An act to add Part 3 (commencing with Section 32105) to Division 14.
The bill is a significant addition to California's laws regarding animal welfare, especially concerning the combat sports that are often associated with roosters, like cockfighting. It aims to clamp down on these practices more effectively by increasing penalties and further defining the general parameters of permissible ownership. Moreover, the bill provides exemptions for educational and agricultural purposes, such as schools or recognized agricultural projects, which might have different needs for keeping roosters. This approach highlights a balance between regulatory measures and the necessity of agricultural practices.
Assembly Bill 928, introduced by Assembly Member Rogers, aims to regulate the keeping of roosters in California by placing restrictions on their ownership. The bill clearly defines the maximum number of roosters allowed per acre, specifically prohibiting individuals from keeping more than three roosters per acre or a total of more than twenty-five roosters on any property. Furthermore, the bill prohibits the movement of roosters through enclosures or tethers, effective January 1, 2027, while establishing civil penalties for violations, which could reach up to $2,500 per infraction. Each day a rooster is kept in violation of these rules constitutes a separate infraction, thus ensuring strict compliance and enforcement.
Sentiments surrounding AB 928 appear to be mixed among stakeholders. On one hand, animal rights advocates view the bill as a positive step towards minimizing animal cruelty associated with cockfighting and its related practices. They argue that the restrictions will protect roosters from unethical treatment and enhance public safety concerning avian diseases, especially in light of recent outbreaks of avian flu. Conversely, some poultry owners and agricultural groups are concerned that the bill's restrictions may unfairly limit their rights to manage their property and livestock, particularly those raising roosters for exhibition or breeding purposes.
Notable points of contention in the discussions about AB 928 focus on the balance between increased regulation and the rights of poultry owners. Critics of the bill express concerns over the vague definitions concerning the types of enclosures that may be utilized for roosters, as well as the enforcement of penalties which they believe may disproportionately target small-scale farmers and hobbyists rather than larger commercial operations. This has led to debates in legislative sessions about the potential economic implications for those who depend on poultry for their livelihoods, and how the bill might need amendments to better reflect the diverse uses of roosters, beyond just those tied to cockfighting.