# Salt Lake County Proposed Ordinance Change



## Kirklan (Sep 20, 2007)

Thankfully I no longer live in the great state of Utah, but those who do, particularly those in SLC county, may want to know about a proposed ordinance change. This is a copy of an email sent to me by the Utah Falconers Association. They frequently use pigeons for training of their raptors and are concerned that this new ordinance will no longer allow them to do so. Everything in red is from the email

http://documents.clubexpress.com/do...RVN9zAlaVXm8EVI0mTlvPx6Z8F01bLG5mJ8MKeF3AriA=

"Hello Everyone,

I received the following from one of our our directors at large. It applies to those who live in unincorporated SL County. I don't have a mailing list for that area only so you all get it, but it is an example of what can come down the pike for any of us. For all those that this would pertain to, please read it.

Thanks

As I read the plain language, this ordinance would eliminate the ability to have a pigeon flock for falconry purposes, for pigeon racing, for regular pigeon fanciers or for dog trainers. Taking the language at face value, these are some of the provisions that I believe would eliminate the ability to have a working loft.

1. The ordinance would not "allow the animal to be at large, off the premises or outside the enclosure." You could not release your pigeons to fly around the loft, trip out for training or be used for racing, given the definition in the ordinance of being "at large." There is another clause that states that domestic fowl "must be kept in an enclosure or coop at all times." These two provisions clearly would prohibit flying free since pigeons fall within the ordinance's definition of "domestic fowl."

2. The ordinance would not allow breeding of pigeons since it does not allow the keeping of males. The ordinance defines allowed domestic fowl as "any of a variety of female domesticated chicken, pigeon, or duck species, not to include males of any species." There is some inconsistent language with regard to pigeons but this is one clause that clearly says no males, even pigeons. I suppose this would not be totally preclusive for falconers if we found a supplier of female only pigeons. However, pigeon racers could never survive without breeding and, as a practical matter, it would preclude having a pigeon flock for falconry.

3. There are a number of clauses that are vague that could be construed to prohibit pigeons, i.e.; prohibition of noxious odors, clean and sanitary at all times, coops must be kept odor-free, etc. The interpretation of these clauses is left open to the discretion of the inspector I suppose. History has shown that governmental oversight of such provisions is tenuous at best and usually results in the loss of privileges and property rights.

4. The prohibition of "slaughtering" domestic fowl appears to prohibit using pigeons to feed falconry birds, or anyone else for that matter. It appears to also eliminate the ability of fanciers and racers to cull unwanted birds. I suppose if they cannot have males, there would be no need for culling. The provision that uses the term "slaughtering" is lumped in with the "non-commercial use only" provision, so it is not clear what it is really meant to regulate. However, you can be sure a zealous animal services inspector would use the plain language of this portion of the ordinance to stop any activity they did not like, such as feeding a pigeon to a falcon.

5. The limit of 4 to 15 birds is not preclusive for falconry per se, but would make keeping a viable pigeon loft virtually impractical. This limitation on numbers would certainly spell doom for pigeon racers.

6. The coop "must be impermeable to rodents, wild birds, and predators." There is no way you can have a homing pigeon loft with a trap door that is impermeable to other animals. If the pigeons can get in, so can other animals. It does not happen that often but it does happen. This provision would be problematic and impractical for falconers and pigeon racers alike.

7. The height restrictions and the off-the-ground provisions make it almost impossible to have a healthy environment for pigeons. The loft has to be elevated 8 inches off the ground and cannot be more than 6 feet tall. That leaves just over 5 vertical feet of space, which is not enough for a healthy pigeon loft in my opinion. It certainly would not provide adequate exercise for a racing team.

8. The requirement to have all openings covered with ¼ inch hardware cloth is another provision that would prohibit standard homing pigeon trap doors.

9. There is a provision prohibiting the domestic fowl to trespass. This is another provision that would prohibit free-flying pigeons.

In addition, there are clear references to prohibition of keeping birds that likely include falconry birds such as "No other bird species shall be kept (other than female pigeons, chickens or ducks), with the exception of birds normally and generally considered household or indoor pets." I do not believe falconry birds fall within the plain language of this provision. There also appears to be a prohibition of animals that may threaten other animals, which falconry birds do. The exclusion of birds other than household or indoor pets also appears to be a clear prohibition on keeping of pheasants, chukars, etc. which are routinely used for training falcons and dogs.

There are a number of other provisions that make it impractical to administer. They do not necessarily preclude pigeons, pheasants or falconry birds per se but they make compliance with the law almost impossible."

Some of you guys down that way may want to look into this.


----------



## Bret (Sep 7, 2007)

WOW. That is to bad. My grandpa raced pigeons out of Salt lake county for 50 years. I know stuff like this has come up before.

Bret


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Send Joe Hatch an email to voice your dismay at this ordinance:

Joe Hatch - [email protected]


----------

