I was kind of expecting that.
In how many cities does the Chief of Police go out and chase people's chickens around with a shovel?
He should have taken the chicken away rather than shovel whack it on site.
But it sounds like the woman was at fault too. She acknowledges blowing off previous warnings about getting rid of it because she was hoping the law would be changed down the road.
Also, article says they have other chickens and a duck. So pretty believable the police chief didn't know this one particular chicken was the boy's special pet.
With only a verbal warning and no written one, it's bullshit. Code enforcement is different from law enforcement, he had no business doing what he did. Break code, you get a fine; not jail time or an a*****e killing your pet.
If there were other animals around he should have known it wasn't feral, he is a terrible person and if it had been my pet he would be in a pig's belly by now.
After hearing about people getting chickens for about the third time in a day the other day... and those people would give eggs to neighbors or the chickens were shared by neighbors...
It hit me...
This is what happened during the great depression.
As for some people's comments... Chickens are not annoying. Roosters are annoying. People have trouble telling the difference when they are chicks... even people that try to sex them. But at some point Roosters get VERY LOUD! They can also be wild and aggressive.
Hell, the ducks would probably be more annoying then the Chickens.
I don't know how large their property was or anything but people keep pet chickens at even condos and appropriated areas at apartments these days.
If you are using the eggs of Chickens, you can vaccinate them against most things dangerous to humans. So disease would not be an issue if they were having a vet see them.
Their droppings can attract insects and rodents. So that can be a problem.
I have seen houses that decided to just convert their fencing into chicken wire fencing and let their chickens have their front, back, and/or side yards. Probably better then trapping them in a box. It opens them up to more predators though. It was so neat, it was cold once when I passed one of those houses and all the chickens had gathered into a tight circle to keep warm.
I wonder if that No Foul extends to Finches and Parrots. People can interpret these things so many ways. I bet there is a story behind the ban. Maybe c**k Fighting, maybe a company wanted to move in, maybe one bad incident,...
It only refers to farm fowl, which is any bird you would keep outside (i.e. chickens, ducks, geese, pheasants, peacocks, guinea fowl, turkeys, etc.) that is normally kept for farming purposes. A parrot or finch do not count as farm fowl, seeing as they are pets normally kept inside.
I'm a little surprised at the response of some to the death of a chicken that it should equate to the death of a human being no matter what he did during that incident, but then, I do admit that I was just probably subscribing to a different school of thought on the matter of equivalence. Still the point would be that the solution was over and beyond what was needed to abate the situation.
I was kind of expecting that.
In how many cities does the Chief of Police go out and chase people's chickens around with a shovel?
He should have taken the chicken away rather than shovel whack it on site.
But it sounds like the woman was at fault too. She acknowledges blowing off previous warnings about getting rid of it because she was hoping the law would be changed down the road.
Also, article says they have other chickens and a duck. So pretty believable the police chief didn't know this one particular chicken was the boy's special pet.
It did not matter if the chicken was the boy's special pet or not, really. Here in Minnesota, we are primarily farmland and chickens do not just roam free. They are not vermin or comparable to rodents. If a civilian finds a chicken roaming or wandering someone's yard, it is most definitely someone's property and must be returned to them. Killing someone's livestock can damage their business, so if a normal civilian had done it the farmer could take them to court for loss of wages. Even if the livestock had wandered off the property (chickens can hover freaking high, man).
Even if the woman had been at fault for keeping the chicken, which I'm not pardoning her, though I find it weird that she couldn't keep it because lawfully we as Minnesota citizens can obtain a license to own them pretty much anywhere, but even by ignoring the warnings did not warrant the chicken being killed. And if they have other animals on the property, jeez, that only furthers the annoyance I have with this at the chief's ignorance.
We owned twenty of them at one point. Even one rooster takes just a week to dirty up their coop/cage/housing area. We have one now that really aught to be cleaned out by it's owner more often, seeing as I was blamed for a ferret's natural smell. He had 5 birds in that coop. Give it a week, and it'll be disgusting. The cop should have taken that into account.
I assume the law is ensuring that chickens are more valuable then children. Hoarder's kids can't escape until someone dies, but five chickens will bring the end of the world.
One warning was enough, but you don't kill the chicken. Call in reinforcement and catch the bird; It's not a rabid dog.
I was kind of expecting that.
In how many cities does the Chief of Police go out and chase people's chickens around with a shovel?
He should have taken the chicken away rather than shovel whack it on site.
But it sounds like the woman was at fault too. She acknowledges blowing off previous warnings about getting rid of it because she was hoping the law would be changed down the road.
Also, article says they have other chickens and a duck. So pretty believable the police chief didn't know this one particular chicken was the boy's special pet.
It did not matter if the chicken was the boy's special pet or not, really. Here in Minnesota, we are primarily farmland and chickens do not just roam free. They are not vermin or comparable to rodents. If a civilian finds a chicken roaming or wandering someone's yard, it is most definitely someone's property and must be returned to them. Killing someone's livestock can damage their business, so if a normal civilian had done it the farmer could take them to court for loss of wages. Even if the livestock had wandered off the property (chickens can hover freaking high, man).
Even if the woman had been at fault for keeping the chicken, which I'm not pardoning her, though I find it weird that she couldn't keep it because lawfully we as Minnesota citizens can obtain a license to own them pretty much anywhere, but even by ignoring the warnings did not warrant the chicken being killed. And if they have other animals on the property, jeez, that only furthers the annoyance I have with this at the chief's ignorance.
I'm not defending the cop - I still think both sides did wrong in this situation. But...just curious...
The part I bolded - can you back that up to a link with documentation?
I'm not from Minnesota, possibly you are correct. But I doubt it. I don't believe there is any state where you can get a license for chickens or any livestock "pretty much anywhere". All states have towns and cities and most towns and cities have various laws and ordinances about what livestock you can and can not have. And animals not covered directly are often covered under nuisance laws. The article specifically mentions local laws prohibiting her animals.
I live in WA state. Much of it is rural. I grew up on a dairy and beef farm and yes we had chickens. My western side of the state grows most of the raspberries and blueberries in the US. Eastern WA is known for lots of apple orchards and grapes and huge hay/ alfalfa farms and such. We are, more or less, a farming state. But there are still plenty of locations in the state where you are not allowed to own livestock due to local laws.
Honestly I find it kind of interesting you say, "you can get a license for chickens..". In my state if you are not a commercial business you don't need a license for chickens. I'm on 5 acres. I used to have chickens. I could legally have a cow or some sheep etc. No license required. I forget exactly but once I looked up the county laws on how many of what kinds of animals I could have on my acreage.
Now, all that said in a general sense, as to Atwater specifically I find it rather surprising / amusing they have local laws prohibiting chickens. Roosters or peacocks maybe - due to noise - but hens for eggs - ... why?
I brought up Atwater, MN on google maps and was looking at the satellite images. VERY RURAL. The whole town is maybe 10 or 12 blocks wide and except for a golf course and a lake it is literally bordered on all sides by active farmland. Most of the houses are on good sized lots and virtually every one of them has trees. In other words, it looks like the kind of place where you would expect to see a number of houses with a few chickens running around. I tried to look up Ashley's address to look at her property but all I'm finding is a PO box and I'm not willing to spend too much time on it. Possibly the town does not have mail delivery. My ex lives in a small town where everyone has a PO box because it is cheaper (for the town) than door to door delivery. Doesn't really matter though. You could throw a dart at the map of that town and pretty much any place it landed you would say, "Looks like an okay place to have a few chickens."
One good thing about this dead chicken - the article mentions an upcoming vote to try to overturn the no fowl law. The brew-ha-ha over this chicken will probably help that come to be.
I was kind of expecting that.
In how many cities does the Chief of Police go out and chase people's chickens around with a shovel?
He should have taken the chicken away rather than shovel whack it on site.
But it sounds like the woman was at fault too. She acknowledges blowing off previous warnings about getting rid of it because she was hoping the law would be changed down the road.
Also, article says they have other chickens and a duck. So pretty believable the police chief didn't know this one particular chicken was the boy's special pet.
It did not matter if the chicken was the boy's special pet or not, really. Here in Minnesota, we are primarily farmland and chickens do not just roam free. They are not vermin or comparable to rodents. If a civilian finds a chicken roaming or wandering someone's yard, it is most definitely someone's property and must be returned to them. Killing someone's livestock can damage their business, so if a normal civilian had done it the farmer could take them to court for loss of wages. Even if the livestock had wandered off the property (chickens can hover freaking high, man).
Even if the woman had been at fault for keeping the chicken, which I'm not pardoning her, though I find it weird that she couldn't keep it because lawfully we as Minnesota citizens can obtain a license to own them pretty much anywhere, but even by ignoring the warnings did not warrant the chicken being killed. And if they have other animals on the property, jeez, that only furthers the annoyance I have with this at the chief's ignorance.
I'm not defending the cop - I still think both sides did wrong in this situation. But...just curious...
The part I bolded - can you back that up to a link with documentation?
I'm not from Minnesota, possibly you are correct. But I doubt it. I don't believe there is any state where you can get a license for chickens or any livestock "pretty much anywhere". All states have towns and cities and most towns and cities have various laws and ordinances about what livestock you can and can not have. And animals not covered directly are often covered under nuisance laws. The article specifically mentions local laws prohibiting her animals.
I live in WA state. Much of it is rural. I grew up on a dairy and beef farm and yes we had chickens. My western side of the state grows most of the raspberries and blueberries in the US. Eastern WA is known for lots of apple orchards and grapes and huge hay/ alfalfa farms and such. We are, more or less, a farming state. But there are still plenty of locations in the state where you are not allowed to own livestock due to local laws.
Honestly I find it kind of interesting you say, "you can get a license for chickens..". In my state if you are not a commercial business you don't need a license for chickens. I'm on 5 acres. I used to have chickens. I could legally have a cow or some sheep etc. No license required. I forget exactly but once I looked up the county laws on how many of what kinds of animals I could have on my acreage.
Now, all that said in a general sense, as to Atwater specifically I find it rather surprising / amusing they have local laws prohibiting chickens. Roosters or peacocks maybe - due to noise - but hens for eggs - ... why?
I brought up Atwater, MN on google maps and was looking at the satellite images. VERY RURAL. The whole town is maybe 10 or 12 blocks wide and except for a golf course and a lake it is literally bordered on all sides by active farmland. Most of the houses are on good sized lots and virtually every one of them has trees. In other words, it looks like the kind of place where you would expect to see a number of houses with a few chickens running around. I tried to look up Ashley's address to look at her property but all I'm finding is a PO box and I'm not willing to spend too much time on it. Possibly the town does not have mail delivery. My ex lives in a small town where everyone has a PO box because it is cheaper (for the town) than door to door delivery. Doesn't really matter though. You could throw a dart at the map of that town and pretty much any place it landed you would say, "Looks like an okay place to have a few chickens."
One good thing about this dead chicken - the article mentions an upcoming vote to try to overturn the no fowl law. The brew-ha-ha over this chicken will probably help that come to be.
Some do not need a permit, some do, but it seems their county is not on the list. It seems only a handful do not allow chickens. How odd. Especially for that area, as you've described. I've been through the area. There could be many farmers in the area that don't want their livestock getting mixed up or too many predators. Because even in the cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul, you can own chickens. Cities. Like, think Chicago and New York, but obviously not as big.
I was kind of expecting that.
In how many cities does the Chief of Police go out and chase people's chickens around with a shovel?
He should have taken the chicken away rather than shovel whack it on site.
But it sounds like the woman was at fault too. She acknowledges blowing off previous warnings about getting rid of it because she was hoping the law would be changed down the road.
Also, article says they have other chickens and a duck. So pretty believable the police chief didn't know this one particular chicken was the boy's special pet.
It did not matter if the chicken was the boy's special pet or not, really. Here in Minnesota, we are primarily farmland and chickens do not just roam free. They are not vermin or comparable to rodents. If a civilian finds a chicken roaming or wandering someone's yard, it is most definitely someone's property and must be returned to them. Killing someone's livestock can damage their business, so if a normal civilian had done it the farmer could take them to court for loss of wages. Even if the livestock had wandered off the property (chickens can hover freaking high, man).
Even if the woman had been at fault for keeping the chicken, which I'm not pardoning her, though I find it weird that she couldn't keep it because lawfully we as Minnesota citizens can obtain a license to own them pretty much anywhere, but even by ignoring the warnings did not warrant the chicken being killed. And if they have other animals on the property, jeez, that only furthers the annoyance I have with this at the chief's ignorance.
I'm not defending the cop - I still think both sides did wrong in this situation. But...just curious...
The part I bolded - can you back that up to a link with documentation?
I'm not from Minnesota, possibly you are correct. But I doubt it. I don't believe there is any state where you can get a license for chickens or any livestock "pretty much anywhere". All states have towns and cities and most towns and cities have various laws and ordinances about what livestock you can and can not have. And animals not covered directly are often covered under nuisance laws. The article specifically mentions local laws prohibiting her animals.
I live in WA state. Much of it is rural. I grew up on a dairy and beef farm and yes we had chickens. My western side of the state grows most of the raspberries and blueberries in the US. Eastern WA is known for lots of apple orchards and grapes and huge hay/ alfalfa farms and such. We are, more or less, a farming state. But there are still plenty of locations in the state where you are not allowed to own livestock due to local laws.
Honestly I find it kind of interesting you say, "you can get a license for chickens..". In my state if you are not a commercial business you don't need a license for chickens. I'm on 5 acres. I used to have chickens. I could legally have a cow or some sheep etc. No license required. I forget exactly but once I looked up the county laws on how many of what kinds of animals I could have on my acreage.
Now, all that said in a general sense, as to Atwater specifically I find it rather surprising / amusing they have local laws prohibiting chickens. Roosters or peacocks maybe - due to noise - but hens for eggs - ... why?
I brought up Atwater, MN on google maps and was looking at the satellite images. VERY RURAL. The whole town is maybe 10 or 12 blocks wide and except for a golf course and a lake it is literally bordered on all sides by active farmland. Most of the houses are on good sized lots and virtually every one of them has trees. In other words, it looks like the kind of place where you would expect to see a number of houses with a few chickens running around. I tried to look up Ashley's address to look at her property but all I'm finding is a PO box and I'm not willing to spend too much time on it. Possibly the town does not have mail delivery. My ex lives in a small town where everyone has a PO box because it is cheaper (for the town) than door to door delivery. Doesn't really matter though. You could throw a dart at the map of that town and pretty much any place it landed you would say, "Looks like an okay place to have a few chickens."
One good thing about this dead chicken - the article mentions an upcoming vote to try to overturn the no fowl law. The brew-ha-ha over this chicken will probably help that come to be.
Some do not need a permit, some do, but it seems their county is not on the list. It seems only a handful do not allow chickens. How odd. Especially for that area, as you've described. I've been through the area. There could be many farmers in the area that don't want their livestock getting mixed up or too many predators. Because even in the cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul, you can own chickens. Cities. Like, think Chicago and New York, but obviously not as big.
It's hard to say. Sometimes in a town that small a handful of people with opinions can end up influencing local law more than they should be able to. One of our local small towns has a population of about 12,000 now. So, much larger than this town by a factor of about 10 but still very much a small town. Last year I was looking up local ordinances there about keeping chickens for a friend who lives there. From everything I could find it was perfectly legal to own a few. Basically, there was no direct prohibition - just a general nuisance law that would apply to any animals (or whatever) that was getting out of hand and annoying the neighbors with noise, odor, damaging neighbor's property etc.
I only have the aerial images to go on but from what I can see it is beyond me why the town in this article would ban a few backyard chickens. If anything the chickens might help. The extensive amount of nature (crop land) surrounding the town is likely to result in more bugs (for the chickens to eat / keep down) than if the area was all developed and asphalt. Plus, the extremely rural aspects of the town would suggest it is not full of people with "city slicker" mentality.
300
250
200
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! NOT A CHICKEN!!!!! WHYYYYYYYYY?!!!!!!!!!! 
