Possible New Ag Restrictions For Roosters

[BillyB]

How about someone buying the "cheap" land next to you and puts in a fish processing and hog farm. Or the new "farmer" neighbor who sprays 2-4-D and it drifts on to your veggies? Is Ag zoning a "get out of responsibility free card"? These people are not moving in next to a rooster farm, the roosters moved in next to them. Ag zoning in Hawaii is a phony designation used to perpetrate a real estate scam in the 50's and 60's.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

And, based on my experience, the major disconnect here is people buying the cheap farm land and expecting it to be a gated residential neighborhood.

Sometimes the disconnect is with the city slicker buyers wanting a country atmosphere without the commonly occurring rural activities, as Mrs Mimosa pointed out earlier. Other times the disconnect is with the phoney farmers calling non-farming activity farming. Cock fighting roosters are no more a legitimate farming activity than raising lions on your one acre lot. Breeding and raising cock fighting roosters or lions is illegal or at least highly restricted, and neither 100 roosters or 5 lions were ever intended to to be housed on a 1 acre property. Just because some people have gotten away with it for an extended period of time through loopholes and denial (lying) about the actual use of their roosters isn't an excuse to allow it to continue.

Otherwise, why don't the cock fighting "farmers" get the law changed to legalize their livestock and gambling activities to permanently protect themselves and their livelihood? Because if the burden of proof were on their side of the problem, there's no chance their real activity would be approved.

"This is an island surrounded by water, big water, ocean water.” - President Donald J. Trump

[kalakoa]

people got scammed by it somehow being hidden from them what the zoning was or what "agricultural zoning" entailed

Full disclosure is only mandatory for a "residential" sale. People planning to build are buying vacant land, and their due diligence may only extend as far as "can I build a house, is there grid power available".

While I agree that "buyer must perform own due diligence", this is obviously not happening 100% of the time, which is why I keep suggesting stronger mandatory disclosure.

[My 2 cents]

quote:

---

Originally posted by My 2 cents

"Then why doesn't it say that? It doesn't say "you can't raise birds to fight".

There are already laws in place for that. They are easily circumvented by the owners referring to them as "show birds" instead of "fighting cocks".
--------------------------------------------

There seems to be strong agreement that this new legislation is specifically targeting cockfighters. But the legislation doesn't say that, it sidesteps the issue with different terminology presumably to avoid legal challenges.

The cockfighters also sidestep by using different terminology, i.e., "show birds" instead of "fighting cocks" to avoid legal challenges. Is one of these more right or wrong than the other?

I'm not in favor of rooster farms and certainly not for cockfighting. I just think the wording should be more clear and honest. As it is currently written I would occasionally be in violation. Probably Mrs. Mimosa, Terracore and others as well. Since "there are already laws in place for that", how about enforcing them instead of passing new legislation that will have negative effects on people outside of the target zone.

---

_______________________________________________

Nobody answered this. Many of you get down on the county for all of it's shady dealings, but when it affects you positively the lies and deception are just fine. I still don't understand why this can't be written in a manner that clearly and honestly defines what it is about, and leave the rest of us alone.

[rainyjim]

M2c,

This was answered, there are already laws that prevent 'cock fighting' on the books. There are many other reasons why people might have more than 4 roosters on a small parcel. One of the examples (though many have been given throughout this discussion) is that people are just too lazy to do anything about the roosters, i.e. some are not bothered by the noise they make. Another way to look at this could be the phrase: "make it dirty and they no come".

[kalakoa]

I still don't understand why this can't be written in a manner that clearly and honestly defines what it is about, and leave the rest of us alone.

Generally, the "rules and laws" are intentionally vague and complex. This allows for "selective enforcement" while also making lawyers, courts, and extra government staff necessary for anyone who wants to invoke the laws.

It's not just a County thing; this is how America does business: lots of middlemen and pointless arguments about silly issues that should be completely obvious.

Breeding "fancy game birds" creates quality-of-life issues for those who must live nearby ... but this is also how some people earn their money, are you willing to tell them they can't make a living?

As to the original thread topic: County has two existing "ag-lite" zoning types which restrict agricultural activities. These are RA ("Residential Ag") and FA ("Family Ag"). Both of these require that livestock "pens, hutches, feeders, salt licks" (etc) be more than 75' from any lot line. There is no need to modify the existing zoning; simply allow subdivisions the option of upzoning from A to RA/FA.

[My 2 cents]

There are many other reasons why people might have more than 4 roosters

Exactly. And there are no laws against raising birds to meat size, or laziness, etc. But apparently now there will be.

[kalakoa]

Chapter and Verse:

FA

25-5-62(11) allows "game and fish propogation"
25-5-62(14) allows livestock "provided that any feed or water area, etc" is more than 75' from any lot ilne.

RA

25-5-52(13) allows livestock (except pigs) "that meets DoH requirements" and "has permission from the Director" and "provided that any feed or water area, etc" is more than 75' from any lot line.

I suggest that the small-lot subdivisions (1 acre or less) should really be FA or RA, not plain A.

[rainyjim]

Isn't the state the only one that can change zoning, not the county? (Unsure on this, asking for clarification)

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

an idea worth exploring.

Or how about this?
The "farm" owners tell the truth.

Example interaction:
Police: Good morning sir, we have a complaint about the roosters you have chained to a stake and housed in small, individual A frame shelters on your one acre property. They've been reported to all crow at the same time every morning long before sunrise. Loudly. Would you tell me, what do you do with these birds?
Owner: I sell them to cock fighting rings in foreign countries, as well as fight them myself in remote areas on the Big Island every weekend for gambling purposes.
Police, Do you realize sir, both those practices are illegal even on a property zoned Agriculture?
Owner: Yeah, so?
Police: Well I'm afraid I'll have to fine you, and give you notice to shut down all illegal activities.
Owner: What if I moved to a 20 acre property where no one could hear the crowing?
Police: If you aren't bothering anyone, and no one calls to complain, I have no way of knowing about your operations, do I sir?

"This is an island surrounded by water, big water, ocean water.” - President Donald J. Trump