brent Schulz. Broker 1 Bruce Nordquist Community Development Director Apple Valley, Minnesota My name is Bill Tschohi| live etOl3Ol37~'StVV. Thank you for allowing me to appear before you this evening. Thank you for all you and your staff do for the city. 1 moved here with my wife and 3 children inl979.|n1982|joined Coldwell Banker and enjoyed a 32 year career in real estate. Coming to Apple Valley to live was the best decision we made. The city has enjoyed good leadership over the years with mayors such as Will Branning and Mike Garrison. We have the best possible mayor, Mary Hamann-Roland and City Council. We are ranked #17 in a nationwide survey. That is why I am here tonight. We want to continue to be the great city we all love so much. 1 respect the wishes of some to raise chickens and goats. After considerable research and talking to friends and neighbors, 1 must request that you carefully study what is involved prior to expanding what animais are atlowed in an urban setting. Most important, we need to avoid the possibitity of neighbor conflicts. The presence of backyard chickens will impact neighbors, add pollutants to storm runoff and introduce a new source of salmonella into our environment. It takes two pounds of feed called mash, to produce a pound of eggs. The alternative is to supptement chicken feed with food waste and backyard grass. This means the possibility of garbage laying in your back yard attracting rodents. Are home grown eggs healthier? The Center for Disease Control reportedly has warned about the presence of salmonella in residentially raised chickens. No impact on neighbors? You can't disguise the smell of chicken waste that has saturated into the boards of chicken coops or into the soil. The presence of spilled feed and food waste will attract mice and fox. The presence of these animals or even neighborhood dogs can cause a racket in a hen house any time. Who will enforce the no rooster rule, etc? Code Enforcement staf and police operate with constrained budgets and limited staff. Unless staff is increased, backyard chicken regulations will be nearly unenforceabte. Enforcement will possibly fall to the neighbors. Goat raising requires a lot of work. They require a lot of space. Males are commonly known as bucks and they have a very strong and repulsive odor that many people find unbearable. Goats tend to wander and they need a pen. Some feel they need guard dogs for the goats. They prefer to live in a group. 1 would like to see added to the prohibited animais in the city limits; chickens, goats, turkeys, ducks and quail. By doing this hopefully we can hopefully head off future problems of neighbor conflicts. We do not want to lose residents from this wonderful city who do not want to deal with the issue of noise and smell. It is easy to say OK with it if you don't live next door. Thank you. 7ne debate over keeping chickens in yards, ace these in Centerville in June, is coming 7 — o Deephaven and Woodland. Deephaven and Woodland proponents say its about properLy r Pitts; critics worry about re ,Auces By KELLY SMITH kelly.smith@startribune.com Two small Lake Minnetonka conllnunities are the latest to jump into the not debate over allowing back-yard chickens — an issue that's increasingly confronted metro suburbs. But for Deephaven and Woodland, the unconventional animal request poses a new challenge as they are smaller cities with fewer resources to manage it. On Monday, about 50 eephaven residents are expected to pack City Tall to try to convince divided city leaders that back-yard chickens can work there like they do in more than a dozen metro cities. —"It's just 0 e of those emotional issues vhere people think the worst will happen," resident jillian McGary said. "It bothers me as I You a property owner that I can't use my land to What: Deep F GO grow my food." haven City One of the critics she's trying to convince is council her back-yard neighbor, Paul Skrede, the city's ti lien: 7 pm. mayor. He didn't return messages for co m- Monday ment, but he's one of the council erribers I/Where: 20225 who has voiced concern to the change, saying Cottagewood it could ree comP: aints that t e 3 ,000 -1 :51- Road, Deep dent city won't have the resources L handle. haven "We're not the city of Minneapolis, and we don't have those resources," Council Menaber Steven Erickson added in an intervievv. I just don't see it being advantageous in the city, but ;cke 2 fr 10 k i T OO 11 :r Tax Ueduclibk L vJh 5 F 0 r 5 I 5 !9 CHICKENS FROM 131 if the residents put up enough [of a case for chickens] ... I'm not going to actively block it." Chickens' `PR problem' It's a debate that more metro cities have faced over the past few years as everyone from 4 -H students to sustain.ability enthusiasts push for locally grown food. Minneapolis and St. Paul allow chickens, as do suburbs such as Bloomington, St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, Burnsville and Robbinsdale, usually with restrictions such as prohibiting roosters or con - taining the flock size. In Woodland, one resident's recent request has spurred the city to draft an ordinance that could be voted on this fall. "Given the popularity of this activity, we thought we should at least consider an ordinance," Woodland Mayor Jim Doak said. "It's a reasonable request.' But not every city is a fan of the fowls. Cities such as White Bear Lake, Wayzata and Eden Prairie have opted to keep chickens outlawed. "The problem with chick- ens is they have a PR problem; people are ill- informed," said Loren Martin, who recently raised three chickens at his home in St. Louis Park. "The argument that chickens are a nuisance to neighbors because of noise isn't the case. Your neighbors won't even know you have them. When he and his family moved to a larger half -acre lot in Deephaven this simmer, he sold their hens in 24 hours to a south -metro homeowner. Now, he's among the residents push- ing for the ordinance change, saying the chickens will teach . his three young children where their food comes from and give the family fresh eggs. "There's no reason Deep- t Kelly Smith • 612- 673 -4141 Twitter: @kellystrib haven needs to be in the dark ages here," Martin saki. "A lot of cities are doing this." Grog interest Chickens are technically allowed in Deephaven on agri cultural areas with more than 10 acres, but few, if any, places qualify. A Police Department employee oversees animal con- trol issues. "How enthusiastic are you going to be to have that one individual tracking down chickens ... instead of some emergency situation ?" City Administrator Dana Young said. McGary, though, predicts the city won't receive many complaints, if any. In Centerville, for instance, which is a similar size to Deep - haven, the city clerk said the city has received two requests for chickens since they were allowed in June. A building official goes out to confirm that the coop and animals fol- low city rules, but she said the city has had no complaints so far. In Deephaven, the City Council isn't expected to vote on the issue Monday but will likely continue the discussion. "To change an ordinance, you have to have an over- whelming evidence or push by the residents," Council Mem- ber Darel Gustafson said. That's what McGary, whose husband is on the planning commission, was told when she spoke at the council last April. She's since gathered more than 80 signatures on a petition. "We're so far always from the food we eat and it both- ers me," she said "I think we might be overthinking this a little bit." By Sarah Hon,. shorner@pioneerpress.com righton studie From the front, nothing about the house in suburban New Brigh- ton appears that different. A car sits in the driveway near a flower bed of towering magenta amaranth plants. A small pirate flag waves from atop a picnic table, a nod to the "Peter Pan"-inspired n ne the women who live here gave the half-acre property when they moved in seven years ago. Behind the one-story house, how- ever, is a different scene. There, you see sprawling vegeta- ble gardens, berry plants, bee hives and lots of fowl. A large coop SEP E. 'ER 7 3, 2013 > CLASS 5-8L ssue as extends from the back de• houses 2, dozen vat:I a few herYzEge., keys, a couple ducks and one Serz - ma rooster A basket brimm.7 with vegetables sits ori a table near a garden bed. Next to it is a bowl full of multicolored. eggs. The collection represents a day's harvest at "Lost Boys Acre," al, experimental urban farm operated by four women in the quiet resi- dential neighborhoo,d near SillTer Lake Road and Interstate 6. A.ATht you don't see is the tension with triell- next-door neigkibors a couple in their 70s , , , ,Thc have lived BACKYARD FARM, 4A • Li ;01 IS S PIONEER PRESS: JEAN PIERI "She's our diva chick," Cyd Gutz says as she offers an apple to a young frizzle-feathered Serarna chicken she and her three housemates are • raising at their New aici house, dubbed "Lost Boys Acres.". ## F C NTH' LIED FR lA Pi N S1 s, TwinCities.com St. Paul Pioneer Press in their house for nearly 0 yea's, at egaOOons o )n- e , ,y and bullying tra ctec between the two households. The dispute has spilled into New Brighton City Hall with complaints issued to staff and police. Kristie Dellis, 38, the registered owner of the house at 715 Forest Dale Road, said she has contacted the ne- sota Department of Human Rights as well. State officials, however, cannot confirm W NT W : : , 253 Vhst 7th Su ect, Via. i nui DowntownerWoGdfire.ccm 6731 .228.9500 ,Department of Minnesota Proceeds help local veterans of Minnesota Accepting all vehicles including boats and RVs 100% Tax Deductible - Free pick -up, ANYWHERE (657) 15,1-3 www.VehiclesForVeteransMN.com PitES Twi Twineitiesecorn active complaints. While the city hasn't tracked the cost of the complaints in terms of staff hours, it has taken up substantial resourc- es. Next -door neighbors Bob and Gerry Parrott say the women's farming is out of control and highly disruptive. Kellis says the Parrotts are unreasonable and that , her property is well maintained. Furthermore, she says it's within her legal rights as a New Brighton resident to operate an urban farm. Although New Brighton has a nuisance ordinance, the city has no specific rules regulat- ing the keeping and raising of fowl or other practices associ- ated with farming within its city limits. Some 60 residents are said to be engaged in the practice to varying degrees. Prompted by the conflict — now in its second year — the city recently assembled a task force to study how other com- munities have tackled urban farming, an increasingly pop- ular practice in Minnesota and elsewhere. The commit - tee is expected to make rec- ommendations to the city council next spring. apap ray In Ectracc Lion "We are not looking for this thing to spread," New Brigh- ton Mayor Dave Jacobsen said of the Forest ale Road con- flict. "We hope the task force can clarify what is reasonable for urban farming before this issue turns our city into a battleground." IN CONFLICT On a recent tour of Lost Boys Acre, Kellis points out vegetables growing in one of the many backyard gardens. Most of them are planted in raised beds, but this year the women also planted in straw bales to honor the "experi- mental" part of their mission. The decision to raise quail was prompted by the same desire, Dellis said "We experiment with what can be done in a suburban environment so we can edu- cate other people about what works," Dellis said. She added that it's increasingly impor- tant for people to rethink how they get their food. The food they produce feeds Dellis and her three house- mates as well as five other families who volunteer at Lost Boys Acre, she said. Addition- al food is shared with neigh- bors and friends. No money exchanges hands, Dellis said, adding that three of the women in the house have full-time jobs. Lost Boys Acre started rais- ing birds about two years ago. Dellis describes the animals as relatively quiet and says odor is regulated through the use of a "deep litter" compost- ing 'method. Bob Parrott disagrees. "We can't really enjoy our back yard anymolne; 11 just depends which way the wind is blowing," Parrott said "And then there's the noise, Have you ever heard a chicken lay- ing an egg? It's like a woman in labor, and they have about 20 laying hens." The Parrotts also cite con- cerns about runoff into a pond behind their house, as well as unsightliness from the way the women maintain the prop- erty Complaints to the city stut- ed about the time the birds rived. tho gh staff cant disclose the names of corn- ants, 11 reports are file related to Lost Poys Acre, according to information pro- vided by New 4righton City Manager lean Lotter. Some six reports have bee filed with p .lice. Only o ce were the wome found to be in violation of city code, whe a vehicle was parked on s ma proved s face, acc rding to city records. art of the •roblem here is perspective," Jacobsen s' 'd. "City staff don't have a cali- brated nose to tell what the degree of odor is r how noisy it is t all ho s. ... There's a lot of gray area here." To Kellis, the lack of 'ola- tins is proof the tts' beef with she , her se- mates goes deepen She sus- pects the couple's real issue is their non-nucle family d religious beliefs. Two of the w en practice paganism. says she fol- lows "Earth-bdised spiritu 5 Kellis points to a time when Gerry Parrott called police a garden statue o ths Lost Boys Acre property was an 4ten pt by the women. to "point demons at her," Kel- lls sd. "They won't give us one spe- cific Wing we can do 'I; I c negotiate with a specific problem, but they won't give me one," Kellis said They just hate us." While ack owledging his wife's comment shswed "ignorance," Bob Parr tt said allegatio .s of bias are attempts to distract from the real issue. "We're t1dng about back- yard farn g and what is rea- sonable f.r a. reside' tial area," Parr said. "We're net opposed to it alt gether; but t have 20 laying hens, a rooster, plus ducks, quail and turkeys see, :s way beyond what one household eeds. They're basically r g a large poultry bus' ,,ess." A .‘ ediation attempt between the neighbors last winter was unsuccessful . each side cl the ; ; ;ajority of other residets in the eighborhood support them. Other neighbors of the wot len surveyed by the Pio- neer Press were split. "They have a lot gs,: on there, but it seems clean and well c.ed for," s'. Chuck of whs lives down the street. heyTe raishg heaithy food, hich is h d to get at grocery stores these days." "It's e sy to be 111C with it if y do 't live next dosr," said Na: cy Nyg ard, another eighborhood reside t. "I wouldn't w t them as iy neighbor. They've got t o ny things going 'in that don't belong in this area." The women's other next- door neighbor suldn't be reached for co, i ent. NHE The city does not expect the task fsrce to solve the dis- pute, Lotter said "If the council passes no ordinance ad chooses not to regulate „ything, the c n- ffict will cont', ,ue. if the coun- cil adopts something very ,o, the c nflict will cunt ue „ There is no way to legislate an swer for people w, 43 don't w 1 to t al ng,” the city , ;onager Instead, the task force h pe- fully will help head off future robler s with what is seen as a growing trend urban corn, 1 ties, Lotter s 'd. Me ibers will s end the writer st dying the iss with hopes of making recorri- ndatio s to the city council in the spring. cities across the metro have approached the subject ; ferently Some — 1te,WhiteBear ake and Coon Rapids — ban k„,eping chickens. Shoreview aaws up to four birds on 1)roperties snialler than 2 acres. IVIaplewi:)oci perniits 10 vvith a permit a.s brig as 100'pei.icent o 'neighbors are on board. St. Paul r: es 75 percerit of neighbors si off, though it places no cap o the number .f chickens allowed. Mi ne polis also regulates r.; :sing chicke s. It's possible New righton vvill keep b f g e- stricted, said Ch S. nu so, a city co ',ell member. "Who knows? We need to study it d see what our res- ide ts want," Sa uelson day 9-23-2013 ther co ',mil me ;bers did not respond to calls for com- ment. Neither the otts nor the ws,, from Lost I oys Acre were allowed on the task force, a decision Kellis said sh ws big s on the city's put . oth sides will be watching what happens closely "A pt of ; e is excited because this could allow for a really prsgressive conversa- tion abokt food policy that could make New Brighton a leader," Mils s,"d. "tut it worries ;e that the co' ,cil's goal is regulation , of;d they want t specifically target ebicke s." ob Parrott said he hopes restrictions are corning; oth- erwise, he s,ys he and his wife will be moving. "We're both 70 years old. m y years do we have left and what kind of enjoy- ment are we getting out of a place if we continuously have the issue of noise ,s; d the occasional. smell?" h s :d. Lost toys Acre will be ound reg dless of the out- coe, Ken's said "Lfeverytine s eone tried to do so ething new ... they just walked away when it got hard, we would ever have eh -, ;ge," Kerbs s "d. "Some- one h s to st up to bul- lies." "I'd say we're the nes being bullied," Bob A arrott said. Sarah H rner can be reached at 657-228-5539. F Ilow her at twitter.comihornsarah. Arguments Against Easing Zoning Restrictions to Permit Raising Chickens in Residential Areas By Jim Pebley If the County Board changes the setback ordinance for residential lots to permit raising poultry, the presence of backyard chickens will impact neighbors, add pollutants to storm runoff and introduce a new source of salmonella to our environment, while not offering the gains in sustainability being claimed. The County Board has created a taskforce to study Urban Agriculture and make recommendations to them. Since the Task Force didn't include a Civic Federation representative in this group, introduced a resolution at the April meeting opposing changing the residential zoning code. Subsequently, a Civic Federation representative was appointed and I agreed to moving consideration of that motion be deferred to the October 2012 meeting. First - to be fair, here's a link to the Arlington Egg Project. I'd urge you to read what they are advocating and why, http: / /arlingtoneggproject.org/ - then please read on. Here's why many of us are concerned: 1. Fresh eggs? Admittedly, locally raised eggs may taste better. But isn't that why we have three farmer's markets open each weekend in Arlington so you can buy fresh eggs (and produce) without buying the chickens, coops, feed, and deal with the waste byproducts? How will any new urban agriculture initiatives impact these smaller farming businesses? 2. Sustainability? According to the EPA, on average, it takes two pounds of feed (called mash) to produce a pound of eggs ( http: / /www.epa.gov/ agriculture /ag101 /printpoultry.html ). That means twice the transportation energy costs. The alternative is to supplement chicken feed with food waste, available bugs and backyard grass. That means you'll have garbage lying in your back yard, attracting rats and other rodents to feed on and bare soil where the lawn used to be. 3. Are home grown eggs are healthier? The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has published a warning about the presence of Salmonella in residentially raised chickens. The chicks often arrive infected, so, the waste in their yard will contain Salmonella and the eggs will be coated with it. Unless you lace the chicken feed with antibiotics or you wash the eggs in detergent and bleach (they will lose that "fresh taste "), you will risk bacterial infections that CDC says are dangerous to young children and seniors. Here's a link to the CDC article - htt• www.cdc.ov health •ets •df intown flocks.•df The Washington Post ran a similar article in the May 31st edition on page Al2 titled, "Mail Order Chicks Tied to 318 Cases of Salmonella." by Mike Stobbe (article on next page) F"uoPage One Mail-order dficks 4. Free fertilizer? Granted — chickenwasteishchin nitrates which can help plants grow in controlled ' - amounts. But unlike the fertilizer you can buy, the waste also contains an overabundance of potassium and phosphates. |f you put too much on your plants you will chemically burn them. If you own four chickens, they will produce about 140 Ibs of waste per year (including straw bedding, feathers, etc.) You'd need about half of that for an average home's Iandscaping. The rest must be carefully disposed of. Since you can't catch all the waste, some significant percentage will wash into your downhill neighbor's yard or the storm drains and may reach the Chesapeake Bay, according David Luther, a George Mason biology professor (Arlington Connection, Thursday, April 19, 2012). S. No impact on neighbors? Those of us with prior experience raising chickens know you can't disguise the smell of chicken waste that has saturated into the boards in chicken coops or into the uzU(seetheEPAUnkabove"potentia|'environmenta|impacts"). The presence of chicken waste, spU|edfeed'undiscoveredeggsand"homefoodvvoste"vviUattraotmice,rats, squirrels, possums, raccoons, and foxes. Even if you don't inadvertently purchase a rooster, the presence of any of uninvited creatures or even neighborhood dogs can cause a racket in a hen house any time. 8. Other governments permit chickens? Most of those cited by the Egg Project have Iarger average lot sizes than Arlington Baltimore has a 25 foot foot setback rule on chickens but the average lot size there is about a third the size of an average Arlington R5 lot. Egg Project proponents indicated to the Civic Federation's Planning and Zoning committee Iast year they would like to reduce the set- back for poultry in Arlington residential zoning from 100 feet to 10 feet. We need to ask County staffers how they will enforce setbacks, the no-rooster rule, mistreated animals and how to ensure that owners aren't raising the chickens for slaughter. Code Enforcement staff, PubIic Health staff and Animal Control have operated with severely constrained budgets and limited staffs for years. The Rat Task Force established 10 years ago is down by less than half the original staff. Unless code enforcement is up-staffed significantly, backyard chicken regulations will be nearly unenforceable. In any case, the initiation of enforcement will fall to the neighbors. orderchteks that wind op in chil- dren'S Easter baskets and bad,- :yard thrins have been liohed ow re th an :300 cases of m oriel a in the United ..3t.ates mostly in young,,,ters since '2004, Art estimated :50 million live 1.,oultry are sold. through e.aoh year in the 'United States in a business that has been booming of backyard Oki,. farniing :its a bobby among pe who like the idea of raising, their own food, Rut health officials are warr,in feet, feathers, bea:ks tnid eggs. "Most . people cart tell you that chicken meat may have salmonel- la on it,' said Ca.sey llarton Tavc,ill of the Coney:, for Disease Control anti Premition. 'But sur- prisingly, we :found many people are t'Aot aware tluit live chicks and s can spread salmonella 2003, at least 316: people in4:i states gut sick. in an outbreak ~~ Sitiee 2004, hundreds tir peoliie have goMrt 'rack in a aalmonella outbreak' tied primarily to one mail-ordtr hatzlIeryi official. say, timi primarily to one mail-order hatelicry. Health officials think thousands more .ilinesses con ably never reported. No one died, but three down peoPle were hospitalized. The. wexe detailed Wednesday in the New England journa] -d to 3 eases o Salraviella can cause diarrhea., lever and stomach pain but is met" fatal. It is7. 11.105t dd to young children, tlie elderly and people with weakened immune systems. The infection is usually writractedfrom fond, hut live ani- mals mri transmit it ti.ecause. the If you have more questions on these issues or would like copies of the citations contained above, contact Jim Pebley at (Umpeb|ev@vehzon.net) or taik to the neighbor of an illegal chicken coop (there have been several in Arlington). = Former Civic Federation President (1999-2002) • Former Planning Commission member (2005-2010) and chair, Committee • Raised on a 16 acre ranch with a real hen house and egg producing chickens. � salmonella ;bacteria can be in their feces, Salim neila outbreaks haVi, tilati 50 year,s, Health officials lia.ve long warned that people who olt,ti put 'Llteir fingers in their trio 'rite CDC says siren youniwr 'than touch chickens. Health cifficials advise peopl and to was1). their hands rho, Qughly aft.er g" live pool Alpotit liarcti,rie, mail live chicks in tile United States. 1 not otliy feed stores an farms but aroatturs with back- yard coops. 'The mail-order hous- es have seen. record sales i.ri recent ye �� oCuescmed an etglit. year investigation into salmonella illnesses, with more than per. cent of the t:.es tied 1..0 a hatchery indicated is in New i‘lexico. 9/13/13 Chickens and Animal Rights Sustainability Human Health c What's Wrong with Chicken? Concerns include animal rights, factory farming and human health. By Doris Lin, About.com Guide According to the US Department of Agriculture, the consumption of chicken in the United States has been clii steadilv since the 1.940s, and is now close to that of beef. Just from 1970 to 2004, chicken consumption more than doubled, from 27.4 pounds per person per year, to 59.2 pounds. But some people are swearing off chicken because of concerns about animal rights, factory farming, sustainability and human health. Factory Farming - Chickens and Animal Welfare Chickens and Animal Rights - What is Wrong with Eating Chicken? Killing and eating an animal, including a chicken, violates that animal's right to be free of abuse and exploitation. The a niina.1 11;:llit.s.„gs_Ls Rio n is that it is wrong to use animals, regardless of how well they are treated prior to or during .sl•s121.1 The animal welfare position differs from the animal rights position in that people who support animal welfare believe that using animals is not wrong, as long as the animals are treated well. Factory farming, the modern system of raising livestock in extreme confinement, is an often-cited reason for people going vegetarian. Many who support animal welfare oppose factory farming because of the suffering of the animals. More than 8 billion broiler chickens are raised on factory farms in the United States annually. While egg-laying hens are kept in battery cages, broiler chickens - the chickens who are raised for meat - are raised in crowded barns. Broiler chickens and laying hens are different breeds; the former having been bred to gain weight quickly and the latter having been bred to maximize egg production. Free Animal Rights Newsletter! Enter email address . Discuss in my forum A typical barn for broiler chickens might be 20,000 square feet and house L2'2 000 to 20000 chickens, which means there is less than one square foot per bird. The crowding facilitates the rapid spread of disease, which can lead to an entire flock being killed to prevent an outbreak. In addition to the confinement and crowding, broiler chickens have been bred to grow so large so quickly, they experience joint problems, jeg...deformities„ and heart disease. The birds are slaughtered when they are six or seven weeks old, and if allowed to grow older, often die of heart failure because their bodies are too large for their hearts. The rn.:tnps1 of Killing is also a concern to some animal advocates. The most common method of slaughter in the U.S. is the electric irnmobiliz4op slauohter method, in which live, conscious chickens are hung upside down from hooks and dipped into an electrified water bath to stun them before their throats and cut. Some believe that other methods of killing, such as controlled atmospbcresSuning,, are more humane to the birds. To some, the solution to factory farming is raising backyard chickens, but as explained below, backyard chickens use more resources than factory farms and the chickens are still killed in the end. Raising chickens for meat is inefficient because it;.tE:)kfs nds olArza _in to produce a single pound of chicken meat. Feeing that grain directly to people is much more efficient and uses far fewer resources. Those resources include the water, land, fuel, fertilizer, pesticides and time required to grow, process and transport the grain so that it could be used as chicken feed. Other environmental problems associated with raising chickens include methane production and manure. Chickens, like other livestock, produce methane, which is a greenhouse gas and contributes to climate change. Although chicken manure can be used as a fertilizer, disposal and proper management of manure jproblem because there is often more manure than can be sold as fertilizer and the manure pollutes the groundwater as well as the water that runs off into lakes and streams and causes algae blooms. Allowing chickens to roam free in a pasture or back yard requires even more resources than factory farming. Obviously more land is needed to give the chickens space, but also more feed is needed because a chicken running around a yard is going to burn more calories than a confined chicken. Factory farming is popular because, despite its cruelty, it is the most efficient way to raise billions of animals per year. People do not need meat or other animal products to survive, and chicken meat is no exception. One could stop eating chicken or go vegetarian, but the best solution is to vegan and abstain from all animal products. All of the arguments about animal welfare and the environment also apply to other animalrig hts.about.corn/od/animalsusedforfood/a/VVhats-Wrong -With-C hi cken.htm 1/2 Rai G ; How to raise goats is a skill that is developed over time and with practice. There are many minor things you need to keep in mind, and this is something that you will Iearn over a period of time. Raising Goats Goat raising requires a lot of work and watchfulness on your behalf, as they are a very difficult breed of livestock to raise and rear. They require a lot of space and there are many other considerations that need to keep in mind. There are so many different breeds of goats that are available, so you U wish to acquire. Some people choose to raise goats in orderto have them as pets. Though not the most popular choice pets around the world, they do have a certain degree ofcharm as domesticated animals, and . children also love thefr sight. They are docile in nature and do not generally display any aggressiveness, and as such they make good pets. Breeds Apart from keeping goats as pets, many people are seen raising them for meat and milk. Some people l are also seen to do this for brush and weed control, while some people prefer doing it for cheese. For each of these purposes, there is a specific breed that would be best suited, to produce the best results. Being clear about the purpose of raising them goes a long way in getting the right breed, and in providing the right living conditions for the animal. Raising boer goats is done primarily when they are being raised for meat. These are large and robust animals and are a great source of nutrition and meat. Alternately, people are commonly seen raising pygmy goats. Male and Female Goats Once you have decided which breed you want to raise, you must decide which gender you want. For breeding purposes, it makes sense to get both male and female goats, but there are certain advantages and disadvantages of both breeds. Males are commonly known as bucks, and they have a very strong and repulsive odor that many people find unbearable. Bucks that are neutered are known as wethers. Most people you come across will preferfemales to male goats. These are easierto 1 manage and also do not release the pungent odor. Care Goats tend to wander a lot in search of grass and land to graze on, and are also an easy prey for many predators, especially fyou live in the countryside. As a result of this, they need to be allowed to graze in a particular area that needs to be fenced in. This area is known as a goat pen, and it limits their movement beyond a certain level. This enables the owners to keep an eye on them at all times. For water, it is best to leave a bucket of clean water lying around, in a spot that is clearly visible to 1 ! you. It is also important to keep some guard dogs for them. vwwwuuzz|e.con/artimea/rosinu-000ts.htmo Goats eat almost anything that they see lying around, so feeding them the right kind of food is a prina� concern. The best thing to feed them is hay, and this should be fed to them about 2-3 times a day. The water and the food should preferably be kept in a place where their droppings do not come close to them. Additional supplements can also be added to the diet depending on the conditions of the goats and their specific requirements. For additional information on this you must take them and visit a veterinarian. The doctor will also give necessary medications and vaccinations to prevent major diseases from befalling the animal. Goats are very prone to pneumonia, so due care must be taken in j order to prevent this illness. You must remember that these aniimeks are primarily herd animals, and prefer to live in a group. Keeping them isolated for long periods of time, or raising a solitary animal will depress it and cause you many problems in the long run. It is best to raise at least 3-4 goats together. This will require you to constantly keep an eye on them and regularly monitor their movements and activities. Just like any 1 other domesticated livestock, they need adequate protection and sufficient care in order to thrive. B@Rahu|Thadani vvww.buzzle.com/articles/raising-goats.html Raising Goats About Buzzle | Privacy Policy ©2000-2012, 2013 Buzzle.com®. All rights reserved. 9/14/13 Twenty Truths About Raising Goats , Originators of Tennessee Neat Go TWENTY TRUTHS ABOUT RAISING GOATS Suramne Gaspamotto 4.564 County Road 300 aonn,, TX 76852 Phone 325/344-5775 "Choi on, (2exb*�� goat, ~~ No wager what you call 's the ilk:AL/4/ red liwat Search OCR Mortality and goats go together. Any species that has early sexual maturity short gestation, and multipte births is going to have deaths -- despite your efforts. Do your best and learn from your mistakes. Confined goats become unhealthy or dead goats. Goats need many acres to roam in order to stay worm- and disease-free. You cannot successfully feedlot goats; they can't take the stress and crowding. Unexpected problems *will* occur. Iilnesses, weather problems, broken fences — when you raise goats, problems are going to occur at the most nconvenient tLme, when you are exhausted, and when you can east afford it. Tryino to breed for all markets generally results in failure in most markets. Unless you have lots of acreage cheap labor, �nd a ton of money, you cannot produce quality breeding stock, show goats, and slaughter animals. Each category is a speciflc type of animal and mutually exclusive of each other. Seect one as your focal point and dabbe' n the others - if you must. If making the almighty dollar is your driving force, you are doomed from the start. Focus on quality animals and honest business dealings and the money wilI follow. Show goat and meat goats are *not* the same animal. If you want to raise meat goats, don't take nutrition or management advice from show-goat people. Don't try to make show goats into breeding stock or commercial goats. Show goats are raised completely different from meat goats. Goats are not the tin-can-eating animals of Saturday-morning cart:oon fame. Nutrition is the most complex part of raising goats. Rumens are very easy to upset. Think in terms of "feeding the rumen, not the goat." Have a qualified goat nutritionist review your specific needs and recommend a feeding program adapted specifically to your herd Improper feeding kilis goats. If someone offers you cheap bred does in the dead of winter, you can be sure that the deal is too good to be true. The act of moving them cross-country under such conditions is enough to make this a bad investment. The best you can expect is does and dead kids. Goats need time to adapt to new surroundings. Use common sense when transporting and relocating them. Goats are Jivestock -- not hurnans, dogs, or cats. They live outside, having a distinct social pecking order, and beat the heck out of each other regularly to maintain this ranking. Goats are delightful and intelligent animals, but they weren't created to ive in the house with you. Lose the urbanite approach to raising goats. A goat with a big rumen is not necessarily fat. A big rumen is indicative of a good digestive factory. A goat is a ruminant and a ruminant is a pot-bellied animal. Fat on a goat layers around internal organs and also forms "pones" or "handles" that you can grab with your fingers at ocations like where the chest meets the front eg. If you can pinch an inch offlesh at that point, the goat is likely fat. A light Iayer ofsubcutaneous fat over the ribs is essential. Goats are NOT "little cattle." Goats and cattle are ruminants and there the similarity ends. Think of goats as *first cousins* to deer in terms of how they ive, roam, and forage for food. Goats are linear thinkers. The shortest distance between two points to a goat is a straight line. If you place a gate at the north end ofthe pasture and the home pens are south, goats are going to stand at the south end ofthe pasture until you have the sense to cut a gate there. If water is on the immediate other side of the fence, goats will not walk down and around the fence to get to the water. It's 'right over there,' so they'll stand in one place until you show them how to access the water or until they die of thirst. Cut a gate for easy access and save yourself some grief. Learn to think like a goat. A male goat has only one purpose in life — to reproduce his species in general and his lineage in particular. A buck in rut is a dangerous animal. He may have been cute when you were bottle-feeding him, but he is a male on a mission when does are in heat -- and you are in his way. Be careful around and always respect the danger potential of breeding bucks. Bred does will kid . m the worst possible weather. vvhensunshine changes to storms and the temperature dmpsbelow ,..:11 oats.com/articles2/twentytruths06.html 9/14/13 Twenty Truths About Raising Goats freezing, Erie Kiaaing process win Degin. Bottle ')abies are a pain in the rear. Delightfully cute as they are, they grow up to be adults that are poorly socialized within the herd, overly-dependent upon humans, and usually at the bottom of the herd's pecking order. Do everything you can -- short of destroying a kid -- to avoid bottle babies. Goats are creatures of habit. If you have a goat that repeatedly hangs its horns in fencing, that goat will stick its head in the same place time after time until you fit the horns with a PVC pipe secured by duct tape. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Goats are HERD animals. More so than any other livestock, goats depend upon staying together for safety. They have few natural defenses and many predators. There is no such thing as a "disease-free" herd. There isn't a goat alive that doesn't have something that could be deemed *disease* in its system. The immune system requires a certain level of bacteria, worms, and coccidia in order to keep the goat healthy. No producer can guaranteed totally "disease-free" animals. When raising livestock, disease is a fact of life. You are never in control" to the extent that you want to be or think you are. Goats are the "Houdinis" of the fence world. If a goat can get its head through the fence, the body is going to follow. Goats do not naturally have a ''reverse gear." Fencing material designed especially for goats is a *must.* Cull or cope with your creation. Goats that are repeatedly sick, are overly susceptible to worms and coccidiosis, have chronic mastitis or foot rot/scald -- such animals should be culled and sold for food. Their line should not be perpetuated. Sell the best for breeding stock and eat the rest. tOgrifEARiir , Monthly Articies Me.. t Goa, Health Et Matiayorb(mt Important! Please Read This Notice! All information provided in these articles is based either on personal experience or information provided by others whose treatments and practices have been discussed fully with a vet for accuracy and effectiveness before passing them on to readers. In all cases, it is your responsibility to obtain veterinary services and advice before using any of the information provided in these articles. Suzanne Gasparotto is not a veterinarian.Neither tennesseemeatgoats.com nor any of the contributors to this website will be held responsible for the use of any information contained herein. - • " '""-" ' "' ' ° " The author, Suzanne Gasparotto, hereby grants to local goat publications and club newsletters, permission to reprint articles published on the Onion Creek Ranch website under these conditions: THE ARTICLE MUST BE REPRODUCED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND THE AUTHOR'S NAME, ADDRESS, AND CONTACT INFORMATION MUST BE INCLUDED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE REPRINT. We would appreciate notification from any clubs or publications when the articles are used. (A copy of the newsletter or publication would also be a welcome addition to our growing library of goat related information!) [GoatCampTM] [Tennessee Meat GoatsTM] [Myotonic Goats] [TexMaster" Goats] [Which Breed is Right for You?] [Ranch History] [The Present & Future] [Meat Goat Mania] [Registry of Myotonics, Tennessee Meat GoatsTM and Texlvlasters"] [News & Events] [Health and Management Articles] [Links] [ChevonTalk Discussion List] [E-Mail] [Home] JEFF S Livestock corn Discount livestoz)ck e'quipnicint, vaocii)s, and suppli.s. , All information and photos copyright © Onion Creek Ranch and may not be used without express written permission of Onion Creek Ranch. TENNESSEE NEAT GOAT rm and TEXt4ASTERI: are Trademarks of Onion Creek Ranch . All artwork and graphics (c) DTP, Ink and Onion Creek Ranch. Site Hosted by Khimaira Web Hosting vwvw.tennesseemeatgoats.com/articles2/twentyruths06.html 2/2