Rooster rules

Eduardo Ramos began raising chickens at his Cebada Canyon home when he bought the property a little more than a year ago, Ramos told the Sun.

“I did extensive research before acquiring the property and saw that this is the right place to keep my fowl because of zoning,” he said. “Then I started hearing rumors saying that I fight roosters here. I don’t. … I haven’t been convicted of anything. I don’t know why they persist on that without any evidence whatsoever.”

Cebada Canyon is an unincorporated community that sits in Santa Barbara County’s 3rd District 4 miles east of Lompoc. The neighborhood itself is agriculturally zoned, allowing for some ag activities with limits set in county code.

Ramos has about 140 birds on his property—with some roosters—which he said he uses for breeding and poultry shows; however, the noise and activity sparked complaints from his neighbors, and he later received a notice of violation for having too many birds on his property.

“The county told me, ‘You are going to have to get a minor conditional use permit or you will have to get rid of them,” Ramos said. “I’m not going to comply with a minor conditional use permit; these fowl are exclusively for my hobbies. They are for my own personal use.”

Current county code requires fowl keeping to be limited to “reasonable family use only,” the Planning and Development Department told the Sun.

In order to provide specific guidelines and address rooster-related concerns, the county recently created a new rooster ordinance to limit the number of roosters on each property based on parcel size—following examples set by Monterey, Ventura, and Los Angeles, which established similar ordinances to address noise and prevent cockfighting.

The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors approved the new rules 4-1 on Jan. 16, with 4th District Supervisor Bob Nelson dissenting. They limit parcels with less than 1 acre to one rooster; two roosters are now allowed on properties between 1 and 5 acres; and five roosters are allowed on properties with more than 5 acres, according to county documents.

The ordinance also establishes living and care standards for rooster keeping and requires a permit for keeping more roosters than the limit—with exemptions for large poultry ranching, local 4-H chapter members, educational poultry projects, or other “legitimate” agricultural activities.

While neighbors and animal activists celebrated the regulations and the possibility for quieter days and safer animal conditions, Ramos and other ag community members are concerned about losing the ability to practice their hobbies and limiting agricultural activities in the county.

Ramos said he’s working with a lawyer who’s looking through state and federal agricultural laws, with plans to file a lawsuit against the county for a violation of the right to farm.

“I want to be able to keep the fowl that I have right now,” Ramos said. “We’re not cockfighters; we’re backyard breeders, and I want the county to acknowledge that. If someone [else] does something wrong, why are we getting punished for them?”

Cebada Canyon residents flocked to the Jan. 16 meeting to speak during public comment, and several residents submitted public comment letters supporting the ordinance.

“I never thought I would be dealing with a complaint of over 100 roosters being housed on individual properties,” one resident wrote. Their name was redacted for fear of retribution. “This only spells out one thing, cockfighting. To me this is right up there with dog fighting, raising an animal for one specific reason, to fight; cruelty to the max.”

There are three spots in the canyon with more than 100 birds, which the resident said is too many for family consumption of eggs and chickens. Individuals housing roosters changed their story to say that they are raising birds for poultry shows, the resident alleged.

“If this is the case, let’s see the 4-H show pictures. All parents proudly display pictures of their kids at 4-H with their families, be it a goat, pig, cow, or a chicken,” the letter said. “These roosters are not for breeding or showing. People don’t usually like roosters around because they can over-breed a hen and end up killing her. People do not buy eggs for consumption that are fertile.”

Another Cebada Canyon resident, whose name was also redacted from their public comment letter, said that their closest neighbor started housing multiple roosters and the constant noise affected their day-to-day life.

While they have spent a lot of money to fix up their property to help maintain or improve its value to possibly sell their home, the resident said that they worry they’ve wasted their money after hearing that several neighbors had issues selling their homes due to neighboring rooster farms. Noise concerns are required to be disclosed when selling a house.

“I know if we wanted to sell our home, it would be a very hard sell, as anyone who came out to see the place would not be able to ignore the constant crowing of roosters,” they said.

Third District Supervisor Joan Hartmann told the Sun via email that complaints in her district—which now includes Cebada Canyon but used to oversee other rooster-impacted areas like Casmalia and Tepusquet before redistricting—sparked the conversations about the ordinance.

“Noise complaints consistently rank among the top issues brought to my office, affecting the quiet enjoyment of homes for many residents,” Hartmann said. “This ordinance aims to provide a clearer framework by defining the number of roosters allowed based on parcel size and establishing a permit process for legitimate poultry operations overseen by our animal control officer. It seeks to strike a balance.”

She added that she anticipates that this ordinance will lead to a reduction of roosters in residential neighborhoods, which “should contribute to greater harmony among neighbors.”

“Additionally, the ordinance introduces specific standards for rooster housing and spacing, ultimately enhancing the welfare of these birds and reducing potential agitation caused by overcrowded conditions,” Hartmann said. “Our goal is to create a more peaceful and neighborly environment while ensuring humane treatment for poultry operations that comply with the new regulations.”

Since this was an ordinance through the Department of Public Health and not Planning and Development, the changes impact all parcels in the unincorporated areas of the county, including ag-zoned land, 4th District Supervisor Nelson told the Sun.

“I did have some concerns because basically we’re banning [rooster keeping] on ag grounds,” he said. “If you can’t do it on ag property, where can you do it?”

Nelson added that he felt the county didn’t have all the information needed since individuals involved in poultry keeping or hobbyists involved in poultry shows weren’t a part of the initial conversations with the county’s Agriculture Advisory Committee and couldn’t provide input on the ordinance. He wanted to pass the ordinance back to the committee so it could conduct further research.

“Ninety percent of this is about noise and, again, when you live in ag zoning, you’re going to have animal noises. I don’t know if we want the Board of Supervisors deciding what’s too loud and what’s not,” he said. “That’s why we have residential zoning, so you reduce conflicts. … It’s concerning when we start to use urban criteria on ag properties.”

Reach Staff Writer Taylor O’Connor at toconnor@santamariasun.com.

This article appears in Jan 25 – Feb 4, 2024.