Rooster Ban Public Comment from George GiavasisDear Mayor Hunter, and City Council,
I am writing to ask the City to revisit its prohibition on roosters within city limits.
The legitimate concern with roosters is noise. That concern is real, but it is already the kind of issue
disorderly conduct rules are designed to address. A well-contained rooster is not a public problem
simply by existing. A noisy rooster, like a noisy dog, loud music, a lawn mower, or any other
recurring disturbance, should be handled through existing complaint and enforcement processes
without a need for duplicate regulations.
This is the same reason we do not ban every activity that could potentially become a nuisance or
safety issue. Kalispell chose not to ban cell phone use in cars simply because distracted driving can
be dangerous. The City has chosen not to ban people from cruising Main Street simply because
cruising can be disruptive. In both cases, the issue is not the underlying activity. The issue is whether
someone is creating a safety problem, traffic problem, or nuisance.
The same standard should apply here: regulate the nuisance, not the mere presence of the animal.
My daughter is in 4-H, and she adopted chicks from Murdoch’s. One of them was sexed incorrectly
and turned out to be a rooster. He is not an aggressive or harmful animal. He is kept inside an
insulated coop from sunset until 8 a.m., and during the day he is nowhere near as loud as a lawn
mower, a barking dog, or a church bell. Under the current ordinance, however, the issue is not
whether he has created a nuisance. The issue is simply that he exists.
I believe that is the wrong standard, and it represents unnecessary overregulation, counter to
Kalispell’s values and existing standards. The City already has tools to respond when animals create
real problems. A blanket ban goes further than necessary by treating a potential nuisance as an
automatic violation.
A better policy would allow residents to keep a rooster so long as the animal is properly contained,
well cared for, and does not create loud, persistent, or habitual noise impacts for neighbors,
especially during nighttime and early morning hours.
A reasonable amendment could allow one rooster per lawful backyard flock, subject to the existing
animal-care requirements. The permit could be revocable if the rooster creates repeated, verified
noise complaints, and if the owner fails to take reasonable corrective action such as nighttime
enclosure or sound mitigation.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
George Giavasis | 614 1st Avenue West, Kalispell, Mt 59901