Response to rooster letters in March 22 Sounder

Tuesday, April 5 2016

The Editor:

The four letters published in your paper on my suggestions that roosters are unnecessary in a progressive community require some perspective.

Brian Hoag is now considering getting a rooster at his house to wake up his neighbours at 4:45 a.m. A nice thoughtful comment. His next door residents will be happy to get that early morning wakeup call. Just imagine the next power outage, and the alarm clock does not work, the neighbours will not miss the ferry because they likely will be awake before 5:00 a.m. In addition, the ecology of chickens will inevitably result in an increase in the rat population because of suitable habitat and food.

Leaf Kotasek opines that roosters are a necessary component of egg production. Roosters are not needed for egg production because one-day old chicks are readily available; adolescent, ready-to-lay pullets are also easily obtainable and, of course, artificially inseminated hens from prime male sources are an option. Does Kotasek think that the egg producers keep roosters so that farmers can produce eggs? There is no problem for a “sustainable supply of eggs.”

Claire Dineen comments that her five-acre plot is quite large enough for roosters. No kidding! Half-acre lots on the other hand, 100 feet apart, are zoned residential not agricultural. I can understand that after a hard day’s work, spending some time with a bunch of chickens can be relaxing. Cock-a-doodle doo. Do the neighbour’s sheep, horses and cows start up at 4.45 a.m.?

Jean Wyenberg may live on a rural lot; most of us live on residential property.

Gabriola Island has changed a lot in the last 42 years; it is time for some updates in our bylaws and remove roosters from residential areas.

~ Sincerely, Jeremy Baker