![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/SAC_6134_HA_241112_YubaChicks.JPG\" "\\"A")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
A rooster forages for food in a shopping center in 2024. The Sacramento Board of Supervisors reviewed an ordinance Tuesday that would amend the Sacramento zoning code to address a high number of complaints related to the keeping of roosters.<\/p>\n
Hector Amezcua<\/p>\n
hamezcua@sacbee.com<\/p>\n
The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors<\/a> is considering new restrictions on roosters after receiving more than 800 complaints about noise, animal welfare concerns and suspected cockfighting over the past three years.<\/p>\n The amendments, collectively known as the Zoning Code Amendment for Crowing Fowl, were driven by more than 800 complaints related to crowing fowl submitted through Sacramento County\u2019s 311 system from 2022 through July 25, 2025. The majority of the complaints were related to the keeping of roosters and concerns about noise, inhumane treatment and suspected cockfighting.<\/p>\n One point of contention was the existing code\u2019s rule that fowl could be kept on any parcel of land 10,000 square feet, roughly a quarter-acre, or larger.<\/p>\n \u201cRight now, the old 10,000-square-foot rule allows neighbors on small, narrow parcels to keep roosters right up against property lines,\u201d wrote Aysha Sheppard, a resident of Rio Linda, in a public comment to the board. \u201cThe constant noise is incredibly disruptive, and it makes it impossible for people to enjoy their own backyards.\u201d<\/p>\n The existing zoning code also does not specify minimum standards for rooster management or care, nor does it establish clear standards for sanitation, animal welfare or confinement practices.<\/p>\n In another public comment, Amber Marshall, who identified herself as a disabled woman living in Rio Linda, reported a family on her street kept \u201cover 25 caged roosters, inhumanely kept in 4×4 cages, uncovered, open to elements and predators that serve no purpose and who crow beginning at 1am and dont stop until some days after 9pm.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI am BEGGING you to implement this ASAP,\u201d she wrote in response to a proposal to limit the number of roosters that can be kept on properties.<\/p>\n The proposed changes to the zoning code were also motivated by concerns voiced by the agricultural community and poultry farmers that the potential spread of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza<\/a>, more commonly known as bird flu, due to unregulated keeping of fowl could impact their work.<\/p>\n The amendments recommended to the board included applying county noise ordinances in residential areas; establishing standards for equipment and materials used for incidental animal keeping in addition to existing animal-keeping standards; creating a registration process that would allow \u201clegitimate hobbyists, breeders, and exhibitors\u201d to exceed limits on the number of roosters allowed and reduce minimum lot-size requirements; modifying rooster limits based on lot size; and prohibiting the tethering and mutilation of roosters, according to supporting documents for the board\u2019s meeting agenda.<\/p>\n Enforcement of the zoning code would be complaint-driven, and violators would be given 30 days to comply with regulations. The changes also included proposed modifications to county code<\/a>, including clarifying definitions of terms such as \u201cincidental agricultural accessory\u201d and \u201cincidental keeping of animals.\u201d The proposed County Code changes also included new definitions for terms including \u201cenclosure,\u201d \u201crestricts normal movement,\u201d \u201crooster\u201d and \u201ctethering.\u201d<\/p>\n Since December 2024, six public workshops have been held to gather suggestions and complaints, in addition to a recommendation meeting with the Sacramento County Agricultural Advisory Committee in December 2025. At that meeting, the committee recommended the board approve the amendments. The Sacramento County Planning Commission<\/a> reviewed the amendments in February, voting 3-0 to recommend that the Board approve them.<\/p>\n County staff also sought feedback from community groups and received comments from \u201cexternal stakeholders.\u201d<\/p>\n One public comment letter from the California Hmong Chamber of Commerce<\/a> expressed \u201cstrong opposition\u201d to the ordinances due to religious freedom concerns.<\/p>\n \u201cFor the Hmong community, roosters are integral to ceremonies, offerings, and daily religious expressions,\u201d the letter read. \u201cRestricting the number of roosters would intrude on these practices, effectively pricing out families and undermining long-standing cultural and spiritual customs.\u201d<\/p>\n The letter also cited court cases finding that laws that disproportionately affect religious practices cannot stand unless they meet certain criteria.<\/p>\n \u201cThe ordinance, as drafted, risks disproportionately impacting minority religious communities, raising equal-protection and free-exercise concerns, and fostering unnecessary cultural division,\u201d the chamber wrote.<\/p>\n Since the letter was sent, county staff have met with the Hmong community to solicit feedback on a registration process that would allow exceptions to the limits on rooster numbers and lot size.<\/p>\n Other letters expressing concern about the amendments came from county residents who said they were lifelong bird breeders.<\/p>\n \u201cI have been raising and showing chickens all over the west coast for the last 38 years,\u201d wrote Katherine Plumer, who said she had lived in Wilton for nearly all of her life, was a Master Exhibitor in the American Poultry Association<\/a> and the American Bantam Association<\/a>, and had studied avian sciences at UC Davis. \u201cIt\u2019s no understatement to say that chickens are a huge part of my life.\u201d<\/p>\n Jessie Ortega, president of the California Association for the Preservation of Gamefowl<\/a>, wrote that the amendments were \u201ca blatant attempt to control the rights of the law-abiding citizens and their private property,\u201d and requested that the county abandon the amendments in favor of better enforcing the existing zoning code.<\/p>\n The agenda\u2019s supporting documents noted that county staff recommended continuing consideration of the ordinances until the board\u2019s June 16 meeting for adoption.<\/p>\n This story was originally published June 9, 2026 at 2:36 PM.<\/p>\n
![\"Profile](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1781113754_967_velvetwu.jpg\")